Has Rome II now finally reached the level of Rome I

[Pontic Pontus]

Many people were dissapointed with Rome II due to its buggy release, and I was wondering how peoples opinions have changed with the patches, the updates and the two expansions. Please post here if you think the game is now better than Rome 1, and why, for example by making a list of the most important unique features according to you of either of the games and comparing them. If you just want to express your opinion without any arguments just answer the poll.

My opinion was that Rome II was better than Rome I from the moment I started playing, but I think its even better now, and below I have a list of things only Rome II has, with important things underlined:

Better graphics

LOS

more diplomatic options

stances

fully rotatable map

more factions

armies attached to generals

recruiting inside province, not only in city

precipitation(rain and snow)

amazing wonders

bigger map

More historical factions(nova carthagos not realistic, but barbarian factions split up into tribes, Rome not split into 4 etc.)

plus a whole lot of other things.

[Skurvy5]

I strongly disagree.

Better graphics? Yes, I agree that Rome 2 has better potential for better graphics. But this isn't always the case and with mods Rome 1 can have some great looking units for its age.

LOS - Again, a point to Rome 2. But with the generic flat maps that are so prevalent in the game, does this really make a difference? No, not really.

More diplomatic options - Not really. We are missing some of the ones that matter - exchange provinces!

Stances - Forced march breaks the AI, Ambush stance was in the old game - you just had to move your army to a spot and hide to ambush the enemy - more realistic! Raiding was also in the game - park your army in enemy territory and you'd cause desolation, reducing income from the province.

Fully rotatable map - Nice to have, but is this really necessary?

More factions - Yes, true there are more factions

Armies attached to generals - annoying as you can't scout ahead with calvary, you can't detach your general and shock cav to support a different army, can't send depleted units back for retraining/upgrading

Recruiting inside province - Ok?

Precipitation - It rained and snowed in Rome 1

Amazing wonders - were in Rome 1 too

Bigger map - Map covers about the same area

More historical factions - Yes, agreed

Rome 1 is still the better gameplay experience.

[riskymonk]

I think one of the biggest disappointments for people was that rome 2 wasn't an improved version of rome 1 and because they were expecting an improved rome 1 they were disappointed. But I think that rule should only apply to console games as pc games have the ability to mod and suit the game to the players liking. So, even though I haven't played it but from what I've seen on youtube, I think rome 2 is great but I think they just took on a bit more than they thought they could handle. You see this mistake in a lot of games, they all try and start a revolution and be the next step up and this is because competition is fierce and it will get even more competitive as it becomes easier to create games and cheaper too.

I know know I can handle this games faults because I played medieval 2 ffs and still managed to enjoy it. I am a bit disappointed about the dlc thing though especially if modders are able to give more for less... a hell of a lot more actually. Must be embarrassing really relying on the volunteers to improve performance. I'd be soo red and having sleepless nights if I was on 45k a year to do a job a modder could do better.

[JaM]

my biggest disappointment in Rome 2 was in the fact they didn't tried to improve the existing system, instead they simplified it as much as possible.

[Aenima]

First off, there is no poll. Secondly, no.



Siege battles are still not working (and "siege battles" without walls are just boring and dull grinds in the streets) which is a major red flag. Rome 1's are superior in practically every aspect....the only thing I prefer about Rome 2's sieges would probably be the city layouts and the fact that their ladders look pretty cool. I genuinely can't think of much else, whereas Rome 2's aspects are significantly worse than Rome 1's. An AI that doesn't understand how siege equipment works and a mechanic that lets them burn down the gate (aka a workaround of the poor siege AI/pathfinding) is, quite frankly, pathetic for a game of this scope.

Add to that how siege battles in wall-less towns just become grinds in the streets in which there's little to no tactical space for you, along with having poor garrisons and you've just got an annoying recipe for disaster. Then there's the issue of how representing the vast majority of settlements as hamlets just breaks immersion.....when a major city like Syracuse is represented as a little fishing village it just reminds me that I'm not playing out war in the ancient world, I'm playing a badly designed game that can't handle siege battles. And this isn't me ranting or being spiteful - I don't think anyone can realistically argue otherwise.


Other points against Rome 2 are

- Poor unit cards. I'm pretty sure that they're using a design that was not only limited to the Greeks but was also several centuries old at this point, as well as just making them seem lifeless. Rome 1's look far better and aren't nearly as confusing as Rome 2's (is that a spear or a pike? Is this the same kind of swordsman? etc)

- Building icons. Look even at just a few screenshots of Rome 1 in google or something....there are actual buildings that visually improve as you upgrade them. If you've got a poor barracks then it shows, whereas a high level one looks like a far more developed military building. Likewise for roads, ports, farms, bathhouses, temples....literally everything. In Rome 2 what do we have? A basic icon (ie a cow or some wheat for a farm) and a number next to it. Rome 1 shows you how advanced (or not) buildings are in a settlement. Rome 2 tells you. Big no-no right there for immersion.

- Encyclopedia. A good idea, but it completely kills immersion for me. In Rome 1 you learned about a unit or building by having a scroll literally unroll on the screen that described it, and it happened in-game. Rome 2 pulls you out of the game and shows you a very 21st century database of all units, buildings, techs etc....it completely kills immersion by reminding you that you're playing a game. Rome 1's scrolls felt like you were poring over messages from the Senate or reports from your generals/spies on the quality and nature of soldiers. Rome 2's encyclopedia feels like I'm looking at the Pokedex of the ancient world. Complete immersion killer.

- Poor pathfinding. I'll be generous and say that 70% of the time Rome 1 was able to chase down routers perfectly, 15% of the time it needed micro management to work properly and the other 15% of the time it just screwed up (reality would probably be 80/10/10 at most) Rome 2, on the other hand, is just a boatload of problems, ranging from units being flat-out unable/unwilling to kill the men that they've got surrounded to not chasing down the group, but instead targetting 10 men out of 100 because the enemy group has splintered off across the map. It's not nearly as frustrating as it was before, but it's still a massive downside for Rome 2, still annoying and something that Rome 1 got right.




There are many other features I could list, but those are some of the major things that make Rome 2 < Rome 1 for me. As you can see immersion is the major factor. Rome 1, as old and tacky as it looks, still feels like I'm playing a game set in antiquity, and even now I can still lose myself in it, for at least a little while. Rome 2, on the other hand, feels like some kind of strategy game that's simply wearing a Roman skin, and I rarely lose myself in it, but instead am constantly asking "why am I playing this?" I guess an accurate analogy would be that Rome 1 is like having a conversation with a celebrity, whereas Rome 2 feels like you're talking to your friend who has a mask of said celeb on.



EDIT - acch, voted for terrible when I meant to say worse than Rome 1 in the poll!

[baptistus]

my biggest disappointment in Rome 2 was in the fact they didn't tried to improve the existing system, instead they simplified it as much as possible.

I agree. They simplified so much features, and new features added are boring or ultra simplistics. And siege AI ....
so Rome 2 is worse than Rome I.

[emperor77]

I still play Rome 1 (though heavily modded). I no longer play Rome 2 at all.

It is the core mechanics you see, it feels too gamey, not immersed at all with the derpy political system, families full of nobodies etc.

[Dontfearme22]

Rome 1 is a great videogame, but its great because of modders, vanilla Rome 1 is innacurate, over the top, and glitchy. Rome 1 was a great game, but lets recognize its faults. The areas where(in my opinion)Rome 1 prevails over Rome 2 is in the campaign and the music.

[Fetrik]

The worst flaws of R2 imo is the siege ai and the province system and the agents.
Agents are a pain in the ass and not entertaining.
The province system force conflict often for no reason just because Another faction with a different Culture owns a state.
The agents are too powerful. Can cripple whole settlements for decades. They are just annoying.

[Prince Regent George]

stances

Stances are just streamlined features. In the past, you had to choose a general with the suitable trait to ttravel in longer distances. You had to carefully select a thick forest next to a road, in order to ambush an enemy army. Now, you just click a button and the advisor treats you appropriately: "Good. You chose the ambush stance. This is great!".

recruiting inside province, not only in city

Although I personally consider what you describe as an unpleasant over-simplification, I remind you that the mercenaries were also recruited outside cities.

precipitation(rain and snow)

?
In Rome I, snowing and raining (during summer) also occured.

amazing wonders

Sorry, but Rome I is objectively better, on this aspect. All the ancient, seven wonders appeared in the battlefield, after the second patch, not to mention the videos popping out, when you captured a new wonder.

More historical factions(nova carthagos not realistic, but barbarian factions split up into tribes, Rome not split into 4 etc.)

Only Nova Carthago?
What about Cyprus, Sardis, Sagartia, Persia, Media, Drangiana, Aria and the rest of imaginary factions, created because CA was totally incapable of preventing Egypt, the Seleucid Empire and Carthage from becoming superpowers?

In my opinion, Rome II is far worse than its predecessor. It immersed me in a satisfactory level and I tended to plan carefully my strategy, instead of just pillaging, recruiting and pillaging...

[Ano2]

Until Rome 2 gets a fixed siege AI it will always be worse than Rome 1. It's just too central and important a feature to get around. I really want CA to either come out and just say they can't fix the siege AI... or fix it. Nothing more irritating than constantly giving out false hope.

So I voted worse.

[Elitewolf]

Vanilla rome versus vanilla rome? I'd call it a tie... Mainly because of the siege AI in rome 2 which is bad and it really starts to grind when you have a siege every one or two turns.

[Joot Scardow]

Rome II is better. It has more of everything. Is it easy? Yes, but so is every other TW ever made.

Stances are just streamlined features. In the past, you had to choose a general with the suitable trait to ttravel in longer distances. You had to carefully select a thick forest next to a road, in order to ambush an enemy army. Now, you just click a button and the advisor treats you appropriately: "Good. You chose the ambush stance. This is great!".

... I don't think you've played much of Rome II. There's nothing streamlined about stances. Ambushes are not automatic like they were in previous games, there's a percentage chance based on your general and terrain. And generals/army traditions still have the ability to increase movement points, Quick March doesn not replace those features.

[Inhuman One]

I'd say rome 2 is still worse than rome 1. Terrible in comparison would be an overreaction though.

What rome 2 has better:
-Graphics.
-Better unit rosters.
-Much more factions on the map.

What makes Rome 1 better:
-Far more realistic gameplay mechanics that better reflect history.
-Factions looked more unique.
-Family trees.
-Immersion.
-Proper city building.

I'm kind of done with the total war series as it is, this is pretty much where they need to straighten up their act and either reclaim their throne as master strategy game makers or solidify their new reputation as yet another mediocre AAA developer. And still the big companies wonder why indie games are gaining ground. Easy to gain ground when all the big companies are shooting themselves in the foot by ignoring everything the established fanbase wants in favor of doing everything a potential new fanbase might want.

[TuuSaR]

Rome 1 was very stable, Rome 2 is far from it.

[Swamidude]

Vanilla vs vanilla Rome II will definitely win... But I never really played Rome I though, but was a big fan of Medieval II total war. And I can find myself in what others have mentioned, as Medieval II and Rome where much alike, except for being in a different timeframe of course and some other features.

So Vanilla Medieval vs Rome II then, then Rome II still wins. But that's because of the greater scope, more factions etc. However Medieval II total war has the greatest mods ever, Stainless stell, Broken Cresent, DLV, Third Age, Darth mod.. I've played them all for hundred of hours and after a while having done everything, I just installed another mod. I've bought Kingdoms only for the mods that where for it, I've never actually played any of those campaigns xD Rome II won't be the same with mods though, with Empire a new era started and allthough mods can still do something for this game, I don't see the great overhaul mods that completely changed the maps, made new regions and factions.

I'm playing DLV now and it has a whole new governer and general system, with buildings to train traits and everything. The only downside is that many regions are rebels and in Rome II they all got their own faction, but then people are complaining about the fact that they all have the same units

Still medieval II is the greatest game, after that Empire, because that could get away with all the new features and minimalistic things, because it was so different from the other games that it couldn't be compared 1 on 1. I really thought that for Rome II they would go back to the more classical UI to create more the feeling of playing as Rome or another faction from the era.

[Aenima]

I'd say rome 2 is still worse than rome 1. Terrible in comparison would be an overreaction though.

What rome 2 has better:
-Graphics.
-Better unit rosters.
-Much more factions on the map.

What makes Rome 1 better:
-Far more realistic gameplay mechanics that better reflect history.
-Factions looked more unique.
-Family trees.
-Immersion.
-Proper city building. .

By and large I agree with this entirely, with the only arguable thing being that factions in Rome 1 didn't feel all that different.

Regardless, the thing that this list really highlights is that what Rome 1 did better than Rome 2 is arguably far more important stuff. As great as it is to have nice graphics they're not the be all and end all of a game...yeah, I don't play Rome 1 for very long, but I'll happily play M2 without the graphics being an issue. Amazing graphics in a TW game are a plus, but not a game builder. Likewise unit rosters, as great as it was to see them greatly expanded vs in Rome 1, are something that mods can add.

Rome 1's features, conversely, are far, far more important, with immersion being the most significant one of all. What Rome 1 gets right is ultimately more important than what Rome 2 gets right, and what Rome 2 gets wrong is far worse than what Rome 1 gets wrong, in the end.

[Toho]

Ok I played the out of Rome 1 but the thing has aged so much that I can't even look at it now.
Also I think that Rome 2 was still superior to Rome 1 without any mods when we put it against EB or RS2. However after 10 years I expected a better politics or better diplomacy than shogun 2. But I expected too much from CA.
I can forgive them the AI problems though, its getting fixed bit by bit.

[Swamidude]

Medieval II without mods < Rome II witout mods
Medieval II with mods > Rome II with mods

Fact is that politics, UI and the map can't be modded in Rome II like in Medieval II. There will come some tools, but still it seems that some design decisions are so bad and unmoddable that in the end Medieval II will always be better because the core design decisions that can't be changed are done well. Everything that Medieval II was lacking is modable and thus not a problem. Factions, regions and unit roster can all be added in Medieval II, but familiy tree, better politics and all cities with walls and all the buildings in them with all unique pictures isn't modable. Also medieval II cities didn't just grow on the battlemap, but you could see the buildings, and allthough Rome II has more different cities for each culture, only because of the fact that medieval II's cities where all different sizes with different buildings in them, they felt way more unique each time.

Only thing that can't be modded in Medieval II are the playable naval battles, which are of course a big plus for Rome II (now they only need to be tweaked a little bit, so that they actually work and are fun to do )

[redxavier]

How anyone can think that this superficial game is better than Rome I baffles me. It's certainly prettier but that's it.