all games are not created equal

It's been awhile... But I'm back...

So I've been playing both of these games after returning home from university, and both are no less than fantastic. Both games interpret the strategy gaming genre completely differently, and yet both succeed - although, Rome: Total War gives just that little more complexity that a rapacious RTS/TBS gamer like me needs.

'Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes' seems to be one of those games that people can't remember, it got a 'great' review by IGN, but it lacked a good advertising campaign, and seemed to get lost in the bargain bins of my local GAME and Gamestation shops that frequent my humble coastal town. It plays like 'Dynasty Warriors', yet contains initially simple - but eventually complicated - strategies that give you more of an edge over the horde's of enemies you'll fight against. Whereas 'Dynasty Warriors' gives you a power-laden hero with which to plough through enemies, 'Kingdom Under Fire' gives you a more mediocre hero to entertain you in those long battles, rather than being an unstoppable machine, your controllable hero is simply an entertainment, but in the hands of an experienced player hero's can be channeled to take down enemy groups quickly and efficiently.

The game has great graphics for an old xbox game, with occasional pop-in and some bad environmental textures, but all of this doesn't matter when a massive scale battle is underway. the units you can control vary from your main hero's group to archers, infantry, knights, heavy infantry, spearmen, and ballista's to the more special units of the game, such as eagles and bomber wings, fire elementals to thunder rhino's.

I figured, when buying this game, that it would be oh so easy to play. But hell, I was so wrong. The learning curve is pretty steep, and with all the units having multiple abilities etc etc it can get rather complicated on the battlefield. You find yourself having to think really carefully about what troops to unpgrade, what to promote them too, and whether a Mortar unit would really be more useful than Longbowmen. If your really into the game, there's pages and pages of stat-screens showing troop weaknesses etc etc which I'm sure would satisfy any 'Final Fantasy' player, though, I've never been fond of maths or excel spreadsheets myself, and if your anything like me, just leave the stats alone.

Now, I think a good amount of PC players know of Rome: Total War. Remember that odd TV show? 'Time Commanders' 'nuff said. Basically, you have a good amount of Europe and some satellite countries to invade and conquer, to burn to the ground, enslave, or inhabit. You can play as various countries, getting various units and bonuses, and slowly rip apart the other countries ancient style.

I'm not going to go into depth explaining the mechanics of this game, its easy enough to find, but basically its all about the killing and not so much about micro-management. this is no 'Caesar', and you won't find yourself managing every part of every city. the options are more blunt, you choose somethng to construct, and some units to recruit, and you just have to keep your people happy and finances in the green... Sigh, I wish it was that easy...

The game is a challenge, I've played it loads and loads and loads... And it takes forever to finish a campaigns, but its one hell of alot of fun and is incredibly realistic when it comes down to the battles. You have to be quick on your feet because on the harder difficulties the AI becomes increasingly invasive and aggressive on the battlefield.

Both of these games are simply incredible, and some of the few games that I'll be playing long into the future when I'm bored of all this mainstream 360 junk they seem to want to feed me these days. If you like the more complicated RTS/TBS games then Rome: Total War is a damn good bet. Haven't got a good PC? Grab an old Xbox and get 'Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes', sure, its not as complex, but its a good challenge and is the most strategically focused game I've ever encountered on a console.