Is it just me or is this game seriously overrated?

[MicRyley]

First off, this is from a non DLC player's standpoint.

Shogun 2 has 9 factions to play which consists of 20 troops most of which are useless and never used. Medieval 2 has 17 factions to play and like 100 different units which again lots are useless but there's way more useful units there then useful units here. The AI works in weird ways, I've fought 1 little province kingdoms and they somehow have a stack full of samurai bows, yari, katana samurais, and light cav but I can hardly afford to keep a full stack full of ashigaru units with 7 provinces and maintain a 1k income. It feels like im also the only person on the campaign map that has to deal with rebellion, I have never seen an AI's city rebel and even if they are Christian and own a province which is mostly buddhist they do fine.

The multiplayer is outright trash in my opinion, if you don't have all the units and que as a non DLC player you're gonna get p2w'd out of belief, they have guns that will completely smash your ashigaru units in a few seconds while they desperately try to charge. I know some people will come in here and be like "wEll tHen oBViousLy yOU nEEd tO gET gOOD" but please tell me why its so fair that they spam guns and cavalry and do basically nothing but tell his guns to shoot and his cav to watch his guns and win while if i even want a chance to win I have to flank and think about every little thing I do. And this is coming from someone who is actually very good at Total war multiplayer battles, I win way more than I lose in med 2, attila, and rome 2 battles.

[Crimson]

Actually i started total war with shogun 2. Watched some plays on Med 2, never really understood the hype, mainly because the videos don't the game any justice. Decided to get Med 2 for cheap and it was an eye opening encounter. Med 2 is extremely good by far (not just for its time but even to this day), I can understand why people claim it's heralded as the best of the total war series. It's simple but profound. The game doesn't hand hold you or restrict whatever viable options you have to play on the campaign. Sure the battles don't handle as responsively to the newer total wars but there was a sense of weight and consequence to giving the right commands on the field. It's not like the newer games where the guy who right clicks their units the swiftest wins the battle.

Then I got warhammer to see if the hype is really up to snuff, it's definitely not a game meant for total war players. The target for warhammer was clearly aimed towards the casuals and wh fans, the gameplay design was very safe but not exactly innovative. If you've played Rome 2, it's very much like wh but with monsters and magic.

I hear people say Attila is the most challenging and provides lots of fun. I guess? If you like to turtle and play slow, Attila is by far the best of the series for that. It does improve a lot on what Rome 2 does, but that's because it should ?? Attila, while build upon the innovations of Rome 2, failed to address the main issues of Rome 2 and its AI, hordes mechanic for every barbarian faction was a petty excuse to give the AI any reason to survive any longer than it should. I remeber AI enemies in Rome 2 who are removed from the last remaining settlement still have surviving armies that are under attrition on the campaign map, hire all the avaiable provincial mercs just to ♥♥♥♥ me over and annoy my campaign progress. Sure they can be annoying but they don't outright make me challenged or at risk to losing the map. Attila basically 'revamps' this by changing this AI behaviour to 'horde' mechanic. While the player as a horde may feel challenged, the AI doesn't and certainly does not play by the same rules on the map. That effectively makes the game very disappointing to play as the best and most viable strategies to win is to then exploit and abuse AI behaviour.

As for empire and napoleon, I don't have so I can't comment but it seems the concensus is that CA got too ambitious and bit more than they can chew. You think they'd learned their lesson after that but they didn't when Shogun 2 's success got the better of them, Rome 2 had brilliant ideas but far too ambitious and failed on many expectations. Lots of the older folks who played the older games essentially put total war on the back door after this troublings of Rome 2. What CA is hoping to do now, especially with the newer projects is to garner a more casual, less hardcore rts player base which I can see is smart from a business perspective but I highly doubt is beneficial in the long run. Total war catered to casuals menas less depth and longevity in the games. Don't believe me? Look at Med 2 current player count vs most of the other games besides R2, WH series and despite being 10 + years coming, Med 2 is still frequented amongst vidya players.

[shiggies713]

argh. Med 2 hurts my eyes. How can you even play that in 2018? lol

Shogun 2 is the best in the series hands down imo. Clearly the best music and art, and the oldest in the series that still actually looks good in HD. All the others get lost in a pile of meaningless mush, shogun 2 is focused and much better.

[Hat8]

The games got problems but these are problems that exist in all Total War games. Its still the most polished and most action packed Total War.

[TVMAN]

Originally posted by MICRYLEY:

most people agree that medieval 2 is the best total war game of all time

Just because your 8 friends might agree on something doesn't mean it's true outside of your little echo chamber.

[Hat8]

Originally posted by TVMAN:

Originally posted by MICRYLEY:

most people agree that medieval 2 is the best total war game of all time

Just because your 8 friends might agree on something doesn't mean it's true outside of your little echo chamber.

The modding community seem to think that Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are the best.

Rome 1 is widely considered one of the best games of 2004, the year of plenty of incredible games.

[easytarget]

haha, yeah well that's easily explained, they like R1 and Mtw2 better because they were easider to mod, no great mystery to unravel there

[Hat8]

Originally posted by easytarget:

haha, yeah well that's easily explained, they like R1 and Mtw2 better because they were easider to mod, no great mystery to unravel there

Before Empire they had a fundamentally different engine so that probably plays a role.

Good games tend to get more mods. Atilla and Warhammer have overhaul mods but those old games still get mods.

[Multihog]

Yes, the AI cheats like mad in Shogun 2, but I think the only real issue resulting from that is that the AI spams navy like no tomorrow because of their bloated income—though not all of that can be attributed to the bloated income as the AI's naval spending could be simply discouraged in order to ameliorate the situation. Naval fights are awful and beyond boring in this game, and you're forced to do them regardless because autoresolve for naval fights is borderline broken in S2 and almost always results in significant losses for the player, even when the odds are 70%+ in his favor.

Thus, when you inevitably need to play out the naval battles, you'll soon see that the naval combat AI is legitimately broken, and will often—as in a few boats every fight—bug out send its boats towards the edges of the map. Then you have to chase those bugged out boats there, and it's one of the most aggravating things I know in the entire Total War franchise. Even if the naval AI wasn't FUBAR, the naval fights would still be quite dull and shallow in the way of tactics, as they are.

I think those are the biggest flaws in S2. Another big flaw is that realm divide doesn't work properly in co-op. It kicks in way too late because the game only cares about the host's campaign progress.

Overall, I'd say it's a good, in many ways even great, game, but has some seriously frustrating problems, especially with regard to the navy component.

[TVMAN]

Originally posted by 4240876367:

The modding community seem to think that Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are the best.

My point is what people 'seems to think' and what the reality is are often two different things. If you go solely off of active player count, Warhammer 2 is the most popular, followed by Rome 2, and Medieval 2 is a distant third.

Not saying Rome 1 or Medieval 2 aren't good TW games. I own both and have enjoyed playing them for many hours. I'm just saying OP isn't in a position to claim what 'most people agree' to, especially when the active player stats and this thread tells a very different story.

[Hat8]

Originally posted by TVMAN:

Originally posted by 4240876367:

The modding community seem to think that Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are the best.

My point is what people 'seems to think' and what the reality is are often two different things. If you go solely off of active player count, Warhammer 2 is the most popular, followed by Rome 2, and Medieval 2 is a distant third.

Not saying Rome 1 or Medieval 2 aren't good TW games. I own both and have enjoyed playing them for many hours. I'm just saying OP isn't in a position to claim what 'most people agree' to, especially when the active player stats and this thread tells a very different story.

These games are newer.

You'll find more people playing Fallout 76 atm but a game like New Vegas is probably more well liked.

[THEDOSSBOSS]

Originally posted by 4240876367:

Originally posted by TVMAN:

Just because your 8 friends might agree on something doesn't mean it's true outside of your little echo chamber.

The modding community seem to think that Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are the best.

Rome 1 is widely considered one of the best games of 2004, the year of plenty of incredible games.

And here is where the claim falls short. In 2004's standards it was a masterpiece, and deserves respect for that. However, it cannot hold up in the modern environment. I am not going to stick with an iphone 1 all because it was an innovation to the phone market. Modern smartphones have a lot more features and capabilities than the original even if nostalgious people want to cling onto it for some reason. I do not think nostalgia should not be a factor in determining the quality of anything (except maybe food)

[TVMAN]

Originally posted by 4240876367:

These games are newer.

Attila and Thrones are both newer than Rome 2 and Warhammer (Respectively. Attila is newer than Rome 2, and Thrones came out after Warhammer), yet those games are player ghost towns. Even Medieval 2 has more active players than Thrones or Attila. Them being newer is irrelevant, because if they were bad games then nobody would be playing them.

You'll find more people playing Fallout 76 atm but a game like New Vegas is probably more well liked.

Can't speak about 76 since Beth doesn't use Steamworks for it, but New Vegas still has a much higher playercount than Fallout 3 so you're right there.

Anyway, again, since you're getting distracted by examples and apparently missed it the first time around, my point is OP is in no position to claim to know what 'most people agree' to. Medieval 2 has aged really well and it's a great game, but it's hyperbolic at best to call it the 'best tw of all time' without providing any evidence.

[Multihog]

Originally posted by THEDOSSBOSS:

Originally posted by 4240876367:

The modding community seem to think that Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are the best.

Rome 1 is widely considered one of the best games of 2004, the year of plenty of incredible games.

And here is where the claim falls short. In 2004's standards it was a masterpiece, and deserves respect for that. However, it cannot hold up in the modern environment. I am not going to stick with an iphone 1 all because it was an innovation to the phone market. Modern smartphones have a lot more features and capabilities than the original even if nostalgious people want to cling onto it for some reason. I do not think nostalgia should not be a factor in determining the quality of anything (except maybe food)

It's not always that simple. Graphical advancements notwithstanding, many genres of video games have experienced some deterioration, especially in terms of complexity. Most games nowadays are catering to the average Joe. That usually manifests as hand-holding systems—revealing information plainly that used to be something one would need to consult a walkthrough to access—integrated into every game's HUD. Back in the day, it was required to pay attention to what the game tells you and figure out things for yourself. In modern games, all of that is relayed to you as a "Do X and Y" in the HUD at all times and a marker on the compass.

As an example of an old game being better, I could cite Jagged Alliance 2. It's still by far the best game in the franchise—and arguably in the entire turn-based tactics genre—despite being two decades old. Going from an older game to a newer game is not always a direct upgrade.

Another would be the gap between SWAT 3 and 4. SWAT 4 improved the graphics massively and gunplay significantly, but it was a massive step down in terms of AI, which is a cornerstone of a squad-based shooter like it.

Morrowind vs Oblivion and Skyrim? Oblivion and Skyrim improved almost everything, but they also made the Elder Scrolls series into an exercise in following artificial quest markers instead of navigating through information you receive from NPCs and subsequently your journal, aka information you receive from the world itself. It's a trade-off, and preference plays a big part. Do you want more laborious yet authentic exploration but dated mechanics, or do you want a more streamlined (dumbed down) game but with refined mechanics?

Old (pre-Cataclysm) World of Warcraft vs new World of Warcraft? The old game emphasized entirely different things, such as player interaction and questing together, whereas the new game tends to emphasize raiding and running dungeons. Needless to say, the old game is meager in terms of graphics by today's standards, but it offered a wholly different experience. Is it all "nostalgia? No, it is not. You'll see that when Classic WoW comes out.

So, saying an older game is better cannot be solely attributed to nostalgia. There's usually some sort of trade-off and difference in design direction and gaming trends involved; seldom is it the case that a sequel would be an upgrade in literally every area.

[BastardSword]

Originally posted by ere:

As for empire and napoleon, I don't have so I can't comment but it seems the concensus is that CA got too ambitious and bit more than they can chew.

Napoleon is great. The gunpowder battles are good, the AI is decent, and in general it's just fun to play. The main thing I don't like is that the UI is a mess, one of the best things about Shogun 2 is how it decluttered the building menus and made it easier to click on things.

Empire meanwhile is just unplayable. Even with mods that are supposed to fix AI issues, during land battles the AI will just stand still doing nothing. I really don't understand how anyone can play it let alone claim it's the best TW game. Maybe if you auto-resolve every battle?

[BastardSword]

Originally posted by Multihog:

Yes, the AI cheats like mad in Shogun 2, but I think the only real issue resulting from that is that the AI spams navy like no tomorrow because of their bloated income—though not all of that can be attributed to the bloated income as the AI's naval spending could be simply discouraged in order to ameliorate the situation. Naval fights are awful and beyond boring in this game, and you're forced to do them regardless because autoresolve for naval fights is borderline broken in S2 and almost always results in significant losses for the player, even when the odds are 70%+ in his favor.

Thus, when you inevitably need to play out the naval battles, you'll soon see that the naval combat AI is legitimately broken, and will often—as in a few boats every fight—bug out send its boats towards the edges of the map. Then you have to chase those bugged out boats there, and it's one of the most aggravating things I know in the entire Total War franchise. Even if the naval AI wasn't FUBAR, the naval fights would still be quite dull and shallow in the way of tactics, as they are.

In general I'd agree with you. It's really annoying when some clan with one province with no economy is able to spam the map with endless ships. The worst is when they send in one bow kobaya to blockade your trading port and completely shuts down all of your trade. WTF.

BUT I'd say that in vanilla Shogun 2 you can ignore ships most of the time. If you build up your land-based economy (farms, markets etc) and don't rely as much on trade nodes or harbor trade, they don't seem to bother as much with attacking your trade routes or blockading your ports. And if they do blockade them, it doesn't cut off much of your income. If you take trade nodes they seem to get very interested in declaring war on you and pushing you off the trade nodes, and wako raiders will start swarming around too.

BUT AI ship spam completely breaks Fall of the Samurai. I just did a domination campaign in FOTS because I was bored and jesus henry christ is the late game annoying because of interminable AI ship spam. Every clan on the map, even if they have a crappy trailer park province dedicated to growing onions and poverty, is able to contantly spam ships. They'd go back and forth down my provinces destroying my cities and ports. If I tried to build up my own navy, I had two equally crappy options: 1) auto-resolve and lose most of my ships even when I had overwhelming force or 2) fight the naval battles, which are COMPLETELY BROKEN because the AI just sits on the edge of the map even when they're supposedly the attacking force. And even if I do manage to destroy all the ships, they get replaced the next turn anyway because the Billy Bob Clan buys 20 ships the next turn with their onion and dirt fortune!

I know Sega/CA have abandoned FOTS but could a modder please please please make a mod that tones down the FOTS ship spam?