Link is here at Get Games. I actually used this site to pre-order so its pretty cheap now I would say, and very well worth it now for this price.
Printable View
Link is here at Get Games. I actually used this site to pre-order so its pretty cheap now I would say, and very well worth it now for this price.
Bargain bin already?
Are you surprised?
Me? Of course not.
But then again, I was "one of those guys" who was very critical of CA and the game itself before release based on the previews. Many called me out for it...
I'd like to say that $26.97 is a good deal for this game. But it isn't. You're better off spending $7.48 (http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Total-War-PC/dp/B0002MPT6Q) on RTWI and loading up the RS2 mod. It is much better. Rome II is to Rome I, what Diablo 3 is to Diablo 2. Rome II and Diablo 3 are the most disappointing games I've ever played. They aren't terrible games alone, but when compared to their predecessors, and to their potential, they fall so short.
CA needs to not just fix the bugs in RTWII, they need to fix many of the game design decisions.
Agreed, and as the most recent DLC has shown, they dont really give a :daisy: about their fans.
To be fair, the new lead dev has improved D3 a great deal. The most recent patch (2.1) seems great, and the expansion also seems awesome. The snakes DLC? Not so much.
What was the latest DLC about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
See for yourself...
Basically they added 7 new units for the low, low price of $2.99!
Meh... it's cheap enough that hordes of people probably don't care. It's kind of taking spoonfeeding to the next level though. It's probably more of an IV feeding by now.
They only cared when they first started off. Those days are gone... :,(Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
I honestly have not launched the game in a month. The last time I played, I played for 30 minutes before thinking meh. I finished one campaign so far, which was the first one I started. I started a few others but restarted each time they came out with a new patch until I thought fuck this, I know how it goes.. I really don't need to play the game.
I think it's been the last TW game I bothered with.
*goes to play some M2*
I don't think Rome II is a bad Total War game as it is now, but the business practices of CA/Sega are making me more and more disenchanted with their franchise. This "let's milk the gamers for every last dime they have" approach is getting on my nerves. I know they didn't pioneer the DLC thing and that everyone else is doing it, but it doesn't excuse bad practices.
Launching a Snakes in A Pot DLC before fixing the roster for Sparta? Before they make different tiers of units viable instead of obsolete when the best ones come along? Before they fix the politics and civil war mechanics (18 starving stacks of civil war troops...)? Before they add factions like Thrace, Dacia and Numidia? Before they give us the family tree we wanted? Before giving us full, fleshed out skill trees for generals and agents instead of making us guess/remember which skills to take to get the desired effect? Before fixing the stances so something other than forced march is actually practically useful? Before fixing the PO issues for the barbarian factions and making raiding/looting a viable alternative to actual conquest?
I'm not saying I will stop playing Rome II, but I haven't had the time to do it in the past months. Civilization 5, Thief, patch 2.1 + RoS for Diablo 3, Dota 2 and not ot mention a plethora of other games are on my plate and frankly, Rome II just can't compete for my limited time.
Sure, if it had actual real hotseat mode like Medieval 2 I'd play it a lot more since we'd be running hotseat games, but this is also a part of the new business strategy for CA/Sega, along with disallowing real total conversion mods.
I don't think we will see anything of what you mention. Perhaps in Rome 3...
I guess I'm in the opposite boat. Frankly, I don't care at all about the DLC's. None of them are necessary, and people can buy them if they want them. I do believe most of them are a waste of money, but if I was interested in the game I'd probably buy the other faction packs, unless the unlock all factions mod gives me the same experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
What bothers me is the quality of the game. It is just a huge step backwards from Shogun 2 or even Rome I. All of those things you mentioned (the family tree, the broken civil war and political system... ect) plus a few other details (unit collision, army recruitment, naval battles, same old complaints everyone has...) really just ruin the game for me and they have no intention of fixing them, because that is how they intended them to be. The people who made Rome II simply weren't interested in making a quality game.
I doubted very much after the game was released, and was ridiculed for on this forum, the belief that CA was actually going to fix the problems and improve the game. Remember the promise of weekly patches? Yeah, that literally lasted a week. We are on what, patch 9? The game has been out for 26 weeks, half a year. We haven't seen 26 patches, one per week. I shouldn't have to say that unless you know you'll be releasing a weekly patch, then don't say you will. But CA is just a totally incompetent group of people, unable to come close to fulfilling any kind of promise. I am a very prideful person and take pride in my work and I would ashamed of myself if I worked for CA. I couldn't work there.
But I guess it comes full circle, because their lack of interest in making a quality game might be aligned with the business practices of CA, so maybe we are in the same boat.
The one patch a week seemed to last for about 3 weeks-a month.
All sins will be forgiven w/ the release of Warhammer. No longer held back by the requirement of any semblance in reality CA will be free to soar to new heights.
Couple that with Colonial Marines, oops, I meant to say Alien Isolation, an FPS by a dev team w/ exactly zero experience in making FPS where you wander around dark hall ways with no weapons (oh, please, sign me up that's just wtf I want to do is wander around a ship with no weapons and an alien on board), and I think it's safe to say we're all in for treat from our friends across the pond (assuming you are reading this from the States as I am).
The one patch per week promise was "until the issues are fixed". They fixed the worst ones pretty early on - zombie faces, pink skies etc. From then on it's balance patches, AI and so on. They warned us that testing CAI patches took a lot of time because they had to play multiple 250+ turn campaigns to make sure the changes took effect. So they didn't lie to us and I don't think it's realistic to expect patches that improve CAI every week. The AI did get better and most issues are indeed fixed. They need a lot more work on balancing though - gatling gun slingers, pathfinding, siege battles etc.
In the balance dept you can add agents.
In the needs to be reworked so it's remotely meaningful and worth even opening the menu to look at you can put politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Come on guys. Take off the rose tinted glasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Patch 1 - 6 September 2013
Patch 2 - 17 September 2013
Patch 3 - 1 October 2013
Their promise was broken before they released Patch 2. Surprise! And Patch 3 wasn't one week from Patch 2 either. Just a lot of fail. Now, you might call me a stickler, but I wasn't the one who said they'd release a patch a week.
They did.
Sources:
Total War: Rome 2 weekly patches start this Friday
by Steve Watts, Sep 04, 2013 2:00pm PDT
http://www.shacknews.com/article/809...-coming-friday
Total War ROME II: Patch Notes
http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Total_War...I:_Patch_Notes
Well you are right about that. Still, I'd take semi-weekly patches which improve content than 2 months of quiet and a gimmick, historically inaccurate DLC.
The problem with the 1 patch a week or whatever you wanna call it was, personally, for me.. I was done with the game before patch 5. It was released in a crap state and I made the mistake of playing it in a crap state and restarting every time they released a new patch and yeah... by the time I had restarted a campaign for the fourth or fifth time, I could not be bothered anymore.
I feel like I have absolutely nothing positive to say about this game and I am certainly not buying any DLCs. The only thing I threw more money at was the blood thingy because.. well.. because it looks good. There is a positive thing. The game mostly looks good.
To be honest, I'd start a new campaign when another major content update comes along. Too much to play now anyway, especially since I also started playing Hearthstone.
I dont play anymore since I simply do not have the time to play anymore, at least not for any substantial time anyways. I have maybe an hour a week of time to play video games with work and all my other responsibilities and R2 is simply not on my "to-play" list right now.
And anyone quite frankly could make the case they have better ways to spend their time.
/rolls eyes
Sadly, this right here pretty much sums up why I continue to put (too much) time into this game. The overwhelming desire to have updated graphics in the RomeTW setting. I also strictly play mods like DeI and others that make the game several orders of magnitude better and have been modding myself in order to improve the balance even further. These things make the game quite enjoyable at times... but also incredibly frustrating when you continuously run into the problems that still plague it, cuz it only reminds you of just how badly CA handled the execution of this game and exposes the weaknesses of the outdated Warscape engine. It's just pitiful when you think about what this game could've been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
I'm with Fallen851 in the regards that I take personal pride in my work, and full responsibility for delivering anything less than expected to my clients. My professional reputation depends on it, no excuses. The devs at CA should think about this; how often will opportunities to be involved in a game of this scale and potential come along for all involved? They should make the most of it and create something really memorable. Rome 2 will most likely only be remembered for its failures rather than its successes.
Unfortunately poor execution in the games industry happens all too frequently these days.
I like DeI but the AI can't do anything with it which makes it boring. Have they been able to do anything with the dev kit yet?
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.
This entire forum is pretty much a ghost town, not just this subforum. Very few active subforums in general.
I still think its an overall good game. Not great, but still good, though there isnt much to say about it anymore. CA isnt really helping either with a lack of any info about anything.
That pretty much sums my thoughts up as well. One thing I'd add is that with the lack of single player immersion and the lack of MP competitiveness (hotseats) there really isn't much to brag about, talk about or discuss about really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Medieval 2 is 8 years old and It delivers the fundamentally best strategic and tactical experience for me. It allows me to plan strategy wise on the campaign map, to win or lose battles due to my ability as a field general in the tactical battles and it allows me to play versus cunning human players. No amount of graphics can compensate the lack of the option to pit myself versus the likes of SivlerShield, LooseCanon1 and Nightbringer! Versus the AI you know you can relax. You know you can get away with playing greedy. Versus humans every move must be calculated.
If Rome II had proper mod support and hotseats it would have surpassed all previous TW games, because the community would flourish around it. We would have a TW Renaissance. Just look at how successful the TWC is, and that basically revolves around M2TW mods - in particular, Stainless Steel, Third Age, Broken Crescent, KGCM and Darthmod (and some upcoming new ones like Westeros)
Imagine the influx of players if we had a mod on the level of Stainless Steel for Rome II. Med 2 is far from perfect in its vanilla state, but Kingdoms + a quality mod make it excellent. Imagine the epic hotseats, RPGs and team battles that could be had with a simple hotseat option. Who wouldn't like to test his mettle against fellow forum generals? To march his armies across the lands of that moderator who has been getting on his nerves? :laugh4: Yeah.
I'd honestly pay 20 euro for a hotseat patch. But CA should release one with a gift of a free DLC just to get people to play Rome II again. A hotseat option + full mod support will make Rome II live for at least 15 years.
If I had the say, I'd have the team whip up an Athens/Sparta content patch, blast away with ads and paid articles and cash in on 300: Rise of an Empire's marketing, and give it for free. I'd include a hotseat function in that patch and get people to try it out by implementing it as a multiplayer platform with LAN support (but also PBM save file swapping).
This game has potential, and with a couple weeks worth of work it can quickly become a major factor in strategy gaming for 2014. But the people at the top are simply too dense, too focused on excel spreadsheets with numbers. Herp-derp sell snaks in pots for 3 euro, maek money!
I was with you up until "Herp-derp sell snaks in pots for 3 euro, maek money!", which, I must confess, sold me 100% on the CA-logic of things, if only from the spout of milk that is currently decorating my keyboard.
I can be positive. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by fallen851
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.
So what you are saying is... that RTW II is just as good as RTW with mods?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuie
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuie
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.
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?
I'd love too.
Throne Room is this way. We can start a new game.