About the glorification of Rome I and the progress of the Total War series
Hello all,
I've been following the recent discussions between the so called "fanboys" and "whiners", and what really strikes me is how the people who critisize RTW 2 use the original Rome as a positive counterexample, glorifying it as the unmatched highlight of the series.
Shogun and Medieval I were my favourite games back then, and when I heard about Rome I was excited like never before. Maybe it was because of my expectations, but to me Rome I was the most disappointing experience with Total War games ever (I've skipped Empire and Napoleon). Many people already judge the new RTW II as a game with shiny graphics but lacking gameplay, well that is exactly what I felt when the holy RTW I was released in 2004. Of course the graphics were a milestone from good ol' Medieval, but even with the great mods it is barely playable for me to this day. The foremost reason is the totally broken campaign AI who couldn't handle the new world map system. Who else remembers the bug where the Ai would constantly cause war by sieging a port? And that the AIs would declare ceasefires just to declare war on the next turn again? Basicially, the AI would always declare war on the player as soon as they shared a border, and would refuse a ceasefire even if crushed. The game had ZERO diplomacy. Even the patches couldn't really fix this. Medieval II was the same, but with the latest patches the AI was no longer completely retarded.
The AI was one thing, but there were also other things thats were just bad in this game: I could go on about the only 20 factions, with 4 of them being Roman, the ridiculous represantations of Barbarian factions (who also remembers the British head throwers?), the weird Parthians, Egyptians etc. People here clown on RTWII for Bronze Age Egypts or if some unit has the wrong sandals, but at the same time, Rome I remains the holy grail of the series for the same people. One have to acknoledge the progress they've made, just look the screenshots of the factions reveals and then remember the old units from RTWI. And the 117 factions that should make campaigns way more diverse than the old ones where the lackluster collective factions like 'The Gauls' or 'The Britons' guaranteed boring campaigns with no immersion for me. And now people really have the nerve to call the game "dumbed down" or having even less content than Rome I when they reduce the siegable cities? Now I understand that Rome I was a huge transition from Medieval I in terms of engine, which obviously caused a lack of polishing in other areas, but to me, Rome was a huge letdown compared to Medieval. And compared to RTWI, RTWII will be 10 times the games Rome I was. In terms of historical accuracy, content and love for details, the new game is miles ahead. The silly flying animations disturb me too, but they were in the previous games too, but they weren't the end of the world I'd say. Now people here use things like these to "prove" that the game is being dumbed down, becoming more and more arcade to appeal to teenage crowds etc. If you think this is true, well ok, but don't act like this is a sudden change of direction by CA and that the older games were better in this regard. You should really stop with this twisted perception and wrong nostalgia. The Total War series has always been a game and no historical documentation, but if you really want to make comparisons, you have to admit that they've stepped it up in terms of historical accuracy, not toned it down. I should say you would have to admit it if you were fair and objective.
I know that the impressive mods really put Rome on a higher level (kudos to them) and fixed these things as far as they could, and I hope that modding is possible in RTWII since there are things that I also would like to be changed (the lackluster unit names like 'pikemen' etc), but if they spare us from gamebreaking bugs, this surely looks like the best VANILLA Total War to date.
I was surprised to see that CA made some good progress with Shogun II, especially with the campaign AI, the core of the game. Example: In Rome I, a defeated foe wouldn't even accept a ceasefire. In Shogun II, a crushed AI knows when its defeated and would accept vassalage. The AI might still not be smart, but atleast it has become somewhat reasonable, especially in terms of diplomacy (except for the broken Realm Divide mechanic of course) This alone, combined with the enormous content and scope, will make the game more worthwile than Rome I ever was.
I also don't like the 1 year per turn and the removal of some cities, but that doesn't make it less of a game than itspredecessors.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by George Orwell
