PC Gamer puts Rome 2 on game of the year list.

[RedGuard]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/12/20/th...ame=0&ns_fee=0

I really don't even know what to say. I remember when PC Gamer was a friend to the little guy. Apparently they are more interested in taking bribes from big companies now to get thier game on thier list.

[GussieFinkNottle]

I vote Tomb Raider. It's the one I enjoyed the most

[last_name_left]

I vote Tomb Raider. It's the one I enjoyed the most

I'm astonished.

Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake. Ok then.

I thought the last TR marked a low-point for gaming. Is there anything to actually do in the game? Swish cinematics, big 24 bit booming audio, but ugh! It sounds like a great idea - make all of the puzzles more 'obvious'. But it just lays bare that there's nothing really going on. I tried to keep going through it - "it must get better?" Barely. She's far less attractive now, somehow. Once upon a time it was exciting to see animators had modeled a few polygons into a gusset. That they do it all with more polygons somehow detracts from any sex appeal. You just see how much more of a zombie the ludicrous bint is.

The most interesting thing I have tried this year is Dishonored - though it probs counts as a release from last year. I loved swishing about with the zap-move thing, and jumping all over buildings and pipes, whatever. Great atmosphere too. Amazing they went to so much trouble to make such atmosphere and then only played it out over a few measly levels. DLC huh? hmmm.

Still - good game. Waaay better than TR! Come on! Original Pacman is better than TR?

[SamueleD]

I could understand them not retracting their review to cover their , but game of the year? And on the same list as The Stanley Parable? Are they insane?

[King Xiao]

Not surprised, they get a lot of exclusive material of CA and the review was obviously paid for.

[Lorddweeb]

Not surprised, they get a lot of exclusive material of CA and the review was obviously paid for.

While a lot of game sites and mags clearly have relationships with publishers which are not very healthy from a journalistic integrity standpoint - such as exclusives, early reviews and other "wink, wink, I'll scratch your back..." style arrangements - I get a little annoyed with the constant assumption that anytime anyone sees a review they don't like it was just "paid for." Most of the time real life is more complicated than that, and so just reducing everything to the most base conspiracy theory does not help anything.

The truth isn't so much shady back room deals with money changing hands as the fact that the lazy way for a journalist to get "access" is to be friendly, and most people don't have the balls to change that relationship when the time comes to tell an unfortunate truth.

[Apostate Emperor]

While a lot of game sites and mags clearly have relationships with publishers which are not very healthy from a journalistic integrity standpoint - such as exclusives, early reviews and other "wink, wink, I'll scratch your back..." style arrangements - I get a little annoyed with the constant assumption that anytime anyone sees a review they don't like it was just "paid for." Most of the time real life is more complicated than that, and so just reducing everything to the most base conspiracy theory does not help anything.

The truth isn't so much shady back room deals with money changing hands as the fact that the lazy way for a journalist to get "access" is to be friendly, and most people don't have the balls to change that relationship when the time comes to tell an unfortunate truth.

Exactly. The running to shout "PAID FOR!" is nonsensical, and a clear oversimplification. Whether its merited or not - and I have no problem with people who argue that it is, even if I disagree - assuming that it was "obviously paid for" is just ludicrous.

[Armageddonn]

PC Gamer are one of the worse reviewing sites, look what they gave dragon age 2 and dead space 3 and compare that tomb raider and max payne 3, if you want honest opinions just watch angry joe or total busquit , so don't even bother with their lists they always suck.

[BunnyPoopCereal]

PC Gamer are one of the worse reviewing sites, look what they gave dragon age 2 and dead space 3 and compare that tomb raider and max payne 3, if you want honest opinions just watch angry joe or total busquit , so don't even bother with their lists they always suck.

+ rep


"Sharpe says:
07:55pm December 20 2013

Rome 2 and Battlefield 4 both had just horrible releases, but they are still pretty good games at their core. Yet they should be removed from the list because we really have to stop rewarding bad releases."



I don't know why Sharpe insists on giving Rome a good rep. Why not say things for what they are for once instead of the constant circle jerk.

[ggggtotalwarrior]

+ rep


"Sharpe says:
07:55pm December 20 2013

Rome 2 and Battlefield 4 both had just horrible releases, but they are still pretty good games at their core. Yet they should be removed from the list because we really have to stop rewarding bad releases."



I don't know why Sharpe insists on giving Rome a good rep. Why not say things for what they are for once instead of the constant circle jerk.

Haha. I saw that Sharpe was the number one comment on there as well. Is it truly TWC's Sharpe? I don't see how it couldn't be.

He's a funny guy, whose posts I often enjoy due to their sheer levels of sarcasm and irony, but I disagree with him on this one. I think at it's core Total War is a very good game: A mixture of real-time battles and turn-based campaigns are the basis for a game series that has never been replicated by anyone else. However, the flaws of Rome II on a design standpoint kind of cancel out the base upside of the total war formula. The still broken and completely nonsensical "political system"/"civil war", poor AI, rushed battles and transport armies are all poor design changes that really ruin the fun factor for me, making it completely pointless to attempt playing a subpar experience. That's not to say Rome II is terrible as a video game, but its a terrible TW game.

[Sharpe]

I don't know why Sharpe insists on giving Rome a good rep. Why not say things for what they are for once instead of the constant circle jerk.

Haha. I saw that Sharpe was the number one comment on there as well. Is it truly TWC's Sharpe? I don't see how it couldn't be.

He's a funny guy, whose posts I often enjoy due to their sheer levels of sarcasm and irony, but I disagree with him on this one. I think at it's core Total War is a very good game: A mixture of real-time battles and turn-based campaigns are the basis for a game series that has never been replicated by anyone else. However, the flaws of Rome II on a design standpoint kind of cancel out the base upside of the total war formula. The still broken and completely nonsensical "political system"/"civil war", poor AI, rushed battles and transport armies are all poor design changes that really ruin the fun factor for me, making it completely pointless to attempt playing a subpar experience. That's not to say Rome II is terrible as a video game, but its a terrible TW game.

For the record that is not me.

http://www.pcgamer.com/forum/search.php?searchid=608729

Look through his posts and you can tell, this guy is actually knowledgeable about computers and likes Dragon Age which I think is . I don't even have an account on that site.

Second time this has happened lol. 'Sharpe' is a common name.

I also haven't played Battlefield 4.

[Cor De Ferrum]

For the record that is not me.

http://www.pcgamer.com/forum/search.php?searchid=608729

Look through his posts and you can tell, this guy is actually knowledgeable about computers and likes Dragon Age which I think is . I don't even have an account on that site.

Second time this has happened lol. 'Sharpe' is a common name.

I also haven't played Battlefield 4.

o boy you must feel famous

[ggggtotalwarrior]

For the record that is not me.

http://www.pcgamer.com/forum/search.php?searchid=608729

Look through his posts and you can tell, this guy is actually knowledgeable about computers and likes Dragon Age which I think is . I don't even have an account on that site.

Second time this has happened lol. 'Sharpe' is a common name.

I also haven't played Battlefield 4.

Haha. Okay. My apologies.

It just sounded like something you'd say, as you've been in the group of "Rome II isn't horrible, but not great either."

Regardless, I now kind of share your feelings, but not totally. My views are that it's an average game, but for a TW game it kind of sucks, due to the expectations and gameplay changes.

[lawandorder82]

The game rome 2 total war is good know

[HunterKYA]

What kinda hash they been smokin'?

Rome 2 was buggy on release, and despite the patches, the bugs are still there. It's sort of why I've given up on the game, because it could've been so much more if CA had spent another six months on development.

[lawandorder82]

No bugs for me get a better pc

[The Bringer of Rain]

No bugs for me get a better pc

The children posting this is borderline unbearable. It is an undeniable fact the game suffers SEVERE performance issues even on the most advanced desktops. You are being intentionally dishonest or just trolling if you think there are no bugs in the game. Perhaps you really have no playtime at all? Whatever the case, the rubbish you just typed out with your illegally acquired nicotine stained fingers shouldn't be posted again.

There are pages and pages of bugs and missing features. Saying that "getting a better pc" will make features appear and bugs going away is akin to saying me getting a better pc will make your account privileges disappear. I may want that, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

[Radzeer]

No bugs for me get a better pc

Such nominations have really nothing to do with the game, it's part of a business strategy based on mutual interests.

[Stath's]

Such nominations have really nothing to do with the game, it's part of a business strategy based on mutual interests.

[Whistler118]

Lawandorder you must be part of the 2% as I doubt with 489 posts you are unclear with what a bug is. I have experienced only a few "bugs" but bugs aren't even the worst part. I can live with bugs, im an ARMA player and if you have played that bugs are almost as important as the gun you hold. Yet Arma 2/3 is pretty solid everywhere else. AI is very good for what it does, mechanics although glitchy as hell are great and its a game that allows you to continue enjoying no matter how long or how many design faults there are.

Rome 2 on the other hand, is the opposite, the bugs annoy to the extent that they distract and its not hard to distract yourself, as what the game does it does in a boring, mediocre way. There are some great moments for sure but the repetitive forming a long line, let the AI run around for a bit and get lost, attack them and then watch the almost hysterical combat animations which are not even historical and glitchy is beyond a joke.

I put down ROME 2 a long time ago, I was sad and will not buy another CA product until I have played it fully from a demo. I normally don't do this but CA has abused its right as a publisher and sell by feeding the hopes and desires of its fan base with false information. As as such Im taking back my power as a consumer.

Game of the Year my ass. Tetris was a more entertaining, well rounded and better presented game than this.


EDIT: Also i like how all the comments on the PC Gamer page all say how bad ROME 2 is. Fight back consumers! Let them know what a joke the system is!