So out of them all which one do you think had the most realistic atmosphere?? By this i mean during the battle did it seem as if it was just a bunch of computer generated stuff moving around or did it seem that you were personally commanding the battle and that losing the battle was of significance. This applies to the campaign map as well.
For me Rome total war was the best in terms of its atmosphere. Each faction had their story and were fighting for their own cause which was important to them. It wasnt just fighting for money for some factions, it was fighting to preserve their way of life. Other reasons were to eliminate the uncultured barbarian hordes. The wars in empire didnt really seem justifiable. Maybe if they broadened it to just America or another important conflict in detail it would have been better. Most of the battles that happened in Empire seemed to be so that one faction could get a bit more money.
Medieval 2 and Empire looked aesthetically good but some of the battles seemed to lack any real emotion. Its as if they thought they could ease up on everything else and rely on good graphics. In Empire or Medieval i wont hesitate to send in a group of soldiers into the battle after barely winning a fight but in rome i am more likely to send them to the back or even withdraw them from the battle. I suppose though that soldiers in the musket era were thought of as expendable and that they were taught to be disiplined and this makes them seem like robots. Medieval didnt seem to set a fuedal atmosphere and the factions seem to be too organised. The game mount and blade seems to get this right with factions made up of different minor rulers. It just seemed like a modern sort of govornment hiring some well equiped mercenary soldiers.
I'm not saying i hate the other total war titles but i still go back and play rome total war battles and they seem to be more believable that some other titles.




Reply With Quote









