Everything Rome 1 had that Rome 2 doesn't

[stackero]

It can all be summed up in a single word: Immersion.

Rome 2 lacks that completely. Now I dont care how they do it, if it works it works, but whatever they did isnt working to add immersion.

To me its about the experience, not about winning. If the experience is bland, why would I care about winning? As it is it could be called Rome 2: total bore.

I agree and rep you. Good post and thread. (turns and quickly runs away)

[Marines]

I just fired it up for around 30 minutes after not having played since the release.

My conclusion - No amount of patches will fix the fun factor.

It's just a boring, shallow, dull and soulless experience. There is absolutely nothing in R2 to keep me coming back for more, let alone grab me and give me that one just more turn feeling. It's obvious what CA was going for with this iteration, so don't expect them to add in any features that are missing. They specifically designed the game to be the way it is.

[PeonKing]

I just fired it up for around 30 minutes after not having played since the release.

My conclusion - No amount of patches will fix the fun factor.

It's just a boring, shallow, dull and soulless experience. There is absolutely nothing in R2 to keep me coming back for more, let alone grab me and give me that one just more turn feeling. It's obvious what CA was going for with this iteration, so don't expect them to add in any features that are missing. They specifically designed the game to be the way it is.

Wow, really? That's like having an hour long layover in a city, and saying that is the worst city in the world because the airport wasn't nice enough. How could you have possibly evaluated that the game could not POSSIBLY ever be fun after only playing a game for 30 minutes? It took me 50 hours to complete my first campaign, and that wasn't even finishing researching my whole tech tree, and there was a good portion of the map I hadn't even conquered yet. What faction did you play as? Did you even manage to finish any building chains? Did you manage to actually siege a city with a full stack with an actual garrison? It sounds more like you read some reviews and saw that other people hated it, and then played it for 30 minutes and decided that it wasn't the best game you've ever played so those reviews must be right.

It's not nearly the game CA was making it out to be, but it's far from the trash people are putting it out there to be.

[GussieFinkNottle]

I've added the counterpart 'all Rome 2 features not in Rome 1' thread:http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...2#post13370712

[GussieFinkNottle]

To make it easier, I have added here and to the OP the text of the other thread, doing the opposite comparison to this thread, what is new and not in the original:

Right, as a counterpart to this thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...Rome-2-doesn-t
Where I listed all the Rome 1 features not in Rome 2, as I stated I will do, this thread is an effort to go through everything that is in the new game but wasn't in the original, to show why many prefer it. There is an impressive array of features added, even if a lot has been cut. I also here endeavour to combat the flak aimed at me in the other thread as not able to see both sides

Please contribute if you see things I've missed out (I have added some that Pontic Pontus and Dunadd suggested), or discuss the relative merits of the two games

To highlight what is completely new, features that have not been seen before are unformatted, those that have been in TW games since Medieval 2 are in bold, features that have been in since Empire/Napoleon are underlined and features that were in Shogun 2 are in italics

So here, all in one place is my comprehensive 'in Rome 2 but not in the original Rome' feature list:

-Legions and legion legacy/history

-Army naming and banner customisation

-Cinematic camera without HUD

-Line of sight

-Stances: forced march, muster, raiding, fortified (though RTW had forts separate from armies, that could be garrisoned by different armies)

-Transports (debatable benefit)

-Wonders not included in original 7 e.g. Stonehenge

-Political parties

-Territorially unified Rome

-Ability to select upgrades, specialise armies

-117 factions plus rebel and slave emergent factions

-More playable factions: every playable Rome 1 faction (3 Romans, 1 Carthage becomes 3, Gallic tribe, German tribe, Brittanic tribe, Seleucids, Egypt, Greek cities, though DLC, are 3 playable factions (Athens, Sparta, Epirus) and 3 non-playable ones (Syracuse, Rhodes, Pergamon) instead of 1, Parthia) plus Macedon, Pontus and 3 steppe tribes in dlc (and future ‘Northern Tribes’ pack discussed on the grapevine)

-Playable barbarian factions are real tribes: Iceni, Suebi, Arverni instead of Britannia, Germania and Gaul

-Families and civil wars for all factions

-Carthage a republic

-More units (around 3x as many)

-200 naval units

-Integrated diplomatic AI and campaign AI

-More factors affect diplomacy e.g. you were nice to my ally/you had a war with my trade partner

-Ability to give general orders to AI-controlled allies e.g. ‘defend here’

-Edicts

-Province/region system to aid management

-New formations, such as shieldwall (but this was in BI) and defensive testudo

-More city variants and 5 unique cities based on their historical counterparts

-Option of Republic or Empire after civil war, not just Empire

-Cultural and Economic victories, and victory conditions include allies, client states and satrapies

-Full-screen strategic overview map

-Multiple capture points in cities

-CoH-style victory countdown for capturing cities and victory points

-Limited armies intended to give bigger, more decisive battles (and I have found I am fighting larger battles, though some have not)

-Navigable rivers

-Sea regions, that can be neutral, hostile, contested, shared or controlled, each with different bonuses and penalties

-Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Carthaginian Empires broken up into satrapies/client states

-More weather and lighting effects

-Historical storyline to follow with money rewards

-Map effects e.g. clouds

-Replenishment for fleets at sea in friendly regions

-Barbarian confederations-Naval mercenaries

-Better graphics

-1 v 1 animations and wounded animations

-New ammunition types: poisonous or exploding catapult ammo, flaming javelins etc.

-More historical figures

-Height, appearance and equipment differences between men within a unit

-Dirt on units and (with dlc) blood

-Deployables in battle e.g. caltrops, spike pits, barricades, stakes, burning bales (fireballs)

-Bigger map, including Upper Egypt (counter-intuitively further south) Arabia, Caledonia, Media, Parthia, Persia, Bactria, Indian Ocean and Aral Sea

-Warscape

-'Intelligent zoom' (N)

-Exempt provinces from tax

-Cavalry mount/dismount toggle

-Attrition in harsh climates, when starving or when besieging/under siege (only attrition under siege was in the original Rome)

-More graphical effects and shader options

-More cultures (e.g. Illyrians, African Tribes, Sarmatians, Arabs) with their own units and building varieties

-Diplomacy with every faction, not just the ones you have an agent nearby (Rome 1 diplomats)

-Agents can do more actions and have crossover roles

-Villages on battle maps not in a settlement

-Numerical breakdown of diplomatic relations

-Better researched units and equipment

-Tech tree – 3 branches, and faction-specific

-No areas start out as rebels (no faction cap)

-Slow motion

-Unit replenishment instead of retrain, though units can be retrained to upgrade them

-New battle modes: coastal battles, port sieges, naval battles, more developed ambushes

-Diplomatic options: join war against, non-aggression pact, defensive alliance, war target, satrapies or client states instead of protectorates

-Prestige (now called Imperium and resulting in agent, edict and army cap boosts)-Remove HUD option for screenshots

-Torches to burn down gates (debatable benefit)

-Bars as well as numbers to show health of units

-Indicators on flags of morale, active effects and fatigue

-Dilemmas and subjects

-Ability to give control of some units to the AI

-Wildlife (other than birds)

-More group formations and grouped-units options

-More abilities and generals’ bonuses are dependent on their attributes

-Food supply in campaign

-Ability to move units while hidden

[Whistler118]

This thread is a bit of a no-brainer, which really does say something about the Rome 2 production team...

[stackero]

If I may expound a bit more on 'Inhuman One's post.
I believe what Rome 1 has what Rome 2 does not; epicness, immersion, grandeur and that 'one more turn syndrome'. Count up all the features or lack of each game, but it if a game lacks those 4 features its will soon be headed for the dustbin.

'Epicness, immersion, grandeur and that 'one more turn syndrome'. I suppose these may not be counted as features, since some would say; those are in the eye of the beholder.

Good gaming

[sgthunter]

Rome 1 is still installed on my computer.

Rome 2 is not.

(if you are wondering what I'm still doing on this forum: I am getting more enjoyment out of reading comments about the game than actually playing it)

[Arbitrary Crusader]

(if you are wondering what I'm still doing on this forum: I am getting more enjoyment out of reading comments about the game than actually playing it)

Same can be said for Rome I then: you're reading the comments instead of playing a game e.g Rome I.

[crzyrndm]

-a video showing you the death of the general on either side, and a video showing wall and gate breaches

To be fair, those forced cutscenes could be such a pain, and there is some camera option when the advisor tells you the general has died (I dont know if its a cinematic like Rome/Med2 or just a zoom to location b/c I had the guy locked out until about a week ago when I modded it to decent levels)

-religion (especially in Barbarian Invasion)
-unit merging to refill units or balance casualties

Not quite sure how these made it, since both still exist just fine (religion == culture; ctrl+M merges selected units)

Some things there that are defnitely missed though

[General Grievous]

Is there any way to sent this list to CA dudes?
All the anwsers are here. They could learn a lot with this comparaison.

[jamreal18]

Sorry, I didnt notice... Its too long....

[Duncan III]

TWR2 is a soul-less zombie of a game, enjoyed by soul-less zombies lol.

[andymate]

I can't play either game for more then 15 minutes at the moment. Rome 1 has horrible ai and clone armies, things even mods can't mask/fix. Rome 2 is not finished and has some terrible design choices.

[stackero]

Another thing Rome 1 has that Rome 2 does not, a future. 10 more years from now, Rome 1 with mods will still be on many PCs.

Rome 2, even with its mods will have its 15 minutes of fame, so to speak, but will eventfully go the way of all seriously flawed games, the dust bin, taking alot of CA's credibility with it, uh what they still have left.. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[Arbitrary Crusader]

Another thing Rome 1 has that Rome 2 does not, a future. 10 more years from now, Rome 1 with mods will still be on many PCs.

Rome 2, even with its mods will have its 15 minutes of fame, so to speak, but will eventfully go the way of all seriously flawed games, the dust bin, taking alot of CA's credibility with it, uh what they still have left.. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Maybe not the future for you, but it is nice to guess that everyone have the same reaction and thoughts as you.

[stackero]

Originally Posted by stackero
Another thing Rome 1 has that Rome 2 does not, a future. 10 more years from now, Rome 1 with mods will still be on many PCs.

Rome 2, even with its mods will have its 15 minutes of fame, so to speak, but will eventfully go the way of all seriously flawed games, the dust bin, taking alot of CA's credibility with it, uh what they still have left.. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Maybe not the future for you, but it is nice to guess that everyone have the same reaction and thoughts as you.

My guess is backed up with the facts of the success of the past of Rome 1, and the facts of the present, shall will say, the uncertain future situation with a still severely flawed Rome 2 and relying on CA. What patches are we on now? 7, 8, 9, 10, ........?

But I admit, I could be wrong. Time will be the final judge.

The only thing that will end the reign of Rome 1 and its mods, is if a real Rome 2 is made or the new OS of the future renders R1 incompatible. Which many of us hope is at least another ten years away, if not more.

[Arbitrary Crusader]

My guess is backed up with the facts of the success of the past of Rome 1, and the facts of the present, shall will say, the uncertain future situation with a still severely flawed Rome 2 and relying on CA. What patches are we on now? 7, 8, 9, 10, ........?

And what are these facts?

And is there something wrong with patching the game? They are patching, which involves bug fixings and balances and what not. Would it be OK for CA to say, " it" and not attempt to fix the game?

But I admit, I could be wrong. Time will be the final judge.

I am ok with this, but I think the final product, and the people from then will be the "final" judges.

The only thing that will end the reign of Rome 1 and its mods, is if a real Rome 2 is made or the new OS of the future renders R1 incompatible. Which many of us hope is at least another ten years away, if not more.

A what's a "real" Rome 2? A game that suits your needs and expectations?

For me, there's no reigns. I have enjoyed Rome I mods (Barebone was great), but I do not feel the same way as I did.

CA really did improve their games over time, and I do like some their decisions with the newer games (Naming your armies, the tech tree, more historical accuracy than Pink Persians pajama).

However, I also disagree with some of those (UI neeeds some work, tech tree needs some tweaking, and etc), but I do like to think that CA would eventually do something about these.

[The Norseman]

I find Rome I to be the best game by far, it is in a completely other league than Rome II, atleast in my opinion. Rome II was the biggest let down I have ever experienced in my lifetime of gaming, but I can see how some few people might enjoy it.

[BroskiDerpman]

Originally from my readings of the ancient .Org forums when Rome 1 was first released it got a ton of heat. People complained how fast the battles were, how unimmersive it was, how simple the combat was, etc.

Above is quite true even to this day if we were to discuss vanilla Rome 1.

One thing that saved Rome 1's bum was how people essentially ripped the game apart as much as they could (I still think some concepts and features in RTW modding still ain't touched as of today) and modded it to suit their tastes and the taste of a certain group of people's wants. Thus that made up for the really crappy vanilla game (Pretty good Multiplayer though imo, CA could've improved on that, NTW3 mod or Shogun 2's) and now we got a game that is fleshed out and has essentially numerous free Expansion packs suited to different tastes that all make up for a good experience.

Same for Med 2 and there's still plenty of features and other stuff to explore and implement to this date too.

ETW is to an extent, NTW is to an extent too, and Shogun 2 has potential since you can edit the map now but its vanilla is good enough compared to your typical TW vanilla i.e every other TW except for STW and MTW.

For Rome 2 I feel like there is the lack or spirit to mod the game like the community did 10 years ago and I think in the end there'll be mods that flesh out the vanilla game or overhaul it a bit like NTW and ETW but I don't see it expanding elsewhere ambitious for quite a while. By then the next TW will be released and all (Most of the attention like S2TW) the attention will go there in terms of modding.