Napoleon: Total War

By Quintin Smith Published 14 January, 2010

Creative reassembly.

Empire: Total War was sloppy. Can we reach a consensus here? Even anyone who loved it - and for all its flaws we loved it enough to give it 9/10 - would admit its bugs were "a shame", the combat pathfinding "temperamental", the AI "distracted", the tutorials "lightweight" and its manual "environmentally considerate". It wasn't quite all style and no substance, but perhaps all style and a gelatinous, gloopy substance that you have to cut out if it gets in your hair.

Worse, a lot of people who bought Empire ended up waiting for a heroic patching that took seven months to arrive, though Creative Assembly did manage to release their Elite Units of the West paid DLC in the interim. Anything else? Well, CA originally blamed the delay in Empire's release on implementing the framework for full campaign multiplayer, something that's only recently taken the form of a one-versus-one beta release.

At this point, the developer has three options: to pretend nothing's wrong and carry on making Total War games, gradually grinding its series into the ground (c.f. Tony Hawk); to pretend Empire never happened and reboot the licence, this time with more of a mind to quality assurance (c.f. Final Fantasy VIII); or to not pretend anything, but take a good, hard look at what's broke, man up and fix it (c.f. the Halo 2 180).

Napoleon: Total War is option three. Befitting the terrifying Frenchman of its name, it's organised, slick and in control. The engine's not just prettier, but smoother. The tutorials flow nicely and leave you more confident and informed. And while there are missing assets in the preview code, I couldn't find a bug. Right now Napoleon plays like the game Empire should have been, and the manic polishing doesn't end at simply fixing Empire's problems.

'Napoleon: Total War' Screenshot 1

Napoleon's pontonniers, his bridge-builders, could put together 150m long bridges using spikes, anchors and wooden pontoons in under seven hours. No idea if this will feature in the game, but WOW! History!

Aside from a tutorial that inexplicably sees a young Napoleon constructing cannon foundries on his way to school, Napoleon: Total War boasts three campaigns. The first has you slipping into the shiny shoes of Napoleon on his first major posting, commanding the French Armée d'Italie in Northern Italy. Though none of your superiors is expecting anything of you, your objective is Napoleon's own: to conquer a 'road' of provinces that will allow the French to invade straight into the heart of hated Austria.

The second campaign, which pulls the scale of the map back a bit, follows Napoleon's quest to conquer Egypt in 1798. Then finally you have The Mastery of Europe campaign, where as Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte you get the chance to swing the massive resources of France around Europe like a ball and chain, or you can take the role of a smaller power trying to bring Napoleon down.

All this is in addition to 355 new Napoleonic-era units, new buildings and technologies, a selection of scenarios recreating the Emperor's most famous battles and an unspecified range of multiplayer modes, though judging by Creative Assembly's smiling silence it seems online campaigns won't be one of them. (Update: Wrong! Creative Assembly has been in touch to say that online campaigns will be included, with an announcement due soon.)

It's a nicer structure than Empire ever had. The Italian campaign informs you about land battles and region management without overwhelming you, the Egyptian campaign (presumably) introduces naval battles and blockades, and once you've mastered all of this you get the trade and complex politics of a full European theatre.

Progressing through each campaign in turn should put an end to that nagging feeling in Empire: Total War that what you're experiencing is less a game than a collection of features of which you can't grasp the subtleties.

Changes to the game itself are just as smart. Each turn now represents two weeks instead of the series' more traditional six months, which has a couple of nice repercussions. First, it brings the speed of technological advancement in line with previous Total War games, allowing you to get to grips with the era's warfare.

Second, it means scorching hot summers or frosty winters now drag on over many, many turns, which is important as Napoleon takes a keen interest in weather conditions. As well as the series' usual eye for the effects of hills, sand and snow, Napoleon models attrition. Armies crossing mountains or camping out in deserts or snow now steadily lose men, balanced by a second feature whereby armies will automatically receive reinforcements from home if stationed in a friendly province with a Supply Post.

Even more attention has been paid to the battles themselves. Generals now confer more of a morale bonus to troops close to them, and the range of this bonus is shown by a large circle around their regiment. This transforms your general into the busiest unit on the map, since you'll be sending him racing off to support big pushes or protect flanks which are about to crumble.

'Napoleon: Total War' Screenshot 2

The sand and heat of the Egyptian theatre should be a testing ground of the new attrition modelling. Shame the murderous winters of Russia are restricted to the Mastery of Europe campaign.

The sand and heat of the Egyptian theatre should be a testing ground of the new attrition modelling, although it's a shame that the murderous winters of Russia are restricted to the Mastery of Europe campaign.

As well as the top brass, smoke and mud are also receiving some love. The engine now causes clouds of gunsmoke or dirt kicked up by cavalry charges to hang around longer, turning them into genuine visibility-reducing factors.

There are plenty of cosmetic changes, too. Time's been spent creating tiny differences between each of your soldiers to reduce that unsettling toy-army effect that's cropped up as the series has become more detailed, and in what must be a slight deviation from reality muzzle flashes are now far more fiery and dramatic.

While naval battles weren't available to play in the preview code, Creative Assembly say they're getting some TLC too. For now, we're promised a single new feature of ship crews being able to temporarily forget that cannon business in order to go scrambling around repairing their vessel - patching up holes, bailing water and keeping the ship in the fight. A bit like what CA is doing to Empire, really.

I'm being hugely cynical, but the positive side to all this is that Creative Assembly seems to be in the final stages of tweaking a game with enough new features to demand a purchase from Empire's fans, yet one that also addresses each of Empire's assorted problems. The last word will probably come down to the quality of Napoleon's full-scale Mastery of Europe campaign, but for the moment this is a really, really good sign. Strategy fans? Fix your bayonets. This time the game might tell you what they actually do.

Napoleon: Total War is due out for PC in February.

Picture of Quintin.

About Quintin Smith

Read more articles from Quintin by visiting the Quintin Smith archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (55) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Gazza_UK #1 2 years ago

    Hold on. There were problems with Empire? WHAT? Hopefully by the time I update to a decent computer it will be patched.

    *Is massive Total War fan.

  • coastal #2 2 years ago

    I always feel that my control over my forces in these games always slip into blind manic rushes and most men win. I'd rather have more AI on my side and voice control where i could bark orders in a pseudo French accent into my headset.

  • Moonprince #3 2 years ago

    Is the font size fixed for HD TV's??

  • MrMud #4 2 years ago

    All of this will not matter one iota if the battle AI is not improved significantly.

  • Trafford #5 2 years ago

    It's a day one purchase-as ever.

  • cianchristopher #6 2 years ago

    I'm sorry, but I don't care if Napoleon plays like the game Empire should have been, as I can't forgive a company that willingly released a broken game...

    A shit game I can forgive, as long as it works. But a broken game? No, I want my money back...

  • innokenti #7 2 years ago

    *sigh*

    I can affect no optimist for Total War releases any more. I am going to take the route that I should have taken with Empire (and M2TW... and Rome) which is to wait 3-4 months and see.

  • President_Weasel #8 2 years ago

    While I acknowledge it had flaws, I played many, many hours of Empire.

  • UberFrog #9 2 years ago

    Give us a working 8+ multiplayer mode for Empire, you greedy bastards

  • AaronTurner #10 2 years ago

    So are they addressing all the Empire problems with a patch when this comes out? Have they done it already? Last I tried the game was still a bog of shite.

  • trooperdx3117 #11 2 years ago

    I quite enjoy Empire total war, although it is of course overwhelming it has definitely been improved with patches especially patches 1.4-1.5

  • El_MUERkO #12 2 years ago

    after the disappointment with Empire i'll not be buying this at launch, i'll let the dust settle and see what others think

  • kangarootoo #13 2 years ago

    "I always feel that my control over my forces in these games always slip into blind manic rushes and most men win"

    Perhaps that is just the way war was back then ;)

  • hiddenranbir #14 2 years ago

    I'll wait for a Steam Sale. Too expensive.

    Play Empire the way it should be played...in Napoleon!
    Edited by 1 at 14/01/10 @ 17:18

  • neuroniky #15 2 years ago

    If Empire was so bad as this preview implies... why it got a 9/10 review with a text that read like a 10/10?
    Sometimes I just can't follow EG editorial line at all...

  • Zaiz #16 2 years ago

    Yeah. >.> I suppose "looking prettier" is better than defending AI that rushes out of their fortification to attack your vastly larger and more effective army in a nearly unit-by-unit manner. Oh, wait... Meh, I hope they remake Shogun: Total War, but not with the blatantly frequently repeated melee animations.

  • Lukey__b #17 2 years ago

    Pirate material.

  • sarcasmoidosis #18 2 years ago

    "If Empire was so bad as this preview implies... why it got a 9/10 review with a text that read like a 10/10? "

    Because EG has the (bad) habit of reviewing games based solely on their Single Player Campaign, which had problems for Empire, but not as many as the Multiplayer had. A friend of mine had 15 crashes/desynchronizations out of 20 session immediately after the game launched.

  • Metalfish #19 2 years ago

    AI fix or no sale. It could have the best units/balance/campaign/multiplayer etc, etc, etc, but if the AI are still as bafflingly broken as Empire's are right now I won't buy it. Hell, it's shocking how much they hyped it as the 'best yet' and it's bloody suicidal and willfully idiotic.

  • kingmong #20 2 years ago

    I gave up on these after medieval 2 because it takes so long to have a campaign game you basically have to give up on every other aspect of your life. I'd start a game, mess around a bit and get everything moving, BOOM it's 4am. also whenever i loaded up a save far into the game it generally took me a few hours just to remember wtf I was at.

    hmmm... when i see that written down it seems like brain capacity on my part may be the issue.

    I wish to change my statement to: I gave up on total war because of brain limitations

  • KayTannee #21 2 years ago

    Empire had its problems. But the majority of that has been patched. The only thing left thats still a pile of crap. Is the AI. The Campaign AI is considerably better then release, but it's still poor. They now do naval invasions, but poorly. They still build armies that make no sense unit wise, but alot less frequently. The battle AI, if it works does the job nicely, flanking etc. But the majority of the time, especially with fortifications, its just rubbish, attacking 1 unit at a time, or sending its units running back and forth pointlessly.

    My other gripe is the Naval auto-resolve. A large high end fleet, vs an enemy fleet of rubbish ships, if auto resolved, your likely to loose atleast a couple of ships. If fight on map, even if a terrible naval admiral, its almost impossible to loose a single ship against such odds. Yet in auto-resolve it happens far to much. Which generally means have to command a fleet of 1st rate ships + support ships, against a smaller force of those rubbish oar powered single cannon'd trade ships or similar. And it just becomes a process of going through the motions.

    If they haven't improved AI, then I won't be buying. And the lack of it being mentioned in previews, worries me. If they have, I'll definitely be buying.

    Although still have no regrets about buying Empire, was an epic game and had a lot of fun with it, just don't plan on buying another if realistically pretty much the same, will just stick to empire.

  • KayTannee #22 2 years ago

    Actually they best get the Battle Ai right, imagine playing against Napoleon and him just sending units at you 1 at a time, til they're all dead?... Be absolutely pointless playing.

  • Jockie #23 2 years ago

    Similarly to others I find it hard to work up much enthusiasm for Napoleon. Empire wasn't just broken as a game, but it felt somewhat simplistic compared to previous entries in the series in terms of the units on offer and the strategies you could formulate. Warfare that is basically about men stood in lines taking it in turns to shoot each other (bit of a simplification I know) just doesn't get my juices flowing. Would much rather see a game with Empire/Napoleons graphical fidelity, GUI iprovements and tech trees, but set in a pre-gunpowder era.

  • UncleLou #24 2 years ago

    Not that that would be an excuse, but Empire has by far been CA's most polished effort to date in my experience, and people who claim Shogun, Rome or the Medievals had better AI (and less bugs) either have a short-term memory and rose-tinted glasses, or live in a parallel universe. Not that I necessarily live in the right one, mind, just obviously a different one. :p

  • CordableTuna #25 2 years ago

    Last time I got excited and preordered Empire. After waiting for half a year to get a patch to fix the most glaring problems, I hear from the happy fellows at CA that they're bored of all that patching crap and will make a new game instead. The state Empire is in now leaves entire sections of the game useless. Siege battles for example.

    I don't want to get burned again.

  • hiddenranbir #26 2 years ago

    Sometimes I just can't follow EG editorial line at all...

    They don't have one. They're a well organised group of game bloggers.

  • CouldntResist #27 2 years ago

    I said it for M2TW, i said it for Empire and i'll say it for this:

    Please fix AI.

    This is the first total war that i'm not going to buy on release. Will wait and see...

  • mr_shoe_uk #28 2 years ago

    Just to add my voice to chorus of people not getting the Empire bashing.

    I never found the problems as severe as stated here, and "Not that anything's stopping you from playing the campaigns in your own madcap order (backwards!), but progressing through them patiently should put an end to that nagging feeling in Empire: Total War that what you're experiencing is less a game than a collection of features of which you can't grasp the subtleties." Sounds like someone who had been playing a bit too much Dawn of War 2 before getting back into Epic Total War?

    I'm looking forward to the new structured campaign but Empire's was still super-awesome.

  • Tkozy #29 2 years ago

    As has been said, it was the battle AI that really made Empire a mediocre game for me. I remember the enemy jumbling up its formation countless times right as they entered my line's range, just marching about while they were cut down.

    Also, the difficulty scaling needs to be fixed. Putting battles on "Hard" just reduces your morale and increases your enemy's morale. My elite Prussian line infantry would simply rout after a few seconds of 1:1 combat with some Austrian line, even though the enemy had used piss-poor tactics.

    I have high hopes for Napoleon...

  • hiddenranbir #30 2 years ago

    I think they're just trying to hard with the AI, bringing in PhDs and all that jazz to make an unnecessarily complex code for what ultimately comes to very few simple choices for the computer.

    King Arthur, for example, probably has had less resources thrown at it in terms of AI yet that managed to come off feeling more natural and 'obvious' in what it does. For example, they'll use high ground, they'll use the cover of trees to protect from bow attacks AND for stealth manoeuvres.

  • Zaiz #31 2 years ago

    @UncleLou

    >.> The AI has never been -stellar-, but at least it wasn't so likely to do absolutelyfuckingstupid things constantly. Rushing out of fortresses out of the breach you just made and straight into a barrage of canister shot, or worse, an army in a horse shoe around the breach, check. Reforming your formation endlessly, check. Spontaneous, gigantic melee charges into ridiculously strong positions without bayonets, check.

    Oh, and, rubber banding AI? Check. Ever competely raped an opponent in campaign, to only find that their groups of normal line infantry only broke in melee after being reduced to ten men? Or normal line infantry taking Prussian Superior Line infantry to town?

    This game's AI is vastly more stupid than the other Total War AI, and it cheats vastly more than it did otherwise. Oh, and Creative Assembly has thought it more expedient to throw DLC at us rather than fix problems or add features that they promised.

  • FWB #32 2 years ago

    Not played Empire, but perhaps the shit AI is deliberate. Napoleon didn't win because he was a genius. He won because he had half a brain and he's opposite numbers were thick as shit.

  • UncleLou #33 2 years ago

    This game's AI is vastly more stupid than the other Total War AI, and it cheats vastly more than it did otherwise

    Absolutely can't agree with that. I remember too many battles in Medieval 2 where the AI sits just in front of your gates, doing nothing. Or charges straight into your pikemen in Rome, etc.

    If anything, the AI in Empire shows more variety in what it does. Yeah, it often does stupid things, but it always did, and I am not even sure it is possible to develop an AI that doesn't. If the reaction in the forums is to be believed, the AI has become "vastly" worse in each and every game since Shogun. Maybe expectations of many people are just too high.

    As far as the campaign AI is concerned, the finally did away with the über-randomness of all the former games. It reacts a lot more believable than it ever did before on the campaign map. This might make the game easier, yes, but it's what people had been demanding since Shogun, really. At least I can now trust an ally to a degree, and don't need to be afraid of everybody attacking me as soon as the number-crunching in the background shows a short-term advantage.

    By far the biggest problem of Empire is the (lack of) naval invasions.

    Edited by 2 at 15/01/10 @ 07:21

  • drxym #34 2 years ago

    The Total War series has always been a curiosity. In theory it should be awesome but glacial loading times, glitches, retarded enemy AI and a frustrating control system mean every game has always fallen short of my reasonable expectations. Empire: Total War was so bug ridden and slow that I couldn't stand it any more. I don't have any faith that the series will fix these problems short of a major rewrite.

    On the subject of Napoleon, one of the most intriguing games around that period is one that very few have ever heard of. Turcan Research did a bunch of Napoleonic sims for the Amiga & PC where you basically commanded your troops via messenger and real English orders along the lines of "order Ney to advance 1 mile southwest of redoubt in 30 minutes" etc. Messengers would duly be dispatched and took realtime to relay orders, and could even be killed enroute. Commanders had their own personalities too so they'd act on initiative, be hesitant, obstinate etc. The presentation wasn't much to speak of but its a wonder that no game has tried to combine decent graphics & UI with a command & control system which reflects more accurately how battles were fought.

  • Kerome #35 2 years ago

    "A heroic patching that never came"? That's a bit short of the truth, seeing that ETW went from 1.0 to 1.5 over six months in a series of patches that overhauled much of the game. Granted the results weren't totally perfect on the BAI front, but A+ for effort tbh.
    Edited by 1 at 15/01/10 @ 10:15

  • Zephro #36 2 years ago

    Yeah I'm not feeling the CA bashing. Empire was probably rushed out by Sega and it did have bugs. But there wasn't anything so game breaking I didn't still play 50 hours of it and loved it.

    I do hope these additions will be retrospective to the main game. As Viking, Mongol, Barbarian invasions all did.

  • Talbot #37 2 years ago

    The biggest problem is the AI. It has always been rubbish and has always been a game breaker as far as I'm concerned. They can bring in as many new shiny features as they like but if the AI is still useless then stuff this. I'd be better off playing with my old collection of toy soldiers than playing a battle in Empire.

    Shogun Total War and to a lesser extent Medieval Total War provided enough of a challenge in the AI to make it enjoyable and at least somewhat tense.

    If in Napoleon I still find the enemy army moving from a cohesive unit into a barbaric like messy ball of w*nk that just gets chopped up by my neat lines, then I lose hope in CA.

  • Zephro #38 2 years ago

    It's odd but realistically Total War games probably have some of the advanced AI in any game. They're just dealing with an unfortunately far harder AI problem than any other game. They should have spent more time on that than graphics though.

    But I blame that on consumers for being a bunch of idiotic graphics whores.

  • Zaiz #39 2 years ago

    I wouldn't dare say more problems. The AI in some games has to deal with destructible environments and cover. That's way more than "fail to create a neat line" and then win a battle through freakishly accurate artillery catching your general with a cannonball in the first salvo. Repeatedly. Or on the other hand, the AI charging their general into a group of line infantry with bayonets. Since cavalry is nearly entirely useless in Empire, mostly due to issues with charging and unit sizes(It needs to be much larger) the general was killed with only minor casualties on my side. The enemy army proceeded to reform into a slightly different line point blank while my infantry made good use of Fire By Platoon.

    Also, @UncleLou
    Uh, I saw Wurttemburg take over the third of Europe that wasn't Prussian or Russian. And then the United Colonies killed that. The game isn't any more or less random, the AI is just hardcoded to actually listen to an alliance for at least a few turns.

  • Zephro #40 2 years ago

    Destructable environments and cover are very easy to calculate AI scripts for though.

    Strategy game AI generally has a far larger "problem space" which is what I meant rather than problems. As it's a multi-dimensional problem and is more akin to squad AI in something like crysis, but far larger.

    Have you seen AI in any other strategy game manage to do much else than follow scripts?

  • UncleLou #41 2 years ago

    "The game isn't any more or less random, the AI is just hardcoded to actually listen to an alliance for at least a few turns. "

    That's not true. There's a variety of factors that are obivously taken into account - like trade relations, religion, army strength, etc. You can reliable "cultivate" allies in Empire - something that never worked in earlier TW games. This is what has lead to the problem of the AI being a lot more passive than in the past, where it was just "oh, my army on border x is bigger than his army, ATTACK" - the irony being that the "hardcore" crowd who always complained about this now basically seems to want the old, randomly aggressive AI back.
    Edited by 2 at 15/01/10 @ 14:59

  • wonton #42 2 years ago

    "The biggest problem is the AI. It has always been rubbish and has always been a game breaker as far as I'm concerned..."

    This.

    At release CA was very good at hiding Empire's holes with a thick layer of gloss (hence the good reviews) but eventually people who played enough noticed that parts of the game were simply undeveloped, especially the ai.

    But then again better AI won't sell more copies of the game.

    "By far the biggest problem of Empire is the (lack of) naval invasions. "

    CA fixed this in one of the patches, they sometimes occur now.
    Edited by 1 at 15/01/10 @ 15:48

  • Zephro #43 2 years ago

    "But then again better AI won't sell more copies of the game. "

    That's the fault of consumers and partly reviewers though. Seriously we let the market decide, the market is mostly comprised of graphic whores..... it doesn't take a massive leap to realise AI will be underdeveloped compared to graphics and physics.

  • Hunam #44 2 years ago

    I would have snapped this up if it was a straight addon, but as a seperate game I'm not quite sure. I had a bunch of problems with Empire and it seems like they are being fixed for this but leaving base Empire as the lame older brother.

  • figgis #45 2 years ago

    They can fuck off if they think I'll waste my cash again after Empire.

    Sticks with Medieval 2 with Stainless Steel Mod.

  • Zephro #46 2 years ago

    Buh? Medieval 2 was far far buggier and just a sort of empty shell apart from the graphics.

    If you're going to go back I'd go back to Rome tbh.

  • Trafford #47 2 years ago

    The land battles in Empire have been my highlight of the Total war series so far.Unmissable.
    Napoleon can only make things better for me.

  • Discalceaterabbit #48 2 years ago

    To be honest, I feel all the CA bashing on Empire has become a bit of a cliche. I would be FAR more interested in knowing why it is that the entire gaming media gave a massive collective blowjob to one of the most broken pieces of software ever to be released, and now seem to act as if they knew about the problems all the time.

  • Zephro #49 2 years ago

    "broken pieces of software"

    Ahahahahaha you're kidding right? I've seen way worse. Let's see KOTOR2, Hidden and Dangerous 1, Medieval Total War 2 (imo) I'm sure if you give me 10 minutes I'd be able to pick more out.

    Yknow what they all had in common? Amazing reviews. It's not some conspiracy it's just the way video game journalism is and always has been.

  • TASTYRYAN #50 2 years ago

    Empire total war was a blast to play due to the awesome mods created by the community.
    Installed 5GB with mods only. Some examples-> Very aggressive AI, Imperial Splendour etc.

    So people living in the past visit twcenter some time ehh.

    Day one = buy

  • Jigglybean #51 2 years ago

    Med TW 2 had shocking AI and it took them months to fix it. The same thing happened with Empire. 3rd time lucky? There is no doubt that the series is awesome but since Sega dipped their fingers in, the quality of the final product has been shocking.

    I dont fancy spending £40 on the Imperial edition then having to wait 6-8 months for the AI to work.

    As for reviews - only a clown will believe reviews.

  • Averice #52 2 years ago

    Won't be buying it. Though I'm extremely glad of the Generals effective zone. That's the type of thing that needs to be added to the series.

    Personally I wish they would just get rid of the RTS component and keep the battles turn based as well, then I'd buy it. As is, since I don't enjoy them or play them, feels like I'm buying only half a game. Half of a ridiculously buggy game.

  • Averice #53 2 years ago

    "To be honest, I feel all the CA bashing on Empire has become a bit of a cliche. I would be FAR more interested in knowing why it is that the entire gaming media gave a massive collective blowjob to one of the most broken pieces of software ever to be released, and now seem to act as if they knew about the problems all the time."

    I'm pretty sure EG made a second article about just that. Basically everyone reviewed Empire off of a "pre release code" and assumed the bugs would be fixed because they were told that they would be fixed. Hype was added in to the reviews, very obvious if you read them, and you ended up with a bunch of high scores for one of the worst games I've ever played. I'm sure there's worse out there, but I stay away from it.

    After the Empire issue came to light, most review sites started throwing out the disclaimer byline "we'll see how the actual game fairs later". After a few months they stopped bothering with that line, and it'll probably happen again; another over hyped game where the game reviewers all apologize and watch what they say for awhile.

  • Ryuken #54 2 years ago

    "I'm pretty sure EG made a second article about just that. "

    Nope, they didn't. I think there's another reason why a lot of sites gave Empire a good score: it they didn't then the PC platform wouldn't have had a true "classic" in Spring 2009 since many reviewers already (wrongfully) dissed Dawn of War II a month earlier. It's got a lot to do with showing the platform you're mainly reviewing games on is still strong. And it's definitely not just for PC games that this happens.
    Edited by 1 at 16/01/10 @ 09:09

  • BurningOrigami #55 2 years ago

    It's funny, because I just searched the original review for the mention of its apparent flaws, deemed minor enough that it still deserved a 9/10, and I found very little. There was some grumbling about path-finding in regards sieges and so forth, but for the most part the praise was gushing.

    "The standard Total War bugbear has also been addressed, with the AI hugely improved on both battlefield and strategic levels. Suicidal generals are a thing of the past, and they even have the capacity to surprise me a bit, especially with the mass strike."
    - Eurogamer's Empire Total War review, written by Kieron Gillen.

    Now, well after the fact, you have conceded to the obvious truth that the game was buggy, nigh on broken in many aspects. Is it not your editorial and moral duty to report this in the first instance? You have a responsibility to your readers, people who might go out and spend £30 of their money based on your advice. Why not finish the review and suggest people give £10 to charity instead or perhaps suggest to people to hold off the game until it's working as it should. Boosting sales will only make the situation worse for developers, as publishers will have ever little more reason to invest properly in QA whilst it becomes apparent that actually, if the marketing is right and the reviewers are on board (whatever that might require), then QA has no effect on sales. I say this as a QA manager constantly battling for adequate resources in order to put out the best material I can. It's a nightmare and this attitude of 'roll it out regardless' is totally unfair on the fans, you'd do yourselves a favour by not promoting it.

    Incidentally, am I the only person who remembers a considerable amount of Empire Total War advertising on the site in the run up to release or is my cynicism now marauding back through my memories as well? ;)