1-What would you give the game out of 10?
release: 5/10
now: 5.1/10
2-What are you most upset about currently? (if anything).
False marketing, alpha release, dropped features, CAI, BAI, politic system, almost everything is bad, absent or not good enough. Exceptions at point 6.
3-Have Creative Assembly been doing a good job with updates and fixes?
No. And they wont. It is clear that their intentions are not to make the game we expected (or at least the game they were marketing). They are doing mostly useless updates on balancing the game (a job that will always be done better by modders) and some obvious and superficial bug fixes. I do not expect the game will ever look anything close to what we want and, as a matter of fact I doubt in CA's ability to make a good TW game anymore. Rome was their chance to redemption after the last arcadish games of the series, a solution to combine their thirst of money with a decent game and they failed.
4-If you had a friend who plays Shogun 2, would you recommend them Rome 2 now?
No. At max, I would recommend him/her to try the beta. But I dont have friends who play TW games anyway
5-What price is this game worth in your opinion?
0. Not worth buying. I never did and I am still playing the beta. If firing it once a week for 2 hours max and get bored as hell could be called playing.
6-What are you most impressed with in the game?
There are a few points:
a. regions. good idea that makes micromanagement easier. bad implementation with the lack of walled cities. Why would Syracuse have walls? Stupid historians and stupid us. Coped with the bad AI, it makes the game too easy.
b. stances. again, in theory. but AI only knows about fast walk. Actually that is 90% of what they do: running around the map with skeleton armies, at fast pace, especially on sea. I like them and I use them but they are wasted on AI.
c. many civilizations, even if not all playable. makes for better immersion. They sacked many points old game had that helped with immersion but they added a big one. It make turn run horrible but that is a point I understand and accept as we are gaining this.
d. agents. they are better in almost every way except for the lack of movies. I can live with it if I imagine them killing and failing like in Shogun 2.
e. graphics. They are good enough for me. I never cared much about maxing them out or anything. Give me a good game and you can forget graphics entirely. My HD 4850 512 mb is playing the game just fine with a mix of settings.
7-In your opinion what needs to be done to improve the game? (if anything).
everything must be improved, sent out of alpha into beta and then, into the final product. A better word would be "redesigned". Including the good points. It will never happen. CA never went too far for Rome. I am sure they beta-tested it enough to know what state they were releasing the game in. They did not care. Proof are the super torches. They implemented it for 2 reasons: siege AI is totally inept so instead of improving it, they found an easy way out. Second, it improves campaign speed and allows the many players with a 5 year old attention span to get something out of those 5 min. For most players that started gaming in the last 5-10 years, would never be able to complete a couple of hours with only micromanaging, building a strategy, planning an invasion... let us be serious - that is a lost case.
8-How many hours of Rome II have you played?
under 100. never counted them. Almost nothing when I played thousands of Rome and Medieval 2, even a couple hundreds of Shogun and about 10 hours of Empire and Napoleon combined (aside from the stupid games, I am not much of a fan of guns).
9-Have you played/ enjoyed the multiplayer?
no. I am too good for it :d
No, actually I am an old gamer that likes to pause and build a strategy, scout, prepare a perfect army and a perfect position. I think I would get beaten badly as I am not a fast player. OK, I will beat most people but not the good ones and I never cared about being 54th or 67th.