Weird, really.īut I have great faith in the Imperator developers and in the devotion of the fanbase to get more streamlined UI and more action, hate and military depth into Imperator. Sure it has its quirks with some lingering gameengine issues but it feels alot more streamlined than Imperator at least for me (probably as it is more dumbed-down) and I feel I have more control on what is happening for some reason in spite of the zillion options you have in Imperator to influence things. R:TW2 with DeI mod is awesome though, for military/action oriented players that don't care much about cultural depth I would recommend that easily over Imperator. For the reasons mentioned above it is too shallow. But apart from these things, there is really little else that I:R could learn from the TW titles.Īlthough I am a total war fan and played all their historic games for thousands of hours (but lost faith in them as they no longer put out historical games that are worthwhile), I will not get the remastered version. It would surely give some extra gratification for those of us that like civic development. Maybe adding small buildings and walls to the map (somewhat like Civ 5) may partially compensate for this. a simulated trade network that links close regions and doesn't differentiate so strongly between internal and external trade (I wouldn't replicate the same thing, but despite its simplicity Rome TW's trade feels much more reasonable than I:R) also, city buildings felt a bit more interesting in Rome TW, especially because there is a 3d model that you can explore. Thus, I'm so grateful that we have I:R to build captivating and ever different stories in ancient times! This comparison (and you could do the same with other chapters of the TW saga) really highlights all that good that there is in I:R.Īs a side note, there are a few things that I:R could draw inspiration from TW: e.g. I still liked it a lot, because of the time frame and the battles/cities, but I could never go back and play it-it would feel way too shallow. The game fundamentally asks you to 1) raise armies and conquer 2) upgrade city buildings to access new/better units. Rome TW has no culture, no religion, no social classes, no politics, no ability to shape the map by founding cities, no wonders, a fixed road network that you cannot design, no military traditions, etc. But if you compare it with Rome TW (I'm just gonna ignore Rome II, I'm still offended at how hideous that map looked), the difference in depth and breath of game mechanics is just striking. ![]() I already thought that, despite some flaws/room for improvement, I:R 1.5 was one of the best games I ever played, and it only got better with 2.0. The result? I think I love I:R even more now. Of course, it was natural to compare it with Imperator. This was the first strategy game I ever played, so I spent some time watching YT videos about its features. You've probably heard that a remastered version of Rome Total War is coming up.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |