Do you think that Avatar Conquest/Far more depth to the multiplayer would have saved the game?

[Dumanthis]

The die is cast.

[Zebbe]

No

[DaciaJC]

No. I think it's safe to assume that most people play Total War for its singleplayer, so deeper/better multiplayer would be largely irrelevant if the game truly is as bad as this forum would have you believe (I don't own Rome II).

[BigHairyMelon]

Single player game is still broken, the game won't be saved until the AI is fixed. The performance issues, the non existent optimisation and skeletal remains of torn out features also bring the game down. I think these are the core reasons why the game is 'broken' the rest is down to opinion e.g. the short arcade battles, the province system and copy paste towns with no walls (which pissed a lot of people off), also the streamlining and dumbing down of the whole building system. Some people like those features and some don't. Most of them can't be fixed by modding yet or at all.

I think having a really fleshed out multiplayer may have annoyed people a lot more as a lot of players just play it for the single player, and it would have been stupid if the multipayer worked fine and had lots of depth and the single player was broken. At least having a multiplayer and an un beta tested single player shows that the game was released way too early instead of the devs preferencing the multiplayer.

I haven't touched the game since patch 3, I come on now and again in the vain hope of seeing a thread saying the game is fixed. Maybe patch 5 will do it, but I doubt it.

[[N2]Kami]

Well, if we have avatar conquest with a whole region map and buildings and stuffs like in S2 or better and an improve FPS, + Shogun 2 graphic, yeah, it can buy a bit time for them to fix single. I haven't touch the game from patch 2 or maybe 3. Don't feel like play it and better off with S2.

[krisslanza]

Well Rome 2 doesn't need "saving", so disregarding that point, the Avatar Conquest of Shogun 2 would've made multiplayer a lot more viable. As it stands, without it, what's the point in multiplayer? To play a bunch of pointless matches with another person? For what purpose?

It pretty much only exists for satisfying one's ego against another player I guess. I just don't see a point in playing a multiplayer game that has no progression or anything to it. Just my two cents on the multiplayer part of it all.

[Cruzz]

No.

Rome 2 has problems far more basic than the lack of entertaining multiplayer options. I wouldn't have spent any more time with it even if it had an Avatar Conquest style mode because the gameplay itself is so broken compared to Shogun.

[Cathal]

No. Total War is a single player game no matter how much they want to push it as multiplayer. If they'd abandon multiplayer and focus on single then that would be something positive.

[Tartknocker]

I would be playing multiplayer right now. I think removing the mulitplayer features from shogun was the biggest mistake they made.

[Inhuman One]

avatar conquest was a terrible system. Any game that gives people who play it more often rewards that improves their chances at winning in multiplayer is doing something horribly wrong.
As someone who occasionly might go for a multiplayer game, I really dont mind losing to more skilled players. If they are better than me, they beat me fairly. But I dont want to see players who simply play more online getting better units/weapons/etc advantages that completely kill the balance.

The ability to drop into other players their campaign battles was fun though, I did like providing more of a challenge to players that want that in their campaigns, and it was fun to see what you would get to work with. Once managed to beat the player in their first siege battle at the campaign, which might have meant the end of them considering he'd likely have used pretty much all he had to take the city.

Considering the horrid AI, this really would improve the game a lot.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

no it would still be broken from start.