Agreed. This is one of the worst games I have played in.......ever. Has Pyro never heard of beta testing? Or getting any kind feedback before sending a product to market? I mean, really, how stupid can one get?
Pretty stupid but as far as ALL games go their are worse games out there.
While IGN has a point about the maps being more detailed however there is only 1 map/province.
So with a limited number of provinces it enables them to provide with more detailed maps.
However TW has as far as I know never done that.
In STW and MTW the maps were random generated based on type of terrain so even if you fought in the same province you would get a different map. This does not happen in IG, same province same map.
And RTW and M2TW and ETW the map has expanded and the map is now determined by where you stand.
Consider the size of the map, no way can CA provide maps with that much detail even tho it is getting better judging from screenshots of ETW.
So it's unfair of IGN to compare since the scope of IG is really quite small compared to TW.
I second that.
bought the game for about $10 a couple of years ago solely for the naval battles, and a bit for the time frame, but mainly for the naval battles. almost everything about the game sucked horribly. although the diplomacy "system" was very nice. (notice i said the system was good, its AI implementation was not)
IG insures Empires will be an awesome game no matter what. because whats your alternative to ETW? Imperial ing Glory.
Under the patronage of Lord Condormanius (12.29.08)"Yes, I know why the leaf is turning yellow. Its a lack of chloroform."
Good thing is, it made E:TW look really dam good.
I couldn't believe how bad this game was, honestly, just, why would someone look at this and think "We should get in on this Harry".
Did no one see the result of all the flawed thinking and go "If you release this, i'm resigning"
RTW may have the infamous Gauls as a faction, but just imagine how much more awesome the game would be if you had........Go'auld.....Huh? heh? Hmmmmmmmmm.....
I played it when it came out(2006 or 2007) and it was ok.
Liked the cannons blowing troops up, and liked units being able to use surrounding obstructions for cover.(Rocks,buidlings,groves ect...)
Also it was kind of cool to see red coat infan marching to a hill to take it over.
The game had its moments, but the game breakers, were no speed up time button on battles and militia..... @#$%ing MILITIA!
Never tried the ship battles,just build more and auto.
I did like the missions to gain bonus this or that, each nation gunning for them early game was fun.
Liked the Ottoman units, camel riders with muskets.
All in all, a fun game for maybe a day or 2 when it came out. If you could look past alot and sort of enjoy it for what it was. A below average game with a few bright spots.
Last edited by Scipio Afracanis; July 15, 2010 at 05:39 PM.
2010 ,2012,2014 World Series Champions: San Francisco Giants
1962, 1989, 2002
I actually liked the game. Mainly because I couldn't play the newest Total War games because my computer was slow...
I play this game and for me very good. This game is resemble Total War games. So I love this game.
Wasn't this the game with the bugged tutorial? couldn't click on some Russian commander because he didnt exist. Not exactly an impressive start to the game. Binned.
This game could have been great to some before ETW... now it's crap. I haven't even reinstalled it after getting a new PC and trying out ETW. Just no way to compare it, even with the countless bugs of ETW and all those annoyances it brought.
It had some nice things... those predetermined unit formations (column, line and square) are an interesting variant of the modifiable unit formations in TW games, but as far as I recall not that well. Column formation should have gained speed and morale (although I only remember morale playing part in the battle of the piramids and it was scripted), between other minor bonuses.
The campaign was interesting, the whole layout of stuff and graphic-wise was in a way nice. I personally liked that thing of officers leading a limited amount of officers.
The tech tree was a good addition too. I don't think any TW game had it before. Quests were also interesting, although completely fictional and unhistorical.
Naval battles (no matter how much they sucked, they were the first TW resemblance game with it I think)
All the rest sucked. Battle system, AI, morale, field, physics, and a countless others, without counting all the other failed features on the campaign map (why on hell can't I build on the great powers homeland!?) Luckily I didn't buy it, nor did I get so many bugs or CTD as many here say.
This game got some things right and others wrong. Mostly wrong, but I wouldn't mind having some of the features IG had in ETW or NTW
Linky linky to my last.fm profile! Clicky clicky! If you like anything that ranges from breakbeat to downtempo/chillout, from house to drum & bass, you might find something new in between! (Artist suggestions are more than welcome )
Linky linky to my last.fm profile! Clicky clicky! If you like anything that ranges from breakbeat to downtempo/chillout, from house to drum & bass, you might find something new in between! (Artist suggestions are more than welcome )
- i wanted to play this game from 2006 but in the fall of 2008 finally i play it in my friend pc busece i had a labtop and that game needs a better one than i have so my reviow to it
-the maps of the game was marvelous to its time 2005 and better than ntw and thats in 2009
-few factions in the game
-bad control in the battle
so i give it 5-10
BAI and CAI was better then total war though. still a crap game..