Rome 2 total war

How is multiplayer?

Pointless, to say the least.
Just watch this, balance is ridiculous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxFLbe_bB8

Coop campaign is buggy and plagued with the fact it takes ages for AI to make their turns in coop.

Meybe next year Rome 2 gone be playable. Now just terrible.

The difference between bought reviews, and real reviews;






And lol;

My favourite thing about this circus is people who are holding up the first Rome as an example of excellence. It was definitely the right direction for the total war games as a whole and it was definitely fun but as a whole game, it was massively shallower than Medieval, had some terrible bugs that lasted for years despite supposed fixes (units fighting to death in sieges, the memory leaking etc etc), featured very quickly over battles thanks to low morale (which apparently are back, after they spent six games making the battles longer again), had terrible AI on the battle map and even worse AI on the campaign map (it just could not cope with the freedom yet, really), weaker diplomacy and much more AI cheating, radically worse implementation of rebels, almost no balance and very differing amounts of detail and playability between the factions, very sketchy historical research (triariEYE, for instance...), bugs everywhere, units not functioning as intended, shallower economics, no building trees, no glorious achievements mode, no province-specific bonuses for certain units, no succession struggles for late-game interest. But at least there were big steps forward graphically and in terms of the engine and the possibilities for improvement were there, and the factions had enough flavour to cope with it. What I will say for that game is that the modding community was just amazing. The number of incredible total conversions onto a game with a really restrictive set of hardcoded limits was astounding.

I suspect Rome 2 is more or less the same sort of thing. It'll be a better game than it is in six months and much less broken, hopefully, but in terms of systems it sounds like they've made another step back they'll spend the next few games slowly working around. It's a shame the total war games are less mod friendly than they used to be. Also a shame about the day 1/preorder DLC as opposed to when Rome came out and you'd just fuck around with text files to make Pontus and Numidia playable.

It wasn't perfect, but people like to think CA is capable of improvement. Maybe they're wrong. The reason I don't think looking back to Rome requires rose-tinted glasses:

1. Rome added more features than it removed from Medieval (and it removed a fair few). This isn't true of Rome II; it removed more than it added.

2. Rome was very moddable and supported some spectacular overhauls in its lifespan. This won't be true of Rome II.

3. Rome was the first real 3D game they did and the first on its engine. Rome II is CA's 7th game in the same series and the 3rd on the same engine.

The recipe was there for CA to put out its best game yet - I'm one of the believers that Shogun 2 was CA's most polished release yet. Then they take 3 giant steps back. Whether because of lack of effort, lack of funds (too much into marketing...) or because of Sega driving it out the door.

Ironically, what Rome and Rome II do have in common is overhyped and overpromised pre-Alpha footage that justifiably left many people turned off on release day.

I Agree.

I do have to disagree on one point though, simply that Medieval was my favourite of the bunch (which is merely personal preference)

However, I have played Rome II myself and found it to be mediocre at the moment. That isn't to say they can't improve on it over time -which I am more than confident they will - and hopefully it will realise it's potential.

The big problem for me is that there had been so much material focused on how brilliant X new feature was or how they'd completely revamped Y for months on end. And when the finished product finally arrived it failed to deliver on a lot of what it promised. It's not like they're trying out a completely new formula either. Granted, there may actually be some new features implemented but for the most part the core design has not changed significantly enough to merit such a poor quality release.

For me, marketing has permeated too deep into big gaming franchises (and studios now) and hey, why not?, it is a business right? The problem for me though is that more and more effort is going into selling you the game before they've even made it and as soon as you've parted with your money - its a pleasure doing business with you and then they move onto the next person. Then when a game is released sans-new features or lacking certain aspects it's buyer beware! or at best we get an apology.

I think we need to take a step back, push DLC's to the bottom of the to-do list, and start letting finished products do the talking.

It wasn't perfect, but people like to think CA is capable of improvement. Maybe they're wrong. The reason I don't think looking back to Rome requires rose-tinted glasses:

1. Rome added more features than it removed from Medieval (and it removed a fair few). This isn't true of Rome II; it removed more than it added.

2. Rome was very moddable and supported some spectacular overhauls in its lifespan. This won't be true of Rome II.

3. Rome was the first real 3D game they did and the first on its engine. Rome II is CA's 7th game in the same series and the 3rd on the same engine.

The recipe was there for CA to put out its best game yet - I'm one of the believers that Shogun 2 was CA's most polished release yet. Then they take 3 giant steps back. Whether because of lack of effort, lack of funds (too much into marketing...) or because of Sega driving it out the door.

Ironically, what Rome and Rome II do have in common is overhyped and overpromised pre-Alpha footage that justifiably left many people turned off on release day.

2 and 3 are very true, and why I think RTW still receives so much praise.

I think Rome generally lost a lot of the features of Medieval (glorious goals, different start dates, titles, ransoms, religions, succession struggles, faction reemergence, emergent factions) but it did add a fair few. I'm not actually sure which has more features. My personal favourite bug on it was that up until the 1.6 patch a protectorate/vassal would actually receive most of the funds of its protector rather than the other way around... I've no idea how they managed to keep that one in so long. I'd agree that Shogun 2 might just be their most polished to date.

Personally I just wish they'd release some compatibility patches for their old games (especially Medieval), so I could just play them instead. Bit cynical of them to continue selling them in various editions knowing they don't operate on modern computers.

The difference between bought reviews, and real reviews;

And lol;

Like I said, do not talk to me about user reviews, almost every game since a couple of months is a 3.0 from users.

Giving 0 to a game ? you think that's a real review ?

case closed.

Same thing can be said about "professional" reviews... cmon 9-10/10? It's at best a 6 atm.

Same thing can be said about "professional" reviews... cmon 9-10/10? It's at best a 6 atm.

I agree, it's just that you have 500 users giving 0 on 10 reviews.... so user reviews doesn't mean anything vs. the "professional" reviews where only a couple can be flawed.

Usually averaging the critic reviews and user reviews tells me where I think the game should actually be

this game is totaly shit be carefull guy and watch this video http://youtu.be/P_QK-lcW8a8

I don't see how anyone who's played COH2 could take user revise too seriously...

somebody interested to switch Rome 2 CD key to another game?

Shogun and Empire looked amazing too. And... eh.

I'm trying to be carefully optimistic though.

That's how you do it when it comes to CA. Everytime.

I would like to redraw my statement I made a while ago about this game.

Take off those Rome 1 glasses. The best part about RTW was RTR, or Rome Total Realism. The core game was okay but completely plagued by balance issues and historically inaccuracies out the wazoo. RTR was a complete game overhaul that introduced new factions, introduced tons of new faction specific units, completely overhauled every faction's military, and generally rebalanced the entire game so that each faction / region actually felt more like how it historically was.

Rome 2 so far has been... okay. I'd give it maybe a 6.5 / 10. The AI frankly needs a lot of work and even on my big beefy rig it doesn't run very well. I usually end up watching something on the other monitor because of how long it takes once you end the turn. For whatever reason fog in a siege is an unbelievably FPS killer, I go from around 40fps to maybe 5.

But a lot of what they have done can be seen as improvements. Not having to build ships just to transport units, auto reinforcing anywhere in an owned sector (ala Shogun2). Vastly improved UI and province management interface. Large increase in activated abilities and hugely reduced cooldowns compared to Shogun2 means a bit more tactical depth.

Take off those Rome 1 glasses. The best part about RTW was RTR

Not even close. RTR was incredibly dull and mechanical. Rome had a great feel to it and, even with the bugs, great arcady gameplay on a epic scale.

Only thing I prefered in RTR was phalanx removed, along with some other minor things.

Sorry about the necro, but I'd like to ask the people that play this game if it was improved since september '13. I'd like to give it a try, but got disapointed with the numerous statements about how flawed the game is, comparing to, p. ex., the first rome or medieval 2.

I'm not a huge fan of the series, but got my share of fun with Shogun (the first), Medieval 2 and Empire.

I'm curious as to the outcome as well especially with the release of the Emperor Edition.