CA has done a lot to fix Pharaoh and right some wrongs. I made a video that actually breaks it all down so check it out! ruclips.net/video/TULDPazW6zc/видео.html
I’ll be happy with a medieval 2 remaster like was done with Rome. Feral did a great job with Rome remastered and they’ve done a good job bringing Medieval 2 to mobile devices. Hopefully we’ll see a remaster next year. One can hope.
well it seems like part of this games issues come from it's limited scope as you mentioned. by this I mean that it seems to only cover a small area of land and this is a Historical title so there's going to be only a few Factions to play as and their units are going to be similar in that they're all more or less in the same Area which means they're equipping their Armies with the same things because they have the same Resources to draw from. the cavalry looks period correct from what I know which isn't a whole lot. Shogun 2 had issues like this too because Japan is a tiny landmass but you had the Portuguese Traders and the Americans come in and introduce technology that had a huge impact on the Country and on the Game. pretty good review of the game though. so you've played Age of Empires which is a really good RTS but have you tried Rise of Nations ? it's really good too. there's an expansion called Rise of Legends that was a lot of fun. or you might be into something more Futuristic like Total Annihilation or Grey Goo. I just thought Id list some games to put on your Radar if you want more RTS.
My first campaign was pretty challenging and it gave me a sort of Atilla end of the world vibe which was spot on for the time period. But the waves of quickly Sea People became nothing more than a nuisance and by my second campaign the game was too easy, repetitive, and limited. TLDR: needs some love and expansions and it could be a fun game
@@Lukaskovac-ex4nf Because people would have known what they were getting, we know the Saga titles are small spin-off type games, but the fully fledged ones are held to a much higher standard.
@@Kat957do You know older Total War? Like Shogun 2, Napoleon, Attila? These are smaller scale. Smaller than Pharaoh. These do not have "Saga" title , and it is fine. You just need to read description, double think, before You buy something, and You will be fine, Saga title is irrelevant ;)
Their mistakes are from trying to make a game, that appeals to a new audience, while ignoring their main audience. while simultaneously charging full price for what should have just been a DLC. I'm really frustrated, because I want a new title to play, and literally no one asked for a Pharaoh game. If they want to keep going down this path then fine. I can put another 500 hours in Rome two, till they get the message. I have not bought Troy or pharaoh, and don't intend to.
I have not bought any title since Atilla... (my first being Shogun, the first one nearly 25 years ago...) but still play Rome 2 with the necessary DEI mod... agree. I will gladly pay full price for a Medieval 3 or Empire 2 after I see some reviews (don`t want a repeat of Rome 2 either) when CA gets their head out of where it don`t shine. Until then... Ultimate General American Revolution will be it... game still in early Access but... it has less bugs than Rome 2 had at launch with a solid campaign to start (American side)...
I was always a massive total war fan but I was never able to get into Troy and as soon as Pharaoh was announced I thought it'd be a copy and paste.. I'm waiting on the next Empire game, in 2023 the scale and naval battles should be better and bigger than ever, what's going on?.. In the meantime Paradox titles like Stellaris are holding my attention much better and worth pushing through the learning curve. Age of Empires 4 is also excellent and provides such a challenge (and has just deservedly earned plaudits for releasing a comparatively cheap DLC that has basically doubled the content in the game).
Excellent summary! Being a TW veteran myself I spent several thousends of hours with the truly history based titles like Medival, Rome and Empire (by the way: the Imperial Destroyer Mod for ETW is better than the actual ETW2 up to my mind). The phantasy stuff is not my choice and Pharao beeing an off spring of Troy is simply historical crap.
For me the best are medieval 2, shogun 2 and rome 2 when it comes to historical, havent played attila or three kingdoms but have heard they are good. They could just make a graphical/remake for shogun2 or medieval 2 and it would be a success.
Recently started up Atilla, giving it some time it's probably my favourite total war ever made. 1. AI is the best it's ever been both in battle and on the campaign, it makes a lot of smart choices and is a challenge. 2. Starting with an empire thats falling apart is fun, your goal is to survive....you wont hold everything and thats fun to fight for every item 3. Throughout basically every turn you are challenged, theres not really any point it gets easy 4. pre medevil time period is cool once you learn more
I may have came off too ranty, the game isn't BAD per se, it's a decent game, 6/10. It's just disappointing and overpriced. It's not what I wanted out of the next historical Total War game. I appreciate the feedback!
great summary, I won't be buying this one, based mainly on CA's horrible treatment of dissatisfied customers. I came to the total war franchise with Shogun 2, which at first was WAY too much to take it and stayed on the shelf for a like half a year before I bothered to learn how it worked and DAMN am I pleased I did. I've played every title since with Atilla being WAY up there for me for the time period and the map, but Three Kingdoms WITHOUT QUESTION is my favorite, the characters, the artwork, the feel, the story, the guanxi and ancillary systems, the ability to create vassals out of characters, the dynamic changes in faction identity through progression! it was AMAZING! I have about 3000 hours and counting in 3k. I also think it was cool how they added historical and romance mode for anyone who wanted the traditional total war experience, though I've never played records cause Romance is THE BEST. I wish they would include the ancillary system in every game, so you can deck your characters out and see those changes like 3k and the guanxi system too, but Pharaoh really seems like a half-baked attempt to make one of those surface level 'yearly release' type games where very little changes from the previous title, they do the bare minimum they can to mention some changes at release and charge as much as they possibly can for it. What's next CA microtransactions for 'quality of life' buffs? pffft - get better.
I invest everything in food like fishing, fields and only wat pits and more but have like 12 cities all connected to the nile but and I have 4 armies with all 9 men but still I have to buy food everytime. It's unbelievable also upgrading to level 3-4 does give me 20% more food but still not enough. I set everything on agriculture but I have no idea why it's not working like rome total war for example.? i stop playing the game it's frustrated like hell if you have all resources but get bankrupt because you don't have enough food
I was hoping for Medieval 3 or Empire 2 as well, but after watching Soulgamesinc videos, I don't think that's ever happening. Every historical game since Rome 2 has been a Mod packaged as a game. In the event we are getting a game set in the Middle ages, it's like going to be the base game having just Britain, with France Spain and Holy Roman Empire being paid Dlcs. Creatively bankrupt assembly remastering Empire and Med 2 is the best outcome that is likely to happen. Then they can mod Warhammer into a Lord of the Rings game and call that a new game.
Conceptually, Pharaoh is amazing. Production wise. Its low standard. I agree that older titles are outdated, and i respect the devs for taking risks with campaign mechanics and progression. But the production. The execution. The feel of the game has stagnated, especially with historical titles, which is why this hybrid of fantasy historicty is happening. Call me whatever you want, but playing older titles i personally feel like a family member. Pharaoh, im trying to beat a game. I could go on a verbal tyraid about all the nuances of this game, as well as older titles. The issues is that the progression of CA seems so disjointed. The improvements and alterations they make for each title is a non sequitor every time. How does the shogun 2 team use the warscape engine better than ppl in the future? Its a layup. And the battle simulation has only gotten worse. The game is a ferrari with a lawn mower for an engine. Looks amazing, till you rev it up and realize, damn. I was better off with a cheap hooptie. I mean they literally did NOTHING to improve combat. And then praised to high heaven new features that ive yet to see one player implement. Stat modifiers dictate unit performance. Not strategy. Not a new combat system utilizing unit animations to determine attack and defense. Spacing. Pathfinding. Unit targeting from kill animations, a massive step back from 2006. Genuinely, was there really anything impressive about this game that isnt already a feature in an older title? Why is everything disjointed and stripped down, only to be added into a jumbled mess of game like this? Honestly the attention for Pharaoh should have gone to m2. And then built up from that system, adding their fresh outlook on a decent polished game. A crossing guard would be a better director, at least they have a sense of direction.
Honestly, i think if CA remastered and sold Medieval 2 and Kingdoms for the price they sold Pharaoh, its a better deal. Seriously. I would rather pay $70 for a nearly 20 year old game than yhis. Ain't it sad?
The best mechanics you mention are from Rome I, which I still dabble in -- long Campaign where from turn 1 put all the Seleucids on boats and flee to Spain, dodging Egyptian ships along the way and then fighting outnmanned battles against the Iberians just to get 1-2 cities. And every 10-20 turns, Egypt randomly shows up with a full stack b/c the game seemingly hard-coded them to have a burning hatred of Seleucia regardless of where you are on the map.
@@TroySturdy I work for Union Pacific railroad as a contractor stationed out of Portland. I drive the railroad crews to and from their trains, and oftentimes it has me drive up to seattle (Argo Yard) . It's a beautiful place, but I absolutely hate driving there. It is an absolute nightmare to drive there.
All they needed to do was make Mediaeval III with the entire Old World open. I'm talking Nippon all the way to Reconquista Spain, include Song and Ming China, The Mongol Empire, Umayyad to Timur Empire Middle East! Include it all! That is all they needed to do.... But diversity or something I don't know.
You said it at the beginning, the Bronze Age is boring when it comes to warfare. It was the dawn... there's nothing there. For a game that's called total WAR, pick an age where war is interesting.
what made the bronze age interesting was the civilizations that existed and how they collapsed. make it more story driven and less sandbox and that would have made it a interesting game
He-tight.... now use their pronunciation and combine them... though u pronounced Hitite correct... several times... so think your made up pronunciation issue loses a lot of credibility and detracts from your otherwise fine review.... now us hardcore total war gamers (my first one was Shogun /not the second)...we will wait for a proper Medieval 3 or Empire 2 on a BRAND new engine. Until then... Ultimate general American Revolution will eat CA's lunch up...
Also, while i appreciate your actually somewhat fair review here, saying we need to hold CA accountable for calling it a full-fledged historical title, and that this is ridiculous, is as stupid as any of the other biased BS. There are as many regions as there were in Rome 2 when it was released. Almost as many factions. WAY more mechanics. What do you want, a game twice as big as Rome 2 at launch AND a slew of new mechanics/RPG-like elements?
Rome 2 is 10 years old, this shouldn't even be a comparison. Yes, I will be holding CA to a higher standard. And it's because I love Total War and I want to see it do great things!
The number of settlements is not the issue and ive only seen this metric used by people trying to avoid the reality that many of us would have been 10x happier with the same amount of settlements if that included the rest of anatolia and at least assyria. Echoing arguments like "settlement count" is just projection that an argument is made against the game which isnt. Im a huge fan of the bronze age and love ancient Egypt.. The fact that they managed to make a game with this setting that I wasnt able to immediately love and hype is a testament to just how poorly CA's decision making was in the development of Pharaoh.
I think you guys just play too much?? As someone who doesn’t get to play that much, it’s pretty fun, and aren’t they working on a big game while putting out small games? Wait a couple months for a sale and pay 20 bucks for it. The total war community selfhate is weird idk.
It's a decent game and can definitely be enjoyed. But It's not about having self hate just having higher expectations because they've released higher quality in the past. A lot of older total war games are much better than Pharaoh and that's disappointing.
@@TroySturdy are they? Based on what? Seems like they improve and change. You guys just like the giant map, Roman times ,which is liked more as a historical time period than just ancient history, that is half myth, which they incorporate. I think it’s preference to the time period and units. The games great lmfao y’all just be complaining plus it’s a saga game it’s not a full total war game anyways???
@@christiancrane5072 It wasn’t initially released as a Saga or spin off title, Pharaoh was released and priced as a full fledged historical title then they retroactively dropped the price. I’ve released a whole video on this and actually rescored Pharaoh with that in mind, giving it an 8. It’s all about how much quality content they are giving you for your $$, and initially Pharaoh was lacking.
@@TroySturdy totally understandable, but don’t you think all that “hate” whatever you wanna call it, by making videos “calling out” total war, instead of calling it what it is, the best ancient war strategy games that ever been made. Fr. For all the faults. It’s the best one. It’s the one we got. And we should rally around the game and devs, instead the community just b hatin,
@@christiancrane5072 I’m only hard on Pharaoh and CA, because I love Total War so much. I’ve said this multiple times. I’ve given a lot of love to CA. Check out my Total War Tier list or my video talking about CA and Pharaoh’s update, both are very positive videos. Just because as a whole Total War is great, we can’t let that stop us from calling out when they makes mistakes.
I Tottally disagree...i love this game..most fun i had since Rome Total war. I noticed that the biggest haters on the game don't own a copy and haven't even tried it. Try the frigging game... its worth it.
I respectfully disagree with you in saying that C.A. hasn't given their fans what they want. Back when Rome2 and Attila dropped-so many people were BEGGING CA to develop some Bronze Age themed strategy games. CA did this TWICE with Troy and Pharoah. Also it makes sense for the Canaan factions to be a little less developed than the Egyptians. Historically, they were under-developed "savages" compared to Egpyt. CA stuck to historical accuracy in this game. I really feel bad for CA, as they have the most fickle, volatile fanbase ever. We scream at them to give us something, they give us that-and then we bitch at them for giving it to us.
@@robertcilliers3093 I was talking about way back when Rome 2 dropped. I know-a minute agi. Of course everyone was pissed at the shitty launch, but as the game got patched, it seemed EVERYBODY started bugging CA to make a Bronze Age game. Honestly, I'm surprised it took them so long to make Troy and Pharoah-they should have done so right after Attila! Because while folks were clamoring for the Bronze Age, NO ONE was asking for a Warhammer game. But the Warhammer games seem to have been received really well, so I guess the games were like a pleasant surprise.
@wilb6657 I certainly wanted a pre cursor to rome 1. All I had was age of empires. With those 2 games my young mind desired a union between both as I found rome 1 vanilla to be mechanically bare, and age of empires needed a boost in simulating large scale warfare.
I'm enitrely convinced that 80% of the haters have not touched Pharoah at all. I got it for £25, I would easily pay at least 40 for it. It doesn't warrant a £50/$60 price tag, that was silly on their behalf. But people critiquing the game are pretty wrong. The campaign and diplomacy is the best in any historical title ever by far. The game is actually difficult for once as well. I don't see how they dumbed down anything as well. You literally have to use diplomacy and trading properly now or your doomed. In normal mode, no matter who I play I'm always having to make sure I'm not starving or that I have enough gold. I find it so funny that Troy is now suddenly getting praise now as well. I can only imagine with CA's next fuck up I'll see a 1000 morons praising Pharoah. CA is moronic, but the Total war fanbase is so bitter and delusional they need to find a new hobby for a little bit.
I'd pay $40 for Pharaoh too. For that amount, this game is probably an 8 for me. But at the end of the day it costs $60 and touted as a full fledged historical title, and that's ridiculous. We need to hold CA accountable. I will admit the diplomacy is some of the best it's ever been, but the dumbing down comes in the battles, getting rid of family systems and the general traits, and just lack of variety between factions. They are getting rid of systems that historical players don't want them too rather than just adding on, but a lot of what they have added is actually quite good. End of the day, CA should listen to their fanbase. That's whose playing and buying their games.
why not both? medieval 2 was basically both. there was the full historical title then the kingdoms expasion were the segas that focused on crusaders and sanishish conquest of mesoamerica@@rehm402
Even for a lower price Pharaoh is an okay game at best. Just because you enjoy the game doesnt make it good, I have enjoyed games I have no problem admitting are flat out bad. Pharaoh for you may be good, but objectively speaking its not good at any price point. Its a very mediocre game.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
CA has done a lot to fix Pharaoh and right some wrongs. I made a video that actually breaks it all down so check it out!
ruclips.net/video/TULDPazW6zc/видео.html
all people want is Medieval 3
Oh yes. I'd take an Empire 2 as well.
Empire 2 for sure!! Just not with current mechanics!!
I dont trust CA to be able to the titels justice, so i dont want them anywear near medival or empire before they get their shit together.
Shogun 3 you mean
I’ll be happy with a medieval 2 remaster like was done with Rome.
Feral did a great job with Rome remastered and they’ve done a good job bringing Medieval 2 to mobile devices. Hopefully we’ll see a remaster next year. One can hope.
Shogun 2 is by far the apex predator
well it seems like part of this games issues come from it's limited scope as you mentioned.
by this I mean that it seems to only cover a small area of land and this is a Historical title so there's going to be only a few Factions to play as and their units are going to be similar in that they're all more or less in the same Area which means they're equipping their Armies with the same things because they have the same Resources to draw from. the cavalry looks period correct from what I know which isn't a whole lot.
Shogun 2 had issues like this too because Japan is a tiny landmass but you had the Portuguese Traders and the Americans come in and introduce technology that had a huge impact on the Country and on the Game.
pretty good review of the game though.
so you've played Age of Empires which is a really good RTS but have you tried Rise of Nations ? it's really good too. there's an expansion called Rise of Legends that was a lot of fun.
or you might be into something more Futuristic like Total Annihilation or Grey Goo.
I just thought Id list some games to put on your Radar if you want more RTS.
My first campaign was pretty challenging and it gave me a sort of Atilla end of the world vibe which was spot on for the time period. But the waves of quickly Sea People became nothing more than a nuisance and by my second campaign the game was too easy, repetitive, and limited.
TLDR: needs some love and expansions and it could be a fun game
Am I the only one that likes Pharaoh?
At least the graphics are beautiful
It‘s really really a good game (with mod‘s) 💪🏾
I think CA made a huge mistake with the price and didn’t call it a saga title…
I agree! Not a bad game at it's core, just very overpriced and not worthy of a full fledge title.
It should have been a Troy DLC, and open up at least the entire Eastern Mediterranean@@TroySturdy
Why do You think, that calling it saga title is important?
It is completely irrelevant.
@@Lukaskovac-ex4nf Because people would have known what they were getting, we know the Saga titles are small spin-off type games, but the fully fledged ones are held to a much higher standard.
@@Kat957do You know older Total War?
Like Shogun 2, Napoleon, Attila? These are smaller scale. Smaller than Pharaoh.
These do not have "Saga" title , and it is fine.
You just need to read description, double think, before You buy something, and You will be fine, Saga title is irrelevant ;)
Their mistakes are from trying to make a game, that appeals to a new audience, while ignoring their main audience. while simultaneously charging full price for what should have just been a DLC. I'm really frustrated, because I want a new title to play, and literally no one asked for a Pharaoh game. If they want to keep going down this path then fine. I can put another 500 hours in Rome two, till they get the message. I have not bought Troy or pharaoh, and don't intend to.
I have not bought any title since Atilla... (my first being Shogun, the first one nearly 25 years ago...) but still play Rome 2 with the necessary DEI mod... agree. I will gladly pay full price for a Medieval 3 or Empire 2 after I see some reviews (don`t want a repeat of Rome 2 either) when CA gets their head out of where it don`t shine. Until then... Ultimate General American Revolution will be it... game still in early Access but... it has less bugs than Rome 2 had at launch with a solid campaign to start (American side)...
Darthmod and his Ultimate General/Admiral games is the man. He modded CA games up to Shogun 2 and those are great.@@mikes9017
I always wanted a Bronze Age Total War. Just i didnt thought it was going to be this way back then.
there will be more factions...called dlc
I was always a massive total war fan but I was never able to get into Troy and as soon as Pharaoh was announced I thought it'd be a copy and paste.. I'm waiting on the next Empire game, in 2023 the scale and naval battles should be better and bigger than ever, what's going on?..
In the meantime Paradox titles like Stellaris are holding my attention much better and worth pushing through the learning curve.
Age of Empires 4 is also excellent and provides such a challenge (and has just deservedly earned plaudits for releasing a comparatively cheap DLC that has basically doubled the content in the game).
All I want is medieval 3 and empire 3
Excellent summary! Being a TW veteran myself I spent several thousends of hours with the truly history based titles like Medival, Rome and Empire (by the way: the Imperial Destroyer Mod for ETW is better than the actual ETW2 up to my mind). The phantasy stuff is not my choice and Pharao beeing an off spring of Troy is simply historical crap.
Thank you! I’ll def have to check out Imperial Destroyer, because Empire is one of my fav time periods but not my favorite base game…
@@TroySturdy Playing on hard/hard with a single province nation is really compelling. Too, there a lot of submods improving it
For me the best are medieval 2, shogun 2 and rome 2 when it comes to historical, havent played attila or three kingdoms but have heard they are good. They could just make a graphical/remake for shogun2 or medieval 2 and it would be a success.
Recently started up Atilla, giving it some time it's probably my favourite total war ever made.
1. AI is the best it's ever been both in battle and on the campaign, it makes a lot of smart choices and is a challenge.
2. Starting with an empire thats falling apart is fun, your goal is to survive....you wont hold everything and thats fun to fight for every item
3. Throughout basically every turn you are challenged, theres not really any point it gets easy
4. pre medevil time period is cool once you learn more
As the other guy said, people want Medieval 3, that is Pharaoh is critized so much. Pharaoh is good for what it is.
Man I wanted a Bronze Age Total War so bad, but then we get Pharoah. It sucks that my favorite time period was messed up so horribly
Did you play it? It's great. Obsessive history nerd here, total war fan from the beginning. Give it a real chance before dismissing it.
@@brendanfrost9775what's so great about this shit?
Bootlicking CA ???
Real question is...to what degree can it be MODDED ? Can it be SALVAGED ? Family Tree, Agents and additional Court Mechanics are absolute must.
Not a fan of your scoring system. Seems like it is more like a 4/10 based on what you said.
I may have came off too ranty, the game isn't BAD per se, it's a decent game, 6/10. It's just disappointing and overpriced. It's not what I wanted out of the next historical Total War game.
I appreciate the feedback!
agreed
great summary, I won't be buying this one, based mainly on CA's horrible treatment of dissatisfied customers. I came to the total war franchise with Shogun 2, which at first was WAY too much to take it and stayed on the shelf for a like half a year before I bothered to learn how it worked and DAMN am I pleased I did. I've played every title since with Atilla being WAY up there for me for the time period and the map, but Three Kingdoms WITHOUT QUESTION is my favorite, the characters, the artwork, the feel, the story, the guanxi and ancillary systems, the ability to create vassals out of characters, the dynamic changes in faction identity through progression! it was AMAZING! I have about 3000 hours and counting in 3k. I also think it was cool how they added historical and romance mode for anyone who wanted the traditional total war experience, though I've never played records cause Romance is THE BEST.
I wish they would include the ancillary system in every game, so you can deck your characters out and see those changes like 3k and the guanxi system too, but Pharaoh really seems like a half-baked attempt to make one of those surface level 'yearly release' type games where very little changes from the previous title, they do the bare minimum they can to mention some changes at release and charge as much as they possibly can for it. What's next CA microtransactions for 'quality of life' buffs? pffft - get better.
I invest everything in food like fishing, fields and only wat pits and more but have like 12 cities all connected to the nile but and I have 4 armies with all 9 men but still I have to buy food everytime. It's unbelievable also upgrading to level 3-4 does give me 20% more food but still not enough. I set everything on agriculture but I have no idea why it's not working like rome total war for example.? i stop playing the game it's frustrated like hell if you have all resources but get bankrupt because you don't have enough food
Wow, it's almost like you need a huge empire to sustain big armies. It is frustrating not being able to snowball with only 1 army and 4 settlements 😢
1:55 There is a mod for empire that makes it WW1 so maybe that’s why he said WW2.
It wouldn't have been such a disappointment if they'd included the asyrians and the greeks the map is tiny
Don't get any ideas but you've got beautiful eyes.
Thank you
I didn't want this and was negative about it but ---- surprise surprise -- its actually damn good!
there is no siege or cavalry in that age
I was hoping for Medieval 3 or Empire 2 as well, but after watching Soulgamesinc videos, I don't think that's ever happening.
Every historical game since Rome 2 has been a Mod packaged as a game.
In the event we are getting a game set in the Middle ages, it's like going to be the base game having just Britain, with France Spain and Holy Roman Empire being paid Dlcs.
Creatively bankrupt assembly remastering Empire and Med 2 is the best outcome that is likely to happen.
Then they can mod Warhammer into a Lord of the Rings game and call that a new game.
Conceptually, Pharaoh is amazing. Production wise. Its low standard. I agree that older titles are outdated, and i respect the devs for taking risks with campaign mechanics and progression. But the production. The execution. The feel of the game has stagnated, especially with historical titles, which is why this hybrid of fantasy historicty is happening. Call me whatever you want, but playing older titles i personally feel like a family member. Pharaoh, im trying to beat a game.
I could go on a verbal tyraid about all the nuances of this game, as well as older titles. The issues is that the progression of CA seems so disjointed. The improvements and alterations they make for each title is a non sequitor every time. How does the shogun 2 team use the warscape engine better than ppl in the future? Its a layup. And the battle simulation has only gotten worse. The game is a ferrari with a lawn mower for an engine. Looks amazing, till you rev it up and realize, damn. I was better off with a cheap hooptie. I mean they literally did NOTHING to improve combat. And then praised to high heaven new features that ive yet to see one player implement. Stat modifiers dictate unit performance. Not strategy. Not a new combat system utilizing unit animations to determine attack and defense. Spacing. Pathfinding. Unit targeting from kill animations, a massive step back from 2006. Genuinely, was there really anything impressive about this game that isnt already a feature in an older title? Why is everything disjointed and stripped down, only to be added into a jumbled mess of game like this?
Honestly the attention for Pharaoh should have gone to m2. And then built up from that system, adding their fresh outlook on a decent polished game. A crossing guard would be a better director, at least they have a sense of direction.
i will go back to TW TK then, thanks for the heads up buddy!
The answer is a big NO. Pharaoh AKA Troy DLC is not worth it.
What is ur specs mine is ryzen5 5600 rtx3070
Honestly, i think if CA remastered and sold Medieval 2 and Kingdoms for the price they sold Pharaoh, its a better deal. Seriously. I would rather pay $70 for a nearly 20 year old game than yhis. Ain't it sad?
Yea, it's sad that you won't give a tremendously good game a chance because you can't unbunch your panties.
The bronze age is very interesting. There's a lot going on. The Y-chromosome bottleneck, for starters.
The best mechanics you mention are from Rome I, which I still dabble in -- long Campaign where from turn 1 put all the Seleucids on boats and flee to Spain, dodging Egyptian ships along the way and then fighting outnmanned battles against the Iberians just to get 1-2 cities. And every 10-20 turns, Egypt randomly shows up with a full stack b/c the game seemingly hard-coded them to have a burning hatred of Seleucia regardless of where you are on the map.
We need Shogun 3
Aren't the battles in Pharoah better than Troy?
not really care about pharao, troy, thrones of britania, the chinaese one - got all this way better covered in rtw + me2tw mods
Nope returned it on Steam. Total War is DEAD. Go HAWKS!
Hell ya go hawks!!
I like your video.... But the SeaChickens????? Really, bro?
@@willshepherd4544 Seattle born and raised, gotta represent
@@TroySturdy I work for Union Pacific railroad as a contractor stationed out of Portland. I drive the railroad crews to and from their trains, and oftentimes it has me drive up to seattle (Argo Yard) . It's a beautiful place, but I absolutely hate driving there. It is an absolute nightmare to drive there.
@@willshepherd4544 yeah with the traffic, topography, and drivers the driving around Seattle is horrendous lol.
Thanks to pharaoh, we can which youtubers is a CA shill
All they needed to do was make Mediaeval III with the entire Old World open. I'm talking Nippon all the way to Reconquista Spain, include Song and Ming China, The Mongol Empire, Umayyad to Timur Empire Middle East! Include it all! That is all they needed to do.... But diversity or something I don't know.
Probably be pretty sweet if they added in all the mythology.
Pop off king!
its pronounced like hey-ty, the country is hat-ty FYI lol
Even the announcement trailer was bad.
Showcase of Beetles wrestling? Who cares about insects?
You said it at the beginning, the Bronze Age is boring when it comes to warfare. It was the dawn... there's nothing there. For a game that's called total WAR, pick an age where war is interesting.
what made the bronze age interesting was the civilizations that existed and how they collapsed. make it more story driven and less sandbox and that would have made it a interesting game
He-tight.... now use their pronunciation and combine them... though u pronounced Hitite correct... several times... so think your made up pronunciation issue loses a lot of credibility and detracts from your otherwise fine review.... now us hardcore total war gamers (my first one was Shogun /not the second)...we will wait for a proper Medieval 3 or Empire 2 on a BRAND new engine. Until then... Ultimate general American Revolution will eat CA's lunch up...
If you don't like how you say something in a video, say it right and then edit out the bad take.
I find it too simple!
Terrible cinematic
Also, while i appreciate your actually somewhat fair review here, saying we need to hold CA accountable for calling it a full-fledged historical title, and that this is ridiculous, is as stupid as any of the other biased BS.
There are as many regions as there were in Rome 2 when it was released. Almost as many factions. WAY more mechanics.
What do you want, a game twice as big as Rome 2 at launch AND a slew of new mechanics/RPG-like elements?
Rome 2 is 10 years old, this shouldn't even be a comparison. Yes, I will be holding CA to a higher standard. And it's because I love Total War and I want to see it do great things!
The number of settlements is not the issue and ive only seen this metric used by people trying to avoid the reality that many of us would have been 10x happier with the same amount of settlements if that included the rest of anatolia and at least assyria. Echoing arguments like "settlement count" is just projection that an argument is made against the game which isnt. Im a huge fan of the bronze age and love ancient Egypt.. The fact that they managed to make a game with this setting that I wasnt able to immediately love and hype is a testament to just how poorly CA's decision making was in the development of Pharaoh.
I think you guys just play too much?? As someone who doesn’t get to play that much, it’s pretty fun, and aren’t they working on a big game while putting out small games? Wait a couple months for a sale and pay 20 bucks for it. The total war community selfhate is weird idk.
It's a decent game and can definitely be enjoyed. But It's not about having self hate just having higher expectations because they've released higher quality in the past. A lot of older total war games are much better than Pharaoh and that's disappointing.
@@TroySturdy are they? Based on what? Seems like they improve and change. You guys just like the giant map, Roman times ,which is liked more as a historical time period than just ancient history, that is half myth, which they incorporate. I think it’s preference to the time period and units. The games great lmfao y’all just be complaining plus it’s a saga game it’s not a full total war game anyways???
@@christiancrane5072 It wasn’t initially released as a Saga or spin off title, Pharaoh was released and priced as a full fledged historical title then they retroactively dropped the price. I’ve released a whole video on this and actually rescored Pharaoh with that in mind, giving it an 8.
It’s all about how much quality content they are giving you for your $$, and initially Pharaoh was lacking.
@@TroySturdy totally understandable, but don’t you think all that “hate” whatever you wanna call it, by making videos “calling out” total war, instead of calling it what it is, the best ancient war strategy games that ever been made. Fr. For all the faults. It’s the best one. It’s the one we got. And we should rally around the game and devs, instead the community just b hatin,
@@christiancrane5072 I’m only hard on Pharaoh and CA, because I love Total War so much. I’ve said this multiple times. I’ve given a lot of love to CA. Check out my Total War Tier list or my video talking about CA and Pharaoh’s update, both are very positive videos. Just because as a whole Total War is great, we can’t let that stop us from calling out when they makes mistakes.
what? its a 3/10 for all the reasons you just said. for a total war full game this is shit.
I Tottally disagree...i love this game..most fun i had since Rome Total war. I noticed that the biggest haters on the game don't own a copy and haven't even tried it. Try the frigging game... its worth it.
I respectfully disagree with you in saying that C.A. hasn't given their fans what they want. Back when Rome2 and Attila dropped-so many people were BEGGING CA to develop some Bronze Age themed strategy games. CA did this TWICE with Troy and Pharoah. Also it makes sense for the Canaan factions to be a little less developed than the Egyptians. Historically, they were under-developed "savages" compared to Egpyt. CA stuck to historical accuracy in this game. I really feel bad for CA, as they have the most fickle, volatile fanbase ever. We scream at them to give us something, they give us that-and then we bitch at them for giving it to us.
Don't recall anyone asking for bronze age game. Read the comments, and you will see clear as day what people want. It's simple really.
@@robertcilliers3093 I was talking about way back when Rome 2 dropped. I know-a minute agi. Of course everyone was pissed at the shitty launch, but as the game got patched, it seemed EVERYBODY started bugging CA to make a Bronze Age game. Honestly, I'm surprised it took them so long to make Troy and Pharoah-they should have done so right after Attila! Because while folks were clamoring for the Bronze Age, NO ONE was asking for a Warhammer game. But the Warhammer games seem to have been received really well, so I guess the games were like a pleasant surprise.
@wilb6657 I certainly wanted a pre cursor to rome 1. All I had was age of empires. With those 2 games my young mind desired a union between both as I found rome 1 vanilla to be mechanically bare, and age of empires needed a boost in simulating large scale warfare.
I'm enitrely convinced that 80% of the haters have not touched Pharoah at all. I got it for £25, I would easily pay at least 40 for it. It doesn't warrant a £50/$60 price tag, that was silly on their behalf. But people critiquing the game are pretty wrong. The campaign and diplomacy is the best in any historical title ever by far. The game is actually difficult for once as well. I don't see how they dumbed down anything as well. You literally have to use diplomacy and trading properly now or your doomed. In normal mode, no matter who I play I'm always having to make sure I'm not starving or that I have enough gold.
I find it so funny that Troy is now suddenly getting praise now as well. I can only imagine with CA's next fuck up I'll see a 1000 morons praising Pharoah. CA is moronic, but the Total war fanbase is so bitter and delusional they need to find a new hobby for a little bit.
I'd pay $40 for Pharaoh too. For that amount, this game is probably an 8 for me. But at the end of the day it costs $60 and touted as a full fledged historical title, and that's ridiculous. We need to hold CA accountable.
I will admit the diplomacy is some of the best it's ever been, but the dumbing down comes in the battles, getting rid of family systems and the general traits, and just lack of variety between factions. They are getting rid of systems that historical players don't want them too rather than just adding on, but a lot of what they have added is actually quite good. End of the day, CA should listen to their fanbase. That's whose playing and buying their games.
why not both? medieval 2 was basically both. there was the full historical title then the kingdoms expasion were the segas that focused on crusaders and sanishish conquest of mesoamerica@@rehm402
Even for a lower price Pharaoh is an okay game at best. Just because you enjoy the game doesnt make it good, I have enjoyed games I have no problem admitting are flat out bad. Pharaoh for you may be good, but objectively speaking its not good at any price point. Its a very mediocre game.
Reminds of call of duty fans
Top boring game! :)