Rome II in Wikipedia

[IlluminatiRex]

It is objective because it does not use strong language suggesting a bias in any direction. It does not comment on any of the features, it just tells what is there. Whether or not you want to believe those features are there or if they are actually 'improved' is up to you. That is what objective means. Objective is not picking a side and then throwing poo at the other.

And on your 7th point, you can become Roman Emperor if you win the Civil War, as well as in Carthage.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

All of these features exist in the game, and it /is/ an improvement. But only because most of the political interaction I had in previous games was all in my head...

[AlexCouceiro]

My version (A PARODY, not supposed to be the 'correct' version)

And yet your version contains a very objective view of what politics in Rome 2 really is. The "correct" version is vague and meaningless, whereas your eloquent parody deals with facts.

[Rebel1776]

It is objective because it does not use strong language suggesting a bias in any direction. It does not comment on any of the features, it just tells what is there. Whether or not you want to believe those features are there or if they are actually 'improved' is up to you. That is what objective means. Objective is not picking a side and then throwing poo at the other.

And on your 7th point, you can become Roman Emperor if you win the Civil War, as well as in Carthage.

My god, did you write the description in Wikipedia or something?

It outright claims that it was "Improved", but if it was unbiased then it would read more like "There are mixed opinions as to whether the Political System in Rome 2 has been an improvement or not compared to previous titles." So technically its NOT objective, but at least it doesn't throw poo at the other side, or at least it doesn't admit to doing so.

It doesn't comment on any of the features because its extremely difficult to comment on them to actually make them seem interesting, and therefore verify its false claim at "Improvement".

To your point about his 7th point; Considering i'm in full control and I could care less about what the senate thinks, because we don't know what they think, why should I care if I become Emperor if nothing has really changed from before?

See, this is where CA has dropped the ball. With a supposed 40% larger budget, a political system that would be similar to say, Crusader Kings, would have been a very welcome, and doable, edition to the franchise. Why you persist on being a sympathizer after all these months I've read you run your mouth off, astounds me. It contradicts all logic that you can still defend this bile, because Mods cannot fix this, CA does not seem to want to fix this and you don't want to stop drinking the kool aid.

[IlluminatiRex]

Thinking back to previous Total Wars, mainly Napoleon and Empire (which I've been playing a lot of lately, especially Napoleon) the Politics consisted of what, your leader and a cabinet of ministers whom you could fire and had some effects on the nation.

Am I wrong in that? Shogun 2 we had the ability to appoint people to certain positions, and then there was Realm Divide. I haven't played nearly as much of Medieval II or Rome I than others here, but just Senate Missions and Papal missions, yeah? (Correct me if I'm wrong there)

Although it may not seem like an improvement (trust me, I believe that it serves little to no real purpose in Rome II, it's essentially just keeping an arbitrary balance of power and provides no challenge or interesting mechanics), however in a sense it is an improvement over the older systems. The Wikipedia article is using fluffed up language, nothing more.

[Swamidude]

Well you could edit it, but of course someone of CA is keeping an eye on it to edit it back... Also this is all in the game, there are no lies, but it sure gives a false impresion of how barebones it is in the actual game, because here it seems like it actually matters something for your game..

[alQamar]

Well you could edit it, but of course someone of CA is keeping an eye on it to edit it back... Also this is all in the game, there are no lies, but it sure gives a false impresion of how barebones it is in the actual game, because here it seems like it actually matters something for your game..

Have you checked it was written by CA in the change history? Anyone that can actually source claims is entitled to edit otherwise it is advertising and that's forbidden by wiki rules.

Go ahead anyone and change it.

[Symphony]

It outright claims that it was "Improved", but if it was unbiased then it would read more like "There are mixed opinions as to whether the Political System in Rome 2 has been an improvement or not compared to previous titles." So technically its NOT objective, but at least it doesn't throw poo at the other side, or at least it doesn't admit to doing so.

A lot of people online, especially on these forums, have forgotten (or never understood) what "objective" means. It is not directly synonymous with "unbiased".

You see this a lot when people try to tell you that Rome II (or a particular feature, even) is "objectively worse" (or even "objectively better")...rendering an opinion (or even considering opinion) by definition makes something no longer objective, even if you cite objective fact to support the subjective opinion of something as "worse" or "better". Objectively, CA attempted to improve the political system (I doubt even the most jaded of us would accuse CA of actively trying to make something worse...well, maybe...). Whether you believe the attempt resulted in something better is a subjective opinion...you're welcome to it, and I don't have a dog in that particular fight; my subjective opinion is that no TW game has ever had anything approaching a viable political system.

The use of the term "improved" doesn't make that entry subjective. I agree a more unbiased wording there would have been "revamped" or "reworked", rather than "improved", but again, objective and unbiased aren't synonymous. You can use objective fact to build a highly biased argument (it happens on this very site on a frighteningly regular basis).

[alQamar]

If this one have been written by CA (not confirmed yet but checkable) then the use of improved is not only subjective but also subtle marketing.

Today i read an article mentioned the new aliens game by CA using the phrase: "let us have a high quality game AGAIN".
The last alien colonial marines got a 45 metascore and a 3.8 user score. Words well used can be very misleading.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

It outright claims that it was 1. "Improved", but if it was unbiased then it would read more like 2. "There are mixed opinions as to whether the Political System in Rome 2 has been an improvement or not compared to previous titles." So technically its NOT objective, but at least it doesn't throw poo at the other side, or at least it doesn't admit to doing so.

1. It is improved, since there was less/no internal politics in the previous games, any addition to the political scene is an improvement.
2. That would go into the "Reception" part of the article, not the part explaining the mechanics of the game.

[AlexCouceiro]

To improve means "" to enhance in VALUE or QUALITY". Simply adding more or new stuff (quantity) DOES NOT MEAN an improvement.

Unless you believe politics and civil wars in Rome 2 are interesting, of course. Since I believe there is not one single crazy person who will think like that, then the word to "improve", in that context, can be considered both misleading (CA's usual marketing) and wrongly used (false statement).

If this one have been written by CA (not confirmed yet but checkable) then the use of improved is not only subjective but also subtle marketing.

It's not even subjective. Think of politics and civil war mechanics as an ugly dress. If a woman dresses it on and 40 out of 100 people say it looks beautiful on her, then it's subjective (perhaps the dress is not so ugly after all). If all the 100 people tell straight on her face the dress looks dreadfully obnoxious, then it's not subjective anymore.

[Symphony]

To improve means "" to enhance in VALUE or QUALITY". Simply adding more or new stuff (quantity) DOES NOT MEAN an improvement.

Unless you believe politics and civil wars in Rome 2 are interesting, of course. Since I believe there is not one single crazy person who will think like that, then the word to "improve", in that context, can be considered both misleading (CA's usual marketing) and wrongly used (false statement).

By this definition, no game anywhere, ever, could use the term "improved", as "quality" and "value" are both subjective measures.

It's not even subjective. Think of politics and civil war mechanics as an ugly dress. If a woman dresses it on and 40 out of 100 people say it looks beautiful on her, then it's subjective (perhaps the dress is not so ugly after all). If all the 100 people tell straight on her face the dress looks dreadfully obnoxious, then it's not subjective anymore.

This is untrue. There is no critical mass where subjective opinion becomes objective fact simply because of repetition.

[AlexCouceiro]

By this definition, no game anywhere, ever, could use the term "improved", as "quality" and "value" are both subjective measures.



This is untrue. There is no critical mass where subjective opinion becomes objective fact simply because of repetition.

Let's cut the BS here and get practical. Politics and civil wars in Rome 2 are just as lame and stupid as it can be, and urgently needs some reworking.

I know that, you know that, we all know that. And CA, most of all, knows it for sure. However, if it's more interesting for you to fiddle with the "subjective" meaning of the word "improve", by all means please keep on doing so.

[Swerg]

Can now be? This is obviously targeted toward the living room gamer who has never played a TW game before. This description was cut and pasted from every TW game description since at least Rome I. How is this remotely new as this implies? IT'S NOT. We always had generals that could be both, and depending on their actions and traits + ancillaries they acquired would become better or worse at either/or.

In fact, characters are less complex, more useless and so unimportant because of their lack of complexity as compared to their counterparts in previous TW games, that they die like flies and we don't care.

Obviously CA is pretending that nothing before Empire happened.

[Symphony]

Let's cut the BS here and get practical. Politics and civil wars in Rome 2 are just as lame and stupid as it can be, and urgently needs some reworking.

I know that, you know that, we all know that. And CA, most of all, knows it for sure. However, if it's more interesting for you to fiddle with the "subjective" meaning of the word "improve", by all means please keep on doing so.

Actually, the subject of the thread is the Wiki entry, and what we think about it. I'm sorry being held accountable for what is and isn't fact is getting in the way of what you believe, but those meanings are actually the heart of this particular conversation.

"Everybody thinks so, so stop saying something different" arguments are about as weak as they come.

[AlexCouceiro]

Actually, the subject of the thread is the Wiki entry, and what we think about it. I'm sorry being held accountable for what is and isn't fact is getting in the way of what you believe, but those meanings are actually the heart of this particular conversation.

"Everybody thinks so, so stop saying something different" arguments are about as weak as they come.

Not as weak as CA’s cynical WIKI publication on this particular subject, though.

To define their broken pseudo political system as better or “improved” is just being outright cynical.

[Symphony]

Not as weak as CA’s cynical WIKI publication on this particular subject, though.

To define their broken pseudo political system as better or “improved” is just being outright cynical.

...in your opinion. Which was really my overall point.

Do you understand how somebody else might not find it to be cynical or shady, or even all that incorrect, and those are both subjective opinions, no matter how many people you can get to agree with you?

[AlexCouceiro]

...in your opinion. Which was really my overall point.

Do you understand how somebody else might not find it to be cynical or shady, or even all that incorrect, and those are both subjective opinions, no matter how many people you can get to agree with you?

All right man, let’s drop this conversation.

I guess it’s time now for players to get back to their most exiting late campaign games and fight all those randomly generated fierce clone rebel stacks.

[TheCenturion24]

'Scuse me while I add more fire to this. Can somebody explain to me why it's okay to have THIS:

Players can customise legions by choosing their weapon loadout. Players will still be able to determine the composition of individual cohorts, even though they will be building entire legions at a time, unlike in previous Total War titles where the player had to build all units of an army separately.^[12]

... in the 'Gameplay' section, and making no attempt to point out that that's nothing more than silly lies from pre-release? It's clear the article is set out to generate a specific image for newbies. I've fixed a few bits and pieces on the article, not sure if it'll stay though. :\

[krisslanza]

'Scuse me while I add more fire to this. Can somebody explain to me why it's okay to have THIS:

Players can customise legions by choosing their weapon loadout. Players will still be able to determine the composition of individual cohorts, even though they will be building entire legions at a time, unlike in previous Total War titles where the player had to build all units of an army separately.^[12]

... in the 'Gameplay' section, and making no attempt to point out that that's nothing more than silly lies from pre-release? It's clear the article is set out to generate a specific image for newbies. I've fixed a few bits and pieces on the article, not sure if it'll stay though. :\

It's probably because no one has changed the article since the pre-release info has come out. It is a user-maintained wiki, after all.