Review

Total War: Warhammer Review

  • First Released Apr 28, 2016
    released
  • PC

More blood for the Blood God!

Screeching gears, rhythmic boot steps, and the soft crunch of fresh snow. These were the first notes of my invasion. I sought the Dwarfen capital of Karak Varn. The Dwarfs, hardy and resilient though they may be, were a thorn for my new allies, the green-skinned Orcs and goblins. I held my siege for weeks, and while my foes’ numbers dwindled, mine grew. After each clash, I wrenched the newly dead from the earth and added them to my fiendish, Vampire hordes. Siege engines ready, and carried yon by fresh Dwarfen zombies, I steeled my undead warriors for the final assault.

When the battle started, I surrounded my enemy's commander with Vargheists--monstrous, man-eating bats--and sent battering rams for the gates. But that wasn't enough, not nearly. Dwarfs are hardy. They rarely break ranks or flee in terror no matter how ferocious their opponent. I needed more. When the gates broke, I rushed in with ethereal cavalry, immune to normal weapons and equipped with scythes that bypassed even the sturdiest armor. In minutes, my ghastly corps had torn through Karak Varn's defenders. This was Warhammer, and this was Total War.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Total War: Warhammer - Video Review

The Total War series has, until now, balanced historical realism with strategic play. During campaigns (which you can play either alone or with others) you’ll refine your statecraft, research technology, and manage your economy to keep your armies well-supplied. All this takes place on a continent scaling political map detailing borders, important landmarks and troop detachments. Should two opposing forces meet, the game will pull in to show the skirmish. Here, you’ll micromanage movement and use battlefield tactics to out maneuver foes. Your decisions and political position throughout the game would have major effects on the sorts of troops and supplies you could field for any given battle. Warhammer, however, has always been about tactics, and for more than 30 years, it's been one of the most popular fantasy settings around, with a rich lore and vibrant tournament scene for its tabletop miniature game. Mixing the two raised a lot of questions about how Creative Assembly's attentiveness to historical detail would work with vampires, demons, and magic. But, the result is a sight to behold. Not only is it one of the most faithful adaptations of Warhammer's mythos, it is also far and away the best Total War has ever been.

That is, in no small part, due to the natural marriage of Warhammer as a setting and Total War's gameplay as a foundation. While troop movements and formations have always been an essential part of Total War, you were always playing with human beings as your pawns. That foundation in real-world history kept the series somewhat limited. Yes, it was a joy to see elite Celtic warriors square off against Caesar's legions, but there are only so many ways those fights can go.

Warhammer shakes that up in a big way. With the addition of irresponsibly large cannons, apparitions, gyrocopters, and powerful spells, the amount of time you need to spend learning what you and your foes can bring to bear on the battlefield is staggering. But it's worth it. Skirmishes are an artful dictation with two (or more) minds jockeying for control, prodding weak points, breaking lines, and exploiting new fronts of attack. These fights don't get old.

Total War: Warhammer is an interlocking network of smart decisions. Integrating the Warhammer universe with Total War's systems was the first of these.

Part of that comes from how distinct all of the main factions are. The Empire is a Roman-esque monolithic force. They're organized, effective generalists. Bretonnians, an Arthurian band of humans, use pegasi and holy lances to cleanse evil. The Greenskins pull from Warhammer's own brand of classic fantasy orcs and goblins. Silly, obnoxious, and blood-thirsty, they come with complex internal politics. If you're not waging enough war, measured by a stat called "fightiness," other factions will sprout and make with the killing that you haven't.

Vampire Counts are a genuine undead faction. They bolster their lines by draining life from others and reviving the dead from massive battles. They can swarm the field with countless warriors and can even raise more midway through a bout. In exchange, their units usually fall apart. They will never run in fear, though; instead, they crumble as their will to press on after death fades. Dwarfs are their opposite, with heavily armored and armed troops. They pull in staunch defenders that will hold a battle line long enough for their enemies to be ripped to shreds with machine guns and cannon fire.

Like its tabletop namesake, Total War: Warhammer balances these disparate forces well. Each faction has a bevy of gameplay options that mesh, but there is no one right way to play--leaning into their strengths and mixing it up with the occasional oddball tactic works here. That's supported with magic, which can turn the tide of all kinds of fights. From chasing down an opposing lord and sapping his life with a Vampiric curse to causing an enemy unit to chafe and itch, magic augments formations and movements and only ever broadens your scope of tactical choices.

Because most magic users are lords and heroes, this also means your leaders play a critical role in battle. They can often handle entire battalions on their own, and when you lose one, it's much more akin to losing a queen in chess than a beefed-up soldier. While protecting a lord was important in prior games, now it's vital, and maneuvers tend to reflect that. Because of their strength, it's advantageous to have them at or very near the front lines. So you're faced with a choice in how you protect the lord and maximize his potential without risking a loss.

That, in turn, influences your other choices. As the Vampires, do you want to take ethereal cavalry and press against enemy lines thereby leaving your often less-than-mobile lord undefended? Or, based on the spells you've taken to battle, will you charge in with your leader, summon a few squadrons of zombies to hold your foe, and sweep with your support units? Your choices are augmented and modified by everything else at play--such as the terrain, which you can use for surprise attacks--as well as the minutiae of your foe's plans. Everything matters, and every choice has an impact.

Click to view in gallery
Click to view in gallery

Campaigns throw even more variables into that mix. Like previous Total War games, you can take command of a country and balance your strategies (economic, cultural, etc.) and your tactics (individual battles). Here things go from beautifully intricate to elaborate master stroke.

Each of the four major factions (that is Empire, Vampires, Greenskins, and Dwarfs) have their own campaigns with major battles, quests, and goals. Unlike previous Total War games where you'd have a smattering of small distinctions to separate each group, these races are distinct. Vampires are reviled by the living (for good reason) and have a hard time with diplomacy. To survive and remain stable, they have to poison and corrupt the land. Dwarfs and Greenskins can travel underground, and have constructed settlements that only they can capture.

The Empire is all about forming tight diplomatic bonds and working together with the other nations of men. Collectively, each of these groups is preparing for the coming Chaos--an absolute evil corrupting force that marches from the north. The Warriors of Chaos have some of the most powerful and devastating units. They also spread their own corrupting force, which can, on its own, cause rebellion and terror in living and unliving empires alike.

Again, each of these pieces works together and helps texture the overarching narrative. At first, these races push their own petty agenda. But as the Game of Thrones-y threat grows in the north, you can try to band together with the others and hold off the impending invasion. At the same time, you'll have proximal, race-dependent goals for victory, which strain how you'll manage these larger threats. Vampires, for example, not only have to help stop the Chaotic onslaught, but also conquer the Empire and spread their vampirism. And holding off one monstrous, powerful foe while chipping away at your so-called allies is no easy task. As the campaign progresses, you'll have to manage multiple conflicts on many fronts, putting your skills to the test.

Taken together, the campaign is brilliant insofar as it forces your hand and pushes you to take bigger risks, which, in turn, taxes your abilities as a tactician. As with many similar games, armies require upkeep, but in Total War: Warhammer, many of these are expensive. It's often more advantageous to build up rather than out. You can fortify and hold, but after a while, you'll need to start pushing back. Doing that means pulling soldiers away from your main settlements, opening up holes in your defenses that other races will be quick to exploit. Managing that conflict becomes a core concern in the late game, and it's a stellar way to test your mastery of your race's key traits.

The campaign is brilliant ... it forces your hand and pushes you to take bigger risks, which, in turn, taxes your abilities as a tactician

Total War: Warhammer is an interlocking network of smart decisions. Integrating the Warhammer universe with Total War's systems was the first. Massive battles are more challenging because of the addition of magic and flying units, which can flank and break battle lines if you're not attentive. New brands of artillery and different types of units are engaging and keep you changing up your approach. Total War: Warhammer has also seen a massive upgrade to its AI. Where before you might see a AI opponent rush you when you had strong defensive position, now the CPU will employ advanced flanking maneuvers, or use cavalry to pull away key defenders.

Audio design too has picked up an interesting overhaul. The Total War series has always had excellent sound effects that help sell the scope of its battles--especially with a base heavy system and a camera zoomed down to the troop level. But here it’s even more noteworthy because of the fantasy elements at play. We know what a Roman gladius striking a rawhide shield sounds like. We can create that sound here in the real-world. But what about Dwarfen organ guns? What about the off-kilter shuffle of Orcish armor? There’s no proper equivalent, and that goes for the Vampire Count's monstrosities and the demons that form the ranks of the Warriors of Chaos. In every case, these combatants sound glorious.

Everything here hasn't just been improved, it's been damn near mastered. Total War has always been about balance--between strategy and tactics, realism and engaging play. Warhammer's characters, its history, and its creativity is a shot in the arm for a series. My complaints from a few years ago with Total War II's camera still hold. When pulling the camera out to get a better view, you can’t go very far before the game switches to a full overhead view. That be somewhat troublesome and limit how much of any give battle you can see at once, but it’s a minor frustration.

When you're in the middle of a siege and you're coordinating an assault with a friend, Total War: Warhammer approaches perfection. You’ll be tested on all fronts and asked to manage complex battles with broad, nuanced outcomes. Every system and piece feeds into others, and your choices make all the difference. It's a triumph of real-time strategy design, and the best the Total War series has ever been.

Back To Top

The Good

  • The Warhammer Universe meshes naturally with Total War's gameplay
  • New races and creatures provide radically different strategic and tactical options
  • Massive AI improvements
  • Stellar audio design

The Bad

  • Occasionally uncooperative camera

About the Author

Daniel Startkey's been a fan of the Total War series for years. He spent several days going through a full campaign with the Vampire counts and running through a few hours with the other races. He also ran a couple dozen skirmishes including several online multiplayer matches with the developers. He received a copy of the game from Sega for the purposes of this review.
487 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
jhonMalcovich

7090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

In my opinion, it should be a 10. I mean the fact that Total War franchise is absolutely awesome, and Warhammer is the best, according to critics, Total War to date, even better than Shogun 2, then why is it not a 10 lol. What does it take for a pc exclusive to get a 10 around here? Apparently super addictive gameplay, epic fantasy setting, best visuals, almost infinite replayability is not enough lol

But comes out Uncharted with its 20-min cinematics, 40% of the gameplay is just climbing, 15-hour long boredom and boom 10. Citizen Kane of gaming.

I hate gamespot.

3 • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

20014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@jhonMalcovich: "In my opinion, it should be a 10."

But you haven't played it.

8 • 
Avatar image for cornbredx
cornbredx

1879

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@jhonMalcovich: "I hate gamespot."

And yet you keep coming back. Who's the real villain in this situation?

4 • 
Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
jhonMalcovich

7090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cornbredx: Eehhh...You ? : P

4 • 
Avatar image for cornbredx
cornbredx

1879

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@jhonMalcovich: touche' haha

2 • 
Avatar image for lordshifu
lordshifu

319

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@cornbredx: if you say touche then please put aahaha instead of haha cause then you will sound like storm spirit from dota 2

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hughthehand88
HughTheHand88

444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

@jhonMalcovich: They score lots of games based on legacy. Look at MGSV, another 8 masquerading as a 10.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hXcShock
hXcShock

170

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By hXcShock

@hughthehand88: Except that it's entirely subjective to opinion so the fact that you even take number scores seriously is laughable.

2 • 
Avatar image for dinantes
dinantes

173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Oooh, good to see this won't suck. Thanks!

And wow, the 'conspiracy trolls' have emerged from beneath their dank, mountain-dew-spanning bridge in numbers today! Hi fellas! Videogames are fun and we don't need to be so mad about everything, okay?

4 • 
Avatar image for the_master_race
the_master_race

5226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

So much Salt , .....

2 • 
Avatar image for lordshifu
lordshifu

319

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@the_master_race: are you saying to take the reviews with a grain of salt eh ?!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for galeta
galeta

85

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

graphics look very outdated. screenshots are look good but in gameplay videos its really bad.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for steele_johnson
Steele_Johnson

56

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@galeta: I agree. Looks like any other Empire game with it's buggy, sluggish gameplay only with a different skin. I'll pass.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jamesblue
Jamesblue

16

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@galeta: nah

Upvote • 
Avatar image for moonlightshadow
MoonlightShadow

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MoonlightShadow

Same guy who gave Rome 2 and 8/10 probably best to wait for user reviews to come out, Sega might be paying for good reviews again.

4 • 
Avatar image for hckytwnx
Hckytwnx

34

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@moonlightshadow: The Metacritic average was 76, so it's not like he was far from consensus. With that said, I think there was a huge disconnect between long term fans of the series and what they put out in Rome 2. I thought it was a good game myself, but then again, I only played the first Rome.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

20014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By mogan  Moderator

@hckytwnx: I think the disconnect was between the people who followed the pre-release marketing and hype, and what the game actually ended up being. I specifically didn't watch any of CA's promotional videos for Rome II, and I really enjoyed that game, even though I've been playing Total War since Medieval 1.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for moonlightshadow
MoonlightShadow

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MoonlightShadow

@hckytwnx:

The user review average for Rome 2 is at 4/10 the "professional critics" were obviously paid off by Sega with sites like this one giving it a 8/10 and up when game was not even in a state ready for beta testing when released.

4 • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

20014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@moonlightshadow: You really think Sega paid off ALL 49 positive reviews on metacritic? And NONE of the other 22 mixed or negative reviews decided they'd generate more traffic for their site by reporting the bribe?

And while the metacritic user score is a is a 4.2 average of 3,712 ratings (from folks who don't have to own the game to rate it) the Steam user score is "Mostly Positive" with 77% of the 27,932 ratings (from folks who DO have to own the game to rate it) giving Rome 2 a thumbs up.

So let's not go jumping to any conclusions we can't possibly back up about reviewers getting paid.

3 • 
Avatar image for moonlightshadow
MoonlightShadow

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MoonlightShadow

@Mogan:

I doubt it's as simple as Sega handing them a check and telling them to write a good review that would be illegal to do without disclosure it's more about personal relationships in the industry and the companies that own the sites worrying about potential loss of advertising revenue or hurting working relationships they have with publishers that provide their sources for news there is plenty of room for conflicts of interest that is why user reviews are more reliable.

There is sort of an understanding or what you might call an "unwritten rule" on these major gaming sites that AAA games from major publishers get generally positive reviews by default whatever issues the game may have.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

20014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By mogan  Moderator

@moonlightshadow: It was "obviously paid off" before, now it's a relationship? So what happened with Colonial Marines? Or Alien: Isolation? Or Sonic Boom? Even Attila only got a 7 here. Where is the evidence that this relationship between review site and publisher influences scores positively? And why is that a more likely explanation for this score, or Rome II's, than the review just had a better experience with the game than you did?

And why are user reviews more reliable? I mean, The Steam user reviews for Rome II are at 77% positive. That sounds about like I'd expect from a game getting an 8 here and having a 76 metacritic.

2 • 
Avatar image for moonlightshadow
MoonlightShadow

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Mogan:

There are a couple exceptions as there is for any rule but that does not change the fact the other 95% of AAA games from major publishers rarely get below an 8 almost never below a 7 despite user scores often being considerably lower. Also Steam regularly deletes negative reviews I thought everyone knew that.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

20014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By mogan  Moderator

@moonlightshadow: Take a look a Sega's review history here on Gamespot (you can just click the Sega link up in the game info here). In the last few years, more often than not, the Gamespot score is within a 10 or 15% of the user score, if not closer. In the case of four Sega games I mentioned earlier, that Gamespot didn't rate highly, the user score is actually higher.

And if Steam had deleted a bunch of Rome II reviews because they were negative (and not just because they violated the ToS), why would they have stopped at only 77% positive? Why not delete a few more and get this game they didn't make or publish up to an 80% so the rating says "Very Positive"? Why leave over 6,000 negative reviews up? And why not delete reviews for Attila, where the user score is only "mixed?" Or did the relationship between Sega and Valve sour between games?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for moonlightshadow
MoonlightShadow

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MoonlightShadow

@Mogan:

For obvious reasons they are not going to delete every single negative review but your argument has degenerated into nitpicking so guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

20014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By mogan  Moderator

@moonlightshadow: Bye then. Let me know if you feel like addressing more than just part of my posts, or find any actual evidence to support anything you claimed up there.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for moonlightshadow
MoonlightShadow

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MoonlightShadow

@Mogan:

If you want evidence you can just read through forums on steam or reddit where thousands of people claim to have had their negative review unjustly deleted I'm sure you know how to use Google.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

20014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@moonlightshadow: Pawning the burden of proof off on someone else is a logical fallacy. It's also what people who know they can't back up their arguments say.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for egger7577
egger7577

721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@moonlightshadow: or maybe they learned from their mistakes with Rome 2 and actually released a better product.

4 • 
Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By xantufrog  Moderator

@egger7577: apparently every good review on this site is paid for. And every bad one was because it wasn't paid for. Unless of course the commenter likes/dislikes the game... in which case they ditch the narrative

6 • 
Avatar image for 69
69

112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By 69

@xantufrog: Well to be fair, its incidents like the one that happened AT GameSpot, that lead people to believe that the reviewers/site might be at least partially beholden to (or straight up in the pocket of) some publisher. Since it literally happened right here, lets not get indignant about whether or not it still happens. Having a Review in Progress for a game like Homefront doesn't make GS look any more credible. Its also the only site I use (not just gaming wise) where I can't block the embedded Ads within the video's... There's some shady shit being done here imo.

2 • 
Avatar image for RogerioFM
RogerioFM

10543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Well, it's waaaay less expensive than buying army models.

10 • 
Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

xantufrog  Moderator

@RogerioFM: lol true that

Upvote • 
Avatar image for feleas
feleas

962

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@RogerioFM: hahaha so true...... damn shame I already have had my army for years before this game came out. *tear*

2 • 
Avatar image for RogerioFM
RogerioFM

10543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@feleas: Yeah, now unfortunately I don't see the point, I'll admit I'm still butthurt over the whole End Times and Age of Sigmar stuff. Maybe they'll bring the old fluff back since every single game is being based on the older fantasy setting.

I guess if you don't care about fluff nothing matters anyway, but it did make me rage lol.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for feleas
feleas

962

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By feleas

@RogerioFM: I still refuse to acknowledge End Times and Age of Failmar's existence.

I mean sure, Nagash came back. Awesome days. The rest though? Nah never happened lol

3 • 
Avatar image for _distemper
_distemper

84

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Does anyone here remember Rome 2's review from GS? Here it is: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/total-war-rome-ii-review/1900-6414013/

GS gave it a 8/10 for "texture pop in" and "some instability." For some reason, this reeks of a total understatement and a hugely inflated score(at launch). Does anyone remember how Rome 2 was basically unplayable for the majority of people who bought it? Unless your rig was the exact same one as the one the game was designed on, it basically did not run. Texture pop in was the least of your problems. Only after the release of "Emperor Edition" did Rome 2 become worthy of the 8/10 score.

I hate to say this because I love Total War games, but I highly recommend people either wait for feedback from other gamers or buy it via Steam(the only store with a return policy for PC games afaik), especially if your PC is a bit older.

4 • 
Avatar image for c0mmanderKeen
c0mmanderKeen

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@_distemper: I remember, and I think that even after all the fixes the rome 2 campaign was a sluggish, bloated mess. But that is a matter of taste I suppose. Very skeptical about this one, yet a bit more hopeful than before :)

3 • 
Avatar image for jwsoul
jwsoul

5476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

@_distemper: I didn't have said issues on launch. I had no idea they were that bad. I do feel you are exaggerating a little. Not only that the game was decent and such wariness of an oft completely abandoned genre like RTS is more damaging to future RTS games. I get it your trust was dented but the reactions from rabid haters is getting a bit much.

It's getting good reviews no excellent. I think with Rome 2 they mis judged the minimum and recommended specs at the time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for _distemper
_distemper

84

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@jwsoul: They were pretty bad. In fact, CA actually wrote a length apology regarding it. Not sure how I came off as rabid or even furious, since I only recommended that people(specifically people with older PCs) not pre-order, or buy off/preorder from steam since there's a refund policy.

Not to mention how suspicious CA made themselves look with Chaos as day-1 DLC(due to the backlash, it was changed) - a lot of people basically thought they were using it as a means to bait people into preordering it because they knew there would be problems at launch.

2 • 
Avatar image for hckytwnx
Hckytwnx

34

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Hckytwnx

@_distemper: His Rome 2 score was inline with other reviews (Metacritic had it at 76). I played it at launch and it worked fine--I loved it, actually. Having said that though, your advice about buying it on Steam isn't a bad idea.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for _distemper
_distemper

84

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@hckytwnx: As I noted, I meant this especially for people with older PCs. Just to point something out since I don't want to come across as believing that review sites get "bribed" etc... Keep in mind that reviewers typically have very good computers with the latest hardware. People see 8/10, 9/10 and they buy the game, but then they can't even get it to run properly.

Even overlooking the technical issues, however, I can't really agree with you about the overall quality of the game. CA took out a lot of features that made Rome 1 and Medieval great(family tree, complex and random traits system, instead of being player selected) and added features that didn't work at all(the political/civil war system).

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rolento25
Rolento25

2835

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@_distemper: Not every game out there has to run on a potatoe.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for _distemper
_distemper

84

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@rolento25: Rome 2 was poorly optimized at release, especially for multi-core processors. If you look into the situation people with very good and expensive computers were having problems with it. Regardless, I am not bashing the developers or the game. My message is simple:

1) CA has had a poor track record
2) Rome 2 was kinda disastrous and got a fairly high review(8/10)
3) Thus people should not assume TW: Warhammer will run without a hitch because of its 9/10 review
4) People should take precautions, such as not preordering or preordering/buying from Steam, since you can get a refund.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for the-games-masta
the-games-masta

630

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I'll be playing this game and doom for a LONG LONG time after uncharted that's for sure

2 • 
Avatar image for feleas
feleas

962

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@the-games-masta: Already doing what you just said. RESPECT KNUCKLES!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Stesilaus
Stesilaus

4999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

My interest in the Total War games waned when I discovered that the AI opponents weren't playing by the rules on the strategic map. (Unlike human players, AI players don't have to pay for the upkeep of military units, a discrepancy that knocks the strategic game totally off-balance, IMHO.)

It's good to read that the AI opponents' tactical AI has been improved for this game, but I'd also like to know how well the AI plays in the turn-based game. For that matter, I'd like to know whether this game actually has a turn-based component. The review doesn't say!

2 • 
Avatar image for jwsoul
jwsoul

5476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Oh yes!

2 • 
Avatar image for SkytheWiz1
SkytheWiz1

2618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Thoroughly looking forward to the game, not so excited about the inevitable DLC practices coming with it.

2 • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

20014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@SkytheWiz1: Ehh, the Total War games have always been real big games out of the gate, so I'm not worried about getting my money's worth of content isn't something I'm worried about here.

Upvote •