izigame.me

My thoughts on this game are complex, so I'll take a stab at it through the separate, but linked lenses of a history buff and a gamer.
As a history buff, I'm glad that this interesting setting - Ancient Egypt, Canaan, and Hatti on the eve of the Late Bronze Age collapse - was explored with a "Total War" game. I don't mind the relative lack of unit variety (no cavalry, battles mostly being infantry affairs), as I enjoy watching battles fought between historically-authentic armies. That being said, I would have liked to see a more fleshed-out map. The anti-"Troy" mob seemingly annoyed CA into decreasing the number of settlements on the map, as the developers said in as many words during one of their interviews. While those only into the gaming aspect of "Pharaoh" may be glad to not see many reskinned faction clones (like the non-Trojan Anatolian factions in "Troy"), I honestly wish that Canaan had far more cities and cultures, such as the conspicuously absent Ammonites, Moabites, and Israelites, as the region should feel a bit more chaotic and fractured than it appears in the main game. I also wish that the greyed-out areas of Libya and western Anatolia were immediately available, as it would be fun to play as the Libyans or the Mycenaean Greek colonists of Asia Minor. I understand that Mesopotamia is probably a big ask for a game centered around Egypt, but the hype around "Pharaoh" being "the ultimate Bronze Age game" just doesn't fit a game centered around a zoomed-in, yet occasionally sparse part of the world. Otherwise, I really enjoyed battling the threats of the Sea Peoples and the migratory Libu, Kaska, and Phrygian peoples, as I got a sense of other parts of the world experiencing a similar collapse, and the refugees of these disasters bringing the collapse with them as they search for new homes and plunder. My two last criticisms of "Pharaoh" from a historical perspective are Merneptah and Setnakhte. I firmly believe that Setnakhte should have been playable, as the one faction bordering the Libyan desert, and as the only adult Pharaoh in the game not to be playable (despite having played far more important of a role in the civil wars than Ramesses). Secondly, the cutscene for Merneptah's death showed up in c. 1203 BC, only for Merneptah to still be alive and well in the next turn, and to battle me (as Ramesses) for a few turns before the cutscene replayed and Merneptah truly died. Merneptah should stay dead once the first cutscene plays, rather than force me to roleplay betraying a Pharaoh I thought dead.
From a gameplay perspective, I enjoyed the Sea Peoples "wave mechanics", campaign customization was a major improvement to the series, and I enjoyed the stress of having to manage and trade resources at a time when international trade was threatened by the collapse. I don't have many complaints with the day-to-day of the game, from the historically-accurate battles to the campaign mechanics. However, a criticism involving both history and gaming is the developers' decision to once again feature immortal characters. Historically, Amenmesse died in 1198 BC, Seti in 1197 BC, Bay in 1192 BC, and Tausret in 1189 BC. Even old Kurunta would have likely died before 1190 BC. That said, it is wildly disconcerting to be playing as Pharaoh Ramesses III in the 1180s BC and seeing these people still alive. It's totally ahistorial, and, while I understand that "Pharaoh" is a sandbox in which history can be altered, I'm sure that - if these characters were as mortal as any other general - most of them would likely be dead by the 1180s BC, whether from battles or plots. Honestly, I would rather have had competing family trees (with Seti and Tausret as one faction, Amenmesse as his own, and Setnakhte and Ramesses as one faction) to give me the sense that I'm forging a dynasty, not just playing as one invincible character. I can already imagine reaching the ingame year 1100 BC and playing as a 100+-year-old Ramesses, who still has yet to cut his lock of youth.
Overall, I enjoyed the gameplay and the setting, though the "invincible heroes", CA's decision to cut the number of settlements due to fan pressure (when this actually sabotaged the game), the limited scope of the "ultimate Bronze Age game", the lack of family trees, and the Troy-style graphics verging on cartoons tempered my excitement. I'd still recommend the game for those who don't mind the historical inaccuracies (including having years displayed above the turns, but the years meaning nothing to characters' ages) and for those who want to finally play as Ancient Egypt in a Bronze Age game, but I have many reservations about recommending this game to history buffs or even Bible readers who may expect a larger scope and more historical details in a game set in such an exciting, yet under-portrayed region of the world.