Do You Feel You've Outgrown Your Love For Total War?

[Quickening]

First of all, this is not intended to strawman anyone's motive for stating the opinions that they do, but it's just something I've been considering as I read a lot of the dissatisfied comments regarding Rome 2.

I still remember playing the original Rome: Total War. Up until that time the only game I'd played that was even remotely like it was a little known gem called Knights of Honor. Playing Rome: Total War just blew me away. I remember moving my PC from my living room to my bedroom just so that I could sit up in bed and play it. Those were decadent times haha. I think my experience was enhanced by the fact that Rome 1 was released not long after I had first moved out and got my own place, so not only was I loving my new-found and much anticipated freedom, but I was playing a game unlike any I'd ever played before. I've been gaming all of my life. My gaming loves were Golden Axe, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, Age of Empires, and many others, but Rome just blew them all away. The PC I had at the time could barely handle it, but I still played it to death. Playing Rome when I did was just one of those magical moments where everything in your life comes together to create an experience that stays with you.

By the time that Medieval 2 was released I had already gone back to play Shogun and Medieval 1. Even now, Medieval 2 sits at the top of my X-Fire list as my most played game, with only Civilization V and Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic even approaching it. The only thing that I really don't like about Medieval 2 is the fact that time passes more quickly than the generals age. This goes a long way to ruining the immersion for me (even though you can change it). I'm very glad that Creative Assembly never made the same mistake again.

Despite having little interest in the setting, I pre-ordered the Special Forces edition of Empire when the time came, and ended up absolutely livid at the broken state it was released in. The only reason I even played Napoleon was because I was working for a publication at the time and they wanted me to review it. I was so disgusted with Empire that I'd never have paid money for it. By the time Shogun 2 was released a lot had happened in my life and so I bought it kind of indifferently. More out of curiosity than anything. I thought it was a solid game, but having no interest in the setting again, I didn't play it much.

So here we are in 2013 with Rome 2. It was released way too early and in an inexcusable state, but sometimes I wonder if I could ever really recapture that Total War obsession I had nearly a decade earlier. Even if Rome 2 had been released in the half-acceptable post patch 3 state, I just can't imagine ever getting into it as much as I once would have. I have different priorities in life now, and so when a game like this disappoints I kind of just shrug my shoulders and move on. But I bet that if I'd played Rome 2 back in 2004, I'd have played it to death regardless of the obvious issues. I know for a fact that I'd never be able to tolerate a game running as badly as Rome 1 did on my PC back in the day when I played it to death haha.

This isn't intended as another "Rome 2 is good/bad" thread. I'm just wondering if any of you can relate to what I'm saying here, or if you have any Total War moments that really defined what the series meant or means to you.

[Jackal2233]

Unless someone else makes a series where I can command ancient armies of thousands of men and pit them against each other in epic battles, nope, TW will still have a place in my hard-drive.

The only real competitor to it for me is the Mount and Blade series. Even though it's only around 100-200 men per battle it still manages to deliver that epic feeling not to mention you charge in alongside your men in a completely skill-based combat system.

Actually I'm surprised it's not on your list if you like ancient/medieval battles. Here's a fan trailer for it (For Warband - its standalone expansion which is all you need IMO unless you want the mods for the 1st one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dEutZSmxEY

[Quickening]

Oh yeah, I do enjoy a game of Mount and Blade now and then, but it's not one that has ever really hooked me. I think it's to do with the simple fact that it's too open-ended for me. I like to be able to finish a game conclusively, rather than simply make up my own goals. I love sandbox, but want to be able to finish it.

[D E C]

I don't have a defining "moment" or even a "game". I love them all. And I'm not abandoning the series anytime soon. Actually, I'm pretty eager to buy Rome 2, but in a month or two. Or maybe I'll even wait for a good offer on Steam, but I'll still buy it.

Cuz really, when it comes down to it, Total War is a lot like sex - even if it's bad, it's still pretty good
(also I'm addicted to it)

[Das_Lehr]

did you seriously come onto the total war forums and ask do you still like total war ............

[Quickening]

did you seriously come onto the total war forums and ask do you still like total war ............

Nope. I came to ask if your enthusiasm for the series is what it once was. I mean, I'm here.

[Das_Lehr]

Nope. I came to ask if your enthusiasm for the series is what it once was. I mean, I'm here.

Yeh I don't think I've lost enthusiasm just merely its developed and I think its becoming more casual as their games become less focused towards the community

[Korburss]

Really TW fills a niche which is some what unique. I can't think of any other series (Or even a single game.) where I and my history buff friends can go head to head using strategy and tactics, debating all the while over who did what and why it resulted in that and still have fun doing it. Also, the huge amount of modability is a huge draw for a nitpicker like myself.

[Humble Warrior]

We probably have outgrown it. Though I blame it more on the dumbing down in general than us. There`s no reason why an older guy can`t still play games. for me, the problem is the more games CA release, the less mature they are and the more condescending become the Devs. You can see the difference from early Shogun to now.

People say today that games were HARD 10-15 years ago. No, they weren`t, but corporate greed today has made games so easy and dumb so 2 year old can play it, ergo, spending more cash.

The greed for money results in creating games for people who don`t want to use their brains (even a tiny bit) over time.

[CatoTheYounger]

Yeah the series is officialy dead IMO. Look building your armies unit by unit, fighting bad AI in unchallenging battles and wafer thin campaign choices was fine for the first several releases. But they seem to have gone as far as they can go and now it is just getting worse. Battles are no better and campaign has actualy got less detailed and less emersive. When i saw that the Senate was to be represented by a simple percentage number next to leaders profiles i was disheartened. Thats it? No Forum and charts and graphs on the Senate and peoples climbing and Wavering support? No list of the current elected Consuls, Praetors and so forth? Building browser getting less interesting instead of more?

They came up with some good ideas for sure. Province system, control 40 units, combined naval battles. But they regressed and simplified in so many othe areas and the AI has not improved since the original. Campaign and battle AI actual worse. Campaign game not only hasn't improved just seems dull with no real features. CIV 3 had alot of cool cultural and religious aspects of the game but all they come up with is evrybody has to conquer the map with no different cultural influence or diverse victory requirements depending on nation. The game is simple has always been and now is even more so.Build armies and fight battle after battle after battle with no politcal cultural or strategic emersion. Chose a few different building types and thats it. Im so bored with it im playing Paradox Rome for a while so i can have some faction inter politics drama and pass laws and try to get my favorite leders to win Consuil. All the while i can check the history of every individual general and his career battle info is saved with the stats of each battle and a record of all offices held. This game can't come close to such emersion.

All these years and this is as far and interesting as the game can go? My type is not what they are marketing for anyway so this series is something i have outgrown. It was fun for a while though, It never grew and expanded with me. Not all games should be for kids.

[SirPeacemaker]

There was a chance I got old and thats why I dislike Rome 2 (even I still love Medieval TW 2). But later I realized something. It is not my age probably. Because I remember how I loved Rome 1, I played it for ages even vanilla. Rome 2 I like not. Civilisation 2 I loved and I played it for ages. And not long time ago I bought Civilisation 5 and loved it (and still do). So thats why I think it is not problem in my age, but Rome 2 is just rubbish..

[SirRobin]

I've been playing the series from the very beginning (the first Shogun) and to Medieval 2. For me the high point was the first Medieval: Total War. While it of course had its flaws, I was blown away by the inch-thick medieval atmosphere and solid gameplay.

I remember being impressed by the AI flanking and generally playing quite well compared to the later games. Maybe partly because of rose-tinted glasses, maybe partly because the maps were simpler back then, castles were just enclosures and you couldn't place units on the walls, so not much for the AI to get wrong.

Well, Rome looked so much better with the full 3d units and all, and I did play it for a full campaign, but that was pretty much it. I was never thrilled with it, actually I think it introduced many of the things that caused the series to start its decline. The campaign map is one of them, just like with the old simple castles, the AI was better suited to a relatively simple RISK-style map. As we continue to see, the detailed maps cause problems because a complex landscape needs a way better AI.

Medieval 2 felt more like a re-skin of Rome than a true sequel, many of the same problems carried over, and many things even got worse with the new combat animations that make fighting seem more sleepwalker-like because the soldiers need to pair up with each other. In Rome, there would be more deadly fighting going on, with more soldiers ganging up on a single opponent, closing in quickly, and the battle seemed more fluent and responsive to me.

Anyway, tl;dr: I don't think that I am "outgrowing" these games, I think that the quality of the series is spiralling downwards. New games should improve on the old ones, learning from their mistakes and fixing their faults. That doesn't seem to be happening much.

I think it's an inevitable (?) result of series that get too famous and turned into cash cows. Like an old rockstar has-been that still does gigs for the money. It's just how the world works, I'm not even angry. But I think it will be another games company that produces the next big hit series like Total War used to be.

(disclaimer: if you like to play this game, good on you, I wish you all the best)

[.Mitch.]

It's like Christmas, literally the best thing in the world when you are a kid, then when you become an adult it's an average family occasion.

I was a kid playing Rome 1, it's was, is, maybe always will be my best ever gaming experience though it's borderline unplayable in today's age. Now I'm an adult playing Rome 2, and finding it kinda average. That said even if Rome2 was exactly as good as Rome1 in every way it still wouldn't compare, your mind tricks you into thinking things were better than they actually were.

When I was the age I was playing Rome1, I would never ever in a million years have found games like Arma3 and X3:Terran Conflict fun, but now I'm older they both come extremely close to being the pinnacle of my gaming life. As you mature so do your gaming desires change.

So I guess the short version is, when we think of Rome1 as a better game than Rome2, we all know in our hearts it really quite honestly isn't, what we are thinking of is not the game, just a time in our lives when we enjoyed a game series more. That's something most of us, especially those who played Rome1 as young person, perhaps new to Total War, will never experience again. Those who realise this are the ones playing what is essentially a bloody good game, and those who are stuck in the past are the ones complaining.

[Aenima]

Very good thread, raises a good question. I'd say "yes and no" in response to it; I'd say no because of how I'm still able to enjoy playing the Total War games (played a Venice campaign recently, and had some fun playing a kingdoms hotseat Britannia campaign with a friend recently, and have played BI to death, this year included) but at the same time I think there may be, indirectly, some truth to it. I wouldn't think so highly of the TW series as a whole if it weren't for the superb mods that have been made and released by the community, and in many cases they've been outright better than vanilla (I'd have paid for EB, or for Stainless Steel, for example) I realise that mods work with the original games themselves, but at the same time it's them that I really enjoy playing, not the originals.

This may go hand in hand with what's been said earlier, that being that we haven't outgrown the TW series, but that the TW series has just progressively fallen shorter and shorter of the mark. Empire was pretty dismal, if I'm honest, even though I played several campaigns and really, really wanted to fully enjoy and get into it, and Rome 2 is possibly the biggest disaster of such an anticipated game that I can think of...and yet these games aren't bad because of me outgrowing them, they're just bad because it seems that the TW games aren't improving, or are even worse in some respects.


In other words, I don't feel like I've moved on beyond the game, but that it's gone and strolled off somewhere else itself.

[donkixot]

Imagine now some kids playing and enjoying Rome 2 as we did Rome 1 back in the days

[tigger_t]

never. sure its not perfect but its still fun and like rome 1 mods will keep making this game better

[craziii]

it isn't about outgrown. it is still unique as there are no other game series like it. the TW series provides an experience that you cannot get from any other game. you can stop playing it and still come back after a few years and love it I have known tw since rome 1, so almost 10 years, it isn't like I have play the games in the series constantly in those years. I have played rome 1 the longest due to it's mods.

I will buy and play TW games in the future, just no more pre orders. it seems like the perfect time to buy the games will be about the 2 to 3 months mark, when the first dlcs hit, I think

live and learn.

[tigger_t]

very good point

[Ludz]

Outgrow? Rofl, maybe when I die. No plans of outgrowing stuff I like to do, not now, not ever.

Fistpumped when my lancer cav smashed the enemy today. STIM 1.41, 1.5x unit. Disgustingly fun and immersive.

Always do what you gotta do. Have fun and get paid.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

It's a complex question to answer.

I personally started with the original TW and found it to be quite enjoyable, but only really got into the series when I started to play modded MTW and modded it myself, and whilst I don't have any stats on it, )I'd say that MTW was my most played TW game.

RTW was one of the most horrible releases of the entire series and R2TW is not remotely as bad at release. In fact RTW only became playable for ayone not completeley braindead after BI and mods building on it.

M2TW was more buggy than R2TW at release, but I like the era, so modded the timeline (had 2T/y with seasons and characters aging in a parallell universe, for those copmplaining about 1TPY), used other mods and enjoyed it quite a bit.

ETW was a total abomination, NTW was a sad excuse for ETW, introducing imbecile mini - campaigns. At that point, the TW series was dead to me - I've played ETW for 35 hours and NTW for 15 hours in total.

just left these forums at that time without spamming it with whining threads at the time.

S2TW was the first real glimpse of light for the series and I've played it for over 600 hours since it had a small campaign map and encompassed a period well suitable for TW games in terms of balance.

Despite disliking the era R2TW takes place in and considering it to be entirely unsuitale for a TW game, I have never spent so much time on a vanilla TW game before. 150 hours and going.

The game has tons of problems and I will keep reporting them in a rational manner. It is far too easy on legendary just as every other vanilla TW game was on highest difficulty, but it's not remotely as bad as RTW, M2TW and ETW at release.

Battles are digustingly bad, but I haven't really had good battles since MTW, so maybe that's just my love for the TW game I played the most and me being really bad and inexperienced at the time I started.


The amount of RTW fanboys on these forums is quite astonishing though - must have been the 'full 3d' gimmick dragging them in...

Considering the OP's question, I'd conclude that most people who started playing this game at RTW were outgrown by the game. No more screeching-armor-piercing-head-throwing-elephants anymore and no more roman pony-lala-land-fantasy-factions anymore and people complaining about that?

Tremendous Improvement.