Rome 2 being panned on Metacritic

[legate]

The meta score is 81/100 from the critic reviews but the user reviews tell another story. 4.3/10

[Cruzz]

There's already several threads about this here. Including one with TWC users giving their own rating for it. Which ends up being relatively similar to the metacritic except a bit higher.

And to be honest Rome 2 deserves pretty much all the flak it is getting. Giving it 4/10 is obviously too harsh when compared to what actual 4/10 (critic reviews) games are like, but it's absolutely not a good game and it's doubtful that they'll do a major rework of pretty much all game mechanics after launch so it's never going to get good either. This isn't really stuff you could change with mods either unless they expose completely new stuff for changing in the files.

[Humble Warrior]

There's already several threads about this here. Including one with TWC users giving their own rating for it. Which ends up being relatively similar to the metacritic except a bit higher.

And to be honest Rome 2 deserves pretty much all the flak it is getting. Giving it 4/10 is obviously too harsh when compared to what actual 4/10 (critic reviews) games are like, but it's absolutely not a good game and it's doubtful that they'll do a major rework of pretty much all game mechanics after launch so it's never going to get good either. This isn't really stuff you could change with mods either unless they expose completely new stuff for changing in the files.

Now that a few days go by and people get into the meat of it we begin to see the reality.

This is what when a CA representative pops up on day 1 or 2 and says `we`re really pleased with the success of Rome 2", that don`t mean it`s a good game. what that representative should really say is, "We`re really pleased that our propaganda, false previews and hyped advertising conned the majority of you to preorder and\or buy the game on day of release!"

Of course, they have the money now.

It`s a legalised scam. Amazing how they still get away with it, but I guess Shogun regained some trust that they rode on.

[uScared]

Yes you are right, if the fans rate it so low it MUST be a bad game. We all know how credible 90% of the user ratings on metacritic are.

[Thorondor123]

No matter how much you hate Rome 2, you must understand that Metacritic's user score is a complete joke.

[SkyTrickster]

Sue me, but I rather trust the fan ratings than the critics ratings nowadays..

[baldrick13]

the majority of those negative reviews give the game 0 out of 10, which makes them lose all their credibility because it just show how biased an angry they are that they don't want to give a fair review and just be whiny idiots

[Kye]

User scores are not a real way to judge the game but publishers get a bit anxious with them anyway. Besides, just a few more critical reviews and the reviewer number is gonna go to a 7.9, which is a first for a tw game.

[rancenstein]

Sue me, but I rather trust the fan ratings than the critics ratings nowadays..

"fan ratings" is a nice word for anonymous people acting like retards on the internet.

[Igor85]

well, all the other total war games have a user rating about 9.0, except empire which has 6.x, which is fair. And somehow Europa Universalis IV got a score of 9.0, too. So I can't agree that user metascore is a joke. And if people are giving angry ratings (plz notice those fanboys who give therefore 10.0 ratings), there must be a reason. If i overlook the user ratings of other games, they seem quite good.

[baldrick13]

i would rep you rancenstein but the site won't let me

[waidizss]

I do believe that in this case giving 0 out of 10 is a form of protest rather than trying to be somewhat objective. It's really the matter how you interpret these scores. I see quite a few posts looking at them as evaluation of all aspects of the game, but it is the dissatisfaction of being robbed blind that is being expressed. By receiving such ratings a game is shown to be an utter disappointment to fellow gamers. Critics seem to look the other side when confronted with inadequacy of a game and it seems they just evaluate some of the games by imagining either the poorest game out there or imagining a real or fictional standard for a game to be compared against. What they want to do is create an equal playing field for all games, what they miss out on is the complex dynamic environment these games exist on. Weighing one game against another isn't going to cut it, there's legacy there's marketing and most importantly, in my interpretation of J. Rawls, that expectations for a game were so under met that there is a need to actually protest against the quality vs quality shown when marketing and critics alike users should join the largely informal protest.

[Agostinos]

The only rating I trust is my own. In my rating R2 is decent game with some major flaws. Biggest problem ist the unplayable Multiplayer campaign, besides that they did pretty well. That fast battles can be fixed as soon as tools arive, the UI is quite nice and simple (me gusta), the ingame wiki is awesome, a of factions (all can be unlocked since CA Jack wrote a step by step guide),combined sea and land battles, in some time R2 will be my own 10/10 game. Besides I really do have the feeling CA cares about this community here even if it behaves like a little child from time to time!

[Medina]

Unable to play multiplayer campaign? Wtf. Is that still not fixed since napoleon. This game is an absolute disaster...

[baldrick13]

-point out one problem-then proceed to claim that game is disaster....

[Hoplite17]

If the game shot lasers at your eyeballs and destroyed your sight when you played, it would be one problem, and people would probably be justified in calling the game a disaster. So an extreme example, yes, but shows that yes one problem can make a game a disaster. Now if you said something more along the lines of "multiplayer campaign has some issues, but those are fixable and the multi campaign is still in a semi playable state. Plus the game has much more to offer than that, so the entirety of the game could not be called a disaster" or just something with a little more thought into it, then you might have a respectable point.

[Hresvelgr]

Wait, it has 4/10 on user reviews in Metacritic? That's actually really, REALLY, high! Well, high by metacritic user review standards. It's common practice for people to spam 0's there, particularly angry nerds who think they're dedicated to a franchise if they hate it. Mass Effect 3 was an awesome game and it only got a 2/10 IIRC.

[Hoplite17]

Zero is a legitimate score. And reviews are just players personal opinion/preference. Not all games are bombarded with zeros, so the fact that this one is is significant, despite what anyone else wants to believe. If a developer over hypes a game and a player preorders or buys it and finds out is disappointed; sure a dumb move on the player's part to do before doing research, but that guy still has a right to rage and give the game a zero. If the game is riddled with more bugs than a player expects, he can give it a zero. A game adds too many gameplay elements that a long time player finds detracts from the original series, he has a right to give it a zero. Players can give it a zero and as much as fans of the game or the developers want to brush off these people for not putting enough thought in their reviews, the fault lies on CA/SEGA's fault for angering so many of it's fanbase.

[DaciaJC]

Regardless of how you view Rome II, Metacritic user scores are not fair and objective descriptors of the game's quality. Far too many angry customers giving it a 0/10, far too many others giving it a 10/10.

[A Barbarian]

Game deserves a 7 but CA/Sega deserve a 0