IGN US/NA (idk?) Review Up

[BeastG33]

Scored an 8.8, and they seemed pretty critical. I got the impression from the end of the review that the reviewer wasn't that happy with the game, at all.

Closing Comments
It's true that the developers really missed an opportunity to rework the interface but the graphics upgrade and new campaign options are more than enough to satisfy the legions of Total War fans. Gamers expecting the revolutionary leap forward found in Rome: Total War are really going to be let down by this sequel. Instead Medieval takes the successful ideas introduced in Rome and brings them back to the Middle Ages. For most strategy gamers, that's more than enough to recommend it, especially if you're a fan of the time period.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/745/745219p1.html

[Candelarius]

Scored an 8.8, and they seemed pretty critical. I got the impression from the end of the review that the reviewer wasn't that happy with the game, at all.



http://pc.ign.com/articles/745/745219p1.html

What's with all the emphasis in the IGN reviews about the game not being as good as it could be because it isn't a "giant step forward"?! That's rediculous...this is only the second game in the series based on the same engine, it's not like it's the fourth game in the series based on the same "old engine". Idiots.

[AlfonsoVIII]

This guy must not be a total war fan. He expects every game to be so badass compared to the prequel, that it sucks if not otherwise. If anything M2TW is a RTW mod with added features and increased eye candy. Definitely worth the purchase. $10 says he will love BF2142 since its a huge step forward from BF1942 (year wise), lol.

[HubertusDerGroße]

same with medieval 2 total war (year wise) lolz

[WilliVonBill]

"$10 says he will love BF2142 since its a huge step forward from BF1942 (year wise)"

Okay... that was funny! Sucker bet, though.

[Big War Bird]

This guy must not be a total war fan. He expects every game to be so badass compared to the prequel, that it sucks if not otherwise. If anything M2TW is a RTW mod with added features and increased eye candy. Definitely worth the purchase. $10 says he will love BF2142 since its a huge step forward from BF1942 (year wise), lol.

I would say he is a total war fan, because he noticed one major weakness that I have been pointing out for years. The interface sucks! Managing all those spies, assassins, generals, cities, diplomats etc later in the game was an incredible pain in MTW and RTW and now in M2TW. The TW series has always shortchanged the empire management side of the game.

[Mccray]

Don't worry about it. Reviews are 10% educated guess 90% personal opinion.

Everytime "Siskel and Roper" say they like a film I don't lube up and run to the theater and start spanking my monkey with joy. You like what you like.

[BeastG33]

Perhaps in the next total war, there will a small "faction map" feature that zooms in for a closeup of the minimap showing only your faction armies and agents throughout the map.

[BeachedWhale09]

Managing all those spies, assassins, generals, cities, diplomats etc later in the game was an incredible pain in MTW and RTW and now in M2TW. The TW series has always shortchanged the empire management side of the game.

You probably know this already but if you click on the faction information button(the one that is the symbol of your faction) and on the left there is a button like list view or something. It can be used to keep track of units. Just scroll through real quick to see if you missed someone.

[Otherdude]

Didn't sound like he knocked it as much as everyone's saying. Everyone must have forgotten that this is the same guy who wrote the IGN Rome review and said "Personally, I've never given a score this high before but Rome Total War is without a doubt one of the best games I've ever played. The combination of subject matter, game mechanics, and outstanding visuals add up to one of the best experiences you'll have on the PC."

Sounds like he feels it's just not as big an improvement as he'd hoped and that CA didn't take advantage of the opportunity to improve much upon Rome's shortcomings. He's probably right. I can particularly feel for him in being frustrated that AI won't retreat from a siege it can't win if there is no battle timer.

The "really going to be let down by this sequel" in the conclusion seems a bit exaggerated compared to the rest of his comments. He's basically saying if you liked Rome you'll be happy with Medieval 2, just don't expect something revolutionary above Rome.

[Miraj]

I've always complained about AI and stuff like that. But people shouldn't underestimate the power of the graphical improvements.

How many of you can honestly tell me that the graphics don't make a difference to you? At first I said "I want gameplay not graphics" but once I played the demo and saw those details knights charging each other parrying and blocking and dying with style, after I saw the GORGEUS landscapes, the lush grass, the amazing cliffs - I was seduced completely.

The review simply does not stress how amazing the graphical improvements were. It really just changes the feel of the game. I never knew a simple thing like grass or non-clones could so change the feel but it does. It effectivly adds realism.

M2TW should not be expected to be a revolutionary game - it should be considered what Rome SHOULD have been like.

[ML101]

ugh... Even though I like 2142... They still have the same features from BF2 just with a brand new titan mode.
But on topic I think the IGN reviewers are severly biased against this game. Is the reviewer of this article the same one that wrote the faction previews that say "This game is sure to be one of the best TW games yet"
And yet they say "It's nothing revolutionary everything is all cluttered and thats why I don't like it"

[Turkeys!]

Rofl i just noticed his name is Steve BUTTS

[KIllerGecko]

Honestly, I don't follow any reveiw's except for PCGamer and Gamespy, all the other review places i hold as much faith in them, as i do in dog ****, and that isn't very much

[BeachedWhale09]

I just read the review. Over half was negative comments on the game. And he repeats over and over that it will be enough for total war fans. This game is fantastic and its great for anyone interested in the times and warfare.

[Roman-Warrior]

I can't beleive an 8.8 was a score for such a review he gave. He really was full of it.

You know he wanted to give it like a 5 or so but I bet IGN wouldn't let him. Why does the Jackass have to be from the USA, the Euros got a good reviewer, why couldn't we?

-Wes

[Mccray]

I can't beleive an 8.8 was a score for such a review he gave. He really was full of it.

You know he wanted to give it like a 5 or so but I bet IGN wouldn't let him. Why does the Jackass have to be from the USA, the Euros got a good reviewer, why couldn't we?

-Wes

Don't get me started . It's anti-American comments like that that lead to a chain of events, that get me in trouble

what does where the reviewer is from have to do with anything anyway?

[kashik]

Is he wrong? Is it greatly improved over RTW's flaws?

I haven't had the chance to play the released game yet.

[Roman-Warrior]

Now wait a second Mccray, Im from the USA myself hence me saying " The Euros got a good reviewer, why couldn't we ", don't try to get a flame war started.

-Wes

[Mccray]

Now wait a second Mccray, Im from the USA myself hence me saying " The Euros got a good reviewer, why couldn't we ", don't try to get a flame war started.

-Wes

My bad. somehow the way you typed that could be read 2 ways.