Do you think this launch was worse or the same as Empires?

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

Way better.

Except for STW and MTW, which weren't bad at all at launch (although they were far less complex), I'd call it the second-best launch except S2TW. AI, unit balance and diplomacy have never been even existant in vanilla TW games at launch.

Judging from my VH Suebi campaign, R2TW is very well playable, performance is fine on my computer on extreme settings, I've had no single crash in 20 hours of gameplay, and the campaign and diplomatic AI act way more reasonable than in any previous TW titles at launch. On the battlefield, AI still is an abbrevation for absolute idiocy and the game is too easy as always and full of bad design decisions.

Typical TW release, really, maybe peoples misconceptions stem from S2TW being the very best TW release since MTW.

RTW and M2TW were more buggy at release.
ETW was an absolute abomination and remains unplayable to me to this date, I canät say much about NTW as I could only bear to play it for 15 hours according to steam stats (just as a comparison, I have 506 hours in S2TW).

Even if there wasn't a single patch, I already know I'll enjoy this game for longer thn ETW or NTW.

Yes - it's bad. It contains more bugs than the entire amzon basin, but it still remains a mildly enjoyable game - something ETW never achieved to this date.

[Black-]

Worse, removing immersion and adding arcade makes me cry.
I was so hyped and into it, now I don't like to even start a campaign.
When I saw they removed population, family tree, made generals summon boats and troops it was over for me.

If they refuse to change that back and makie it unmodable, modders should spare their time.

[Kenios]

Oh please, even Shogun 2 had people crying non-stop in the forums on release date. People may have selective memory but I still remember clearly: endless whines about Realm Divide, lack of castle type variety, AI armies not reinforcing properly during a siege attack and end up sitting at the zoneline, lack of directx 10 graphics support (which was later patched in a month later), the balloons on the general units, and so many more.

[Payai Dunai]

Never played Empire, but it's definitely already better than the utter piece of garbage that Shogun II is still now after all the worthless updates.

[Mosc]

Atleast with Shogun 2, they released a Demo and you could try it out. I think it was the same with Empire.

[Huberto]

Empire had some good excuses at least....

it was the 1st game with the new engine, it was the 1st game with a whole new period and different warfare, emphasis on ranged combat instead of melee combat and it also introduced many brand-new features like sea battles etc...


Rome2 has none of these excuses, and after the pretty good Napoleon & Shogun2 releases this one is just a shamefurr dispray

Good points. Don't forget they've been bragging about what a big budget they had this time as well. Their TWR2 mistakes are inexcusable.

[Praetorian_BGX]

For my taste - Worse. I expected that they will at least mastered this doomed engine by now.

[Piobmhor]

Worse. I am utterly disappointed with CA. The AI is dumb as a rock, formations break making battles look like some big blob. Units run faster than a Olympic sprinter, making strategies almost obsolete. The graphics seem ugly and uninspired in comparison to Shogun 2, heck I even find Medieval 2 prettier. The avatars are an atrocity. The UI is awful, the unit cards confusing and the tech tree needs a cleaner design.

I have a very very bad feeling that this game has been made with next gen consoles in mind, which would explain the arcadey feeling, the over the top tool tips and average graphics. Lets hope not, but lets face it, no venerable PC franchise is save from the clutches of consolification.

[theDaedricPrince]

I love the launch. It's just that mostly everyone in this forum expects too much from CA. I personally think the launch was ten times better than Empire. Heck, they both cannot be compared.

[SomaaTheLion]

Worse.

[Piobmhor]

I love the launch. It's just that mostly everyone in this forum expects too much from CA. I personally think the launch was ten times better than Empire. Heck, they both cannot be compared.

Expects too much from CA? Rome 2 looks and plays worse than Rome or Medieval 2. I paid 60 bucks for Rome 2, instead I get a beta.

[saxdude]

This launch is the exact same as every single Total War release since this site went live, and the forum reaction is likewise exactly the same.

Some people can't play the game at all. Some people can't get more than 10 minutes in without a crash. Most people have to humbly crank down the graphical settings against their will (you mean I have to play at Ultra instead of Extreme?! Am I being detained?!), though some will get to crank them back up after some optimization patches and drivers. Many hate the new features and interface and identify the previous as the pinnacle of game design. Most are a bit annoyed at things in promo material not actually existing in game.

The forums are flooded with talk of how CA lied to us. Some threaten that this is the last Total War purchase they will ever make. There will be 101 lists of 101 Things we need fixed ASAP.

And at the end of the day most of us will still be playing and enjoying it because we love the series enough to about it; I just wish more people did more of the former than the latter. The occasional useful thread helped me identify possible performance issues and bug workarounds while I was at work unable to play. Then when I got home I made the quick changes and had a blast for the rest of the night.

Soon there will be a slew of mods to choose from and in two years everyone will remember Total War: Rome II as the pinnacle of game design when Total Medieval War: III (yeah, that was a jab at your naming consistency, CA!) comes out with a bulky interface and a single rebel faction making expansion too easy.

[StupidAlarmClockGuy]

Much better. Empire had a horrendous diplomacy system at launch that was nearly impossible to use, most units were completely worthless, and had terrible unit pathing. Rome II is an infinitely more playable game. I still don't understand what "Arcadey" means. Making a game streamlined and accessible to casuals isn't a bad thing. Actually, this game is much more complex than previous TW titles, so it works. If you want to play a game of endless meandering and "realism" go play Crusader Kings and spend 2 hours to conquer a single province.

[Piobmhor]

Way better.

Except for STW and MTW, which weren't bad at all at launch (although they were far less complex), I'd call it the second-best launch except S2TW. AI, unit balance and diplomacy have never been even existant in vanilla TW games at launch.

Judging from my VH Suebi campaign, R2TW is very well playable, performance is fine on my computer on extreme settings, I've had no single crash in 20 hours of gameplay, and the campaign and diplomatic AI act way more reasonable than in any previous TW titles at launch. On the battlefield, AI still is an abbrevation for absolute idiocy and the game is too easy as always and full of bad design decisions.

Typical TW release, really, maybe peoples misconceptions stem from S2TW being the very best TW release since MTW.

RTW and M2TW were more buggy at release.
ETW was an absolute abomination and remains unplayable to me to this date, I canät say much about NTW as I could only bear to play it for 15 hours according to steam stats (just as a comparison, I have 506 hours in S2TW).

Even if there wasn't a single patch, I already know I'll enjoy this game for longer thn ETW or NTW.

Yes - it's bad. It contains more bugs than the entire amzon basin, but it still remains a mildly enjoyable game - something ETW never achieved to this date.

You have no issue with the blobby battles? Crappy looking graphics? Horrible tech tree?

[theDaedricPrince]

Expects too much from CA? Rome 2 looks and plays worse than Rome or Medieval 2. I paid 60 bucks for Rome 2, instead I get a beta.

I paid 60 bucks for Rome 2, am I complaining? Nope.

[Piobmhor]

Much better. Empire had a horrendous diplomacy system at launch that was nearly impossible to use, most units were completely worthless, and had terrible unit pathing. Rome II is an infinitely more playable game. I still don't understand what "Arcadey" means. Making a game streamlined and accessible to casuals isn't a bad thing. Actually, this game is much more complex than previous TW titles, so it works. If you want to play a game of endless meandering and "realism" go play Crusader Kings and spend 2 hours to conquer a single province.

Please explain how Rome 2 is more complex than Shogun 2. Streamlining isn't bad, but it has become a bad word for many PC gamers as it often means features and functions are sacrificed so console kiddies can herp derp in front of their tvs.

[ElusiveHonor]

Empire was far worse. FAR FAR worse. Remember the memory leaks on the campaign side that would CTD at turn 20 or so? Those plagued the game for a while.

It was FAR buggier, and far less playable with FAR more AI issues.

Not to suggest Rome 2 doesn't have problems (there are quite a few), but Empire was much worse.

[Piobmhor]

I paid 60 bucks for Rome 2, am I complaining? Nope.

Have you taken a look at the CA forums and Metacritic? There are many many people who are not happy with Rome 2. Are you insinuating all is fine?

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

Expects too much from CA? Rome 2 looks and plays worse than Rome or Medieval 2. I paid 60 bucks for Rome 2, instead I get a beta.

Judging from your join date, you may have very little experience with previous TW titles at release.

Except for the original STW, I've played all titles at release and not a single one except S2TW played better than this one.

(that doesn't mean vanilla R2TW is even remotely close to being good, it just means that RTW and M2TW had more troubling bugs at release and were less playable).

In 32 years of computer gaming however, ETW was the most broken game I have ever played. Pong at least worked and rome isn't nearly as borked at release as ETW is fully patched.

[StupidAlarmClockGuy]

Please explain how Rome 2 is more complex than Shogun 2. Streamlining isn't bad, but it has become a bad word for many PC gamers as it often means features and functions are sacrificed so console kiddies can herp derp in front of their tvs.

Urban development/settlement management, character skill management, domestic politics, army/navy limitations, culture system and diplomacy all have much more to them. Shogun 2 was a fun game, but pretty much every campaign was a minor variation of "build markets, train metsukes, take trade nodes till realm divide hits, no more diplomacy, and spam stacks." Not to mention, in Rome II, cavalry units can actually beat a broken spear formation. Cavalry actually becomes important again, something that hasn't really been the case since M2TW.