Napoleon Total War - PC

[HEXUS]

SnootyJim gives us his verdict on the latest entry in the strategically in-depth Total War series.

Read more.

[phoenix198]

Given your final words I was a little surprised at a score of 8.2/10

Think I'll go with the words and save myself some money!

[jim]

Given your final words I was a little surprised at a score of 8.2/10

Think I'll go with the words and save myself some money!

I know... I've had a few games like that recently where my opinion isn't necessarily in tandem with the calibre (and hence rating) of the game.

Thing is, at the heart of it, it's a very good game. And I've always thought that if you're going to score a game, it should be based purely on its merits. In other words, I think it's unreasonable to say "Modern Warfare 2 is a great game, but they took away dedicated servers so I'm giving it a 3." Or "Assassin's Creed II's good fun, but the DRM sucks. So it's getting a 2."

I don't mind if it's something that will negatively affect everybody who's playing the game, like "Modern Warfare 2 is a great game, but the online mode is virtually unplayable as a result of the terrible pings, so it's getting a 6". Or "AC2's good fun, but the DRM kept cutting in and preventing me from continuing the game when I lost my internet connection. Virtually unplayable at times, so I've got to give it a 5."

So with N:TW I found it a bit hollow, but not because of any specific deficiency - there's very little wrong with it technically speaking. My gripe was more about the way they've conducted themselves with regard to Empire and Napoleon. There was always going to be overlapping between the two, and I think they've made a real hash of it. To me, it seems unfair to suggest that that the game itself sucks as a consequence of that. In other words, if I'd never played Empire, that's the rating I would've given it.

Hope that sort of makes sense

[Jimbo75]

I agree with your sentiments so much so that I didn't bother with Napoleon. After waiting almost a year until Empire was halfway playable, CA have a real nerve to expect us to shell out £30 again.

I don't care how good the game is, I wont be treated like a fool by any company and they won't be getting any more of my business.

[jim]

I agree with your sentiments so much so that I didn't bother with Napoleon. After waiting almost a year until Empire was halfway playable, CA have a real nerve to expect us to shell out £30 again.

I don't care how good the game is, I wont be treated like a fool by any company and they won't be getting any more of my business.

Agreed. As good a game as it is, I had no intention of buying it for precisely that reason - was given it as a gift.

[McPhee]

I stopped playing Napoleon about 2 weeks after it was released. It's a great game and the best Total War yet, but I got bored due to how similar it is to Empire.

[AGTDenton]

Those not willing to shed £30, its only £12.99 @ Play.com (at time of writing)
http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/11554889/Napoleon-Total-War/Product.html?_$ja=tsid:11518%7Ccc:%7Cprd:11554889%7Ccat:Strategy

I've never played any of the Total War series, would this be a good start regardless of map size?

[jim]

Yeah - if you're starting out, this is the one to pick.

The map might not be as big, but if you haven't played Empire then you won't miss it - Empire used a far bigger map than other games in the series anyway. The improved AI/diplomacy is well worth having.

[AGTDenton]

Yeah - if you're starting out, this is the one to pick.

The map might not be as big, but if you haven't played Empire then you won't miss it - Empire used a far bigger map than other games in the series anyway. The improved AI/diplomacy is well worth having.

Thankfully I waited til now to order as I got the Imperial edition for slightly cheaper £12.95 @ Zavvi.com
http://www.zavvi.com/games/platforms...paign=gp_games