Is it fair to compare modded Rome 1 to unmodded Rome 2?

[Sebidee]

This is a very simple yes or no poll. Is it fair to compare Rome 1 with mods to Rome 2 without mods?

Some people on this forum are of the opinion that when it comes to topics such as features, historical accuracy, factions, units and more then it is ok to compare vanilla Rome 2 to Rome 1 with mods such as Europa Barbarum, Roma Surrectum and Rome Total Realism.

I am of the opinion that it is not fair. There are some things to consider. First and foremost is the fact that CA did not make the mods and is under no obligation to follow them. Next you have to consider that there are several mods for Rome 1 so if you don't like one you pick another, ensuring you have a perfect experience, in comparison there is only one vanilla Rome 2.

Most importantly I feel that it is unfair to compare them because Rome 2 simply has not had the chance to have these kinds of mods made for it, there just has not been enough time. Many of the Rome 1 mods took years to make and Rome 2 modders have not had the luxury of time. Such mods are actually being made at the moment, just visit the hosted modifications forum here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forum...-Modifications.

Thank you and please vote honestly.

[❋ Flavius Belisarius ❋]

A non-hypocryte player would say: no it's unfair

Nowadays Rome 2 > modded Rome 1 (there's some limit this game cannot overwhelm and that it)

[Taskeen]

Most people played Rome 1 vanilla, enjoyed it immensely and THEN installed the mods due to people's interest in more historical accuracy. Rome 1 mods utilized that old engine and expanded upon features already in the game. In Rome 2, one can only expand upon the hard-coded programming that is already there to work within the context of the game, which leaves a lot to be desired due to a hollowed out experience.

Basically Imagine that Rome 1 is a bucket full of ice cream, no scoops were taken out. The mods were like layers of chocolate syrup added to the full bucket of ice cream. In Rome 2, all the bucket is half-way full, and all the "good stuff" was scooped out. If I made anyone hungry reading this post, apologizes.

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

Most importantly I feel that it is unfair to compare them because Rome 2 simply has not had the chance to have these kinds of mods made for it, there just has not been enough time. Many of the Rome 1 mods took years to make and Rome 2 modders have not had the luxury of time. Such mods are actually being made at the moment, just visit the hosted modifications forum here:

Sure a total overhaul takes alot of time but you also need to have the tools to do it and now we just dont have them yet. And the base game is hardcoded so you cant just make a familly tree and add it or make a new building system atleast not yet maybe in a few years since they said RTW II will be the most mod friendly TW to date.

No its not fair "You cant compare modded versus unmodded"

Oh and i dont really care about more factions or more units i do care about immersion and fun on the campaign map and since most of the time you are on the campaign map How great it may look it lacks immersion and things to do.

[Causeless]

I'm so surprised this didn't get a tonne of "yes" votes!

It's not fair, for a number of reasons. I think the most compelling one is that if you go up to any person who says some Rome 1 mod is better than Rome 2, and you say something like "but the graphics are better in Rome 2" or "there is greater variety in units or factions" or anything alike, then the response will almost invariably be "that's not fair!". Why can it be fair to compare in one direction, but not the other?

Most people played Rome 1 vanilla, enjoyed it immensely and THEN installed the mods due to people's interest in more historical accuracy. Rome 1 mods utilized that old engine and expanded upon features already in the game. In Rome 2, one can only expand upon the hard-coded programming that is already there to work within the context of the game, which leaves a lot to be desired due to a hollowed out experience.

Basically Imagine that Rome 1 is a bucket full of ice cream, no scoops were taken out. The mods were like layers of chocolate syrup added to the full bucket of ice cream. In Rome 2, all the bucket is half-way full, and all the "good stuff" was scooped out. If I made anyone hungry reading this post, apologizes.

Limitations are in Rome 1 too. You can only expand upon the hard-coded programming already there. Nobody can add unit graphical variety to a Rome 1 mod, nobody can add more factions to a Rome 1 mod, nobody can add naval battles. It's becoming possible to change a few of the small limitations with the memory-editing that's beginning to happen, but then anybody could do the same with Rome 2 (it's just harder due to the frequent patching!).

[Sebidee]

I'm so surprised this didn't get a tonne of "yes" votes!

It's not fair, for a number of reasons. I think the most compelling one is that if you go up to any person who says some Rome 1 mod is better than Rome 2, and you say something like "but the graphics are better in Rome 2" or "there is greater variety in units or factions" or anything alike, then the response will almost invariably be "that's not fair!". Why can it be fair to compare in one direction, but not the other?



Limitations are in Rome 1 too. You can only expand upon the hard-coded programming already there. Nobody can add unit graphical variety to a Rome 1 mod, nobody can add more factions to a Rome 1 mod, nobody can add naval battles. It's becoming possible to change a few of the small limitations with the memory-editing that's beginning to happen, but then anybody could do the same with Rome 2 (it's just harder due to the frequent patching!).

Hey, if you think it's not fair then you vote no. Not yes.

[Causeless]

Hey, if you think it's not fair then you vote no. Not yes.

I know! I'm referring to the general Rome 2 hatred, people will just do whatever seems to be more about hating rather than thinking logically. I'm surprised the opposite occurred here.

EDIT:

Although the "yes" votes are slowly raising up ahead...

[Sebidee]

Fair? - Maybe, maybe not.
Expected? - Yes!

You say not fair but I would bet my house on which way you voted.

I know! I'm referring to the general Rome 2 hatred, people will just do whatever seems to be more about hating rather than thinking logically. I'm surprised the opposite occurred here.

EDIT:

Although the "yes" votes are slowly raising up ahead...

If people actually vote yes then I will lose my faith in this community entirely. Basically it will say this "I will defy all logic in my attempt to bash Rome 2" well if that's the case then so be it.

[FieryMastermind]

Being a modder himself (for both games) I have a different view altogether. We modders have an easy task in which we already have a platform to create and develop mods, where we already have a complete (subjective, I know) product and then see what we like and what we don't like and then think of how we can make it more to our likings, the way we want it to be played. It's still subject to game engine limitation no matter how great or dumb our mods are.

Yes, you have it easier than actual game devs, but you also don't get paid for it.

And to be fair, Rome 2 mods are quite limited as opposed to Rome 1 mods. Making units and changing stats to mimic new mechanics is probably easier than creating new ones altogether.

There's no financial risks whether our mod is downloaded by 1 person or 1,000,000 people which is irrelevant to me. Those 'new' features that you see in mods are actually not something created from the grounds up but base on exiting and sometimes not use features in the original game for various reasons know to developers. Whether get paid or not is immaterial as if modders expected to get paid then they better off apply for actual position in game developers or like some, create their own game.

Which is why comparing the two is a bad idea in the first place.

You say not fair but I would bet my house on which way you voted.

For your information I voted no, so I'll be taking that house.

If people actually vote yes then I will lose my faith in this community entirely. Basically it will say this "I will defy all logic in my attempt to bash Rome 2" well if that's the case then so be it.

Right, if people don't agree with you they can all go to hell, am I right?

[LestaT]

It's neither fair nor unfair, even between vanilla because Rome II is not RTW 2.0 where both are different games with different engine and different game philosophy.

But then it depends on what you want to compare. However when you start to compare things then that's where you stop being a gamer.

[PointOfViewGun]

We're not even past the last patch timeline for Rome I. That first. Modded version comes after that.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's not necessarily a smart idea to build a game after what some small community of core gamers want.

[Lionheart11]

Well is this a "See Rome 2 aint so bad guys" thread?, the ship has already sailed on that one my friend. Im just trying to guess the motive fore such a question.

I do notice you are quite Pro Rome 2.

Edit... Its ten years on , you cant compare the two imo, we are even driving electric cars now with technologies that cant be compared as a example.

[Sebidee]

Well is this a "See Rome 2 aint so bad guys" thread?, the ship has already sailed on that one my friend. Im just trying to guess the motive fore such a question.

I do notice you are quite Pro Rome 2.

I am, because I like the game and think it doesn't deserve the bad rep it gets. I also detest the negativity that people spread on the forum especially when it defies all logic like thinking that a base game should be compared to one that is very heavily modded.

Speaking of negativity. You are questioning my character and motives because I am positive about something. I think that say more about you.

[Lionheart11]

I am, because I like the game and think it doesn't deserve the bad rep it gets. I also detest the negativity that people spread on the forum especially when it defies all logic like thinking that a base game should be compared to one that is very heavily modded.

Well there is your motive, but you have a right to speak up mate, just like haters do.

[Darios]

For me it is like this. I spent years playing unmodded RTW and I enjoyed it immensely (especially MP battles with my friends) for the most part because it was the first time I got to play awesome 3D battles on such a nicely detailed campaign map that I enjoyed to explore.

After 3-4 years of vanilla RTW I decided to give Rome Total Realism a go and I found it to be quite fun. I then played Europa Barbarorum and I must admit that I was blown away by its historical accuracy - though I did not really enjoy the insanely complicated gameplay (ex: the flaming hoops you have to jump through to get Marian reforms.) I also noticed that EB has a huge bias towards certain factions/units (especially Celtic) to the point where in the description for Galatian Heavy Swordsmen they talk about how Celtic mercenaries brought light hair and blue eyes to Egypt's modern day gene pool. Silly speculative things like that taught me a lot about history but also taught me to take mods with a grain of salt because ultimately a mod is someone's version of how history went/should have gone. There was also the anti-Roman faction backlash that tends to go into many mods. I loved EB, spent years playing it, and I am very grateful for the work that the developers put into it. A couple of years ago I also tried out Roma Surrectum 2 and I feel that was my high point in RTW modding. The gameplay was uncomplicated and simple (unlike EB) but it was still really cool and well detailed enough for me to have the time of my life playing it. That being said, this was only around a year or two ago so it was a very "late era" point of RTW gaming for me. Ultimately I was spending way more time on NTW and my favorite TW game of all time - Medieval 2 (and the amazing mods associated with it.)

Come release time for R2 and truth be told, I was not very disappointed at all. I knew that the game was going to use the Warscape Engine so the simplified features and unmoddability did not surprise me at all. I knew from the beginning that I was comparing the game to vanilla RTW and I was very disappointed/annoyed to see the people here on TWC and in the main forums whining and boohooing that R2 was not EB with amazing graphics. I do feel that CA took a very easy/cheap approach with many things and it has many bad features that are attributed to Warscape but I have gotten past that long ago. CA has turned around and fixed many things and continue to do so today. I was initially disappointed by the barebone faction roster but since then CA has come strong giving us some awesome options including many of my favorites (Athens, Getae, Scythians, etc.) I cannot complain about that at all, especially remembering how 'empty' vast sways of RTW's campaign map felt. There are many glaring historical inaccuracies that I hope modders will one day fix but truth be told, I have yet to try a mod for R2 and I am enjoying the game just fine. It was worth the money and I've bought all of the DLC except for Beasts of War (which I will never do).

As I believe that CA is starting to wind down the patching process with this game, I hope that the time they're taking with Patch 14 will help to answer many of the constructive concerns the community (including myself) has posted here in the forums. I'm not talking about silly buzzwords like "Fix Sieges" and "Fix Politics" but lots of minor improvements (more diversification among the barbarians, a stronger Roman CAI, more easter eggs like seasons, wonders, festivals, etc.) that will help make the game more memorable and keep me playing R2 for years to come. It is my hope because R2's graphics are so nice that I cannot sit down and enjoy playing RTW or its mods anymore. It's not a gameplay thing, it's just the fact that it's now 2014 and R2 has enough cool features to make me invest my time into it.

[Sebidee]

For me it is like this. I spent years playing unmodded RTW and I enjoyed it immensely (especially MP battles with my friends) for the most part because it was the first time I got to play awesome 3D battles on such a nicely detailed campaign map that I enjoyed to explore.

After 3-4 years of vanilla RTW I decided to give Rome Total Realism a go and I found it to be quite fun. I then played Europa Barbarorum and I must admit that I was blown away by its historical accuracy - though I did not really enjoy the insanely complicated gameplay (ex: the flaming hoops you have to jump through to get Marian reforms.) I also noticed that EB has a huge bias towards certain factions/units (especially Celtic) to the point where in the description for Galatian Heavy Swordsmen they talk about how Celtic mercenaries brought light hair and blue eyes to Egypt's modern day gene pool. Silly speculative things like that taught me a lot about history but also taught me to take mods with a grain of salt because ultimately a mod is someone's version of how history went/should have gone. There was also the anti-Roman faction backlash that tends to go into many mods. I loved EB, spent years playing it, and I am very grateful for the work that the developers put into it. A couple of years ago I also tried out Roma Surrectum 2 and I feel that was my high point in RTW modding. The gameplay was uncomplicated and simple (unlike EB) but it was still really cool and well detailed enough for me to have the time of my life playing it. That being said, this was only around a year or two ago so it was a very "late era" point of RTW gaming for me. Ultimately I was spending way more time on NTW and my favorite TW game of all time - Medieval 2 (and the amazing mods associated with it.)

Come release time for R2 and truth be told, I was not very disappointed at all. I knew that the game was going to use the Warscape Engine so the simplified features and unmoddability did not surprise me at all. I knew from the beginning that I was comparing the game to vanilla RTW and I was very disappointed/annoyed to see the people here on TWC and in the main forums whining and boohooing that R2 was not EB with amazing graphics. I do feel that CA took a very easy/cheap approach with many things and it has many bad features that are attributed to Warscape but I have gotten past that long ago. CA has turned around and fixed many things and continue to do so today. I was initially disappointed by the barebone faction roster but since then CA has come strong giving us some awesome options including many of my favorites (Athens, Getae, Scythians, etc.) I cannot complain about that at all, especially remembering how 'empty' vast sways of RTW's campaign map felt. There are many glaring historical inaccuracies that I hope modders will one day fix but truth be told, I have yet to try a mod for R2 and I am enjoying the game just fine. It was worth the money and I've bought all of the DLC except for Beasts of War (which I will never do).

As I believe that CA is starting to wind down the patching process with this game, I hope that the time they're taking with Patch 14 will help to answer many of the constructive concerns the community (including myself) has posted here in the forums. I'm not talking about silly buzzwords like "Fix Sieges" and "Fix Politics" but lots of minor improvements (more diversification among the barbarians, a stronger Roman CAI, more easter eggs like seasons, wonders, festivals, etc.) that will help make the game more memorable and keep me playing R2 for years to come. It is my hope because R2's graphics are so nice that I cannot sit down and enjoy playing RTW or its mods anymore. It's not a gameplay thing, it's just the fact that it's now 2014 and R2 has enough cool features to make me invest my time into it.

Thanks for the great post Darios. That is what I'm talking about. You enjoyed Vanilla Rome but were blown away by EB and Roma Surrectum. I think most people on this forum are the same. Problem is that when getting Rome 2 they expected EB not vanilla Rome, causing a lot of rage which is very misplaced.

[Darios]

Thanks for the great post Darios. That is what I'm talking about. You enjoyed Vanilla Rome but were blown away by EB and Roma Surrectum. I think most people on this forum are the same. Problem is that when getting Rome 2 they expected EB not vanilla Rome, causing a lot of rage which is very misplaced.

Thanks mate) If you look closely, there's actually alot of EB influences in R2. Look at how well done factions like the Boii, Galatians, and Tylis are - lots of information taken from AOR rebel units in EB. RTW had mainland Greek hoplites in a pike phalanx formation, but now R2 uses a shield wall for them (just like in EB.) People tend to and moan about the Suebi needing new units, without realizing that their current roster largely mirrors the Sweboz in EB. The Suebi do not need a roster expansion, they simply need to be recolored.

[Modestus]

Thanks for the great post Darios. That is what I'm talking about. You enjoyed Vanilla Rome but were blown away by EB and Roma Surrectum. I think most people on this forum are the same. Problem is that when getting Rome 2 they expected EB not vanilla Rome, causing a lot of rage which is very misplaced.

You may be right that people expected something more then what they got but that does not mean you must set aside your experiences of a modified RTW1 to judge RTW2, modifications simply mean that you are aware of more possibilities some good and some bad, some you may like and some you may not.

A modified RTW1 tells you what can be done and unless CA have been living in a vacuum they were also aware of what could be done but they chose not to. It was their choice to design the game as is but unless they expected half their fans to have a lobotomy of course RTW2 would end up being compared to modifications because that is what people have become used to playing.

You ask is it fair? You could equally ask why is it fair to compare RTW2 to just vanilla RTW1 and ignore 10 years of modifications, that would be worse in my opinion because your ignoring what could have been done.

[Garensterz]

Thanks for the great post Darios. That is what I'm talking about. You enjoyed Vanilla Rome but were blown away by EB and Roma Surrectum. I think most people on this forum are the same. Problem is that when getting Rome 2 they expected EB not vanilla Rome, causing a lot of rage which is very misplaced.

We were expecting a realistic ancient warfare. But what did we get? We got a 300(film) styles of battles and an over simplistic single player campaigns. And by the way I voted no to your poll.

Too obvious questions.