Debate

[Augustus Lucifer]

Well, I've been logging on for the last week and have had no topics I could really add too, and my old thread was a bust like I figured it would be. Sooo, here's try #2 at being able to have stuff to say.

This is the debate thread, someone come up with a topic with two different sides and then everyone debate their side. Debates will end after 20 posts or after 3 days since the topic started(or as soon after that I log on) and I'll list the pros and cons given for both sides at the end with a link below topic in this post to the pros/cons post. There will be no winner, as a debate is a matter of opinion. After one debate is over feel free to throw another topic out there for debate. So, someone come up with an idea for the first debate(this can be anything, doesn't have to be related to the game). Also, when posting, try to keep yourself to a minimal amount of posts, 1 if you can, they don't have to be short but just so other people have a chance to speak within the 20 posts. Try to brainstorm and list all the things that you have to say concerning your side, and make sure you let known which side you're talking about.

If you feel I missed something mentioned in a debate or really really have something to add and the debate is over just PM it to me and I'll add it in. Oh, also all pros/cons will have credit next to them for who said them(can be more than one if virtually same thing).

Lastly, this thread is not meant to be a place for people to bash each other, the management, CA, or any other person or establishment. It is merely a place to speak your opinion on a topic and the things surrounding it. So keep it civil guys and remember these are opinions, meaning nowone is right or wrong, but more of a way to provide useful pros and cons for those of both sides or those wishing to take a side on an issue to have a better clarity for the situation. It is also a place for your intellectual side to prosper, be convincing and to the point. If everyone only argues the good of their side, and keep the bad of the other side to a minimum things should be fine. If I feel your post is too graphic, derogatory, or anything of that nature I'll PM you and ask you to edit it, and if there's no response I'll look to a moderator in the effort to save this thread from closure due to outrageous posts. So, follow the guidelines, and enjoy!

EDIT: Just noticed I was promoted to member and can post elsewhere, but I still want to do this for fun, and for anyone else who really hasn't been able to say much.

Topic #1: The Pros and Cons of Rome: Total War (suggested by Quickening)
-Debate finished, total of five replies
-Debate Overview - https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...1&postcount=10

Topic #2: High-End or Low-End, where does R:TW fall? MII:TW?
-Debate started, 0/20 replies, see post #13 and 14 for more description

[Quickening]

Okay here's one, should people stop whining about Rome Total War?

Personally Im sick to death of hearing complaints about the game. A lot of them are from people who love their history and are annoyed by the innaccuracies. A lot of them are from people who seem annoyed that the game wasn't Medieval Total War but set in Rome.

I have no time for either argument. Rome is a great game. Despite it's flaws, you will struggle to find a better strategy game. I have no issue with people modding the game to suit what they want but please, stop slamming the game because it wasn't what you personally wanted it to be. And lets look at the good points instead of dwelling on the bad the whole time. I see so much negative stuff said about the "vanilla" game, it puts me off playing it. But it is a great game.

[GrandInquisitor]

Okay here's one, should people stop whining about Rome Total War?

Personally Im sick to death of hearing complaints about the game. A lot of them are from people who love their history and are annoyed by the innaccuracies. A lot of them are from people who seem annoyed that the game wasn't Medieval Total War but set in Rome.

I have no time for either argument. Rome is a great game. Despite it's flaws, you will struggle to find a better strategy game. I have no issue with people modding the game to suit what they want but please, stop slamming the game because it wasn't what you personally wanted it to be. And lets look at the good points instead of dwelling on the bad the whole time. I see so much negative stuff said about the "vanilla" game, it puts me off playing it. But it is a great game.

I agree, although I rarely chime in about it. On a practical note of that, not targeting or belittling but just saying: if it hadn't been for CA making this game from the ground up, people wouldn't have their mods. Whether for modding or the actual game, it is a wonderful achievement by CA.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Good idea Quickening, this will be the first official debate. Edited the first post to include the first topic and a couple other guidelines.

Ok, I tend to agree with you on this one, there are tons of strategy games out there that leave you feeling like the guy who can click faster and build in the right order is the one who will win out in the end. The total war series was one if not the first of it's kind to merge the exciting elements of turn-based strategy to show your progress and add an administrative element to your empire, while also including an increasingly great battle system that only hopes to get better.

When I first got Rome: Total War, I was playing it for hours and hours, no cheats, no mods, heck I didn't even know or care if they existed. The thing of it is, while mods can enhance a gaming experience, there is absolutely no reason to say the game is horrible without them. You wouldn't be buying the game to mod if it didn't have great potential, and if you think you can do a better job than CA first try, then by all means fund the creation of a company, staff it with your elite, and try your hardest, my bet says you won't come close.

[Mithrandir]

Enjoy this thread, but follow the rules. CA, mod or any other type of bashing will not be tolerated.

Keep things constructive.

[Quickening]

I apologise for this, I really did try to keep to one post but Ive no idea how to edit posts as I had intended to add a few more points.

Change is good. I remember way back when I was playing the original Warcraft. I loved it and I was dying to play the second. But when I did, I was greatly disappointed and went back to playing the first. I remember being annoyed at things like gyrocopters, ships and gunpowder wheras the first game had been pure medieval. I also loathed the new comedy approach Blizzard had taken (people claim that Warcraft was always humourous, it wasn't). The first game was dark and gritty. And I despised the fog of war which was rare in games back then.
After a time however I grew to love Warcraft 2, until it became my favourite game of all time for a couple of years. I went back to Warcraft as well and I realised that neither of the games was superior to the other. Just different.
For me it's the same thing here.

As a matter of fact I was speaking to a friend on MSN earlier today and I asked him if he had ever played Rome. He said he hasn't because he played Medieval and found the battles too slow for him. Now, on my advice, he is going to give Rome a shot.
Im betting, that there are many more people out there like my friend who would prefer something a bit more thunderous than Medieval. With Rome they can have it. Thats more fans for the Total War games which can only be a good thing for everyone. No-one loses. The Medieval and Shogun fans still have their games. There are of course times when companies totally screw up games sequels, but this really isn't one of them.

I take a great interest in history, but I really am not going to notice historical inaccuracies within a game. Mainly because, Im not particularly looking for them when Im having so much fun. But I think it's great that people create mods to suit their own tastes and as the above posts state, it's thanks to CA that this is possible. I have to say Ive read some modders writings and was a bit taken back by their lack of respect (to say the least) for CA. This was not on this forum by the way.

To expand on the bugs thing, well, look at the scope of the game. It is inconceivable that such a game will ever be free of bugs. It just is not possible. Now look at games released the same year as Rome Total War and even later. Look at how buggy they are, how awful the pathfinding and AI is, then try and say that Rome has those things in a poor quality. It simply doesn't. Sadly, we will have to wait for the year 2351 before AI can imitate Sun Tzu.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Thanks Mithrandir, I'll add a part to the first post with some more guidelines involving how to be appropriate in what could be a very contraversial thread.

Also, these two posts(mine and Mithrandir's) won't count towards the first topic's 20 quota. Currently 4 towards it.

To Quickening, I'm not sure whether or not Junior Members can edit posts, but if they can then it'd be bottom right near quote of your post. If not it's no problem, I only added that part after your first post, and I didn't say keep to 1, just to minimize.

EDIT: Ok, added another paragraph on appropriate guidelines to the first post.

[posty]

I'm not sure whether or not Junior Members can edit posts, but if they can then it'd be bottom right near quote of your post.

"Quote" and "Reply" are all we newbie scum are allowed. :)

On topic: should people stop whining about Rome Total War?

I guess so. It's been out long enough now that many of the bugs have been patched, expansions have been released, and mods worked on. If vanilla Rome doesn't do it for you, try a different version, I say.

On the other hand (furthering the debate mode of this thread), I admit that Rome didn't captivate me like Shogun and Medieval did. Those other 2 titles somehow managed to immerse me in another world of samurai, knights, and such. It was easier to suspend my disbelief, and, for awhile be a warlord or King. With Rome, I never forgot that I was playing a (very graphicly pretty, mind you) game.

I found it easy to step away from Rome. Whereas with Shogun, it was "please, just one more battle" before I had to go to work - and with Medieval, "please, just one more turn" before bedtime.

I guess I kind of straddled the fence there. :) Anyway, my $.98. Thanks for the topic, Lucifer1337. BTW, do we pronounce your name 'LuciferLeet', or what?

[Augustus Lucifer]

Thanks for your input posty, and listing both pros and cons is fine, because sometimes you can get multiple impressions. Also just call me Lucifer if you have to refer to me as anything, I just added the 1337 because well, I don't even remember as it seems nowone has the original at least according to search(I think because on other sites it's take so got used to the 1337 add-on). If I could I'd change to just Lucifer, but oh well I'm cool as is.

EDIT: Got name changed

On another note, if you post a reply and the tally hasn't been chalked up that doesn't mean yours isn't in the debate, it just means I havn't looked at the thread since you replied, so just pretend it's there.

Also, just added a 3-day limit as well as the 20 post one, so if a topic reaches either a new topic will begin after I declare the topic closed. This is just to prevent people from saying oh ya I agree and feeling they don't need to post or not having a broad enough user base to reach the 20 so that the topic sits forever.

(This post does not count towards the topic quota)

[Augustus Lucifer]

Okay it's been at least a day since someone replied, so I'm declaring this debate done. Here's a list of the pros and cons of Rome: Total War according to the debate(pretty one sided so kinda boring as things go):

Pros:
-If it hadn't been for CA making Rome, then the mods that everyone says are awesome would never have existed(GrandInquisitor, Lucifer)
-Not a clickfest, fastest microer wins(Lucifer)
-Combines RTS/TBS elements smoothly(Lucifer)
-Vanilla better than most other strategy games outside the series, and in some ways in(Quickening, Lucifer)
-Change of pace from other TW games(Quickening)
-Overall improved sequel(Quickening)
-Less buggy than other games around considering it's scope(Quickening, posty)
-Fairly historical for a game(Quickening)
-Good modding potential(Lucifer, posty)
-Great graphics(posty)

Cons:
-Wasn't as captivated as the other TW games(posty)

This debate is now over, and I'm accepting requests for the next debate topic. Also, keep in mind that if you have anything you feel should be added to this list or think I missed something from a previous post make sure to PM me with it, because as of right now the summary is pretty unbalanced.

[Csargo]

So what is the next topic?

[Augustus Lucifer]

This debate is now over, and I'm accepting requests for the next debate topic. Also, keep in mind that if you have anything you feel should be added to this list or think I missed something from a previous post make sure to PM me with it, because as of right now the summary is pretty unbalanced.

As I said, I'm accepting requests for the next debate topic, just post them in here or PM me and I'll keep them catalogued and randomly pick one that sounds doable. If nowone comes up with anything by later tonight I'll make one up. Hope that helps Csar .

[Lemur]

This may not be meaty enough to qualify for a proper debate, but here goes:

Every game has to decide where to fall on the system requirements scale. Some games, such as World of Warcraft, use an art style to keep graphics requirements low. Other games, such as Oblivion, shoot for the moon and bring even the highest-end gaming rig to its knees. Where do we feel Rome landed on that continuum? Too high? Too low? And how do you feel about the anticipated requirements for MW2?

I guess the "debate" portion would be Too High versus Too Low. Hm, maybe this is a terrible idea for a debate ...

[Augustus Lucifer]

Well, currently it's all we got, and time will only tell if it's terrible, I think it's fine. The two stances as you obviously said, are too high or too low and then add a few comments on where you think MII:TW will fall. Try and make them as much in pro/con form as possible, or it makes it harder for me to convert to a final summary. Thanks for the idea Lemur, topic #2 begins now.

[Quickening]

In my opinion, Rome Total War got it dead right with the system requirements. I have an ancient 1.7 Celeron with 768 MB of Ram and a GeForce FX 5200. Despite this, I can run Rome with damn good graphics and large unit scale with absolutely zero slowdown. There are games of a far lesser scale that somehow manage to fare far worse.
As for Medieval 2, well if the minimum specs (1.8 Intel Processor) are tobe believed then Id say that they have done it right again and hit the perfect balance. Im not stupid. I know my PC is ancient and needs replacing and Im certainly not going to be annoyed because M2 isn't able to run on it. Thats progress.
In conlusion, with Rome, they got it dead right. Epic and beautiful game, more than reasonable system requirements.


Also I always have a million topics for debate I just wanted to see if anyone else had any. If we're really stuck for topics in future then I'll always have one.