![]() AI is again questionable, I attacked a small army who instead of staying in a fortified position on high gound decided to charge my army that outnumbered them 6 to 1. Battles - Battles look impressive on the eye. Interface - feels very clunky and often irritable trying to move units, sometimes you have to hold a unit above a province adjacent to where you want to drop it. I saw my heavily defended province attacked by a force a quarter of the size, and the build of the enemy army (4 cannon units and 1 infantry) was laughable as my army decimated them. The location of units isnt relative to their postition and the detail is pretty sparse. There seems to be far less you can do in your provinces, which unlike TW are now just one square on the map. So Whats not good ? Well the stragey map feels like a dumbed down version. Sea Battles, a double edged sword this one, its great to see sea battles arrive in a game of this type, but read on for issues. Diplomacy plays a real part and alliances now are more meaningfull than in the TW games where alliances meant little. Whats good about it ? The whole game has a real polished look to it and oozes class. Sea Battles, a double edged sword this one, its great to see sea A good attempt to mimic the Total War series and take the concept into the world of Napoleonic firearms and cannons. If you plan to buy the game, but first want to try the demo, take note that Pyro could have done a much better job on the demo, because it's a tenth as good as the full game!! … ExpandĪ good attempt to mimic the Total War series and take the concept into the world of Napoleonic firearms and cannons. I would give this game 3 points more than RTW, but unfortunatelly you don't go higher than a 10. And of course, this game has playable naval battles, which RTW doesn't have. Also, the mass says the battles are too slow, while the community more complains that they are too fast and wishes this to be fixed in a patch (I myself don't really care.) So it's better to trust the 9+ the users have given. At first it might be a bit boring, but later in the game, when you have access to more things to develop and build, you will understand the true power of this game. Secondly, the gameplay the game has has much more potentional than the mass says. Lay two screenshots of both games next to eachother, and you have the proof. First of all, the graphics are much much better than RTW. Many times is being said that this game isn't as good as RTW (graphically and gameplay) so it automatically gets a low grade. In the reviews the game is way too much compared with RTW. It's also clear that the user ratings are much higher than the mass gives. First of all, the It's clear that the ratings from the different game sites and magazines (the mass) differ a lot. It's clear that the ratings from the different game sites and magazines (the mass) differ a lot. Ignore the naysayers - a lot of them seem to already be total war converts but I don't see any reason why there should just be ONE good RTS (One to rule them all?) This one's a peach ! … Expand Overall, I rate it slightly higher than Total war. Whereas total wars' terrain is flat and uninteresting, glory's is just plain beautiful - in fact the best I've seen, it's fun just to look at the trees and windmills etc. However, the battles are BETTER than total war. The province overview is not quite as good there's less you can do and it's too abstracted it jars with the realism of the battle view. ![]() Both better AND worse than Rome total war. Whereas total wars' terrain is flat and uninteresting, glory's is just plain beautiful - in fact the best I've seen, A very pretty game. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |