Will you trust reviews again ?.

[craziii]

carl, that anger hahaha. just stick with uncut gameplay videos. I am sure everyone in this thread can make up their own minds base on gameplay videos right? especially uncut ones?

[Person012345]

I will trust reviews from people like angry joe, arch warhammer etc. With the caveat that you have to take into account personality - I am sure joe will be overly forgiving of any of the game's faults, and excited for the game but if he finds any I'm sure he'll mention them and that's what matters. I know Arch is a cynical bastard and I'll also take that into account when watching his review.

[Person012345]

I went back to the original Rome Total War (2004) recently. It was an eye opening experience. I started to identify some of the features that made it better than Rome II. One of the most noticeable changes is the campaign map music. In Rome I, they went for beauty and atmosphere, and it worked. The campaign map is a pleasant place to be. But in Rome II, that is entirely lacking. The music is extremely sparse, and sounds like it is from a horror movie. It's no coincidence that the top rated mod for Rome II is the music mod, which replaces the Rome II soundtrack with the music from the original Rome. You'd be surprised what a difference this makes.

The second difference is that in Rome TW (2004), every time you click on a unit or a building, there is a beautiful picture of the building, eg a port or farmland, or a barracks, etc. The pictures were really colourful and pleasing to look at, and underneath there is text telling you all about Roman history. It's interesting and fun and it creates a lot of atmosphere. In Rome II, that is completely gone. No pictures. No historical text. The same applies to the units. In Rome, you could read about Greek hoplites, Roman hastati and so on. In Rome II, unless you load up that clunky encyclopaedia (which nobody ever uses because it is so slow), there is no description of your units at all.

The third difference is that armies blob together way too much, in such a way that you can't see what the hell is happening, and everything moves way too fast. It's true that battles in Rome I were also too fast at release, but at least the individual soldiers had some mass to them and you could watch them fight it out. In Rome II, you really have to put it in slow motion to see the battles properly.

The fourth difference is that Carthage is completely ed in Rome II. The way the faction is implemented in the game, is just unworkable. There's no point in even trying, it's a waste of time. In Rome I, you had a chance, but in Rome II it's so ludicrously stacked against Carthage and in favour of Rome that one might as well go play another faction.

Anyway, I digress. The reason I wanted to post was actually to say that I find Attila is a far better game. It brings a lot of features that arguably make it the best total war game yet. It certainly makes the old Medieval II (2006) look like a child's game by comparison. Attila is really interesting, especially playing the Eastern Roman Empire and trying to stay alive, or one of the Arab or North African factions. I've had some great campaigns. I think the Age of Charlemagne campaign is great too, especially conquering Spain as the Ummayad Caliphate.

I just can't get into attila, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because I find the time period and units uninteresting, maybe it's because many of my experiences with it have just left me amazed at how bland and ugly it looks. Maybe it's because I don't like how units break really easily and yoyo-back and forth to the battle. Maybe I have just picked uninteresting factions. I'm not sure. I can't really pinpoint anything to say "well look, this is rubbish" like you could with Rome II at launch, I just can't get into it so for me it's certainly not the best.

[Totalheadache]

Great post Mr.Carl Jung! Very funny stuff!!! IGN epitomises the "hey lets get a good looking bade all over our site"...not that I dont mind good looking women. Far from it. But meh.

[Gronndar]

Can't remember the site but it did list Rome 2 the most dissapointing game of 2013 (or something), stating the most obvious flaws. Funny thing was, that they gave Rome 2 +85 score in their review. Comments were full of this.

[The Outsider]

well, the quick info windows are making a come back in tww at least.

Mate can you please explain this a bit further? Have you seen some proof? Please tell me they are getting rid of that horrible encyclopaedia.

[geala]

You can never trust entirely what others tell you. This is especially true in the digital times where a lot of lacking persons can reach a big audience rather easily. Is it a problem? It is when we think of the political nonsense produced in social networks and according crap. But it is bearable when it comes to game reviews. Maybe the mentally devastating results of buying a game that isn't perfect or pleasing is equivalent to the outbreak of the plague or civil war for some, for me it's just a few bucks wasted. So what?

It's a bit like the annoying DLC debate, isn't it? Investing such a big amount of energy and time to discuss the worth of spending of 7,95 € or $ and the incredulous hubris of enterprises which wish to earn money instead of donating us complete games (whatever that means). I take it as a good sign, we seemingly have no real problems.

[douglas]

When I see a game I might have an interest in playing I'll generally read what is written about it, mostly in the major gaming magazines or on the publisher/seller site. I've never had much interest in looking up a bunch of youtube sites. Nothing for or against them, just never got in the habit. I've had pretty good luck over the years, so far.

TW Warhammer is not really a genre that I care for but it does look interesting, based on some of the things I've read.

[Frost, colonel]

Maybe the mentally devastating results of buying a game that isn't perfect or pleasing is equivalent to the outbreak of the plague or civil war for some, for me it's just a few bucks wasted. So what?

It's a bit like the annoying DLC debate, isn't it? Investing such a big amount of energy and time to discuss the worth of spending of 7,95 € or $ and the incredulous hubris of enterprises which wish to earn money instead of donating us complete games (whatever that means). I take it as a good sign, we seemingly have no real problems.

When people care about a hobby, a PC game for instance, they may spend a lot of money getting a new PC ready to play said game, look forward to it for many months, they may even book time off work to play it(not that uncommon actually). Then said game is poor, then people can actually feel a bit more exuberant in their feelings about said situation, than you and your "just a few bucks wasted. So what? "

I think when you actually watch people closely, there is usually something in their life that they care about, that seems petty to others in the way they demonstrate their interest. My big one regarding others is sport, particularly football. People get really excited, they scream and shout, have to wear their colours at work, and even at it's most extreme seem to want to assault another teams fans. Me I just try and let people do their thing, even when I don't understand it, and try and leave out the sarcasm. Being as critical of myself as I am others I try to learn to tread carefully as it's so easy to be hypocritical and not even see it

[August]

As long as you are discriminate when you watch the footage, videos themselves tell you a lot of what you need to know.

Hit mute and see what is shown there. If you played TW games a lot, many things become clear. Alternatively, if you are shown suspiciously little, that tells you things about the game as well.

[Campaigner]

I will trust You tube Reviews again they were well done. "Lets plays" will also come in handy. Does anybody Trust "real reviews" anymore?

[Frost, colonel]

I will trust You tube Reviews again they were well done. "Lets plays" will also come in handy. Does anybody Trust "real reviews" anymore?

I am certainly with you on this one, probably every one on this forum is.

There can't be that many who go by the old school reviews, can there? At least the potential for honest reviews on Youtube may help counter balance how much games companies try to get away with. I mean RTWII negative exposure had to be a little embarrassing for CA & Co, even if the pre order sales were high.

[craziii]

Mate can you please explain this a bit further? Have you seen some proof? Please tell me they are getting rid of that horrible encyclopaedia.

ca show this in one of the videos, one of the early ones when the game was just announced. I don't remember which one, but the speed of the information windows were super fast.

found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SFM6-LC6io this concerns the spellbook, darren clearly mentions it being offline. then we have the building browser in earlier videos.

[ostendadler]

Reviews generally always comfort me in my initial feeling of a game. Aside from a few famous examples of optimization issues causing the game to be unplayable its just a confirmation. Main publications have now clearly walked on the path of selling their souls (paid native content is the new thing) and the small indie ones give the best insight. Its not a question of trust anymore Its a gut feeling being maintained or not all the way to the launch date.


I bought Medieval 2 because of the mods, same for Empire, same for Napoleon and for Rome 2. Can't expect it to be different this time ... Only thing is just wait for the mods to come out since I cannot suffer through the flacid vanilla experience. I think a lot of us here want more complex games but we are representatives of a bygone era where games hid their poor graphics by deep mechanics both off and on the campaign map.

I'm surprised Sega hasn't pushed a pay to mod business model. "You want to develop custom campaign maps? - Donate 10k" " You want to Mod this or that? - Donate 50k" Or better pay a monthly fee for running modded content because it has to be hosted on their server.

Sometimes I just wish all those modders created their own company and start a competing title with a clear Total War feel but with all the bells and whistles we all hoped for. I have no doubt how much all of us would crowdfund the crap out of it! Competition brings innovation !


Ostendadler Out , Mic Drop

[The Outsider]

ca show this in one of the videos, one of the early ones when the game was just announced. I don't remember which one, but the speed of the information windows were super fast.

found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SFM6-LC6io this concerns the spellbook, darren clearly mentions it being offline. then we have the building browser in earlier videos.

Thank you! Great news indeed

[Ciruelo]

Never trusted professional reviewers, it's easy to pay them to say what you want them to say. But I do trust myself playing the game for 2 hours and giving it back if the product doesn't convince me. Since Steam gives this option, I have nothing to fear anymore. I know what I am going to do, first playing a siege as an attacker, then as a deffender, then a land battle. Campaign bugs worry me less than battle bugs or AI stupidities. In 2 hours you can know if the game is, at least, playable.

[Sint]

No. at least not fully.But I'm not buying games early,why pay more to play a bugged mess if I can pay less and get the fixed version?

[drillmaster]

No. at least not fully.But I'm not buying games early,why pay more to play a bugged mess if I can pay less and get the fixed version?

Because thats what a hobby and a passion is all about but i guess we have different opinions. To be fair though i wi ll be dissapointed if it is a mess

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk