Quote Originally Posted by sassbarman View Post
I know it's been mentioned a million times but it still boggles my mind how this game scored so high with reviewers. I guess there are really only 3 possibilities to account for this gross error in judgement.
a) they never actually played the game beyond 3 turns.
b) they are massively incompetent.
c) they where offered '"incentives" to utterly ignore the obvious shortcomings and focus on the few good aspects of this game.
Apologies aside this game reeks of everything wrong in the PC gaming industry today which is to say the souless persuit of profit over professional integrity and just doing what's right for your loyal paying customers.
Sorry to be so heavy handed but I'm just sick of this CRAP.
There are fair reviews out there but they turned out to be very few and far between. The Rock, Paper, Shotgun analysis likely captures the spirit of playing Rome 2 the best. The writer describes in perfect detail how awesome the spectacle of the game is and the disappointment at everything else. The "When i stop playing, i'm not sure if i was having fun" (paraphrased) line sums up my experience to a T.



And it's not that I want to be negative or bash on the game, I doubt any of us do. I was so hype when my preload was unpacking, i dare say I was giddy. Truly excited for the potential that lay ahead of me. Right now my attitude is summed up by the words extreme disappointment.. there is much more wrong with Rome 2 than technical issues, there are deep flaws in the way the game is constructed.

It's shocking really, to believe the same studio who made the refined and incredibly focused Shogun 2 could make a game as scatterbrained as this.