Posted by JouselDelka (967 posts) 11 months, 16 days ago

Poll: Medieval 2: Total War or Majesty 2? (21 votes)

Medieval 2: Total War 57%
Majesty 2 38%
"Both of them suck" 5%

So um, I've been mind-raped by strategy games in the past and they still scare and confuse me, but I've been in the mood for a game where I sit back and let digital minions do my bidding, instead of all the fucking shooting, sneaking and checkpoint re-loading I've gotten sick of from most games.

So I looked into my Steam library and I have those two strategy games, as well as Civilization 5. I won't play Civ 5 because last time I tried to play it, I spent 15 minutes reading walls of text about economy and taking turns on hexagon grids until I threw up blood and committed suicide.

Anyway, I have no idea what those 2 games are about, and watching a gameplay video of a strategy game sounds like watching grass grow. So I'm counting on your choice, GB community.
Pick one and why please, and maybe explain to me what it's about and what I'll be doing with my wasted time in the game. Thanks!

Fuck games, especially on PC, everything is breaking down and crashing, checkpoints in every game now and they're full of bullshit stories and boring gameplay, Battlefield 3 is full of lone-wolfing cunts, mods aren't working for RPGs, strategy games are hard as fuck, I wanna kill somebody.

#1 Posted by JouselDelka (967 posts) -

Don't mind the rant, just ranting, I'm still interested in your choice and why, so I can pick one to install.

#2 Posted by Veektarius (4748 posts) -

Majesty 2 is not a great game. This is particularly true if you have played Majesty 1, which it seems you haven't. I actually have a review of it, but since you don't want to read, that seems like the wrong place to send you. I think I gave it 3 stars. Medieval 2 is one of my favorite games of all time.

All that said, if you think that Total War will be any easier for you to understand than Civ 5, you are sadly mistaken. Go with Majesty 2.

#3 Posted by ThunderSlash (1648 posts) -

Every time I play a Civ game I always feel like I am playing it incorrectly. I find myself listening to the game's suggestions on what to do 90% of the time, thus it feels like I'm not doing anything besides following directions. I love strategy games too, but Civ keeps TELLING ME WHAT TO DO GOSH SHUT UP CIV I AM AN ADULT!

If you have access to the latest XCOM game, play that for your strategy game fix (it's fairly simple and yet is pretty deep). Unless you are talking about grand strategy games exclusively, then I'm afraid that Civ is by far the most noob friendly one in the genre. The Total War games aren't too hard to learn if you keep it up though.

#4 Edited by AlexW00d (6231 posts) -

Civ is probably the easiest strategy series out there, so I dunno what to say.

#5 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11589 posts) -

These two games couldn't be more different, but if Civ V gave you problems then I question how well you'll fare with a Total War game. Majesty 2 is a pretty simple RTS, but it's also not as good as the first Majesty. Pick your poison.

#6 Posted by JouselDelka (967 posts) -

@alexw00d said:

Civ is probably the easiest strategy series out there, so I dunno what to say.

You can call me stupid, it ain't wrong if it's true! That game was a text based nightmare from what I remember.

#7 Posted by Ben_H (3336 posts) -

Every time I play a Civ game I always feel like I am playing it incorrectly. I find myself listening to the game's suggestions on what to do 90% of the time, thus it feels like I'm not doing anything besides following directions. I love strategy games too, but Civ keeps TELLING ME WHAT TO DO GOSH SHUT UP CIV I AM AN ADULT!

You can turn that off.

As for the OP, if you didn't like Civ V having a lot of reading (which it doesn't actually. You can usually figure most of the stuff out by just playing the game.), then you definitely won't like Medieval 2. There is way more reading in that than in Civ games.

Also, Civ is really easy until you get to the really high difficulties. Playing on a low difficulty and just figuring it out as you go is totally viable in most cases.

#8 Posted by Jimbo (9797 posts) -

They're both good, but they could not be more different.

  • If you couldn't hack Civ 5 then just draw a line through Medieval 2 right now - it's gonna be too much for you.
  • Majesty 2 is kind of a weird game -and has nothing at all in common with Civ or Total War- but I liked it. It's kinda like you're overseeing an MMO.

I would recommend checking out the demo for Hegemony http://www.longbowgames.com/hegemony/ and see how you get on with that. It's like a stripped down real-time (you can pause it whenever) version of Total War. It's pretty simple to get to grips with and the demo does a good job of getting you into the game. I think it'd be a pretty good introduction if you aren't already into these sorts of games.

#9 Posted by Tennmuerti (8059 posts) -

Get a C&C bundle somewhere, either steam or origin, you can get a whole bushel of nice easy to get into strategy games for like 5-10 bucks. You can then start off with Red Alert 2 or 3.

Like others have said Medieval 2 will probably be too much.

Majesty 2 is nowhere near as good as the original, play that if you have it. And you don't really control minions in that game, they kinda do their own shit until you put a flag down with a big enough bounty for them to get off their asses. It can also get quite challenging at later levels. There is no reading required, but ultimately understanding of how the game's systems work is.

#10 Posted by JouselDelka (967 posts) -
#11 Posted by project343 (2816 posts) -

Majesty 2.

I haven't played Total War 2 (but I've played Shogun 2). And if that game is anything like its successors, it's the most hands-on strategy experience out there. Majesty 2 seems like more the sort of thing that you're looking for (even if it isn't nearly as good of a game).

#12 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11589 posts) -

@jouseldelka: As far as difficulty is concerned, Majesty 2 becomes reliant on trial and error far more quickly than the first game does. It also doesn't really add much to the gameplay, despite coming out 9 years later. I'd actually have to play more Majesty 2 to remember any more than that.

#13 Posted by Tennmuerti (8059 posts) -

@jouseldelka: The heroes that do the fighting, questing, buying, exploring, gambling all that shit were basically made more mechanical in 2 and don't do much on their own, yet they respond to attack/explore bounties all the time. This makes the core of what made Majesty unique (your dudes having their own goals and minds for lack of better term) kinda moot, at which point it becomes so much like a normal strategy that it would have been easier to just give you direct control of the units. It basically adds nothing new really, while taking away some of the uniqueness.

Also like @arbitrarywater mentioned the maps quickly become trial and error, where you generally just go into a map expecting to get destroyed the first time, learn how the events trigger, where objectives and monsters are, what kinds they are, and then play for the second time "for realsies"

Finally i'm personally more partial to the artwork and the 2D engine of the first game.

#14 Edited by Veektarius (4748 posts) -

@jouseldelka: I reread my review, and though I assume you have resolved this issue, here are my answers:

1) Level design is not as interesting: People mention trial and error, and while I recall this, it's also true of the original to an extent, especially when it comes to the expansion. But the original game funneled you into using different combinations of heroes in each level (there are a lot of branching 'technology' paths in Majesty, for lack of a better word) that kept you from falling into a rut. 2 just lets you build whatever it is you like and solve each mission with it (I'm assuming that for most people it's healers and paladins) I also didn't care for the bosses to many of the later levels

2) As Tenmuerti said, heroes have less personality in 2. One of the great things about Majesty was that there were certain synergies you could build on in hero activity. If you made a warrior, you knew your healers would look after them like hawks. If you made cultists, you knew your rogues would use their poison herbs to good effect, and if you made elves, you knew that even though your economy would benefit, you'd be paying for it because your heroes would be wasting time in the casinos. All of that nuance went away in 2. Heroes still had different priorities, but they didn't have interesting interactions with one another.

3) Wizard spells don't look nearly as cool.