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

[Marcus Maxentius]

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.

[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.

[Shambles]

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.

[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.

[doc_bean]

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.

[Kekvit Irae]

Doom3 is a wonderful graphics engine. They should make a game out of it.
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.

[tai4ji2x]

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...

[Shambles]

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

[SoxSexSax]

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.

[mxlm]

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*

[SoxSexSax]

...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.

[sunsmountain]

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.

[A.Saturnus]

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.

[SpencerH]

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.