Heart of the Matter , Is RTW good value for $?

In the light of all negative comments posted about CA and RTW, to me the one critical thing is

Was buying RTW worth the money?

IMHO the answer lies by comparing RTW to its opposition.(I only play and will only play PC games, console games are right out for me)

Civ 3 matches RTW for strategy but hardly for graphics.

Railroad Tycoon 3 and Stronghold , both fun games and well-supported but hardly in the same scope as RTW

Cossacks(and sequels), expansive games, but hardly match RTW for graphics and strategy.

Microsoft Age of Empires and many sequels, once again fun but hardly as ambitious as RTW and certainly strategy not equal to RTW

City building series, (Caesar3 etc) , match or even surpass for strategy but don't compare for shear scope and graphics.

Command and Conquer series/sequels. Match RTW for most modability, good strategy and graphics , just not as majestic as RTW.

All the above surpass RTW for lack of bugs, but the ambitious nature of RTW has made it inevitably more prone to these. I guess MTW:VI is a big challenge , but I think graphics give RTW the nod.

So the decision goes to RTW mainly because of its hugely ambitious design. I always admire people who risk more than others. Largely CA has succeeded,I have bought and played all the above, but IMHO RTW was the best value for $.

graphics wise prolly but gameplay wise, the many bugs just doesnt maximise the potential. It had the potential to be very good but it didnt lived up to it. And sadly it was bugs that made it so.
and games are not all abt graphics, its abt gameplay, gameplay should always come 1st, sadly many games including RTW is moving in the former's direction.
if u tried the gates of troy by slitherine, you can see it placed priority on gameplay, i give it thumbs up..and if u see the size of their development team, you will say "impossible" but its done. i probably will pick it up after my exams or try silent hunter 3

The money is not the issue for me. It is the time investment and disappointment in seeing what it could have been, and the state in which it has been left. I feel burned, because I could see a lot of potential (still can.) I poured a lot of time into it trying to overcome the weak points and understand how this thing worked, and trying to explain what I found to others who had an interest. Unfortunately, no amount of modding can fix the core problems of the game. And many of the less desirable characteristics were readily apparent to grognards in the demo. So I feel like a bit of a sucker...

I'm not mad at CA as an organization, just disappointed. A lot of people are venting at the moment, primarily because there is a sense of betrayal. I'm not interested in marching on CA with pitchforks, giving them bad press, etc. They don't owe me anything personally, but I would just like to see a serious commitment to improving the game, and winning back their customers' collective trust.

What I should be mad at CA over is getting me interested enough in the period to buy and read a bunch of books...if only the game were as interesting. ~;) Is this a variant of, "The movie was OK, but the book was much better?" ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor1952

IMHO the answer lies by comparing RTW to its opposition.(I only play and will only play PC games, console games are right out for me)

---

It's opposition isn't games. It is everything entertainment, games are justa specific subset of that.

If I didn't buy RTW I am not necessarily going to buy another game, there is just as high a chance that I will spend it on something else.

Regardless, as to the question, is it worth the money (this is something determined by ones financial status). For me it's worth the money, but not the time I spent playing it.

RTW is like a Jaguar car. Fast, sexy, but breaks down too much.

Quality is determined by consistency of function, not by looks or design.

I think its well worth the money for what it is along with the mods and community. Its easy to forget that it is actually a good game when its so depressing that it could have been a great game :furious3:

I won't be buying the next total war game unless they do it properly though. There are so many bugs and the games AI is horribly flawed itd be too frustrating to go through it all again with a new one.

RTW cost me £29.99, i must at the very least played 120 hours since it's release (probably a lot more) = less than 25 pence an hour = good value for me, ive not even tried all the factions yet!

Some items in the game are flored and there are a few glitches, but game wise, graphic wise, and fun wise rome total war is good value for money.i bought mine for £25 dont know how many dolers that is but still i think thats £25 welll spent :bow:

It's too buggy for me at the moment. I've tried fixing bugs and using workarounds, but the load game bug is just too much! Coupled with the whack-a-mole rebels who comprise >90% of my battles, trait bugs and the useless AI (fear my no-star generals and lack of anything approaching a battle line), I just find the game to be a tedious chore.

I bought RTW soon after release, feeling fairly secure since while MTW and STW had bugs, they weren't in-your-face game breakers and they were eventually patched.

I've wasted too much time on this game and I'm simply not going to buy any more CA products until I know that they are free of major game-breaking bugs. I hope the expansion pack fixes the major problems, but I'll be waiting a while after it's released to see what the community discovers.

I think CA have really shot themselves in the foot, since strategy games sell a lot based on recommendations and word-of-mouth. That's how I and my friends got in to the total war series, it's how the game makes a lot of it's money and it's why their next games aren't going to do so well.

Currently, I see RTW as similar to Heroes of Might and Magic 4. It has many improvements, but the AI is awful, the gameplay tedious and overall just not as fun as its predecessors. The forthcomming sequels to both games get me excited, but I won't be rshing to the shops on the day of release.
Following the recent 'feedback' from Shogun at the .com, I think CA need to buck their ideas up or the TW series will go the way of Master of Orion.

I looked at the "Your Homework for Today" thread, and IMO one-star is just a bit too harsh. :embarassed:

1. The game took more than 4 years to make and is still great by today's standards.
2. A lot of players who hasn't tasted/experienced RTW (or TW games for that matter) will miss out.

The onus is really on CA to keep up to their standards or else competition may or will catch up soon. But as of this moment, there are no comparable games to RTW.

Absolutely. No question about it.

I only bought the game recently and I'd say I've got more value than I ever expected. I've never really played strategy games before, being more of a FPS guy myself, but a friend was always going on about the MTW game and the Viking expansion pack. I decided to take his word for it about a month ago and haven't stopped playing yet.

While I appreciate that the AI isn't great (very fast learning curve!) and the loadgame bug is a pain it's still a great game. If, like me, you can play for a few hours at a time then the impact of the bug is hugely reduced. Also the 'Ironman' ideas must even up the AI deficit - I'm still a beginner so not going to try them just yet!

When you add in the multiplayer, the short battles, the different factions to campaign with and the stunning graphics and sound there's no way to say this game isn't value for money, not unless you're being a bit pedantic and nit-picky. Yes it is flawed, quite badly, but it can be worked around to a degree and the plus points more than make up for it.

PS hi to everyone, first post here.

Based on price per hour, compared to movies etc, one would have to say yes. Based on satisfaction, compared to other similar games, one would have to say not even close.

No its not worth the money becous it sux,
Shogun is Much better Even if its Old Made by EA and looks bad,
Least it works, units are ballanced right game play is fluid, and ai aint that Dumb

I Wasted my money on Rome and dont play it at all Becous i also own shogun And like ive said....
Its better,
I havent played MTW yet But im shure Thhat It has to be better than Rome as well,
becous rome Sux,

Thnx

ShambleS
:bow:

NO.

I couldn't recommend RTW even if it were in the bargain bin. Not being able to save a game without dire consequences is too much for me. I can only play a couple of turns a day, and the load/save bug destroys any possible enjoyment I can get out of the game.

Absolutely not worth the money. Shogun and Medieval both gave me more than anyone could ask for in the way of value. Rome is unplayable. It's got lots of cool features and if you are a noob, or just plain stupid, or don't take your gaming seriously, then I can see where you might think Rome is good. But if being able to get a good game out of an AI is what makes a game good, because you take it seriously enough to learn the mechanics and numerology of the game, then Rome sucks.

The comparisons made in the first post in this thread by the way are probably all wrong imho. Rome is not nearly as good as any of those games. And if you are tired of Medieval and want a good game where strategy and tactics actually matter, try Kohan II. It blows RTW away. That or play MTW:VI as it's certainly the best strategy game ever written.

Quietus,

One star is not too harsh when the review explains very clearly why it's one star. Also, for those only playing 30 minutes a day, that bug really, really sucks.

It's the only way to warn a consumer. If they still buy it, at least they are informed that they will get poor service from CA.

Let's face it, it's not just that bug either, it's the following:

Scarred general bug (I found this after only 2 hours of playing when I realized I had 3-4 generals called Scarface...c'mon!)
Horse Archer Bug

Now we have the protectorate bug as well, which makes me question my current game where Egypt became my protectorate rather too quickly...maybe I had just loaded a game after undoing a seige? I forget, but it spoils it a bit.

The business maxim is that one happy customer will tell one other person about their experience, but one unhappy customer will tell on average 20 people about their experience. I wasn't really angry until they denied the "feature" and still haven't said it will or won't be "de-featured" in XP.

I'm more than willing to give them 50 more dollars for an XP if it fixes up this stuff and improves the AI in some incremental way.

Feel free to offer them the 3,4, or 5 stars you feel they deserve.

of course, it's all relative, and in comparison to other forms of entertainment, it's not so bad value-wise. still, i can no longer with confidence recommend it to friends. that's what's at issue here, i think.

IMHO, the game is good but it was not up to expectations. Generally because of the game balance issues and the campaign replayability.

In campaign games, the AIs just aren't challenging enough strategically due to the complexity of the map even in VH mode. Everyone is a Sun Tze when we fight against the AI. The only way to get some challenge is to play really losy factions with units balance issues.

In Battles, the the units are badly balance. The AI simply cannot handle some features (like the phalanx and testudo etc) effectively to put up a challenging fight. The game engine is also flawed and it allows cav or infantry/pike spaming which encourages players to spam.

I too hope that all these issues can be solved by CA in one way or another but I have little faith in that happening due to their terrible customer support.
I hope they would provide better customer support and refine the game engine in the furture.

If I could turn in Rome: Total War for the money I paid for it, I would. I would even forgive them for the time I've wasted playing the single player, dissatisfied and thinking that I was doing something wrong, and the time I've wasted modifying the game in a vain attempt to remedy the problem.

worth the money sure, not sure its worth the time tho. i don't expect great ai just enough to keep the "believability of a decent opponent" factor. the more you scratch the more you see that it's just not there. i don't expect to purchase a patch in the form of an expansion tho..

Heres what i want to know....

You ppl who say Rome total war is Worth the money,
Do you own Shogun Or medieval total war at all?

Becous seems to me only ppl who never played previous total war games Say Rome total war is worth the money,

Id like to know :)

I'veplayed all three. It is definitely worth the money, even if it is flawed.

Personally I think that only challening games can be worth 50$.

In case of RTW, two bugs make it less challenging then intended (battles difficulty and loadgame bugs).

Less challeing games lead to less replayablity, and thus less time spent playing.

So I think it's more worth 20-30$ in this state, no way 50$.


EDIT:
Although you need to realize that very few games are worth 50$ for me. Some of recent ones are Civilization 3 and Neverwiter Nights. Good patching support, many expansions, good modabiliy and replayability. With better patching support RTW could've been in too.

RTW is defenitely worth it IMHO and for me it´s theese reasons:

1. Superb strat map.
2. Excellent graphics.
3. More micromanagement.
4. In-depth battle interface.
5. Music, speaches etc are great.

Sure, compared to MTW it has some flaws but hey, this a completely new game so why compare it? Mod out the things you´re not happy with and the things un-moddable we just have to live with. I really don´t understand all the complaints that I hear in this community regarding RTW. CA has done an excellent job. Shure it could be more historical, realistic etc but remember that the minute you start playing a strat-game YOU are in charge of creating history.

I grade RTW 4.5 stars out of 5. Three years ago I graded MTW 4 out of 5 stars so I´m happy... most of the time!

I think Psiramses has said it better than me. I've been playing this game since it came out and still havn't played all the factions!. I have dabbled in modding and tried some excellent mods including spqr and rtr. And to the others I have bought all in this series(with expansions) and rtw is the best despite its faults. (I have a laptop and use hibernate so save game is never an issue).

Remember Shogun and those spies, how you easily won by just destabilizing the bad guys provinces, too easy, and MTW:Vi just build an huge trade navy and the ai was mincemeat. Those were far greater barriers to strategic play than any I've seen in RTW(modded of course).

I eagerly look forward to an expansion and sequels(caveat only on PC-no console please)

4 out of 5 from me. So slick and in-depth.I took away a .5 for bugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor1952

Remember Shogun and those spies, how you easily won by just destabilizing the bad guys provinces, too easy, and MTW:Vi just build an huge trade navy and the ai was mincemeat. Those were far greater barriers to strategic play than any I've seen in RTW(modded of course).

---

In general, I'd agree. However, the important point is that both of those problems were optional. If you didn't want to abuse the system, you could choose not to, and have a challenging game. Sadly, most of us don't have the option of choosing not to save the game.

That's why I haven't really complained about the protectorate bug. Sure, it's a bad exploit, but being aware of it, I can choose not to use it. But the AI decision making system isn't under my control, so I can't choose for them to do the smart thing and continue the siege.

Bh

Yep, Bhruic hit the nail on the head. Bugs which are avoidable don't feature nearly as highly as those which aren't. Protectorate one is just another apsect of the main problem and one which itself is able to be avoided by the human player if they show restraint.

I have had some fun out of Rome, and for me it's probably been worth the cash in terms of hours played. However, for the time being I couldn't recommend the game to a friend and this is based soley on being unable to guarantee that important issues will get fixed. Support is key and Rome is devoid of this for the time-being.

The strategic and tactical AI is weak, and the playbalance is poor. CA doesn't have time to improve these areas of the game. The game is historically inaccurate and the gameplay is unrealistic. These are not CA design objectives. If those things don't bother you, then you can have fun with it.

Strictly looking at £'s per hour, yes it is. Also, I've enjoyed playing Roman far more than i did STW (the end game when there are only two factions left bored me to tears!) or MTW (ditto). The only thing that lets it down is the AI and that fact that all major battles are sieges (which shows the AI at its very worst). The rest of the bugs don't ruin it for me, but should have been sorted out.

At the end of the day CA tried to change too much (the campaign map and engine in one go!) and it damaged the end product, but as with other flawed gems I've seen lately (such as Soldiers Heroes of WWII) I think we will look back in a year or so and realise that they pushed the boundaries and moved us away from rehashed dross like Age of Empires, Settlers etc into a new era.

I'll be buying the next Total War as I tell you now it will be special.

For value you cant beat the combined mtw/vi pack. Great game and bargainous too! I much prefer the ancient setting of RTW though (but I do miss welsh longbows!)

Bugs aside RTW is good, Good graphics, solid campaign map.
It becomes great with the total realism bug. I much prefer playing unified rome and am loving the tougher early game created by the rtr boys!

Still i am getting ticked off about the bugs. One or two would be ok, but the whole thing stinks of a rush job. Bottom line- If graphics and the setting aren't the main turn on then get MTW and wait until an expansion pa(tch)k comes along and see if they sort out the issues.

Well for a game with a weak unbalanced and half-@ssed Multiplayer I must say that it doest worth its money...
The whole SP focus by CA makes the CD key worthless...
If you are a graphics whore and dont care about playability go for it...Otherwise dont touch it...

Hellenes

sure, when playing you can choose not to exploit the protectorate bug. the ai player isn't as discerning tho and this leads to an inconsistent world imho.

Yes, it does have great graphics, if you never play a shore battle.

Seems like a mixed bag here,
Some for some reason Love tha game,
i really cant Comprehend this lol,

Some 1 said £ per hr of game play its worth it???
well i spent £40 on this pice of junk and have played it for A few hrs,

I also spent £40 aon Stw Years ago, And have played it for years,

I wont be playing Rome untill they fix it so, £ per hr It is most definatly NOT worth it.

Il agree that Its potentialy A great game, Its just a shame they dont have any beta testers for this game,
Cos honestly had they botherd testing the game Under real life end user conditions They could have ironed out these bugs,

i can Imagine how they tested it,

"Make units charge" no graphix inperfections "passed test"

"wait for ai to start a seige" Seige started "passed test"

"Check That videos play When its sposed to" Vidos play "passed test"

Then they put it in a box, and said
"that will do. i cant be asked runing any more tests."

I wont be buying the next total war game which is unfortunate,
and neither CA, EA, or Activision Arent going to get any of my anual game buying budget ever again,

Shure its no skin off there noses and thats precisley why they Throw out junk like this,
They know they can just get Any idiot to buy there games And no matter how flawed they are, Some ppl will still say its great,

So please ppl. Stop patting there backs and saying Great job
Cos Thats precisley why they dont give a F*** about end users.




P.S

before you get Horibly offended about this line in my post
"They know they can just get Any idiot to buy there games"
I bought there dumb game 2

I really do not regret the money. I had lots of hours of good play, though after winning the first time (and this was the first time I played RTW) I knew how to do it every time again. I still play from time to time - but STW and MTW were there for me for a longer time, I remember.

I do feel that it could've been better: tactically and strategically the AI is usually waaay too simple. Atmosphere used to better in the other TW series.

Talking about graphics, yes graphics is ok, but what I expect from a strategy game is not only visual leisure, it's also an intellectual challenge. Think about chess (well keep proportions) - is chess such a neverending success because for graphics? (even if it's 3D ~;) ). I agree RTW was never meant to have - and could not - such a depth, but now the idea of mopping out rebels all the time and having battles where all you have to know is where to hit the AI opponent to instantly rout it's army isn't much fun. It's not a challenge anymore, it's just waisted time, it's a fatigue.

To me, any game that can expand my knowledge of history is certainly worth $50. I remember I bought MTW because it had the most realistic combat model of any game I'd seen; I was getting very tired of Age of Empires and other hit-point-centric games. It was only after I played for a week or so that I became fascinated by the Crusades, which continues to be one of my favorite subjects.

To be able to play as a classical general or king and then read about the events you've just taken part in is very enjoyable. Don't get me wrong, RTW has plenty of flaws, but not nearly enough to make me stop playing. The fact is that no one else has even come close to tackling the subject of the classical world as well as RTW does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shambles

P.S

before you get Horibly offended about this line in my post
"They know they can just get Any idiot to buy there games"
I bought there dumb game 2

---

The only thing I found offensive is your butchery of the English language.

I think MTW + VI is currently a much, much better deal.

RTW has so much potential, but IMO it falls short of being great, and it's the lack of campaign-map dynamism (which is directly caused by the save\load bug) that makes Medieval far more enjoyable, for me at any rate.

I got into Total War games when I bought the MTW VI pack earlier this year and after a few months I had to buy RTW just to see what it'd be like and to be honest I feel both games are excellent value for money for the hours I've spent on them - however my girlfriend would disagree, she thinks they are the worst thing ever to hit the UK.

I don't like the bugs in RTW but I still play it for hours, it has real potential especially with an expansion pack due soon. I'm so excited, sorry to all those out there that the bugs have ruined the game for and feel buying the expansion pack to fix them is a rip-off but I can't help it, I'll buy it anyway.

Yes, it doesn't compare to MTW, but honestly, what game does ? Even in its buggy state I still find it enjoyable.

The only bugs I encounter/care to note are those involving city assaults, specifically trying to get a unit to step inside the town square where you want to.
To answer thw question, RTW is a great buy. People buy far worse games and dont complain about them (Read: Doom 3)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcusbrutus

- however my girlfriend would disagree, she thinks they are the worst thing ever to hit the UK.

---

I find this is a fairly reliable gauge for the success/worthiness of games. My girlfriend absolutely loathes and despises M:TW, she only hates R:TW. ~D

Even with the frustration, Rome beats most movies, music, or other entertainment if you compare them against the money spent/time wasted.

First 53.99 is way too much for any game. I saw a financial report on TV that says that analysts and game companies are testing how fast they can raise prices even higher on games. Before this whole save, quit, reload fiasco occured I could live with all of the other problems. I would still pay 40 dollars for it.
I don't play strategy or RTS games too much because my brain is wired to suck at them. Maybe if that's all you play you'd see the flaws more clearly. But I have a lot of fun playing this game and I love the time period. But It's probably worth no more than 25 dollars now in my mind.

I think RTW is worth the money, I play all sorts of games, but always come back to Total War. Since I play RTW a lot the price per hour is pretty low. It is lower still for classics such as STW and Myth: The Fallen Lords, but those are classics , much older than RTW and their flaws have been glossed over by time. 50 bucks for a game is not so bad, and Doom III is very fun first time through, it has great atmosphere and graphics, it cost more and took up less of my time so if DoomIII is worth it RTW is definately worth it.

Yea, you remember Myth. That game rocked. I loved the bomb throwing dwarves that apologized when they slaughtered an entire unit your best knights. I also laughed out loud at the Trows which would kick like 5 guys into little tiny bits. That was the true predecessor to the total war series.

RTW is worth the money because nothing compares to it. Even MTW has much less features. I would probably say "those bugs are to much I rather play... " if the sentence wouldn't stop there. Thus, I have to accept the bugs and play it. And I play it a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

RTW is worth the money because nothing compares to it. Even MTW has much less features. I would probably say "those bugs are to much I rather play... " if the sentence wouldn't stop there. Thus, I have to accept the bugs and play it. And I play it a lot.

---

I dont have to accept the bugs though,
I payed good money for a flawed product,

And seeing as people are mentioning doom3 i think it was a big rip off of half life and even on the hardest setting i compleated the game Quickly,
but atleast doom 3 Worked fine,
All the moneters didnt "reassesd the situation and run away" every time you saved a game,
And it Had the right feel to it,

RTW is like a plastic soul-less shell of a game with no feeling to it,

but ive had enough of telling ppl this now lol =)

I hope you people who enjoy the game keep enjoying it,
but plese do me a favour, Dont go telling Ca What a great job they did,
cos really they didnt.

CA did a really good job, a great job, but forgot about the DEADLINE, and then rushed the parts of the game not done at that time. (Okay, maybe the amount they wanted to do couldn't be done by the deadline.)

Hopefully, the expansion will allow them to finish off the little things, fix some bugs, and expand the AI. For all my bitching, I can understand these guys wanting to hold tight until September and then hope the "storm" passes once the XP is out. I think it's a flawed business strategy in this case, but I can see the thinking behind it.

I think one of the problems with CA is they think only MAJOR problems count. Add up enough minor issues, dose liberallly with poor service, and you will make your customers upset.

Fingers crossed on the XP. Then I can go back and edit my review.

Actually, CA had 'finished' the game last spring, but Activision sent it back to them because of interface issues (that's what i heard anyway).

I think the problem probably does lie with CA, they need to expand their QA (and playtesting) department.

Doom3 is a wonderful graphics engine. They should make a game out of it. :tongueg:
Honestly though, it's a good game... the first time through. But there's really absolutely no replay value. RTW, however, has a LOT of replay value (especially if you dont cheat and unlock all the factions at the very start).
Bugs? Daggerfall is most likely the single most buggiest game ever, and it still is my favorite game. Why? Replay value and gameplay. Sure, it crashes every thirty minutes on average, but who cares? I'm having fun, and that's what is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kekvitirae

Bugs? Daggerfall is most likely the single most buggiest game ever, and it still is my favorite game. Why? Replay value and gameplay. Sure, it crashes every thirty minutes on average, but who cares? I'm having fun, and that's what is important.

---

heh, but if RTW had THOSE kinds of CTD problems, you'd probably not think the same way after you found out about the loadgame bug...

at $50, no. (i bought it at 41 when it came out.)

At $30 yes.

In terms of strategy it's not in the same league as Civilization III (and buy conquests expansion) or Caesar III. Playing with the different factions is like playing with set 'characters'. There are 19 of them, with 11 full fledged. The distinction between factions is better than in Medieval:TW.

In terms of action and tactics its unsurpassed. If you want a better AI, buy Medieval TW (with expansion), but graphically less appealing and less options.

It's great when you like both in equal measure (tactics & campaign map), but you can automate one and focus on the other. If you dont strive for perfection in your empire you can have a lot of fun with this ruby of a game.

Rome, when the Gold Edition comes out that includes teh XP and RTW as well as the option of downloading the, then complete, EB mod - it'll be well worth the money.

Right now though, not a chance. Save your money.

In a word, yes.

Though I'll add that it amuses me to see the growing crowd of people constantly bashing RTW on these forums. And going to quite extraordinary lengths to make their opinion well known. Even to the point of screaming out that the total war series is "dying", ganging up and repeating themselves over and over again on forums, and even giving RTW ridiculously low ratings on amazon as a "public awareness campaign". It really is rather pathetic to watch and is certain to do more harm than good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordKhaine

In a word, yes.

Though I'll add that it amuses me to see the growing crowd of people constantly bashing RTW on these forums. And going to quite extraordinary lengths to make their opinion well known. Even to the point of screaming out that the total war series is "dying", ganging up and repeating themselves over and over again on forums, and even giving RTW ridiculously low ratings on amazon as a "public awareness campaign". It really is rather pathetic to watch and is certain to do more harm than good.

---

you defeated your own argument when you stated that this crowd of dissenters is growing

strange that it's growing when most of the people who frequented this forum left after RTW was released because of their own feelings of dissent

history is interesting in it's cyclical nature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

Based on price per hour, compared to movies etc, one would have to say yes.

---

That comment answers the question completely in my opinion.

Perception of value is relative, and consumers HAVE and DO compare different forms of entertainment in this manner.

Which, in a kind of strange oxymoron way, makes your second comment...

Quote:

---

Based on satisfaction, compared to other similar games, one would have to say not even close.

---

... rather sterile.



In comparison to all other forms of enterntainment, unless a game is so diabolicaly bad it is unplayable, then it is automatically good value for money. Because the audience that likes the particular product, will get far more entertainment value from it than a differant kind of entertainment that has the same retail cost.

If the product is thrust upon an audience that doesnt like the product, they will say it is bad value for money, but in relaity, they themselves just dont like it.

A personal opinion of not liking something, doesnt mean something is not value for money.

Entertainment must be enjoyed to be worth the investment.

if it's not enjoyed, then it's not worth the investment, both in time and money

entertainment which is not enjoyed is not worth the money

When it is the hardcore fans of such forms of entertainment as this that are the ones which are heralding it as a poor investment, it's probably good to listen to them.

You know, kind of like listening to someone who enjoys driving cars a whole lot and that's almost all they do with their spare time is driving and experiencing driving cars telling a friend that a certain vehicle is not worth their money. This person has experience with said subject and so he can give an informed opinion on what is worth the money and what is not. Ever heard of reviews in magazines for anything? Movies, cars, games, computer hardware, stereo equipment - all things that people who have an idea of what is a good product can give an informed opinion about to the masses of uneducated people.

However, those same uneducated people may be very happy driving a Hyundai, listening to a Sony sound system on their generic Futureshop computer while playing a buggy game. The difference is that some people don't settle for the bare minimum and strive for quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

RTW is worth the money because nothing compares to it. Even MTW has much less features. I would probably say "those bugs are to much I rather play... " if the sentence wouldn't stop there. Thus, I have to accept the bugs and play it. And I play it a lot.

---

To compare Rome with MTW (one of the greatest strategy games of all time) is a joke. Even if you ignored all the bugs in Rome, the fact remains that the battlefield AI is a steaming pile of plop. I can honestly say I have never lost a significant size campaign map battle where I have not been hopelessly (2:1 at least) outnumbered. MTW's Hard and Very Hard AI could beat me if it had a slightly better army and a terrain advantage. RTW can't come close with uber troops on top of a hill. And that's why it cerainly IS NOT worth the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan

CA did a really good job, a great job, but forgot about the DEADLINE, and then rushed the parts of the game not done at that time. (Okay, maybe the amount they wanted to do couldn't be done by the deadline.)

Hopefully, the expansion will allow them to finish off the little things, fix some bugs, and expand the AI. For all my bitching, I can understand these guys wanting to hold tight until September and then hope the "storm" passes once the XP is out. I think it's a flawed business strategy in this case, but I can see the thinking behind it.

I think one of the problems with CA is they think only MAJOR problems count. Add up enough minor issues, dose liberallly with poor service, and you will make your customers upset.

Fingers crossed on the XP. Then I can go back and edit my review.

---

I see some people think its Right for them to deliberatly leave bugs in the game,
Then charge you extra to fix them.

No wonder They realeas unfinished games if your attitude is Never mind Il pay more money to fix it,

This is a joke
obviously some people have more money than brain cells

Quote:

---

To compare Rome with MTW (one of the greatest strategy games of all time) is a joke. Even if you ignored all the bugs in Rome, the fact remains that the battlefield AI is a steaming pile of plop.

---

...And Medieval's isn't?

The sole aspect of MTW's AI that was superior was the strategic AI. It actually used concentrated forces. Because it has to. Because that's how the strategic map is designed

But the battlefield AI? Heh. I picked up the battlepack a few weeks ago, because I'd heard on these boards, so often, that MTW was better.

And, erm, it isn't. First battle I played, the AI proceeded to march its melee infantry right up to my line of four longbow units...and dress its lines. While its troops were falling by the dozen with each arrow volley, it took the time to adjust its facing, make some minor changes to its formation, and so on. By the time it stopped, the infantry had already begun to break under the arrows. Not one of the AI's units reached my archers.

Yeah, that sure is stellar AI, right there *cough*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mxlm

...And Medieval's isn't?

The sole aspect of MTW's AI that was superior was the strategic AI. It actually used concentrated forces. Because it has to. Because that's how the strategic map is designed

But the battlefield AI? Heh. I picked up the battlepack a few weeks ago, because I'd heard on these boards, so often, that MTW was better.

And, erm, it isn't. First battle I played, the AI proceeded to march its melee infantry right up to my line of four longbow units...and dress its lines. While its troops were falling by the dozen with each arrow volley, it took the time to adjust its facing, make some minor changes to its formation, and so on. By the time it stopped, the infantry had already begun to break under the arrows. Not one of the AI's units reached my archers.

Yeah, that sure is stellar AI, right there *cough*

---

I'm not going to argue with what you "found" but I am going to say that I have played MTW for hundreds of hours and know full well how much better its AI is. Frankly, it sounds as if you haven't played it very much (let me guess, you saw this at the start of an English campaign after bribing the Welsh army, right?) Wait until the computer actually has some decent units, and MTW's AI will show up Rome's, I assure you.

Quote:

---

Even if you ignored all the bugs in Rome, the fact remains that the battlefield AI is a steaming pile of plop.

---

That relative 'fact' is easily countered by the fact that the graphics of MTW look like a streaming pile of plop. Literally. Not to mention twice the cultures, twice the factions, twice the diversity in units, etc.

Buy RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoxSexSax

I'm not going to argue with what you "found" but I am going to say that I have played MTW for hundreds of hours and know full well how much better its AI is. Frankly, it sounds as if you haven't played it very much (let me guess, you saw this at the start of an English campaign after bribing the Welsh army, right?) Wait until the computer actually has some decent units, and MTW's AI will show up Rome's, I assure you.

---

I have played MTW also for hundreds of hours and I don't think the AI was better. The AI in RTW has just more options to mess up. That's why it seems worse.

The AI in MTW was not brilliant. Whether the AI in RTW is truly better or worse is hard to judge since the battles are over so fast. As with MTW, the only close battles I've had have been fighting against overwhelming forces.

The reason why RTW is not enough challenging is because bugs don't allow it to be more challenging.

If harder battle difficulty AI, would cheat as designed (having higher attack bonus), it would make battles more challenging.

If AI wouldn't go into passive state after loads, you would get more interesting campaign game.



Anyway, just these two things could greatly increase challanege rating of this game, without any improvement AI.

If these two things get fixed in expansion, I would buy it.

Quote:

---

That relative 'fact' is easily countered by the fact that the graphics of MTW look like a streaming pile of plop. Literally. Not to mention twice the cultures, twice the factions, twice the diversity in units, etc.

Buy RTW.

---

Yes, we know MTW has twice the cultures and unit diversity, and the graphics are not as good, but having re-installed it and played it again, it is a much more enjoyable game than RTW is AT THE MOMENT.
Rome has a lot of potential, but for me, the most important factor of FUN isn't there.
I am about to lose as the Poles in a High GA game to the damn Almohads. They own half of Europe (literally), it is going to be impossible for me to beat them, but I will try.
There has never been this much sense of 'hopeless fun' in RTW.
MTW has it's drawbacks yes, but it is fun to play, which for me, graphics or no, is the most important thing.

I find it funny that people are praising the AI in MTW. There's really nothing to be praised about it.
The enemy stands 50 meters from a line of my Longbowmen army, watching the arrows land in them and their buddies. Sometimes they charge, and promptly get smacked down by a full volley from the second rank. They make no attempt to flank me, whereas the AI in RTW always tries to circle me using their cavalry.
Is this something you want to praise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kekvitirae

I find it funny that people are praising the AI in MTW. There's really nothing to be praised about it.
The enemy stands 50 meters from a line of my Longbowmen army, watching the arrows land in them and their buddies. Sometimes they charge, and promptly get smacked down by a full volley from the second rank.

---

and you havent seen similar behaviour in RTW...

Quote:

---

They make no attempt to flank me, whereas the AI in RTW always tries to circle me using their cavalry.
Is this something you want to praise?

---

Flanking attacks did happen in MTW. IMO the AI in RTW does attempt to flank more often. All it means, however, is that the first AI units to be routed are the AI's cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kekvitirae

I find it funny that people are praising the AI in MTW. There's really nothing to be praised about it.
The enemy stands 50 meters from a line of my Longbowmen army, watching the arrows land in them and their buddies. Sometimes they charge, and promptly get smacked down by a full volley from the second rank. They make no attempt to flank me, whereas the AI in RTW always tries to circle me using their cavalry.
Is this something you want to praise?

---

I am frankly amazed at what I am reading in this thread. How anyone can keep a straight face while saying RTW has a better AI than MTW amazes me. I have played both for HOURS and I KNOW which one is better. By default, the AI in RTW uses the same formation for open terrain battles EVERY TIME! Check the formation file in the data folder, it is HARDCODED to always prefer one specific formation. And you claim it's AI is better? Go away and learn your stuff boy.

Is RTW a good value for the money? It depends on what kind of gamer you are.

If you're a casual gamer or a relative newbie to strategy games or someone just looking for some cheap thrills and eye candy then I suppose RTW is worth the money. The initial 'wow' factor is quite high and there's lots of things to do initially. If you aren't looking for a serious challenge or have an allergic reaction to difficult strategy games then RTW is for you.

However with regard to veteran strategy gamers I'd have to say that RTW is simply not worth the money. I bought RTW the day of its release and paid roughly $50-55 for it. Given the outstanding bugs, issues and lackluster AI that exists even after two patches I honestly feel I overpaid for this game. Once the initial 'wow' factor wore off and I recognized RTW's lack of challenge and depth I wished I had bought it on sale or at a bargain bin price. It all comes down to longevity and I feel that RTW simply doesn't possess the replayability factor that MTW:VI had, even with extensive modding. In fact I think the better mods out there for MTW:VI did more to improve gameplay for that title than any of the current mods have been able to do for RTW. When it comes down to it RTW simply doesn't offer the kind of challenge and deeper gameplay veteran strategy gamers are looking for.

Regarding the AI. Yes the AI in RTW makes some of the same mistakes as the AI in MTW but overall I'd have to say the tactical battles in the latter were more challenging. The sheer number of lopsided victories I've won in RTW on Hard (and not the by product of 'gamey' or unorthodox tactics) far exceed those I achieved in MTW:VI at the same level of difficulty. RTW was in development for roughly four years and the tactical AI seems no better than it was in Shogun and certainly worse than that found in Medieval! As far as I'm concerned this is the most disappointing aspect of RTW and the one area that CA seemed to completely ignore. I can understand the strategic AI being somewhat lackluster in its execution since the campaign game has been completely changed but the tactical battles are what the Total War series are all about and to see CA offer up a tactical AI that is, for the most part and with few exceptions, worse than its predecessors comes as a rude shock, especially given the time and development that went into creating Rome.

If you can pick up RTW for 20 bucks usd or the equivalent, you will get your value. The game is deeply flawed, and the campaign is a boring mess, but there is one thing that the game does do right, and that is seige battles. Really, when I played it, I only defended or attacked castles, because this is the only fun part. Seiges are amazing and very well done. Otherwise, the AI is a joke, the campaign is hollow and a joke, and the Egyptian faction is a joke.

If you can get it cheap, buy it, otherwise, stick with MTW.

If anyone does not take my word that the AI in RTW is beyond attrocious, I present visual proof. Sorry for the H-scroll, but I feel that this is worth seeing, even if it is inconvenient. ~;)

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v.../RTWpwned2.jpg

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...X/RTWpwned.jpg

and as you can see by the total troop count in the second image, those two images are indeed from two seperate battles.

Buy R:TW then install patch v1.2 then install Rome:Total Realism. It's great. I haven't touched M:TW in weeks since getting R:TW. I have played 2 M:TW campaigns as Turks and French, plus three M:TW VI campaigns as Picts, Irish and Vikings. Then I played three R:TW campaigns as Julii in a vanilla 1.2 and as Carthage and Egypt in two R:TR campaigns.

I would say that the AI is perhaps very slightly poorer in R:TW but the R:TR install makes the armies you encounter much better balanced, which forces you to construct better balanced armies. On the whole, despite the lousy pathing during sieges I would say R:TW is very slightly the better game. And the eye candy is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoxSexSax

Go away and learn your stuff boy.

---

My suggestion is that you take on a lighter tone. Insults are not tolerated lightly in this forum. :blankg:

Quote:

---

Frankly, it sounds as if you haven't played it very much (let me guess, you saw this at the start of an English campaign after bribing the Welsh army, right?) Wait until the computer actually has some decent units, and MTW's AI will show up Rome's, I assure you.

---

Start of an English campaign, but was against a Welsh rebel force of...hell, I don't even remember the composition. Several polearm wielding units and a peasant or two. That's what I get for trying to garrison a newly conquered province reeeeaaally lightly.

My point wasn't that MTW's AI isn't "better"--if you say it is, I'll take your word. However, it simply isn't good, and can be downright horrible.

Which doesn't mean the game isn't fun. It just isn't as massively superior to RTW as numerous posts on these boards had led me to believe. I've enjoyed RTW more than I have my initial experiences with MTW (though MTW is certainly fun). Maybe that'll change, maybe not.

And STW, well...RTW is certainly better than that was. Of course, since RTW is the third game in the series started with STW, it damn well should be.

Interesting how the newbies (like me) think it is the greatest thing since lunchtime and the old lags grumble loudest. I'm pleased to hear there may be an expansion pack; I have spent HOURS trying to install patch v1.2 to no avail. :furious3: Hurry up with a CD fix, CA!

Yes, RTW is good value for money. I was just clearing away my games yesterday and was surprised by the sheer weight of the RTW box - the CDs, the manual, the map.

It is a very substantial game - the amount of factions you can play; the length of the Imperial campaign (how many hours to win? I'd guess 40+); the incredible variety of units and army styles (phalanx, legion, cav, horse archer, chariot, barbarian horde etc); the excellent tactical battles; the impressive strategic map; the decent building/economic game; the gorgeous graphics; the historical simulation etc etc. There's easily five times the content of most rival strategy games - in some cases, I'd say 100 times more content.

A lot of the bugs are just a consequence of the compexity of the game. Ditto the AI limitations.

When people damn the game, I'd like to know what contemporary strategy games they consider so superior. I'm certainly not playing any.(I'm reduced to playing shooters and replaying oldies like Jagged Alliance 2.)

And if the say STW or MTW, I say they are just spoilt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

It is a very substantial game - the amount of factions you can play; the length of the Imperial campaign (how many hours to win? I'd guess 40+); the incredible variety of units and army styles (phalanx, legion, cav, horse archer, chariot, barbarian horde etc); the excellent tactical battles; the impressive strategic map; the decent building/economic game; the gorgeous graphics; the historical simulation etc etc. There's easily five times the content of most rival strategy games - in some cases, I'd say 100 times more content.

---

And content makes a good game? Sometimes it's the simple games that are the best - often for that very reason.

Quote:

---

A lot of the bugs are just a consequence of the compexity of the game. Ditto the AI limitations.

---

Then maybe they shouldn't have made it so complex? Complexity for complexities sake is not a good idea. And excessive complexity that you can't properly account for (ie, you end up with too many bugs/flaws) is not good either.

Quote:

---

When people damn the game, I'd like to know what contemporary strategy games they consider so superior. I'm certainly not playing any.(I'm reduced to playing shooters and replaying oldies like Jagged Alliance 2.)

---

And why would we be limited to contemporary games? And why should we have to name something better? Are you suggesting if your only choice for food is sour grapes, spoilt meat or stale bread, that because you happen to pick the stale bread, that makes it good? The fact that you'd choose to go back and play something like JA2 would seem to indicate you don't actually believe that, so why impose that limitation on us?

Quote:

---

And if the say STW or MTW, I say they are just spoilt!

---

So if we've had a couple good games to play, that's all we are allowed? We now have a quota on them? We aren't allowed to expect a company to continue to put out the same quality games?

Bh

@ Bhruic

I have to agree with S Appleton. I give very high marks to the development team for aiming so high.

"Better to have loved and (maybe) lost than never to have loved at all" Not quite appropriate but I guess you have my drift.