"Hurr durr CA has hired better historians than you"

[Point Blank]

"Lack of historical accuracy." What a wonderful way to hand-wave away poor research and implementation. Oddly enough, user enjoyment tends to actually increase when historical accuracy is important. Of course nobody is expecting the game to mirror world history, but the dynamics that are implemented should ideally have some sort of solid basis in realism and research.

[Jmonstra]

Imagine if somebody came onto this forum with a doctorate in English and started to write critiques of every, tiny detail of your forum post and call you out on it. Your response might be "Relax it's just a forum post." There's would be "That excuse doesn't cut it. This is the English language, you're just lazy!."

CA never claimed to be historically accurate, instead they used the words historically authentic. That is, to give you a general vibe of the period, not to turn it into a history lecture. There are mods in the works which target the history buffs; if the game is so immersion breaking wait until they are released and try them out.

If we were writing posts ABOUT grammar and getting things wrong, I would expect to be corrected. Why is CA above reproach by people who historical accuracy is important to?

[Mangalore]

...

Rome 2 is not accurate nor authentic. It's a 1960's swords and sandals movie, complete with shirtless, hairy men riding around in chariots.

So CA succeeded precisely at what they were going for? To me its creatively fairly consistent, using historically sound inspiration to create a game. In terms of units and graphics inspired by Osprey, in terms of other issues mainly by mainstream concepts.

And most historic buffs being anal about historic accuracy usually have no concept about historic uncertainty and competing theories and instead claim theirs is the only right answer even though historians would tell you given the sources you cannot derive a definite answer. Doesn't mean CA even wants to be in that snake pit, I mainly consider the positions of a lot of self righteous people equally unsound.

[omzdog]

This failure of the game also falls into its corporatization.
Its just like mass politics when everything begins to turn into slogans and chants.

[NotYetRegistered]

CA do not consult any historians, Jack and Will get it off Wikipedia. That's obvious guys.

You don't know that.

I think it's fine.

[Unahim]

Not another one of these... /sigh. Yes OP, you are obsessive. This is a game, not a history lesson. It's not a history simulator. It's to history what battlefield 3 is to war, and in that respect closer to BF3 than ARMA. You'll note that ARMA never took off with a big following, because frankly people usually realise that realism in game is overrated the minute they touch a truly realistic game and feel the tedium of it. Shogun 2 was on the very edge of this in one respect: unit roster. Every faction is so incredibly similar in units it can employ there that it ticked many people off, even though it was more "realistic" than a big, imaginary unit roster would have been. And that's despite the fact that a lot of the units were already imaginary (firebomb throwers, anyone?). Yet these extra units were good for the game, as actual realistic armies of the time period (90% ashigaru or more) would have bored most of the people who played the game to bits. (and I say this as someone who studied japanology at university for 2 years, so I have actual college-level knowledge of the history, culture,e tc)


If all the people complaining about the historical accuracy got their way, TW would be a dried up desert rather than a successful franchise by now. (note: success is measured by sales in this instance, and I have no interest in debating the merits of the latest title)

[omzdog]

success is measured by sales in this instance

Oh my god.

[Unahim]

Yeah, quite ludicrous to base the success of a product to come out of an industry that's completely dominated by sales figures and funding upon its sales, I know. /sarcasm off. Get off your high horse will you, omzdog? I'm sure you have your own idea about what is and isn't a success, and if so, I wish you all the best with your (likely short lived) future publishing company. There is no reason, however, for obnoxious one-liner comments that add nothing to the discussion.

[Prince Regent George]

Not another one of these... /sigh. Yes OP, you are obsessive. This is a game, not a history lesson. It's not a history simulator. It's to history what battlefield 3 is to war, and in that respect closer to BF3 than ARMA. You'll note that ARMA never took off with a big following, because frankly people usually realise that realism in game is overrated the minute they touch a truly realistic game and feel the tedium of it. Shogun 2 was on the very edge of this in one respect: unit roster. Every faction is so incredibly similar in units it can employ there that it ticked many people off, even though it was more "realistic" than a big, imaginary unit roster would have been. And that's despite the fact that a lot of the units were already imaginary (firebomb throwers, anyone?). Yet these extra units were good for the game, as actual realistic armies of the time period (90% ashigaru or more) would have bored most of the people who played the game to bits. (and I say this as someone who studied japanology at university for 2 years, so I have actual college-level knowledge of the history, culture,e tc)


If all the people complaining about the historical accuracy got their way, TW would be a dried up desert rather than a successful franchise by now. (note: success is measured by sales in this instance, and I have no interest in debating the merits of the latest title)

Actually, using the original names can not possibly influence negatively a franchise. It's either indifferent (if you are not a history fanboy) or immersive (if you love history), so your comparison with military tactics is quite arbitrary and unjust with my argument.
Moreover, I tend to suspect that the reason for the identical rosters in Shogun II was CA's intention to produce "special units DLC" rather than a desire for historical accuracy, as you seem to imply.

Anyway, I don't think I am asking something extravagant from CA. An one-day research would have been sufficient, I suppose, in order to provide a great variety for Iranian or Macedonian names (Note that I am not referring to nations, such as the Getae or the Iberians, where the sources for their names are much rarer). The use of christian or Assyrian names suggests a sloppiness on behalf of CA, which is not very promising concerning the future quality of their title for both the history fans and the more coldblood guys.

Finally, a bit irrelevant, but you should know considering that success is measured only by sales is pretty absolute. They are very important, but not the unique factor of a success. Even if thanks to their marketing CA managed to sell an immense amount of Rome II copies, they should be worried about its reception from their customers, as long as they plan to continue their plans about games' development. Greatly frustrated fans usually adopt a negative stance, when the next title is announced, an attitude a bit damageable financially.

[UndrState]

I have never bought this argument. CA can say it is not a military simulation until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that their game simulates military engagements on the battlefield. The question really should be is it an accurate military simulation? CA can then say that it is not trying to be a 100% accurate simulation and that is fine.

If historical accuracy could be measured on a sliding scale then personally I would prefer it to be given a nudge or two over to the more historically accurate end of the scale. When making decisions, CA should constantly be asking what the game gains by moving away from the historical and what it loses. Many recent changes don't seem to gain anything by stepping away from what is accurate.

Amen brother.

[omzdog]

Yeah, quite ludicrous to base the success of a product to come out of an industry that's completely dominated by sales figures and funding upon its sales, I know. /sarcasm off. Get off your high horse will you, omzdog? I'm sure you have your own idea about what is and isn't a success, and if so, I wish you all the best with your (likely short lived) future publishing company. There is no reason, however, for obnoxious one-liner comments that add nothing to the discussion.

The fact that you're using corporate logic to understand and respond to OP is evidence enough that you've started your argument from the wrong perspective and that it is impossible for you to be correct.

[Dunadd]

Historical accuracy in Rome II is just fine. CA repeadetly stated TW isnt meant to be historical simulation. Its way way better than Rome 1. There is alredy couple of mods that will have historical accuracy as main goal, for those who want to go extreme on that. For casual player Rome 2 is just fine on matter of historical accuracy

Not really. It gets some things right and some wildly historically inaccurate. Sparta and Athens as major powers represented by their own factions in 272BC? No. Aetolian league and various other leagues of cities were the main powers in Greece other than Macedon. Athens and Sparta should be neutrals or part of leagues. Even the 'Greek cities' faction in Rome I was less historically inaccurate than Spartans and Athenians as major powers in the 3rd century BC.

Carthage's "client states" in Rome II - Libya and Nova Carthago - never existed. The cities in them should be Carthaginian or neutral. Carthage in Rome II is reduced to four settlements with nowhere to expand to - Rome I was far more accurate there.

And Knossos as a faction in the 3rd century BC? No. That was a bronze age power, a thousand years earlier.

Hopefully the Egyptians will have Hellenistic troops this time rather than a mixture of hellenistic and un-historical biblical period units as in Rome I though.

[Oestvang]

And they have said they are going for Hollywood Rome, more than Oxbridge Rome. The atmosphere is right, the details are not.

If you expect perfect historical accuracy by this point you are kidding yourselves. Not going to happen.

For instance, the Greeks are in there not because historians say they should be, but because they fill some of the expected roles of Ancient Greece in a sort of vaguely historically satisfactory way. The game is getting better by patch, but for historical accuracy look to mods. And if you studied TW history you would know this and not have a whinge about it.

[Errabundi]

And Knossos as a faction in the 3rd century BC? No. That was a bronze age power, a thousand years earlier.

LOL - I didn't know that! And what's their unit roster? Minotaur?

Every day I'm more and more proud I resisted the hype and did not preorder Rome 2.

[Alexander Iulianus Verus]

Jack Lusted, can you care to comment here, honestly, please?

[Anna_Gein]

R2 level of historical accuracy is ridiculous anyway.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

Unfortunately, CA obviously decided to invest her augmented budget in marketing and Osprey books ignoring the willingness of the British historians to contribute with their advanced knowledge. A perfect example is the use of names, regarding almost all the playable or unplayable factions.Personally, I was hoping that CA would have done a more professional research than the one regarding Rome I, where a CA employee had serious difficulties in comprehending Tacitus or Herodotus (the Germans were named as Italicus or Flavus, Roman names given to german traitors, or the or the Parthian name Sosimenes, which was the name of a Greek collaborator, during the Persian/Median Wars). I am aware that I am a neglectable minority, but I really find names as a really immersive feature, able to create an authentic atmosphere of the Antiquity.

Whilst I agree the game is lacking in historical accuracy, naming a German 'Flavus' would be the equivalence of calling an African the bad N-word. Nothing historically wrong with that, except that neither Germans nor Africans ever carried the name of Flavus or N-word in their respective cultures.

A German hostage has been called Flavus by his masters, just as an enslaved African was called 'N-word-Jim' by his, but no free person ever carried that name in his respective culture.

[edit]: Needed to replace the proper term with N-word, because obviously, calling someone 'Flavus' is alright, whereas 'N-word' is racist.

[Faith]

realism is something i expect from any game, regardless of whether or not it's a fantasy or historically accurate. if it doesn't seem real, it will not pull me in. anything that breaks immersion is a failure. i imagine hiring a historian and a linguist would have rectified this issue. doesn't seem too difficult to me.
i'm studying ancient philosophy and early medieval philosophy this semester, and was hoping to immerse myself in this period, but unfortunately this game didn't meet my expectations, so i've kept my money.
i'm a saaad panda =(

[kambiz]

I think the Prince Regent George is a nice response to those who say more being more historically accurate will hurt the game ! as this is the most illogical excuses CA's defenders keep spewing. They even haven't shown us an example of a game series was hurt by becoming more historically accurate (?) at worst it would be indifferent to such a game's success.

However ,People may say "as many casuals-kids don't care then it doesn't worth the efforts !"
First of all I really doubt that CA ever employed a historian for this game , otherwise it would have been much better. Maybe all they did was some researches on their leisure time (?) But I think with such a great community they have ,CA does not need to invest on historical research at all. with little search in this community ,they could gather the most detailed information they need. We all know there are many good historians here that many of them cooperate with Mods. and I'm sure many of them are willing to help CA without asking to get anything in return. If I was the director ,I would have definitely used this huge source of information to improve my product and to save resources and time on more technical aspects of the game

[Csatádi]

Historical accuracy is nice but names is a very difficult part for this period. Such a detail is not cost-effective for a company and sometimes there are not enough information.