Computer and Video Games Boos American Conquest Expansion

[Naked_Lunch]

<strong>[ Game -> Review ]</strong>

<p><a title="ddd" target="_self" href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/">Computer and Video Games</a> brings down the hammer on <a title="ddd" target="_self" href="http://www.gsc-game.com/">American Conquest: Divided Nation</a> with this four (!!!) paragraph <a title="ddd" target="_self" href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/reviews/reviews_story.php?id=134853">review</a>, giving it a final verdict of 55/100.</p><blockquote><p> Now let's face it - the American civil war was
not the most interesting of conflicts for a game. In fact, we've seen
drunken scuffles outside The Pig Fancier's Arms of a Friday night that
would make a more compelling backdrops for an RTS game. Nevertheless,
GSC Game World has decided to drag us by the knees through a standalone
expansion for its 19th century war game American Conquest. </p></blockquote><p>Are they serious? The American Civil War had some pretty bitchin' <a title="yeah, cool here!" target="_self" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_American_Civil_War">battles</a>, and you've got the whole "Brother pitted against brother in an epic struggle of nationality versus morality" thing going on, hell, I can't see how it's <em>not</em> a good setting for a strategy game.</p><p>The review is astounding in how it gives absolutely no info about the game at all, or even reviewing the basics of it. It's probably the worst review I've read...well, ever. </p><blockquote><p>While American Conquest: Divided Nation is sure
to have civil war buffs drooling over its adherence to historical
accuracy, from a strategic gameplay point of view, it's not exactly
going to give the more established and, let's be honest, more
technologically advanced RTS games like Rome: Total War or Cossacks II
a run for their money. </p></blockquote><p>Though you won't bother to tell us what exactly is <em>WRONG</em> with the gameplay beyond "he game quickly degenerates into a mindless click-fest around fields, searching for foreigners to bayonet.".</p><p>Christ almighty. </p>

 

[LlamaGod]

What the fuck, the Civil War is one of the best settings for a game. These people are fucking retarded, the Civil War kicked serious ass.

And it's not like Rome: Total War has a shitload of moments where you take careful considerations of everything, hell just get a shitload of heavy cavelry and charge them head first into shit and they kill amlost everything (in that particular TW, that is)

 

[Jason]

So cover TC2M already. Here's one of the developers describing the differences between Bull Run and the new game:

"Other than the Graphics which speaks for their self, and not to mention the terrain, which is now modeled with a lot more accuracy.
The greatest change would have to be the addition of the improved artillery.
The improved artillery will prove the words of “D.H.Hill” correctly, "this was not war, it was murder”.
You will now find yourself scanning the terrain for hills or elevated positions, in which to place your artillery.
Charging enemy batteries, in a frontal assault is completely devastating; canister fire places gaps in Regiments, as presented in the movies.
Never Again, will you pat yourself on the back, stand erect, and proclaim yourself a master of the field of battle. You have pushed the enemy back,
they are in full retreat, and you order a general advance of all available forces. It is only then, that you realize that their artillery now has a clear field of fire.
And the Victory that you thought was yours is shattered into a thousand pieces."

Fancy nerd talk gets me all hot.

 

[LlamaGod]

A review with MadMinute may be occuring sooOOOooooon

extra os for added spooky foreshadowing

 

[kingcomrade]

Now let's face it - the American civil war was not the most interesting of conflicts for a game. In fact, we've seen drunken scuffles outside The Pig Fancier's Arms of a Friday night that would make a more compelling backdrops for an RTS game.

Same goes for World War 2. God damn that was a boring conflict. I mean, seriously, a super villain of minority-gassing fanatics takes over all of Europe, and a bunch of filthy fanatical Asians blow up the American fleet? CLICHÉ!! HACKNEYED!! CONTRIVED!! I mean, there weren't even any interesting battles, just a bunch of smelly Russians getting mowed down. Drunken Russo-mower Simulation, jee that sounds like fun! Even the weapons were stupid, tanks were basically dump trucks with guns, how lame is that. Why do they make so many games based around a bunch of conscripts with obsolete weapons shooting at each other from big piles of rubble?

Now, Falklands War 2: The Reckoning, now that's a good game...

 

[Jason]

The best RTS would be about the time in grade school when that foreign kid that doesn't speak English threw a rock at me and it skinned up my leg real bad. I proceeded to beat him up with my little girl fists and then later my friend pissed on him in the line in front of class. That would make for an epic RTS battle.

 

[kingcomrade]

It was probably a culture thing. It's customary to stone queers in quite a few foreign places.

 

[Jason]

I wasn't a queer. I was just confused about what bathroom I was supposed to use. It's completely natural.

 

[Astromarine]

Especially because you wore a skirt just like the one on the door picture

 

[Jason]

Finally, at least someone understands me.