Lots of it is rough even after patching but the core design is still compelling. This is where the game fails most spectacularly, by putting a greater focus on “great power” diplomacy without overhauling the diplomacy system or AI, the game shoots itself in the foot.ĭespite the fact that many mechanics feel half baked, there is a ton of good in here as well. The game desperately wants to create a living world with its own dynamic geopolitics akin to a Europa Universalis game. It tries to do way too much, without the time needed to flesh its new changes out.īeyond just the mechanical “new and more” philosophy, Empire doubles down on Medieval II’s increased focus on diplomacy.
The parts of that game that worked were the parts it refined from previous titles, while much of the new focus on religion and diplomacy, fell flat.Įmpire Total War tries to do so much more, so much that’s new that I can’t help marvel at the attempt, while quietly( not quietly really because I’m writing this) thinking it was doomed from the beginning. Medieval II perhaps should have served as a warning for the Creative Assembly about feature creep. More Stuff: three continents, a story campaign, more units, revolutions, more diplomacy, and more factions. New mechanics: naval battles, building slots, a new focus on ranged warfare, and a new engine. If I could summarize the design philosophy behind Empire it would be “new and more”. But recently, bereft of a grounded historical Total War, fans have returned to Empire and marveled at its utterly ambitious scale and design. When Shogun 2 was released the general feelings turned negative, where Empire’s bugginess stood in stark contrast to the pristine execution of Shogun 2. It received almost universal acclaim by critics at its release but among fans, it’s one of the more divisive in the series.
0 kommentar(er)
