Rome Total War 2 is coming! But I am not happy........

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2012/07/rome-total-war-2-announced-for-2013/

Yes, I loved the first one. Its probably my fav. So why am I not happy?

The lack of original thought.

I am sick of the total war franchise only releasing sequels. Medieval 2 total war, Shogun 2 total war and now Rome 2 total war.

There was Empire total war yes, but its the only game in the entire franchise since since medieval 2 that hasn't been a sequel (Napoleon doesn't count since its technically an exspansion).

I want to see new eras explored, I want new game settings, I want something NEW.

I used to love the total war series, but the whole franchise has just gotten so bloody stale and old now that I just can't force myself to care that there is a new Rome total war comming.

Taking your troops and lining them up into a large army and then having said army march towards the other side to cut them into ribbons was fun years ago, but since then basic gameplay is almost unchanged since the first Rome (at least as far as combat is concerned) it has gotten boring.

Anyone else feels the same?

Thoughts?

They keep revisiting the same titles because there are only so many historical periods available to them. And when they started venturing off the worn path with Empire and Napolean they had their most critically savaged games to date (their engine/game play mechanics do not handle firearms particularly well).

Personally, since the only game I've ever really cared about is Medieval, I'd rather they just kept releasing updates on that and buggered off with the rest of it entirely.

The only thing that I'm worried about is their obsession with the mocap combat animations. In theory, that makes the battles far more cinematic.

In practice, it means that often you will see maybe six people fighting off an entire enemy regiment without taking any losses, just because that's how the dice fell. It utterly kills momentum, because nobody can be killed with a single hit anymore. If you charge in, you don't get the charge bonuses of people getting crushed underfoot because they need to use a motion captured fight scene.

BloatedGuppy:
They keep revisiting the same titles because there are only so many historical periods available to them. And when they started venturing off the worn path with Empire and Napolean they had their most critically savaged games to date (their engine/game play mechanics do not handle firearms particularly well).

Personally, since the only game I've ever really cared about is Medieval, I'd rather they just kept releasing updates on that and buggered off with the rest of it entirely.

Pretty much what this guy said. They have covered the periods they are capable of doing. They have pretty much all eras covered from 400-odd BC to the 1800s.

I think the most they can go now is World War 1, but that would require a radical departure from their established combat engine.

baddude1337:

but that would require a radical departure from their established combat engine.

Something which I actually WANT.

Like I said, I am sick of everything always being exactly the same. I would actually welcome some change so long as the basic premise stays the same (build armies, take over nations, build nations etc).

What do you want? Stonehenge: Total War?

baddude1337:
I think the most they can go now is World War 1, but that would require a radical departure from their established combat engine.

Fuck that. We have so fucking many World War # RTS games. I'd rather have Total War covering the rest, even if it means they go back to a time period every 10 odd years.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
What do you want? Stonehenge: Total War?

baddude1337:
I think the most they can go now is World War 1, but that would require a radical departure from their established combat engine.

Fuck that. We have so fucking many World War # RTS games. I'd rather have Total War covering the rest, even if it means they go back to a time period every 10 odd years.

Since when did we have an ACTUAL WW I game? And not that joke called "toy soldiers."

In case you didn't notice, WW I wasn't the one with Nazis. Its the one no one talks about and brown shooters cant cover because Frat boys can't operate a bolt action rifle. That and a morally gray war would confuse them.

What about a game set just as the new world was being discovered? You could have the map as Europe at first but after you reach a certain technology you could pay to send colonists and soldiers. This would mean that only factions that are doing well could colonise the new world.
They'd land at a random place and if your colonists landed in the middle of Aztec mexico, well unlucky.

You could also see the transformation of combat tactics as technology advances. At first you'd still be using cavalry, swords and early cannons and muskets then as you get better rifles they'd be your main weapon.

OT: I think as long as it's historically accurate I won't mind it, not that my computer can play it anyway.

Ultratwinkie:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
What do you want? Stonehenge: Total War?

baddude1337:
I think the most they can go now is World War 1, but that would require a radical departure from their established combat engine.

Fuck that. We have so fucking many World War # RTS games. I'd rather have Total War covering the rest, even if it means they go back to a time period every 10 odd years.

Since when did we have an ACTUAL WW I game? And not that joke called "toy soldiers."

In case you didn't notice, WW I wasn't the one with Nazis. Its the one no one talks about and brown shooters cant cover because Frat boys can't operate a bolt action rifle. That and a morally gray war would confuse them.

You'd never capture any cities. You'd just sit there between turns spamming "RECRUIT 17 YEAR OLD BOY" until you could recruit tanks.

Ultratwinkie:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
What do you want? Stonehenge: Total War?

baddude1337:
I think the most they can go now is World War 1, but that would require a radical departure from their established combat engine.

Fuck that. We have so fucking many World War # RTS games. I'd rather have Total War covering the rest, even if it means they go back to a time period every 10 odd years.

Since when did we have an ACTUAL WW I game? And not that joke called "toy soldiers."

In case you didn't notice, WW I wasn't the one with Nazis. Its the one no one talks about and brown shooters cant cover because Frat boys can't operate a bolt action rifle. That and a morally gray war would confuse them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_I_video_games

Thanks for the attempt at a sharp jab, in any case. Keep trying.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Ultratwinkie:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
What do you want? Stonehenge: Total War?

Fuck that. We have so fucking many World War # RTS games. I'd rather have Total War covering the rest, even if it means they go back to a time period every 10 odd years.

Since when did we have an ACTUAL WW I game? And not that joke called "toy soldiers."

In case you didn't notice, WW I wasn't the one with Nazis. Its the one no one talks about and brown shooters cant cover because Frat boys can't operate a bolt action rifle. That and a morally gray war would confuse them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_I_video_games

Thanks for the attempt at a sharp jab, in any case. Keep trying.

Nice, the majority are either:

a) shovelware.
B) "board game" strategy.
C) Small games like "toy soldiers."

Basically, not actual strategy games.

I want to see a Total War: Mythology, basically Age of Mythology re-made as a TW game.

Not at all. Also, how do you know it's the same when all we have is a live action trailer?
There has been huge innovation in the TW series. It's just been mostly on the diplomacy side of things, so that people who lack a certain finesse and just charge blokes with pointy sticks into one another may have over looked it.
Honestly, I love the series and I do think the periods that suit it best are the Classical and Medieval periods. I most certainly do not want to see any WW1 TW games or other madness that is kicking about. I'm going to play the hell out of Rome 2 and I'm sure I'll be just as excited for Medieval 3 when that is announced.

As long as there's the possibility of substantial improvement, I don't mind. At all. Just so happens that there are things we can do now that we couldn't 8 years ago, so even if Rome were perfect as far as gameplay goes, which it wasn't, the game is at least going to look vastly superior, which would make it hard for me to object to it. Bring on the higher fidelity and bigger scale battles between some of the most prominent in media/awesome civilizations one can think of.

One reason I am somewhat dubious as to Rome 2 is because of the developments they've made in Shogun 2, such as the simplification of certain aspects of the turn-based portion of the game, or the completely out of place research tree.

well i am not at all excited and i love the total war series and rome in particular and love the idea of rome with all the stuff i liked in shogun 2 and FoTS but the yearly release in the TW series since empire kinda killed my excitement, i just don't have enough time to play the games as much as i like or used to. so i may be skipping this one and pick up whatever rome2s Napoleon will be

I'm with you 100% HC,

Yes, there are plenty of 'World War' games, but I think if anyone has 'earned' the right to make a Total World War (Jesus, the title writes itself) it's Creative Assembly.

Yes, they'd have to change the central combat mechanic from what was going on in Empire or Rome or Medieval or Shogun. Know what? THAT'S FINE. There's no real reason to pigeonhole CA into doing the same thing over and over.

I liked Rome TW just fine. I played it, I can go back to it if I want. I liked Medieval just fine. I played it, I can go back to it if I want. Give me something new please.

While I do think the series has been getting better and better (I'm willing to overlook Empire), and I would like the Creative Assembly to keep doing what they do best, I wouldn't mind some new time periods.

It's nonsense that there aren't any more available. What about Ancient Greece, Egypt, Persia, Mongol and Timurid conquests, Russian civil war, several huge Chinese wars (Qing conquests, An Shi rebellion, Sino-Japanese war), Hundred Years' War, Eigthy Years' War, Byzantine conquest, Viking expansion? Maybe even the World Wars, CA might make that work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm really looking forward to Rome. But I am a bit disappointed as well.

Hardcore_gamer:

Something which I actually WANT.

Like I said, I am sick of everything always being exactly the same. I would actually welcome some change so long as the basic premise stays the same (build armies, take over nations, build nations etc).

So you want a new battle engine? For the eras the games are set in its the best around. As they say, don't fix what ain't broke. What changes would you actually like to see? All they really need to do in my opinion is get some enemy AI that isn't herpy derpy all the time.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
What do you want? Stonehenge: Total War?

Fuck that. We have so fucking many World War # RTS games. I'd rather have Total War covering the rest, even if it means they go back to a time period every 10 odd years.

I wasn't saying I wanted it, I don't. It would play like a totally different game as it's trench warfare and not formation based.

And for the record, World War 1 games practically don't exist.

GundamSentinel:

It's nonsense that there aren't any more available. What about Ancient Greece, Egypt, Persia, Mongol and Timurid conquests, Russian civil war, several huge Chinese wars (Qing conquests, An Shi rebellion, Sino-Japanese war), Hundred Years' War, Eigthy Years' War, Byzantine conquest, Viking expansion? Maybe even the World Wars, CA might make that work.

Well most of your examples are covered with the Ancient and Medieval time periods, which they have done.
You never know, there could well be a Rome 2 DLC campaign focussing on the rise and fall of Greece. Which would great.

With regards the the Chinese ideas, sadly I fear it would suffer from the same issues that Shogun 2 did, in that all the factions feel fairly samey. It would likely be worse given that most people have a much greater touchstone knowledge of feudal Japan than they do with any period of Chinese history.

Hardcore_gamer:
http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2012/07/rome-total-war-2-announced-for-2013/

Yes, I loved the first one. Its probably my fav. So why am I not happy?

The lack of original thought.

I am sick of the total war franchise only releasing sequels. Medieval 2 total war, Shogun 2 total war and now Rome 2 total war.

There was Empire total war yes, but its the only game in the entire franchise since since medieval 2 that hasn't been a sequel (Napoleon doesn't count since its technically an exspansion).

I want to see new eras explored, I want new game settings, I want something NEW.

I used to love the total war series, but the whole franchise has just gotten so bloody stale and old now that I just can't force myself to care that there is a new Rome total war comming.

Taking your troops and lining them up into a large army and then having said army march towards the other side to cut them into ribbons was fun years ago, but since then basic gameplay is almost unchanged since the first Rome (at least as far as combat is concerned) it has gotten boring.

Anyone else feels the same?

Thoughts?

They screwed up Empire big time and Napoleon was no better either. They tried and failed using guns in a R.T.S.

Shogun 2 was merley a fallback albeit safe area to go back to the drawing board. But total war has always been much more profiecent in their melle era battles than in their ranged warfare ones. Take 1.0 Empire mortars that could fire one end of the map to the other killing your general and whole army before it reached your line infantry.

I would like to see them do an Empire II and learn from their mistakes, screw this notion of a world war game. how would you implement many squads and skirmishes + tanks + aircraft and navy on a battlefield without damaging the mechanics and balance.

I'd like to see a Total War set in the ancient Greece or in the distant future. I'm not excited about Rome Total War 2. So I'm probably not going to get it on release day.

Joshey Woshey:
What about a game set just as the new world was being discovered? You could have the map as Europe at first but after you reach a certain technology you could pay to send colonists and soldiers. This would mean that only factions that are doing well could colonise the new world.
They'd land at a random place and if your colonists landed in the middle of Aztec mexico, well unlucky.

Already been done... sort of. M2:TW did the whole 'Explorer's Guild' in the Grand Campaign and Kingdoms had the New World campaign.

Ultratwinkie:
Basically, not actual strategy games.

WWI is not a particularly good era/war for CA to get their teeth into, for the simple reason that static warfare doesn't suit the strategy engine, nor is it particularly interesting or even challenging. All you'd end up doing is spamming fresh-faced kids and machine guns. Factors to consider in the difficulty are numbers (considering the number of combatants on each side) and the fact that by this stage, the line between strategy and tactics has been tremendously blurred and unless you can do a partial to full zoom of the operational area, a la Supreme Commander, it just won't be 'accurate' (or rather, it'll be less accurate than it already is). The idea of a 'full stack' army owning enemy ass is out the window due to strategic mutual support which cannot be fairly reflected in the game system. Also, the introduction of aerial warfare adds difficulties as well. Plus, moving trenches... the *snore*-ness...

Besides, from a military perspective, it is a combination of abhorrent and boring.

senordesol:
I liked Rome TW just fine. I played it, I can go back to it if I want. I liked Medieval just fine. I played it, I can go back to it if I want. Give me something new please.

While I agree (after a fashion) it is difficult to find a period and broad location in history that is sufficient in the following aspects: strong and flowing narrative; well known army basis; military innovation/dynamic; and factional diversity. All the ones that come to mind have already been covered, and only one general period has not been touched by CA and that's the religious wars of the 17th century (Tilly/Adolphus & delightful co) centred upon the Thirty Years' War.

However, as yet another entirely central Europe-centric game that is basically just Empire with even crappier small-arms, I'm not sure how that'd go down.

Now, there's also the Wars of the Diadochi, but the snag with that is as I mentioned in my R2:TW expansion pack thread. There is a distinct lack of variety in the army constructions, because it's always going to be skirmisher, phalanx and cavalry with very little to separate the various factions, which is a pity, because the idea is great IMO. I'd hazard a guess that a Three Kingdoms:TW game would have the same problem as well.

Adam Jensen:
I'd like to see a Total War set in the ancient Greece or in the distant future. I'm not excited about Rome Total War 2. So I'm probably not going to get it on release day.

The problem with Ancient Greece is that most factions are going to have very similar units. Also, the combat itself is very slow and fairly boring. Block of men A shuffles up to Block of men B. They poke each other with long sticks. Continue.

Having that, I am hoping that Rome 2 will have a DLC set in ancient Greece.

To everyone saying:
"Why not WW x?"
"Why not in the future"
...
Creative Assembly allready clearly stated that they will not do any games that are more modern than empire /napoleon.
So you can pretty much loose that hope.

Blunderboy:

Adam Jensen:
I'd like to see a Total War set in the ancient Greece or in the distant future. I'm not excited about Rome Total War 2. So I'm probably not going to get it on release day.

The problem with Ancient Greece is that most factions are going to have very similar units. Also, the combat itself is very slow and fairly boring. Block of men A shuffles up to Block of men B. They poke each other with long sticks. Continue.

Well, it depends on the period. There certainly were periods in ancient Greek history that were dominated by phalanx combat, but there are many where they used some sort of combined arms to support the phalanx and/or went up against societies that didn't use the phalanx.

OT: I'm going to be ecstatic if the game's meaningfully moddable, seriously dissapoint if it's not. The period in question is less interesting to me than the sort of historical realism mods the game itself enables.

Adam Jensen:
I'd like to see a Total War set in the ancient Greece or in the distant future. I'm not excited about Rome Total War 2. So I'm probably not going to get it on release day.

The first Rome Total War is already set in ancient Greece. If I remember properly, the campaign begins at about 800 BC, and since you can already play as the Greeks or Macedonians, you already have a Total War game set in ancient Greece.

A gamer isn't happy about a new release?

Stop the presses!

Never before in my entire life have I seen someone who was unhappy with a game company's decision, particularly when that decision involved a sequel that was either entirely changed or not changed enough!

*cough*

Alright, I think most of the sarcasm is gone now.

When I buy a Sonic game, I expect to play a little blue hedgehog running absurdly fast through a linear course. When I buy Halo I expect to play a hulking space marine murdering his way through an entire army of aliens and zombies. When I buy CoD I expect to be called racist and homosexual slurs online and fucked over a bramble patch if I only wanted to play a single player game not a multiplayer bonanza.

And when I buy Rome: Total War? I expect hundreds of little men to line up under my command and march into another line of men until all the bad guys have fallen over. I can't see that many ways that this formula can be improved upon besides better graphics and more control over your troops until you're not making Total War anymore. I don't buy Total War games to play Age of Empires, I buy Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds if I want to play Age of Empires.

So if they do more modern tactical battles would people just complain that they are being unoriginal and copying games like Men of War or Close Combat?

Many people love exploring the Roman era and most wanted CA to revisit it. The tactics of the era are also more interesting in detail than "two enemies march at each other." Line battles with muskets, CA could maybe get right if they go back to it at some point, but later eras the Total War game system is just wrong for.

[fanboyish euphoria]OMGOMGOMG WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!![/fanboyish euphoria]
(how on earth did i not know about this yet?)
A modern TW wouldnt work, how would you handle aircrafts and long range artillery?
An ancient setting, hitties, babylonians, egyptian and such would be cool though.
It works best with swords, spears and arrows.

Amaror:

Creative Assembly allready clearly stated that they will not do any games that are more modern than empire /napoleon.
So you can pretty much loose that hope.

This is not correct:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.248642-Modern-Total-War-Not-Impossible-Says-Creative-Assembly?page=1

I'm so excited for this game especially with what they've added, such as no longer naval and land battles being separated. Now a fleet can attack a city and actually land troops on the beaches and then lay siege to the city.

All the periods and locations? Are you kidding?

-Asia Minor - The place where iron was first smelted. You can't think of something here?
-Mesopotamia - This one is stretching it with the city-states, but CA takes creative licenses anyway, so who cares?
-China - BIG. JUICY. SOURCE. Half the quotes from Shogun are from Chinese/Mongolian sources. Why not venture here?
-Africa - A massive continent with tons of cultures.
-South Asia - You can span as far back as you want and you'll find something interesting here.
-Mesoamerica - Two continents. See Africa.

I think they are just afraid of taking risks. It is a shame because I would love to play Total War: Warring States.

I am game for a sequel. I love the variety of troops to any situation. That is one think that I didn't like about Empire or Medieval 2 for that matter. I also love playing as Carthage. So a return to the old wont bother me.

Since when did we have an ACTUAL WW I game? And not that joke called "toy soldiers."

In case you didn't notice, WW I wasn't the one with Nazis. Its the one no one talks about and brown shooters cant cover because Frat boys can't operate a bolt action rifle. That and a morally gray war would confuse them.

The reason we don't have a WWI game (excluding air combat games) is because it would be boring as hell. Bunch of guys sitting in trenches for hours, standing up to charge, and getting gunned down by snipers and MGs. Even a WWI RTS would be dull because of the lack of mobility.

Edit: I seem to have screwed up my quote somehow, sorry about that.

as a side note trench warfare only really started to be properly used in 1915. during the first year of the war combat was extremely fluid.

rome total war was by far their most popular game and to this day is the one people have been screaming the loudest for a sequel. so it was a safe bet it would be the nextone they make.

with the fall of the samurai everything is pretty much in place for a us civil war game and/or 19th century to 1914 game

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked