Rome 2 on sale for $26.97

**Stuie** · 03-10-2014, 16:51

Originally Posted by fallen851

What is really sad, is that this forum is pretty much dead. This was the "positive forum" toward RTW II too while the TWC was the "negative forum."

The silence is deafening.

I can be positive. :)

I like Rome 2. I enjoy the fact that I can play it without having to mod out fantasy units. I like the lack of gamey family trees. I enjoy the scale of the campaign map and the ease of movement (no stupid transports to micromanage). I enjoy the battles (although they are a little too fast). I like CA's ongoing improvements of the game as evidenced by the fact that we are already getting Patch 10 in beta (compared to the measely four patches we got for RTW with the most glaring issue not resolved until the final patch... a full year and a quarter post-release). I like the diversity and feel of the different factions. I also like the DLC approach, so I only have to pay for content that I want, not get "wacked beasts of the imagination" forced into my game with an "all encompassing" expansion.

As someone who played and modded the hell out of RTW, I can safely say that Rome 2 is just as good at this point, and actually way better than vanilla RTW ever was, and it looks better doing it.

The reason I don't come to this forum much is because modding is at TWC and actual discussion about the game is on reddit. Sorry.

**fallen851** · 03-10-2014, 17:15

Originally Posted by Stuie

As someone who played and modded the hell out of RTW, I can safely say that Rome 2 is just as good at this point.

So what you are saying is... that RTW II is just as good as RTW with mods?

That's not positive.

See this is the problem: It's been ~10 years since the release of the major RTW mods (EB, RTR, RS2) that were made by volunteers for free, and you're saying that a team of paid professionals, with a huge budget (40% larger...) can only match what they make and only improve on graphics?

That's it?

It really comes down to how people view things, their expectations and whether or not they they are CA apologists. I mean your evidence as to why CA is doing great with ongoing improvement is because in the past they were really slow to patch RTW. I believe we should expect any company to release patches and fix their software products. That isn't proof on ongoing improvement, that is basic software support. CA failed to do with RTW, you are correct, but that doesn't mean we give them a gold star for not shirking their responsibilities this time.

That is like saying "great work Bob, you didn't beat your wife this week, you get a gold star!" Bob never should have beat his wife, and CA should have supported RTW better.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. Just remember, the pursuit of excellence is one of the few things in this world you can't denounce from any angle. Based on your own words, if CA has only matched what modders did 10 years ago with their older engine, then the game is a complete failure. Where is the improvement?

They could have scaled the battles up in size with 100,000 men on the field, they could have introduced a really slick political or trade system, they could have put in incredibly detailed naval battles that followed the tactics of ancient naval battles, with the periplus, diekplus, and realistic boarding. None of that happened. They introduced a broken political system, did nothing extra with the trade, introduced terrible naval battles, broke the siege AI... ect. Not to mention all the stripped features and bugs that existed in TW since the TW series began.

In all, I think we mostly agree. Rome II is a good game. You like some of the features of Rome II that I don't like (I like micromanaging transports and family trees), but the real difference is expectations. I expected CA to improve the franchise beyond graphics. You expected less; the game is just as good in your own words, and apparently that is good enough for you.

But just as good isn't good enough for me.

**Sp4** · 03-10-2014, 22:36

I honestly think RTW is better than R2, even after a lot of mods and patching. The claims CA have made about budget, scale and epicness were nothing but marketing and promotion I believe. It's all that was necessary for a game with the title "Rome 2" by CA to blow the sales of every other game they have made up to now out of the water. Mission accomplished, job well done. Bring on the next game, after sufficient amount of damage control of course.

**Stuie** · 03-12-2014, 14:25

Actually you have a point fallen. My expectations ARE pretty low out of the box. A company has to make money, and my expectation is that they will put out something that appeals to the broadest base possible in pursuit of their profits. I don't accept that because I think it's ok, I accept that because the more "accurate" the game gets, the more niche it becomes, and chances are it doesn't even get made. Slavish adherence to history does not sell well in a general sense.

What I hope for above and beyond the mass-market-appeal is the ability to mod the game to my liking, something close to my vision for a Rome game, which probably differs from what you envision or what Sp4 or any of the other critics on this forum envision. I find Rome 2 to be good bones on which to build a Rome game for myself that I can enjoy, and CA have even provided some decent tools to assist me in that (Assembly Kit). Part of my enjoyment of gaming comes through modding. Understandably, that's unacceptable to some people who feel the game should match their design expectations out of the box. That's fine, but I'm not sure why anyone would ever expect a decent historical simulator from CA given their track record; nothing they've developed comes close, and there's no reason to believe anything they develop ever will. That's why Matrix games and Paradox and other niche companies exist.

**fallen851** · 03-13-2014, 00:16

Originally Posted by Stuie

Actually you have a point fallen. My expectations ARE pretty low out of the box. A company has to make money, and my expectation is that they will put out something that appeals to the broadest base possible in pursuit of their profits. I don't accept that because I think it's ok, I accept that because the more "accurate" the game gets, the more niche it becomes, and chances are it doesn't even get made. Slavish adherence to history does not sell well in a general sense.

What I hope for above and beyond the mass-market-appeal is the ability to mod the game to my liking, something close to my vision for a Rome game, which probably differs from what you envision or what Sp4 or any of the other critics on this forum envision. I find Rome 2 to be good bones on which to build a Rome game for myself that I can enjoy, and CA have even provided some decent tools to assist me in that (Assembly Kit). Part of my enjoyment of gaming comes through modding. Understandably, that's unacceptable to some people who feel the game should match their design expectations out of the box. That's fine, but I'm not sure why anyone would ever expect a decent historical simulator from CA given their track record; nothing they've developed comes close, and there's no reason to believe anything they develop ever will. That's why Matrix games and Paradox and other niche companies exist.

Well, I believe I owe you an apology. My above post was overly harsh to you and I toned it down a bit. I should not have taken my frustration regarding this game out on you. I built a new computer in preparation for it, and believe the hyped, believed them when they said the end game would look better than the previews, ect... But then as the game got closer to release and I watch the CA staff play the game I knew it was going to be a disaster and I'm bitter. Again, this comes down to expectations.

That said, if you believe that Rome II is a good basis for your own mod and has a features you like, then I understand why you like the game. Personally, I'd rather see a game build on the M2 engine myself because I like the features better, but to each their own. An old member, RedHarvest put it best when he said that Total War titles weren't "games, they are do-it-yourself projects."

Lastly, I don't think anyone expected Rome II to be historically accurate (or at least I didn't), we just expected it be what CA said it would, and to work. I haven't played in awhile, but I haven't read anything about naval battles being fixed, and apparently the Siege AI is still broken. It just needs a lot of work.

And I hope it gets there, and the right mod tools are released, so people like you who enjoy the features can fully enjoy the game.

**Myth** · 03-13-2014, 10:37

I like the original Rome engine (used up until Medieval 2) a lot more too. The population growth, multitude of buildings and the agents look great. And everything is less... cluttered? I'm not bashing the looks of Rome II as they are fabulous, but strategy wise I enjoy my games to be a bit more crisp, if that makes sense. Also, somehow cavalry used to move better in the Rome1/Med2 engine than in the Warscape one.
@fallen851 we're thinking of starting a new tradition on the .org where we play previous TW titles (sort of like second launch or something). Will you be interested in partricipating? Also, we're playing a lot of M2TW (with and without mods) in the Throne Room versus other human players. Maybe you'd care to join?