• Publisher: Sega
  • Release Date: Sep 3, 2013
User Score
4.0

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 3411 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 10, 2013
    2
    This game is good when it works. However the bugs and gfx issues are crippling, and its a step back from the rich strategy tapesty of history and battle I expect from the Total War series.

    Biggest issues for me? Battles are too fast to really enjoy. I want to feel like I'm in the thick of it, not having to panic zoom in and out to micro-manage my units.

    Also day 1 DLC so -2 points
    automatically. Expand
  2. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    The game is laggy and ugly even on my relatively good computer. I'm not going to play it until it is patched and hopefully optimized and I can't recommend it to anyone. I feel sorry I preordered this unfinished game.

    At the moment it is the ugliest Total war game ever. The graphics look like they are 10 years old.
  3. Sep 5, 2013
    4
    I'm changing my score for now, because of obvious reasons - 1) AI 2) UI 3) No connection to faction no family tree 4) Diplomacy needs rebalancing 5) The sea battles are terrible, transports are op 6) No blood seriosly, in a game about warfare?Grow some balls. 7) Battle pacing is terrible 8) Too many too fast reloading magic abilities 9) Pushed out before the GPU drivers were created terrible optimization
    10) Even on extreme graphics are blurry and lack proper AA
    11) is it not enough?
    Expand
  4. Sep 3, 2013
    9
    only played Rome 2 two hours this morning but it didnt take any longer then 30 minutes to realize how great this game is and how much more great i can be with modding and patching, far out weighs Rome TW so i think it deserves 9 thats not a fanboy score its my honest opinion.
  5. Sep 4, 2013
    3
    Rome 2 is unfortunately a disappointment. Essentially the battles are a disorganized mess and over in 5 minutes. I don't feel I am a general in this game as victory is assured by simply clicking attack, with the scope for strategy and tactics severely limited.

    The strategy map on the other hand is quite easy to deal with, and the strategy AI certainly has improved over Shogun 2. However
    the user interface is a bit clunky.

    The game as a whole is fairly bug free, however it is poorly optimized. My computer exceeds the recommended specs but still struggles to run this game in the lowest graphical settings. Overall, if you are looking for a good Total War style/strategy game, don't buy this game!
    Expand
  6. Sep 4, 2013
    5
    Total War: Rome II is a box of chocolates, you don't know which is the good or bad chocolate each time you reach for one.

    BATTLE;
    The battle is, to be frank, not great. This is especially bad since one of the main selling points of the entire franchise are the battles. In battle there are no tactics, the enemy just charges straight at you with everything, even missile units. Although
    going into melee combat was typically the only thing you could do back then, but there's no tactics. No flanking, no individual units fighting, no formations, nothing. It's just a giant blob in melee combat that even includes the enemy missile units. It's also uncommon to see enemy generals charging into your lines well before the main line can get there.

    Also in many many scenarios you'll find that yourself or the enemy has a capture point. This is dumbing down the battles considerably, further detracting the game's selling point. You can win the "main" battle (As in two main battle lines fighting) but one enemy skirmisher unit can reach your capture point, win the battle, and your army is destroyed despite a clear victory. It's hard to counter this due to the running speed and how fast a single unit can capture a point. One tactic you can do yourself is have two-unit armies, one unit runs to the extreme left or right, and the entire enemy army chases that unit. The other unit proceeds to go to the enemy's capture point, and the enemy doesn't react due to chasing that unit. Even not chasing any units they typically don't react to anything, flanks, ranged units, nothing.

    I haven't played any sieges yet, but I've only heard bad things about it. Mostly about path-finding, which I've already encountered in open-field battles somehow. The worst thing I heard was that as defenders in a siege, you absolutely have to go out and meet the enemy in the field, or else they stay in place and win due to the timer or you get bored if you got the timer disabled.

    CAMPAIGN;
    The gameplay has changed very significantly in Rome II. Managing your cities is actually important due to the re-emergence of squalor from the days of yore in Medieval II. This combined with the many different building types in four trees (Barbarian, Eastern, Hellenistic (Including Carthage), and Roman.) makes a large variety. Although I wished that there was a difference between the Barbarian building trees, into Britons, Gauls and Germans.

    On the topic of variety, the 500-Units claim is a hype, and tripe. Many of the units are recoloured for other factions, and many of them have no statistical difference. Two examples are the Carthage & African Artillery trees, and the Arabian & Aethiopian Cavalry. There are many more, The Romans also have access to almost every faction unit (Including "unique" units) by constructing auxiliary camps and adding an "Auxiliary" prefix to their names. This brings down the "500 Units" to possibly one-fourth being unique, while still a lot, is still a half-truth and essentially a lie in advertisement to get buyers.

    The faction-count is the same as Shogun 2, but there is promise of free and paid DLC later on. Two of the factions (Carthage and Rome) have families/sub-factions to choose from, which only change which bonuses and detriments you receive.

    GRAPHICS;
    Needless to say the graphics in the game are very well made, and well executed. Even on low settings it is above many similar strategy games. This is made better with the inclusion of "Extreme", going above the formerly "Ultra" in terms of graphical appeal, and melting your computer. One of the most useful features is the inclusion of a Benchmark to see how well your computer can run with the options. But it is rather misleading since battles are more complex than the benchmark, consisting of thousands of troops individually animated, individually fighting, individually dying....

    STABILITY;
    For myself, the game is very stable and I can play for hours on end. But a vocal part of the user-base literally can't open the game at all. This is becoming more and more common with each Total War game, and this is the worst so far. If you thought Empire or Shogun 2 were bad with stability, you should look at the Steam forums for Rome II. For me the game runs well, so I can't really comment on the stability but I won't recognize that it is completely stable.

    I seem to be running out of characters, damn you, 5,000 character limit! So I'll leave you with this mixed review of 5/10. The game is fun, but there's a lot holding it back and it's like Empire all over again, promise things but don't deliver or half-deliver.
    Expand
  7. Sep 10, 2013
    2
    Unoptimized even a high end PC cant run it more that 15 fps...
    **** AI.
    Buggy as hell.
    Alot of missing features....They should of not released it at this stage its a kick in the balls to all TW FANS
  8. Sep 10, 2013
    2
    Such a disappointment since there was so much hype I paid full price, in fact pre purchased and they just over complicated the UI. The new mechanics are horrible. what happened? If you played Shogun 2 this would be considered a big slap to your face. All of these dishonest reviews that hide the fact that it's obviously bugged a lot. No cut scenes to make it immersed like Shogun 2. Creative Assembly said they had 40% more of a budget in this game. I wonder what they spent it on definitely not the game maybe instead on the photo editing they used on the pics they released. Or the trailers maybe even for their hotels or casinos. Everything they said that built up our expectations are lies, ALL OF THEM!!! Well I know these bugs can be patched but they should of known when they released it. It seems Creative Assembly used their interns to do the A.I. Well... "Rome wasn't built in a day," but it seems this game was made in a day. Expand
  9. Jan 2, 2014
    0
    Gamers please, do not listen to paid off "reviewers!"
    Notice the latest trend of "big name" reviewers (gamespot, gamefront,pcgamer,IGN etc) are LYING right into your face with their bought and paid game reviews. They are corrupt and they are not telling the truth. It seem to become a trend now, forcing thousands off their websites who doesn't agree and keep lying! They are paid off by
    the companies, who release a mess of codes and call it a game! You are buying trash! You are buying unplayable trash! It's time to punish these companies and their paid off reviewers by not going to their sites and not buying the games! One of the sites just about the name Rome Total War Rome 2 as "Game of the Year" while 4 patches ahead, the game is still unplayable! Expand
  10. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    Terrible release, full of bugs and incredibly questionable game mechanic decisions..Diplomacy and battles AI are broken, game code in unoptimized. they removed several features from previous games and dumbed it down for no apparent reason.Some stuff will be fixed by community and/or CA but other things (like flag points in battles are not possible to remove and they are killing the game.

    Wait till it's fixed and in bargain bin, not worth full price att
    Expand
  11. Sep 4, 2013
    5
    The game is full of bugs Insanely stupid AI. The only way it could possibly protect a capital city is if it had 40 units guarding it. The AI also doesn't know how to use siege weapons, and will often fail to even get past the wall. Death from above, and a 2000 man army lies dead at my feet... with 3 of my units lost. Some cities can only contain 5 (capital) or 3 buildings, yet nothing was done to display why a capital city such as Rome can't contain 6 buildings. Hey, maybe it's just a bug.... as if there wasn't enough of those already.

    The AI will constantly abandon cities (capital ones aswell) even if it has more units than the approaching enemy.

    Agents who can't enter armies, cities or board ships.....

    Siege engines are bugged so much that units either get stuck or fail to actually use them.
    Expand
  12. Sep 10, 2013
    1
    I know its not a real review. But just warning to people wanting to buy this game, Im pretty sure 90% of the critics on the left side there have been paid off. 100/100, really?
  13. Sep 6, 2013
    2
    If you are expecting Total War Rome 2 having played the first one then you will be disappointed. This is some new game based in the same era without the complexity or depth of play of the old one.

    The information you require to make your decisions is hard to find thanks to a bad UI but that's OK as there are no real bad decisions in this game. During battle you can and you can spend
    your time watching the game play rather than worrying about playing it and use your magic abilities like fast reload for your missile troops with infinite ammo.

    They have taken away a lot of the realism and management completely and introduced pretty graphics.
    Expand
  14. Sep 7, 2013
    2
    Ok so First off the performance issues. I had none initially and was able to run the game on ultra with no problems (speaking of which the graphics are good but not what was advertised). However they have released a patch and since then the game has been unplayably laggy for me on the battle map end.
    Next, the AI is terrible, for example, running through your units to capture points in
    battles where you defend cities. GG Instant win for you. When your attacking cities they will stand still and let you shoot them to death. GG another insta win. Field battles the AI does better but the Macedon preview battle where they stressed its intelligence was HUGELY exaggerated. Also I should note that battles are incredibly short with units routing within seconds of entering melee. Its so bad that you cant really use flanks and ambushes because your frontal units will route before you could possibly spring a trap. It feels very arcade like.
    Campaign mode suffers from a great many bugs and broken features. You cant attack a town who's port is blockaded by a neutral faction, transport ships will crush early navies, mixed land and sea battles have had forts spawning in the middle of the ocean with the AI bugging out and trying to run into the sea to name a few.
    The tech tree is pointless and feels like a last minute add on. The AI's diplomacy makes decisions that often are against its own best interest. Just a lot of general nonsense. Essentially I feel like this game has gone the way of Empire, something I hoped would never happen again, but it is worse in many ways. Like Empire I imagine that a year from now with patches and whatnot it will be an amazing game. But I have to review it as is not as it may be a year from now. And at this time its honestly a glorified beta. Indeed had they had an open (or broad closed) beta I feel many of these problems could have been avoided pre launch.
    Ignore the critic reviews as they were based on pre released builds which were clearly cherry picked. Wait a year and buy this game from a steam sale or bargain bin. And for the love of god someone tell the fan boys to stop giving this 10 ratings to give the score a false boost, all it does is encourage CA to release a game in this sad state again in the future.
    Expand
  15. Sep 8, 2013
    1
    The game is broken. Tons of bugs, very bad AI, the lack of true garrisons in cities is retarded. Just as armies that can only exist and move with general. I recommend buying EU IV or Shogun 2 TW, not this crap.
  16. Sep 8, 2013
    1
    Total War: Rome II does one thing right. It allows you to see which professional reviewers don't play the games they review for any significant amount of time or deliberately lie about their experiences playing them. This game is a hastily thrown together beta, and at least one year of full development away from being playable. The other comments cover the issues in exhaustive detail. Thank god i got to try it before purchasing. For anyone who did purchase it, i recommend asking a refund whenever applicable. Even though Steam policy doesn't support refunds, many European countries legally require a refund option regardless of agreements. For now, it's back to playing the first Rome: TW, with mods of course. Expand
  17. Sep 4, 2013
    1
    The new studio has ruined this game.

    -Graphics: I have a newly updated gfx card and good system that I can run every other game on highest settings like Grid 2, however in Rome 2 I get 20fps, seriously? This may be worth it if the gfx were good but the textures and gfx are horrible. Each unit is unique which isn't worth the sacrifice. The world map is also horrible I have no idea why it
    looks so bad compared to games like Crusader Kings 2 or EU4.

    -The voicing and character models is bad

    -AI and such is the same as always, so is gameplay.

    Sadly it is just the graphical performance that makes this game completely unplayable. Another new studio has ruined a good franchise they are just using the name to get sales
    Expand
  18. Sep 6, 2013
    1
    A game sold in beta-state. Optimization is awfull. In battle units move waaaaay to fast. AI is dumb. A lots of good features that made the TW series good were removed. Where the hell is my family tree?
  19. Sep 3, 2013
    6
    If it wasn't rushed out it had the potential to be a 10/10 RTS.

    As it was rushed out, as it stands, its around a 6.

    The AI is still a bit derpy but that's not really a negative point, especially as I'm not the best player. But the speed of the battles is much too fast, frequently if ordering a three unit attack, after ordering the last to attack, the first unit has already massacred
    everyone and is idling around waiting for new orders. Its a race to get all the directions made before you're needed again. It renders the battles simply a chore. I don't know why there's a cinematic button as you need to see all the battlefield at all times with unit on unit fights lasting 10 seconds at best. Playing on "slow-mo" is where the default pace should be.

    Graphically is not optimised in the slightest, and I'm sure the devs know this and are working on it. Its not a big issue for me personally but the downright lying through screenshots months ago is a bit gaul-ing.

    Strategically speaking the shedding of much of the micromanagement smacks of dumbing down. Paraphrasing dev quotes about how you don't now have to have 1-2 unit armies marching across the map to reach the main force is true; but when was any of that ever an issue? In a game that prides itself on realism why is spawning a unit of fully-equipped cavalrymen in the middle of a Germanic forest the preferred option?

    Also ive ran into a peculiar problem that no-one else seems to have had. After winning an engagement in the prologue, clicking "end battle" when prompted, it took me back to the main menu, and upon clicking resume prologue it took me back to the pre-battle strategy map. I had to fight every prologue battle twice to move to the next stage. I doubt that was how it was meant to be.

    Its obviously not a 9 or 10, those written by hype-influenced CA/TW fanboys. Neither is it a 0 or 1, those written by elitist zealots expecting perfection or something to show off their latest Nvidia Titan graphics card. It is, at the moment, a solid RTS let down by untuned graphics and stupid niggles that should appear in a mediocre title.

    Reading this after October 2013? I'd expect it to be an 8 by then, I hope I'm not disappointed.
    Expand
  20. Sep 5, 2013
    3
    This game is basically CA lying to us players during all development stage. First of all, they released the "pre-alpha" gameplay footage and said the game would look even better than that. First lie. The game doesn't look like that not even on the strongest PCs. They also kept emphasizing the entire video that they were going for a darker feel of war. What we get is almost a capture the flag, and a bunch of special abilities (known as magical abilities). More of an arcade feel of war.

    There was a video where they talked about the phalanx and said the units would try to keep formation over anything. This is also a joke, since they break the phalanx in a few seconds of combat. Actually, if there is something they DON'T do is keep formation during combat.

    In another video, they said the AI has greatly improved. The AI keeps doing suicidal attacks on the cities during the campaing. I also played a custom siege battle where I was defending a city, and the AI sent some troops and then just stood with 90% of the army doing nothing, so I had to quit the game. You don't need any tactics to win the battles, just charge everyone (maybe use some of the magical abilities if you want) and the opponent will break in less than a minute and you will win the battle, killing 700 troops and losing 70. Even on legendary the AI is not a real challenge.

    They said they were going to have a more complex tech tree than the one from Shogun 2, with 6 different branches. They do have 6 different branches, but surprisingly, the one from Shogun 2 is much more diversified and useful. On Rome 2, you have lots of useless tech tree that grants for example (+2% wealth from agriculture, -2% agriculture construction costs) and the next level exactly the same, but instead, with a 4% bonus. Shogun's tech tree was a lot more creative! It's a stepback.

    Yet another thing they said, was that the interaction and intrigues between the roman houses would improve. You would get to the point where you could chose between overthrown the republic or be it's savior. This time you choose your faction, but you even control generals from the other houses and you already begin the game with full control over Rome. There is hardly even a senate. So what's the point of having a civil war at some point of the game if I already control all Rome? Why should I care? Also, there is not even a family tree anymore, to further ruin the immersion.

    By the way, the new recruitment system doesn't makes sense and just doesn't work well. You cannot recruit troops in cities anymore, unless you have a general inside the city, and you have a very limited amount of generals to recruit. So there are many cities you would like to guard, but you can only count on the city garrison. Also, you cannot send troops from an army to another, because they can't travel alone, so, you gotta get both generals close enough to exchange troops.

    I think they focused to much in small details like giving the soldiers facial expressions when someone dies next to him and they forgot to focus on the gameplay itself. By the way, we can't even notice if they actually added the facial expressions to the game because the combat is just a blob of troops and they actually hide some nice animations that gets hard to notice.

    I'll stop here, but those are not the only bad things about the game. It's still pretty much a beta version, and I don't think that many of the bad things about the game are patchable. They can patch the AI, the graphics, the animations, but for the content, I guess we'll have to wait for mods. They said over and over again that it was going to be the best total war game ever. They created a huge hype over it. They set our expectations extremely high. I bought it on pre-sale, and it wasn't cheap. I feel really disrespected.
    Expand
  21. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    AI is horrible. A huge amount of bugs. I hope there wil be hope with future patches and modding or else i will probably be done with that company. they should have invested in beta testing because this is like alpha version.
  22. Sep 6, 2013
    1
    rome total war 2 is like windows vista. It needs patching (and promises will be made) but mostly people will have much lower expectations when next game in series will be released.
  23. Sep 6, 2013
    1
    lag, bad optimization, idiot AI, suck graphic etc... what happen CA?? and when release fix patch? this game beta version?? in the history of Total war series very horrible
  24. Sep 6, 2013
    1
    As a long time follower and enthusiast of Total War serie, i must admit that this is the worst "thing" i have ever seen. The devs had a splendid opportunity to make ROME 1 better....they instead were only able to destroy its glory. Cons: - Sci-fi UI, without ANY sort of differences between cultures (No Immersion, it's all like controlling from your speaceship...), and way too many abstract subslidingmenus.

    - No Family tree, no story to create, and in the end all armies will be the same.

    - 3 minutes battles???????

    - Capture the flag???????

    - Brain Dead AI???????

    - i don't enumerate all the technical bugs and glitches...there are too many and in every aspect of the game.....

    - this game lacks any "spirit" and any real challenge, you can actually see online casual players burning through Legendary difficulty like hot knife in butter.......

    CONGRATS CA AND SEGA, you were able to utterly destroy and annihilate one of the Glories in PC gaming history.

    I fear this is my last Total War.
    Expand
  25. Sep 6, 2013
    1
    In past times, when you buy game, that is that. You know what you get for your money. Today, every game must release patch in 2 week period. What that tell us? They build games for profit now, not for the gamers. They all have sweet advertising, buy our game it is the best. This game just sucks. I have monster pc, but i cant play it on high, frps drops everywhere, even on campaign map, the longest battle was 6 min, that is just funny and not good. You cant have trade agreement with no one, even if you are "same blood" people. Maybe some people dont have problems with graphics, but everyone have problems with in-game setup. People who say this is good game simply lie, maybe they are paid from SEGA to talk such lies, but core of the problem is simply this game isnt FINISH Expand
  26. Sep 6, 2013
    1
    I really looked forwards to the release of the Rome 2 Total War game which promised a great experience, new features and a challenging game. However, what I discovered was instead a really unstable game that crashes several times, a stupid AI, many bugs like ships going through land or the AI simply standing around, soldiers that can't leave their boats, land invasions that cannot be made because a ship is blocking their port (WTF?), etc. etc. etc.. To me it seems that all their promises with this game were not held, and for this a think a bad review is in place. Expand
  27. Sep 6, 2013
    5
    Just to clear it up: I've been a TW fan since the start.. In all honesty: this is probably the worst title in the whole series. Why? Good question.... Extrem performance issues on my high-end PC, the AI is stupid as bread.. every round there is some single unit attacking one of my gigantic armies... I mean really... Even the campaign-map AI is too dumb for this world on hard difficulty. What was CA doing while developing? This is the first time that i regret having paid for a TW game. The politicial plunder is unmotivating, not really well explained and straight up boring. Sorry for the harsh words, but I'm just so extremely disappointed. Expand
  28. Sep 6, 2013
    1
    I've been a supporter of the TW franchise since it's inception, and this installment has been the biggest disappointment of the series.

    It seems, like so many other companies making games these days, that all the development money was spent on nice looking trailers and PR to hype the game, and the actual game was ignored. It plays like an alpha stage game. The battles are messy, the
    amount of bugs is ridiculous. The user interface is awful, I have a hard time understanding how some people enjoy this game. First Rome has much better gameplay. Expand
  29. Sep 6, 2013
    1
    When will gamers learn? There have been dozens of huge disappointments just like this (SimCity comes to mind recently on PC) yet you people keep buying them. This is a terrible, glitch riddled, derivative game, released WAY WAY too early.

    The only way to change this horrible trend in the industry is to STOP BUYING THE GAMES.
  30. Sep 3, 2013
    10
    I'm a huge fan of the Total War series, and so far I'm NOT disappointed! The game is clearly a member of the Total War series, anyone who has played their previous titles will be familiar with the general gameplay. However there are new features in just about every aspect of the game that have been added, everything from province management, to agents to battle, that makes this feel different from other Total War games. As a long-time fan of the series, I love the changes, I'm looking forward to a couple hundred hours of gameplay (I had 300+ on Shogun 2). Thumbs up! Expand
  31. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    As someone that is following TW franchise from first release, i was unpleasantly surprised with RTW2. Past experience with Warscape engine sent clear warning many times. I guess i believed that they can't let their biggest title fail in such a horrible way. Rome Total war was a game that allowed them to expand and experiment with rest of sequels. MTW2 followed that line on great level and combined with mods its one of the best games ever.

    Problems started with Warscape engine. Empire Total War. There is no need to talk about this product. It was a clear example how not to make an rts. Warscape is probably one of the most unfinished and strategy unfriendly engines ever. It was bad presenting gunpowder units but much worst in melee combat.

    After few more titles released in the last couple of years, they managed to pull the best of this software. It was far away from perfect, but Napoleon and Shogun were much better. They mastered the look of campaign map. New role-play elements with Generals and agents were welcomed by all fans.

    In all Warscape titles, one thing was heavily missing to make those games worthy successor of RTW or MTW2. Battles. From the very start, its was clear that this engine cannot produce interesting and fun battles. Not on the level that previous one could. Not even close. Every melee battle looked like hooligan street fighting after a very bad derby. No tactics. No Strategy. Just a mess with a lot of movement and different colors.

    What CA did is that instead of working on new engine, they decided to build Ancient RTS on engine that doesn't support melee combat and strategy at all. Complex formations like Phalanx or Cohort pilum attack that were made 10 years ago now don't exist. This software simply can't follow ancient warfare. Basic rts elements like "guard mode" are erased from game. There is no flanking with cavalry cause flanks don't exist no more. Everything is over in a 3 minutes.

    I will not even enter into bug/crashed/freezes subjects. They exist, and game is far way from finished.

    Once again, CA repeated same story. They exploit warscape so many times with different set of models and textures that they didn't feel any guilt to do this again. They perfectly calculated that investing in marketing branch and recycling the old stuff cost much less that building new engine. Then, as always before every major release, Laurel and Hardy shows their funny faces, hyping you to death with fake images and gameplay shots. Material that's always somehow deleted from official game cause it didn't fit. They are actually presenting that as they did a favor to fans cause it would hurt gamplay or make game unstable, bugged....

    Total War Rome 2 is a school example of false advertising and CA fraud.

    After this one, I just hope that the franchise is done and they're finally done milking the title that made them great many years ago.

    Rating 1 Just because campaign map still looks beautiful
    Expand
  32. Sep 4, 2013
    1
    I wanted to like it but in this state I cant. I cant beiieve the differnce in scores of the pro reviewers and the fans such broad spread you know something is up when all the pro reviewers think so much of a game. wonder how much they got paid on prop up one of those streamlined games as such. I had two crashes and I've never had crash problems before with any game. I actually after a short session wanted to play something else like The Sims 3 how terrible. I even thought of playing the origional RTW but remembered how bad the ai was in that one and all the rest up to Shogun 2. I'd play Shogun 2 but I don't like asian games that much, but I do like challenge so I'd play SPARTAN or SACRIFICE. This one didn't make my interested list though I wanted it to so bad. Needs lots of work. Expand
  33. dup
    Sep 5, 2013
    1
    This is not Total War this is Total Failure.
    To start with the most obvious: turn time takes FOREVER. You make your turn in 20 seconds and then have to wait for almost a minute until you can play again. And during the wait time you can just do nothing. You can not check you settlements or fill production queues. And my PC is well equipped and plays almost every game perfectly. The next
    big thing is the AI. It is not just total stupid, but simply non-existing. Both on the world map, but foremost in the battles. Horse archers dismounting their horses and charging you walls equipped with bowmen?? This is too bad to be just stupid. Another thing is the lack of immersion. You do not get the feeling that any of your choices matters in some way. Somehow things are not well stitched together. More related things are: bad user interface, totally mis-formatted in-game help, and a general lack of polishing.
    Related to the previous games this is not a step backwards, but it is just an incomplete game full of bugs which totally misses the point of grand strategy. Rather play Empire, Shogun 2 or Rome 1 you will actually have fun with theses game.
    Without the bugs and playable game turns I would give it a 6/10 but like this the game is almost junk.
    Expand
  34. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    Pre-ordered this game for a pretty penny hoping to get an improved Shogun but lo and behold we got a watered down piece of and soon to be console RTS. At least that would explain why they took all of the depth from the campaign map/city management and left battles a simple matter of auto resolving every battle like a preschool version of Europa Universalis. On the rare occasion that you have to join the battle you'll have the pleasure of routing the enemy without so much as moving an inch if you have any artillery because they won't move either! No artillery to be found? I'm sure right clicking the enemy once for victory with your infantry or calvary is going to keep you busy forever!

    Sad that they throw away the goodwill of their hardcore fans who have bought title after title with this dribble. Save your money pc, and inevitably, Xbox and PS owners.
    Expand
  35. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    This game is a complete disappointment. You can try to ignore the fact that the game has several serious technical issues (no crossfire/SLI support, occasionally crashes, extremely long load times). You cannot however ignore the fact that the game play is completely lacking: extremely dumb AI, no sieges (cities can simply be assaulted and taken instantly), 500 units that are mostly copies of each other, bad music, and a horrible UI.

    It is pretty. But pretty will only get you so far.

    DO NOT BUY THIS GAME UNTIL THEY FIX IT. This is a beta release for money. Don't let them fool you, and don't buy what they professional critics are saying. No idea what game these guy played, but it wasn't this one.
    Expand
  36. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    Having been a dedicated fan of the Total War series since 2006, starting off with the original Rome, this is likely to be where I leave the series that I used to love more than any other game. Up to Napoleon, every game felt like an improved experience.
    Every title was unique, and enjoyable at the very least. Shogun 2 became my first disappointment, the battle pace did not feel
    comfortable (after 1000+ hours of multiplayer), although they did nail many other nice features in the game.

    I can hardly see how some other players have given such a positive feedback on the game that was meant to be the sequel to the original Rome let alone how 'professional' reviewers could choose to ignore to mention so many flaws to the customers. Rome 2 has one of the best campaigns in the game although many features are dumbed down far too much. When it comes to the core of the series that is the battles, the story is very different.
    Going from the disappointing battles to Shogun 2 to this was shocking the average battle lasts 3, sometimes 4 minutes. Battles with 5000 men on each side are over within 5. The tactical depth is no longer present, and the battles feel more pointless than ever before. They are nothing worth to play.
    Expand
  37. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    Please, please DO NOT buy this game if you are a TW fan! As a TW fan from the beginning Rome 2 has come as a complete disappointment to me (and a waste of £30 that I could have made much better use of). Setting aside the release bugs the game's real problems rest deeper within the battle and campaign AI. CA for some reason have decided to remove nearly all of the tactics, management and strategy aspects that gave depth and a long-term challenge to older TW games.

    Battles:
    Battles have degenerated into an arcade-like tic-tac-toe competition with no apparent impact from terrain or tactical positioning. They nearly always degenerate into a mass melee around the newly added 'capture points' in themselves one of the daftest inclusions to a strategy game, as they are placed completely without consideration to the terrain. The AI is woeful and the biggest attraction of the TW series its battles and your ability to snatch victory from defeat by intelligent generalship has now become its biggest downfall, as you watch yet another mass brawl erupt in the middle of the battle-field, where your input has little to no effect on the outcome.

    Campaign:
    Although some of the new features of Rome 2 are welcome agents are now much more interesting and some of the city management is a lot more streamlined the overall campaign is now both massively over-simplified. Many of the ability to manage the details of your cities are now gone and city management has been so pared down that you just don't feel engaged with what is going on, or able to act decisively to effect a change when a problem arises. The AI opponents are largely passive and are ridiculously easy to defeat (even on the most difficult setting). At the same time the multitude of minor factions mean that you wait for ages at the end of each turn for the computer to process their actions (I resorted to reading a book while waiting).

    In sum I cannot believe the same company that gave us the first Medieval and Rome Total Wars can in all good conscience release this game. After around 4 hours of play I realised that it wasn't getting any better, gave up and returned to Medieval 2. I doubt that I will play Rome 2 again, as there is only so much the independent modding scene can do to improve it (you can't polish a turd!!). In all honesty I therefore cannot give Rome 2 a score of more than 1/10. There are some good points nestled in there among the bad, but the game as a whole is a massive step backwards and represents a missed opportunity for CA.
    Expand
  38. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    No SLI/Crossfire support at release. It's 2013; catch a clue game developers. Make games that support multiple GPUs and can support more than one core of a CPU.
  39. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    Do not buy this product. It is unfinished, and is simply a re-skinning of a game that launched many, many years ago. The bugs and issues with the old game (Rome 1) have not been fixed some of them have actually gotten worse!

    This was an over-hyped product that was never finished, properly tested, or suitable for release. Perhaps a year from now it might be worth looking at again.
  40. Sep 5, 2013
    3
    Well where do I begin? Its hard to put my utter dissapointment into words here really! Have been playing the TW Series since Shogun all those moons ago and have been playing games much to my wifes disgust since 86. I LOVE my games! And nowadays consider myself to be more picky about where I spend my money, so RTW2 was seen by myself as an essential purchase, more fool me, shame on me to be honest!

    The game is very good looking yes and unlike many I have no issues running it, it LOOKS good! But its sooo shallow, like a swan on water it looks graceful and beautiful but under the water is paddling away like mad and far from graceful!! I like strategy games, the campaign is NEVER going to deliver depth, that I know and have come to expect from a Total War game (I play a Paradox game for that great experience!!), I play a Total War game for the battles and here lies the issue, after years you would think they would improve the AI with every release not make it worse??? But this is just a mess! Capture Flags? No use of the battlefield? No Tactics? Blobs? Mechanized infantry (30 mph I reckon!)? Suicidal AI? WHO was testing this? Seriously, WHO? It defies belief!!! I am or was a CA fan! No longer.

    I await mods which I pray salvages my spent pennies, but no longer am I to be fooled again, once a mistake, twice just makes me stupid! I drive past their HQ most days on the way to work, I would love to have a constructive conversation (dreaming! lol!) about just what happened here! Can only think that the original CA team has changed over the years, its a damn, damn shame and gutting! But the sad part is that the money will be made and therefore deemed a success, money is what talks, pure undeniable fact, so all the "noise" will be unfortunately lost in the wind of the money blowing past to SEGA and CA's doors.

    DO NOT BUY NOW! Wait if you eventually must line their pockets till at least December when modders who wont see a penny of your cash help you potentially love this game.
    Expand
  41. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    Total War is my favorite games series. Not just strategy games, but in all of gaming. However, with the release of Rome 2 I realized I paid $60 for a game that isn't finished. This is just unacceptable.
  42. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    Horrible AI

    Sluggish graphics

    Poorly optimized

    Lacks any of the soul of other Total War games.

    An abysmal launch that is characteristic of Creative Assembly.

    Paid reviewers got paid to give this game high marks. The average joe who had to spend $60.00 on this got taken advantage of. Avoid at all costs!
  43. Sep 15, 2013
    1
    Dear customers, you've been brainwashed by the marketing team.At least they're doing their job properly ...but we know its Rome Total MESS !!
    Two steps backwards for the Total War franchise and a well orchestrated PR campaign releasing a broken product that is not fit for purpose like ..robbing people? CA you should be ashamed Not only they have removed features for no other reason than
    to attempt a horrid console cashgrab, but the features that DO remain have been completely dumbed down, broken and ruined.How can you mark a game so highly when its literally a broken game that's unfinished as well as missing all of the series features?How? Expand
  44. Sep 7, 2013
    1
    Developers need to remember that gameplay is the most important thing in a game. The graphics are only cool if they improve an already fun game. They don't make a game fun by themselves. No one will care about the graphics if they are too bored to ever star the game. Get it?
  45. Sep 7, 2013
    1
    Having had this game since release I have only been able to clock up around 5 hours of play time according to Steam (and I suspect much of this has been time spent fiddling in options menus in an attempt to make the game playable). In this time I have established several things:

    Firstly, the graphics are absolutely jaw-droppingly awful. If you haven't seen the regiments of low-res
    potatoes in the game's community hub on steam then I suggest that you do so before you even considering purchasing this game. I don't know how it managed it, but I'm convinced that Medieval 2 looked better than this, let alone Empire or Shogun. The game is horribly optimised and only seems to recognise one of the cores in my processor, leading to extremely high temperatures and an unbearable amount of fan noise, and though my machine is a good deal more powerful than it needs to be to run Rome 2 at a high level the game lags horribly even in the campaign map. Bizarrely, the actual battles tend to run more smoothly though it tends to descend to a conflict between a few hundred sprites on glitchy black patches of terrain before long. In the graphics and presentation stakes, then, Rome 2 gets an absolute panning.

    Secondly, the actual meat of the game is simplistic and fails to engage the interest of the player. Campaign decisions are far inferior to previous iterations of the franchise and the sense of developing one's own cities has been removed with the strange decision to massively simplify the whole process. The fact that there are so many tiny factions plays havoc with diplomacy (the faction lists are just too long to sift through and relationships with neighbouring states will tend to be short) especially given that they persist even when they don't own any cities (armies belonging to a faction without any territory still count as a faction) which leaves the campaign map cluttered and frustrating, especially since the number of armies that the player controls is capped; you will spend a great deal of time simply chasing these around your territory.

    Another major problem with the campaign is the lack of focus on naval warfare (it simply isn't worth it) and the fact that you will find yourself autoresolving battles a good 90% of the time. In one campaign as Athens I conquered the entirety of Greece and Turkey without once having any kind of evenly matched pitched battle before becoming bored and giving up. There is nothing about the campaign that is compelling.

    Lastly, the AI is appalling in both the tactical and strategic portions of the game. Battles are easily won against overwhelming odds in the tactical sphere (all custom battles since the campaign gives very few opportunities for this) due to poor decision making and incredible gullibility on the part of AI generals (ok, its a Total War game; I didn't expect any less) and this cheapens any kind of strategic planning that you might employ in the campaign. Worse, from the strategic standpoint the AI does crazy things like retreating its army stacks away from its last city as my army approached (allowing me to easily capture the city with no resistance and to then confront the remnants one by one), or simply walking away from the contested area completely and not even attempting to put up a fight. This completely kills any kind of immersion you might have in the game when combined with the graphics and framerate issues that so many people are experiencing.

    For its broad ambition being its only redeeming feature, I give this game a 1.
    Expand
  46. Sep 7, 2013
    1
    The worse battles in any tw series. They added magic special buffs to this game, you click a button and magi adds morale or takes away fatigue, makes unit better at x and o etc. The game is just a click fest and even the largest battles are over in 2-3 minutes. units run around like gazelle,no strategy,no fun.
  47. Sep 7, 2013
    1
    I can't believe a company with Creative Assembly's history and pedigree and resources could sell me a $60 game so technically sloppy, so unfocused, so uninspired. Rome I was a brilliant game. Way to celebrate that feat by publishing this junk.
  48. Sep 7, 2013
    1
    If you are expecting this to be like the previous CA games MTW2 or even RTW1, then do not purchase this game as it is totally different using none of the great features that were used in these games.
    The number of factions they have is good, but that's about it for me on this game.

    Very poor, I for one will never ever pre-order a CA game again.
  49. Sep 8, 2013
    1
    Tested on i7 2600, GTX 770, 16gb RAM on HIGH and EXTREME graphics quality:

    - Graphics are horrible, the Anti alaising is completely messed up (Empire TW looks better... seriously)
    - AI is not reliable, often attacks an army of 16 units with only 1 unit on campaign map and just stands around until you get closer in real time mode
    - FPS drops are common, triggered i.e. by pressing
    spacebar during combat
    - Multiplayer Campaign unplayable, processing the moves of the AI factions takes around 3min EACH turn
    - UI is confusing, the art style is appealing but gets in the way of things

    I'm sick of beta testing games that I paid 50€ for. No for Sega until patched properly!
    Expand
  50. Sep 9, 2013
    1
    Has so much potential,
    But AI is everything in the end.
    Got bored on my first campaign try, AI just sits pretty and takes it up the A.
    I still play Rome 1, guess I should do campaign number 500 on that one.
    Vote this down to stop them from destroying this great series with similar future releases.
  51. Sep 9, 2013
    1
    I don't know why people give good reviews. There is no depth in gaming experience. After a couple hours of playing its bored. My views are: Good: - nice campaign map, many factions - province system is better - good music Negatives: - Terrible campaign and battle AI, but that is fixable - no family tree and seasons; characters are quiekly dead (after 30 turns) and you have no feeling with a person, there are not enough marriages. When I play with pontus Mithridates is soon dead and there is no heir, strange in the Mithridates dynasty Is the same with other dynasties. The gravitas is not a additional value but a step backwards.
    - the army system, when a army is demolised you can recruit the same army again included the positive traits and good troops. It's more spamming of armys then a good gaming experience
    - the flags in open battles, but that it's fixable
    - the fast battles, avergae 5 minutes 1 minute active battles and 4 minutes when the troops met each other

    I hope that Sega or CA listen to this views, its also on the forums. Roma total war 2 has potentialin the future but in this form its boring to play.
    Expand
  52. Sep 9, 2013
    1
    The worst gaming purchase I've ever made. Besides terrible beta state, fails to reach the bar raised by its predecessors in the art direction, music, and mechanics. It's lame AI, coupled with a purposedly dumbed down UI and city management (for console testing), linear gameplay and poor multiplayer makes this an incredible disappointing experience.
  53. Sep 9, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A complete and utter disappointment after 35 hours play (i.e. the equivalent of a working week)

    The good: Interesting province idea, big map, many factions, the new stance system works ok.

    The not so good: Awful AI, boring graphics (not like the trailers), unit types play the same, family tree removed and marriage options not properly implemented, over-powered free transport ships, flawed and limited tech and build trees, implementation of the province vs city idea is abysmal (you can build a maximum of five buildings in Rome), battles resemble the WWE Royal Rumbles but with more garish costumes, different agent action types pointless, generals die after 20 turns, no seasons or winter weather, random attrition travelling on the map, no roads, no buildable walls or defenses in towns, HORRIBLE UI, units have magic powers that can be spammed indefinitely (but can't they stay in formation), formation movement buttons removed from battle map, Varus give me back my guard button, legionary fire at will button and defensive pilum removed, testudo doesn't work, phalanx formation for the Greeks doesn't work, units run at 40mph, battles over in 4 minutes (big ones), few videos in game those that appear are random, random politics and events outside of the player's influence, co-op campaign doesn't work, diplomacy doesn't work, single player campaign doesn't work no one will attack you even on hard very hard, over simplified and boring economic system, slow-opening encyclopedia (web pages load faster), poorly implemented mouse over information, poorly implemented general system reduces you to few big armies but the AI pointlessly throws a multitude of tiny armies at your cities, horrible massive unit cards, unattractive icons and unit card images, lacks the historic polish and informational depth of the previous games .

    Apparently many people are also experiencing technical issues. Doesn't support SLI (or Crossfire so I've read) either.

    I could go on. I really wish I hadn't pre-ordered this game. I know people who took time off work to play this this week. Creative Labs, EA, Sega Shame on you.
    Expand
  54. Sep 9, 2013
    1
    Rome 2 is actually not a bad game for casual young player. But for me as dedicated player of the Total War series this is the greatest disappointment in gaming history. Graphics are nice, but gameplay lacks heart and soul. I would never thought I will write negative review for Rome 2. If this game was named differently and was not released by CA, I would rate it probably 5/10. But I consider it also the biggest scam. 60$ for this is simply too much. Replayability is at zero Expand
  55. Sep 10, 2013
    1
    Low fps, texture issues( black spots, and texture popping on the campaign map and battle map), bad AI way to passive one the campaign map, and just poorly coded, poor optimazation (shogun 2 was way better optimized), battles last like 2 or 3 minutes, they turn in huge blobs with no strategy needed, bad path finding, now for some reason routing enemys canot be runed down and be killed, there is no family tree, the different houses for Rome and Chartage make no inpackt on gameplay, the internal politicks system makes absolutely no inpackt on gameply i completely ignored it in my campagne, and nothing happened, in terms of some penalties or riots, i thought it will come to a civil war or something. Turns now last a year, making genearls die like flys, coop does not work, and crashes..............and much more what has been said here, and on the forums.

    The pre pre pre-alpha of the Cartage siege looks supperior to this!
    Expand
  56. Sep 10, 2013
    1
    eheheh reviews average score: 8.1
    user average score: 4.0
    I hope this is the final word on the "are official reviewers biased or are they not" issue.
    Rome total war 2 on release is unplayable, simple as that. I am using a 2.7ghz dual core, 4gb ram and 1gb video card (specified RECOMENDED requirements on the box, not minimum) at medium graphics (options are from low to ultra high,
    medium is 2/5). Loading times are unbearable. Whole thing is glitchy as hell, on this same rig I could play Shogun 2 at decent graphics and reasonable loading times.
    Really, do they test this stuff before release, or do they think we all have a 2000$ last gen pc?
    So, not able to judge game (the few things I saw are nothing special compared to previous iterations) since it is literally unplayable.
    Needless to say I play total war series since shogun 1..oh well I guess I'll have to find a better job so I can afford a rig that can run RTW2.
    I'll give it a 1 because of the latin quote at the end of the cool (but nothing special) intro
    Expand
  57. Sep 12, 2013
    1
    I am glad i dodged this POS. If only people could think for themselves, millions of other players would have avoided being burned by Rome 2. Months before launch i was the only one saying on youtube videos "hey, are you seriously going to leave the UI like that? Its horrific, look at all the grey space and the unit cards, how could this get out of beta?" "the graphics look muddy"
    "are you sure you aren't spending too much time building big cities and too little on the actual game?"

    I was flamed by the fanboys, who seem to be incapable of engaging their brain to critically assess what they see in promo vids.

    I got my first clue Rome would be a POS when i logged into Shogun 2 about 6 months after purchase to find i only owned about 1/3rd of the total number of units, and i would have to pay almost the price of a completely new game to acquire the rest. This tickled my spider sense that CA were on the scam and i have been critically assessing their movements since. Inviting "Heir of Carthage" into the offices to do a pseudo review of the game sure to be positive as Heir is flattered by being exclusively invited was another tell that CA have lost their heart and soul and have turned full on to corporate snide tactics for taking as much money from the pockets of their subscribers as possible.

    Rome 2 is worse than even i expected though. I didn't expect for a minute that they would completely remove all of the multiplayer depth that made Shogun 2 a progressive step forward, i thought it would be a given that avatars and veterans would be part and parcel of the Rome 2 multiplayer. I was wrong.

    In all, Rome 2 is a worrying release because it has risen questions of CA's competency. This is a company known for making great RTS games, but in this latest iteration, there is no sign of that wealth of experience. Little things like the UI having huge & incoherent unit cards, the map being placed at the bottom of the screen where it blocks units instead of the top where it only blocks the sky, the failure to recognise what a good think they had with Shogun 2's multiplayer.. These things all lead me to believe that the current CA dev team are a bunch of johnny-come-latelys who have no idea about even the most fundamental aspects of RTS games.

    Avoid.
    Expand
  58. Sep 14, 2013
    1
    Dear oh dear oh dear. What a complete shambles. It's not that there are bugs in this game; sadly that's par for the course these days. It's not that the turn ends take far too long; in fact, everything takes far too long, for too little benefit. It's not even that it's lost a lot of the attractive features of previous games in the series in the name of streamlining; change has to happen and that's fair enough. It's that the end result is a complete, unplayable, mess.

    Bad AI? Check. Poor performance? Check. Dire documentation? Check. Poorly designed new features? Check. Lack of balance? Check. Lack of usability? Check. This game is a textbook example of how NOT to design a game. That they took such a good series and somehow turned it into this deserves some sort of award. Preferably the sort that involved unemployment.

    Don't bother buying it now; wait a couple of months and you'll find it in the bargain basement at $5, which frankly would still be overpriced.
    Expand
  59. Nov 22, 2013
    1
    I really would not trust these high reviews that are coming up now praising CA for patching the game and "fixing it" in their eyes. Most of these people are just advertising blood and gore ("oh my blood and gore dlc is so amazing it makes the game so fun") really? like do you have family at CA or what? Give me a break. And no they did not give us "a bunch of free dlc" like some of these phoney reviews are pointing out to. What... some uninteresting factions that were cut from the original game is somehow supposed to win me over now? Of course they couldn't sell it as DLC they would just look like a bunch of morons like they are for marketing the blood and gore pack and then having the audacity to call that Patch 6. lol, oh and the state of the game you might ask? Again don't believe these fraudulent reviewers that have been attempting to raise the score. The game is still poorly optimized for high end machines and patch 7 has gone live. (I have AMD FX 8350 8 core, GeForce GTX 670 and 8 GB ram and the campaign map is still stuttering very noticeably, aka low frame rates). The UI is as ugly as it was at release (the pre-alpha looking ui), the trivial design decisions are still in the game armies cannot be merged as effectively (general has to be in an army), armies can instantly turn into ships, no seasons and 1 turn per year, broken politics system that has no use replacing the family tree, ai is still horrible and lackluster (still much worse than previous entries) after CA has attempted to patch it, battles are still very non-strategic (capture the flag, broken siege battles, broken formations and on and on), truthfully the game is so painfully broken compared to shogun 2 that I actually don't even have the urge to engage in battles let alone even play past several turns (I always go back after patches hoping it might be the one to at least fix some problems but I've been disappointed for over 2 months now). The game is not even in a beta state, now going on 3 months after release, CA has completely sold out and basically robbed us of our money, people telling you otherwise are flat out lying or are completely unaware or ignorant of what constitutes quality. I've poured over 500 hours into Shogun 2 and that was the pinnacle of the total war series. Rome 2 still does not even come close. I'm being as honest as I can after having my heart broken (this was my most anticipated game of the year). Expand
  60. Sep 7, 2013
    1
    I wanted to enjoy this game, but i couldn't. This game has so many problems, i'm thinking they didn't even test this game before release. First problem is the AI, horribly programmed, doesn't attack and it can't defend worth sh*t Second problem: The units you're controlling cant stay in a f*ckin formation. Overall this game feels like a beta, not worth full price..if they want a 10/10 they would have to wake up and come out with a HUGE patch..but they probably wont, they robbed us. Expand
  61. Sep 5, 2013
    1
    for ITALIAN users, and even the SPANISH ones: SEGA or CREATIVE ASSEMBLY have cheated us by writing on the packaging and on STEAM (except the change made on September 3 after its release) that the game would be "COMPLETELY IN ITALIAN" or "FULLY iN SPANISH "in breach of Article 20 of Legislative Decree 206/2005 which speaks of false advertising that is" any advertising which in any way, including its presentation, is likely to mislead the natural or legal persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and which, because of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behavior or which, for this reason, it is likely to injure a competitor so if CA will not solve the issue, it will be resolved by a judge. Expand
  62. Sep 8, 2013
    1
    Truly dreadful game, it's as if no-one ever play-tested it. It plays like game written by some third rate company, trying to make a Total War clone, but running out of money half way through and just dumping it on the market unfinished.
  63. Sep 10, 2013
    1
    First of all, cannot really run the game, downloaded patches but still terrible animations and FPS quality.
    Also the features in the game are poor, like squalor levels that really ruin your game play experience. also flaming torches that make rams and ladders pointless. Not a fun game, until future patches sort things out.
  64. Sep 10, 2013
    1
    I am fan of the TW series at heart. For my credentials as a critic, I currently have over 100 hours in game, have beaten a campaign, and am one of the top of the leaderboards in multiplayers (Xtreme Chaos).

    Rome 2 feels entirely dumbed down when compared to the previous title, Shogun 2. The terrible campaign&battle AI, the lack of unit customization, the lack of general customization,
    banners, etc.

    Shogun 2 took the series two steps forward. Then Rome 2 came and took three steps back. While the graphics may have improved visually, there are still many many bugs and graphics related issues like water floating a battlefield etc. that it makes the game feel unfinished and untested.

    I would have been more than happy to volunteer my time and test this game for free so that the game could be passable on release, but CA and SEGA didn't feel like quality took a priority to advertising.

    Lastly, the moderating on their online forums are terrible. They cherrypick what threads do or do not stay, they keep horrendous and troll praisers yet they delete and ban valid criticisms. I'm looking at you, Sasu.
    Expand
  65. Sep 10, 2013
    1
    Huge step back =( Played this game 10 hours looking for the promised experience, but it lacks strategy, depth and is bugged as hell. Here the things that bothers me the most: - family trees removed no connection to my nation - passive campaign AI - too easy, too fast and too acardish battles with lack of strategy - UI is horrible (why didn´t they just copy the perfect Shogun II ???)
    - the sound is boring compared to the other TW Games
    - bugs everywhere

    This game really feels like a beta!!!

    I do like the campaign graphic and it´s maybe the best TW game to start with, if you are new to the series, but TW veterans will be disappointed.
    Expand
  66. Sep 10, 2013
    1
    Look, It's time for gamers to realize that some companys are trying to fu## us. I'm tired of it, 40% bigger budget my A##. Crappy AI, and a total downgrade to the past entrys in the franchise. I really am wondering if the critics actually tested the game or watched a trailer. This game has so much potential, but this is completely unacceptable. I actually gave this game a 1/10 because I remember the good days that made this my favorite strategy franchise. Please. stand up for gamers. Don't buy this game it is stripped down and not worth it. Expand
  67. Sep 10, 2013
    1
    I waited 9 years for this game. I pre-ordered the CE. I wanted to love this game. But after several hours of single player game play and several failures at Co-op; I just stopped playing. Maybe it will be playable in a month or two.
  68. Sep 11, 2013
    1
    Hey Shprax this is not about gaming Rigs. I do have an I7 core gaming rig with dual video cards on SLI, 32 megs of ram and a 64 bit OS. Which does nothing to enhance a mediocre game. Only 36 critics and 494 reviewers gave somewhat positive reviews. That's 530 people out of 1716 reviews. That's is 70% of true gamers that voiced their opinions for a faulty game that they truly care about. Maybe you got the game version that the critics got along with some perks. out of curiosity.Do you work for CA?? Expand
  69. Sep 12, 2013
    1
    Just terrible. To purchase a full price game, pre-ordered I may add, and it's clearly a beta test that other's will benefit from our testing by buying it at half price 6 months away.

    The AI is bad. The FPS issues and graphics incompatibility issues (With a high end pc and gpu) are just ridiculous. The worst game release of the decade. Still not fixed!
  70. Sep 12, 2013
    1
    My God, where do you begin with this game? Awful performance, dreadful AI, poorly balanced units and broken features.

    I feel like a complete fool for pre-ordering this.
  71. Sep 4, 2013
    3
    After my senses came down from the inital hype of this game, I came to write this off as Terrible. This is why:
    -Terrible UI: Both within the campaign map and battle screens, the UI is simply too complex to easily understand and remember. I handled RTW1's UI within seconds of playing it. No such luck in RTW2; buttons are randomly placed, look alike, and are hidden out of the way. I'm
    spending too much time wondering what a button does again, rather than actually you know playing.
    -Stupid Character/abilities:
    a) WTF is cunning? Authority? What does it affect specifically? I cannot seem to find this information anywhere, EVEN IN THE ENCYCLOPYDEA! WTF?
    b) The Rally troops ability used to be a button to keep wavering units from routing... Now it just buffs a single unit instead... And the second wind button? wtf? RTW1 was an attempt at being historical while keeping the game balanced and fun.. RTW2 is the exact opposite. Fail.
    c) The lack of a family tree is a bit of a letdown, but there are other features that have been implemented to continue to make things somewhat interesting.

    Enemy AI: On the campaign map the enemy is simply TOO defensinve (and even incompetent at that, sometimes). I've sent small armies as map scouts before, only to spot an army three times the size within reach of me, BUT because I wasn't yet near the city, that army never attacked my scouting party. It just sat there, waiting. I've also marched towards a city (while suffering from a plague/-20% morale) only to have the army garrisoning it run away, wait until I conquer the city, then return to reclaim their city. Their reconquista fails and they get destroyed but they could've potentially defended their town had they simply stayed put in it.

    Protraits: They are ugly. Confusing. GTFO.

    Lag: I can run Shogun 2 on ultra. I can run Skyrim with 4k texture mods, ultra settings, ENB presets, extended LODS, and a ton of other graphic mods, just fine. Hell... My computer will start to overheat before I really see a hit to my FPS. But this game... It lagged with 500 units total on the battlefield. It lagged again on a lower setting with a less detailed map. And it lagged again on High setting with a similar map. Clearly EA needs to fix this aspect of the game.

    On the plus side the map is more detailed than before. No more barbarian cities; all cities are owned by a faction. I believe the dev team may have also fixed the glitch/ability to make 500,000gpt conquering only mediterranean coastal cities, but I'm as of today unsure, as I've only played the Suebi so far.

    And last but not least, a word to EA: I truly understand the marketing/financing impact of DLCs, but developping a DLC alongside the game itself is just wrong. It's like buying a house and realising you need to spend another $xxx on the garage attached to it. Wtf?
    Expand
  72. Sep 4, 2013
    4
    Huge dissapointment after months of excitment, too much marketing too little work, total war is one of the few strategy games that i still enjoy the most and it's going the wrong way by hyping people and then selling the beta version of the game.
  73. Sep 6, 2013
    3
    I think a bullet point list best summarizes my problems with this dumbed down excrement. In no particular order: -No Guard button. I mean... what? -No ships needed. Your army will summon ships out of thin air to move over water, removing the natural obstacle that is water. -No seasons, everything is done by year. It takes a year to march through that small valley. -Agents block army movement. That invisible Spy you have? Yep, he just blocked a 3000 man army from moving through that pass.

    -About 150+ factions that lead to pointless mini wars dragging out the turns way worse than any preceding Total War instalment. You can turn off Show AI Turns, and it will still take up a good portion of your time and make you miss important movement, to boot!

    -Capture points, on open field battles. Apparently made to balance ship landings. Well you just killed the whole terrain factor of the open field battles, I think that far outweighs what little you actually, truthfully gained by creating the ship landings feature to begin with. This is so aggravating that it validates removing ships altogether from the game, including the sea battles.

    -The AI cannot handle ship landings to begin with. Whenever it receives reinforcements in form of ships it will fail miserably to utilize them, giving you a free victory.

    -Playing on Very Hard, this game has a difficulty comparable to Shogun 2 Normal, possibly less. The AI is incredibly timid and will simply not exploit your weakness. It will leave your undefended villages without walls be. It will ignore your open flanks and go for the capture flag like a retard and lose because of it. For what it's worth I've completed Shogun 2 on Legendary several times, I expected SOMETHING from the AI in this one. At least an attack? Try damnit?

    -Diplomacy is worthless: It may be because I'm playing on Very Hard and am getting demodifiers, but who knows, not like the AI ever agreed to anything even if it clearly was in it's best interest to do so. Pile up gold and riches, have long standing relations, it will not help. They will still pester you and demand payment tribute even though you have vast armies compared to their little village. Did I mention there's 150+ of the tards?

    -No family tree. No leader. I mean this literally, you have no family tree and you recruit generals willy nilly out of thin air.

    -Complex politics promised. I've yet to see any kind of politics. I mean there's not even a family tree as mentioned above, how am I supposed to have complex politics?

    -Unbalanced army traits. You can customize and grab the obvious good trait line, or go with the options for flair I guess.

    -Army MUST HAVE general. You cannot hunt down that 160man band of rebels without a general. Your general recruits out of thin air. You cannot recruit units and have them walk from your town to the general, they themselves must have a general to move. You can't train extra garrison. No logistics. You cannot intercept enemy reinforcements from a city.

    -Problems in your little village? Well it affects your whole province. Want to exempt from tax? Done for the whole province, let alone finding the button to do so is a quest in itself. Only Province capital can have walls, so only one in 3 villages will have walls and you can't pick which. Since you need Population to build improvements, you therefore have the choice to improve behind safe walls, or let all your important stuff be in the better located but worse defended village, since population is by province.

    -Can't garrison vs. Public Order problems, the effect is extremely small, not to mention doing that garrison requires a general of which you have a limited amount able to be had.

    -Worst UI in the Total War series, everything requires several button clicks instead of say right clicking once on that village.

    -Tech tree UI is 100% worthless. What was one perfectly perspicuous tree on one popup page, you now have 4 buttons that switch between 4 branches of a tree that is smaller than the predecessors.

    -Everything, and I do mean everything, needs to be inspected in the encyclopaedia. What you can build in a city depends on faction and actual city, meaning you visit the encyclopaedia each time to look at your options. Don't forget that it is browser based and seems to be requiring an internet connection, I have load times on the pages.

    -Want that advanced popup that will actually tell you what the damned thing does? Better wait for that fade-in and delay-to-show in the first place.

    -I cannot stress enough how useless the UI is. General gained a trait? How neat! Now which one is it? Is it this army? No wait it's not showing me when having the army selected. How about hovering the general unit? Ah no it simply shows the general unit type. If I press this detail button? Oh no that was the army detail page, which does not show general name either, how weird! Oh it was the third button!

    -Coop MP broken. Constant desynchs and longer AI turn time
    Expand
  74. Sep 6, 2013
    5
    On first impulse, I was going to give this game a 0. But, after some thought, I decided to give the game a 5. Why? Because it is an average RTS game. As a Total War game it deserves an even lower score.

    Read other reviews for the host of problems. I'm sure the graphical issues will be resolved. Many other issues will be resolved.

    But, how do you fix the fact that the battles aren't
    tactical? I buy Rome: Total War so that I can set up the Roman war machine and put my enemies through the meat grinder! I want every one of my legionaries to thrust their gladius into the stomachs of the enemy! How can I do this without legendary Roman organization and discipline? When is that going to be fixed. How will that ever be fixed? Answer to the former: Don't know that it ever will be. To the latter: I don't know that it can be. But, if only this issue were fixed, I could play the game, and happily too. As it stands, I can't. If I wanted a turn-based game without tactics I could have played Civ or a Paradox game.

    Will never again pre-order a Total War game.
    Expand
  75. Sep 11, 2013
    4
    This game is just broken. The AI is so stupid. This game is not challenging at all. It is very buggy. RIP Total War franchise. The only reason I'm giving this a 4 is because there seriously are worse games out there. I can not believe they spent as much production dollars on this as they did. unbelievable. Time for people to get fired.
  76. Sep 17, 2013
    1
    A slap in the face of all Total War and strategy game fans. This game is a disgrace. Creative Assembly just lost all its core audience by dumbing down gameplay for console release.
  77. Sep 3, 2013
    9
    So far impressed with the game. I'm not running into any problems with the load times. The only thing I find bad is the ui is very different from shogun 2 which I've been playing a lot recently. Not perfect but it's what I was expecting. Worth the money.
    Haven't checked fps but on extreme no lag. My specs i5 Oc to 3.7ghz, 660 and 8gs ram. Load times no different than shogun though the
    turn lengths extend because of the size of the game. Expand
  78. Sep 4, 2013
    3
    I've played Total War for over 10 years now and I can honestly say that this release is just as bad as Empire, if not worse. They have slowly taken the winning formula for Total War and dumbed it down for the masses. 'Casual gamers', the console and phone game generation have been the downfall of many a great PC game series. From top to bottom this game is purely sacrilegious to any Total War fan who values depth and tactical battles. They have taken away all of our control and implemented gimmicks to please the casual gamer. I will provide some insight into the fundamental flaws at the core of the games design rather than elaborate on the myriad of optimization problems and bugs the game suffers from at this time.

    GAMEPLAY:
    A huge number of features that were available even in Total War: Rome are missing both conceptually and mechanically. I will try and break down the problems point by point as they relate to gameplay.

    -No family tree.

    -No 'Loose' or 'Tight' generic formation commands. Can't spread to avoid enemy fire?!

    -No 'Guard' command, your units cannot be instructed to maintain their position and formation at all costs.Even the most disciplined melee troops devolve into a blob during melee combat.

    -You cannot toggle fire at will on infantry with javelins, they only fire when they charge. Some unfortunate tactical consequences are that they cannot throw javelins to break an enemy charge and then receive the broken charge, they cannot fire on skirmishers and cavalry harassing them, and if you move reserves to reinforce a battle line they will AUTOMATICALLY throw their javelins into the backs of your own men who are already engaged. WTF CA?

    -Troops have inappropriate context based behavior or a complete lack thereof. IE. They will stand in position and take arrows to the face from archers ten feet away (as if instructed to guard, but still lose unit cohesion in melee) and will not chase routing enemies. During a melee blob if a unit of men destroy their immediate foe (target) they will not engage nearby enemies. They will stand there watching their comrades get hacked apart five feet away.

    -Auto run breaks unit cohesion.

    -BATTLES ARE WAY TOO FAST! The battles last a few minutes generally. You spend three minutes walking to the enemy force. Your lines meet and devolve into a chaotic blob and the melee is typically over in about 30-50 seconds as one side routes. If you were inclined to flank the blob you typically don't even have time to move a single flanking unit around into position before the melee is decided. You're far better served simply committing the unit into the blob of doom right away and spamming the 'magic' combat buffs/abilities your men have. Speaking of..

    -MAGIC COMBAT ABILITIES! You can hit a button and suddenly your men charge with more force than usual or you can magically remove all fatigue? Get your voodoo out of my Total War. Abilities should have a justifiable function that makes sense.

    -Units run entirely too fast, especially with tactical map speed buffs on roads for certain units and while charging. I would seriously estimate that your men can charge at nearly 30mph.. Again, wtf?

    -Diplomacy has improved so far as the campaign AI actually interacting with you in ways beyond declaring war but it is almost always on their terms. If you prefer passive diplomacy you wont notice the problem but if you want to proactively cultivate an environment of success with your neighbors you will fail. The AI refuses to accept logical treaties of any kind without bribes, very unfortunate.

    -Magic boats appear when you move an army into the ocean... Magic.... Boats.... These transport ships are free and can be used to great effect in naval battles. Building and maintaining an incredibly expensive navy is rendered void of strategic value and ineffective. You can recruit a bunch of militia and march them into the sea and ram your enemies navy to death without much difficulty. Horrid.

    -The campaign AI is atrocious even on the highest difficulty setting. The AI nations will maintain small armies and play passively. If they do field large armies the majority of the time they will consist of almost all slingers or other skirmishers. This causes most battles to involve a 10 second melee blob of doom then 10 minutes of you chasing down skirmishers at random. Epic disciplined and mechanized meat grinding battles? I bought the wrong game.

    -Unit size is locked. Why do I have smaller unit sizes than the original decade old game?

    -One turn per year. Good luck utilizing the fresh general development ideas cause all your generals will die of old age very quickly assuming they survive even one blob of death thanks to the extremely high kill rates.

    -The UI is beyond inconvenient. It is a mess of sub menus and obscure iconography. You play the game through a figurative maze, not a streamlined UI for 2013.

    -The awesome in game encyclopedia of the legacy Total War games? Still gone.
    Expand
  79. Sep 4, 2013
    4
    I honestly can't find one thing that Rome 2 does better than Shogun 2. What the hell happened?

    I was so looking forward to a new total war game set in this era, but as it is this game is just entirely unsatisfying and broken in so many ways.
  80. Sep 7, 2013
    5
    I prior ordered the game in expectation of the kind of visuals likely to knock my socks off. The hype was very effective and I was suckered in, like the fool I am. I checked my computer specifications against the list provided by Creative Assembly and to my joy I found that I met the recommended specifications. Wonderful, I thought, I'm going to get the close to the top graphics. On Monday I started playing. Well, tried to play. Strained my eyes trying to look at the screen that looked more like a slideshow than a computer game (frames for each second at ten or less). It turns out that you need the very best computer on the market to get anywhere near attractive graphics. Sad of heart I turned down the graphics and unit size to the lowest settings. Visually it looked worse than the first Rome game. Then I encountered the worst part. The units had almost zero weight. So, this game still carries on the tradition of floaty combat established by Empire Total War and perfected by Shogun Two. Back in Medieval Two time units felt like they actually had mass. They clashed with a crunch. It was the most satisfying part of the game. That is now ancient history (ironically). Overall this game is both unfinished and underwhelming. Even when all the patches are out, this game wont be worth the effort it takes to click "purchase". Or the time wasted downloading it. If you're a fan of this franchise, and you want more, get Medieval two Total War, and download one of the many excellent modifications out there. Expand
  81. Sep 12, 2013
    5
    After playing for 45 hours through a brilliant prologue, some great historical battles, a few (very laggy/ desynced) quick matches and two 100 turn in progress campaigns as Rome and Iceni, I feel like it is time to give my opinion. I have read some real troll reviews, and some real hype reviews, and it may look like i'm sitting dead in the middle but this is my honest opinion so please bare with me.

    The game has some serious flaws right now, mainly performance related and AI. Especially a dreadful waiting time for turns-end. It also lacks some really important features such as the family tree, and a capable political system especially for the roman faction. I was also fairly jaded by character progression from agents to generals, with not only a lack of but also no real logic to how it all works or flows. Not to mention them dyeing on you as soon as they become your hero. New province system and transport over sea system seemed great at first but soon came to be a nuisance late game for many reasons. Army traditions is overall a great additions, and one of the best in my opinion.

    Rome 1 was a very long time ago but parts of that could do with returning to this game. Especially if you plan to play as a roman faction. I'm talking about the senate and family system which we shall all remember so clearly. It doesn't feature in this game, instead you have 1 faction panel which tries and fails to convey a poorly designed and rushed system.

    I have also had a terrible experience with Multiplayer desyncs, whilst the singleplayer battles are flawed from the capture points system through to the whole mosh pit over in 5 seconds deal. Naval battles fair worse with many issues from balancing to some really strange auto resolve decisions and spamming of transport fleets (which dominate).

    However, I will be fair to this game because it has some real wow factors. The animations and generally the visuals (if you can get them to work) look stunning. The prologue is also fantastic, if a little buggy/ short. The campaign map itself is stunning, not only extensive, but offering a great detail and historical correctness. The amount of factions added is unbelievable, half the reason for turn end time problems...There is a crazy amount of work that went into the design of this game from all fronts, but again I just feel a serious lack of testing and optimization of the engine has taken place.

    I am not sure what CA plan to do but I 'hope' they make a vast array of changes where needed, and learn that striping out perfectly good features from previous games was perhaps a mistake.

    If they can focus on performance issues and tear down the turn end time to below 30 seconds this would receive a 6 or 7, as I am sure it will get from various patches.

    If they could improve drastically on AI in all areas of the game from battles to simple diplomatic actions such a trade agreements, and balance the many different units in the game, as well as coax in a family tree system with easier marriage and less of an aging issue we might be looking at a near 8, however this should of been in the game for release, as I feel that is what I was really sold.

    If they wanted to head toward or above a solid 8 i would need to see some significant additions. Basics like general speeches and agent action cinematics (absolute favourite), through to more complex additions like a deep political system, polished UI and a deeper multiplayer (fully working) experience.

    Finally I am also skeptical of the DLC direction of the game, similarly to CoH2, another sega game. It feels to me like they will be selling a lot of what is already in the game, such as cultures and factions. They may also add some missing units or even features through DLC, something I would not be happy to pay for. These should have come with a well polished game upon release, not later on as a stab for cash. If CA/ sega want any more of my money I will be expecting a fully finished expansion after a decent amount of work on the base game. I will certainly not be pre-ordering sega games after doing this for both CoH2 and Rome2 until major changes occur in both (free changes).

    I wish CA the best of luck for it will be a massive undertaking to reinvigorate what they have lost. Sadly in its current state as of 12.09.2013 its a mediocre 5/10.
    Expand
  82. Sep 7, 2013
    5
    Rome 2 has a LOT of potential and a lot of great points. But it is clearly unfinished, there is no way anyone can deny that this is not a finished product and any way shape or form. Agents can block armies, client status is meaningless, siege towers are too short to be used against Athenian walls, bronze gates can be burned down by torches, naval transports are stronger than dedicated warships, etc. (believe me I can go on).

    It does have positive aspects It has wonderful campaign aesthetics (and i mean everything on the campaign map from the strategic views to your army set pieces fighting each other). The civil war is a fantastic addition to the game as well. The concept of combined naval and land battles is incredible. And the fact that other factions don't constantly and pointlessly declare war on you is what I have been waiting for since Rome 1 in 2004/5. Field siege weapons such as the ballista are amazing, using their explosive rounds is so satisfying. The cinematic camera is a great addition and the fighting animations are great as well. Lastly, the Civil War event is crazy fun.

    However the game has a LOT of pitfalls. Aside from what I mentioned before: units don't hold formation, they took out a number of working diplomatic features that shogun 2 had, fights descend into blobs fighting other blobs and they only last 30 seconds before units flee with more than half their troops remaining, the battle ai will just run past your troops without engaging to try and capture victory points (which are arbitrary points on a map you can capture to win the battle, these are negative points in of themselves), troops will not chase down routing enemies.

    I want to give this game a higher score for its clearly seen potential, but I cannot rate a game on what it can be but only on what it is. As of right now its a mediocre game that I'm going to enjoy playing because I love the series and I've already bought it, but I would not under any circumstances recommend buying the game until it is balanced out and polished. If that never happens, avoid this game and play Shogun 2 Total War if you're itching for a great strategy game.
    Expand
  83. Sep 7, 2013
    0
    Let me start by saying I am a fan of the previous TW games for about 5 years. This however, barely qualifies. They tried to streamline the game and failed miserably. Since getting the game a couple days ago they have patched more than a couple times. I would like to be clear here: if your game is not ready to be played, don't release it. This game is full of bugs. Most notably the game has a nice little feature where out of nowhere it "alt tabs" out of the game. This is not something only I am experiencing either. It wouldn't be a problem if you could simply alt tab back, but often you cannot.

    As for the game itself, wow I don't know what to say. In my heart I think that they realized they should try to hurry this game out prior to the new consoles systems due out in a couple months. I am not sure why because traditional TW fans would not be affected by consoles. I feel when Im playing it that the various nation "campaigns" are a lot more scripted than previous games and I hate it. It ruins replayablity. I kept Medieval Tw on my Comp for years and loves Shogun 2. I would play either 1 of those with my butt cheeks before I would play this money grab garbage. Releases this bad ruin great titles and make customers like me not want to trust those developers again.
    Expand
  84. Sep 8, 2013
    5
    I pre-purchased this game the day it was pre-released. I installed it the day it came out. It ran ok the first night...but I noticed a LOT of bugs. I tried some custom battles. I used 4 squads of Spartan Hoplites against some Rome Cohorts...I got pwned. I even out-flanked them and out-maneuvered them...nope, dead. It is on "normal" difficulty.

    Since day 2, I have spent 30+ hours
    trying to get the game to launch..it won't...freezes on the load-up screen. Right now there are 434 positive reviews of RTW2, and 767 negative...make that 767. CA and Sega have my money....I don't have anything in return except anger and frustration. I'm going to make sure that they lose lots of money by helping scare away potential buyers...until the game is FIXED. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME yet. Wait until they get their together. Expand
  85. Nov 25, 2013
    0
    It's a bad game, over hyped crap. The AI is retarded, UI looks like agents do the same thing so no point in having 3 different types, no point in besieging a city you can attack right away and have your soldiers burn down the huge metal gates with magical torches that they keep up their ass during battles, naval combat is broken, load of bugs and so on... Do not buy
  86. Sep 5, 2013
    4
    The AI is completely broken, the battles in a city have no strategy at all, there are f0ck1ng special powers in the mid of the battle, i feel like i'm playing a MOBA, and I HATE MOBAs!!! I really miss the General Speech, it was one the favorite features in Rome TW. I'm really disappointed with this game, specially because they probably won't add the speeches back so soon, or maybe not at all. The reason i like Total War games is because they're games about history and realistic battles, not some goddamn MOBAs that have no strategy at all! This Game needs a ENORMOUS patch... Expand
  87. Sep 4, 2013
    4
    The attempt at simplifying the game not only took away from what made the series great but in some ways made it more complicated/less intuitive for people familiar with the Genre. Over all the game is alright but doesn't really live up to the standard set by the previous Rome title.

    The simplification of the cities takes away a lot from the crowds who like to experiment and specialize
    different cities in different parts of their empire. Also, armies relying on a general to field and actually being recruited by the general in place takes away from having to manage the logisitics of your empire. This makes the game overall less of a simulation and more of an arcade title of the RTS fights. Research is also taken down to two very basic easily obtainable paths.

    For some these may be welcome changes but as someone who likes the empire building and civilization style large branching tech trees these are significant problems. The title is clearly made for a broader audience who don't want to have to get bogged down with the logistics and economy management of previous games.

    On top of changing the general game play these changes have made some things more difficult; the removal of some of the more detailed city/settlement management tools has made it in some cases extremely hard to understand why your city/province is unhappy.

    The combat remains more or less the same though it seems some what easier to route/destroy your enemies. It's possibly less tactical but I'm not sure if I'm confident in saying that yet only having played about 15 hours.

    There are significant wait times between turns but that is somewhat expected.

    The game has beautiful graphics.

    I would say if you liked the world map part of Rome, research, and auto completed most of your battles you could probably give this game a pass. If all you did was play for battles and were irritated by having to manage your empire then you may like the changes that were made.

    For people like myself and my group of friends I cannot recommend you play this game. Personally I'm more concerned with empire building than doing the little RTS battles, for me they were just the cherry on top that made Total War special.
    Expand
  88. Sep 9, 2013
    1
    Where do i begin ?! Visuals looks way worse than shogun 2 in almost every way !! Performance is Horrible ! With a Rig that runs shogun 2 at maximum i cant even get a descent frame rate lag free game at medium-low setting !! Absolute Technically broken all the way ! The most stupid AI ever ... Thousands and Thousands of different bugs and glitches everywhere !

    Unplayable

    BROKEN PRODUCT
    Expand
  89. Sep 4, 2013
    5
    I'm starting this review by saying that this could have been an amazing game. Truly, it could, but in the state that it is now, it just isn't. The worst part about everything is that some of the problems, i don't even think willl be addressed.

    Let's start with the good, shall we?

    + I love the campaign map, it is big, awesome and epic, the scope is enormous, and i like that, i also
    like how we can expand our cities and the new way they're developed, make some cities really strategic.

    + The visuals are good, i didn't have the problems, some people had with the graphics, so i could enjoy them, and they're very pretty.

    + The soundtrack, it is...Good. I mean, the original Rome soundtrack was better, the Shogun 2, as well, but it is a good soundtrack.

    Now the things that have a problem, but, may become amazing later:

    +- The diplomacy as it stands is...Insane. The AI tries to negotiate at least, but it's way too stubborn for it's own good, not making deals that would save it, etc...Needs some tweaking, but, it would be nice if some factions continue to be stubborn for the rest of the game.

    +- The political system. Ok, no more families, no problem about that. But as it stands is too artificial, too little control, it's just not fun. With some tweaking, it would be quite cool, but may take some work.

    Now, the bad.

    - The battles. The units move way too fast, not only the light cavalry, that is supposed to be fast, but the heavy infantry is really fast! I like the Hoplites skill that makes them run fast, it reminds me of Marathon, but every heavy infantry moving like skirmishers is bad. Then there is the combat speed, that is fast as well, really fast. I understand when Cavalry Vs. Missile is fast, i understand when Heavy Infantry Vs. Cavalry is fast, but in this game, the combat resolution is way too fast. You coudn't pull a Cannae or Gaugamela in this engine, because there is just no room to manouver. The best way is just too click the units in the enemy and wait, the enemy don't try to maintain cohesion and a battle line, so, no worries. The units don't mantain their formations as well, so your legionaries will be fighting like a bunch of Gauls.

    Conclusion, there is more good than bad, but...The selling point of the TW series is the cinematic and tactical combat, and as it is, that's not in the game. The battle is shallow and unfun, they need to fix those, or the game is lost.
    Expand
  90. Sep 6, 2013
    3
    Don't waste your money on this trash. It's boring as hell, full of bugs, graphics suck, UI is terrible, AI is terrible and it feels like it's unfinished, like there is a lot of stuff missing.
  91. Ed_
    Oct 30, 2013
    7
    After the release of patch 5, the game improved really well. The gameplay became enjoyable and the AI improved slightly.

    The campaign map is very nice, graphics is amazing. The new family and upgrading system are also fascinating, however the one-year turn system is pretty annoying and fast.

    All in all, download all the patches and feel the difference.
  92. Sep 6, 2013
    5
    Not worth buying. I don't know why but this game bore me so much. Removed family tree and adding army cap was a bad move in my opinion. I think they really need to make patch fast. Graphics and UI look much worse than Shogun 2 and that piss me off too.
  93. Sep 7, 2013
    5
    I Wanted to like this game.. I wanted to,, so Bad. But it has been a letdown. The problem with Rome 2 has less to do with the fact that it feels like a title from over ten years ago and more to do with the fact that it is full of poor design decisions, simplified game mechanics, and horrible UI. Overall, the game suffers from a lack optimization and tones of bugs.
  94. Oct 3, 2013
    7
    I change my score now After many patches, since the first one, I put a 7 instead of a 3 Now the AI will try to destroy the walls, or the doors and enter in the cities at least at very hard difficulty this is what they do before they were standing in front of the wall doing nothing. The AI turns are now alot more fast from what I can see in my advanced campaing at least 5 time more fast than it was... So Now I play more than i waiting, its already a great improvement.

    some capture point on open battlefield have been remove this is a great improvement too
    But theres many point inside a cities and AI split his army sometime because of this, and its really easy to beat them when their unit are all split across a giant city you just got their stack one by one... Still need improvement

    And in average it seem I have better fps for the same graphics I had.
    Expand
  95. Sep 11, 2013
    3
    The game is basically unplayable. I have a Nvidia GTX 760 and 8 GB of RAM, and can run A.R.M.A. III and Metro: LL on MAX settings and get 50 FPS, yet this game on the LOWEST SETTINGS pushes 20 FPS at the most.

    I have no idea what systems the professional reviewers have, the game runs horribly and almost everybody else has this issue. It's just unoptimized.
  96. Sep 5, 2013
    0
    What a piece of garbage. There are no words to express how much I regret buying this game. It's probably the most unstable piece of software I've ever owned, and regularly crashes in between turns. If that wasn't bad enough, it absolutely slogs on a GTX 680 x2 SLI, 4.5ghz i7 machine. We're talking framerates in the high 20's on the world map. Yes, you read that correctly; even the world map has a crappy framerate. I would have returned this game for a refund already, but I foolishly purchased it through Steam, who like Creative Assembly, has no respect for their customers and has instituted an unconscionable rule against ever giving refunds. Lesson well learned on my end. Expand
  97. Sep 9, 2013
    5
    I'm not going to go into all the other stuff other reviewers have gone into (awful graphical optimization, terrible A.I.), but rather some seemingly small details which have annoyed me a great deal.
    1 Victory points in open battles. The very thing that prompted me to come and write this review scenario: i had a large force consisting mainly of chariots, got ambushed by a much larger
    force of enemies consisting mainly of spears. I retreat, they chase, giving me no option but to fight. Battleplan: give them the run-around pelting them with javelins (this is the sort of thing that would've worked in any previous TW game). Got into the battle and lo and behold, a victory location! Thus, the enemy ran all his spears into the victory location, sat there for 50 seconds and won a "decisive victory" resulting in the complete annihilation of my army.
    2 If you attack a port settlement from the sea you cannot disembark your troops onto that city's wharfs and jetties. This just seems completely illogical, say no more!
    3 Why can't i shoot arrows at troops on boats waiting to disembark? Another battle i lost was due to the enemy's boats getting tangled up thusly stuck forever while my vast amount of archers sat 20 feet away on land unable to shoot them (i play unlimited battle time btw so i couldn't wait it out)
    4 Troops just seem to die very quickly and don't hold their formation and phalanxes and shield-walls are useless. It makes it hard to micro-manage when you can't take your eyes off a unit for more than 5 seconds in case they're completely wiped out. Why isn't there a "guard" button like there has ALWAYS been in TW?
    5 Interesting units, where are they? I remember Rome TW 1 having flaming pigs and head hurlers. And why aren't my general's elephants armoured like they are on the unit card?
    6 Diplomacy is just cack and i don't see the point. No-one wants to trade, even factions that are apparently my best-mates, so i just don't bother.

    Other than those negatives i'm not going to judge the game too harshly as i've always found TW games tend to grow on you after you give them a chance, especially the interface (still not sure about it though).

    I'll give it a 5 out of 10, but without all the stuff i've mentioned plus all the other stuff you'll read about in many negative reviews, i'd probably give it a 9 out of 10
    Expand
  98. Sep 8, 2013
    0
    Well, as a loyal Total War series player, I have to say this game is kind of an embarrassment. There are so many great things about it yet one very serious flaw destroyed my enjoyment. Basically, the developers someone managed to eliminate any element of strategy in the open-field battles. In the heat of a huge open battle, I learned the hard way that there is a "Victory Point" placed on the map in my defensive territory. The point is out in the middle of nowhere and of no strategic importance. However, I found that if I don't commit my soldiers to defending this seemingly unimportant, arbitrary spot, the computer AI will send one unit directly to the point and claim victory. Having not noticed the victory point, I strategically positioned my defending army atop a hill so I would have an advantage. Unfortunately, the battle was over before it even got going. I lost with a decisive defeat. I started with 2200 soldiers. When the battle finished, I had only lost about 300 of them in the actual battle. Does that sound like a decisive defeat? No, it's utterly absurd. Only more so because I still lost the entire army after the battle was over. I was going to lose the battle anyway, but I missed out on the chance to take down the enemy's numbers a bit. I lost all 2200 of my soldiers, but the enemy only lost the 300 or so men that I took down in battle. This Victory Point nonsense is game breaking for me. I really enjoy the economic strategy, but real-time battles are the core of this game. This game could be close to a 10 for me if they would fix this one little victory point problem. Being that I'm not going to play the game anymore, it does deserve a zero. What a disappointing waste of money. Expand
  99. Sep 6, 2013
    4
    Really liked Rome 1. After a few hours of Rome 2 I'm about ready to quit. Almost every single mechanic is either a downgrade or a side-step from the original. It's just not much fun at all, and it's riddled with performance issues. Shame.
  100. Sep 4, 2013
    0
    Terrible game. Two steps backwards for the Total War franchise. In Shogun 2, the clans/matchmaking/map persistence/veteran units actually provided a modern framework that brought Total War into the competitive multiplayer gaming scene. They have since completely removed it and brought it back to 1998 lobby-only style. The reasoning behind this is that CA is currently working on a F2P game that's almost nothing like actual TW battles. Does this make any sense to anyone? I want to play TW battles in a meaningful and dynamic way which was teased with the Shogun 2 system, not some TW/MOBA hybrid. Also, the graphics are really, really bad even with everything set to "extreme." Anti-Aliasing doesn't even work at all which is extremely apparent in battles. Expand
Metascore
76

Generally favorable reviews - based on 71 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 49 out of 71
  2. Negative: 7 out of 71
  1. Nov 18, 2013
    74
    The game is far less polished than Shogun 2, and a few more patches will help, but Rome II is still a flawed game that is underwhelming when compared to previous titles in the franchise.
  2. Nov 6, 2013
    70
    And here’s the rub: every addition, every sub-system, every mechanic is subservient to War. War is what Total War is really about. Everything else not directly related to conflict comes across as ancillary. Rome II is a game for warmongers, on both the campaign map and, obviously, on the battlefield. When peace is happening, nothing is happening. When war is happening, Rome comes alive.
  3. Oct 28, 2013
    40
    If you will play literally anything featuring Total War and Rome in the same title and don't value your time, this is for you. [Nov 2013, p.80]