Total War Rome II

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:42 pm

So far the reviews have not been stellar, with reports of boring strategic elements, graphical glitches, and typical CA goofy A.I.

I'm glad I decided to hold off and wait for it to drop below $30.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:59 pm

I bit. I tend to avoid most pre-orders, but for some reason I always buy into CA games on day one. Even though they do tend to arrive in a slightly buggy state initially.

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:19 pm

I would still be tempted, even with the mixed reviews, were it not for my enormous backlog. Still, I'm sure I'll get to it eventually -- maybe around the winter holidays.

I've read two reviews -- RPS and Eurogamer -- and found it interesting that they had divergent opinions of the game's weaknesses. RPS found that the tactical AI was weak as usual, while Eurogamer thought it was improved. RPS thought that the strategic AI was strong, while Eurogamer thought that it was weak. Someone tell me what to believe!

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:20 pm

Qui audet adipiscitur!

Lordnine · Post by **Lordnine** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:24 pm

How jaded we’ve become when an overall 85% percentile game is treated like a failure.

Although to be fair, the last Total War game I personally got much play out of was Medieval II. So I'm not in a rush to pick this one up either.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:35 pm

Lordnine wrote:How jaded we’ve become when an overall 85% percentile game is treated like a failure.

Although to be fair, the last Total War game I personally got much play out of was Medieval II. So I'm not in a rush to pick this one up either.

That doesn't include the reviews from Eurogamer and Joystiq, both of which were 7/10.

I know just going by the score is not the best way to judge the value of a game, but the aggregate for Shogun 2 was a lot higher at release, iirc.

I'l still get it, but not until it's been patched, modded, and put on sale.

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:57 pm

If the trust level for the Review Sites were higher, then I'd put more emphasis on their scores. I don't think TW:R II is a failure; I'm just understandably wary that the usual patching will be required. Paying a premium by buying early doesn't seem prudent.

Lordnine · Post by **Lordnine** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:29 pm

tgb wrote:
That doesn't include the reviews from Eurogamer and Joystiq, both of which were 7/10.

Actually, both of those are there. They are the yellow "mixed" reviews.

But I always find it best to use metacritic to gauge an overall impression of quality instead of an accurate appraisal of how I will feel about it. Individual trusted reviewers are better for that. There are plenty of games with lower MC scores that I have enjoyed as well as quite a few flawless ones that have left me puzzled as to how they were so highly regarded.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:59 pm

Lordnine wrote:
tgb wrote:
That doesn't include the reviews from Eurogamer and Joystiq, both of which were 7/10.
Actually, both of those are there. They are the yellow "mixed" reviews.

But I always find it best to use metacritic to gauge an overall impression of quality instead of an accurate appraisal of how I will feel about it. Individual trusted reviewers are better for that. There are plenty of games with lower MC scores that I have enjoyed as well as quite a few flawless ones that have left me puzzled as to how they were so highly regarded.

They must have just been added. Anyway, Strategy Informer is one of my "go to" sites for reliable reviews, and they weren't exactly knocked out.

Let me get this out of the way first, so there’s no mistaking the position I’m coming from: Playing through Total War: Rome 2 for review has been a bit of a disappointment, I’m not going to lie. Don’t run for the hills yet, please hear me out. Or skip to the last paragraph, but if you care about this game you really need to read what I have to say. Generally speaking, it’s a very well put together game, and there is greatness but it struggles to come to the surface sometimes. Is this Empire: Total War all over again? Not really, but the spectre of that past project haunts this equally as ambitious game..............The AI has never been particularly strong in the Total War games, but it seems positively tame in here.......................... What aggression routines the AI uses, it seems to also have Asimov’s three laws or robotics thrown in as well when it comes to dealing with humans..................How to wrap this up then? The key point here is that Creative Assembly haven’t made a ‘bad’ game, not by any means… it’s just not a very exciting one. It’s fairly stable, as things go, and while you will probably break the game in some way, there’s nothing really game-breaking about the technical flaws we’ve encountered. The simplest way to sum up its biggest problem is that, really, it can be quite boring sometimes. Everything kind of just plods along and while you will get moments of brilliance, moments of wonder… they’re too easily buried by a startling amount of mediocrity. Total War: Rome 2 is a perfectly adequate/decent game. It should have been a bloody brilliant game.

Ouch.

IceBear · Post by **IceBear** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:39 pm

They say it's not a bad game and that's "ouch"?

kidding

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:07 pm

IceBear wrote:They say it's not a bad game and that's "ouch"? kidding

Disappointing, boring, and plodding certainly deserves an "ouch".

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:43 pm

Cautiously optimistic; but unlikely to buy until further word arrives. Passive AIs irk me enough to just wait and see what the general impression is. In any case, not a game to buy at full-price.

Stuie · Post by **Stuie** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:29 am

All the reviewers who got burned for praising Empire are hedging their bets and lowering the scores. The game so far is solid. AI issues in battle are noticeable as always, but four hours in this feels like a pretty solid release. I think the scores in the 85-90 range are fair.

e1123 · Post by **e1123** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:32 pm

I like it, so far. It feels more strategic than previous games because it's not such a piece of cake to take over enemy provinces and you really have to think about how best to use your forces. Also, fleets are much more handy. I'm playing as Carthage and I haven't had to fight a ground war with Rome because I keep destroying the Roman transports with my fleet. In the meantime, my Libyan hoplites are crushing the barbarians of the African interior. This is just an early impression, but it kind of feels like a mix of Crusader Kings 2 and Shogun 2. Game looks great, too.

Apollo · Post by **Apollo** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:21 pm

Stuie wrote:All the reviewers who got burned for praising Empire are hedging their bets and lowering the scores. The game so far is solid. AI issues in battle are noticeable as always, but four hours in this feels like a pretty solid release. I think the scores in the 85-90 range are fair.

I never really understood what was supposed to be wrong with "Empire". It (and the Napoleonic Wars sequel) were easily my favorites of the whole series. Sure, the AI stunk at release but that's no different than any of their other releases. After reading that Shogun II was supposed to be so much better I tried it and was bitterly disappointed. Not because it was a bad game but because it was almost exactly like their previous releases but in a time period and setting that had very little appeal to me.

I swore off these games after the Shogun II sequel, at least until a major overhaul of the series takes place, so I must admit finding that the game is disappointing to some reviewers makes it easier for me to sit this one out.

Now, where's my "Total War: The American Civil War" game?

Doomboy · Post by **Doomboy** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:28 pm

The AI in Shogun 2 that everyone praised for putting up a fight at release, was a horrible nasty cheating bastard. They eventually fixed it so it had to play by the same rules as humans, but I quit playing it for about the same length of time I always do after buying a Total War game (until they fix the AI).

I'd love to get into this one, but it is going to be a while. My graphics card is pretty old and creaky, and while it handled Shogun 2 just fine, I am not sure it will work as well with this one. If anyone can tell me that the engines are the same, so I should be able to run it just fine, then I probably will get it sooner, rather than later.

I do love their format, and I can forgive an easy to beat AI much easier than a cheating bastard AI.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:18 pm

Doomboy, I'm in the same boat as you regarding needing to upgrade the graphics card. CA SAYS it's the same engine as Shogun II, but just about everybody is reporting that it is not nearly as well optimized and is a lot more sluggish, particularly when it comes to turn times.

We're talking Pride of Nations slow when it comes to turn resolution.

e1123 · Post by **e1123** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:07 pm

tgb wrote:Doomboy, I'm in the same boat as you regarding needing to upgrade the graphics card. CA SAYS it's the same engine as Shogun II, but just about everybody is reporting that it is not nearly as well optimized and is a lot more sluggish, particularly when it comes to turn times.

We're talking Pride of Nations slow when it comes to turn resolution.

I think the load times are a little better than Shogun 2 and the turn resolution is relatively quick. However, there are like 80 factions, so it takes about 30 seconds to cycle through. It does bog down a bit when upwards of 5000 are on screen.

Sarkus · Post by **Sarkus** » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:23 am

I don't think graphics will be a problem. My old Q6600 PC with a Radeon 6800 video card has had no issues. From what I've read, CA is kind of cheating with how the game handles graphics, with the software seeing what card you have and not bothering to really tax it in terms of textures in a way that the player (at the moment) doesn't really have any control over. The game auto-detected my system to the highest graphics and I've played it so far on both the levels below that with no framerate issues.

I've only played through the prologue and the AI hasn't really struck me one way or the other. In a lot of ways this is basically Rome I updated, which a lot of people are going to be fine with. As with any CA game, the AI is likely never going to be great, but as long as the game does a good job of immersing me into the era like the first did I will be quite happy.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:20 am

e1123 wrote: I think the load times are a little better than Shogun 2 and the turn resolution is relatively quick.

Yeah, this loads MUCH faster than any previous TW game, for me at least. It's a night and day difference.

The game itself is fun...but I'm still too new to it to make any firm statement of support or damnation. I will say that I rage quit at one point after I was told to merge two navies in the tutorial prologue...and the system wouldn't let me. To make matters worse, the save game took me back to right before the naval battle. A battle I found incredibly tedious and boring.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:37 am

I got in a good few hours with it yesterday and I love it so far. Managed to finish the tutorial campaign and start the main campaign as the Romans.

Load times for me at least are a vast improvement over Shogun 2. Probably 33 - 50% faster on average, and the initial load is easily twice as fast as it was in Shogun 2... that's with graphics pretty much maxed out. Turn times seems mostly dependent on how many AI unit moves you have to sit through, but for the most part turns process in about 30 seconds for me. I presume that will also get better as more of the little factions get gobbled up.

It does look like there are a few rendering bugs that can slow things down during battles when certain elements are on the screen, but even when that's going on the camera is still nice and responsive, so it doesn't bother me too much.

I think one of the main changes to battles I'm liking is how hills and other terrain besides trees can effect line of sight. Makes for much more interesting battles when you have to send out scouts to pinpoint the enemy, or you can hide the bulk of your force behind a hill or other feature.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:13 pm

I loved Rome: TW, and I've been following this, but from what I've read, my five year old system would barely be able to run it. I meet the official (PR) minimums, but a few sites have posted more realistic minimums for playability, and I'm not even close.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:44 pm

Lot of good tips in this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/commen ... aq_thread/" target="_blank

e1123 · Post by **e1123** » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:54 pm

Blackhawk wrote:I loved Rome: TW, and I've been following this, but from what I've read, my five year old system would barely be able to run it. I meet the official (PR) minimums, but a few sites have posted more realistic minimums for playability, and I'm not even close.

My computer is four years old, but it was top of the line. I played Shogun 2 at max everything. This is a little bit more taxing even with an upgraded gpu.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:22 am

Got some more time in with my Rome game last night and still having a blast.

I've managed to secure all of Italy and made some progress into the Alps. I killed off the Etruscans pretty early and then after building up a bit attacked the Ligurians. They were actually getting pretty strong with 4 settlements under their control, but the basic Gallic troops are pretty weak compared to even the early legions, and by the time I was facing the main Ligurian army I had early legionnaires.

I accidentally looted one of the Ligurian cities when I took it, so it actually took me a little while to finally pacify those cities and get them on the path to Romanism, but once I calmed them down and put down a couple of slave revolts I was able to move on Patavium. For a single city faction they were actually pretty rich and had a pretty big, if not very well trained army. All told they had somewhere around 40 units about half of them spear levies and the rest slingers.

Against them I sent the 1st and 3rd Legions with the 1st being led by a popular young commander I'd just adopted from the Junia. I attacked them outside the city and we were both able to bring up our reinforcements into our battlelines before the main clash:

My main line was between two small compounds while I had my velites and cavalry set to hold my flanks. They didn't take my bait so I eventually moved my line forward in the traditional roman three rowed style, then ordered the first two waves into the Gauls while my veterans, praetorians, and first cohort held in reserve:

Despite their huge numbers it was mostly peasants versus well trained legionnaires, so their morale was wobbly before long, and with my generals 11 zeal rating I was able to repeatedly hit their lines with morale breaking abilities. His general's bodyguards at least fought well in the center of their line, but once his flanks broke and I was able to bring in my reserves he didn't have much of a chance:

Now that I have all of Italy, I just need to pause a bit to get public order a bit more under control, build up my navy and legions a bit more, and then plan who I need to take down next. I could probably move against some of the weaker Greek states from Patavium, but the Spartans are actually becoming something of a threat that might be good to take down a peg. Earlier in the game Syracuse fell to a large slave revolt, and the turn before I could sweep in to "liberate" them with my navy the Spartans were able to land a force and take it. With that influx of money they've been able to make headway in securing Greece for themselves, but their navy is pretty weak and their ability to project power isn't good. I think I may be able to take Syracuse in a quick strike and either negotiate a truce afterward, or press on and take some of their land for myself.

tru1cy · Post by **tru1cy** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 1:14 pm

Stop.. I want to wait for a price drop before I buy.

Great write up

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:58 pm

tru1cy wrote:Stop.. I want to wait for a price drop before I buy.

hehe No promises... if I execute my war against Sparta I'm sure I'll feel inspired to post a few screenshots of my legions sweeping over their once mighty hoplites.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:04 am

Lordnine wrote:How jaded we’ve become when an overall 85% percentile game is treated like a failure.

Although to be fair, the last Total War game I personally got much play out of was Medieval II. So I'm not in a rush to pick this one up either.

Empire Total war got a 90 on meta critic. All the more reason to not go by official reviews.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:38 am

Surprise!

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:15 am

tgb wrote:Surprise!

He's the shock jock of the gaming community. It sounds like a lot of people have issues with some of the stuff in the game, but a 1 star? That's reserved for those shovelware games like Hooters Road Trip etc...

Apollo · Post by **Apollo** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:39 am

I still don't understand why you guys care so much about what this Tom Chick character has to say. I've never heard anyone so much as mention his name outside this forum, yet he seems to carry a lot of weight with folks here despite being quite possibly the worst reviewer in the business.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:54 am

Quite simply he's an ass. Thinks much more of his poorly thought out opinions than they ever deserve, and why people bother with reading his shitty reviews is a mystery to me, but that's my opinion.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:09 am

Tom Chick has been a highly regarded critic and columnist since the earliest days of PC gaming. His opinions on AAA titles tend to go against the grain because he is less forgiving of design flaws and bugs than most, but they are always well thought out and informed.

I don't always agree with his opinion, he tends to go easier on indie games than big budget AAA titles, and I don't care for the way he moderates his website, but he's hardly an unknown or an "ass".

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:28 am

I've always found Chick interesting; he's definitely a character and over-the-top but he often identifies issues that I think are important. He could've gone the route that I often go: looking at all the shiny colorful stuff, the animations, the pseudo-historical game play and pronounce it good. Then weeks later, I'll start to notice I don't really need to plan all that much, that 5% morale advantage, the production benefit, it doesn't matter when the AI's fairly somnolent and predictable. His ratings I disregard but I take notice of what he finds crucial. He just happens to spot them much sooner.

Suitably Ironic Moniker · Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:29 am

I read his reviews, and he consistently backs up his opinions with explanations. I think he keeps the 5 star rating system around just to fuck with people, but I prefer his reviews to those of most larger sites that gloss over the bad parts of AAA games.

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:00 pm

Suitably Ironic Moniker wrote:I read his reviews, and he consistently backs up his opinions with explanations. I think he keeps the 5 star rating system around just to fuck with people, but I prefer his reviews to those of most larger sites that gloss over the bad parts of AAA games.

Exactly! What I wanted to say. Only more suitably succinct.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:54 pm

tgb wrote:Tom Chick has been a highly regarded critic and columnist since the earliest days of PC gaming. His opinions on AAA titles tend to go against the grain because he is less forgiving of design flaws and bugs than most, but they are always well thought out and informed.

I don't always agree with his opinion, he tends to go easier on indie games than big budget AAA titles, and I don't care for the way he moderates his website, but he's hardly an unknown or an "ass".

Trust me, he's an ass. If you want to discuss that, PM me.

razgon · Post by **razgon** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm

Tom Chick's review is unfortunately quite accurate this time around. I spent the first evening playing the game, with a book in my hand, because it took about 3 minutes for each AI turn to complete after a while. There's a ton of bugs, and most of the time the battles, which were supposed to be the meat of the game, were super easy because the AI just stood there, taking my missile fire.

The only times I've been in some trouble, was when my units broke / routed an enemy, and decided to stop everything and just stand and cheer, while they were being pelted by missiles themselves.

The Dynasty part, which was heavily touted (How far will you go for Rome) by CA earlier on, is pretty much non-existant. All you can do is 4 static options for every general or statesman, whatever the heck that is, whether it be yours or the enemy's.

The Naval battles are, besides being unplayable on my machine a mystery to me, because half the time my ships refuse to move - The other half, they do things I have no idea why they do.

While I understand some people have fun with it, its not a complete game, and its certainly not the game CA talked about these past few years. Along the road, some cuts where made, and its pretty clear they are gearing their engine towards consoles (Which CA's boss admitted they were looking at E3) and as such, the UI is not very PC friendly nor very good.

razgon · Post by **razgon** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:00 pm

Lorini wrote:
tgb wrote:Tom Chick has been a highly regarded critic and columnist since the earliest days of PC gaming. His opinions on AAA titles tend to go against the grain because he is less forgiving of design flaws and bugs than most, but they are always well thought out and informed.

I don't always agree with his opinion, he tends to go easier on indie games than big budget AAA titles, and I don't care for the way he moderates his website, but he's hardly an unknown or an "ass".
Trust me, he's an ass. If you want to discuss that, PM me.

That doesnt change the fact that his reviews are often spot on. If we had to decline the services of people / companies that were an ass, we would have a hard time getting anything.

Doomboy · Post by **Doomboy** » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:02 pm

I'm going to ignore his opinion on this one, since he seems to love games I don't like, and dislike games I like. Which means I should probably get to downloading Rome II right now, I'll love it!