Currently, I have the game, Rome Total War. I was wondering if it would be worth buying the new Total War or waiting for Rome Total War 2. Or, should I ditch the Total War series for Civilization?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Total War vs Rome Total War vs Civilization
- Thread starter macuser1232
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's like asking me if you should eat cherry pie or blueberry pie or wait for the apple pie in the oven. How am I supposed to know what you will enjoy, especially when you offer no clues about your preferences?
The two games that are out are both highly rated in the reviews. I would suggest reading some of them to get a feel for what the games are like. Good reviews tell enough to give some idea of the gameplay. Although it is a PC-centric site, the information on Gamespot.com is still worthwhile in evaluating games I consider so you might find it helpful too.
Next, play demo versions whenever possible to see them first hand. If you enjoy Rome Total War (you didn't say if you do or not) then it follows you'd probably like Total War 2 but who knows until it actually ships. There is not even an announced Mac version at this point. For Civilization V, the expansion to it has a playable Mac demo available on Steam. That would give you a good feel for the gameplay. Try that out.
If you enjoyed Rome TW on Mac, there's no reason not to get Empire TW as well... assuming hardware requirements are met. Go for it! (Though I'm waiting for the DVD version, which will be available shortly).
You could always try the Civilization series as well. Though they're turn-based strategy, they offer plenty of depth. But if you mostly enjoy real-time strategy type games like Rome or Age of Empires, etc. getting Empire TW seems a no brainer.
As you make no reference to the other TW games out on PC only (Medieval 2, Napoleon, Shogun 2), maybe you play in Mac-native only, not Bootcamp?
If so, keep in mind that Rome TW 2 has yet to be released on PC. It's highly unlikely to make it to Mac OS X for a few years yet.
Oh yeah what about Age of Empires. Any good? How does it compare to Total War? Also while your here, would an Early 2011 Macbook Pro i5 2.3ghz with 8gb of ram meet the qualifications?If you enjoyed Rome TW on Mac, there's no reason not to get Empire TW as well... assuming hardware requirements are met. Go for it! (Though I'm waiting for the DVD version, which will be available shortly).
You could always try the Civilization series as well. Though they're turn-based strategy, they offer plenty of depth. But if you mostly enjoy real-time strategy type games like Rome or Age of Empires, etc. getting Empire TW seems a no brainer.
As you make no reference to the other TW games out on PC only (Medieval 2, Napoleon, Shogun 2), maybe you play in Mac-native only, not Bootcamp?
If so, keep in mind that Rome TW 2 has yet to be released on PC. It's highly unlikely to make it to Mac OS X for a few years yet.
Your MacBook Pro (presumably with 650m video?) should run Empire TW fine at fairly high settings.
By & large TW games place greater demand on tactical ability, the battles are far bigger & complex. Age of Empires 2 & 3 is more basic, but they're still great games. The latter particularly offers great graphics. Check out some reviews & youtube vids.
FWIW, I prefer AoE 3 + both expansion packs to AoE 2, only due to preferring the historical time setting. It starts with early European colonization of America, circa early 16th century, progressing to late 19th - latter similar setting to the Empire: TW game. Some people prefer AoE 2. It's all subjective.
I'd have said check out AoE 2 & also Rise of Nations, but sadly OS X Lion has effectivley killed them off due to no Rosetta emulation. But if you like real-time strategy, IMO, AoE 3 is a very worthwhile consideration, though less complex than Rome TW.
Actually just checked the specs for the 13" MBP & I think you've got a HD 4000 card? Shouldn't be a problem for Empire TW though.
You'd still get an okay performance.
Here's a video of it running in medium settings on a MacBook Air with HD 3000 graphics. Mind that's on W7 via Bootcamp, so liable to get better FPS, but it still looks good:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5WlRU5ZjOM
You'd still get an okay performance.
Here's a video of it running in medium settings on a MacBook Air with HD 3000 graphics. Mind that's on W7 via Bootcamp, so liable to get better FPS, but it still looks good:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5WlRU5ZjOM
Anyone know if TOTAL WAR or the others have RETINA support for the MBPr? I think that would be fantastic if so.
Retina in gaming is not that relevant as the quality is defined by more than resolution. However I can confirm Empire does not support retina resolution on the 650M in the current MacBookPro as it only has 1GB of VRAM which is nowhere near enough for Empire to run at Retina resolution on the Mac.
Some titles will support retina if the graphics card can handle it. It takes a lot more power to run a game at retina than Pages or Safari.
Edwin
I understand there is alot of action in EMPIRE, yet Blizzard was able to get Warcraft and Diablo 3 in full retina. Same with Guild Wars 2. Not sure what's different.
Empire on the PC will drop frames on a gaming PC with a $800+ graphics card when playing at 1080p and max settings. Retina resolutions are 2.85 times bigger than 1080p*
Diablo 3 has slightly lower demands on the GPU compared to other games. It was also deliberately designed to support retina with some specific engineering effort. Supporting retina while making the UI stay the same size requires some scaling.
The reason that games don't support retina is a mixture of the high GPU load and the fact game engines are not optimised for that high a resolution. You optimise a game engine for various things and expected resolutions is one of them.
In time as more PC's get retina resolutions, game engines will become more optimised for the challenges of super high resolution.
Edwin
* (2880*1800)/(1680*1080)