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

[Razor1952]

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 $.

[slackker]

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

[Red Harvest]

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?"

[Productivity]

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.

[HarunTaiwan]

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.

[marcusbrutus]

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

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.

[*Ringo*]

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!

[tibilicus]

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

[Camp Freddie]

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.

[Quietus]

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

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.

[Divinus Arma]

Absolutely. No question about it.

[Lazarou]

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.

[SpencerH]

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.

[Shambles]

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

[Turbo]

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.

[Satyr]

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.

[HarunTaiwan]

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.

[tai4ji2x]

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.

[AquaLurker]

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.

[Benny Moore]

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.

[matches88]

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..

[Shambles]

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 :)

[Catiline]

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

[player1]

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.

[PseRamesses]

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!

[Razor1952]

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)

[Arrowhead]

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

[Bhruic]

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

[Jambo]

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.

[Puzz3D]

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.