Can CA recover from Rome 2 ?

[Tim_Ward]

Has it ever occurred to you what it takes to create games like this?

It probably didn't occur to the people who decided to release it in September, either, which is where most of the anger should be directed.

Honestly, at this stage it's looking like March 2014 would have been a better release date.

[Duncan III]

Better to never have been released.

[g0pher_11]

so, 5 wks or so after release, just checking in... So the game is still full of problems by most accounts? Dang! I think someone is going to give it to me for my b-day in a couple of weeks... will have to be very delicate about explaining to them why it sits on the shelf unopened for a long time... Am too old to waste time on a game that is in a poor state

[beksibeksi]

Patch 3 actually fixed campaign lag for me. Also Radious Mos is amazing. Game is 7.5 for me right now.

[Tyso3]

Fact of the matter is, if the game actually worked/ran like the alpha footage showed, 60% of these complaints would not exist.

But CA Lied to us all. That is not an opinion that is a fact, i mean hell even Carthage looks different to the videos, downgraded.


Can they recover from lying? Do you forgive the guy who tells a blatent lie to your face, then when challenged on it, promisies to correct it but in reality never does nor makes any true effort to do so (weekly hotfixes for a patch are not weekly patches)

[Tyso3]

Patches do not make money, the patches will last as long as the game makes money, and at its current rate of decreased sales its unlikely they will bother.


But youknow if they were clever (and sneaky) they could fix rome total war 2, but release that patch only as DLC for 20 bucks.
But CA would never do that.....they listen to their fa....wait.

[Tyso3]

War is not nice - Barbara Bush

[mephhhh]

War is not nice - Barbara Bush

hahahhahahaa damn

[Menumorut]

I think that people from CA are really piss off by the fact that instead of working on hundreds of DLC's now they are forced to work on patches and fixes more than that time were allocated for this, and i'm happy for them or for that

[Metallistic]

It is hilarious to see people who say the game is beyond repair without ever dedicating one sentence as to WHY. IF Rome II gets to the point where it is working properly with some adjustments and the important missing features (like family tree) are added back, it will be the best game in the series. Period. There is no way around it. It's a big if, but only an idiot would deny the potential.

I think the reputation of the game has been permanently damaged and people tend to magnify all of the negative features and failing to acknowledge the positive ones. No reasonable individual with the most basic sense of objectivity would categorize the game as such with no redeeming value or deny the potential of what it can become. That is just ignorant and a big slap to everyone who wants to play the game which they were promised. This is not doing ANYONE a favor, nor is it helpful in any way. Also, the hilarity reaches maximum levels when the word "console" or "consolization" is brought into the mix. Seems to be a fancy word perfectly suited for the "hard-core gamer pseudo-intellectuals" who slap it as a label on anything that does not resemble an Excel table. Then someone will try to comeback from this by stating that the game is coming for the SteamOS and that this is the undeniable proof of their statement. To this I reply with the following - so is any Steam game, including all of the beloved Paradox titles, which seem to be put on a pedestal by the specified people.

[stackero]

It is hilarious to see people who say the game is beyond repair without ever dedicating one sentence as to WHY. IF Rome II gets to the point where it is working properly with some adjustments and the important missing features (like family tree) are added back, it will be the best game in the series. Period. There is no way around it. It's a big if, but only an idiot would deny the potential.

I think the reputation of the game has been permanently damaged and people tend to magnify all of the negative features and failing to acknowledge the positive ones. No reasonable individual with the most basic sense of objectivity would categorize the game as such with no redeeming value or deny the potential of what it can become. That is just ignorant and a big slap to everyone who wants to play the game which they were promised. This is not doing ANYONE a favor, nor is it helpful in any way. Also, the hilarity reaches maximum levels when the word "console" or "consolization" is brought into the mix. Seems to be a fancy word perfectly suited for the "hard-core gamer pseudo-intellectuals" who slap it as a label on anything that does not resemble an Excel table. Then someone will try to comeback from this by stating that the game is coming for the SteamOS and that this is the undeniable proof of their statement. To this I reply with the following - so is any Steam game, including all of the beloved Paradox titles, which seem to be put on a pedestal by the specified people.

Well. Metallistic, I have to admit, I admire your persistent optimism. You do make good points in your post. I am one who wants to play Rome 2 so bad I can almost taste it, but when I see R2 for what I believe it to be, I bleed steely rage.

And I'll give more than one sentence to why I think the game will never reach the the level we both know it deserves, though I may have a higher level in mind than you. Allow me to paste the post I sent to Humble Warrior just recently:

"HW, I see you and others putting alot of time and sweat into trying to help figure out how this game might be fixed and there's nothing wrong with that, I applaud you for it.

But think about this: some of the most basic things in both the campaign and tactical systems are a mess. Some of the worst defects are things that CA has done well or at least competently done before, so why do they fail so miserably now in the most basic programing?

You should consider, this was not just a rush job but an out and out scam from the word go. The game may still be patchable to a degree but how much of a game that was used for bait for a money grab, is going to be fixable?

Look at all the evidence, 40% more budget, of which I'm sure never went into this game, maybe someone's pocket or more false advertising and wonderfully done visuals of how the game should play and look.

Then remember and recall all the false hype, dishonest interviews,and corrupt magazine reviews and ratings. I know, still in the back of our minds we really don't won't to believe CA would go that far. But they did, because they could, we the customer share some blame for letting it go on for so long with so many preorders.

So I submit, they scammed us but good, and this game will never get far in being what we want it to be; playable and fun, and as we know playable and fun do not always dance together.

Sure, if someone with the power to order the game to be upgraded, redesigned and finished that would be great,but that kind of overhaul will be expensive and there would go the profits they made scamming us in the first place.

There's people out there who like the game, that's fine, no crime there, if someone can enjoy an incomplete game to each his own, but we know the game should be so much more.

My point, if you think I'm making any sense, you may soon want to give up on the game. ROME 2 that mystical name is nothing more than a lie, it never existed. a name used for bait that's all and that explains everything.

I hate to have to come to this conclusion, but the evidence keeps mounting slapping me in the face to wake me and smell the BS that is CA."




Reading all the threads and the problems people are having with the game, studying the patches to see how little they really help the game and adding in the dishonest marketing style of CA, surely Metallistic, putting aside your disgust of the naysayers, you have some doubt in the back of your mind about where R2 is headed.

I don't begrudge your hope and optimism. Alot of people are hoping right along side you and hoping I'm dead wrong, some likely calling me a few unflattering names no doubt. But, even I hope I'm proven wrong about the game's future.

The best scenario I see is, CA patches more and actually repairs or improves a feature or two, then if we're really lucky, they'll add a little more AI, to both the CAI and BAI. Suddenly, the day comes, CA proclaims the game 'fixed' and the paid DLC will start rolling out. Then when the tools are released for modders, maybe they can work their magic, but even then how far can they go with such an incomplete and flawed game?


Good Gaming. Somehow those two sign off words don't seem to fit this ending.







"If all the world were just, there would be no need of valor."~~Plutarch
"An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger."- Confucius

No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation- General Douglas MacArthur

[Metallistic]

Reading all the threads and the problems people are having with the game, studying the patches to see how little they really help the game and adding in the dishonest marketing style of CA, surely Metallistic, putting aside your disgust of the naysayers, you have some doubt in the back of your mind about where R2 is headed.

I don't begrudge your hope and optimism. Alot of people are hoping right along side you and hoping I'm dead wrong, some likely calling me a few unflattering names no doubt. But, even I hope I'm proven wrong about the game's future.

The best scenario I see is, CA patches more and actually repairs or improves a feature or two, then if we're really lucky, they'll add a little more AI, to both the CAI and BAI. Suddenly, the day comes, CA proclaims the game 'fixed' and the paid DLC will start rolling out. Then when the tools are released for modders, maybe they can work their magic, but even then how far can they go with such an incomplete and flawed game?

There is no doubt regarding the state of the game they released it in and I do not think anyone can deny what a low blow it was to all the supporters of the Total War franchise. It was such a disaster that even today, after 4 patches, there is still a lot of work to be done, but to deny the significant steps in the right direction is not really objective, is it? There are a lot of indicators that CA does seem to listen to the community and as always - actions speak louder than words. The proof for my statement is probably one of the biggest design choice reversals so far - the removal of victory points where they do not belong. There have also been numerous tweaks, adjustments and fixes where it was most needed according to the time dedicated for such things. I really do not need to go through all the patch notes - it is all documented.

Is it a direct evidence of how rushed the game was? Absolutely, but what makes you think that CA will leave it as it is? Especially with the apparent DLC whoring plans, that will probably be the most extensive ones in any TW game to date. Fortunately, they have put themselves in a situation where they must regain the trust of their fans in order to issue future DLCs. Let's be honest, I don't think any reasonable individual would shell out money for DLC until the game meets the demands of the consumer. Simply put, CA has no choice but to listen to the community and patch Rome II until it pleases the scammed consumers. If CA has the smallest grain of respect for their beloved Total War franchise and its supporters, they will live up to their promises and never cease to patch the game until the issues have been cleared and cut content has been added back in. I am hopeful that CA truly cares, but I am convinced that SEGA does not. I suppose the only thing we can do is wait it out and see how it plays out, or ask for a refund? The choice is ultimately ours, but in the process of making it, no one should be making definitive conclusions until it is all over. Other than that - it is all bold presumptions about the future that hold no ground if you logically examine the situation.

As for the still remaining issues - we do know how severe they are, but with the obvious rushed release, do we really know how long it will take to address them? Take the AI for example... The community just does not know what to make of it - is it truly that bad or is it bugged beyond belief? I guess we will find out in the future. I choose to believe the latter, simply because I believe that CA is not an assembly of idiots to hype it to such a degree only to spit in our face and take our money. It does not make sense for any kind of a business, especially one involved in the gaming industry and having its success rooted in one massive franchise. What do they gain in the long run? We all know that Total War games are not record breakers when it comes to day 1 sales, the majority of the profit from these games has always been in the long run. Rome II's reputation has been absolutely ravaged and it is CA's biggest title yet. In my opinion, it is out of the question whether or not it is going to be abandoned. Again, my optimism comes into play, but the circumstances are such that they will be the ultimate test for CA, bigger than the Empire fiasco.

When it comes to the actual game - the statement that it needs to be overhauled or redesigned is incredibly far fetched and exaggerated and I will explain why. The core of the game is really solid, but it will take a working AI to compliment it and make it shine. As it is now, the whole game just crumbles under the weight of the bugs, glitches, horrible optimization, bugged AI, poorly thought out features etc. Then we have stupid like soldiers burning down gates and instant transport fleets. But is there anything that can't be addressed through a patch? Let me return to my original statement - if Rome II works properly with all the issued cleared and some needed adjustments, what is holding it back from becoming the best in the series? The only major feature I see missing from the campaign is the family tree, which hopefully will not remain ignored. Apart from the campaign, there are missing troop abilities from previous titles, but CA have already started bringing pack some of those (loose formation in latest patch). Then we have the multiplayer component, which is obviously barebones due to inexcusable DLC plans. It is not that the core game is flawed, but that too much content has been cut for DLC.

Finally, for the possible scenarios that may play out, it is up to CA and SEGA. The best thing we can do is keep up the pressure and refuse to buy ANY DLC until we get what we were promised.

[stackero]

There is no doubt regarding the state of the game they released it in and I do not think anyone can deny what a low blow it was to all the supporters of the Total War franchise. It was such a disaster that even today, after 4 patches, there is still a lot of work to be done, but to deny the significant steps in the right direction is not really objective, is it? There are a lot of indicators that CA does seem to listen to the community and as always - actions speak louder than words. The proof for my statement is probably one of the biggest design choice reversals so far - the removal of victory points where they do not belong. There have also been numerous tweaks, adjustments and fixes where it was most needed according to the time dedicated for such things. I really do not need to go through all the patch notes - it is all documented.

Is it a direct evidence of how rushed the game was? Absolutely, but what makes you think that CA will leave it as it is? Especially with the apparent DLC whoring plans, that will probably be the most extensive ones in any TW game to date. Fortunately, they have put themselves in a situation where they must regain the trust of their fans in order to issue future DLCs. Let's be honest, I don't think any reasonable individual would shell out money for DLC until the game meets the demands of the consumer. Simply put, CA has no choice but to listen to the community and patch Rome II until it pleases the scammed consumers. If CA has the smallest grain of respect for their beloved Total War franchise and its supporters, they will live up to their promises and never cease to patch the game until the issues have been cleared and cut content has been added back in. I am hopeful that CA truly cares, but I am convinced that SEGA does not. I suppose the only thing we can do is wait it out and see how it plays out, or ask for a refund? The choice is ultimately ours, but in the process of making it, no one should be making definitive conclusions until it is all over. Other than that - it is all bold presumptions about the future that hold no ground if you logically examine the situation.

As for the still remaining issues - we do know how severe they are, but with the obvious rushed release, do we really know how long it will take to address them? Take the AI for example... The community just does not know what to make of it - is it truly that bad or is it bugged beyond belief? I guess we will find out in the future. I choose to believe the latter, simply because I believe that CA is not an assembly of idiots to hype it to such a degree only to spit in our face and take our money. It does not make sense for any kind of a business, especially one involved in the gaming industry and having its success rooted in one massive franchise. What do they gain in the long run? We all know that Total War games are not record breakers when it comes to day 1 sales, the majority of the profit from these games has always been in the long run. Rome II's reputation has been absolutely ravaged and it is CA's biggest title yet. In my opinion, it is out of the question whether or not it is going to be abandoned. Again, my optimism comes into play, but the circumstances are such that they will be the ultimate test for CA, bigger than the Empire fiasco.

When it comes to the actual game - the statement that it needs to be overhauled or redesigned is incredibly far fetched and exaggerated and I will explain why. The core of the game is really solid, but it will take a working AI to compliment it and make it shine. As it is now, the whole game just crumbles under the weight of the bugs, glitches, horrible optimization, bugged AI, poorly thought out features etc. Then we have stupid like soldiers burning down gates and instant transport fleets. But is there anything that can't be addressed through a patch? Let me return to my original statement - if Rome II works properly with all the issued cleared and some needed adjustments, what is holding it back from becoming the best in the series? The only major feature I see missing from the campaign is the family tree, which hopefully will not remain ignored. Apart from the campaign, there are missing troop abilities from previous titles, but CA have already started bringing pack some of those (loose formation in latest patch). Then we have the multiplayer component, which is obviously barebones due to inexcusable DLC plans. It is not that the core game is flawed, but that too much content has been cut for DLC.

Finally, for the possible scenarios that may play out, it is up to CA and SEGA. The best thing we can do is keep up the pressure and refuse to buy ANY DLC until we get what we were promised.

I already said I admired your optimism, now I must congratulate you on a very good, no actually, a most excellent response. You make your case effectively. I feel a strong urge to retort on about a quarter of your points, one being the reliability of CA, but I feel we've made our opinions clear about it all here and the last posts.

As a matter of fact you did such a fine retort without having to resort to name calling or using belittling language that we see to often on this forum I'm throwing a rep+1 your way.

So, lets us both agree and hope I'm wrong, dead wrong about Rome 2, for I do wish so very much that it succeeds to the level that would make it worthy to be called 'Rome 2' a damn tall order for CA to fulfill. Just don't believe they'll pull it off, nor intends to try, opps repeating myself.

We'll let Time be the judge, it rarely fails to led us to the truth.

(Now a community service announcement)
Remember people, please, no more buying preorders, not just from CA but any gaming company pc or console that's known to release incomplete games. this will cut down on bad releases and reduce forums like this one that pit fellow gamers against one other.

That is all. Good Gaming




"A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions"- Confucius
"Few men are born brave. Many become so through training and force of discipline"-Flavius Vegetius Renatus
You should reach the limits of virtue, before you cross the border of death. 'Tyrtaeus Spartan poet

[Prince Regent George]

It is hilarious to see people who say the game is beyond repair without ever dedicating one sentence as to WHY.

The funny thing is that neither do you provide any reasonable argument to support your opinion.

IF Rome II gets to the point where it is working properly with some adjustments and the important missing features (like family tree) are added back, it will be the best game in the series.

So, you basically say that if we change pretty much everything, Rome may become an excellent game... Well, you know, an abstract hypothesis is rarely considered as a valid statement.

Period. There is no way around it. It's a big if, but only an idiot would deny the potential.

It has potential; even Pacman has potential. Everything, from after-Gaddafi Libya to a handicapped sparrow, has potential, so, again, your statement is meaningless. Personally, I would think that it can reach 5/10 from 4/10, but I still dare to prefer Rome I to its new version, so the aforementioned opinion is originated from an idiot, according to you (Generally, you show some sort of reluctance to accept a different opinion).

I think the reputation of the game has been permanently damaged and people tend to magnify all of the negative features and failing to acknowledge the positive ones.

I don't, so I gave it a 4/10, but I am not going to let wishful thinking manipulate me.

No reasonable individual with the most basic sense of objectivity would categorize the game as such with no redeeming value or deny the potential of what it can become.

Nobody denied its potential to become a mediocre game. Even that characterization is a minor improvement.

That is just ignorant and a big slap to everyone who wants to play the game which they were promised. This is not doing ANYONE a favor, nor is it helpful in any way.

When I express my opinion about a video-game, I don't give a penny if it will hurt a random Internet guy's feelings. You may call me a cold-heart bastard, but TWC is not a club of savoir vivre and tea-fan ladies.

Also, the hilarity reaches maximum levels when the word "console" or "consolization" is brought into the mix. Seems to be a fancy word perfectly suited for the "hard-core gamer pseudo-intellectuals" who slap it as a label on anything that does not resemble an Excel table. .

There are in-game elements which definitely imply a desire to launch Rome II in consoles. Nobody said that console-gamers are immature teenagers, as you seem to suggest, but it's undeniable that a "consolization" would have a rather negative influence on what concerns Total War games' depth and immersion, in order to adapt to the new genre. As a fan of sophisticated PC strategy games, I have the right to express my displeasure about the apparent tendency of the franchise. In conclusion, I admire your optimism, although it's also accompanied with thinly veiled insults against anybody with a different opinion. However, let's try to be realists. The Creative Assembly is obliged to patch the game, if she desires to preserve her reputation, but there is a huge difference from solving major glitches, like ships promenading in markets, to adding a family tree or enhancing the AI, which are gameplay decisions. The fact that the CA has changed some of them (e.g. reducing the number of the "catch the flag" battles) is a promising sign, which, unfortunately, is limited by my previous experience and the persistence of lags. My only hope for the addition of a couple of features (like the family tree) would be the organization of a great Internet campaign, which could make CA reconsider its priorities, but I find it rather unlikely. Anyway, hoping to change hard-coded elements, such as the AI's cleverness or the siege-fest, is practically impossible and, consequently, totally naive. The most probable scenario would be the CA dumping the game, after a couple of some necessary patches and unnecessary DLCs, for the next expansion/title (depends on Rome's II success), which is going to be awesome, because Will said so (marketing hype, disappointment and history repeats itself).

There is no doubt regarding the state of the game they released it in and I do not think anyone can deny what a low blow it was to all the supporters of the Total War franchise. It was such a disaster that even today, after 4 patches, there is still a lot of work to be done,

I agree, so far...

but to deny the significant steps in the right direction is not really objective, is it? There are a lot of indicators that CA does seem to listen to the community and as always - actions speak louder than words.

Sorry, but I am not going to congratulate them, because they spent a month fixing laughable glitches, in order to save their reputation and their DLC plans. Let's face it. CA is not our friend, who becomes devastated, when we disaproove of her products (that would be sick and abnormal). CA intends, as every other company in our capitalist world, aims to profit, so it has to keep the balance between milking her customers and preserving her reputation. It's really that simple.

The proof for my statement is probably one of the biggest design choice reversals so far - the removal of victory points where they do not belong.

It's indeed a positive sign, but, personally, I think that it's the exception verifying the rule.

There have also been numerous tweaks, adjustments and fixes where it was most needed according to the time dedicated for such things. I really do not need to go through all the patch notes - it is all documented.

Every video-game company is obliged to eliminate a number of serious bugs, if she plans to continue the franchise or sell missing content.

Is it a direct evidence of how rushed the game was? Absolutely,

Agreed.

but what makes you think that CA will leave it as it is?

Basic economics, my experience about video-game industry and Empire Total War, where, as an example, I remind you that the enemy is still unable to invade buildings.

Especially with the apparent DLC whoring plans, that will probably be the most extensive ones in any TW game to date.Fortunately, they have put themselves in a situation where they must regain the trust of their fans in order to issue future DLCs. Let's be honest, I don't think any reasonable individual would shell out money for DLC until the game meets the demands of the consumer.Simply put, CA has no choice but to listen to the community and patch Rome II until it pleases the scammed consumers. If CA has the smallest grain of respect for their beloved Total War franchise and its supporters, they will live up to their promises and never cease to patch the game until the issues have been cleared and cut content has been added back in.

That's the big question and the great dillema for CA. Will she sacrifice her valuable time patching the game to sell DLCs or will she prefer to abandon Rome II, in favor of the new title? As you said, the Nomads DLC has revealed CA's intention to exploit DLCs to their full extent. However, the negative reaction may make them change their plans, because, frankly, it won't worth the risk. It actually depends on how the next DLC will be accepted. If it's ignored, we will all say goodbye to our dreams about Rome II.

I am hopeful that CA truly cares, but I am convinced that SEGA does not.

SEGA literally controls the 100% of CA, so any distinction between them just causes confusion.

I suppose the only thing we can do is wait it out and see how it plays out, or ask for a refund? The choice is ultimately ours, but in the process of making it, no one should be making definitive conclusions until it is all over. Other than that - it is all bold presumptions about the future that hold no ground if you logically examine the situation.

No, this nihilistic stance will just harm the customers' interests. An opinion based on facts is always welcome, but there is nothing wrong with an opion structured by reasonably supported arguments and assumptions.

As for the still remaining issues - we do know how severe they are, but with the obvious rushed release, do we really know how long it will take to address them? Take the AI for example... The community just does not know what to make of it - is it truly that bad or is it bugged beyond belief? I guess we will find out in the future.

Trust me and don't expect any changes on the AI. The engine is old and its abilites were limited by lack of ideas not of time.

I choose to believe the latter, simply because I believe that CA is not an assembly of idiots to hype it to such a degree only to spit in our face and take our money.

It's actually a sign of a rather clever marketing. They grabbed your money with pre-orders and they will change your mind, by using sneaky marketing tactics, again, as they did with Empire.

It does not make sense for any kind of a business, especially one involved in the gaming industry and having its success rooted in one massive franchise. What do they gain in the long run?

They will gain nothing, but they will also lose nothing, not to mention the huge amount of profit thanks to the pre-orders.

We all know that Total War games are not record breakers when it comes to day 1 sales, the majority of the profit from these games has always been in the long run.

Well, Rome II has proven that statement wrong. Pre-orders enable the companies to pay out their debts, during the development phase. They are really relieving, since they reward them for nothing, just when the lenders press them to pay off their debts. Nobodu really cares about the sales of a 5 pounds game, a year after the release.

When it comes to the actual game - the statement that it needs to be overhauled or redesigned is incredibly far fetched and exaggerated and I will explain why. The core of the game is really solid, but it will take a working AI to compliment it and make it shine.

If you read the forum carefully, you will notice that nobody is complaining about bugs, anymore. The "whining" mainly concerns CA's policy, missing features and lack of immersion.

As it is now, the whole game just crumbles under the weight of the bugs, glitches, horrible optimization, bugged AI, poorly thought out features etc. Then we have stupid like soldiers burning down gates and instant transport fleets. But is there anything that can't be addressed through a patch? Let me return to my original statement - if Rome II works properly with all the issued cleared and some needed adjustments, what is holding it back from becoming the best in the series? The only major feature I see missing from the campaign is the family tree, which hopefully will not remain ignored. Apart from the campaign, there are missing troop abilities from previous titles, but CA have already started bringing pack some of those (loose formation in latest patch). Then we have the multiplayer component, which is obviously barebones due to inexcusable DLC plans. It is not that the core game is flawed, but that too much content has been cut for DLC.

You suggest, again, a radical change of the game's feature, which is not going to happen, because patches are intended to fix bugs or really despicable and not-working features.

Finally, for the possible scenarios that may play out, it is up to CA and SEGA. The best thing we can do is keep up the pressure and refuse to buy ANY DLC until we get what we were promised.

You are right about this.

There is no doubt regarding the state of the game they released it in and I do not think anyone can deny what a low blow it was to all the supporters of the Total War franchise. It was such a disaster that even today, after 4 patches, there is still a lot of work to be done,

I agree, so far...

but to deny the significant steps in the right direction is not really objective, is it? There are a lot of indicators that CA does seem to listen to the community and as always - actions speak louder than words.

Sorry, but I am not going to congratulate them, because they spent a month fixing laughable glitches, in order to save their reputation and their DLC plans. Let's face it. CA is not our friend, who becomes devastated, when we disaproove of her products (that would be sick and abnormal). CA intends, as every other company in our capitalist world, aims to profit, so it has to keep the balance between milking her customers and preserving her reputation.
It's really that simple.

The proof for my statement is probably one of the biggest design choice reversals so far - the removal of victory points where they do not belong.

It's indeed a positive sign, but, personally, I think that it's the exception verifying the rule.

There have also been numerous tweaks, adjustments and fixes where it was most needed according to the time dedicated for such things. I really do not need to go through all the patch notes - it is all documented.

Every video-game company is obliged to eliminate a number of serious bugs, if she plans to continue the franchise or sell missing content.

Is it a direct evidence of how rushed the game was? Absolutely,

I have covered that topic many many times. But to put things into perspective, there no indication for anything that can not be changed through a patch, especially after the change of victory points. Read my previous post for a more "in-depth" version of the statement I just wrote.

Victory points was the easy part.

No, I am saying that if they fix the major issues so that the game works as intended, then Rome II may indeed become an excellent game. Do you seriously think that the AI running in circles and standing in front of cities was intended? Nothing to do with abstract hypothesis, but rather fixing what needs to be fixed.

Running in circles is a bug (a rather funny one, actually), but you suggested much more sophisticated changes.

No, it is not reasonable to put so many different elements under a common category, this is just far fetched. We are specifically talking about a huge software project which has an astound room for growth due to the cutting content policy imposed by the DLC era.

Imposed by DLCs and Metacritic. It's highly unlikely that CA will be willing to make Rome II as good as she promised, for the reasons I explained above.

So when someone examines the positive outcomes of a situation, it is "wishful thinking", but the negative attitude does not receive the same treatment, does it.

Adopting a negative stance is usually the right choice, when you face aggressive marketing.

The reputation of the game is so tarnished that the majority of people jump on the bandwagon of thrashing it just for the sake of doing it. This activity extends to all aspects of the game, while the people who engage in it refuse to weigh in BOTH the pros and cons. Again, it is better to wait and see how it plays out, rather than proclaiming a franchise to be dead based on presumption etc.

Well argumented assumptions should not be rejected as easily as you suggest. On contray, saying that all the whiners jumped on the bandwagon is a perfect example of arbitrariness, because you can not possibly know their motives. Personally, I was a whiner, when there were clear threats about being permanently banned for daring to have a negative opinion about Rome II.

Console release is nothing but speculation at this point and there is this hideous trend of labeling anything that does not resemble an old design to be a sign for a console release... The only solid proof there is is the release on SteamOS... But then again, aren't all Steam games released on it? Do I need to write again about all of the Paradox titles being released on it as well? Does that mean that they are dumbed down since it will be possible to play them with a controller?

Your answer is irrelevant. Please, read again what I answered.

This line of thought falls flat for the most part. Especially the statements about the AI. As I said earlier: Do you seriously think that the AI running in circles and standing in front of cities was intended? The game was obviously rushed, but how the hell did you decide that the behavior of the AI was intended when it is obvious that the game was not even tested properly. Read my previous post, it does not make any sense at all for the AI to have been designed to be that bad.

Explained above.

As for the family tree, we still don't know if they will go that far to change design. They did for victory points. Ignoring it would not be a good idea, especially with the demand of the players. My main point still remains - do not draw definitive conclusions when it is evident that CA have not given up on the game. We don't know if they will or they won't, but for now - they haven't and I would rather work with facts rather than exaggerated presumptions.

They are not definite conclusions. It's just a hypothesis, supported by reasonable arguments.

[Humble Warrior]

It is hilarious to see people who say the game is beyond repair without ever dedicating one sentence as to WHY. IF Rome II gets to the point where it is working properly with some adjustments and the important missing features (like family tree) are added back, it will be the best game in the series. Period. There is no way around it. It's a big if, but only an idiot would deny the potential.

I think the reputation of the game has been permanently damaged and people tend to magnify all of the negative features and failing to acknowledge the positive ones. No reasonable individual with the most basic sense of objectivity would categorize the game as such with no redeeming value or deny the potential of what it can become. That is just ignorant and a big slap to everyone who wants to play the game which they were promised. This is not doing ANYONE a favor, nor is it helpful in any way. Also, the hilarity reaches maximum levels when the word "console" or "consolization" is brought into the mix. Seems to be a fancy word perfectly suited for the "hard-core gamer pseudo-intellectuals" who slap it as a label on anything that does not resemble an Excel table. Then someone will try to comeback from this by stating that the game is coming for the SteamOS and that this is the undeniable proof of their statement. To this I reply with the following - so is any Steam game, including all of the beloved Paradox titles, which seem to be put on a pedestal by the specified people.

There are many good ( I wouldn`t say redeeming) features of RTW2. But as I did with Empire (darthmod) and Shogun 2 , I will not point them out until CA do their bit and produce something of the complete RTW2 game we expected.

I don`t praise broke, I praise fixed.

Until then wait until CA do their bit, If they do and do it well, then I`ll praise the game, Steam or not.

[Metallistic]

The funny thing is that neither do you provide any reasonable argument to support your opinion.

I have covered that topic many many times. But to put things into perspective, there no indication for anything that can not be changed through a patch, especially after the change of victory points. Read my previous post for a more "in-depth" version of the statement I just wrote.

So, you basically say that if we change pretty much everything, Rome may become an excellent game... Well, you know, an abstract hypothesis is rarely considered as a valid statement.

No, I am saying that if they fix the major issues so that the game works as intended, then Rome II may indeed become an excellent game. Do you seriously think that the AI running in circles and standing in front of cities was intended? Nothing to do with abstract hypothesis, but rather fixing what needs to be fixed.

It has potential; even Pacman has potential. Everything, from after-Gaddafi Libya to a handicapped sparrow, has potential, so, again, your statement is meaningless. Personally, I would think that it can reach 5/10 from 4/10, but I still dare to prefer Rome I to its new version, so the aforementioned opinion is originated from an idiot, according to you (Generally, you show some sort of reluctance to accept a different opinion).

No, it is not reasonable to put so many different elements under a common category, this is just far fetched. We are specifically talking about a huge software project which has an astound room for growth due to the cutting content policy imposed by the DLC era.

I don't, so I gave it a 4/10, but I am not going to let wishful thinking manipulate me.

So when someone examines the positive outcomes of a situation, it is "wishful thinking", but the negative attitude does not receive the same treatment, does it. The reputation of the game is so tarnished that the majority of people jump on the bandwagon of thrashing it just for the sake of doing it. This activity extends to all aspects of the game, while the people who engage in it refuse to weigh in BOTH the pros and cons. Again, it is better to wait and see how it plays out, rather than proclaiming a franchise to be dead based on presumption etc.

There are in-game elements which definitely imply a desire to launch Rome II in consoles. Nobody said that console-gamers are immature teenagers, as you seem to suggest, but it's undeniable that a "consolization" would have a rather negative influence on what concerns Total War games' depth and immersion, in order to adapt to the new genre. As a fan of sophisticated PC strategy games, I have the right to express my displeasure about the apparent tendency of the franchise.

Console release is nothing but speculation at this point and there is this hideous trend of labeling anything that does not resemble an old design to be a sign for a console release... The only solid proof there is is the release on SteamOS... But then again, aren't all Steam games released on it? Do I need to write again about all of the Paradox titles being released on it as well? Does that mean that they are dumbed down since it will be possible to play them with a controller?

In conclusion, I admire your optimism, although it's also accompanied with thinly veiled insults against anybody with a different opinion.
However, let's try to be realists.

The Creative Assembly is obliged to patch the game, if she desires to preserve her reputation, but there is a huge difference from solving major glitches, like ships promenading in markets, to adding a family tree or enhancing the AI, which are gameplay decisions. The fact that the CA has changed some of them (e.g. reducing the number of the "catch the flag" battles) is a promising sign, which, unfortunately, is limited by my previous experience and the persistence of lags.

My only hope for the addition of a couple of features (like the family tree) would be the organization of a great Internet campaign, which could make CA reconsider its priorities, but I find it rather unlikely. Anyway, hoping to change hard-coded elements, such as the AI's cleverness or the siege-fest, is practically impossible and, consequently, totally naive. The most probable scenario would be the CA dumping the game, after a couple of some necessary patches and unnecessary DLCs, for the next expansion/title (depends on Rome's II success), which is going to be awesome, because Will said so (marketing hype, disappointment and history repeats itself).

This line of thought falls flat for the most part. Especially the statements about the AI. As I said earlier: Do you seriously think that the AI running in circles and standing in front of cities was intended? The game was obviously rushed, but how the hell did you decide that the behavior of the AI was intended when it is obvious that the game was not even tested properly. Read my previous post, it does not make any sense at all for the AI to have been designed to be that bad.

As for the family tree, we still don't know if they will go that far to change design. They did for victory points. Ignoring it would not be a good idea, especially with the demand of the players. My main point still remains - do not draw definitive conclusions when it is evident that CA have not given up on the game. We don't know if they will or they won't, but for now - they haven't and I would rather work with facts rather than exaggerated presumptions.

[Radzeer]

The uproar is only 40% bigger than what happened in previous titles, so that's just keeping the proportions in balance.

I do think the potential is still there. Rome 2 could indeed be the best of the series. Unfortunately, I also think that the business model of quick cash, moving away from the core etc. would never make realizing this potential possible. And that is the real shame.

[wulfgar610]

It is hilarious to see people who say the game is beyond repair without ever dedicating one sentence as to WHY.

I thought it was obvious. CA are in league with Lucifer and delight in tormenting the godly. {sarcasm}

No reasonable individual with the most basic sense of objectivity would categorize the game as such with no redeeming value or deny the potential of what it can become.

Yes, they are engaging in vast generalizations. They would like reality to conform to their global view rather than alter their global view. If Rome2 did become perfection it would upset them greatly.

[dvk901]

CA led a lot of people to believe that Rome2 was going to pick up where Rome1 left off, and be a bigger, better, grander and more polished morphing of their obviously very successful first version. The result, however, was a game lacking features that were touted, and features that were an integral part of the first version of RTW. And, worst of all, it was and still is badly, woefully broken in many aspects.

This reminds me of a fellow I knew years ago who saved his money for years so that he could buy a Cadillac Fleetwood....at the time, a high priced, high status vehicle. He showed up one day where I worked to take me out to lunch in his brand new car, and I got into the passenger side, grabbed the armrest to close the door, and the whole door panel, armrest, electric window and lock controls to boot, came right off in my hands and fell dangling onto the ground.

I have never seen a man so pissed. Oh sure, he got it fixed. But my goodness, this was a CADILLAC! That stuff isn't supposed to happen, and people who buy them expect better than a Chevy or some cheap econo-car.

My point is, if you hype something as the best, and brag to the world that it IS the greatest thing since man invented fire, then you better dang well produce the greatest thing and prove it to the people that buy it. Nobody wants to buy something and have the salesman say: 'Oh don't worry, we can fix that.' Or, 'Just wait a few weeks and we'll get the correct part to replace that'. Sure, Rome2 'can be fixed', I'm sure. But WHY do we have to put up with that? Who tested this POS and what in heaven's name were they testing? Two suns? Units standing around doing nothing, or just dancing in front of you? Ships that sail through cities? Blob battles that last a few minutes with all units assuming 'horde' formation?

'Oh, don't worry, we can fix that'. Bother! I guarantee my friend never bought another Cadillac.

[wulfgar610]

Funny thing is in my 278 hrs of Rome2, I haven't seen troops running in circles. I haven't seen mass AI attacker simply sit outside the walls. I haven't seen AI attackers try to rush though defending units without fighting to make flags.

I'm disappointed, I'm missing out on the fun!

I have seen a few routers run back and forth when both ends of a city street are blocked.

I have seen once a general ship all alone land inside a city and just stand there.