Full Version: Anyone else excited about Shogun 2: Total War?
I didn't play the first Shogun: TW because it only got middling reviews, but I've enjoyed Rome and Empire immensely. I'm very much looking forward to Shogun 2.
So am I. I haven't been that happy with the series since Medieval 2: Total War (that was the last one I really enjoyed), but Shogun 2 seems to be going back to what I liked.
The seriesīs veterans consider Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 the best in the series.
The general consesus is this: there was an increase in complexity on the resources and map aspects from Rome forward, but they forgot to teach the AI how to handle this new complexity. The consequence is that anyone who learn to play the game minimally will finish it given only time and patience to do so, since the AI is easy to beat. But the same does NOT hold true for Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 - the AI in these games is vicious, and each move of yours is decisive.
Me? I see the veterans point, but do prefer the "easyness" of Rome, Medieval and Empire. Tried Shogun 1 this year and found the game too frustrating for my tastes, having to restart again and again, after aparently innofensive moves resulting in catastrophic losses. Maybe Shogun 2 strikes a nice mid-term ?
P.S: one thing that got my attention in Shogun 1 is its sense of style. The game is beautiful as no other in the series managed to be (even with much worse 3d gfx ). The speech in japanese, the hand-drawn map, the small provinces art, the throne room, the short cutscenes, etc. Simply beautiful.
The general consesus is this: there was an increase in complexity on the resources and map aspects from Rome forward, but they forgot to teach the AI how to handle this new complexity. The consequence is that anyone who learn to play the game minimally will finish it given only time and patience to do so, since the AI is easy to beat. But the same does NOT hold true for Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 - the AI in these games is vicious, and each move of yours is decisive.
Me? I see the veterans point, but do prefer the "easyness" of Rome, Medieval and Empire. Tried Shogun 1 this year and found the game too frustrating for my tastes, having to restart again and again, after aparently innofensive moves resulting in catastrophic losses. Maybe Shogun 2 strikes a nice mid-term ?
P.S: one thing that got my attention in Shogun 1 is its sense of style. The game is beautiful as no other in the series managed to be (even with much worse 3d gfx ). The speech in japanese, the hand-drawn map, the small provinces art, the throne room, the short cutscenes, etc. Simply beautiful.
I missed Shogun the first time round, looking forward to the sequel.
I still play Shogun 1, so as much as I'm interested in a sequel, and kind of excited about it -- I'm not in a terrible rush. I'm still gettin' my fix. 
QUOTE (silva @ Oct 11 2010, 12:19 PM) 
The seriesīs veterans consider Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 the best in the series.
The general consesus is this: there was an increase in complexity on the resources and map aspects from Rome forward, but they forgot to teach the AI how to handle this new complexity. The consequence is that anyone who learn to play the game minimally will finish it given only time and patience to do so, since the AI is easy to beat. But the same does NOT hold true for Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 - the AI in these games is vicious, and each move of yours is decisive.
Me? I see the veterans point, but do prefer the "easyness" of Rome, Medieval and Empire. Tried Shogun 1 this year and found the game too frustrating for my tastes, having to restart again and again, after aparently innofensive moves resulting in catastrophic losses. Maybe Shogun 2 strikes a nice mid-term ?
P.S: one thing that got my attention in Shogun 1 is its sense of style. The game is beautiful as no other in the series managed to be (even with much worse 3d gfx ). The speech in japanese, the hand-drawn map, the small provinces art, the throne room, the short cutscenes, etc. Simply beautiful.
The general consesus is this: there was an increase in complexity on the resources and map aspects from Rome forward, but they forgot to teach the AI how to handle this new complexity. The consequence is that anyone who learn to play the game minimally will finish it given only time and patience to do so, since the AI is easy to beat. But the same does NOT hold true for Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 - the AI in these games is vicious, and each move of yours is decisive.
Me? I see the veterans point, but do prefer the "easyness" of Rome, Medieval and Empire. Tried Shogun 1 this year and found the game too frustrating for my tastes, having to restart again and again, after aparently innofensive moves resulting in catastrophic losses. Maybe Shogun 2 strikes a nice mid-term ?
P.S: one thing that got my attention in Shogun 1 is its sense of style. The game is beautiful as no other in the series managed to be (even with much worse 3d gfx ). The speech in japanese, the hand-drawn map, the small provinces art, the throne room, the short cutscenes, etc. Simply beautiful.
I think you have a point. I like Medieval 1, 2 it seemed that the AI could not handle the sieges (Rome's siege AI was better). Empire's siege AI is abysmal, well the AI in empire is abysmal anyway (they tell me it got better--have not gone back to check). I skipped napolean TW cause of it (should have been an expansion not a new title IMHO).
Also, I'll probably wait on Shogun until after the first expansion for it. Empire taught me that a good series can be screwed up.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.