so it seems that pharaoh is a good game but it hasn't managed to break through to everyone's hearts.

From multiplayer.it

Wccftech - 9

But Why Tho? - 9

VGC - 8

God is a Geek - 8

IGN - 8

PCGamesN - 8

PC Gamer - 8

Game Rant - 8

Windows Central - 8

TheGamer - 8

GLHF on Sports Illustrated - 8

CGMagazine - 7,5

Multiplayer.it - 7

GameWatcher - 7

GGRecon - 7

Eurogamer - 6

VideoGamer - 4

I've put my trust in critic reviews behind me now; only player reviews matter. I have no faith any critics even understands what total war player want, not to mention their supposed "integrity".

I have eyes and I can see nothing this game offers that gives me what I want, simple as that. If their next DLC shows this isn't gonna be just Egypt Legendary Lords game, I might consider it, otherwise, the game is dead to me.

 I know this will be yet another 1000+ hour TW game for me. It seems quite immersive. I'll probably only scratch the surface playing as any non-Egyptian character; not that I won't give the two Hittite and Canaanite characters a try. I'm curious as to who the DLC factions will be and may play them too naturally. I'm thinking Ramesses father will be one of the playable DLC factions. I do suspect that the vast majority of my time will be playing as Egyptian characters. Bay became Pharaoh during this time, so I'll certainly play as him as well. 

A critic review has never impacted my decision by the game normally I look at user reviews to gauge any problems a game may have after release that said given a combination of issues not helped by CA/Sega's poor  management, I feel that this time around user reviews might not be worth reading either best thing to do is try the game for ourselves. 

lcmiracle#7700 wrote:

I've put my trust in critic reviews behind me now; only player reviews matter. I have no faith any critics even understands what total war player want, not to mention their supposed "integrity".

I have eyes and I can see nothing this game offers that gives me what I want, simple as that. If their next DLC shows this isn't gonna be just Egypt Legendary Lords game, I might consider it, otherwise, the game is dead to me.

Well, I don't see too much "integrity" in the so called TW "fans" right now either.

I mean, it honestly feels like the vast majority of people  giving Pharaoh bad reviews only bought it to play if for 5 or 10 hours at most, if that, and then just give it a bad review and act as if they played it for like 500 or more hours.

I've played it for like 9 hours so far, and I actually think it's pretty good overall.

I really wish more of the so called "fans" would take their rose tinted glasses off and learn to actually appreciate the good in the newer TW games.

lcmiracle#7700 wrote:

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

lcmiracle#7700 wrote:

I've put my trust in critic reviews behind me now; only player reviews matter. I have no faith any critics even understands what total war player want, not to mention their supposed "integrity".

I have eyes and I can see nothing this game offers that gives me what I want, simple as that. If their next DLC shows this isn't gonna be just Egypt Legendary Lords game, I might consider it, otherwise, the game is dead to me.

Well, I don't see too much "integrity" in the so called TW "fans" right now either.

I mean, it honestly feels like the vast majority of people  giving Pharaoh bad reviews only bought it to play if for 5 or 10 hours at most, if that, and then just give it a bad review and act as if they played it for like 500 or more hours.

I've played it for like 9 hours so far, and I actually think it's pretty good overall.

I really wish more of the so called "fans" would take their rose tinted glasses off and learn to actually appreciate the good in the newer TW games.

Oh yes, "tinted glasses", because the historical fans wanted something different from the arcady gameplay of the Total War Warhammer franchise? I never like how arcady it got, but I was wrapped up in the rivalry between the two communities.

I wanted Standard bearers in TWWI, I wanted unit champions in TWWI, I wanted the city building to be more than just fix number of slots, I wanted the things I did in Med II and Shogun II, not any of this. Hell, it's not even a good representation of the tabletop game. And yet, I had to pick a side and I only supported TWW in the hopes these aspects will change -- they never did.

How is any of the Pharoah fixed settlement, narrow scope, barely restored features from these old games gonna please the historical community at large? They offer nothing new that's in-line with the older games they loved, they offer nothing grander in scale in comparison to the older games they loved. If this was a game designed to appeal to historical fans, CA has severely misjudged their audience; and any exclusive Warhammer/Fantasy fans players are not gonna even care about it to begin with. It's not "rose-tinted glasses" when it's exactly what they want, and they have all the rights to refuse to accept apples for oranges 

You think that Historical fans wanted an Arcady Historical Title? That couldn't be any further from the truth. I wish CA would have asked what the customers wanted before making this game. I don't ever remember seeing a survey that was put out by CA. If they would have done that then CA would have had a real clear head on what to make that would generate Millions upon Millions of $$$$$ in revenue. But this is what we ended up with. I like the Egyptian history but passed hard on this. You know why, perhaps? 

I find it hilarious when ‘the fans’ insist on looking back at the old games like they weren’t arcady, like in some way they were more Hollywood than history.

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

I find it hilarious when ‘the fans’ insist on looking back at the old games like they weren’t arcady, like in some way they were more Hollywood than history.

Yes, because they had simulations, because they actually had blackpowder and crossbows not able to fire behind three ranks, because they had knights switching swords when their lances have been used and broken. Because the cities could be built without an artificial slot limit that makes absolutely no sense.

There's simulation gameplay with a level of abstract, and there's arcady gameplay that empahsis mechanics over immersion, logic, and most importantly, actual enjoyment.

I played all three Warhammer games, I am a huge Warhammer fan, I have played the Tabletop game for years, I know if I am a fan of anything I am a fan of warhammer. Total War Warhammer is a shallow immitation of the older titles, the removal of basic logical simulation of combat, removal of meaningful city building, the removal of flexible army building and the removal of "your dudes". Total war warhammer is the very image of a dumbed-down total war if there ever was one.

Changes are only good when they bring better things, and the only better things of this multiated total war title is Warhammer. Take away warhammer, and you need only to see how Pharoah is doing to know what remains.

lcmiracle#7700 wrote:

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

I find it hilarious when ‘the fans’ insist on looking back at the old games like they weren’t arcady, like in some way they were more Hollywood than history.

Yes, because they had simulations, because they actually had blackpowder and crossbows not able to fire behind three ranks, because they had knights switching swords when their lances have been used and broken. Because the cities could be built without an artificial slot limit that makes absolutely no sense.

There's simulation gameplay with a level of abstract, and there's arcady gameplay that empahsis mechanics over immersion, logic, and most importantly, actual enjoyment.

I played all three Warhammer games, I am a huge Warhammer fan, I have played the Tabletop game for years, I know if I am a fan of anything I am a fan of warhammer. Total War Warhammer is a shallow immitation of the older titles, the removal of basic logical simulation of combat, removal of meaningful city building, the removal of flexible army building and the removal of "your dudes". Total war warhammer is the very image of a dumbed-down total war if there ever was one.

Changes are only good when they bring better things, and the only better things of this multiated total war title is Warhammer. Take away warhammer, and you need only to see how Pharoah is doing to know what remains.

Do you even understand how simulation are built?

Meaningfull city building it was impossibke to play older games ones you have pver 100 settlements there is just too much settlement management. Its like you never played them.

Why the sudden oh black powder and crossbows can't fire over people. Where was that logic with bows.  Bowmen ship doesn't mean they fire over arc in reality. 

Its about having ok in unit pathing with out clicking buttons . Can it be improved yes but the old system wasn't necessarily the best 

Dumbed down? My dude it really isn't its the other way around its more complex. Just work on playing call of wh mod. Save you money and headache since its pretty much older lore its workinb with as well.

Look there are still many things i want implemented from older games. That doesn’t mean bs like this has a place.

lcmiracle#7700 wrote:

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

I find it hilarious when ‘the fans’ insist on looking back at the old games like they weren’t arcady, like in some way they were more Hollywood than history.

Yes, because they had simulations, because they actually had blackpowder and crossbows not able to fire behind three ranks, because they had knights switching swords when their lances have been used and broken. Because the cities could be built without an artificial slot limit that makes absolutely no sense.

There's simulation gameplay with a level of abstract, and there's arcady gameplay that empahsis mechanics over immersion, logic, and most importantly, actual enjoyment.

I played all three Warhammer games, I am a huge Warhammer fan, I have played the Tabletop game for years, I know if I am a fan of anything I am a fan of warhammer. Total War Warhammer is a shallow immitation of the older titles, the removal of basic logical simulation of combat, removal of meaningful city building, the removal of flexible army building and the removal of "your dudes". Total war warhammer is the very image of a dumbed-down total war if there ever was one.

Changes are only good when they bring better things, and the only better things of this multiated total war title is Warhammer. Take away warhammer, and you need only to see how Pharoah is doing to know what remains.

Oh great, you’re trying to argue it was somehow deep.. oh boy.

previous total wars were nothing like simulations. The strategies and tactics used does not represent reality in anyway.

There is simply more to think about in Warhammer than historical games, sure, you could remove magic, special abilities but then, that wouldn’t be Warhammer.

half the stuff they removed had minimal impact on the game. The AI was worse as well, having an army firm an orderly queue outside your gate including cavalry was hilarious I’ll grant you but definitely not realistic.

these so called deep mechanics from the older mechanics were painfully shallow. I remember a Youtuber banging on about how realistic Shogun 2 was just before winning a siege by getting all the attacking units to chase his light cavalry around like a scene from the Benny Hill Show.

The old games were not simulations and were not real in anyway.

AxiosXiphos#9040 wrote:

lcmiracle#7700 wrote:

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

I find it hilarious when ‘the fans’ insist on looking back at the old games like they weren’t arcady, like in some way they were more Hollywood than history.

Yes, because they had simulations, because they actually had blackpowder and crossbows not able to fire behind three ranks, because they had knights switching swords when their lances have been used and broken. Because the cities could be built without an artificial slot limit that makes absolutely no sense.

There's simulation gameplay with a level of abstract, and there's arcady gameplay that empahsis mechanics over immersion, logic, and most importantly, actual enjoyment.

I played all three Warhammer games, I am a huge Warhammer fan, I have played the Tabletop game for years, I know if I am a fan of anything I am a fan of warhammer. Total War Warhammer is a shallow immitation of the older titles, the removal of basic logical simulation of combat, removal of meaningful city building, the removal of flexible army building and the removal of "your dudes". Total war warhammer is the very image of a dumbed-down total war if there ever was one.

Changes are only good when they bring better things, and the only better things of this multiated total war title is Warhammer. Take away warhammer, and you need only to see how Pharoah is doing to know what remains.

That would make sense... if Warhammer also didn't *add* to the formula. Monsters, magic, heroes, items, abilities, faction unique traits, flying units, bespoke race mechanics, more unit types then you can shake a stick at. Warhammer dumbed down the core mechaics and then built a tonne more ontop. Sure you are right - take away all the new stuff and the base is a lot simpler. But it's objectively false to say Warhammer is 'simpler' then classic total wars. The complexity is just not in the same places.

True, unit formations are taken away simply because they would open the player up to magic or ability attacks. That’s the obvious difference between fantasy and that’s why 3K has them in for infantry.

Take it easy folks.

Faisehoods in arguing somehow magics cannot co-exist with formation is exactly why this new generation of Total Wars are pale shallows of their former shelves

Open up to magic attacks is exactly what magic should primary be made to do in a Total War game! What? Another consideration for when to enable a formation when your enemy has magic users is bad? Formations are supposed to have weaknesses, loose formation should be better against AoE magic attacks, and direct magic attacks don't even bother with your formation in the current implementation to begin with!

This is what's wrong with gaming -- "experts" telling consumers they are wrong and they should pay for want they don't want because they think they know better. Well, consumers are telling you otherwise CA -- pick a side.

The thing is....

Its a reskinned Troy. Pharaoh was meant as a DLC for Troy and they made it into its own game and made it bigger.

Fair enough... but on the ONE hand, it has a severe lack of diversity of units/factions....

It is lacking in the map and misses important factions of that area/region

It also is apparently way too easy and doesn't fit the "collapse" setting....and the AI is stupid.

Its simply not what people would have wanted from a total war in that area/era and especially not for that price.

lcmiracle#7700 wrote:

Faisehoods in arguing somehow magics cannot co-exist with formation is exactly why this new generation of Total Wars are pale shallows of their former shelves

Open up to magic attacks is exactly what magic should primary be made to do in a Total War game! What? Another consideration for when to enable a formation when your enemy has magic users is bad? Formations are supposed to have weaknesses, loose formation should be better against AoE magic attacks, and direct magic attacks don't even bother with your formation in the current implementation to begin with!

This is what's wrong with gaming -- "experts" telling consumers they are wrong and they should pay for want they don't want because they think they know better. Well, consumers are telling you otherwise CA -- pick a side.

I didn’t say it couldn’t be, I mean it would be a rather dumb idea to have static infantry formation like squares in a world that has nuclear weapons. They could’ve quite easily made them but they didn’t.. why? To annoy people or they found the idea rather silly or useless?

‘This is the problem with gaming experts..”

oh I agree, they very same gaming experts who believe the older games are the pinnacle of strategy and tactics when in actual fact they are almost certainly not - nothing like.

Honestly Pharaoh looks fine as a game, the problem is it costs so much more than its worth. Its a short sweet saga title, sold at an outrageous price. A Toyota Corolla is a fine car, nothing against it. But I'm not going to purchase one for the price of a fully loaded Mercedes. Same thing with this game, the outrage isn't over the game itself, but how utterly out of touch the pricing model is and how CA expects us to just swallow it for their mistakes.

For sure, it would’ve been a much easier decision at £35 to £40.