Posted September 30, 2009
It's interesting to see a previous reviewer saying that if you have Empire:TW, you needn't trouble yourself with IG. I agree totally. Well said, that man.
But, while Imperial Glory looks, feels and plays like a Total War game, it's a subtly different beast. It was released just after Rome: Total War, so hardly anyone played it. And that's a shame, because the game has a ton of neat features.
First off: the campaign map is simply gorgeous. It might sound like a minor point, but it conjours up a rich atmosphere: think of generals sitting in leather chairs, poring over campaign maps in a dusty study. Since you see this screen a lot, this matters. And it feels just right.
The gameplay has some nice innovations, too. The strategic game has a reasonable research tree and some wonderful diplomatic options, while the RTS phase introduced naval battles years before Creative Assembly got it right.
So far, so Empire. Where the game differs is that it's much easier. As a merely average gamer, I found that the initial tactical map decisions were agonisingly tense, and that the whole campaign was perched on a knife edge. This was a Good Thing. The tension lasted until for about two-thirds of the game, when things became a bit of a mopping-up exercise. There are also restrictions on the number of troops that can be stacked in a territory, RTS battles that are slightly-too-easy, and naval battles that are hard as nails. These things are Not So Good.
Put simply, the AI just doesn't have the ruthless edge that the TW games exhibit; your bad decisions are rarely punished, and the game is much less hardcore as a result. So, if Empire is Total War, IG is probably only about 96% War.
It's a great game, nontheless. If you don't have Empire, or you just fancy a historical wargame which is beautiful, accessible and playable, I'd urge you to give it a go.
But, while Imperial Glory looks, feels and plays like a Total War game, it's a subtly different beast. It was released just after Rome: Total War, so hardly anyone played it. And that's a shame, because the game has a ton of neat features.
First off: the campaign map is simply gorgeous. It might sound like a minor point, but it conjours up a rich atmosphere: think of generals sitting in leather chairs, poring over campaign maps in a dusty study. Since you see this screen a lot, this matters. And it feels just right.
The gameplay has some nice innovations, too. The strategic game has a reasonable research tree and some wonderful diplomatic options, while the RTS phase introduced naval battles years before Creative Assembly got it right.
So far, so Empire. Where the game differs is that it's much easier. As a merely average gamer, I found that the initial tactical map decisions were agonisingly tense, and that the whole campaign was perched on a knife edge. This was a Good Thing. The tension lasted until for about two-thirds of the game, when things became a bit of a mopping-up exercise. There are also restrictions on the number of troops that can be stacked in a territory, RTS battles that are slightly-too-easy, and naval battles that are hard as nails. These things are Not So Good.
Put simply, the AI just doesn't have the ruthless edge that the TW games exhibit; your bad decisions are rarely punished, and the game is much less hardcore as a result. So, if Empire is Total War, IG is probably only about 96% War.
It's a great game, nontheless. If you don't have Empire, or you just fancy a historical wargame which is beautiful, accessible and playable, I'd urge you to give it a go.
