Gaming Shogun 2: Total War Review

Guys, to be fair, the BT reviewers essentially admitted to playing an older version of the game. They've had the game since February.

Also, naval invasions do happen, in fact, one happened in the campaign play-through posted on the official forums. Here, read through this page/post:

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthre...(now-complete)?p=115700&viewfull=1#post115700

And you guys are joking if you think the a.i. in RTW, even after being extensively patched, is better.

 

Civ 5 is still broken

I view BT strategy game reviews with a deal more scepticism now.

 

I first started playing the TW games after I picked up M:TW2 for 99p a few years back. I'm currently playing Empire after getting it and Napoleon for £6 a couple of weeks ago. I'm enjoying the experience immensely but I can't say I'm looking to buy Shogun 2 until it is going for a few quid.

Why?

I have to agree Toka: strategy games seem to be getting worse....and are often buggy/badly balanced on release. I played Empire when it first came out and promptly sold it because of it obviously was going to require many patches to sort it out. Even now I get unexplained slow-downs on a Core I7-930/GTX470!

And companies now seem less and less interested in fixing their work. It's sad to say it but nowadays the smart money waits a few months after release before buying to ensure a good experience.

 

TW games must have the worst record for release bugs out of any software. Ever. Empire TW was a joke.

On the other hand they work really hard to sort them out and to improve their products with patches and have good community relations.

This is not an essential purchase for me, but I am sure I will pick it up at some point when it is a bit cheaper. By then it will probably be much improved by patches.

 

I pirated the first Shogun game (no distributors of the game in my country at the time and I was a stupid teenager anyway, bought a copy from some Classic series recently), bought Medieval 1 for 3£, Rome on release for full price, Medieval 2 and Kingdoms for 5£; almost bought Empires based on reviews, but something told me to wait and boy was that a good decision. I might pick it up if Napoleon is on sale for 5£ or less. I'll never buy Civ 5 unless the next expansion or two fundamentaly redesign the game. Hearts of Iron 3 still is unplayable even after the expansion (any single player strategy with an incompetent AI is broken almost by definition, especially when multiplayer support for the game is poor).

I've been burnt by some of my favourite strategy games series on a regular basis recently and seeing another review singing praises to a new major release makes me highly skeptical.

Btw, question for the reviewer. From your experience, does increasing the difficulty level improve AI's gameplay, using new maneuvers, better diplomacy etc. (think Galactic Civ 2) or do they just get bonuses (Civ series, older TW games as far as I can tell)?

 

TW series has always been awful for cheating AI, can't see why that would change now.

 

It varies too much to go into much detail, but we always spend as much time on a game as we can and we don't set word limits on articles - they can be as long as they need or as short as they require.

When I joined Bit-tech it was a very different attitude, however. I was the only games writer (I still am, but I now have freelance budget) and I was told that each review had to be five to six pages long (one page = 600-700 words). I was also told that I had to do three games a week, nearly always just PC games.

Bluntly, that was a bad system. It took me a while to realise it, but the reviews ended up being a lot flabbier than they had to be. Some games there just wasn't enough to say and, when there was, finding the time to write enough about it (plus screenshots, plus the technical testing we used to do, plus sourcing the games) usually didn't leave enough time for playing. It's part of the reason I started doing case reviews back then - that and, honestly, there aren't 3-4 PC games coming out every week that are worth writing about.

Over time, we've changed things. We now include games on all platforms - writing about the games that are interesting to readers and worth writing about, no just all the dross on a platform. We put game testing in separate articles when we do it, to make info more accessible. We don't impose flabby word limits, so that writers can use their judgement and have more time for playing.

It's easy to say that you wish our game reviews were long, just as it's easier for managers to say they want them longer too (more pages means more clicks, more views, more readers). That's just not the right way to do it though. You can have more or you can have better; I think we're better now, especially because we have the scope to do more when warranted. When I reviewed The Path, for example, I wanted to write more than just two pages. When Clive reviewed this he felt he covered all the main points within 1300 words. Sometimes that's just how things go.

As for getting code, it can depend on the game. We've had an almost content-complete (but buggy) version of TW since February. I've been playing gold code of Dragon Age 2 since late January. The Orange Box, on the other hand, we got one day in advance. It doesn't really matter that much though because we don't have issues delaying reviews until we're ready to publish. That's why we pushed back our reviews of Cataclysm (we didn't want to write until we'd hit top level) or Marvel vs Capcom (Ben wanted to spend a while playing with all the different characters). Right now Rift has just been released, but our review isn't scheduled until April for that very reason.

To imply that this particular review doesn't meet your expectations is one thing, but I think our review process on the whole has improved immeasurably. I look at our reviews of, for example, Crysis and Far Cry 2 from back in the day, and I compare them to the likes of our Beyond Good and Evil HD and Chime coverage and I think it's clear which is better. That's doubly true when it frees writers up to do more unqiue content, like the features we currently have.

 

I remember reading reviews of Empire (and MANY other games) that gave very good reviews but totally failed to mention the bugs (often game breaking) in the game.

Obviously, from a reviewer's point of view they are in a difficult situation. I'm sure they are often assured by publishers that the bugs will be ironed out by release. If a reviewer makes a point of the bugs in the final review and game is fixed before release they are both wrong and far less likely to receive early review copies next time, making it harder to compete against other magazines on the shelf who manage to review the next big game 1-2 issues before you. On the other hand, ignoring the bugs and trusting the publisher will fix them before release leaves the paying public exposed to shoddy and sometimes unplayable games.

I often find it interesting when I read reviews of games like "Two Worlds 2" where the bugs are put front and centre of the review. What is that publisher doing differently from the one's who manage to avoid reviewers mentioning bugs? On the other hand, the FIFA franchise regularly gets reviewed without any mention that parts of it are unplayable because of bugs that are never even patched.

To be clear, this is NOT an attack on Bit-Tech/CPC reviews. It is an observation of the industry as a whole. An industry that is becoming better at ensuring their customers are not aware of problems with games before they spend their money.

I think the review of Shogun 2 was actually quite revealing. It made it clear there were some serious flaws in the game while also saying that it was enjoyable enough to make up for some of them.

I just wish reviewers (in general) had more freedom to tell the unvarnished truth in today's market.

 

As the difficulty goes up, cities that you take control over require a larger garrison to keep uprisings in check. Also, you need to be a little bit more careful on the strategy map - keeping an eye out for armies sneaking through passes and not along roads, for example. But Bark of the Pine Tree still wins battles fairly easily (as long as skirmishing bowmen don't stupidly retreat into the onrushing cavalry/ashigaru and they tend to).

The game frequently updated throughout testing, so the final opinion we gave was based on the most up-to-date version. As reviewer's that's all we can do - look at what the manufacturer/publisher has put out for review.

That's the case regarding naval invasions - it's obvious which fleets carry troops as there's a second flag, as there was no sign of any throughout our testing. We even left island fortresses completely unguarded to encourage the AI to sneak an attack.

Precisely. The game is lovely, but has some flaws which means we don't think it's a must-have at this point. Keep an eye on update and patch logs to see if CA addresses our concerns; at that point we might consider re-visiting Shogun 2 and seeing what's what.

Regarding multiplayer testing, it's usually not possible to really test it in a meaningful way - if the servers are even online, there aren't enough players to get a genuine feel for how it works. We have said in the review that as the game has excellent nuances (both on the strategy map and in battles/army selection), it should be a fun and challenging experience as long as the servers can handle the traffic and so on.

 

Weird.....In the campaign play through, the show the a.i. conducting naval invasions. I guess I'll have to keep my eye on this.

 

Thanks for the in depth reply. I'm not sure whether I understand correctly (not a native English speaker so sometimes nuance eludes me), but if you guys think at any stage I implied there are major flaws with the review process at bit-tech as a whole, then that was not my intention.

I guess at the end of the day the only solution is accepting the fact that people can have different expectations. When I read a MvC review I find it perfectly fine since I am not that much into fighters. Gives me a general idea of the game, I might pick it up eventualy. Even if some people who play it at tournament level find serious glitches, they probably won't bother me since I'll likely play the game for a couple of weeks and never come back to it.

My problem was I guess that issues were raised in the article that make the game seem terrible, yet at the end it gets an 8/10 and a recommendation. Yet, if the review mentions the faults and I can formulate my own opinion based on it then it fulfills its role.

One thing which I do disagree with you (though this is a complaint applicable to everyone in the industry, from devs to reviewers) is writing reviews based on non-Gold code and ignoring multiplayer components. The second point is obviously utopian as I am fully aware of why it is omitted, so I am looking forward to the review of multiplayer. The first point though is a pretty big issue imho. Having said that, bit-tech is easily my first stop for PC game reviews.


PS just bought Napoleon on sale from Steam (20GB download ) for 5£. I'll probably wait for Shogun to be on sale for 10-15£ before I take the plunge.

 

I'm pretty sure they can have things prepared and scripted for presentation purposes. If the AI really can't conduct them coherently then this alone makes you wonder why you would spend time playing a strategy game played on a map consisting of 3 islands. Oh well.... I should let it go now. After having so much fun with Shogun, Medieval and Rome I ended up falling for the hype of OOOHH new shiny graphics for Medieval 2 and almost did the same for Empire. I promised myself I'd never buy another TW game if CA doesn't learn from its mistakes, but damn... after playing the demo, the art alone is so beautiful I was close to purchasing the damn thing just to stare at it....

 

It *is* a big issue for some consumer but the vast majority simply want to read the review as soon as possible. This sets up a situation where reviewers who wait to review the final code & multiplayer are nowhere near first to review and consequently get less readers. Less readers = less advertisers, less advertisers = less money, less money = no magazine/website.

While we (gamers) claim to want in-depth review of the final code, we actually read the reviews that appear earliest. Make no bones about it, WE are part of the problem and magazines are (financially) forced to give us what we want rather than what we claim we want.

 

From my understanding, there were even naval invasions in the expanded campaign demo mod.....And there are accounts from others who have played the game indicating that there are Naval invasions.

Also, it seems mighty silly for someone to play through an entire campaign, whilst providing screens, just to script the a.i. utilizing a fleet (transporting a diverse army) onto undefended shores. Furthermore, I don't know which clan the BT reviewer was playing as, how far he got in the game before writing this review or whether his enemies even had access to ports.

 

There's a philosophical element to it too, of course. The publisher and developer can choose when to push their coverage - in this case they're pushing it now. Sega contact us and say "We have code for the game which we feel is ready for review. Do you want it?" We say yes and work from there, on the basis that the publisher claims to supply something representative of the final product.

Most of the time, this works fine. The Dragon Age 2 code I've had? Gold. It's the full, finished game, only missing the DLC you get with certain editions. Shogun 2, on the other hand, patched throughout the review process - one of the only times I've known that to happen. As it is, we can only do the best we can with that situation; in this case, choosing to comment on lingering issues and following the development closely.

 

FYI the review in the latest CPC scores it at 83%.

Out of interest why do the same reviews have a percentage score than the out of 10 score on the site?

 

It's a hangover from before bit-tech was bought by Dennis. We've tried to keep scores as in-line with each other as possible until now. It's actually something that will be changing with THE MYSTERIOUS NEXT ISSUE OF CUSTOM PC (and probably soon after for Bit-tech).

 

I have bought this, as I have played every TW game since Rome (Which is still the best, IMHO)

However, I have recently discovered the addictive genius that is World of Tanks - so it's gonna be tough trying to pry me from that right now.....

 

Interesting discussion. It's nice to see follow-up from the staff. For the record, I liked the review and it helped me decide whether to buy the game. As I said, I'm going to wait; partially to get it cheaper, and partially to let them patch all of the bugs.

Googoo - I'm sure you're right about the AI (I remember the CPC article about the Empire AI's revolutionary approach), but as someone who still plays Rome, Med2 and Empire quite regularly, the land battle AI doesn't *feel* any better to me in Empire than the other two - mainly because it often attacks piecemeal allowing you to just stand there and kill units one by one as they wander towards you. Occasionally, the AI attacks in formation and gets the timing right with flank attacks, but in my experience, it's not common.

 

Bit-tech becomes CustomPC?