What Mark Out of 10 Would You Give R:TW?

[Kor Khan]

Hi, I just recently had an interesting thought, one which I posted at TWC and would like to post here as well: How many points out of 10 would I give Rome: Total War and how would it compare to the score I'd give M:TW? What are the pluses and minuses of each game. So I decided to make a thread about it.
Instead of doing the marks the way most games magazines do them, i.e. just come up with a number that feels right, I want to do it more systematically. There are ten sub-scores:
Graphics; Sound; AI; Battles; Campaign Map; Immersion/ Atmosphere; Longevity; Moddability/ Mod Community; Controls; Completeness (the less bugs and ballance issues, the better).
Each of these points you give an integer between 0 (Unimaginably Lousy) to 10 (The game in question is currently the leader in this field). You also put down a small text with reasons for the score (what's good and what's bad about this aspect of the game). After you have all the scores, you then add them all together and divide them by ten. You then have the final score.
I was thinking that anyone who wants to can in this fashion calculate the score for R:TW. If they want to, they can do the same for M:TW or S:TW as well, so that people can see how the games compare to each other. I'd be quite interested in seeing other people's opinions.
It could be particularly useful to show CA what we think is good about the Total War series at the moment and what needs improving.

OK, I'll start off by posting my own mini-review

Rome: Total War

1. Graphics: 9/10

The graphics in Rome are among the best in the whole strategy genre. The battle engine can show thousands of men in quite good detail, without lagging too much at all. There's hardly anything that you can say against the appearance of R:TW, except perhaps the unrealistically sized walls and pine-trees, and perhaps the slightly cartoonish look of the campaign map. It's only small details that prevent Rome from getting a fulll 10/10

2. Sound 8/10

The music is very good, the sounds of the battlefield completely convincing. The only thing I don't really like is the speech. Maybe it's just my own opinion, but having American accents for the Roman generals doesn't quite feel right (not that I have anything against Americans). The "foreign" accents are much worse though, particularly the Greeks ("Yes, Strappy Horse!"). That's why I say minus two points for the speech.

3. AI 6/10

Yes, the AI. What many would call the Achilles' Heel of R:TW. What prevents one of the best strategy games of the past few years from being the greatest game of all time. Admittedly, it's improved quite a lot since the patch, but it still has a long way to go. On the campaign map, the AI doesn't really know what it's doing and only thinks about 1 move ahead. It also sends stacks at your forces one by one, when it could engage your army with all the armies it has a few squares away. The battle AI also never really tries to deceive you in any way and often sends it's units at you piecemeal, allowing you to easily annihilate them. And those were all just a few things that are wrong with the AI.
Ah well, one can always hope it improves with BI.

4. Battles 8/10

Although they are very fast (something that displeased many fans upon release), they are moddable thank god. There are already severla very good mods out there that improve the fun of the battles twofold. One big problem, though, especially if you're using a unit setting of huge, is the fact that the fields in campaign battles are quite small. You only use a small area, and this doesn't allow for much maneuvering. Similarly, some of the complex factors that were in M:TW, such as some formations of crossbowmen and spears being better than others, seem to be gone in Rome. I hope that they'll be reintroduced in the next TW game.

5. Campaign Map 10/10

In theory, If the AI was better, the campaign map in Rome would be much better than that of M:TW. But as that's already been adressed, there isn't anything I can find in the campaign map that I can really complain about. The diplomacy is nice and complex. The terrain gets transferred to the battle map. You can guard choke points. Shame the Computer can't cope with it.

6. Immersion/Atmosphere 9/10

It's definately very good, but can't quite reach the level of M:TW. The pre-battle speeches are fun, but they get old after a while. I don't quite know why, but I feel like I'm playing a game, unlike in Medieval, where I really was a medieval general.

7. Longevity 9/0

I've been playing R:TW since October 2004 and haven't got bored yet, if only because of all the good mods out there. Vanilla isn't all that good for very long. It's probably because the campaigns all seem to go the same way and there isn't much to experiment with. Lots of the units are similar, there aren't as many as in M:TW, and you get them all fairly soon. In Medieval, I always wanted to know how faction xy played, and what challenges I would have to face. I also think it's a real shame that CA didn't include the provincial campaigns that they seem to have completed. That would have added a completely new degree of longevity to the game.

8. Mods 8/10

Plus: We have a very good modding community that has been working hard to vastly improve the original game. Minus: There are lots of places where Rome is very unmoddable, e.g. the faction or unit limits. It's up to CA to give the game a 10/10 in this field!

9. Controls 10/10

Contrary to the horrible camera controls in Medieval, I have zero issues with the new "RTS-style" camera. Nothing to improve, really. Selecting units and groups is also very easy, and I like the distinction between left and right mouse buttons, so that I no longer tell a unit to move when I in fact wanted to select another.

10. Completeness 7/10

Most bugs have been fixed with the 1.2 patch, but there still are some issues that have to be fixed, mainly involving the AI. Examples: Siege bug, protectorate bug, Sieging army standing around walls being killed. Once again, I hope BI will fix alot of these issues.


That was my review. And my score is.....


8.4

I don't feel like reviewing M:TW right now, but I promise I'll do it later. Anyone want to do their own reviews (they don't have to be as long)? Post comments on mine? Or comment about the way I did it?
I hope that (if this thread gets anywhere) CA might be able to use this as a reference for BI or the next TW game. I hope that we get lots of opinions.

[Mongoose]

7/10, fun at first but very repetitive and easy.

[Kor Khan]

OK, here's the review for M:TW. I can't do S:TW, as I don't have it.

Medieval: Total War

1. Graphics: 5/10

Even for it's age, Medieval's graphics weren't very good. I have a horrible feeling, after having played Rome, when I see those little pixel-man running all over the battlemap, as well as the interface that seemed specially designed to scare off all but the most hardcore of gamers. On the other hand, the campaign map looked allright and the main menu was good.

2. Sound: 10/10

I have the game in German, so I can't judge the English speakers. I've heard that Sean Pertwee did quite a good job, though. The German speakers were quite good too. As for the music: There are lots of tracks in there that I could listen to for hours and never get bored. The Arabic and Viking tracks in particular are excellent.

3. AI: 8/10

The AI is quite OK, it does a decent job in the campaign map, but the battle map AI simply never really surprised me that much. It was simply very predictable. In sieges it would often do some very strange stuff as well, we just didn't notice it because sieges were rare. In conclusion, I'd say that it's better than Rome's AI, but still not brilliant.

4: Battles: 9/10

Big battlefields, lots of tactical options, some very epic battles that everyone remembers (E.G. the Mongol Invasion Battle that everyone's fought at one time or another). This is definately a strongpoint of Medieval. Even the custom battles could easily have been a game for themselves. Only a few problems: 1. The historical battles were nothing special; 2. The way you would have all those reinforcements joining the battle in waves during the campaign: Very unrealistic. But the multiplayer is so far unbeaten in any strategy game.

5. Campaign Map: 8/10

Pros: Lots of unforgettable tales that simply never appeared in Rome. Lots of excitement, probably due to the better AI. The different ages. The fact that you couldn't recruit that many elite units, as the required buildings took ages to build. Cons: Very simplistic. The diplomacy is virtually non-existant and the sea attacks were ridiculous. The Risk-style map is probably a matter of taste, but I don't like it as much as the realistic one in Rome.

6. Immersion: 10/10

I was thinking about ongoing campaigns before going to sleep every night. What does that tell you? I don't know why it is, Medieval just had this addictive magic about it that wouldn't let go of me. It's something that Rome, for some reason, didn't have. I guess it's just a big combination of lots of different factors.

7. Longevity: 10/10

I can play EACH FACTION through multiple times. Trying out new factions is more exciting still. As stated before, I could even play custom battles for weeks on end. The only problem is the problem that all Total War games have after a while: During each campaign, you reach a certain point where everything just becomes a mop-up operation. I would usually quit at this point and start a new campaign, so that's not a problem. I don't know why, but a small faction simply trying to survive and expand early on is much more exciting than a faction that's just expanding more and more.

8. Mods: 8/10

Medieval was less moddable than Rome, and the community wasn't as big. However, there were such mods as XL and MedMod that just heavily improved the original game. They really gave you a challenge.

9: Controls: 7/10

The controls are another thing I preferred in Rome. The previously mentioned "use the left mouse button for everything" caused annoyance, and the camera controls sucked. That's one thing I never want to go back to.

10: Completeness: 9/10

The ballancing was perfect, in VI 1.1 there were practically no bugs whatsoever. Just having to buy the XP to remove bugs might not be everyone's thing, though.

So, the score is....

8.6

So despite the age, Medieval beats Rome, but only just. However, this score isn't in any way a definition of how fun a game is. Fun can't be defined with a number.

BTW, I'm posting this as a reply because I don't see any edit function. Is there one?

[Mongoose]

Not for new members. Don't ask why...

EDIT:

welcome to the .org!

[Red Harvest]

My original thought was..."oh no, another rating thread," but this one has categories, so it is worth a response. I don't feel you can simply sum up categories for a game, as a game is only as strong as its weakest core link (and sound and graphics are not core gameplay issues unless really poorly done.) Also, the MP players might feel and MP category should be added...

1. Graphics 9/10: Deduction is mainly due to very weak weather graphics otherwise I would lean towards the 10. STW/MTW were better in this regard. RTW's weather rendition is uninspired. I played a campaign or two before I learned to recognize "light rain."

2. Sound 8/10: I agree, speech is a weak point. Sound is good overall.

3. AI 3/10: 5 would be mediocre, but acceptable on my scale. Big problems with the AI on the battlefield, with AI phalanx control getting 1/10, skirmisher control getting 2 or 3 of 10 for their tendency to charge your heavy infantry, general suicide gets commander control a 1/10. Strategic AI is broken as well. Much of this is the lobotomy that the AI performs on itself from loading a save. There is also a tendency to pool vast armies in places where they do nothing. Family members like to hang out together, or as hermits away from armies altogether.

4. Battles 4/10: Too fast to be fun. Units move too fast, units kill too quickly. Vanilla units don't "feel" right. Counters don't work properly, archery is too powerful--particularly compared to slingers. Cavalry is too powerful. Cavalry and chariot types don't have enough speed levels among the types. The AI is just awful, and that spills over mightily into battles. Battles are a crazy mess of disjointed units zipping about at high speed and spread all over the map, or in impossibly dense moving furrballs. No cohesion. No challenge.

5. Campaign Map 8/10: I would give it a 10, except I can't disconnect it from the strategic AI. There is also very little effect from storms (particularly at sea), drought, other disasters and pestilence on the strategic level. These events are an area that is also buggy and doesn't seem to work as intended, or at least in fashion that is satisfying. It should also be random, but is not--at least not in the way one would expect. I found that the storm setting would fall "on the beat" just as its frequency was set in the file--only the location was random. Weather should have an impact on the strategic game...and a massive impact on fleets and navy sizes. It doesn't that I can tell. Also, a starting campaign randomizer should be added as an option--I've already worked out conceptually how to make one, so a real programmer could do much better.

6. Immersion Atmosphere 8 or 9/10: Like you, I find something missing, can't quite put my finger on it. The fantasy units like wardogs, head hurlers and super archers hurt the atmosphere for me. Broken V&V take away from the immersion.

7. Longevity 5/10: Falls on its face compared to its siblings and that is a shame. Weak AI, few surprises, a single campaign period, and weaknesses of the population based tech tree make for poor gameplay--(AI can't manage population for one thing, and unit size setting poses strategic game play problems.) The only reason I played it for more than a month was in trying to fix it. It was time poorly spent since the core problems are not really modable.

8. Mods...before I score it, I think I'll rename this "modability"...6/10. The software required to do unit graphics/animations mods is stratospherically expensive if one uses legal avenues. Therefore, this area is inaccessible to me. Some of the faction limits and the relationships are hardcoded to a point that makes them diffcult to mod. The map modding was daunting. Unit speeds and such can't be modded directly. Difficulty levels are broken. There are troubles with what the animations can be made to do. The base engine needs some additional work/expansion.

9. Controls 7/10: While RTW's are serviceable, I found MTW's better. And the left/right click inversion from one game to the next is d***** annoying. This forces an "either/or" decision on the player because you can't go from one game to the other easily--RTW loses when it makes such an ultimatum. Group commands don't work right in RTW. Game speed buttons design is fundamentally flawed (wasn't well thought out), and speed controls are buggy. Controls took a step backward in my opinion.

10. Completeness 5/10: Technically the executable is quite strong and improved from previous TW series. The game is less picky about actually launching and initializing. The previous TW titles that had a frustrating tendency to hang/abort at the splash screen on quite a few systems. However there are some problems with the RTW installer--primarily on the tidiness of uninstall/reinstall and with patching. CA desperately needs to post a clean up tool for RTW/patch installs. Balance and gameplay are woefully lacking, giving the game a "not quite ready to ship" feel. V&V/traits are flat out broken and screw up the game. AI is AWOL. Quite a few problems with unit stats and graphics. Lack of a proper patch requires deducting at least 3 points alone. The final patch determines completeness. RTW is unfinished so I give it a mediocre score.

[Jambo]

Yes, i'm inclined to agree with red harvest's rating more. Some might think it harsh, but in all honesty once the immersion and wow factor of the graphics are consistently destroyed by the inescapable ineptitude of the AI (in soooo many situations), the game loses its appeal.

Siege warfare is the prime example. It looks wonderful with the hacking and slashing on the battlements and onagers launching huge fiery rocks, but underneath all the gloss the lack of realistic and clever AI decision-making only bursts the epic bubble which we'd all been hoping to experience with RTW.

Remember the pictures and movies we all saw prior to release of 5+ onagers and armies of thousands attacking a city defended by men on the battlements, men in the streets and men in the plaza ... ? It looked epic and amazing. I can't think of one such occurrence of a similar battle or situation in any of the campaigns i've played. All too often the situation is either 10+ units of mine assaulting only 1 or 2 AI units dwarfed in their huge city, or a large AI army slaughtering itself against my city defences or 1 or 2 phalanx units guarding the entrance.... tedium.

One can only hope for a panacea of an expansion which fixes all the points raised by red harvest. However, deep down I fear that it is probably several steps too far for an expansion ... and high hopes only leads to disappointment and resentment.

[Spino]

I echo Red Harvest's assessment. My only exception is with his score for Mods...

8. Mods - 8/10. Rome is an extremely moddable game. While it would have been great if CA made it easier to add mods without having to change the game's original files (see DICE's Battlefield 1942 mod friendly file structure) at least CA has the foresight to leave a great many things in easy to access file formats so modders could have an easier time changing things. Unfortunately CA also left a number of things hard coded (i.e. the Marian Reforms date and AI build strategies) that one would think are tailor made for modding.

[Tocca]

I too tend to agree with Red Harvest on most things.
I would change one thing though, i would give Longevity 3/10!
It's just to repetitive, and above all it's simply not fun when you come to a certain part in the campaign. That part when the "i wonder if i will win" changes to "i wonder when i will win".

I must say it's much better with the Realism mod though.