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

[redxavier]

What is modding if not an exercise in changing things you don't like about a game? What an awful argument to make.

[Causeless]

What is modding if not an exercise in changing things you don't like about a game? What an awful argument to make.

Yes, but the stuff in Shogun 2 you mention is just as un-changeable. You can't change the army system to represent Rome 2, you can't add army traits, stances, and so on. You're argument for modding is bias in favour of Shogun 2, simply because you prefer the feature set Shogun 2 has over the set Rome 2 has - it's got nothing to do with actually CHANGING the features.

[redxavier]

Yes, but the stuff in Shogun 2 you mention is just as un-changeable. You can't change the army system to represent Rome 2, you can't add army traits, stances, and so on. You're argument for modding is bias in favour of Shogun 2, simply because you prefer the feature set Shogun 2 has over the set Rome 2 has - it's got nothing to do with actually CHANGING the features.

The flaw of Shogun 2 modding isn't that you can't backport new features into this older game, what an absurd expectation and criterion for modification.

I prefer the feature set of Shogun 2 because it's far less restrictive with what it has. I don't how often I can repeat this. You can gut the game and transplant alot of new ideas into it and it's far more amenable to a total conversion. You cannot do the same for Rome 2. No amount of semantic arguing will change this. You can't say that Rome 2 is more mod-friendly whilst also acknowledging that it contains more hardcoded features than any other game. It's got nothing to do with whether I personally dislike how Rome 2 functions. If I cannot mod significant parts of the game and most of what I can mod is superficial at best, the net result is no total conversion mods, regardless of the time and effort it takes to create one.

[LestaT]

What is modding if not an exercise in changing things you don't like about a game? What an awful argument to make.

Modding is changing what you don't like about the vanilla game but still restricted to game engine limitation, whatever that may be or whatever game it is. It was never intended to change the game itself, just giving different colors.

[craziii]

it is 100% fair, know why? rome 1 mods are sometimes done by 1 person. if ca as a big company can't even compete with 1 person, they are done. but keep in mind what you like is just your opinion :)

[alQamar]

good point. Another one if not already said is that they knew these mods and appreciated them. It could not be too difficult to ask the modders if they are allowed to use certain elements from the mods and ideas modders have with their permission, instead of trying to prove their bond in fancy pubs around Horsham. EDIT: This belongs also to include good mods for Rome 2 into the main game.

[Canaris]

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

Of course it is.
CA had 10! years to learn what they did ed up in RTW1, to analyze WHY mods for R1 are so popular, what ppl love about them and what was thrown out etc etc.
Modders pretty much done historical research FOR CA FOR FREE and so on and so forth...

No matter how much CA lapdogs will spin this thing, its fair and its ultimate CA failure that they have to defend themself saying that comparing multibilion company product to amateur mod for their own game its NOT FAIR.

[perifanosEllinas]

The op has admitted himself that his motive for opening this thread was to defend Rome 2 from the negativity that it gets.Here is the proof:

Lionheart11 posted:

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.

And Sebidee's reply:

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.

Don't bother with dishonest threads guys.

[alQamar]

Well perif, this was quite clear from the beginning as his motive to create this thread was given in the middle of an argue in the "why SOME people STILL say Rome 2 is a bad game" thread. I still like the thread at it still shows that THE typical vocal minority is a myth. While the unfavorable views on Rome 2 were nearly 70/30 at release - we are now at a 60/40 or even 50/50 balance. This is an interesting development.

[GoTW Kubee]

Of course it is.
CA had 10! years to learn what they did ed up in RTW1, to analyze WHY mods for R1 are so popular, what ppl love about them and what was thrown out etc etc.
Modders pretty much done historical research FOR CA FOR FREE and so on and so forth...

No matter how much CA lapdogs will spin this thing, its fair and its ultimate CA failure that they have to defend themself saying that comparing multibilion company product to amateur mod for their own game its NOT FAIR.

Couldn't have put it better myself. There is no reason why it is intrinsically unfair to expect R2 to surpass fan-made mods for a 10-year-old game.

Well perif, this was quite clear from the beginning as his motive to create this thread was given in the middle of an argue in the "why SOME people STILL say Rome 2 is a bad game" thread. I still like the thread at it still shows that THE typical vocal minority is a myth. While the unfavorable views on Rome 2 were nearly 70/30 at release - we are now at a 60/40 or even 50/50 balance. This is an interesting development.

I reckon the shift is probably down to proportionally more R2 critics than R2 fans ceasing to visit this forum. However, I would not use this poll as an index for unfavourable views on R2 since the question is completely different. Besides, some people who dislike R2 admitted that they voted no.

[alQamar]

<end>

[Andre J. Jassoch]

i have voted yes.it is fair to compare.why? they could learn a lot from the modded Rome I. Question: Did they? tHey dont even matched the level of Rome I on release "version" now one year and 10+ patches later slowly getting to that level.dont know how about you.But ive expected far more...

[Aenima]

I don't see how this thread is dishonest, though. OP has an opinion on the game, as we all do, and has made a thread putting out his own opinion and trying to see what others' are. There's nothing remotely dishonest about that.

[baptistus]

I don't see how this thread is dishonest, though. OP has an opinion on the game, as we all do, and has made a thread putting out his own opinion and trying to see what others' are. There's nothing remotely dishonest about that.

yes, of course ....

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.

if you create a poll and you say "if you vote this it mean you are stupid (to say it defy all logic means it is stupid), and I will loose my faith on you", I am quite sure it is not a "honest" thread to discuss about something and to share opinion. It is only another try to attack another group of people.

Trust me, This kind of thread made by a rome 2 hater should be already close.

[Aenima]

yes, of course ....

if you create a poll and you say "if you vote this it mean you are stupid (to say it defy all logic means it is stupid), and I will loose my faith on you", I am quite sure it is not a "honest" thread to discuss about something and to share opinion. It is only another try to attack another group of people.

Trust me, This kind of thread made by a rome 2 hater should be already close.

It's still honest. Just because he's stating that he thinks people are stupid if they vote a certain way it doesn't make him dishonest (just like if people vote that way it doesn't make him right about them being stupid)

[baptistus]

It's still honest. Just because he's stating that he thinks people are stupid if they vote a certain way it doesn't make him dishonest (just like if people vote that way it doesn't make him right about them being stupid)

the THREAD is dishonest. Nobody say HE is dishonest ....
instead of a poll, it is only another try to make war agaisnt a group of TWC users, nothing more.

[riskymonk]

What an insult. 5, 6, 7 years of dedication to a franchise they love and people believe rome 2 vanilla is better than the overhaul mods of the older titles.

Anyone remember the the capture flag in the field? Rome 2 wasn't designed by total war gamers.

[Raining Red]

I think the initial question is a little off. As another person said, comparing the music between a R1 mod and R2 is clearly fair as far as personal preferences go. I think the important thing is whether a specific comparison is fair.

For example, one of the reason modders can improve the AI in many cases is because they have as much time as they want to refine what has already been made. CA does not have that time. They have deadlines to meet and aren't simply refining what has been made, but are also responsible to actually make it...all of it. Every last detail. They can't play trial and error games to see what will produce the very best outcome because they have more important things like bugs and logical problems in the code to work out. Time is a limited resource for them that has to be prioritized. In this case, I do not think a comparison is really fair.

Another thing to keep in mind is that features within mods are not universally liked, even by those who play them. There wouldn't be so many different mods (and submods) if there was a standard set of accepted features. Because the people who made them are creating them for free out of their own free time, the 'consumers' are significantly more willing to look past and forgive these features as compared to what CA produces as they are getting paid for it. If the feature(s) is too much for them to look past they have the option of simply finding a different mod with no financial loss (or a sub-mod that edits it). Not so if a paid-for game has said feature.

So can you compare them? Sure, but keep in mind as to what you are comparing...and don't say R2 is a dismal failure for a couple of features that were in a mod but not in R2.

[Tsarsies]

I have not been on these forums or played the game since patch 4 or 5 because i thought the game was severely lacking in many areas and missing features. It is possible that patches 6->current have improved the gameplay and mechanics quite a bit. But i can't comment on that as i have no first hand experience with those patches (I haven't even read the patch notes). I however voted 'no' on this poll, for a few reasons, some which may first appear contradictory. After another year or two years i would expect mods created for Rome II to rival that of Rome 1 (but this is a grey area because modding is not as easy as it was 10 years ago, although some things are easier). but comparing a modded game to an un-modded game seems quite unfair just by default, its almost like comparing your factory model of car you drive to that of an older model that has been modified by one of those car tv shows and its faster, louder, more comfy with a personalized paint job. And by modding, i would assume no one is referring to the changing of values in a database or text file, cause that's pretty simple stuff. If you know how read and interpret what-you-read, and have some basic computer skills (like typing), then you know how to modify a database or text file of values. But with that said, the developers should be taking events of the past and learning from it. In other words, what worked in the past, what mods were most popular, what things did modders do to their game that players enjoyed, and incorporate all that into the new game while innovating. But they seem to have not done that. even so, the modding community is a lot smaller then the player community and a lot of people do not play with mods at all.

CA is a big company and everything has to go through corporate meeting boards and CEO just to change a single value, let alone adding entire features, unlike indie developers or modders, who have more freedom to innovate and change values willy-nilly. If you worked at CA, and you were an amazing programmer, and had some brilliant ideas of your own, maybe you were a modder once too, you wouldn't be able to just change values and convince other staff members that its much better that way, which it probably is. You would have to go through a chain of command. Big companies like CA, don't just change things half way through, whatever the plan was that was agreed on in that little room at its conception, is rolled out, usually regardless of the little genius ideas by the community or employees along the way. Because its too time consuming and expensive. Hence why they are releasing DLC while patching. This is where indie developers (and modders) can run rings around the big developers.

Is it fair to compare Modded Rome 1 with Vanilla Rome II... No... But the jury is still out on whether Rome II can one-day be compared to it (At least in my opinion). Graphically, it is far superior, Which raises the question of which parts of the individual games and/or mods would you be comparing? Graphics, Features, Story, RPG elements, Music Score, Sound FX, Cut Scenes, Moddability, Support, Community Involvement, Patches, Expansions, DLC, etc. The list could go on. Rome 1 vanilla was just as, maybe more so, buggy than Rome II vanilla on release. For those that never played Rome 1, don't be sucked into thinking that just because veteran community members on these boards have fond memories of Rome 1 that Rome 1 was amazing. It had its own fair share of issues upon release similar to that of Rome II (For example, gameplay footage was nothing like in game play). The fond memory most seem to have is in the mods that followed years later, not months. So in that regards, Rome II is still in an infant state in my opinion.

But currently, for me, Rome II is not comparable to modded Rome 1.

[Causeless]

Probably the best way of putting it I've seen, Tsaries. Really good way of saying it!

I will mention, that even despite the difficulty if innovation, CA have tried their best to do it. They changed the army system, most notably, but also there are tweaks to the overall "Total War" design all over the place, to try and modernise and make the game feel new.

The thing I'm scared of is that CA will begin to avoid innovation. It's a vicious circle, where CA change a mechanic to something new, the community hates it, so then they go and change it back to the old system and the community has no reason to buy the game over an old one.

Honestly, I think most people here hate Rome 2 because it tries new things. I think many of the new decisions that CA made for Rome 2 actually improve gameplay, but people ignore that and hate it, just because it's NEW.

EDIT:

I remember that once in the official forums I saw a member posting a comment then went something like this:

"In 10 years, Rome 2 will be that nostalgic game you all look back to". At first I thought it was nonsense - Rome 2 was crippled upon release! But after some thought, I've realised he's right. Empire was indescribably broken upon release, but it is loved now. There are still big bugs in games like Medieval 2, like the cavalry charging bug, but people love it. Rome 1 had super fast arcadey battles, yet people worship it (in reality Rome 2 are far slower than Rome 1's battles!).