Why some people still say that Rome 2 total war is a bad game?

[Sebidee]

I don't think this website is the best place for objectivity. Nostalgia, release rage, youtuber rabble rousing and everything else has sort of ruined that.

[Philadelphos]

Comparing Rome 2 to Rome 1 is completely nonsensical. There is absolutely no question as to which game is better, its Rome 2. People like to say that there is more depth in Rome 1 but that's not true, it falls behind in diplomacy, in battles, unit variety, culture, realism, factions, management, mechanics, trade, basically every core element of the game. The only areas in which Rome 1 was better was with family trees and roads which you have to admit compared to the other things are very very minor, yet since these are the only concrete areas where Rome 1 was better people fixate on them far too much. There are also certain X factors about Rome 1 that people unfairly rely on. The first is nostalgia, you can't deny that it is a powerful drug and our imaginations a decade ago were much stronger, hence why we loved Rome 1. The second is mods, Rome one had several major overhaul mods, I can think of at least 4 off of the top of my head. These mods came several years after Rome 1 was released and made the game perfect and many people say that these mods are the same thing as Rome 1 but Rome 1 wasn't perfect and had many flaws including a game breaking bug that has never been resolved. Rome 2 does not have these mods yet and therefore it is not fair to compare them.

Comparing Rome 2 to Rome 1 is necessary. Only this way you can judge if there is an improvement.
Comparing Rome 2 to Rome 1 is inevitable. CA should have known that beforehand.

I don't want to compare game mechanics, because other people are more competent to do that. I also recognize that there are a lot of good ideas in Rome 2. If they had implemented them on a Rome 1 style game, it would have been huge. But unfortunately they dropped the best among the previous features. Then they came up with a poor strategy map and left most of the testing for the community.

From my point of view, Rome 2 fails most of all on the side of historic immersion, where Rome 1 was best. And since the first installment was so good, the second wasn't allowed to fail on that.

You are certainly right to say that it's not fair to compare Rome 2 to those great mods we have enjoyed for ten years and still enjoy today. It's not fair and yet we do it, and CA should have known that beforehand too.

Now you say a lot of bad things about Rome 1 and I can't confirm any of them. I'm a historian, certainly should have better things to do, and yet I have played Rome 1 vanilla for three or four years and afterwards I've been in the modding business for four years working on RTH. And all this time I've kept learning so many things about the ancient world that I've published a book on the Peloponnesian War and now I'm writing two more on Hellenism and Rome.

I think others know better why Rome 2 fails to do the same effect, but I know why Rome 1 succeeded. From a historic point of view, Rome 1 was essential, while Rome 2 is often marginal, speculative, anachronistic, or even complete nonsense.

Makers of Rome 1 had a great knowledge about the essential features of the ancient world. Their unit rosters were limited, but on spot. The famous cities where all there and named right. Nobody had to complain that he was missing Byzantium, Corinth, Tarentum, Capua, Gergovia, Babylon and many more. Nobody had to guess the Latin names of Medhlan, Arse or Akink. Nobody had to wonder why Syracuse had no walls or why there was a Prussian city from the XIII century AD called Mons Regius (Königsberg).

When you played Rome 1 Vanilla you had a certainty that you were really in the ancient world. When you play Rome 2 you doubt it from the first odd name you encounter, probably Velathri.

Some of the doubtful stuff has been introduced by the modding comunity, for example the name Akink for Aquincum. It is really strange that they didn't use better expertise to filter the good ideas from the more speculative input.

Yes, the lack of historical expertise is striking and it is really strange too! To name one example: The Caesar in Gaul campaign. When I first saw the map and the province system I said WOW!!!!! That is a great map and maybe the game is worth the price only to play that campain. Then I had a closer look, finding that at least 50% (probably more) of the cities and provinces were researched well. Not bad! But, alas, when I looked for the capitals I couldn't find them!
Caesar's headquarter was in Samarobriva. Missing!
Vercingetorix' capital was Gergovia, the site of Caesar's greatest defeat. Missing!

How can you produce such a map and pretend it's Caesar in Gaul? It is not! And it's such a stupid error. Did they even read the book? Maybe I pretend too much? Well, anybody who has read the entry in Wikipedia could have told them that these two places were essential.

There are more important cities missing, but I don't want to get tedious, and for the same reason I won't even mention the towns they picked from later timeframes.

[Taskeen]

This website is the perfect place for objectivity. I have lurked on here since 2006 back when I was a Mega-Fan, and really only started posting with the Rome 2 debacle as it really stung a long-time fan such as myself. There are two options: One can either bury their head in the sand, or accept the knowledge that R2 has not lived up to its predecessor for a host of cited reasons. As a consumer, it is ungainly to attempt to defend my purchase just for the sake of it. Some people Him and Haw over "Maybe its good" and "Maybe its Bad" but I'm not like that - if I did that, I would only be trying to be agonizing over someway to defend a lackluster experience and thinking of way to think about "did I waste my money or not?"

I played RTW on vanilla, beat it, loved it. The thrill I had playing as Greeks in a qausi-history game was like none other I had experienced before. It didn't bore me as it was engaging. It also had far less patch work, it was just a solid experience. It was only until AFTER I beat it that I turned to interesting historical mods at the time that were coming out (Rome Total Realism) to keep it fresh and interesting.

Campaigns: City building and expansion was unique and detailed; Feelings of attachment to your digital families you presided over; Generals had multiple meta components themselves - 1. I felt the need to protect them and if I failed in battle it was a major morale loss and blunder on my part after carefully crafting the character into their own Legend, 2. If Generals passed away they left armies run by Captains, should I continue the campaigning the General had been on with a Captain or wait to reinforce with a General which could take many turns? 3. Governors getting ambushed at cities, do I send aid to assist - what if they died and had not yet produced offspring? It offered many possibilities that can never be achieved with Rome 2 with its teleporting Generals. All of this was combined with useful information about city growth, trade, and an incredible UI to back it up.

The Battle component: More opportunity to split armies for scouting or ambushes for main forces; interesting weight to battle when soldiers pushed against one another; battles where if armies were surrounded they would FIGHT until the last man instead of retreating; Excellent Siege possibilities by the human player and the AI

The core of RTW1 is what interested me, you had multiple components happening interlocked together that made sense. Mods added to those aspects for sure pushing the boundaries of what is possible on that older, more solid game engine.

The problems with Rome 2 designs are for a lot of reasons too. Rome 1 was released all those years ago back in 2004. Its been over a decade, many of the veterans who made it were not involved in Rome 2. When this happened the new generation of designers really didn't understand WHY people liked Rome 1 so much and instead wanted to add a new age "flare" to it for a different generation.

Most people that say that people that object to R2 hardly played it, which just isn't true.



44 hours of my unfinished Iceni campaign, I got bored and haven't touched it since. By the time I stopped playing, I got so apathetic towards it most of my battles were auto-resolved, which had little to do with any objectivity I later saw on youtube or read on these forums. I produced my own opinions from playing the game. I'd say that's a good amount of hours too, that's how much I put into beating some RPG games. I was not immersed like Rome 1, as it did not have the same components to engage and keep me interested. Compared to Over 200 hours in Rome 1, 100 hours logged in Empire Total War, 159 hours logged in Shogun 2.

[Sebidee]

As a consumer, it is ungainly to attempt to defend my purchase just for the sake of it.

I don't understand how people can't believe that someone can genuinely like the game. Ah hell, I'm done.

[Dontfearme22]

Comparing Rome 2 to Rome 1 is necessary. Only this way you can judge if there is an improvement.
Comparing Rome 2 to Rome 1 is inevitable. CA should have known that beforehand.

I don't want to compare game mechanics, because other people are more competent to do that. I also recognize that there are a lot of good ideas in Rome 2. If they had implemented them on a Rome 1 style game, it would have been huge. But unfortunately they dropped the best among the previous features. Then they came up with a poor strategy map and left most of the testing for the community.

From my point of view, Rome 2 fails most of all on the side of historic immersion, where Rome 1 was best. And since the first installment was so good, the second wasn't allowed to fail on that.

You are certainly right to say that it's not fair to compare Rome 2 to those great mods we have enjoyed for ten years and still enjoy today. It's not fair and yet we do it, and CA should have known that beforehand too.

Now you say a lot of bad things about Rome 1 and I can't confirm any of them. I'm a historian, certainly should have better things to do, and yet I have played Rome 1 vanilla for three or four years and afterwards I've been in the modding business for four years working on RTH. And all this time I've kept learning so many things about the ancient world that I've published a book on the Peloponnesian War and now I'm writing two more on Hellenism and Rome.

I think others know better why Rome 2 fails to do the same effect, but I know why Rome 1 succeeded. From a historic point of view, Rome 1 was essential, while Rome 2 is often marginal, speculative, anachronistic, or even complete nonsense.

Makers of Rome 1 had a great knowledge about the essential features of the ancient world. Their unit rosters were limited, but on spot. The famous cities where all there and named right. Nobody had to complain that he was missing Byzantium, Corinth, Tarentum, Capua, Gergovia, Babylon and many more. Nobody had to guess the Latin names of Medhlan, Arse or Akink. Nobody had to wonder why Syracuse had no walls or why there was a Prussian city from the XIII century AD called Mons Regius (Königsberg).

When you played Rome 1 Vanilla you had a certainty that you were really in the ancient world. When you play Rome 2 you doubt it from the first odd name you encounter, probably Velathri.

Some of the doubtful stuff has been introduced by the modding comunity, for example the name Akink for Aquincum. It is really strange that they didn't use better expertise to filter the good ideas from the more speculative input.

Yes, the lack of historical expertise is striking and it is really strange too! To name one example: The Caesar in Gaul campaign. When I first saw the map and the province system I said WOW!!!!! That is a great map and maybe the game is worth the price only to play that campain. Then I had a closer look, finding that at least 50% (probably more) of the cities and provinces were researched well. Not bad! But, alas, when I looked for the capitals I couldn't find them!
Caesar's headquarter was in Samarobriva. Missing!
Vercingetorix' capital was Gergovia, the site of Caesar's greatest defeat. Missing!

How can you produce such a map and pretend it's Caesar in Gaul? It is not! And it's such a stupid error. Did they even read the book? Maybe I pretend too much? Well, anybody who has read the entry in Wikipedia could have told them that these two places were essential.

There are more important cities missing, but I don't want to get tedious, and for the same reason I won't even mention the towns they picked from later timeframes.

Rome I is more accurate than Rome II, I beg to disagree:

-flaming pigs
-Greeks with Corinthian helmets wandering about
-Head-hurlers

And lets not forget, Bronze Age Egyptians. New Kingdom, 1300 BC, chariots and pharaohs Egyptians. To me that's marginal, speculative and complete nonsense(it doesn't help that even for the New Kingdom the Rome I units were terrible).

I would gladly take a few anachronistic city names over a entire faction 1000 years out of place.

I have played Rome I since it came out and I can say with great confidence I would take Rome II any day of the week.

[Garensterz]

Why some people still say that Rome 2 total war is a bad game?

The title should be Why most* people still say that Rome 2 total war is a bad game?

[LordInvictus]

Rome I is more accurate than Rome II, I beg to disagree:

-flaming pigs
-Greeks with Corinthian helmets wandering about
-Head-hurlers

And lets not forget, Bronze Age Egyptians. New Kingdom, 1300 BC, chariots and pharaohs Egyptians. To me that's marginal, speculative and complete nonsense(it doesn't help that even for the New Kingdom the Rome I units were terrible).

I would gladly take a few anachronistic city names over a entire faction 1000 years out of place.

I have played Rome I since it came out and I can say with great confidence I would take Rome II any day of the week.

Don't forget the barbarians whose rosters consisted primarily of unarmored warriors with swords, or the screeching women, or the rampant squalor, or the neon faction colors. Rome 1 is so much more immersive than Rome 2.

[Evan MF]

It's worse than bad, it's awful.

[Anna_Gein]

Every next iteration of total war that comes out has to me been the best new total war. And i have always been able to return to Medieval 2 once i got bored with the other ones. However Rome II ended that. Rome II made my medieval 2 trips back obsolete, even though i cherish it as the best total war game(singleplayer wise) Ever it still dont compare to Rome II MPC.

And i can't live without replenishment and free recruitment.

I don't even know what the next total war will be, but i bet it will be fricking awesome...!

lol !

Basically you are saying that you don't have any objective opinion on TW games and don't intend to have some.

I don't think this website is the best place for objectivity. Nostalgia, release rage, youtuber rabble rousing and everything else has sort of ruined that.

See upside. I find it extremely toxic this non-ending denigration of people's thought every time they express their lack of attachment to R2. It started to get completely out of controlled when the admins created "official complains threads" and don't even prevent R2 fans to make thoses thread even more pointless. Now it seems that R2 fans are persuaded of their righteousness to denigrate others opinion. And they even accuses other to be toxic to the forum. To prevent discussions from happening.

It is both ridiculous and revolting.

[Aenima]

I don't think this website is the best place for objectivity. Nostalgia, release rage, youtuber rabble rousing and everything else has sort of ruined that.

Do you acknowledge that there are those of us who dislike Rome 2, or hold a low opinion of it, and do so without nostalgia/release rage/rabble rousing etc having anything to do with it? As it is this kind of comment makes it sound as though you think no one is objective when explaining what they don't like about Rome 2.

[eXistenZ]

Anna Gein, you surely are joking? Cause what you're saying is "the game is bad" is a fact, while "the game is good" is a (false) opinion. Someone saying he is enjoying the game gets namecalled and pooped on, someone who says he hates the game gets cheered.

Most people who are enjoying the game are just sick of seeing almost every thread turning into a rage whine fest. If someone opens a topic to ask something, its 90% sure within the first 5 replies there will be someone going "cause the game sucks and you are ruining the franchise". Not to mention that it becomes more annoying when the raging starts about things that have been around for years, but suddenly are the axis of evil, DLC being the most frequent, patches or advertising coming second.

Its been ten months. Apparently making a mispurchase of 50€ takes longer to get over than getting dumped. Learn from your mistakes and move on. Not buying the next game will impact CA way more than just complaining to people who cant help it anyway. Its far less annoying for us, you save some money, CA ddoesnt get money. Its a tripple win.

And yes, i have very little tolerance for people who go "the quality has going downhill for years, since Empire". Well people have free will. Majority of people who said that they would never buy TW again after Empire, bought Rome 2 anyway. Are we all gonna blame CA that those people didnt keep their own promise?

[Gigantus]

I don't think this website is the best place for objectivity. Nostalgia, release rage, youtuber rabble rousing and everything else has sort of ruined that.

Do you acknowledge that there are those of us who dislike Rome 2, or hold a low opinion of it, and do so without nostalgia/release rage/rabble rousing etc having anything to do with it? As it is this kind of comment makes it sound as though you think no one is objective when explaining what they don't like about Rome 2.

And thus the personal (off topic) carousel starts spinning. Do get off it, please - everyone.

[Aenima]

And thus the personal (off topic) carousel starts spinning. Do get off it, please - everyone.

I have to disagree. The thread is about why people say Rome 2 is a bad game, Sebidee seems to be putting forward why he thinks people feel that way and I'm asking if that's truly the case. Personally I don't see how this is off-topic at all.

[Butan]

It becomes off-topic when people start directly refering to the posters instead of what they say about said topic... I know, you didnt start it, and surely your last message is respectful, but its good to remember.

[Gigantus]

I'll be crossing fingers that it stays on topic.

[fokke85]

I am still navigating in these forums and i see people claiming that the game sucked. Really? I loved the game. It is a great improvement compared to previous TW games. Despite some minor flaws like the AI during sieges its the best TW game. Many factions, many types of soldiers, many cultures. Diplomacy has improved tremendously and it cannot be compared with the stupid "diplomacy" of previous TW games when an "allied" faction suddenly besieged your capital. The AI in the campaign map thinks LOGICALLY. Battles are huge and epic. Most units have many unique abilities that can be used in battle. The campaign map is very detailed and again impressively improved. The details of the towns and cities in the battle map are jaw-dropping. Agents do help a lot contrary to the agents of previous games that they were practically useless, with some exceptions. Armies keep their bonuses which is great since generals inevitably die etc etc
Although some improvement can be made, overall its the best TW game till now

I agree with you a 100% I've been playing the game since day 1 and am enjoying every step of the way. Been playing Vanilla mostly but just started to use some mods (nothing too dramatic, things like no arty for barbarians, ancient colours, no forced march) If you say you like this game on this forum you often get accused of settling for less or they say that Rome 2 doesn't hold up to his predecessors. I have been played every TW game since Shogun 1 and while everybody has their favourites (MTWII for me because I like the period) it's safe to say that every TW game that came after that was an improvement over the former, including R2.

The only valid complaint that I can think of is the AI still not using siege equipment properly. Other than that, the siege AI was never any good in TW games. It's a problem yes but a problem of the whole franchise, not just R2. The politics system not working doesn't ruin the game at all. CA tried to add a cool new feature and it didn't work the way we had hoped. It happens, they at least tried to do something new right? I completely ignore this whole feature and it doesn't affect the gameplay or fun of my campaigns in any way. So the feature might not add anything new to the game it also does not ruin the experience.

Also a lot of people are complaining about DLC and not wanting to pay for that are usually the same people who claim to have played and/or finished multiple campaigns. In this game that means easily 200/300+ hours. Myself I have bought all the DLC and have played for more then 400 hours. That's 1 buck for every 4 hours of gameplay that I thoroughly enjoyed. You guys ever been to the movies? Did you spend 7 months on a forum rambling about the wasted 10-12E you wasted for a 2 hour movie? I think not.. Also the argument that Rome 1 didn't had any DLC is moot because the DLC business model hardly existed back then. It was just the game and a few months later you would get an add-on.. Maybe was that was better but the fact is that the market just changed over the years and DLC is a legitimate business model that almost every single big gaming franchise uses (CoD, WoW, GTA) If they would go all philanthropic on us and gave everything for free they would go out of business pretty fast..

I still think this is an awesome game with a ton of memorable moments big or small. Just yesterday I played a massive battle in my roman campaign where I besieged Byzantium with 2 full stacks. It had everything, catapults and siege weapons assaulting their walls while archers and slingers were firing on my legionairs. In the streets, my infantry would get trampled by cataphracts and War-elephants so I had to support them with focused fire from my merc Cretan archers and Molossian wardogs. Generals on both sides were boxed in and killed by infantry or sniped by Velites or Catapults. It was carnage, the enemy AI put up a big fight, the battle lasted for almost 50 minutes. That was just one battle and it looked awesome! I'm very sorry for the people who don't enjoy the game but I most certainly do!!

[Scythion]

Nothing is perfect for those who demands perfection.

[DeliCiousTZM]

lol !
Basically you are saying that you don't have any objective opinion on TW games and don't intend to have some..

I love the total war franchise, ofc my opinion wont be a 100% objective. But if you want to play that game, lets play it! Mention one developer besides CA that makes these sort of RTS/Turn based games better at or around this scale.

The truth is all though my POW might not be a 100% objective, it is far more objective than most and is far more grounded in reality with an understanding about the gaming industry today.

If you forget all total war games that ever came before Rome II and imagine Rome II drops on the market for the first time without none of its predecessors. It would be 10/10 welcomed as the greatest RTS franchise launched in 2013, a shining beacon of RTS glory. It is the subjective POW that comes from playing previous total war game, that puts the game under scrutiny more than the objective one.

See upside. I find it extremely toxic this non-ending denigration of people's thought every time they express their lack of attachment to R2. It started to get completely out of controlled when the admins created "official complains threads" and don't even prevent R2 fans to make thoses thread even more pointless. Now it seems that R2 fans are persuaded of their righteousness to denigrate others opinion. And they even accuses other to be toxic to the forum. To prevent discussions from happening.

It is both ridiculous and revolting.

This is so ironic. It was impossible for anyone 6 months ago to express any love for the game, any enjoyment from playing it. Every thread was hijacked by the "mob"(You know who you are). It was sad to see overenthuistaic people with pure love for the game in spite of all the bugs and downsides be bashed down by these vermin. Now that to me is the definition of toxic, they just had to make the whole forum toxic so nobody could focus on sharing their Total war experience like we have for every game before.

No one that hates are innocent, but everyone who loves is.

[alQamar]

Anna Gein, you surely are joking? Cause what you're saying is "the game is bad" is a fact, while "the game is good" is a (false) opinion. Someone saying he is enjoying the game gets namecalled and pooped on, someone who says he hates the game gets cheered.

Most people who are enjoying the game are just sick of seeing almost every thread turning into a rage whine fest. If someone opens a topic to ask something, its 90% sure within the first 5 replies there will be someone going "cause the game sucks and you are ruining the franchise". Not to mention that it becomes more annoying when the raging starts about things that have been around for years, but suddenly are the axis of evil, DLC being the most frequent, patches or advertising coming second.

Its been ten months. Apparently making a mispurchase of 50€ takes longer to get over than getting dumped. Learn from your mistakes and move on. Not buying the next game will impact CA way more than just complaining to people who cant help it anyway. Its far less annoying for us, you save some money, CA ddoesnt get money. Its a tripple win.

And yes, i have very little tolerance for people who go "the quality has going downhill for years, since Empire". Well people have free will. Majority of people who said that they would never buy TW again after Empire, bought Rome 2 anyway. Are we all gonna blame CA that those people didnt keep their own promise?

Fair statement...

I don't think this website is the best place for objectivity. Nostalgia, release rage, youtuber rabble rousing and everything else has sort of ruined that.

Well Sebidee, it may be some like Rome 2, especially if they like to mod the game. But I do not agree that people really would hold out to complain over same things over and over again if there would be no truth in their statements. On the opposite we also have modders and moderators from totalwar.com, not to forget about plenty youtubers that still are not amused about the game as it is by today.

What really pisses me off are comments like "get over the chaotic release state", as in fact there have been lots of patches and also improvements - the basic issues are still in the game. If you or anyone declines this I think you are just ignoring those glitches and misses the game has. Blaming those people, attacking their reputation or ironically asking why they some say the game is bad sounds offensive, like they just say it but it is not the truth.
Some other do not like to praise this game or forget about core issues it still has so they keep on complaining - even though CA gives a piece of on their comments as they will never fix the core problems. This is a fact. Sorry.

I think the worst on TWC and also outside in Steam communities and other forums is the endless battle of people that are willing to get over this whole topic, while it is still not solved. Surely it is tiresome to read about complaints over and over. But as long they are true they should be allowed to say the game is objectively and subjectively a bad game (in some (or many) aspects).

[KarlVytautas]

Rome II is ,was and forever will be at it's core a bad game,and should be remembered at that .