Total War: Rome 2?

[The Brain]

Funnily enough several of my ancestors did in fact build the Great Wall of China.

[Alcibiades]

It's...ok.  Not worth full price in my opinion.

[Razgovory]

I may wait for a few patches.

[Shade]

I may wait for a few patches.

and a sale or two...

[Viking]

I heard it was a great dissapointment. The 90%+ ratings factories (the review sites which give any competent game 80 or 90 ratings) are all in agreement, it is not as good as it should have been. Which I think is code for "map looks fantastic but gameplay is crap".

[Tamas]

I think it is more a case of too big expectations. Lots of factions causing slow turn times, and battles being a bit too fast are my major gripes. Rest of the game is the regular total war game with some additions, and pretty graphics. So yeah, it's a matter of too high expectations.

[FunkMonk]

I'm seeing a lot of comparisons to Empire being thrown about around different forums. I think I'll wait at least six months for the necessary patches and mods.

[Viking]

So, its a big no on the "buy new computer to be able to pay TWR2" then?

[Tamas]

So, its a big no on the "buy new computer to be able to pay TWR2" then?

If you could play Shogun 2, you could play this one for sure.

I am not saying you should buy it now, if you can live without it. It most certainly did not blow my mind away like Rome 1 did.

That said, my minimal expectation was to see Rome 1 with updated graphics, and despite all the world-wide QQ they delivered THAT, and some more. By some more I mean a huge map, a faction count to put Europa Barbarorum (sp?) to shame, inner politics mechanic, and a city management system and interface that makes more sense with the map`s size.

I guess a reason for the disappointment by many people is that this is precisely the kind of sequel you hear fans demand for other games (and then throw a hissy fit when they don`t receive, eg. Master of Orion 3`s development): an update of the original with all core gameplay unchanged. But Rome 1 is quite old, and that same gameplay core has been repeated in what, 4 other TW games since then? People expected the wow-factor of Rome 1 but you can`t be that blown-away by the same game twice.

That also mean that I may get bored with it fairly quickly, but I am enjoying it now for what it is.

[Agelastus]

I heard it was a great dissapointment. The 90%+ ratings factories (the review sites which give any competent game 80 or 90 ratings) are all in agreement, it is not as good as it should have been. Which I think is code for "map looks fantastic but gameplay is crap".

They all like the map, eh?

It's pretty, but that's it. Visually it's distorted enough from true to be annoying and graphically the enormous footprint of the settlements make it look cramped for all its size.

So, its a big no on the "buy new computer to be able to pay TWR2" then?

From the noise of my fans its straining my computer about as badly as Empire did (it makes less noise than Napoleon and I've never bought Shogun 2.)

Admittedly I'm playing with a graphics quality two steps lower than I normally would (before I've always played maxing out just about everything), but that's still not bad for a game three generations on from Empire.

[Razgovory]

I'm seeing a lot of comparisons to Empire being thrown about around different forums. I think I'll wait at least six months for the necessary patches and mods.

I rather liked Empire, but never actually played Shogun II.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I've had some fun with it in the relatively short amount of time I've been playing it.  I don't have any real performance problems so far, even on my really old hardware, so that's good. 

I had the chance to snag it for like $40 preordered (so including the Greek States thing, which is apparently $8 by itself now), so I went ahead and pulled the trigger on it, but I'd say if you didn't preorder and are on the fence, you might as well wait till some Steam sale or another. 

[Viking]

I heard it was a great dissapointment. The 90%+ ratings factories (the review sites which give any competent game 80 or 90 ratings) are all in agreement, it is not as good as it should have been. Which I think is code for "map looks fantastic but gameplay is crap".

They all like the map, eh?

It's pretty, but that's it. Visually it's distorted enough from true to be annoying and graphically the enormous footprint of the settlements make it look cramped for all its size.

As the joker said, if I have to explain the joke it isn't funny.

[Agelastus]

I heard it was a great dissapointment. The 90%+ ratings factories (the review sites which give any competent game 80 or 90 ratings) are all in agreement, it is not as good as it should have been. Which I think is code for "map looks fantastic but gameplay is crap".

They all like the map, eh?

It's pretty, but that's it. Visually it's distorted enough from true to be annoying and graphically the enormous footprint of the settlements make it look cramped for all its size.

As the joker said, if I have to explain the joke it isn't funny.

It aint a joke if the map's crap, 'cause then it's just nonsense. Oh, and the map's crap...

-
--
---
----

OK, OK I'd just been out in the hot sun doing the mowing and misread your post slightly...

[Richard Hakluyt]

I bought the game and fiddled with it for 20 minutes, then I lost interest and went back to my EUIV game as Austria.