Rome II was a massive commercial hit but a public relations disaster

[bigdaddy1204]

Following on from the massive disappointment caused by the new Total War game being another Failhammer fantasy title (covered in this thread), I have been thinking about Rome II and Attila, and what lessons CA may have learned. To me it seems that Rome II was a huge commercial success, because so many people pre-ordered the game and they will have made loads of money from it. But at the same time, the reaction by fans to the release was a complete disaster of epic proportions, with many people demanding their money back and accusing CA of releasing poor-quality goods that abysmally failed to live up to the pre-release hype.

For many, it seems Rome II was a bitter disappointment and a lot of angry responses were posted, including some who went as far as accusing CA of illegal bait and switch business practices and threatening legal action. The whole thing was a fiasco and a public relations disaster which has cost CA many of its fans to abandon the series and caused a lot of ill feeling and lost faith. Many people now say they won't buy another TW game. All this seems to have been reflected in sales of Attila, which appears to have been far less commercially successful than Rome II, yet the consensus from the community is that Attila is a much better game and reviews and fan reaction has been much more positive and far less critical.

So from CA point of view, you have a game which was an utter catastrophe from a public relations point of view, but made loads of money, and a much better game which made the community happy, but made much less money. My concern is that CA might come to the wrong conclusions and decide to make bad games that earn lots of money, rather than good games that don't. I think this is unfair, because I suspect Attila's lower sales aren't a fair reflection of the game; instead they reflect how mightily angry everyone was after Rome II. Thus it is Rome II's fault.

In summary: I want CA to release more games like Attila, and less like Rome II. Thoughts?

[Alwyn]

Yes, many players were very angry about the problems with the the initial release of the game. I imagine that many people on TWC agree with your analysis.

Of course, different people have different preferences. If Rome Total War (plus mods) was what you really wanted, there will be things which you probably won't like about Rome II. Given how much criticism of Rome II appears and how hostile it is, I am surprised by how much I'm enjoying it. I have only played it since Emperor Edition, so my experience has been different from that of a lot of players. I can't compare it with Attila because my computer isn't capable of playing it.

You want CA to release more games like Attila and less like Rome II. I would be happy to see more games like Rome II - especially if they improved on Rome II, for example by re-introducing the family tree and offering more ways of making the later stages of the campaign challenging, in addition to the Civil War system. Of course, there are still flaws in Rome II (for example, I enjoy it more since I added A More Aggressive AI mod, removing the problem of passive AI factions). If you hate Rome II, fair enough, different people have different preferences.

I am also surprised by how some people claim that the only thing which Rome II offers is prettier graphics. Watching the commentaries on Rome II tournaments by Maximus Decimus Meridius - such as the Milk and Cookies Tournament - showed how much there is to learn about unit selection and tactics on the battlefield. Rome II offers more variety of battles than its predecessors (I really enjoyed some combined land and sea battles today, for example). While some people miss the constant sieges in RTW, I prefer the variety of battles with unwalled towns as well as wooden and stone walls in Rome II. Its army traditions system takes the sting out of losing an experienced army which has survived many battles only to be destroyed. The differences between factions are more subtle than in TW: Warhammer, but they do exist. Fighting a horse archer-based army is very different from fighting the Romans, a heavy cavalry based force or Celtic tribes. Fighting a stealthy faction such as the Nervii, Suebi or Lusitani feels challenging for me, particularly since Rome II has a line of sight system, so scout units are used for their actual purpose. Even playing as the Iceni (not a primarily stealth-focused faction) I have really enjoyed winning a battle against a larger army using an ambush. People sometimes complain that Total War games are insufficiently challenging and that turning up the difficulty level is artificial, because it leads to the AI's militia standing up to the player's elite units. Rome II offers a wide variety of starting positions and unit rosters. Playing as Colchis, the Odrysian Kingdom or the Nervii, for example (weak starting position, limited roster), offers different challenges from playing Carthage, Pontus or Syracuse (stronger starting position and roster, but powerful neighbours).

Rome II is accused of 'having no soul'. Fair enough, I understand that it is not at all inspiring to some players ... and yet, others have created AARs such as Scourge of the Sand by Paladin94610, The Restoration of Epirus by TheGovna, On the Path to the Streets of Gold and Reunification by hooahguy14, The Black-Hearted Lords of Thrace by Lugotorix and my Andraste's Children. As I see it, these stories demonstrate some of its potential and show that, if you enjoy a game, particularly if you create a story about your campaign, then it can 'have a soul' for you. If other people hate the game and prefer other options, fair enough! I do not expect to persuade anyone to like Rome II, I simply aim to show that there are people who see the game in a different way.

[Intranetusa]

Atilla didn't make as much money because Atilla was basically an expansion to Rome II. It also "seemingly" had more limited scope, was centered around a group with less popular media exposure, and came right after the backlash around Rome 2.

[daelin4]

I don't think they intentionally crafted a horrible game so that they'd make loads off of it; if they did, they'd never bother with a game like Attila, they'd instead just churn out another title and give nothing but marketing over it for rinse and repeat.

There's also the fact that Attila was "good", was simply because Rome2 was terrible. Most players would probably pan Attila as being unambitious and uninteresting if it came out first, and love Rome2 more simply because they've been pining for it, despite being just as buggy and shallow. You might hate eating porridge now, but if you've been eating feces for the past two months, it's going to be a wonderful change of diet. If I never heard of Rome2 and came across Attila, I'd think i's not worth thinking about. However since I know what Rome's all about, 'm going to love the other game simply because it's what Rome2 isn't.

[MrJade]

I don't think they intentionally crafted a horrible game so that they'd make loads off of it; if they did, they'd never bother with a game like Attila, they'd instead just churn out another title and give nothing but marketing over it for rinse and repeat.

There's also the fact that Attila was "good", was simply because Rome2 was terrible. Most players would probably pan Attila as being unambitious and uninteresting if it came out first, and love Rome2 more simply because they've been pining for it, despite being just as buggy and shallow. You might hate eating porridge now, but if you've been eating feces for the past two months, it's going to be a wonderful change of diet. If I never heard of Rome2 and came across Attila, I'd think i's not worth thinking about. However since I know what Rome's all about, 'm going to love the other game simply because it's what Rome2 isn't.

Attila is uninteresting and pretty bland. It has very little replay value compared to most other games, because the game is so centered around increasingly less fertile terrain, it means that despite the efforts of CA, there is still only one farm building.

I think that the next game, hopefully Victoria, will show what fruits CA took from Rome II. If there is a massive marketing campaign, rife with live action trailers and lots of hype, expect failure. If it is more reserved, and focuses more on the game, it might be good. I won't preorder another historical title until after the reviews drop. I have pre-ordered every CA game from Rome I to Rome II (except Napoleon, that wasn't a game), but now I'll wait.

[Intranetusa]

Attila is uninteresting and pretty bland. It has very little replay value compared to most other games, because the game is so centered around increasingly less fertile terrain, it means that despite the efforts of CA, there is still only one farm building.

I think that the next game, hopefully Victoria, will show what fruits CA took from Rome II. If there is a massive marketing campaign, rife with live action trailers and lots of hype, expect failure. If it is more reserved, and focuses more on the game, it might be good. I won't preorder another historical title until after the reviews drop. I have pre-ordered every CA game from Rome I to Rome II (except Napoleon, that wasn't a game), but now I'll wait.

I had the opposite experience. I found Attila's campaign and empire management one of the best and most interesting out of the entire series. They brought back politics and factional/family management, commander & army traits, made diplomacy less aggravating, and created a rich and deep empire management mechanic of incorporating religion, public order, food, money, etc in city-building.

Now you need to actually need to plan ahead and "optimize" your cities with the best possible combination of building that provide money, food, and public order mulitipliers...instead of just mindlessly building everything possible in a single city in most previous games.

[MrJade]

Now you need to actually need to plan ahead and "optimize" your cities with the best possible combination of building that provide money, food, and public order mulitipliers...instead of just mindlessly building everything possible in a single city in most previous games.

That optimization leads to the same path 90+% of the time. I build one, maybe two recruitment provinces, and all the rest are the same combination. Once you figure it out, you just spam the same setup. If there wasn't the decreasing mechanic, you might opt for different farms in different provinces, but instead, the same every time. The setup of the factions also leads to repetition, as I've never really seen different factions emerge to try to vie for power out of the same old, same old.

The game isn't bad, and the fact that it feels more survival over expansionistic is interesting. That said, it just doesn't hold up to me. I don't like the era, I don't like the forced decreasing fertility tick with time, and I don't like much about it. The mini-campaigns are much more fun.

[NostalgiaFan]

That optimization leads to the same path 90+% of the time. I build one, maybe two recruitment provinces, and all the rest are the same combination. Once you figure it out, you just spam the same setup. If there wasn't the decreasing mechanic, you might opt for different farms in different provinces, but instead, the same every time. The setup of the factions also leads to repetition, as I've never really seen different factions emerge to try to vie for power out of the same old, same old.

Agreed. People really exaggerate how good the new building system is when all it did was just decrease the amount of buildings you can make and therefore give less options to the player. It's not more tactically driven it just takes away player choice. It is especially annoying how few buildings you can actually build in your settlements because you don't get the feeling you made or have a big city, you just put a few there and the rest is just for decoration.

If they want an actually good settlement system they should take a few ideas from Medieval 2 and it's Castle/City mechanic and improve on it by expanding the choices you would have for each settlement. Like say if you want to make your city an economic center you choose that or if you need a place for better troops and tougher defenses you could make it a military one or if you need food for your civilians and troops you could make it an agriculture focused settlement. You could still build other types of buildings like Traders, Farms, Ports, and Governor Houses but depending on your choice you would only be able to build the lower level buildings of some while having the access to higher level ones from others.

At least make to where you can build more then 10 to 15 building in each settlement instead of having only several or even fewer because that just feels underwhelming to have so few even in your biggest cities.

[Anna_Gein]

Lets try to make a roughly objective estimation of TW titles popularity before going further in this discussion.

I am going to use Steam evaluation system. I know it is not a perfect tool but it is good enough in this context. User evaluations are usually a good indicator once the pool is large.

Total War : Shogun 2 has a rating of :
- 85% positive reviews during the last month with 169 user review
- 90% positive reviews in all time with 10 929 user reviews

Total War : Rome 2 has a rating of :
- 77% positive review during the last month with 182 user reviews
- 76% positive review in all time with 18 135 user reviews

Total War : Attila has a rating of :
- 72% positive reviews during the last month with 162 user reviews
- 73% positive reviews in all time with 8 540 user reviews

Total War : Warhammer
- 66% positive reviews during the last month with 773 user reviews
- 70% positive reviews in all time with 19 072 user reviews


So Attila does not seems to be a more popular tittle than Rome 2 both in number of sale and in reviews. I think there a good reasons for it. Personally I prefer Attila time frame yet I can not play Attila vanilla. On the contrary I can play Rome 2 vanilla and find some enjoyment in it even if I prefer Shogun 2 and mods. Why is it so ? Here are a few thought :

- Attila is a punitive experience on the campaign map. You must deal with religions, insalubrity, public order, food requirement by province. Despite the higher management requirement CA game designer kept Rome 2 highly restrictive slot. To make it worse the recruitment building system is cumbersome and require different building for infantry, range and cavalry units. As if it was not enough the climate change will mess up the impossible balance players are trying to reach every 20/30 turns. Playing Attila feels like a core and a punishment rather than an enjoyable experience

- Attila unit skins are between average and bad. Roman units are ok even as they have the best models. Germanic units are like the Romans but with too few skins. The more you move to the southern and easterner fringe of the game the more rubbish and poor are units skills. Some feel straight out of 60" peplum movie. It is a huge disappointment after Rome 2 good skins and Shogun 2 exceptional unit skills.

- Attila is poorly optimized.


I get what OP is trying to say. Rome 2 was both a grandiloquent attempt which failed short and a bland experience. Attila felt much more like Shogun 2 but contrary to the latter it was not created as a coherent and enjoyable experience.

At this point I do not think scope is truly the issue with CA last games. I do not think CA future games will be better if they focused on a smaller scale. They partially tried that with Attila and failed too. I even doubt the current staff is capable to create something like Shogun 2. TW games are going down since a while. It is interesting to check older TW reviews on Steam. Rome Total War and Medieval II total war have ratings over 90% positive. Even Empire and Napoleon are over 80%. In other words TW games are inexorably less acclaimed by fans.


I do not really care what the next TW scope is. I can deal with either a lot of different factions or a very thematic titles like Shogun 2. What I only care is to finally get a great, intuitive, coherent, enjoyable and immersive experience. I want TW to expend once again with more settlements. Better diplomacy. I want TW to once again attempt to portrait reality as much as possible instead of get cramped with gamey features such as building cap, pop cap, regional public order, etc. I want more work on the graphics as even that has been going down with Warhammer. And for sake I want good features to be kept and bad features to be reworked or dropped. Not the opposite as it usually happens.

I do not hold my breath for the next historical Total War game. Which is fortunate as the title does not appear to be announced/released any time soon.

[bigdaddy1204]

Some great points above, much of which i feel is true.

Here are some of the biggest flaws with the newer TW games , i.e. Rome II and Attila:

1. You can't build walls around your cities
2. You can't garrison each city with units
3. Your building options are too restricted*
4. You can't raise or lower taxes in each individual city
5. You can't give land to other factions in diplomacy

The music in Rome II and Attila is nowhere near as good as Rome TW or Medieval 2, especially when playing the campaign map. It feels bland and empty. Rome II music is dire (although i like the main menu theme); Attila is a bit better but still way too sparse. Think back to great games like Age of Empires or Red Alert, the music was epic and you'd play the game just to hear it.

*I understand that limited building slots do force you to make choices. There may even be some merit in the idea. But this is too extreme. I want to be able to take any settlement and grow it into a great city or a mighty castle, by lowering taxes, building the right things and installing a chivalrous governor. You can't do that anymore and the game suffers for it.

One last point is the lack of historical immersion that comes from the removal of the unit description information and building description scrolls away to that clunky and slow encyclopaedia. Great mods like EBII increase the historical information texts, not remove them entirely. This is another reason why Rome II and Atilla feel empty compared to the older games.