Rome 2: Total war is coming!

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Mods are all ready coming out to help with the battles ending way too fast. Though right now as I type im stuck in a battle with the AI attacking. One boat cannot find land and the one of the AIs units is underground! FIRING AT ME with javelins on fire! And I can't kill them!
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
Well Angry Joe gave it a 6/10, but that seems largely based on the premise that they will fix the problems he has listed. I think he has been overly generous considering the problems he has seen as well as the ones I have seen. This game should be classified as largely broken, with elements that are unplayable (like multiplayer). Simply put this is another reason why the world needs better consumer rights for products, this one is faulty by design on release and should be sent back.

AngryJoe isn't angry enough about this one.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,196
197
106
I've watched Angry Joe's review and... I don't quite know where I'd begin, or if it'd ever end. I agree on pretty much everything he said. I'd like to add that something is definitely completely messed up and wrong in the gaming industry. If they released cars out of the assembly lines as broken as the game is on release people would die (actually maybe they just wouldn't be able to even start up the engine, nvm). You can't turn out every single game franchises into yearly sport releases. You don't... you DON'T rush a Total War game out, you just don't do that.

And that A.I. coder we saw in Joe's review? That's public relations and promotional bullshit, and I don't know how much he was paid to give his "let's praise the A.I. that basically doesn't exist" speech in whatever interview that was, but he should have had the guts to at least refuse to speak about it in the first place, but sure money talks louder, let's give an interview and let's talk about something I clearly can't make anyway, but people at home won't know and they'll think we'll be able to patch everything anyway.

There needs to be a "police of gaming", or some laws... or I don't know, something out there that forbids or simply punishes companies (publishers and/or developers) from/if releasing clearly unfinished products (games, software, whichever way you prefer to put it) in no less than alpha states. There needs to be an end to obvious cash grabs like the DLC they made for it (as Joe explained in his review). There needs to be an end in expcting the consumers to pay $60 for a clearly incomplete game. There is zero chances that the actual team "wasn't aware" about the game's state at release, and internally they must have braced themselves for a good month+ prior to release with epic flame shields fully knowing how incomplete the game was and how the community would react to that. That, especially considering that they somehow managed to put out a beautiful game like Shogun 2 right prior to Rome II, which makes Rome II's situation even less acceptable.

But the problems are so bad in Rome II's case specifically that for that one I feel that both SEGA and CA too really did fuck it up (there's basically no other way to describe it, not to me anyway). I mean SEGA surely had no word on "let's put a damn flag in open field battles so the A.I. focuses on that and ignores your army", that's plain CA decision-making right there. Also, they supposedly had a 40% bigger budget than anything else before in the franchise, but I bet that extra 40% went to MOCAP'ing the crap out of the game, and probably some went for that OST and the voice acting, too. Let's THEN give some of that budget for graphics, sound and, perhaps, if we have time and any of them pennies left... the A.I... oh wait, nvm, we need to pay that guy working on textures and animations, too, looks like A.I. will have to wait.

Anyway, might as well just stop right here. I wasn't expecting THAT much of a failure but right now Rome II is even worse than Empire was at release, and I can't believe I'm saying this. There's a one-liner I like in Unreal Tournament 3 coming from a female combatant (when she kills you), she says "A new low!". That's what CA managed to do, get to a new low. You know, when you have "a low" you think you can't get any worse than THAT point, right? Well, it got so bad it's a NEW low, that's like finding out that there's a point lower than the singularity in a black hole and you don't even know how to name it.

So what's next, screwing up Medieval 3?

I'm about as angry as Angry Joe right now. The game is so bugged and unpolished and broken I don't think that this time around the community's best work would do much. If A.I. is broken at its core and if ships can literally pass through terrain how can you expect people to modify incomplete and untested assets? Before seeing Angry Joe's review I genuinely thought that the issues I had seen myself and read about would be patched in about a month and the community would release at least one major mod by the 2nd or 3rd month post release. But now... I can't even imagine WHAT "mod" would even WORK to begin with. I feel sorry for everyone who bought it full price at release, I really am sorry for you guys, that companies that do this to you consumers. It infuriates me, but it works, and they keep doing it. It should be illegal.
 
Last edited:

Jaiguru

Senior member
Aug 13, 2007
317
0
71
Well Angry Joe gave it a 6/10, but that seems largely based on the premise that they will fix the problems he has listed. I think he has been overly generous considering the problems he has seen as well as the ones I have seen. This game should be classified as largely broken, with elements that are unplayable (like multiplayer). Simply put this is another reason why the world needs better consumer rights for products, this one is faulty by design on release and should be sent back.

AngryJoe isn't angry enough about this one.

I couldn't agree with his review anymore and I agree that a 6/10 is still too generous for the game being in this state at release. The community seems to be relying too heavily on the mods to make the game even playable. That's pretty unacceptable considering we paid $60 for this broken game and the modders aren't getting shit.

While I do enjoy the game, the more I play it the more I feel like going back to Shogun 2 until CA gets a major patch out to fix the game breaking problems this game is having.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
I've watched Angry Joe's review and... I don't quite know where I'd begin, or if it'd ever end. I agree on pretty much everything he said. I'd like to add that something is definitely completely messed up and wrong in the gaming industry. If they released cars out of the assembly lines as broken as the game is on release people would die (actually maybe they just wouldn't be able to even start up the engine, nvm). You can't turn out every single game franchises into yearly sport releases. You don't... you DON'T rush a Total War game out, you just don't do that.

And that A.I. coder we saw in Joe's review? That's public relations and promotional bullshit, and I don't know how much he was paid to give his "let's praise the A.I. that basically doesn't exist" speech in whatever interview that was, but he should have had the guts to at least refuse to speak about it in the first place, but sure money talks louder, let's give an interview and let's talk about something I clearly can't make anyway, but people at home won't know and they'll think we'll be able to patch everything anyway.

There needs to be a "police of gaming", or some laws... or I don't know, something out there that forbids or simply punishes companies (publishers and/or developers) from/if releasing clearly unfinished products (games, software, whichever way you prefer to put it) in no less than alpha states. There needs to be an end to obvious cash grabs like the DLC they made for it (as Joe explained in his review). There needs to be an end in expcting the consumers to pay $60 for a clearly incomplete game. There is zero chances that the actual team "wasn't aware" about the game's state at release, and internally they must have braced themselves for a good month+ prior to release with epic flame shields fully knowing how incomplete the game was and how the community would react to that. That, especially considering that they somehow managed to put out a beautiful game like Shogun 2 right prior to Rome II, which makes Rome II's situation even less acceptable.

But the problems are so bad in Rome II's case specifically that for that one I feel that both SEGA and CA too really did fuck it up (there's basically no other way to describe it, not to me anyway). I mean SEGA surely had no word on "let's put a damn flag in open field battles so the A.I. focuses on that and ignores your army", that's plain CA decision-making right there. Also, they supposedly had a 40% bigger budget than anything else before in the franchise, but I bet that extra 40% went to MOCAP'ing the crap out of the game, and probably some went for that OST and the voice acting, too. Let's THEN give some of that budget for graphics, sound and, perhaps, if we have time and any of them pennies left... the A.I... oh wait, nvm, we need to pay that guy working on textures and animations, too, looks like A.I. will have to wait.

Anyway, might as well just stop right here. I wasn't expecting THAT much of a failure but right now Rome II is even worse than Empire was at release, and I can't believe I'm saying this. There's a one-liner I like in Unreal Tournament 3 coming from a female combatant (when she kills you), she says "A new low!". That's what CA managed to do, get to a new low. You know, when you have "a low" you think you can't get any worse than THAT point, right? Well, it got so bad it's a NEW low, that's like finding out that there's a point lower than the singularity in a black hole and you don't even know how to name it.

So what's next, screwing up Medieval 3?

I'm about as angry as Angry Joe right now. The game is so bugged and unpolished and broken I don't think that this time around the community's best work would do much. If A.I. is broken at its core and if ships can literally pass through terrain how can you expect people to modify incomplete and untested assets? Before seeing Angry Joe's review I genuinely thought that the issues I had seen myself and read about would be patched in about a month and the community would release at least one major mod by the 2nd or 3rd month post release. But now... I can't even imagine WHAT "mod" would even WORK to begin with. I feel sorry for everyone who bought it full price at release, I really am sorry for you guys, that companies that do this to you consumers. It infuriates me, but it works, and they keep doing it. It should be illegal.

Agreed. It's arguably false advertising, but at the end of the day we're talking about a video game. No one wants to spend thousands and weeks on a class action lawsuit when they can just chalk up $60 sunk and move on.

I agree that the modders don't have much to work with yet. Hell half of the "mods" will likely be community bug-fixes. The AI is especially inexcusable. I'm no AI programmer, so maybe I'm just talking out my ass here, but the logic of something like "If the enemy has mostly melee infantry, use missile units before closing." is certainly doable, or even simpler: "don't send 1 unit alone to attack anything." among many other examples. But even that basic functionality appears to be missing.

When I can literally picture the required pseudo-code in my head, there are serious, SERIOUS problems. It's like they never even bothered to develop AI, so they plugged in flags and said "run towards the flag." I don't know if it's SEGA's fault for pushing a dumb time table or what, but come on.
 

tenpole

Senior member
Aug 21, 2013
265
1
81
It is bugged and flawed but I would still buy it knowing all these problems. It still is a great game.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
It is bugged and flawed but I would still buy it knowing all these problems. It still is a great game.

Same here.

Luckily I wasn't plagued by graphical problems besides just general poor optimization. If I couldn't even play the damn game, I would be mad.

Even with the lackluster AI on both the campaign and battles, I am still enjoying the game. I am on normal, and finding it too easy, but I'll bump it up to hard next campaign.

I like trading and diplomacy. I like the city building and that squalor is entirely controlled by the player. I even like that you have to have generals for armies.

I don't really get internal politics. Nothing I do seems to matter.
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
AngryJoe isn't angry enough about this one.

It's because he, like a lot of us here, love the core game.

I'm enjoying it, everything he said is true, but despite it like him I too still enjoy it.

Could be far far better though, and the AI really detracts from the game, the general system is far too dumbed down... Needs a lot of work, but I'd play and do play it over the first R:TW and there is no substitute that offers what these titles offer.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
I agree. I have put more hours into this game than a lot of others I have played, I don't understand why its so compelling because I do recognise intellectually its really broken. But there is quite a lot of fun in it and I do laugh at the stupidity of the AI. I have won too many battles that should have definitely been lost, but I guess that is the fun of oursmarting the AI (a 2 year old could do that unfortunately).
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
It is bugged and flawed but I would still buy it knowing all these problems. It still is a great game.

That right there is why we continue to get broken, unpolished, buggy, untested, alpha grade games released, under the intend to patch later . . . if sales are good.
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
That right there is why we continue to get broken, unpolished, buggy, untested, alpha grade games released, under the intend to patch later . . . if sales are good.

Well there is two ways of looking at that (btw TW:S2 wasn't a buggy mess)..


You could play the buggy game and give feedback and they work to address the issues and improve the game.

Or you could wait 3-4 more months to play a game that is more polished but didn't benefit from months of end user feedback.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
Well there is two ways of looking at that (btw TW:S2 wasn't a buggy mess)..


You could play the buggy game and give feedback and they work to address the issues and improve the game.

Or you could wait 3-4 more months to play a game that is more polished but didn't benefit from months of end user feedback.

Or they could have done a public Beta and not charged people a $60 entry fee.
 

el-Capitan

Senior member
Apr 24, 2012
572
2
81
I can barely understand why people here are so pissed off at having bought an unpolished game. If i hadn't been gifted it, I would have waited few weeks/ months.

The is a CA:TW title after all. You all KNEW it was going to be crap at launch.

...fool me twice, shame on me.
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
Or they could have done a public Beta and not charged people a $60 entry fee.

Paying for beta access isn't uncommon in an age of ever increasing development costs.

I'm not trying to defend CA, but the game is still good. The disappointment comes from the fact that it could, and should be much better.

What was the last PC game you bought at release that didn't need a few patches?
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Paying for beta access isn't uncommon in an age of ever increasing development costs.

I'm not trying to defend CA, but the game is still good. The disappointment comes from the fact that it could, and should be much better.

What was the last PC game you bought at release that didn't need a few patches?

Depends. Do you mean balance patches or playability patches?
 

turn_pike

Senior member
Mar 4, 2012
316
0
71
How would you rate Rome 2 if you dont fight the battles ?

I've had a little fun a few years back playing Shogun 2 and Empire campaign mode and always using auto resolve as I'm much more interested in the diplomacy / economic / subterfuge side of things.

Normally I would simply play Paradox's grand strategy titles but they dont have any major title for this time period. I'm playing EU4 which is awesome but the deliberate pace sometimes makes me want to play something fun and fast like Total War series for an hour or so.

Eu4 vs Rome campaign mode comparison anyone ?
 

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
As I play more of the game, I continue to revise my rating downward. I'd probably give it a 6/10 right now. It is too unfinished.

That being said, I'm still playing it. How does that work?
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
As I play more of the game, I continue to revise my rating downward. I'd probably give it a 6/10 right now. It is too unfinished.

That being said, I'm still playing it. How does that work?

You really really want to like it, and you're desperately looking for that one thing that you can latch onto to actually like even though in your mind that little light in the dark is fading.

It was like that with me and FF13. I so really wanted to like it, that I played that game for over 15 hours just looking for something to like so I had an excuse for the time I spent on it. Than I gave up and sold it. Complete waste of time.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
Eu4 vs Rome campaign mode comparison anyone ?

Not much of a comparison. Some might disagree, but in my view when it comes to strategic depth, Total War games have always been about as deep as a puddle. In ascending order of strategic complexity, this is where I put Rome 2:

Rome 2 < Civilization 5 < Crusader Kings 2 < EU4/HOI3 < WITP/WITE

That said, Rome 2 does have a decent campaign mode but the AI problems really hurt the game as a whole.

As a sidebar, for a Paradox game it's amazing how good is EU4 was at release. It's a sad truth that it's an accepted norm that Paradox games generally get released in a very buggy state and usually need an expansion or two to make them worthy. I know we are talking about Rome 2 here but Paradox deserves a big pat on the back for EU4.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Or they could have done a public Beta and not charged people a $60 entry fee.



That.

Laziness and/or incompetence are the only reasons that an alpha will ever make it to release.

The issues that Rome 2 is displaying should have been caught in internal QA.


Rome 2 < Civilization 5 < Crusader Kings 2 < EU4/HOI3 < WITP/WITE

I don't think we can really put Civ5 in a serious conversation about strategy games. It was even more dumbed down and casualized than anything else, and even basic features and civilizations were parceled out to sell as DLC. Empire Total War and Civilization 5 are the two biggest reasons why I don't preorder games any more. Tired of having my rectum sodomized with a red poker.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
All but 3 of the reviews on metacritic are, to put it mildly, glowing. Many are 90%+. When you combine that with the steam data that said most didn't even play a battle and the clearly problematic state in which the game was released in you get what?

It sure looks like a lot of that CA budget could have gone onto buying reviews rather than developing the game. I just don't see how anyone could critically review this game that high unless they were bought in some way.

That is a lot of potentially bought websites represented on metacritic right now, many of them previously respected! Yet r2 is clearly bad and if their review doesn't address the problems and they likely never played the game why did they release a glowing review. Its a strong accusation to make but I can't look at that metacritic page and think it's all OK because it clearly isn't.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
When you combine that with the steam data that said most didn't even play a battle and the clearly problematic state in which the game was released in you get what?

That data was proven to be false. Reviewers are given a special version of the game that doesn't even have achievements. Those people were likely QA testers or other company-internal people whose job doesn't require many hours of playtesting.

It sure looks like a lot of that CA budget could have gone onto buying reviews rather than developing the game. I just don't see how anyone could critically review this game that high unless they were bought in some way.

Because reviewers are lazy? Because reviewers need to churn out as many reviews as possible and that is why you make the first few hours of the game the best you can?

Not to mention, many reviewers said the game was too complex, hard, or just got facts plain wrong.

Game reviewers suck in general. Sure, they get bribed, but I don't think CA is a big enough studio to buy great reviews.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |