Me and the Total War series, we've been through some times together! Shogunate Japan, Ancient Rome, 18th century Europe, the...Warhammer fantasy universe, for over 20 years now it's been (mostly) a blast. Lately, however, things have been getting a little frosty between me and Creative Assembly's flagship series.
That's kind of a weird thing to say since we're only two years removed from Total War: Warhammer III: Immortal Empires, the most impressive Total War experience ever released, but it's also entirely unsurprising when wider (and historical) trends are taken into account. As explosive as the Warhammer games were, their constant, fantasy-inspired experimentation helped both mask and highlight a rot that had been setting in for a while when it came to Total War’s history-based titles.
I think from 2000, when the first Shogun came out, to just over a decade later, when its sequel's final expansion hit shelves, the Total War series was on a broadly upwards trajectory, in that each new game might not necessarily have been your favourite, but it was at least trying to move things forward. Fall of the Samurai, released in 2012, is I think the best historical Total War because it was brave and it was different, marrying the series' melee roots with elements of modern warfare (like shore bombardment and automatic weapons) in what felt at the time like a template for the future of the series.
Instead, that's as daring as historical Total War has ever got. I've found myself largely unmoved by every non-Warhammer game released since, from Rome 2's dreary trudge to the under-baked Saga series of games through to Three Kingdoms, which made a splash initially but suffered in the long run thanks to its limited unit and faction variety (not to mention its premature demise). Joining them on my list of "hrm" is the latest Total War, Pharaoh, announced in May and released last month, a game that has been touted by Creative Assembly as being the first major historical entry in the series since 2019.
I felt this at the time of the reveal and feel it even more strongly now: there were some questionable calls here. Ancient Egypt is fertile ground for history nerds, but rarely for its battlefields, so the decision to shift the series there, with a limited number of factions and regions to conquer, seemed slightly off. Not to sound like one of those kinds of history gamers, but when pitching a historical Total War game at least part of the appeal is surely going to come from people's interest in the history being depicted. And no offence to those who are into this, but I don't know if there were millions of people chomping at the bit for their chance to take on the *checks Bible* Hittites.
I've been playing Pharaoh for the past couple of weeks and have not been having a great time. It's a Total War game all right, from the base building/improving to the real-time battles, but the whole thing just feels so... unremarkable. Total War: Going Through The Motions. As I've already mentioned, there are only three distinct factions (I'm sorry to keep bringing up faction quantity as though it is everything, but it's important!) in the entire game, meaning you end up building, seeing and fighting a lot of the same things.
The strategic side of Total War, so often the poorer cousin to its rousing real-time battles, is surprisingly the strength here. There are loads of very cool touches that make the whole thing feel really Egyptian, and help ground the game in its setting. A court intrigue system has you jockeying for political power, there's lots of really well-implemented stuff about worshipping the Gods and the game's menu/alert layout is probably the best it's ever been. Basically, and it feels strange to say this, it almost feels like Pharaoh would be worth recommending just for the strategic gameplay (which I guess you could technically do since you can automate every battle).
But why would you do that? The whole point of Total War is that you also fight real-time battles, and here, I simply could not care less. These limited, antique units aren't cool to look at, aren't interesting to deploy or use, and if you zone out from the interface and just look at them you could easily kid yourself that you're playing anything from 2013's Rome 2 to 2020's Total War Saga: Troy.
Every battlefield in a historical Total War since Fall of the Samurai has played largely the same way: with melee forces clashing, then collapsing into huge, uncontrollable blobs. That's somewhat accurate, sure, but the coolest thing about Total War's more adventurous 2000s was that the series would take huge leaps in time--and resulting tactics--with each release. Going from Rome to medieval Europe to the 18th century to the 19th century then back to swords and archers in Japan, sometimes with naval combat, sometimes without, would call for drastic tactical shakeups each time out!
Now I'm just tired. So tired. I'm building the same types of units to throw into the same types of battles, with the same outcomes, and what used to feel like a challenge now feels like a chore. One game is bleeding into another. I'm starting to feel like Total War is falling into the same trap Civilization has, where a strategy series that has been successful over decades is now too indebted to its core formula to change, even if the time has finally come for changes to be made.
What's most frustrating about all this is that my exhaustion isn't with Total War itself, just the historical ones. The Warhammer games have been right here this whole time! They've been releasing alongside and in between the historical games, showing how important a variety of factions and units can be, how unique units can be a blast, how vital a big and interesting map can be to the experience and how interesting endgames can make a huge difference. And every time I've played them and thought "wow!", I've moved onto the next historical game (major and minor) and thought "oh".
I didn't receive review code for this game, I just played it as I got it, but of the outlets that did cover it at the time, Polygon's review stuck out the most to me because it touched on something that nagged me throughout: this game is slightly too big to be a throwaway, smaller title like the Saga games, but is also nowhere near big or varied enough to stand alongside Three Kingdoms, Rome or Shogun as a proper historical Total War either. It's a game caught on the strategic fence, unable to commit itself either way, which, as any strategy game fan can tell you, is the worst place to be.
(While I'm on this topic, I think it's bullshit that despite its clearly limited scope and scale, Sega and Creative Assembly have tried to price and pitch this as a full release regardless, something long-time fans are having none of).
I should point out here that Pharaoh was developed by Creative Assembly Sophia, developers of Total War Saga: Troy (a game fans have been quick to point out Pharoah has a lot in common with), not the main team in the UK, who are no doubt cooking something else up in the background. Whatever that is, I hope for the sake of the series that it's more ambitious--and generous--with its Total War than Pharaoh was.
