Rome II

[Bison]

I think the premise must exist that one believes that Rome 2 sucks.  I happen to not hold that premise, but to each their own.

[mikeck]

It doesn't suck , it's just different from previous total wargames...kind of like master of Orion 3... I saw so many reviews and people saying MOO 3 sucked, but turns out it doesn't suck, it's just not master of Orion 2! with better graphics; they renworked it and people didn't like that. The same with Rome 2; it's just different it had the same birthing issues that Rome1, medieval total war 2, empire and only other total war games have had with AI at the beginning and at times little issues like that. it's a good game.

I honestly don't understand most of the complaints VAI is just as good as a shogun,  I haven't had a crash in months,  I like the food necessity limiting growth and I like the province system.  I especially like the recruitment by Legion system whereby you actually raise a legion and fill that container with the troops instead of just hodgepodge raising troops all throughout your empire and collecting them together in a unit that you name.

I absolutely understand people who don't like it or don't enjoy it or prefer other total wargames but I just don't know how somebody can play it and say that it sucks

In fact I am buying bboyer a copy for Christmas!

[Gusington]

^I did that for Martok and it worked splendidly.

[undercovergeek]

In fact I am buying bboyer a copy for Christmas!

are you sure he hasnt got one - his opinions seem a little informed to not have it

and if he hasnt and posts those opinions without playing it - shaaaaaaaaaaaaame on bboyer!!  :P

[bboyer66]

In fact I am buying bboyer a copy for Christmas!

are you sure he hasnt got one - his opinions seem a little informed to not have it

and if he hasnt and posts those opinions without playing it - shaaaaaaaaaaaaame on bboyer!!  :P

Of course I have it, and payed way too frickin much for it when it came out. Uninstalled rather quickly. Maybe one day I will come back to it. 

Thought the best part of the prior review, was showing how in a lot of ways Rome II is a huge step back compared to Rome I when it comes to how individual soldiers are modeled.

[undercovergeek]

youre not tempted after all the fixes?

[mikeck]

What's funny is seeing people over at the Rome 2 forums remembering fondly how great Rome 1 was. I have a different memory...one of people screaming bloody murder about bad AI, zombie armies and That sort of stuff. Never really got fixed. Now it's a great game and Rome 2 should have been more like it.

(Not directed at you BBoyer...the Rome 1 comparison jus reminded me of it)

I will have to look at the review you mentioned but I have seen NOTHING that Rome 1 did better

[Gusington]

One thing that Rome I did do better was the city view in peace time. It simulated walking around any of your cities just to enjoy the sites...it was great and I don't know why they got rid of it.

[Sir Slash]

Yeah I can remember all the outrage at the soldiers all being "Clones" of each other and identical in appearance. I had never noticed that until people began bitching about it and then I could only see it when I paused the game and zoomed in as close as possible to the soldiers. I never let it bother me after that. Still Rome 2 should have been in better shape at launch I think.

[Martok]

Ok how about a kinder and gentler version on why it stinks

The reviewer immediately lost all credibility with me when he described Rome II as the sequel to "the greatest Total War game ever made". 

What's funny is seeing people over at the Rome 2 forums remembering fondly how great Rome 1 was. I have a different memory...one of people screaming bloody murder about bad AI, zombie armies and That sort of stuff. Never really got fixed. Now it's a great game and Rome 2 should have been more like it.

(Not directed at you BBoyer...the Rome 1 comparison jus reminded me of it)

I will have to look at the review you mentioned but I have seen NOTHING that Rome 1 did better

Precisely, mickek.  If the first RTW had been more similar to Rome II, I'd not have despised the former so thoroughly...or at all, most likely.  Odds are good I'd have actually enjoyed it. 

[LongBlade]

So this is indeed a good game as it stands now, if it were purchased today?

Rome II was fine at version 1.0 vanilla.

Patches will have only improved it.

http://grogheads.com/?p=2936

[MengJiao]

So this is indeed a good game as it stands now, if it were purchased today?

Rome II was fine at version 1.0 vanilla.

Patches will have only improved it.

http://grogheads.com/?p=2936

  I agree.  And yet I'm sure plenty of people have perfectly good reasons for disliking it.  On the other hand, to me, a lot of the rejection
directed at Rome II seems so inexplicable that I wonder if there is not some systematic neurological reason for it.  As I've said before, Rome II may be one of the first games (other than Flight Sims) to enter a kind of Uncanny valley where most of what the game is becomes disturbingly unthinkable because it just looks like reality (but not quite).  To give a similar case (other than the original uncanny valley case of robots that look too human -- but not quite), these days you can find people posting on flight sim sites wondering why the 109 in game A is different from the 109 in Game B.  If this puzzles you at some instinctive level, then you may be just waiting to have a case like Rome II where you look at a game (A) and all you can see is that it somehow is not game B.  And all you notice is anything related to that dissimilarity.  In effect, everything in the game in front of you vanishes and you are annoyed.  IT's bland, homogenous and so on because it has actually experientially (uncannily) vanished.
 
  Well, luckily, this didn't happen to me and I've enjoyed Rome II all along.  I had a great time with Easy Egypt, but I think my best experience with the game was with the Normal Parthenians in Patch 2, and in that festival of ambushes, my favorite moment was when some backwoods Grecians attacked the main Parthenian force.  I was outnumbered almost 2:1 (and for me against the AI, that can be bad for me), but I dismounted the Persian Mercenary Spear dudes in the center on a wooded hill and backed them up with dismounted horse archers -- no skirmishing allowed and won the battle pretty unexpectly.

[bboyer66]

Ok how about a kinder and gentler version on why it stinks

The reviewer immediately lost all credibility with me when he described Rome II as the sequel to "the greatest Total War game ever made". 

What's funny is seeing people over at the Rome 2 forums remembering fondly how great Rome 1 was. I have a different memory...one of people screaming bloody murder about bad AI, zombie armies and That sort of stuff. Never really got fixed. Now it's a great game and Rome 2 should have been more like it.

(Not directed at you BBoyer...the Rome 1 comparison jus reminded me of it)

I will have to look at the review you mentioned but I have seen NOTHING that Rome 1 did better

Precisely, mickek.  If the first RTW had been more similar to Rome II, I'd not have despised the former so thoroughly...or at all, most likely.  Odds are good I'd have actually enjoyed it.

You disagree that Shogun II was not the best of the series?

Did anyone actually watch the video? He is very thorough and gives good examples of his criticisms. 

[mikeck]

Ok how about a kinder and gentler version on why it stinks

The reviewer immediately lost all credibility with me when he described Rome II as the sequel to "the greatest Total War game ever made". 

What's funny is seeing people over at the Rome 2 forums remembering fondly how great Rome 1 was. I have a different memory...one of people screaming bloody murder about bad AI, zombie armies and That sort of stuff. Never really got fixed. Now it's a great game and Rome 2 should have been more like it.

(Not directed at you BBoyer...the Rome 1 comparison jus reminded me of it)

I will have to look at the review you mentioned but I have seen NOTHING that Rome 1 did better

Precisely, mickek.  If the first RTW had been more similar to Rome II, I'd not have despised the former so thoroughly...or at all, most likely.  Odds are good I'd have actually enjoyed it.

You disagree that Shogun II was not the best of the series?

Did anyone actually watch the video? He is very thorough and gives good examples of his criticisms.

The question is subjective. No I don't think it was the best because I dont give two craps about Japanese history so I found it supremely uninteresting. However,  mechanically it was very polished it was probably the most polished of all the versions and had the best AI. I just don't care about that era in history so for me , no it wasn't the best

[mikeck]

I didn't watch the video because I enjoy the game. I don't care what angry Joe or this guy have to say. Now if I didn't own the game and I was curious about it, I would certainly watch it but I've seen the same complaints over and over again and I just don't experience them. Sorry I just haven't had super bad or crazy AI. I haven't had bad performance or crashes. I haven't had all of these issues that all these other people seem to have that made room to the most horrible game in the universe I had fun day one.

I think from day one there was a large group of people who decided this game was bad and their mission was to prove to everybody that this game was bad. it didn't matter what kind of shape it was really and what improvements were made...it was bad and everybody needed to know it ...whether  really was or not