OFFICIAL REZZED COMPLAINT THREAD!

[bangell99]

I'm pinning my hopes on the Battle of the Nile demo being made deliberately arcadey and simplistic to appeal to new gamers playing at the booths... If not then I'll have to pin my hopes on the modders...

[Serkelet]

What annoys me is how CA presents the diplomacy transparency as something brand new, when it's been present in the game since Empire. Sure, they added more diplomacy variables, like the War crimes factor, but that doesn't make it new. I remember CA saying that when the AI rejects a proposal from you, they'd say the reason why they don't accept it. I was expecting to see that when in Rezzed they were offering the AI Egypt a trade agreement and to become a vassal; the AI, as always in every single Total War game, just rejected, without giving any explanation like "we reject because we don't want to be your vassal" or "we simply don't want to trade with you!". No, just the same old "don't waste my time" answer.

I'm beginning to wonder what other "brand new" things they said would be in the game, will not actually be in. To me it appears CA are going extremely conservatists with this game, like if they were afraid they'd lose money if they tried to add innovative stuff. Still, of course, I have to play the game to know, but I'm beginning to not like what I'm watching.

[familyguy1]

I like the diplomacy factors actually being visible now instead of in a tiny little box.

[Stath's]

1) Very Simplistic menus with no artwork
2) Super fast battles
3) Fire balls (that kill own chariots, just metres in front of them)
4) Flying people
5) Only 3 traits and 2 ancillaries
6) Did not see anything that resembles actual diplomacy
7) Did not like the "recreate the army and keep the tradition" stuff
8) Did not like the building icons (well, that's a really minor concern, as long as there are many buildings to build)
9) No assassination videos.
10) They themselves do not seem to think the game as a serious strategy game, they seem to aim towards the "fun" and some superficial strategy elements, no real depth. Seems to me that a priest who shouts "Wololo" and captures enemy units is not so far away from this game. That's the general feeling i got.

[Siegfriedfr]

1) Very Simplistic menus with no artwork
2) Super fast battles
3) Fire balls (that kill own chariots, just metres in front of them)
4) Flying people
5) Only 3 traits and 2 ancillaries
6) Did not see anything that resembles actual diplomacy
7) Did not like the "recreate the army and keep the tradition" stuff
8) Did not like the building icons (well, that's a really minor concern, as long as there are many buildings to build)
9) No assassination videos.
10) They themselves do not seem to think the game as a serious strategy game, they seem to aim towards the "fun" and some superficial strategy elements, no real depth. Seems to me that a priest who shouts "Wololo" and captures enemy units is not so far away from this game. That's the general feeling i got.

Agree 100%. If you compare this game to say any medieval 2 mod, it's inferior in every way except graphics and diplomacy options. Battles as total jokes is a huge marketing mistake; i want to play gladiator, not asterix, and i bet many people want the same thing.
What i do not understand is the huge gap between the carthage trailer (admitedly largely edited) who seemed gritty and realistic, and the battl of the nile which is indeed a comical display.

[General Maximus]

3) Fire balls (that kill own chariots, just metres in front of them)

That is a realistic thing, why wouldn't the fireball kill a man who stands in front of it, be it a friend or the enemy? Should it pass through the friendly troops as if they are not existing?

But I completely agree on the rest of the points. I like the legion traditions, but the UI is horrible. There are so little traits and ancillaries that any character looks like a stale robot, unlike the characters in RTW which were full of traits and ancillaries and had a unique flavour.

I am hoping for assassination videos, they have a good potential to make them like they did with Shogun 1/ Shogun 2 and Medieval II. And I am DYING FOR TERRITORY EXCHANGE. It was possible in Napoleon and Empire, so why not now?

[Jungle Rhino]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[RedGuard]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm CA and I approve this Message

[Stath's]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[SirFork]

What i've learned form Rezzed is that if i want to win i'll just have to make sure i'll have superiority in numbers and therefore rush towards the enemy without any kind of tactic.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

P.S. I really hope the game proves me wrong.

[Archilles]

What i've learned form Rezzed is that if i want to win i'll just have to make sure i'll have superiority in numbers and therefore rush towards the enemy without any kind of tactic.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

P.S. I really hope the game proves me wrong.

I hope your wrong... i mean the egyptians... no tactic they only shoot with ballistas and after a little fight the battle is over - and i think no one knows why gg
the animations are grappy... soldiers running wild without formations over the battlefield... its so bad i hope they show us some better gameplay of a real battle soon...

[ptoss1]

I hope your wrong... i mean the egyptians... no tactic they only shoot with ballistas and after a little fight the battle is over - and i think no one knows why gg
the animations are grappy... soldiers running wild without formations over the battlefield... its so bad i hope they show us some better gameplay of a real battle soon...

This is a real battle, son. Men are dying, stop complaining.

[Anna_Gein]

Well, if you sit and think it through, ETW and S2 were horribly unbalanced and buggy at release - denoting that CA are quite sincere when they say 2 months before release that the game is not yet in beta and everything is subject to change. Therefore, I believe if you want to play a serious and finished TW you should wait until the Gold Edition. Even then there are exceptions (ETW anyone?) But anyways, usually the game is not ready only a few months after release. Why? Who can tell? Just consider S2 and its months late implementation of Dx11. I mean, seriously? How can you be late on implementing a new technology after you flash it in every marketing thingy you release to the public? Fanboys tend to forget about many horrible releases that CA have done and they always back up CA. It is true that CA usually fixes the game through patches later on but why do we have to receive almost always since warscape an unfinished and unbalanced product? They took more time with R2 but even now they keep saying the game is not yet in beta. It seems that the more time they have the more procrastinating they are...

Yeah. Shogun 2 did not even had the Anti-Aliasing available at release.

[Lord Cornwallis]

-no standard bearers for non roman factions
-no trade/gift region dipolmacy feature

[DeliCiousTZM]

I'm going to give my two cents, we talked about it quite a lot on the stream yesterday. Sadly Ustream doesn't save the videos automatically like they do on Twitch which was offline yesterday.

Me The-Monetary(DeliCiousTZM)

Multiplayer campaigns

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One of the biggest mistakes CA did for Rome II(Which I'm assuming is a mistake due to lack of explanation on the subject) Is the lack of anything over 2 players multiplayer capabilities. Some people have made the argument that waiting for three or seven other players(4-8 player) is to long of a time to wait for most players. However i feel that they do not have the right to make that decision for us. People playing Hotseat today have 36 hours(Usually) to finish their turn before sending it on, in a game with 8 players it can take up to 12 days before a player gets a chance to continue their turn. This should have been very telling for CA and they should have given a way higher priority to the implementation of at least 4 player enabled multiplayer campaigns. There is hope tho as the question was raised by that brave person at Rezzed that asked how many people would be able to enjoy the Multiplayer campaign. The response he got was, "Just" two players. The use of the word "Just" was very telling that it revealed that the feedback had been crushing(Which is good) For this feature.

Animation/Grit and Blood!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We were told that this would be grittier and more raw, however so far i feel like we have been getting a certain estetic look that in many ways make the units look less gritty than they could. Of course some of the most obvious turn offs involve the ballistae which have their impact animation taken from Fall of the Samurai. It looks virtually identical to a Armstrong/Parrot gun hitting a target. Being hit by a ballistae should either stick you to the ground or throw you and maybe some of the men backwards but never to the side. The artillery ballistae is no an exaggeration it should not have an explosive effect and it definitely shouldn't throw men half a kilometer sideways, it is sad to say that medieval 2 had a more realistic look. Also the Chariots has similar de-immersive properties which segments me nice into the bit relevant but not tied into this section.

Blood and gore
When the chariot hits the infantry i want to see limbs,guts and blood splattered everywhere. I want to have that connection to my army where i can feel their pain,they shouldn't just be cartoon characters flying up into the air like some Looney toon cartoon. But i do understand this from a business standpoint that PEGI rating is important for sales in Australia and Germany for example. The blood pack for Shogun 2 were a very immersive add on that were sorely needed, and even tho it weren't every well made it improved the game significantly. A blood and gore DLC with every new total war game should become the standard business practice. I feel that it will be sorely needed and would greatly enhance Rome II. I will play it regardless but this blood and gore pack will be the difference between me spending 200 hours or 2000 hours on the game.
I CALL FOR BLOOD!

Civilizationlizing the Total war franchise

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now we have three different ways to achieve victory, cities grow outwards on the map and are very visible with their natural wonders, citiy managment is very streamlined and easily access able with what appears to be a more limited option of buildings(speculation only).The leveling up of army units and generals are complete with traditions and traits some of them you are able to upgrade up to three times. I still wonder if my generals can become Insane and if there are traits gained not leveled up. In any case many of these features and changes will be coming under scrutiny soon enough. And then we will see what sinks and what flies. I wanna iterate what every hardcore total war players want. DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH! Civilization to me lacks depth, singleplayer and multiplayer.

It is up to us the Community to continue being outspoken but in a civilized way. We need to be honest and try to understand what CA is trying to do, what rules SEGA is setting and how the gaming industry work in our time. Why can't we all be Total war fanboys and critics at the same time?