Has Total War lost its soul?
As we have all seen, the release of Rome II has met considerable backlash from the dedicated fans of the series, some demonizing the developers as manipulative money hounds trying to squeeze the last dollar out of every customer. Juxtaposed to this are the CA soldiers for hire, defending the game as the best rendition of Total War we have been graced with since Rome I, explaining to us why capture points are vital and a battle time of over 10 minutes is ridiculous. I would like to address those that strike a balance between the two, TW gamers young or old, experienced or new, who are aware that this release was premature, but are optimistic that the game can still be saved by the hard work of the developers and the community.
First of all I would like to make known my experience with Total War. I discovered Empire a little more than a year ago, and have been obsessed with the franchise since. To many of you long-term fans, that particular game was a disaster, but having just discovered the extensive modding community of TW and installing Darthmod Empire, I found the game to be a blast. Until I found the other titles in the franchise, which helped me to understand the distain many have for Empire. Having played Rome, Medieval 2, Empire, Napoleon, and Shogun 2 throughout last year and up to now, I feel that my understanding of the series and the way it is percieved by the community is fairly accurate, and with that I begin.
I think the first thing we have all recognized is that Rome II is a transitional title, heavily marketed and somewhat simplified in comparison to past games, it seems to be catered towards a more casual gamer. Things that quickly come to mind in support of this is the tempo of battle, the addition of rather unrealistic concepts such as capture points and individual unit abilities, and the removal of important features such as the family tree, the guard position, and the selection of tight or loose formation. However, there are some things I think really work for this game, even if they dont support the feel of the franchise. The agent system for me is the best I have seen in the series, with each type serving a function outside of its predefined roles, the champion's experience effect specifically was a nice surprise while still maintaining immersion. The ability for a force to traverse waters without a pre-built transport was to me a neccasery addition for the size of the map, however I would have preferred that this could only be done from a city port, rather than any lowland coast. Finally the province system, in my opinion, is fantastic. Ignoring the ability to issue edicts, I knew as soon as I began my campaign as the Suebi that this system would encourage diplomacy with smaller nations and provide an interesting challenge for the expasionist player. I did not like the idea of provincial capitals but can understand the need for a focal point in each province. These are things that I feel are good additions to Rome II, although some aspects may need fine tuning.
Unfortunately, Rome II has far more negatives than positives at this stage. I only realised how flawed it was after making a pros and cons list in my head, still maintaing the delusion it was a finished game for about 4 hours in to my playthough. First and foremost is the design of the campaign map. I'm not quite sure how, and I know someone here could probably put it into words for me, but its just not total war. It doesnt bring a feeling of endless opportunities and unlike any other TW game I have ever played, I do not have an urge to explore it's nooks and corners. This may have something to do with my next point; factions. The playable factions in the game are actually quite nice, I like the variety and how spaced out they are on the map. From the Arverni to the Seleucids, I think there is something for everyone. However the minor factions bug me to no end. I have no feeling for them, no wish to see them destroyed or advanced. In Empire, I was quite invested in the plight of the Iroquis playing as the Dutch while also keeping an eye on my Portugese rival in India, and in Napoleon the importance of a German Confederation as Prussia was tantamount to me, as was the need to keep the lowlands out of French hands. Playing as the Suebi, I have no opinion of the Cimbri, Rhugii, or Cheruscii, and have only felt annoyance that the Boii exist. Not because I dislike the Boii, or because they present too much of a challenge, but rather the opposite. As your beginning enemy and rival in the area, they put up little fight, whereas they should be vying for control of the area, two fledgeling tribes attempting to spring their nations into recognition. Apart from that rather emotional negative, something to take with a pinch of salt rather than an important game issue, the loading times of the turn as a result of these countless factions, some with little to offer other than a temporary hindrance to yourself, is infuriating. As one reviewer said "I often click end turn and then get up to wash some dishes". That is just the campaign map, and not even all my gripes with it are listed here, but onto a more pressing issue for many; the battles.
Where do I start. The units are pathetic, breaking or being killed literally seconds after being engaged. This goes for my enemy more than me, and is the first time in a while I wish the AI had more stat bonuses than myself. The removal of guard, tight or loose formation, the fact that slingers have a longer range than archers, the near uselessness of horse archers (which makes me worried for the upcoming release of a nomadic tribes DLC), the inability to control the throwing of pila, the ridiculous abilities and buffs many units possess, the speed at which they run, and fact that boats bounce of each other like they are made of rubber, are just some of the features that make battles less of an exciting endeavor and more of a chore. What makes these all the more infuriating is that they are not existing problems in the series, but ideas that have been established as core concepts or mechanics within previous games. It escapes me how CA could possibly have thought that the removal and/or addition of mentioned problems was a good idea. Apart from all these gameplay issues, the unit cards to me look rather similiar at times, they are absent of unit numbers, and are far too large, forcing me to open and close the UI each time I make a selection, something minor in theory, but time consuming in practice.
All in all, the negatives of Rome II far outweigh the positives, but there is still hope. Many of the problems I have listed here are easily fixed assuming that the modding community is willing to put in the work and make this game as good as it should have been at release, which I am sure as dedicated fans of the series they are. If the resources are present, then we know from past experience that statistics can be fine tuned, certain design elements altered, and mechanics changed to produce something infinitely better than the original. I am not a modder myself, I do not know the ins and outs, but I have seen what some of the people on these forums can do, and it is amazing. To all those who put in the hardwork to improve these games, thank you, everyone here appreciates what you do (some might not show it as much).
To end this longwinded piece of probably boring writing, I say thanks for reading if you did, no worries if you didnt, and that this is my opinion, among a sea of others. I welcome disagreement as a chance to learn rather than a disparagement of myself, and would really appreciate if people could tell me how they feel about Total War and whether or not Rome II has retained the soul and feeling of the franchise.
Thanks, Joe.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Arcani 4 Ever
is getting in the way of actually making games as opposed to making tech demos.
