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

[Hetairos]

As said before, you can compare Rome II to a bottle of milk only that it wouldn't be a very good comparison. Comparing Rome II to Rome: Total War, Europa Universalis: Rome or even Roma Surrectum II, Europa Barbarorum, Rome: Total Realism and any other game (modder or not) is a very fine comparison.

In the same fashion I could ask, is this poll really fair? I think the results of the poll tend to a higher amount of "No" only, because the question reads highly suggestive. If you don't think twice the likelihood of voting no is extremely high. If you would remove the modded vs unmodded it would be a fairly different story.

Not to mention that people forget that modding does nothing else than add content to the existing game features. Hence, modifications do nothing else then representing the game itself. I would have liked to see a more fair and less suggestive thread like can you compare Rome: Total War with Rome II or Roma Surrectum II to Divide et Impera.

So, from my viewpoint the poll does not really give us some representative insights. If you wanted to prove a point continuing the discussion of yesterday you could have asked:

"Is it fair to compare a patched and fully supported Rome: Total War with a still developed and to be patched / supported Rome II?" But even than you didn't had to open a new thread to prove that. Since, I agree that it is clearly not fair IF you give a final statement like: Rome II is a bad game and will never be like Rome: Total War. BUT for the discussion about the future of Rome II and the call for making it even better, it is inevitable and completely necessary to compare it to its fully patched, supported and modded predecessors like Rome: Total War or Shogun II.

Same as yesterday: If you want to give CA a green card to do whatever they want to, go on. However, I highly doubt that you really want that.

[Aenima]

I'd say yes (even though I also compare it to vanilla as well) for a very simple reason that I've argued before - a lot of features from Rome 1's mods are already present in Rome 2.

Different/more accurate factions (ie Getae, Arverni, etc)? Check
Expanded troop trees including allies for the Romans, differences in pikes vs hoplites for Hellenic factions and a decent variety of barbarian units? Check
An expanded, larger map? Check
Improved graphics? (and a lot of mods don't even have this to any great degree) Check
Culture-specific buildings? Check


On paper Rome 2 has a lot of things in it that Rome 1's mods have, so I don't see how it's unfair to compare the two on that front. If someone says that EB or RS2 is far more immersive, for instance, I think that's a perfectly valid comparison to make, simply because I feel the design of the games are just radically different and make it so, and immersion-building features like an improved UI are nothing special (and vanilla RTW had that anyway).

However, if someone were to say that EB or RS2 are better due to the lack of bugs or something, I can agree that that's unfair as they were years in development after RTW had been fully patched (EB 1.2 came out in 2008 I believe, 4 years after RTW's release, and 3 or so years after EB's first release!) That kind of comparison, while true, needs to be given time to see how well the patches and subsequent mods are able to resolve Rome 2's issues.

But as I said, I feel that a lot of comparisons between RTW mods and Rome 2 are legit simply because Rome 2 seems to have included plenty of things from mods that made them improvements of RTW. I think a better thing for OP's question/poll is to perhaps give examples of what we think is or isn't unfair to compare between the two - as I've said, there are things I feel it's perfectly fine to compare as well as things I think there aren't, so it's not completely black and white.

[Wolfsblut]

Same as yesterday: If you want to give CA a green card to do whatever they want to, go on. However, I highly doubt that you really want that.

Sadly, that seems to be exactly what many people want.
That or they really think that blindfolded cheering is a form of positive feedback.

PS: Not that it matters that much. If enough people buy Crap, the Crap is good and will be celebrated as a success, and will be repeatet. That is the Blizzard-Way, but it seems to work.

PPS: Rome I is 10 years old.
If you need to ask the question of this thread then something with the new product has gone utterly wrong.

[Aenima]

PPS: Rome I is 10 years old.
If you need to ask the question of this thread then something with the new product has gone utterly wrong.

/thread

[Sebidee]

I don't know how you could possibly make the poll any simpler Alec. It's a question and a yes or no. Simples. There are a lot of way to twist polls but none here.

The concept is simple. Judge vanilla against vanilla. Mods against mods. It is unfair to expect base Rome 2 to be much better than Rome that has been heavily modded to add more content. And no, mods do quite a lot to change how a game works, Roma Surrectum says little about vanilla Rome.

[Fallen851]

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.

This is like asking if it is fair to compare an Apple to an Orange... it depends on the context. If you're asking what is someone's favorite fruit, than yes of course it is fair to compare Apples to Oranges. Anything can be compared.

Now while you point out the luxury of time that modders have, what they do not have is the luxury of resources and expertise, which CA has in abundance. CA also has had 10 years, and multiple other TW releases to learn from, and even the very mods themselves to learn from!

So put it this way, if a mod made by a few amateurs for a 10 year old game is able to compete with a brand new game from a huge company that produces these games for a living with massive resources... that says a lot about quality of the products coming from the company.

In fact, even asking if it is fair to compare them says a lot, and is damning enough.

[Causeless]

This is like asking if it is fair to compare an Apple to an Orange... it depends on the context. If you're asking what is someone's favorite fruit, than yes of course it is fair to compare Apples to Oranges. Thus in regards to RTW I compared to RTW II, it is fair.

While you point out the luxury of time that modders have, what they do not have is the luxury of resources and expertise, which CA has in abundance.

Put it this way, if a mod made by a few amateurs for a 10 year old game is able to compete with a brand new game from a huge company with massive resources... that says a lot about quality of the products coming from the company.

Yes, Rome 2 was made by a professional company, and yes, most mods were made by fans, not professionals... but, how long has Rome 2 been in development for? Maybe 2 years before release? Roma Surrectum has been in development since about 2006. That's an awful, awful lot more time.

[Lionheart11]

Can i throw in one word , i do not want to derail Sebidee's thread with my views but my word is "Potential". Rome 1 is full of it(for its day) and Rome 2 lacks it greatly.

So yes i think its unfair so i will vote that way.

40% more...

[Sebidee]

Can i throw in one word , i do not want to derail Sebidee's thread with my views but my word is "Potential". Rome 1 is full of it(for its day) and Rome 2 lacks it greatly.

So yes i think its unfair so i will vote that way.

Rome 2 has quite a lot of potential. That is why I linked the hosted modifications forum. Those mods there have some pretty big plans. Mods like EB ans Roma Surrectum will be avaliable for Rome 2 but not for a while, they take a long time to make.

[Hetairos]

Rome 2 has quite a lot of potential. That is why I linked the hosted modifications forum. Those mods there have some pretty big plans. Mods like EB ans Roma Surrectum will be avaliable for Rome 2 but not for a while, they take a long time to make.

It is very simple to port mods like Roma Surrectum II into Rome II, just:

- Add a Battle Map Editor
- Add a Campaign Map Editor
- Enable UI Coding (not only reskins)
- Unlock the UI Limitations for Buildings and Traits
- Unlock the UI Limitations for Descriptions and Texts
- Unlock or De-Hardcode the Database
- Add a Population System
- Add a Family Tree
- Add Roads
- Enable Intro / Cutscene Modding
- Enable Sound Effects and Voice Modding
- Remove Torching Down Gates and Improve the Siege AI
- Add Diplomacy Option: Trade Region
- Release a Scripting Doc
- Add the Senate
- Fix Night Lighting
- Add Dynamic Weather to the Battle Maps
- Add Dynamic Day & Night Cycle to the Battle Maps
- Improve the Battle AI:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Actually aiming retreat from Pike Phalanx (instead of charging into it), being able to sally forth when besieged and feeling strong enough and if not successful retreat again, than fight at the walls and when loosing ground again, all units retreating into the center of the city to fight their last stand (instead of routing units aiming to flee the city and eventually getting killed in the process anyways. also note, this is happening already on the siege map, not that Rome II function where you can hit the magic button "Sally forth"), being able to get out of reach from your missile troops (instead of the player being able to annihilating entire garrisons with a dozen of slingers), being able to actually conduct long term and real skirmishes before fighting (instead of throwing everything at you) and last but not least, having the ability to judge the strength and composition of the armies on the battlefield and play defensive, aggressive or even try to flee the battlefield (the Rome: Total War AI is also able to judge on the go, so if starting to fight, but seem too loose he is able to retreat his "non"engaged troops and try to save what is left, that way oftentimes he saves his generals and half of his army. In Rome II you must route the last single unit and pretty much be able to kill the general every time if you aim to do so)

[Causeless]

It is very simple to port mods like Roma Surrectum II into Rome II, just:

- Add a Battle Map Editor
- Add a Campaign Map Editor
- Enable UI Coding (not only reskins)
- Unlock the UI Limitations for Buildings and Traits
- Unlock the UI Limitations for Descriptions and Texts
- Unlock or De-Hardcode the Database
- Add a Population System
- Add a Family Tree
- Add Roads
- Enable Intro / Cutscene Modding
- Enable Sound Effects and Voice Modding
- Remove Torching Down Gates and Improve the Siege AI
- Add Diplomacy Option: Trade Region
- Release a Scripting Doc
- Add the Senate
- Fix Night Lighting
- Add Dynamic Weather to the Battle Maps
- Add Dynamic Day & Night Cycle to the Battle Maps
- Improve the Battle AI:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Actually aiming retreat from Pike Phalanx (instead of charging into it), being able to sally forth when besieged and feeling strong enough and if not successful retreat again, than fight at the walls and when loosing ground again, all units retreating into the center of the city to fight their last stand (instead of routing units aiming to flee the city and eventually getting killed in the process anyways. also note, this is happening already on the siege map, not that Rome II function where you can hit the magic button "Sally forth"), being able to get out of reach from your missile troops (instead of the player being able to annihilating entire garrisons with a dozen of slingers), being able to actually conduct long term and real skirmishes before fighting (instead of throwing everything at you) and last but not least, having the ability to judge the strength and composition of the armies on the battlefield and play defensive, aggressive or even try to flee the battlefield (the Rome: Total War AI is also able to judge on the go, so if starting to fight, but seem too loose he is able to retreat his "non"engaged troops and try to save what is left, that way oftentimes he saves his generals and half of his army. In Rome II you must route the last single unit and pretty much be able to kill the general every time if you aim to do so)

It's not about carbon-copy porting RS or EB or RTR or whatever, though. What's the point of doing that? They already exist, why would you want an EXACT copy?

Rome 2 has some advantages over Rome 1. Rome 1 has some advantages over Rome 2. Simple as that - hell, most of these aren't even "advantages", they are "differences".

And some of the things you've listed I haven't seen in the original Rome or it's mods: when did Rome 1 have dynamic weather or day/night cycle? If I remember correctly, Rome 1 had separate night battles, just like Rome 2! And honestly, I can't remember seeing much weather in Rome 1... but I've not played it for a while.

[Darios]

R2 has just as much potential as ETW, NTW, etc. They were all good games with simplified building/tech trees, lack of a meaningful political system, TERRIBLE siege warfare, and being very unmoddable. I don't know what you guys expected from a new TW game made with the same engine.

RTW and M2TW belong to a completely different era of TW games.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

R2 has just as much potential as ETW, NTW, etc. They were all good games with simplified building/tech trees, lack of a meaningful political system, TERRIBLE siege warfare, and being very unmoddable. I don't know what you guys expected from a new TW game made with the same engine.

RTW and M2TW belong to a completely different era of TW games.

I don't know about you, but I find the new Database system a lot more easier to use this time around, instead getting drown in notepads!
LONG MAY MYSQL RULE GAME SYSTEM THE TIME FOR XML IS LONG PAST! WE WILL BURY PAINT FILES!

[Darios]

One thing to take into consideration is that TW games are made for a global audience, not a fringe group of hardcore armchair historians and pseudo-nationalists. Modders can work at their own pace, have only themselves to answer towards, and have no financial considerations to worry about. Their mods are their masterpieces - their unique and personalized version of history. CA is a company, they have to make a profit, meet deadlines, and satisfy their investors just as much as their consumers. The game has to be just as playable for a 8 year old as it is for a 30 year old. There's no way CA could package "Rauxsa-alanna Baexdzhyntae" and sell it to the masses. I totally understand why instead we get "Sarmatian Riders."

I actually take off my hat to CA for taking the TWC community into consideration while making R2. A lot of our suggestions and feedback has gone into recent patches and DLC. If CA did not have their financial obligations/deadlines, I'm sure that they could take 10 years (like EB is doing now) and create the most amazing game of all time. That's not the way our world works. R2 is the sequel to RTW, not EB, RTR, RSII (take your pick.)

[Daruwind]

One of problems is, that we assume some kind of evolution over time. And instead of getting better and better game with every installation of TW we are getting mixed result. Shogun 2 is in my opinion masterpiece. It´s major drawback for me is the banana map and not so big variety...(samurai are everywhere )And now Rome 2 fixed that for me while having a lot other weak spots.....

[Sebidee]

One of problems is, that we assume some kind of evolution over time. And instead of getting better and better game with every installation of TW we are getting mixed result. Shogun 2 is in my opinion masterpiece. It´s major drawback for me is the banana map and not so big variety...(samurai are everywhere )And now Rome 2 fixed that for me while having a lot other weak spots.....

But we are getting evolution over time. Medieval added a ton of features to the game like crusades and evolving weapons and armour, most of them were rather medieval specific but some of them survived like general abilities in the expansions. Empire was probably the biggest leap forward in total war with dozens of new features such as naval combat, rescources, instant diplomacy, minor factions, technology and regional buildings, that is the reason why it is my personal favourite. Shogun 2 had many new features, though less than Empire.

Rome 2 is another leap with new features and there are A LOT. I then think that Rome 1 mega fans actually don't want these kinds of changes, evolution is a bad thing for them. You see when CA make a new feature it is always a sort of gamble. Many people won't like the features and then they are drop for the next installment while the ones that do work are dropped.

[Daruwind]

Rome 2 is another leap with new features and there are A LOT.

I know that and I don´t argue it. My point was that we are getting new things like beach landing battles (cooooool) and in the same time we are without general speeches, have probably plasma torches for iron gates and so on.

EDIT: I don´t expect,that all features would be better than in all previous TW games yet overall trend should be positive...As I said Shogun 2 was really good so that might be one factor. After that we got Rome 2. Are general speeches such a big deal? Don´t think so. Can we play without family tree? OF course...Not so fancy multiplayer options? Well,let´s fight.....yet all these minor things together are somehow sad for me. Because these features were working really well in previous game(s) so I would expect CA to use them even in Rome 2 with little troubles. I can forgive buggy new features ..that´s natural.

So either they run out of money/time. I´m wrong type of player or I don´t know.... That´s all

[PointOfViewGun]

I know that and I don´t argue it. My point was that we are getting new things like beach landing battles (cooooool) and in the same time we are without general speeches, have probably plasma torches for iron gates and so on.

Except we do have general speeches...

[Sebidee]

They are still there. It's not as if they were completely cut.

[LestaT]

I know that and I don´t argue it. My point was that we are getting new things like beach landing battles (cooooool) and in the same time we are without general speeches, have probably plasma torches for iron gates and so on.

There's general speech, but not the same way it was done in RTW.