Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
13 
Report this post
Why you you think it lacks depth? Why do you think older games have depth? I'd like to see you say since I haven't seen you iterate your opinion, despite reading many of your comments to this effect. You told me once my opinion was subjective, but I am still waiting on some substantial argument
edited to be less negative
I am not going to put the energy into breaking it down again, when I have on other occasions, for someone who is not open minded enough to consider the points. Search my posts and you will see I have done so. You have misunderstood me for saying things that I have gone out of my way to explain I am not.
"dont let the haters get you down". My comment was largely praise. I can say the game lacks depth without it meaning the game is bad. Im just honest with myself about the game and I can acknowledge the flaws and still enjoy it
(Final edit, I swear:) Also, I shouldn't have been so harsh, my bad. At the same time, starting if with "you must be new here, game has no depth" wasn't quite a friendly start or a stunningly good review. I also should have been more tactful. Let's try that from now on in our interactions, shall we
Why should he have to link it? You can look it up, since you are the only one that cares...
Diplomacy is actually useful, pre-3k+whseriesI always ignored the diplomacy and family trees. I could counquer the world without those no problem. With 3K, we had coalitions, now suddenly you could actually bite off more than you could chew, the court was a litle daft was more nice to have than needed. Family tree was maybe the most useful general generating tool.
In Pharaoh, the court is useful, though annoying too. Though the fact that it's useful is really different. I empezzle, assassinate, get gold from Amenmesse, get units, gain Kudurru. Lots of things and resources I then utilize elsewhere. The diplomacy is really useful. It's a guarantor of peace if used correctly, you can trade resources, which is reaaallly useful in a pinch. Then there's the Pharaoh's powers, like force annex and court precence.
Another one always ignore in most other tw games is religion, here it's like a mini-game where you have to work at it to make it really good.
So in the end, yes, it has more depth, it's not just a 'paint the map with your stacks' game, there's actual strategic layers to it now which is awsome. I can't just ignore all this any longer and it's annoying, but also really fun when you assassinate the sitting Great King mid civil war, and your the heir and the chaos that brings.
That said, the final form Pharaoh took (with the Dynasty edition) is itself pretty decent. I'd put it ahead of R2 and Attila.
But the depth of Pharaoh is limited in one key place: units. Compared to S2, this is very limited, as you have a couple of cavalry/chariots, a handful of ranged units, and a ton of melee. The normal system of TW historical games is that melee beats spears, spears beat cav, cav beat ranged, and that falls apart in this because you'll rarely encounter enemy chariots or cavalry in the campaign.
Pharaoh, as a strategic layer, is quite good.
Pharaoh, as a tactical layer, is fun but limited, and that's just in comparison to S2, where you have a wider variety of units beyond foot-bound infantry. Let alone comparing it to S2 +FotS, where artillery, gatlings, ninja, matchlocks, and more exist.
The criteria I use doesn't depend on whether I like or dislike something. It doesn't depend on whether I find it fun or not. It doesn't depend on my idea of depth, it depends on what I think would hold-up in an academic setting under peer-review whether it suits me or not.
If depth to you is a court mechanic for which the AI has no coded logic to use beyond random actions, where you embezzle gold or collect kudurru with an [a + b = c] formula with no variable outcomes, no possibility of failure, no means of interfering with the process, no negatives or external factors to consider in your decisions - except "is there something else that gives me more buffs instead". Or a religion system that "have to work at to make really good" - yet cannot be "bad", does not present an opposing force to "making it good" with no variable paths that do anything but provide bonuses. is considered depth.. Where "losing an experienced general hurts" not because of a succession crisis with a range of negative effects you have to consider.. but because you lose a lot of bonuses. Where diplomacy is "really useful" because its a "guarantor of peace and trade is useful in a pinch" - both of which imply reacting, rather than proactive. And generally is no more useful than it was in previous titles. If new features simply "have a use" even when lacking effects or external in-game factors that are hard to make sense of without. And existing features which are on-par or in other cases streamlined/simplified further than before..
If that is your idea of depth.. Or more importantly "more depth than most". Then I think it speaks for itself. And i dont mean that to be diminutive or insulting. I mean that if you were comfortable arguing that as depth with a large sample of people impartial to the subject who aren't concerned with defending a game from haters or hating a game that isn't med3, but were just assessing functionality, then I have no ground to argue otherwise.
Shogun 2 is a "solved" game on rails where there's one optimized way to win it that works 100% of the time thanks to how primitive and simplistic everythjing is set up to be. Med 2 is just obsolete trash where the economy is immeidately rendered irrelevant because of how broken OP individual taxation is. Diplomacy also matters ZILCH in Med2 thanks to hard-coded anti-player aggression that is triggered by things like "sharing " a border and win conditions that require waging war on everyone.
Please no more of that grognard nonsense.
I have on multiple occasions. And you calling me a WH troll is the reason why I’m not wasting my time. Search my posts and you’ll see for yourself. Or in the TW discord. I love the lack of self awareness. I don’t hate the game but the way you sad people blindly attack anyone who acknowledges flaws and force them to defend their stance over and over makes them appear more negative than they actually are because it reads so negative when you have to break it down, even when you’re not trying to be. You think you’re fighting the good fight when in reality you’re a hypocrite. People make some grandiose claims and you don’t see anyone being pressed to prove or explain how the same way anyone does who has feedback that isn’t great. You ever take a step back and realize how inherently wrong it is that any positive feedback you don’t second guess buy any that isn’t is met with immediate suspicion? No. You don’t.
Just like the guy above misquoted me as saying “you must be new because it’s not deep” when I said “I’m guessing you’re new”. Do you know why I chose those words? It’s because I’ve noticed a trend and was guessing but leaving open the possibility that I was wrong. and if I was insulting or dismissing him then why go out of my way to reassure him that its not that he’s dumb for thinking it has depth, but that the amount of new features gives that impression at first. I then go on to praise other aspects of the game. But it doesn’t matter because your minds are made up as soon as you see part that isn’t.
Being a supporter of a game doesn’t mean pretending certain flaws don’t exist because you’re worried making that concession gives people who say it’s bad an argument.
If I were to respond to this arguing that Pharaoh too has one optimized way to win that works 100% of the time, I doubt you'd have even considered the possibility. If thats the case then genuinely take a second to consider why you feel it's okay to say all of that, and in a way that heavily implies it's not even a question as to whether you're "right", yet despite me never referring to any of the titles as "obsolete trash" or being nearly as dismissive, I'm viewed with suspicion, called a troll and pressed to prove and substantiate things that I've explained with examples, context and with care to prevent from being mistaken as bashing the game.
I have searched your post history and there's nothing.
Notice how they are unable to dispute even a single thing I said about Shotgun2 and Mediocre2.
Fortunately, many of us realize trashing one game doesn't make another better so idk why anyone would think they have to dispute what you said.