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

[omzdog]

Duke Nukem runs smoothly too.

[Xaosan]

Game reviewers are a corrupt bunch, they even have the audacity to give themselves awards for being most corrupt asshat of the year.

[Naked Emperor]

Game reviewers are a corrupt bunch, they even have the audacity to give themselves awards for being most corrupt asshat of the year.

You are wrong my friend in the worst possible way. It is the Publishers that host the Game Media Awards.

[lawandorder82]

Empire was horrible at least with patch 8.1rome 2 is a lot better with patch 8.1 but empire was when first releaseed broken just like the seife ai

[wangrin]

Empire: Total War had a very difficult launch being as buggy as Total War: Rome 2, but E:TW didn't suffered from a lack of depth for gameplay and bring several well waited features such as naval battles and world size map with different theatres.
What is interesting is to note that E:TW is still selling and is still the 2d most played TW after TW:R2, even if E:TW is a 5 years old game.


Bugs can be eventually fix through time, by CA or, eventually, by modders (using sometime "tricks" like removing dysfunctional features).
But really broken or missing features... only CA can do something here, and I doubt they will.

Look at E:TW :

• formations : still no column formation (essential attack and moving formation during XVIIIth/XIXth century). Not possible to modified them
• square formation : instant anti-cavalry bonus. Not possible to modified it.
• fire drills : completely unrealistic, only volley fire is accurate. Not possible to modified them
• sieges : as bad as with any other warscape-based TW games... It's not like if CA could not find a lot of document about it, XVII-XVIIIth century siege warfare was highly codified
• etc.

CA did nothing to correct these issues, they are still issues when you want to create more accurate mods.

But despite all these flaws, E:TW offers immersion, and keep player interest.
Sadly, I feel that it is not the same situation with TW:R2. It's far worst.
TW:R2 offers a lot of "traditional" flaws/bugs, such as BAI unable to wage sieges, unrealistic formations (I speak about their mechanic compare to historical data, look at JaM's work on this subject), etc.
But instead of having "enriched" gameplay, I've the feeling it have been "impoverished" (or dumbed down like some other peoples have written).
They have removed seasons in main campaign, officially partly because of performance issues, but seasons are important for strategy, you don't plan a campaign in the same way if you risk to be trap by winter far from your bases.
The family tree had been replace by an insipid and worthless politic system.
And so on...
And new features didn't really help.
Should have to mention the "instant convert" army to transport fleet able to destroy real fleets. Why the hell recruit an admiral.
Or the "only Provincial capital have fortifications" (CA was certainly aware of the issues with sieges...).
And so on...

If you take care to read thread here, you will find plenty of example.
The result is a boring game, and I fear that modding will not be able to convert it to even a good game.

I don't really care if CA create "fantasy" vanilla game, as long as it is possible to fix it through modding.
But modding is limited to what is allowed to be modified...


So, to come back to the main topic of this thread, I hardly understand why TW:R2 can be on this list, due to its chaotic release and poor gameplay. A game like Europa Universalis, even if it sales less, prove to be a real success.
As CA/SEGA love so much metacritics, simply compare critics reviews score (74/100) and users score (3.9/10). When you have so much difference between both scores, I think the game has a problem.
For example, EU IV scores are 87/100 (critics) and 8.8/10 (users). Quite coherent.
Same for Arma III : 73/100 (critics) and 7.1/10 (users). Quite coherent again.
On the other hand, Battlefield earn a 83/100 from critics and a 6/10 from users, like with TW:R2, the difference between critics and users show a problem with game. Certainly not as good as critics said.

[Rittsy]

So, to come back to the main topic of this thread, I hardly understand why TW:R2 can be on this list, due to its chaotic release and poor gameplay. A game like Europa Universalis, even if it sales less, prove to be a real success.

...because it's an opinion, not fact. They're not saying these are objectively the best games of the year.

[wangrin]

Obviously, it's not an "objective" list.
But I think it's what this thread point out.

Now, compare the number of bugs and issues that both game had on release and still have or gameplay features.
Of course, EU IV and TW:R2 are not the same games, EU IV is a "grand strategy" game when TW:R2 mix "strategy" and "tactics", but you can still estimate their "quality" or their effect on immersion, if features are successful or not, or if features are really missing.
But, outside of sciences, and it's even not always true, all is, finally, matters of opinion. What is important is to being able to explain why you have such "opinion".

I will not write a full article on EU IV, first, because this is not the topic of this thread, second because English is not my mother tongue and I don't consider worth the time to try to develop my "opinion" on EU IV.

[Rittsy]

Obviously, it's not an "objective" list.
But I think it's what this thread point out.

Now, compare the number of bugs and issues that both game had on release and still have or gameplay features.
Of course, EU IV and TW:R2 are not the same games, EU IV is a "grand strategy" game when TW:R2 mix "strategy" and "tactics", but you can still estimate their "quality" or their effect on immersion, if features are successful or not, or if features are really missing.
But, outside of sciences, and it's even not always true, all is, finally, matters of opinion. What is important is to being able to explain why you have such "opinion".

I will not write a full article on EU IV, first, because this is not the topic of this thread, second because English is not my mother tongue and I don't consider worth the time to try to develop my "opinion" on EU IV.

Right, but again, it's an opinion. That's why it's on the list. Because they enjoyed that game more than they did EU IV. Now maybe they were just unable to commit the time to it, maybe they didn't play it, maybe they just didn't like it...but that doesn't matter. EU IV isn't on their list, Rome II is. You can argue why it's not on your Game of the Year list, but it's on theirs because something about it stood out. You don't have to like it, none of you do. But just accept that not everybody hates or even dislikes Rome II, just like not everyone likes EU IV.

[kujirakira]

Right, but again, it's an opinion. That's why it's on the list. Because they enjoyed that game more than they did EU IV. Now maybe they were just unable to commit the time to it, maybe they didn't play it, maybe they just didn't like it...but that doesn't matter. EU IV isn't on their list, Rome II is. You can argue why it's not on your Game of the Year list, but it's on theirs because something about it stood out. You don't have to like it, none of you do. But just accept that not everybody hates or even dislikes Rome II, just like not everyone likes EU IV.

$$$, access, industry relations, etc.
Game Reviewers are a captive industry... they're dependent on the game companys for material and access. If a site gives RTW2 a bad review, CA will give interviews and advertising to other publications.

Youtube can only tell you so much.
Makes me wonder who thought removing trial versions was a good idea.

Their bottom line thinks it was a masterful idea.

[Rittsy]

$$$, access, industry relations, etc.
Game Reviewers are a captive industry... they're dependent on the game companys for material and access. If a site gives RTW2 a bad review, CA will give interviews and advertising to other publications.

So than none of this matters anyway. If the company is corrupt none of their opinions are to be trusted, so none of this should bother anybody. It's be like me pointing to a political party to give an unbiased review of one of their candidates.

[total relism]

ca must use all their money paying off pc gamer, nothing left to make a game with.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

People should just stop buying these mags and tell the company why.



That is the solution to this problem Batman

[SleepySteve]

People should just stop buying these mags and tell the company why.



That is the solution to this problem Batman

This. I rely on youtube footage primarily to determine if I am going to buy a game.

[RedGuard]

I wish rome 2 devs had come to the VGX awards and had Joel Mchale berate them lol. SEASONS!!!!!!!! Joel Mchale: "Did we take some speed before we came to the VGXs tonight?"

[omzdog]

Youtube can only tell you so much.
Makes me wonder who thought removing trial versions was a good idea.

[Durnaug]

Reminds me, vaguely, of the ratings agencies like S&P and Moodys. They get paid by the very banks they're supposed to be auditing.

[xeronak]

PcGamer is really terrible. I used to listen to their podcast and it's just nothing but a bunch of interns and politically correct editors praising games and gushing over the latest indie pile of crap. They lack any critical sense and just skim over titles without really going in depth. Any form of critique is just shot down and there's nothing of interest going on there.

[kujirakira]

It matters if they're pretending to be objective and people take them at their word.Political parties don't feign objectivity.

[Dirac]

What a joke.

[shogon]

Also, I probably have a way better pc then you do. Even my 2nd rig for dedicated folding@home is probably better to. Yet they all run horribly unless I run the game on just high

I think this is where that 40% bigger budget went, giving reviewers incentives to ignore some issues in the game that make it annoying. Latest patch for me hasn't helped siege warfare, here's to patch 9-12 in hopes something will change.