A review of Rome TW that will make you VERRRYYY ANGRYYY!!!!

[hellenes]

The link

http://www.xgr.com/index.php?id=8931

Enjoy...

Hellenes

[BDC]

Variety is good. There was a similar MTW review. At least this one didn't claim it was too hard because people run away.

[lancer63]

Poor review....poor indeed.

[zhuge]

I wouldn't get too worked up. Some reviewers are just like that. They mention 1 or 2 negative points (which aren't negative at all - he's said himself that there is an automanage function) and then they slap a 60% on the score. He didn't really distort the points (I've seen worse reviews for other games) but mentions everything in a very poor light. He obviously DIDN'T want to like the game at all for some reason and was quite unfair but with the tons of good reviews out there, 1 mediocre review won't hurt sales and general opinion.

I've played, enjoyed and even modded games which have generally lower review scores than R:TW (for example: Temple of Elemental Evil (CRPG by Troika)) so I don't read too much into reviews. If I think I'll like a game, I'll buy it anyway and I certainly won't base my judgement on any 1 review.

[Sin Qua Non]

ARGGG! THE RED MIST IS DESCENDING!! MUST KILL!

Eh. Sounds like he's part of the "c'mon, I haven't killed anything in 3 minutes!" crowd. He may be pacified by running an endless loop of Gladiator with an old PS2 controller in his hand. One man's opinion, I guess.

I've gone whole sessions without ever engaging in a battle. It was just the way it turned out. I like the building part best. Once you're huge, the fun quite often will wane. Then you have to get creative. I had fun one night just reorganizing my homeland garrisons for more economy and efficiency. Sure, I had some fights, but I wasn't the one starting them. Games like IL2 and submarine sims also have these kind of criticisms. They want to get in the air and be in one immediate and constant dogfight, or shoot 6 torpedoes a minute. The hunt is a lot of the fun. Hell, some of my best times in IL2 is when I'm nursing my bucket of bolts home, with no rudder controls and a rough engine.

You get a solid B+ on the inflammatory topic title though.

[Oaty]

He makes fun of the simple city building features but that is what I like about it. The tech tree is so much simpler from MTW but too tech up still takes a long time. It makes it much more enjoyable for the fact that very few buildings require other buildings and also you can specialize a certain unit in each city while ignoring the other tech buildings.

If I want city building I'll go back to pharoah

[Church]

Hey. Lets not say anything we cant take back about Pharoh(i love that game) horrible review tho.

[Suppiluliumas]

It is very poorly written; full of poor transitions and redundancies. It reads like a highschooler's book review. The rating seems a bit arbitrary as well. Let's just hope he or she was not compensated in any way for such a weak effort.

[Maltz]

He got one point wrong that you "cannot" zoom to details when the battle happens. I didn't find that out in the first 2 hours of playing, either. I also have a feeling that this guy only played 2 hrs to write this reveiw?

[R3dD0g]

It is very poorly written; full of poor transitions and redundancies. It reads like a highschooler's book review. The rating seems a bit arbitrary as well. Let's just hope he or she was not compensated in any way for such a weak effort.

You checked out their 'Contact Us' page? Looks like the sophomore dingbats society.

And this comment:This sort of management is required to advance the game but I personally don't want to play medieval a Sim City. I'm bloodthirsty and want to fight, fight, fight! This is Rome: Total War after all. kind'a sums up what the reviewer is looking for.

And the name of the mag XGR what's that stand for XGames Reviews? I personally don't give a Cheney what some consoler thinks about my PC games.

[Bhruic]

Anyone who refers to R:TW (or any of the TW series) as a RTS game just shows their lack of understanding of the game. It's obvious this guy was looking for a RTS game, and didn't find it here. Because, of course, R:TW isn't a RTS game.

I did find it an amusing read. I mean, first he complains about the tedious city managing. Then he mentions how you can get that automanaged. And then he complains about missing out on half the game. Make up your mind!

Bh

[Turbo]

CGW gave Rome Total war 5-1/2 stars out of 6. They devoted a full paragraph to the shortcomings of the game -- poor AI and various well documented bugs. I thought this was an excellent review and rating.

[chemchok]

"The Campaign map view is completely three dimensional. You can rotate and zoom in real-time (to a point). There are even small details such as trees swaying in the wind. That's cool but it will not save this game from the brutally dull city building mode."

WTF?

[Silver Rusher]

This guy is a n00b in all aspects- n00b game player, n00b at history, n00b at reviewing, and most importantly for his job, a n00b at actually spending enough time on the game to find out what it actually is like, rather than making stuff up like Chemchok pointed out. (do trees really sway in the wind? Maybe I haven't been paying much attention, but I haven't seen it)

[Spino]

Dontcha just love it when the console and RTS kiddies express an opinion? It's sooooo cuuute!

R0m3 SuXx0rz! W/\rKraFt 3 r00lz!

I'd like to grab a 39oz Louisville Slugger and take some batting practice using the reviewer's head as a ball...

[aw89]

all who hate stupid people say; I!

[Husar]

"The only negative thing about the battles is that you are unable to really zoom down to the battlefield to view all of the gory details. That only happens, briefly, via cut scenes and usually before and after a battle."

LMAO, did he even play the game?

I zoom down very often to see my men fighting, I can´t believe a reviewer didn´t even find the camera controls.

[Jeanne d'arc]

Does he have a pc at all?

[Kraxis]

Guys you fail to see the hidden positive results this review will grant us. And I'm quite serious...

Maybe this review will have a good number of those consolers stay away from the game and thus any of the boards attached to the game. That way we don't have to deal with them when they whine over the fact that they can't understand why the troops run away after being charged in the rear by cavalry, or why their assassins fail now and then, or "how do I get to Ireland?"

Be pleased... I am.
But of course it doesn't change my opinion of the person's intellect and ability to understand the small aspects of the game (such as the camera )...

[Nelson]

"The only negative thing about the battles is that you are unable to really zoom down to the battlefield to view all of the gory details. That only happens, briefly, via cut scenes and usually before and after a battle."

LMAO, did he even play the game?

I zoom down very often to see my men fighting, I can´t believe a reviewer didn´t even find the camera controls.

Oh, he played it. But he didn't like the strategy map city building (his prerogative) , copped an attitude and then rushed through the battles without exploring what was going on, again, because he was disappointed straight up. Failure to appreciate the graphics reveals a very hasty review indeed. Hell, the screen shots tell a different story and there they sit right next to his text! He never mentioned the AI nor did he say he had played TW before. He did say that he was in a hurry to start fighting. Then he wraps up with this beaut, "Unfortunately, all of the juicy action bits get dulled by the tedious, not-so-real-time city and army building on the world map. Rome: Total War isn't a bad game but it's not great either. Aside from the Roman theme this game doesn't stand out from everything else in its genre." (my italics) Now what genre do we suppose he means? It's not a traditional RTS but that's the shoe he wants to fit.

I saw a similar review in a magazine that covers consoles and PC games that gave Rome a 75 out of 100 citing weak AI and substandard graphics. The opposite page reviewed a traditional RTS Warcraft clone with graphics they loved to death! Go figure. The graphics in both looked great to me but the other game could not handle thousands of troops...

Genre straddlers like TW can give editors fits. You have to get the right person to do the review because no one should critique a genre they dislike. You will get different takes on different aspects of the game depending on whether the RTS guy or the wargame guy does the review. One thing is certain, no one gives a game a good review if they don't like it and their reasons can be valid or not.

[Ziu]

Reads like a babel fish translation. This guy is obviously still in his teens.

[Ashen]

How dull is that "I don't like the Campaign map, im giving it 60% no matter how many other things I love about this game!"

Bet hes a counter-strike player.

[Sin Qua Non]

Guys you fail to see the hidden positive results this review will grant us. And I'm quite serious...

Maybe this review will have a good number of those consolers stay away from the game and thus any of the boards attached to the game. That way we don't have to deal with them when they whine over the fact that they can't understand why the troops run away after being charged in the rear by cavalry, or why their assassins fail now and then, or "how do I get to Ireland?"

Be pleased... I am.
But of course it doesn't change my opinion of the person's intellect and ability to understand the small aspects of the game (such as the camera )...

That's a very good point. Even better than building a giant wall to keep the consoles out!

[alexanderthegreat]

well youre right im very angry about that review. i mean how can you give a great game a 60 just becuse of 1 negative point.

[Razor1952]

I guess his review begs the question, what would YOU give RTW.

Personally, my first impressions were WOW, this is fantastic, and I'm still enthralled by the graphics and intricacies of the game.

Still it would be hard to give it 10/10 because of the zillions of errors. If most the worst errors( hate that word bugs... I reserve that for a game which won't work.. it actually is one of the most stable games I've played), please fix suiciding generals , armies which get slaughtered by towers, bribery and the wonders. The rest I can live with till more fine tuning.

My score without the patch? 9/10(for those errors) With the patch ? as close to 10 as you can get.

[Lonewarrior]

*urge to kill rising, rising RISING*

[zhuge]

There's a good listing of many reviews here:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat.../rometotalwar/

I haven't read CGW's review but PCGamer's comments were Ok and IMHO Adrenaline Vault makes a pretty fair review. Anyway most reviewers out there having to review many games do not spend much time on any one particular game and AI exploits which is one of the game's more glaring weaknesses are unlikely to be noticed unless the reviewer is a dedicated one or has some experience with similar games.

It is clear that in terms of graphics and interface, R:TW has surpassed its predecessors and although many aspects of diplomacy are a bit problematic currently it is also considerably expanded and improved over previous games. No doubt everyone realises that the AI needs some serious tweaking and there are certainly quite a number of txt file errors but with promises of a patch on the horizon on this matter, I strongly feel giving it any less than 85% would be too harsh a judgement.
In the meantime, there are always self imposed house rules we can play with so as to lessen particular AI exploits and also applying mods to correct txt file errors.

[AFM984]

Let's face it the guy was expecting an RTS But did not get, TW series is not an RTS & shouldn't be described that way, Its a mix, a hybrid, a genre of its own.
For Example, If you Hate Basketball, & I gave you THE basketball of all time you wouldn't give it the rating it deserves, not to mention that the guy seems to have had somthing different in mind, but I gotta say 60% is ridiculous.

[hellenes]

Another one:

http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exere...A6FD0EF85F.htm

Enjoy...

Hellenes

[Ashen]

Or my own original review, which can be read here , which got me an abusive email from one "Matthew Hunt" who claimed to be a beta tester for activision and told me that If I thought the beta testing was badly done, i was wrong. needless to say, he could never provide any proof of where he worked (yahoo email address for instance) so I just dismissed it as a fanboy getting a little angsty.

nice to know people read the reviews though!