Fun to play and mildly addictive, but has a few problems.
However, I do have a few points that really could have been improved or even added. First, in the first Medieval game, each of the provinces on the map had titles you could give to your generals. Since the division of land and titles, in medieval times, to nobles was so important, why the Creative Assembly left it out in what is the supposed improvement on a medieval game is beyond me, especially since it was in the first game.
Secondly, the faction leader in Medieval 2 does absolutely nothing, he's just another general. In the first game, he at least kept the loyalty of generals depending on his influence, and I had many a rebellion after the death of a leader, which is very realistic and adds difficulty to the game. In Medieval 2, your leader's authority does nothing and the worst thing to a rebellion I've had is a captain leading an army turns rebel, not much of a problem. Another problem is not being able to choose your heir, or at LEAST the king's actual son should be the next king. Many times the game chooses an heir not even related to the king, even if the king had a son! In medieval times, being related to or married into the royal family was the key to getting the throne, not so in Medieval 2.
Another problem is how hard the Mongols and Timurids are. They are impossible to eliminate, even when you take their last city they spawn all these armies. I guess it is realistic, since unified under a Khan they were pretty much unstoppable, but to help gameplay it needed to be toned down a bit. The Papacy is another problem. How the Pope himself works is actually pretty good, but when his faction takes over half of Western Europe, there's a problem and that has happened A LOT. What the makers also could have done is diversify the factions a lot more. Having a few units named differently and with EXACTLY the same stats as any other faction is not what I call unique factions. Apparently, the Creative Assembly could have done a bit more research of what medieval politics and life was really like.
After all of this, the biggest, most ridiculous problem is how stupid the AI is. The siege/battle AI is the absolute worst and the campaign AI isn't much better, as allies betray you left and right, even if you are much stronger than they are. Then, as they are down to their last city, you offer generous terms of ceasefire, but it is rejected flat and they are destroyed and I have yet to have anyone as a vassal, which was also an important part of the medieval era.
This is the largest problem because all the aforementioned problem are fixed by mods, but not the AI. In short, it is the worst AI I have seen in any game I currently own.
The new parts I liked were the graphics and a few other additions to the campaign, otherwise the campaign seemed like I've seen it before, nothing special. The graphics are awesome, though, and have the feel of medieval battles. The merchants, if used correctly, could make a huge profit and the idea that militia in cities don't have to be paid for helps A LOT in keeping cities loyal. The way Cardinals work is great and the heresy outbreaks add more difficulty. Princesses are actually cool, too, as is the idea of different settlements, castles or cities. However, the points I mentioned earlier and the fact that it needed a MASSIVE patch, make Medieval 2 seem almost like an unfinished game that needed more testing and could also be a touch more in tune with the actual medieval era. And why do game designers believe that a game can only have amazing gameplay OR amazing graphics, not both?