I mentioned before that the Total War series is my favorite video game series. Despite that, I don't consider myself a hardcore Total War fan. Don't get me wrong, I buy all new Total War games but I haven't played the first Shogun and Medieval Total Wars. Regardless, after I played Rome: Total War for the first time, I was hooked on the blend of RTS and grand strategy. But there is an unanswered question about this legendary game series. What is the best game of the best strategy series in gaming?
Rome: Total War
The first Total War game I ever played (And I suspect this is the case for a lot of people) is Rome: Total war. I'll never forget how blown away I was at how massive the battles were and yet each character fought their own individual fight. It's reasonable to say that most people who have been with the Total War series for a while would say that Rome: Total War is the best in the series. As much as I love, and still play Rome, I can't help but disagree from an objective standpoint.
Rome: Total War at the time was the peak of big battle RTS and was undoubtedly the best Total War during that period, but the game, when compared to the standards of today's Total Wars lacks a lot of the improvements that later games had. Some of the annoyances included diplomat characters (This one is debatable, having specialized diplomats was pretty cool), weird control schemes, incredibly easy and one-sided economics (Just build random things and make money. SKILL!) had Rome Total War showing its age later on. It is nonetheless one of my favorite games and the defining strategy of my teenage years. But the best? It pains me to say it, but no.
Medieval 2
Medieval 2: Total War should, on paper, should be considered the best Total War game of the series. The units are incredibly diverse, their armor changes with upgrades, eventually you can use gunpowder weapons, you can even be the first country to explore the Americas. There is so much to do and experience in Medieval 2 when compared to Rome. Unfortunately, it's greatness is hindered by several problems that Rome didn't have.
For now lets talk positive. What improved with Medieval 2? Number one, the world map and diplomacy aspects were greatly improved from Rome: Total War. Instead of every settlement being the same and just building everything in every city, players had to choose between a town or fort city. Towns gave wealth, forts gave military. Already players have to make a strategic decision. This coupled with the religion and Papal States and being able to call a crusade (Or being called upon) if your reputation is high enough added another layer of complexity to diplomacy. Still shallow, but better.
But every great feature doesn't come without a price and Medieval 2 had plenty of issues. The most obvious was the sluggish AI. When you told a unit to go somewhere, it would often take several seconds to process the order. On several occasions my units would stand around while being slaughtered as I furiously tried to get them to move. Medieval also suffered from a problem that Rome suffered from, and that is that EVERYONE hates you. Why? I've done NOTHING to you, you fuck. I never understood why relations in Total War were effected by difficulty. You should be able to cultivate relationships in Total War, not just have it be a dice role. Really the primary issues in Medieval 2 were AI issues, the overall game itself was excellent.
Empire: Total War.
This game is odd. Not because it's bad, but it's not particularly good either. It has the reputation as being the worst in the series and for good reason. The release of the game saw massive amounts of bugs and AI issues. The combat was repetitive and sometimes outright boring with player just doing nothing as two armies shot each other until one of them ran away. But I don't think Empire: Total War gets a fair shake. While it is PROBABLY the worst in the series (At least from Rome to Shogun) it is also the most additive in terms of features.
Naval combat? Added with Empire. Towns and villages? Added with Empire. Technology research? Added with Empire. In fact some of the most important UI improvements came with Empire. You could actually see the firing arc of ranged units, you could control the camera with WASD, you no longer needed agents to negotiate for you, instead you could just pull up the diplomacy screen. Empire added a lot to the series and while it certainly wasn't the best, it was a very important stepping stone to the modern Total War series.
Napoleon: Total War.
It's seriously just Empire: Total war plus automatic unit replenishment and minus the horrible bugs. It also had a lot smaller campaign map.
This is where the series starts to define itself in modern gaming. Shogun was the return of non-gunpowder units. We would get to experience the improvements that came with Empire while enjoying the great strategic combat of Rome and Medieval. And Shogun delivered. At first I had trouble adjusting, mainly because I wasn't a big fan of the direction the art team had made. After I got used to it, the game really came together. The AI was good (at least as good as you can hope for in a Total War game), the graphics were spectacular, the controls were solid and the campaign map and diplomacy was more interesting than previous title. Even Naval combat with these shitty little blocks of wood for boats was interesting simply because it was another take on naval combat in the ancient world.
My biggest issue with Total War: Shogun 2 was the utter lack unit diversity. Every faction essentially had the same units with minor bonuses depending on the clan. Thankfully, the fights in Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai were much more interesting. One side had gun powder units and the other had traditional sword and bow units. I loved seeing the different ways each side had to adapt depending on who they chose to play as. FotS also added naval bombardment support in land battles which offered more incentive to build a strong navy.Shogun 2 was a great game and overall, despite some changes I don't agree with, I'm satisfied with the direction that Creative Assembly is taking the series.
The best of the best.
I'll come right out and say it:
Medieval 2: Total War is the best of the Total War series. Yes it had issues but everything right down to the armor upgrades felt like it was put in with love and care. There were so many features, so much diversity in the units, the buildings, the maps, events and diplomacy that it's hard not to say Medieval 2 was the best in the series.
Medieval 2 took what made Rome Total War great and simply added depth. Although it lacked the complex campaign map of Shogun 2 and Empire, the diplomacy and events made the world feel like it was constantly progressing. Going from basic mail-wearing light infantry in France to cannons and musketeers in South America all the while with Mongols closing in to seize Europe from the east makes the player feel like power is constantly shifting and flowing. How can you NOT think that Medieval 2 is on top of the Total War series?
On the horizon.
Of course Total War isn't stopping there. With the new Total War: Rome 2, fans have a lot to look forward to.
-Naval and land battles are being combined, D-day style. Now you can conquer Egypt without having to trudge through sand. Just row right up to their cities and attack from the shore.
-Regions are grouped into provinces with one city being the 'center' of the province. I'm not sure if this is similar to Shoguns system, but it will be interesting to see if they've changed it at all.
-Players can ask their allies to attack specific town. I'm very happy to see CA expand their diplomacy some more.
-Naval battles are fought over naval 'regions' rather than the water being like a giant open lake.
-The campaign map will stretch farther east. No details on how far.
-There will be new unrest systems to make it more difficult to conquer rather than just steam rolling the entire world with one super army.
-Armies will be recruited from a General in the field. It isn't too clear how this will work and what the limitations will be.
-Armies have their own skill tree. CA looks like they really want each legion to have their own unique traits.
-Generals are affiliated with their own 'families'. It looks like these will work similarly to how the clans in Fall of the Samurai works. I'm hoping it is similar to how Hearts of Iron handled political parties. I'm really happy to hear about Creative Assembly focusing on more than just combat.
-Units in battle have true line of sight. What they see, you see.
-Ambushing armies will be able to deploy traps such as burning boulders.
-Calvary charges won't crash on a unit. Instead they will power through and reform on the other side for a second charge.
-Heavier units will be able to 'push back' lighter units.
-Soldiers throw spears on the run.
-Overhead tactical map.
-Soldier heights will vary to add more variety to the looks of units
-Infantry will use their shield to block arrows (Holy fuck it's actually happening)
Judging by how many features CA is adding with Rome 2, it could easily over take Empire as the most additive Total War in the series. But with all these improvements and depth being added along with more complex diplomacy and politics becoming an actual faction, Rome 2 may take Medieval 2s place as the greatest Total War in the series.
TRIARII
No comments:
Post a Comment