Give it a rest!!!
Thank you Tom, it's a pity more game reviewers can't be honest.
The only thing you said that threw me was this idea of Shogun 2 having good multiplayer? Did you play it? Stand on a hill with guns and wait for an opponent to join. Game set and match.
Bet ritics in metacritic were bribed to give good scores i a broken game
He obviously did play it. I played it too, hoping after every patch and mod came out that if i just tried them this time it would be worth playing. It's not. It's a rushed, badly designed mess. They didn't even make a game engine that could do what Rome 1 or Medieval 2 could. Instead they just messed about a bit with Warscape, which was an engine designed for gunpowder era ranged combat and said "that'll do". So in Rome II there is no working pathfinding or AI to let the player or AI use ladders, siege towers or rams effectively in sieges - the way they could in Rome 1 or Medieval 2. Units can't hold to formation at all in melee in battles, the way they could in Rome 1 or Medieval 2. And the sea battles, while they have great graphics for the ships, are terrible in every other way. There's no oar raking (common tactic in ancient sea battles) and some types of ships just do nothing when you try to board.
Rather than bother trying to programme proper use of siege equipment they just took walls off of three out of every four cities to try and cover up the lack. This results in lots of dull battles for the village green, when in Rome 1 or Medieval 2, when you besieged a settlement the AI would send an army to try and break the siege and you'd fight a big field battle against it and the garrison. In Rome II big battles between armies hardly ever happen because this can't happen when most settlements have no walls.
Taking the walls off most settlements also makes having given them garrisons pointless, as with no walls to defend the militia garrisons can't hold off an army for even a single turn.
Attrition for both sides in sieges is ludicrously high.
Many other design decisions are so woefully bad that its pretty clear the game was done in a rush with no proper beta testing.
Instant-warship-transports result in the AI sending its armies off for Mediterranean pleasure cruises and leaving its cities undefended - and to even desert and mountain tribes and steppe nomads' armies going off to sea even when they don't control a single port.
Agents are ludicrously overpowered.
There are far too many factions , slowing down AI turns to a crawl the further you get into the game - and ensuring that the AI factions present no challenge to the player as they're too busy fighting or defending against all the dozens and dozens of others to ever build rival empires.
The "political system" barely exists at all except as some random events with multiple choice options - and what you do has no impact on which and what number of enemies you face in a civil war - in which, ridiculously, all three rival political groupings/dynasties in the faction's generals and agents and armies remain loyal to the player and all fight against dozens of stacks that just materialise out of thin air.
The only thing you learn from playing Rome II is that its not worth playing.
Nope, I've played it, hoping with each patch and mod that it would finally make it worth playing. It couldn't because the basic game engine can't handle ancient battles, sieges or sea battles (its still Warscape designed for gunpowder era ranged combat) and because of terrible design decisions (too many factions, instant-warship-transports, most settlements having no walls etc).
It's a highly accurate review of a terrible game.
Missing Shogun... This new one is a piece of crap.
Totally agree with Tom
how much money did you "strategyinformer" gets from SEGA to do a such a nice review about a poor game ?
:))
I agreed full heartedly with your review up until the last two sentences. Civ V is a fantastic game, how dare you compare it to trash like Rome II?
A review, which I sought in solace after seeing the game was sadly not revived, what was, by far, far more entertaining than the game itself.