Also the Guardian Sinks Rome II

[Shaggy1973]

In a long running successful series, people always compare their memory of a matured, patched, modded game exploited to its fullest with a day 1 unpatched, unmodded game and exclaim it is inferior to the one they remember and love. These people are idiots (like the Guardian reviewer).

I'm granted not very far in my first campaign, but I'm actually enjoying it. As far as I can make out it is one of the best TW games I've played on release. Does everything go to mid/end campaign?

It looks stunning, the AI is competent. I don't fully get the campaign UI yet, but that's because I didn't read the manual and jumped straight in as usual. The performance seems great (although I do have an i7, Nvidia 680 and an SSD - perhaps I'm just lucky to have missed the issues others are having).

Haven't been on the boards much as TWC is so damn unresponsive right now...

[Laskos]

Well, if you are having such a blast, how are the battles? Did hastati throw their pila, charge, and then retreat behind principes, then, if it's not going well, all behind triarii? Is the legion in quincunx formation, supported by light troops? That is what I was expecting from Rome II. Go play console, if you like this joke of a game.

[Tolkemec]

Laskos wow, oh boy, I hope you play with your lorica segmentata and your caligae on!

[Doe3000]

The review is particularly embarrassing when you consider the Guardian is actually an official sponsor of Rome II, and has been running articles and pages about the title before its release.

[Hoplite]

doesnt surprise me that there are independent reviews coming out now.

[daelin4]

I disagree with the description of the rebels. In my game, if you manage to manipulate a region to revolt, the rebel army tends to go somewhere else. What's worst is that this is the FIRST Total War game ever to feature rebels just going out of their region to attack something else. It didn't help that I had two large armies hemmed in the region to "encourage" the rebels to attack that settlement.

As for the auto-resolve remarks, CA should never have tried to shift the game away from making "bigger decisive battles", because that still happens here. The fact that you can reinstate dead armies and keep their traits totally negates the point of bigger battles. At best we've arrived at just what older TW games have done- you can't build a giant quality army overnight so if you lose it all you are screwed. It also doesn't help that garrisons are free and spawn to help along with nearby armies. Spamming auto-resolve battles everywhere to take care of little stacks still occur. And they still occur FREQUENTLY. I told you before CA, its the AI that's the problems, and if you can;t solve that then just work around it. Don't cover it up. The limits do nothing.

[evenflowjimbo]

I'm kinda feeling bad now. I don't want Rome 2 to end up like the rest of the games that get a bad reputation.

[Shaggy1973]

Well, if you are having such a blast, how are the battles? Did hastati throw their pila, charge, and then retreat behind principes, then, if it's not going well, all behind triarii? Is the legion in quincunx formation, supported by light troops? That is what I was expecting from Rome II. Go play console, if you like this joke of a game.

Sorry little confused... Do you mean does the AI do all these things? If so then no, as I am playing as the Romans on my first campaign. If they did I would be utterly shocked, TW games have never been this sophisticated, and I think you were never going to be anything but utterly disappointed.

So far the AI I have met has been in line with most other TW AIs, except it does a better job at remaining cohesive and uses its general better.

Why are you telling me to go play a console? Has everyone gone mad on these boards? We seem to have had the usual influx of new idiots post release I see.

[Tiwaz]

In a long running successful series, people always compare their memory of a matured, patched, modded game exploited to its fullest with a day 1 unpatched, unmodded game and exclaim it is inferior to the one they remember and love. These people are idiots (like the Guardian reviewer).

Well, the multiplayer has always been shot to hell at start so I'll ignore that. But Rome 1 straight out of the box did not have same amount of technical issues as Rome 2. Technically the game was much, much more polished compared to this latest one, which came with way too many bugs and issues.

It is not question of mature R1 compared to launch R2, but R1 at launch compared to R2 at launch. One had little to no issues technically, the other one... Quite a lot.

[IlluminatiRex]

People expected EB made by CA and what they got was another Total War game. I'm not really shocked or surprised.

[Sun Tsu]

CA must take these this seriously and stop telling that it's and excellent game, with multiple awards..on the cover of the DVD-box... how can it have won these awards even before release ? Has it been tested by the TW community ? i think not !

[caratacus]

I find it bizarre that computer games such as RTW2, are reviewed and handed out awards prior to release. After the release these so called Reviewers fall silent, especially if the expectations of customers built by their reviews, aren't met when playing the games. It seems its all part of the marketing spin rather than a system of independent reviewing. If this happened in the film industry there would be an outcry.

[Kraxis]

The review is particularly embarrassing when you consider the Guardian is actually an official sponsor of Rome II, and has been running articles and pages about the title before its release.

That is more important than the actual review itself in my opinion. Regular paper media are generally not too great at reviewing games, however they are more than anyone else tied up in advertising. So if they cut the ties like this, they are quite convinced that it is true.

[Shaggy1973]

Well, the multiplayer has always been shot to hell at start so I'll ignore that. But Rome 1 straight out of the box did not have same amount of technical issues as Rome 2. Technically the game was much, much more polished compared to this latest one, which came with way too many bugs and issues.

It is not question of mature R1 compared to launch R2, but R1 at launch compared to R2 at launch. One had little to no issues technically, the other one... Quite a lot.

Ah ok, I guess I have been fortunate enough to have no technical issues whatsoever. I'm sorry you are having problems. Ofcourse if you aren't having issues, wtf are you talking about?

[Neverpleased]

This is what happens when you don't have to rely on advertisement from the companies that own the product you are reviewing.

This is what happens when actual journalists get their hands on a piece and are asked for an opinion.

This is why I never take any review serious by anyone that does not include extensive video footage.

[Tullaris]

In a long running successful series, people always compare their memory of a matured, patched, modded game exploited to its fullest with a day 1 unpatched, unmodded game and exclaim it is inferior to the one they remember and love. These people are idiots (like the Guardian reviewer).

I'm granted not very far in my first campaign, but I'm actually enjoying it. As far as I can make out it is one of the best TW games I've played on release. Does everything go to mid/end campaign?

It looks stunning, the AI is competent. I don't fully get the campaign UI yet, but that's because I didn't read the manual and jumped straight in as usual. The performance seems great (although I do have an i7, Nvidia 680 and an SSD - perhaps I'm just lucky to have missed the issues others are having).

Haven't been on the boards much as TWC is so damn unresponsive right now...

Ah another CA apologist. 'The game is great!', HAH. Really?

Enjoying the sand box? Have you been seriously attacked yet? Cos it won't happen. Ever. This is no strategy game is some cluncky fantasy sandbox piece of software.

You know what was a good game at release? Shogun 2. It was great. It still is. In fact I play Shogun 2 now instead of Rome 2. Rome 2 sucks donkey balls. Shogun 2 is fun and challenging.

[CTD_or_Bust]

Rome I was a total joke!

Rome means Europa Barbarorum to me. No more no less. Without mods like EB, RTR, Surrectum it was nothing. That's the truth for me.

I particularly enjoy when people demand mods for Shogun 2/Rome 2 etc that are equivalent or better than EB, TATW, Stainless Steel and so on.. They download a mod years after it was first released. Then they go on to have high expectations for new games without understanding the years of effort that went into the mods!

And then best of all, Creative Assembly is held to the same or a higher standard because they forget what was in vanilla and what was in the mod.

[Solitudian]

There's a difference between not liking the game and not WANTING to like the game.
Rome II has it's faults. More than it's fair share, perhaps. I lament the loss of family trees, guard mode, loose formation and reasonable diplomacy AI as much as the next forum-goer. I too am sick of the glitches and bugs, and am disgusted that CA thought this was so good they could bring the release forward. But I truly believe that this game doesn't deserve the hate it's getting.

At the end of the day, it's still a great game. No other game on the market lets me march Roman Legions across the ancient world and fight in real-time battles like Rome II. The improvements over the original Rome are huge. The distinction between tribes alone makes this game worth the price over the original. The beautiful maps of cities such as Rome, Carthage and Alexandria make for some breathtaking gameplay. You don't need to love the game. You don't even need to like it. But I think people are exaggerating this game's flaws to the extreme. This game HAS highlights, no matter how hard you try to ignore them.

I'm just asking people to be a bit more open-minded. It seems to me that some people WANT to dislike this game, as if it's a sort of fashion. Not everyone, by any means, but SOME people. And it's a bit sad, really.

[Pedalos]

There's a difference between not liking the game and not WANTING to like the game.
Rome II has it's faults. More than it's fair share, perhaps. I lament the loss of family trees, guard mode, loose formation and reasonable diplomacy AI as much as the next forum-goer. I too am sick of the glitches and bugs, and am disgusted that CA thought this was so good they could bring the release forward. But I truly believe that this game doesn't deserve the hate it's getting.

At the end of the day, it's still a great game. No other game on the market lets me march Roman Legions across the ancient world and fight in real-time battles like Rome II. The improvements over the original Rome are huge. The distinction between tribes alone makes this game worth the price over the original. The beautiful maps of cities such as Rome, Carthage and Alexandria make for some breathtaking gameplay. You don't need to love the game. You don't even need to like it. But I think people are exaggerating this game's flaws to the extreme. This game HAS highlights, no matter how hard you try to ignore them.

I'm just asking people to be a bit more open-minded. It seems to me that some people WANT to dislike this game, as if it's a sort of fashion. Not everyone, by any means, but SOME people. And it's a bit sad, really.

If there was another game like it, people would probably just play that instead, so for some this game HAS to be the best game ever since it's their only chance to play this genre.

I think this is the main reason a lot of people are overraceting

[GussieFinkNottle]

Trusting a tabloid newspaper for an in-depth review of a video game. HAHAHAH. This is pathetic, even for you Prometheus

I'm sorry for off topic, but whatever you think of the game and whether we agree on that or not, I cannot let this statement stand. The Guardian is in no way, shape or form a tabloid newspaper. It is a prestigious and respected mouthpiece whatever you think of its politics, with famously good investigative reporting (it broke the Snowden Prism scandal and the WikiLeaks cables). It stands as one of the four best serious papers in Britain (Guardian for the left, Daily Telegraph for the right, The Times for establishment and the Financial Times for business).
If you want a tabloid, the Sun, Daily Mail, Mirror and so on are there but by no means the Guardian.