So I basically was only allowed to spend enough money for one game this week, stupid girlfriend and her stupid budget. So I go down to the game store to look at picking up either Lost Planet for the 360 or 2142 so I could be a team player. when what do I see, Medieval II Total War. Holy crap I had to buy it right there and then. I have owned every game in the series including the board game it was based off of. If you haven't checked any of them out it's probably one of the best RTS games ever made.
I'll tell you all how this game is after I escape it's clutches in a few days.
I played the Rome: Total War demo back a year or two ago. It was a lot of fun, but I had no $$ to buy it. I am waiting for them to make a Napoleonic Wars one or a Civil War one. That would be cool.
Rome was an amazing games, especially considering that no one had really done that genre before. The medevial one is awesome because there is so much variety to it.
Napolean wouldn't work because all the armies were basicaly the same. The best civil war game I ever played was the Sid Meyers one.
Megaron wrote: Rome was an amazing games, especially considering that no one had really done that genre before. The medevial one is awesome because there is so much variety to it.
Napolean wouldn't work because all the armies were basicaly the same. The best civil war game I ever played was the Sid Meyers one.
I don't know about all Napoleonic armies being the same. The British used rifles, the French did not. The British attacked in a line formation while the French used columns. The French had better artillery (skillwise) but the British had better timed explosives. The game could do any of the European campaigns of Napoleon (or against him) or Wellington's campaign in India, or even the War of 1812.
I'd even love to see a WWI or WWII version of those games...
The Sid Meyers game was awesome. Of course I pretty much love all his games. I used to be a huge CIV addict.
Sarge wrote: I don't know about all Napoleonic armies being the same. The British used rifles, the French did not. The British attacked in a line formation while the French used columns. The French had better artillery (skillwise) but the British had better timed explosives. The game could do any of the European campaigns of Napoleon (or against him) or Wellington's campaign in India, or even the War of 1812.
I'd even love to see a WWI or WWII version of those games...
The Sid Meyers game was awesome. Of course I pretty much love all his games. I used to be a huge CIV addict.
I still am a civ addict when I ever see the game.. that and MOO or Galactic Civ, though none of them come close to the beauty of CivI and II.
Sarge wrote: I tried to play a game of CIV IV last week and just couldn't muster enough energy to do it. FPS gaming has taken away my patience 😀
Yeah I have pretty much been the same as of late, I have IV though not spent much time on it.. I am more likely to play Civ 1 than IV.. it seems quicker and more mindless.. bah who am I kidding right now its more FF7 than anything..
Megaron wrote: So I basically was only allowed to spend enough money for one game this week, stupid girlfriend and her stupid budget. So I go down to the game store to look at picking up either Lost Planet for the 360 or 2142 so I could be a team player. when what do I see, Medieval II Total War. Holy crap I had to buy it right there and then. I have owned every game in the series including the board game it was based off of. If you haven't checked any of them out it's probably one of the best RTS games ever made.
I'll tell you all how this game is after I escape it's clutches in a few days.
So what you are saying is you are not a team player then??? 😉
Megaron wrote: You dont understand man, these games suck me in...I dunno what the pull is, but it's strong!!
I am just teasing you man. I would just rather get a game that you can play along side others first over a stand alone, thats all. Not a big deal man. 😉