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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[fret]

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...

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.

[Colovion]

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.

[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.

[Dude_uk]

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.

[Ginger]

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.

[Kambei]

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. Hurry up with a CD fix, CA!