PC Gamer UK Review

[Crazy Axeman]

I just noticed a topic on official forums

PC Gamer UK Review

'Had the subscription edition today. 94%
" The new king of wargames" said the reviewer, besides other superlatives.
He did mention a few niggles, the usual stuff like AI, all of the unit not getting stuck in. Didnt say a lot about sieges though.'

Thank you to VanCRagg for posting this. I just thought i would let you lot on here know aswell.

[AmenDan]

What does "the usual stuff like A.I." and "all of the unit not getting stuck in" mean exactly?

[0ldboy]

What does "the usual stuff like A.I." and "all of the unit not getting stuck in" mean exactly?

It means that yet again the AI isnt amazing.

[spirit_of_rob]

Yeah basically it means

The AI is not very bright.

The second part refers to that when you charge a unit you occasionally leave the odd man or two (sometimes alot more and its only 1 or 2 that charge!) behind

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

hhmm
Well judging from the .com about this it seems that the AI is not bad, it just has some minor issue since they are using the word "tiny niggles".
So the AI isn't perfect.
Wish he could be more specific with what those "tiny niggles" with the AI are. :hmmm:

[Taelok]

Indeed, according to his post over at totalwar.com forums, it seems that street fighting it still 'fiddly'. Which is ok, not a major problem, just frustrating at times.

[CIaagent11]

What does "the usual stuff like A.I." and "all of the unit not getting stuck in" mean exactly?

"The usual stuff" is rather unimportant things like gameplay.
But heh, we got better graphics and isn't that all that counts?

[InferiorBeing]

"Usual stuff like the AI"?! Help!

[Reiver]

I've also got the mag. 8 page review. Most of it isn't actually review though. The reviewer himself admits that up until the last few paragraphs "it reads like a gushing preview". he talks a lot about features but doesn't really go into how welll they work and their effect on the game.
The criticisms are a bit vague and sketchy. He complains about the game being too fast (and lacking a decelerate time option) resulting in overuse of the pause key and says that "TW's AI routines and control mechanics haven't advanced as it's graphics and campaign engine". He doesn't really go into specifics beyoned occasionally unresponive units and the way that sometimes your whole unit won't engage.
There's a screenshot in the middle of the review (which i'd scan but i've got a ticking off for that before) where the camera on the campaign map is zoomed out far enough to see almost all of Europe and even a corner of America. If it's a feature, it's new to me and i'm quite excited about it. That was always something I really wanted from the TW games: the ability to pull back and admire the extent of my conquests.
Tbh I think we're seeing a review based on code that's at least 1 month old. So it's not a suprise that there's still some niggles and that he's going light on details. Who knows what could have been fixed or improved before release?

[Cadmium77]

I've also got the mag. 8 page review. Most of it isn't actually review though. The reviewer himself admits that up until the last few paragraphs "it reads like a gushing preview". he talks a lot about features but doesn't really go into how welll they work and their effect on the game.
The criticisms are a bit vague and sketchy. He complains about the game being too fast (and lacking a decelerate time option) resulting in overuse of the pause key and says that "TW's AI routines and control mechanics haven't advanced as it's graphics and campaign engine". He doesn't really go into specifics beyoned occasionally unresponive units and the way that sometimes your whole unit won't engage.
There's a screenshot in the middle of the review (which i'd scan but i've got a ticking off for that before) where the camera on the campaign map is zoomed out far enough to see almost all of Europe and even a corner of America. If it's a feature, it's new to me and i'm quite excited about it. That was always something I really wanted from the TW games: the ability to pull back and admire the extent of my conquests.
Tbh I think we're seeing a review based on code that's at least 1 month old. So it's not a suprise that there's still some niggles and that he's going light on details. Who knows what could have been fixed or improved before release?

oh god...*sigh*

Well at least Armed Assaut will be out soon...

[Gadger]

Well at least Armed Assaut will be out soon...

Hell yeah!

[Darsh]

I've also got the mag. 8 page review. Most of it isn't actually review though. The reviewer himself admits that up until the last few paragraphs "it reads like a gushing preview". he talks a lot about features but doesn't really go into how welll they work and their effect on the game.
The criticisms are a bit vague and sketchy. He complains about the game being too fast (and lacking a decelerate time option) resulting in overuse of the pause key and says that "TW's AI routines and control mechanics haven't advanced as it's graphics and campaign engine". He doesn't really go into specifics beyoned occasionally unresponive units and the way that sometimes your whole unit won't engage.
There's a screenshot in the middle of the review (which i'd scan but i've got a ticking off for that before) where the camera on the campaign map is zoomed out far enough to see almost all of Europe and even a corner of America. If it's a feature, it's new to me and i'm quite excited about it. That was always something I really wanted from the TW games: the ability to pull back and admire the extent of my conquests.
Tbh I think we're seeing a review based on code that's at least 1 month old. So it's not a suprise that there's still some niggles and that he's going light on details. Who knows what could have been fixed or improved before release?

If the game has the same speed than the demo for me it's perfect because it's slower than RTW but faster than MTW, it seems that the testers at PC gamer need some trainning. :tooth:

[Reiver]

If the game has the same speed than the demo for me it's perfect because it's slower than RTW but faster than MTW, it seems that the testers at PC gamer need some trainning. :tooth:

Well it's the reviewer at PC gamer, not testers, and I don't think it's down to training or anything else. It's personal preference! If your OK with the speed then that's great. I'm not OK with it and it annoys me because it's an easy to alter part of the game. Bring back a slider (perhaps let it go into decimal speeds) and allow people to set the speed they want. Result=everyone's happy.

[InferiorBeing]

He complains about the game being too fast.

Lovely. Just ****ing lovely.

[Juggernaut]

We're Uttely Doomed.
God Save Us All.

[awisler]

mmmm, he had to have played an older version. dont you think CA wouldve noticed if only 1-2 guys charged sometimes or if a couple were left behind? i mean im sure they actually play their games

[DavidtheDuke]

mmmm, he had to have played an older version. dont you think CA wouldve noticed if only 1-2 guys charged sometimes or if a couple were left behind? i mean im sure they actually play their games

Actually I've doubted that sometimes.

[Kor Khan]

A bit of info for you regarding reviews: Two German magazines came out today for subscribers (to whom I don't belong in either case). Both of them reviewed Medieval 2. GameStar Germany gave it 91%, which might (but not necessarily) put it at the very top of their list for strategy games. Rome got 89% btw.
I haven't read the review and noone's given me the gist of it, so I don't know what the stated pros and cons are.

The other magazine, PC Games, gave it 88% (Rome got 84% there). The stated Pros and cons are:

+ A perfect mix of turn-based strategy and real-time tactics
+ The so far best-looking epic battles of all time
+ Great immersion, length and replayability.

-Rare AI bugs in the battles (more below)
-Little variation during long campaigns.

About the AI: According to this thread (which is where I got all this info from) the AI in Medieval 2 is significantly better than in Rome and uses a range of tricks, but can sometimes cop-out completely during the real-time battles. One example: The AI (playing Milan) besieged the player's city. After taking the walls, the men just hung around indefinately and the player reloaded after ten minutes of absolutely nothing happening.

If you want to read more (and understand German), you can always look at this link

http://www.gamestar.de/community/gsp...d.php?t=236214

[awisler]

A bit of info for you regarding reviews: Two German magazines came out today for subscribers (to whom I don't belong in either case). Both of them reviewed Medieval 2. GameStar Germany gave it 91%, which might (but not necessarily) put it at the very top of their list for strategy games. Rome got 89% btw.
I haven't read the review and noone's given me the gist of it, so I don't know what the stated pros and cons are.

The other magazine, PC Games, gave it 88% (Rome got 84% there). The stated Pros and cons are:

+ A perfect mix of turn-based strategy and real-time tactics
+ The so far best-looking epic battles of all time
+ Great immersion, length and replayability.

-Rare AI bugs in the battles (more below)
-Little variation during long campaigns.

About the AI: According to this thread (which is where I got all this info from) the AI in Medieval 2 is significantly better than in Rome and uses a range of tricks, but can sometimes cop-out completely during the real-time battles. One example: The AI (playing Milan) besieged the player's city. After taking the walls, the men just hung around indefinately and the player reloaded after ten minutes of absolutely nothing happening.

If you want to read more (and understand German), you can always look at this link

http://www.gamestar.de/community/gsp...d.php?t=236214

at least the ai can now actually capture your walls successfully! woot there is an improvement already

[DarkGhost89]

We better hope and pray that was E/E or M/M