Reason why Rome 2 does not really 'feel epic': Too much contrarian spirit and HBO ROME?

[DanMLee88]

Now I would like to discuss something that many of us may have felt but could not really pin down:

The feeling of 'epic' is....diminished from playing rome. To be honest, the traditional 'Hollyrome' type of portrayal maybe somewhat stale and over used, but is this really the answer?

Every one of your general is 'unhinged'. Game doesn't pass up a chance to denigrate and make a comedy out of every single things, even things that deserve some respect and honesty.

In my opinion, cynically viewing something does not make it any more 'rounded' or 'fair'. Respect must be given where it is due. Somehow, the game makes it seem the ancient rome was populated and spoken on by same idiots who complain about movies in modern times. There was, no matter how much you want to appear denigrating, a difference in mentality and respect in those times, but playing this game makes them all seem like 21st century posh and spoiled idiots - talk the same, walk the same, only in different clothes.

Now, the reason I mentioned HBO Rome was because, you might have guessed, the same exact mentality that runs beneath its every line and scene. In their vapid and shallow tabloid-like mentality to denigrate and degrade any thing and everything respectable, they managed to turn history into something close to a 'parody' brought forth by junior high student comedy - to paraphrase one honest review from an Italian Newspaper. In their effort to b ch at the so-called 'hollyrome' they laugh at so much, they actually managed to turn it in to something worse while holding the veneer of useless and infantile 'cynicism' that they regard as the epitome of 'mature' view of rome. Being a useless contrarian does not make one more 'in depth' or 'wiser', but rather a sad attempt at trying to bring down something to their appropriate level.

Is there no more seriousness and respect left in regards to what should rightfully be seen through different lense than the vapid modern day view that is both infantile and shallow? Is it that hard to accept that somehow, somewhere, at one point, people held gravity and masculine identity along with honor and strength that is better than what is common these days? Does everything have to be forced to be viewed through effete and lazy prism of modern day where, according to your own personal feelings, nothing should be deserving of appropriate gravity it commands?


In short, in their effort to 'bring it down to earth' and apply 'constructive contrasting views', both the producers and modern day designers have managed to twist ancient people into something that they feel more comfortable with: Idiots at their level, with little idea of respect or dignity or honor that even someone like pullo would have held firm. The portrayal of pullo in the series is a good example of this: Being brutish or straight forward does not always mean one is a simple minded fool that makes 2 year old mistakes. I simply don't think writers or producers of the game have enough maturity or depth to understand or even try to imitate the concept of 'Gravitas' or 'honor'. This idiocy of thinking this is supposed to be 'better' than traditional 'hollyrome' view is both incredibly self-deceiving and laughably immature in thought - especially since they have so throughly convinced their narrow mind that they are being 'deeper' and 'more honest' by driving ancient history portrayal from the glorified pedestal to an even worse rock pile of garbage than have the vapid idiocy to claim they have given a 'clearer' view of what the truth in history is.

Think Ben Hur/Quo Vadis or even Cleopatra vs. HBO ROME. I just can't feel the same gravity and respect from the actors or producers and scripts even when both are portraying Rome in a denigratin and negative light.

Have we become too shallow and without vision that we need to turn history and other people into tabloid article characters to feel comfortable and regard them as 'real'?


Hence parody.


What are your opinions? Discuss.

[daelin4]

I played Carthage and thought it was so uneventful. Then I played Macedon and realized that only certain factions had the "story mode" dilemma feature.

So yes, the allegations that this game is half-done is true.

[kronpas]

So naive was I to think my English is somewhat sufficient to pass in business world. I cant even follow a random forum post ;(

Guess I ll try: Rome 2 tries to make warfare more 'real', but personally I see it as a wasted effort as I almost never zoom in closer into the fights. Close enough to your original post?

[DanMLee88]

So naive was I to think my English is somewhat sufficient to pass in business world. I cant even follow a random forum post ;(

Guess I ll try: Rome 2 tries to make warfare more 'real', but personally I see it as a wasted effort as I almost never zoom in closer into the fights. Close enough to your original post?

I was nostalgic seeing that avatar on your profile. That was a good game.

As for your summary, you are way off. Try to read between the lines and think about what is being said, not what you glean from skimming. Businesses should train their employees to read, not imagine, what they have at hand.

[kronpas]

aww, so my guess was completely wrong?

Joking aside, I dont think the format you chose was good for general forumers. I can only steal few mins here and there skimming around forums during work hours, dont expect me to fully comprehend such posts. If you want people follow your ideas, make things clear from the get go.

edit: yes, its 10:25AM here

And HW1/2 were classic IMO. Too bad there isnt anything close to it in recent years, SoSE was good but it had no story whatsoever, which made HW so memorable.

[DanMLee88]

Actually, you were. If you don't have time to read, then you really shouldn't have time to comment...or reply.

The central idea is pretty clear on the thread title, unless you didn't read that either.

[Sun Jetzu]

Unfortunately I agree with most. this post has alot of words but finds a way to almost say nothing. I'm still not understanding what OP is really trying to point out. To me the game feels epic. Way more epic than those that came before. If you dont feel that way then you could have just said. "In my opinion, this game doesnt feel epic. Discuss."
That would have ment more to me than paragraphs comparing this to movies and people of the 21st century. Sigh, when will people stop whining about this game. And just start enjoying it. Or if you dont enjoy it, play something else. Heard diablo 3 just came out.

[DanMLee88]

Unfortunately I agree with most. this post has alot of words but finds a way to almost say nothing. I'm still not understanding what OP is really trying to point out. To me the game feels epic. Way more epic than those that came before. If you dont feel that way then you could have just said. "In my opinion, this game doesnt feel epic. Discuss."
That would have ment more to me than paragraphs comparing this to movies and people of the 21st century. Sigh, when will people stop whining about this game. And just start enjoying it. Or if you dont enjoy it, play something else. Heard diablo 3 just came out.

Explain how, as you put it, my post 'says nothing'. Unfortunately I don't see anything backing you up except for that simple statement. I think I explained clearly what I am going for from title to the end of the post. What I got from you was 'I don't wanna'. Unless, of course, you want to elaborate with something other than 'I don't understand'.

When one is expounding on what is being said, the listener also has responsibilities as well as the speaker. Especially if they want to make criticisms are that legitimate and worth listening to.

Go back and read the post. Read, not perceive.

[Sun Jetzu]

Explain how, as you put it, my post 'says nothing'. Unfortunately I don't see anything backing you up except for that simple statement. I think I explained clearly what I am going for from title to the end of the post. What I got from you was 'I don't wanna'. Unless, of course, you want to elaborate with something other than 'I don't understand'.

When one is expounding on what is being said, the listener also has responsibilities as well as the speaker. Especially if they want to make criticisms are that legitimate and worth listening to.

Go back and read the post. Read, not perceive.

What I'm mostly saying is that your whole paragraph could have been summed up in a few sentences. Instead you run off in elaborate explanations with complicated words, to feign intellect in your own argument. I'm sorry my friend, but even your reply seems like a bit much. You could have said. "Read the post again, maybe you will understand better what I'm trying to tell you". Or you could have explained better your point to make a valid base for your argument. Obviously I'm not understanding. But at this point we are arguing on how you decide to put your statements across, and now I dont care to REALLY understand your argument because of your response.
Again I might be the only one that truly feels this way. But reading some of the responses, that doesn't seem the case.
Read not Perceive? Clever.
I have one for you.
Simplicate, not Complicate.

[DanMLee88]

What I'm mostly saying is that your whole paragraph could have been summed up in a few sentences. Instead you run off in elaborate explanations with complicated words, to feign intellect in your own argument. I'm sorry my friend, but even your reply seems like a bit much. You could have said. "Read the post again, maybe you will understand better what I'm trying to tell you". Or you could have explained better your point to make a valid base for your argument. Obviously I'm not understanding. But at this point we are arguing on how you decide to put your statements across, and now I dont care to REALLY understand your argument because of your response.
Again I might be the only one that truly feels this way. But reading some of the responses, that doesn't seem the case.
Read not Perceive? Clever.
I have one for you.
Simplicate, not Complicate.

No one's particularly trying to clever as far as I can tell. As for this, I'd rather pin it on listening to some movies while playing rome. Whatever's the case, if you think I am trying to 'sound clever' by saying it the way it is being said, I really worry whether you even know what that means. Don't get your self in a twist by getting trivial - try to address the issue at hand if you don't want to be petty.

At this point, we are arguing whether the shift in the focus towards our perception and portrayal of ancient peoples is for the good or bad. There's the point. You want to argue that, or do you just want to keep harping on something you refuse to understand? How hard is it to really understand you don't always keep things simply just because it is sometimes beneficial to extend ourselves to encompass a broader picture?

All my points were addressing the central point from various angles. I would not call that superfluous or irrelevant. Don't try to b ch and fling insults where someone's making a valid point. Especially without making some effort on your part, and carelessly piping in to make a comment in a derogatory fashion. Did playing a staff on a web forum make you forget something basic?

Again, not a word about specifics of what I said. No one's making a joke about your top ten issue so enough of your b ching. Either give something worthwhile or pipe the fck down. We need a discussion, not what you think is a clever come back.

[blinkboy182]

All my points were addressing the central point from various angles. I would not call that superfluous or irrelevant. Don't try to b ch and fling insults where someone's making a valid point. Especially without making some effort on your part, and carelessly piping in to make a comment in a derogatory fashion. Did playing a staff on a web forum make you forget something basic?

With all due respect, you are doing exactly what you are accusing Sun Jetzu of doing.

[Sun Jetzu]

No one's particularly trying to clever as far as I can tell. As for this, I'd rather pin it on listening to some movies while playing rome. Whatever's the case, if you think I am trying to 'sound clever' by saying it the way it is being said, I really worry whether you even know what that means. Don't get your self in a twist by getting trivial - try to address the issue at hand if you don't want to be petty.

At this point, we are arguing whether the shift in the focus towards our perception and portrayal of ancient peoples is for the good or bad. There's the point. You want to argue that, or do you just want to keep harping on something you refuse to understand? How hard is it to really understand you don't always keep things simply just because it is sometimes beneficial to extend ourselves to encompass a broader picture?

All my points were addressing the central point from various angles. I would not call that superfluous or irrelevant. Don't try to b ch and fling insults where someone's making a valid point. Especially without making some effort on your part, and carelessly piping in to make a comment in a derogatory fashion. Did playing a staff on a web forum make you forget something basic?

Again, not a word about specifics of what I said. No one's making a joke about your top ten issue so enough of your b ching. Either give something worthwhile or pipe the fck down. We need a discussion, not what you think is a clever come back.

Well again you have found a way to make your statement as jumbled and complicated as possible. Also insulting me, and cursing at me on the forums.
If my "comeback" upsets you well then I'm sorry. But thats just the way I see your writings and ideas.
Now back on subject, seeing as how your trying to get back on task.
No, I dont particularly care. This is a GAME. A piece of ENTERTAINMENT. Not a documentary. Its ment to play and have fun.
If you care so much how close they are portrayed to TV, movies or other works of entertainment. Then thats your problem.
Read a book, then you will get almost all the historical accuracy you can handle. Maybe even learn a few more words to add to your vast vocabulary.
But when it comes to VIDEO GAMES. Leave that to people who wish to be entertained. If it doesn't entertain you. Then play/do something else.
Clever? Your statement is trying to be clever. Now if the sentence maker isnt, thats on you.
Also, the jab at my badge. Well seems a bit low to stoop for someone who's so articulated.
But expected from someone who is debating if a piece of modern entertainment is good or bad based on its historical portrayal.
Let me say it one more time.
Entertainment.

[adrastea]

It would be nice if you can actually cite some examples from the show, instead of just repeating "HBO's Rome makes fun of Ancient Rome therefore it sucks" in different wordings. Also, if you want to claim that

In short, in their effort to 'bring it down to earth' and apply 'constructive contrasting views', both the producers and modern day designers have managed to twist ancient people into something that they feel more comfortable with: Idiots at their level, with little idea of respect or dignity or honor that even someone like pullo would have held firm.

, you should provide a argument that proves the contrary, instead of just making a blank statement. How exactly are you certain that "even someone like Pullo" had "dignity and honor"? That should be quite a difficult task, considering that even today the concept dignity and honor is quite dependent on individuals.

[DanMLee88]

It would be nice if you can actually cite some examples from the show, instead of just repeating "HBO's Rome makes fun of Ancient Rome therefore it sucks" in different wordings. Also, if you want to claim that , you should provide a argument that proves the contrary, instead of just making a blank statement. How exactly are you certain that "even someone like Pullo" had "dignity and honor"? That should be quite a difficult task, considering that even today the concept dignity and honor is quite dependent on individuals.

Of course.

Remember, say how Antony and Cleopatra was portrayed in the Heston movie. No one denies that they were portrayed as petty, pitiable, and ignorant. However, no one says the acting or the way in which it was delivered was poor, and NO ONE says they are something to be received lightly.

Compare that to the frivolous and almost cheap way in which they portray actions of pullo and vorenus. No one was laughing when antony in the old movie committed suicide. More than a few chuckles went up with the over done way in which vorenus jumped in to the sand to 'save' pullo after doing that abrupt turn about within one episode, or pullo's somewhat overdone acting during the deed. There was no 'gravitas' or 'weight' in how people were portrayed. It was as if these historical people were supposed to be marionettes to amuse the modern audience or impress them, not being told as they were. They are being portrayed the way modern viewer would LIKE to see them - As in, understandable and like an open book in every aspect of the word. That kind of attitude is very presumptuous, especially when they claim this is more 'authentic' - how is it that they are so capable of portraying such different people from 2000 years ago, yet they don't even seem to want to consider that those people are not limited, in talent or disaster, by our perception of their lives?

It's a pretty ephemeral thing, but you do get a sense of something being vastly different in which history and people of the past are delivered with relatively newer and more modern media products. It is not always for the best.

Clear enough? Also, your 'summary' that implies I am biased to favorable views of Rome could not be further from the truth. The most important issue at hand is the manner in which these things are portrayed and delivered, not the side or the favoritism over certain factions. The fact that mistakes over this matter is resulting in overly skewed view of ancient civilizations is actually secondary to that fundamental error.

[Molossis]

Of course.

Remember, say how Antony and Cleopatra was portrayed in the Heston movie. No one denies that they were portrayed as petty, pitiable, and ignorant. However, no one says the acting or the way in which it was delivered was poor, and NO ONE says they are something to be received lightly.

Compare that to the frivolous and almost cheap way in which they portray actions of pullo and vorenus. No one was laughing when antony in the old movie committed suicide. More than a few chuckles went up with the over done way in which vorenus jumped in to the sand to 'save' pullo after doing that abrupt turn about within one episode, or pullo's somewhat overdone acting during the deed. There was no 'gravitas' or 'weight' in how people were portrayed. It was as if these historical people were supposed to be marionettes to amuse the modern audience or impress them, not being told as they were. They are being portrayed the way modern viewer would LIKE to see them - As in, understandable and like an open book in every aspect of the word. That kind of attitude is very presumptuous, especially when they claim this is more 'authentic' - how is it that they are so capable of portraying such different people from 2000 years ago, yet they don't even seem to want to consider that those people are not limited, in talent or disaster, by our perception of their lives?

It's a pretty ephemeral thing, but you do get a sense of something being vastly different in which history and people of the past are delivered with relatively newer and more modern media products. It is not always for the best.

Clear enough? Also, your 'summary' that implies I am biased to favorable views of Rome could not be further from the truth. The most important issue at hand is the manner in which these things are portrayed and delivered, not the side or the favoritism over certain factions. The fact that mistakes over this matter is resulting in overly skewed view of ancient civilizations is actually secondary to that fundamental error.

Ok so what I get from what your saying is you think that they way they acted back in the day was done with more respect. Now I cant tell how old you are but if you are from that time isnt more of nostolgia and the way you were raised and your thinking that makes you say that? even if you arn't that old, Saying that the old "Heston" movies are better because of the way the acted and respected the role is wrong. They did not portray how the Romans, Egyptians, Israelite were any more than how we portray most of them as English people somehow making them seem more "sophisticated". By the way did you ever read Julius Caesars Gallic wars? Personally i think if you looked at their politics they were alot like us. Such as the infamous Julius Caesar gave himself to the king of bithynia there for a woman and shouldnt be elected into the senate seems alot like what we do. So in fact in many ways they were as stupid and ignorant as us. you are merely Idealising the people sense we cannot say how exactly they acted. personally the voices are aweful though the carthagenians are just so annoying.

[adrastea]

Compare that to the frivolous and almost cheap way in which they portray actions of pullo and vorenus. No one was laughing when antony in the old movie committed suicide. More than a few chuckles went up with the over done way in which vorenus jumped in to the sand to 'save' pullo after doing that abrupt turn about within one episode, or pullo's somewhat overdone acting during the deed.

Can't really agree with that. At least I didn't find anything really comical or funny about that scene, even if it was a bit abrupt. And I felt that the death of Anthony in Rome was quite moving as well.

There was no 'gravitas' or 'weight' in how people were portrayed. It was as if these historical people were supposed to be marionettes to amuse the modern audience or impress them, not being told as they were. They are being portrayed the way modern viewer would LIKE to see them - As in, understandable and like an open book in every aspect of the word. That kind of attitude is very presumptuous, especially when they claim this is more 'authentic' - how is it that they are so capable of portraying such different people from 2000 years ago, yet they don't even seem to want to consider that those people are not limited, in talent or disaster, by our perception of their lives?

I simply can't agree with this. One thing that I liked about that series was because they didn't bring in modern value and morality into picture. Nobody talking about how slavery is wrong or how (at least not in a modern sense) democracy is superior to all other political forms etc. I think they did a good job in portraying a completely alien(compared to modern Western society) world, with vastly different views and morality, and yet at the same time showing that some elements have not changed much.

I don't get about the point of "gravitas/weight" either. To me most characters seemed to have had a relatively fixed principles, and acted according to it, even if sometimes circumstances forced them to bend that principle i.e. Vorenus

Clear enough? Also, your 'summary' that implies I am biased to favorable views of Rome could not be further from the truth. The most important issue at hand is the manner in which these things are portrayed and delivered, not the side or the favoritism over certain factions. The fact that mistakes over this matter is resulting in overly skewed view of ancient civilizations is actually secondary to that fundamental error.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your message. My point is that I cannot agree with the notion that HBO's Rome "modernized" the Romans to appease to modern audience. I think the contrary.

[Razvus]

Compare that to the frivolous and almost cheap way in which they portray actions of pullo and vorenus. No one was laughing when antony in the old movie committed suicide. More than a few chuckles went up with the over done way in which vorenus jumped in to the sand to 'save' pullo after doing that abrupt turn about within one episode, or pullo's somewhat overdone acting during the deed.

I wasn't laughing when Antony died in Rome. i found it quite a touching moment, a sudden sober moment compared to the atmosphere of those late episodes when he was mostly high. I guess everyone will interpret the moment differently, but for me it was him back to his old self, he was roman after all and he wanted to die like one. Also, Vorenus is there, and I realized that these two had a somewhat similar relationship like Vorenus and Pullo. Vorenus swore loyalty unto death to Antony, it just ended in reverse. Anthony practically brought Vorenus back to life after his family vanished, and they went through a lot together in retrospect. I don't think they really had "the same sickness" as Vorenus claimed, but all in all it was a lot more than "here's a sword, now get on with it".

The scene from the arena? Maybe I felt it a bit clumsy with the acting, but I consider it a solid one.

Other than this, I can't help but notice that you criticize how badly the romans are portrayed in this series compared with your standard... but in the end, your standard is composed of other, a bit more older movies. In the end, we're just comparing movies, and historical fact is nowhere in between. I'm sorry, do you have any physical evidence that Rome is way off when it comes to characters (by this I mean character portrayal)? You can't just claim as evidence some other movie, just because it was done decades before doesn't mean they nailed it right. And from what I understand, romans weren't all that different from us. More brutal, but they had some of the same problems.

Also comparing Rome with the game, Rome II is a poor choice. These two are nothing alike. Rome II really is some sort of high school play on steroids. Everyone shouts ROME like thunder and we're off to conquer the world because history said so. This thing is nothing like the show. The game doesn't even have characters, you just have some pawns that you move on the map. There's no real politics and morals here, it's all about tiny fighting swordsmen on some battlefields.

To me, you just have a bad case of golden age nostalgia. You really liked those movies and their atmosphere and you take them for granted. That they're the real deal and everything else is rubbish. I just think that's a bit unfair.

[gargarensi]

Whatever point you're trying to make was lost in a sea of fancy words, confusing sentence structure and pseudo-intellectual speak that would make any academic roll their eyes. If english is not your first language, then fair enough; this is an international forum after all. But bear with me if I'm getting this wrong. I guess what you're trying to say is that... the Romans are portrayed as a caricature that emphasizes too much their negative traits? Right? And somehow that diminishes the epicness of the game? Ermmmm how? Notions of 'honor' or 'dignity' I can't see in any way highlights the scale or epicness of something.

[Dileos]

Whatever point you're trying to make was lost in a sea of fancy words, confusing sentence structure and pseudo-intellectual speak that would make any academic roll their eyes.

I had a professor in college who said something along the lines of, "if you have an ugly argument, cover it up with eloquence." or more simple terms "Use big words to sound smart when you aren't."

His post is basically the poster child for that.

OP, the epicness of total war always came from the combat. And despite some glaring flaws with the ai, it doesn't get much more epic than barbarian hordes crashing into outnumbered legionaries or massive warships hurling flaming boulders at a citidel as transports deploy ground troops. I'm also trying to figure out how comparing Ben-Hur to HBO Rome is relevant to a video game.

If anything, the game goes above and beyond the call to make the Romans seem likeable, and making them relatable is how it accomplishes this. In reality, the Romans were kind of dicks. Granted, most ancient empires were a bunch of dicks, but the point still stands. Most people don't want to play DICKS: Total War.

Is it that hard to accept that somehow, somewhere, at one point, people held gravity and masculine identity along with honor and strength that is better than what is common these days?

And this is honestly the funniest thing I've read all night. You must be great at parties.

[DanMLee88]

I had a professor in college who said something along the lines of, "if you have an ugly argument, cover it up with eloquence." or more simple terms "Use big words to sound smart when you aren't."

His post is basically the poster child for that.

OP, the epicness of total war always came from the combat. And despite some glaring flaws with the ai, it doesn't get much more epic than barbarian hordes crashing into outnumbered legionaries or massive warships hurling flaming boulders at a citidel as transports deploy ground troops. I'm also trying to figure out how comparing Ben-Hur to HBO Rome is relevant to a video game.

If anything, the game goes above and beyond the call to make the Romans seem likeable, and making them relatable is how it accomplishes this. In reality, the Romans were kind of dicks. Granted, most ancient empires were a bunch of dicks, but the point still stands. Most people don't want to play DICKS: Total War.



And this is honestly the funniest thing I've read all night. You must be great at parties.

I think I'd rather talk straight than be like your 'professor' who confuses 'eloquence' with just honest but maybe poor wording. I don't think I ever claimed otherwise.

That being the case, I am sure you never bothered to read anything or try to understand anything other than what can go through the prism of your narrow view. You sure didn't try to read anything posted above. Explain to me. Don't skim.

@Donkeycow:

I also did, actually. Entertainment doesn't really relate to the authenticity of the show, but still. Hard not to laugh along with pullo. Or Atia. Or Hinds.