Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Why is Shogun 2 considered better than Rome 2?

135

Comments

  • easytargeteasytarget Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,432
    edited November 2013
    Well Green, you've convinced me of this much, it's been a long time since I played M2, so I've fired up a campaign to take another look at it again with fresh eyes. That though is as far back as I can go for this comparison, M1 is simply too old at this point for me to put up with it.

    One final comment before I put this topic to rest for my part in it, features don't impress me any more than graphics. Some of the best gaming experiences I've had over the years have been in games far simpler in design than any TW game. Pleasure for me is derived in the game play and that can be found in a variety of ways.

    And granted, greater complexity may provide that, but then it again it may not. In fact, the simplicity of putting the TW campaign on an island in Shogun 2 is no doubt the single most important reason the AI was capable of putting up an admirable show, whereas in Rome 2 it's hopelessly lost.

    Been fun talking about this with you guys (Green, Dge1, Man).
    This space intentionally left blank.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    edited November 2013
    Well. I am impressed with my topic. As for my two-cents. I was always impressed with Medieval I & II, and Rome I. Shogun II has grown on me, but I still say either Rome I or Medieval II (most likely the latter) is the best game in the series.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • GenShermanGenSherman Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 574
    edited November 2013
    Why is water wet? It just is :)
  • easytargeteasytarget Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,432
    edited November 2013
    Green,

    Only about 20 or 25 turns in on the M2 campaign as England, this much is immediately apparent when you compare it to Rome 2, which is what I've been playing most recently, M2 is significantly harder.

    Almost immediately from the start of the campaign, as you'll no doubt recall, the French, Scots and the Pope are conspiring to make your life difficult.

    I've encountered more challenge here in 20 turns than I have in a 150 hours of Rome.
    This space intentionally left blank.
  • feelfree2diefeelfree2die Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 321
    edited November 2013
    let me try this again, seems easytarget had my last post deleted, funny though no infraction was issued, hmmmm.

    op, you cannot make a comparison between the two this early to having rome2 being released. give ca 6 months to patch the **** out of the game first then make the comparison.
    as for easytarget stating there were no problems upon shogun2 release, all you have to do is click on Archive near the bottom of this page or any page and head over to shogun2 old posts. there you will find hundreds upon hundreds of posts.
    dx 11 not implemented upon release
    AA not working
    passive AI with reinforcement armies
    etc
    etc

    dont take my word for it, just do the research and click archive next to contact us
  • JagdfalkeJagdfalke Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 16
    edited November 2013
    I don’t care that I have to play with the Japanese, I would even play the men from the mars with laser guns just to get a challenging AI. There is no reason to waste money for the rome2 beta AI, the best way is to enjoy shogun2 and wait until they patch rome2.

    I guess the dumb mass will play rome2 now, cry about the bugs and complain about the AI. Maybe in one year rome2 is a masterpiece, I will buy a cheap rome2 gold edition and the dumb mass will cry about the bugs in some new expensive game...
  • El BanditoEl Bandito Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 825
    edited November 2013
    MTW2 was the pinnacle of the series. Too bad I wasn't able to get decent connection to make my presence known then...
  • GrantdemGrantdem Member Registered Users Posts: 122
    edited November 2013
    At the risk of sounding boring I would say that every total war game has it's own merits.
    I for one preferred MTW to MTW2, for 2 reasons, glorious achievements and the Early, High and late starting periods.

    I will say that just now I'm playing a huge amount of Rome. The game is definitely a backwards step in a lot of directions, but it's still an enjoyable game.
    As to whether it's better than Shogun 2 or not, I would say that personally I find Shogun more immersive and difficult. I just get into the game.
    I do however love the scope and timeframe of Rome 2. Love the giant epic feel of it too. Though the game does seem to lack the immersion and polish of previous games. If it was not for the vast and diverse factions and map I doubt I would play it as much.

    Rome 1 is still great though :-)
  • IponuIponu Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 496
    edited November 2013
    Shogun 2 was amazing, but it is not a replayable classic (not including coop campaign) because of terrible AI issues and many other little historically inaccurate things. But most of all, the feel of playing as a family was virtually nonexistent. Instead of there being many different religious and politically entities in one province (like there were irl) we just had one capital that summed up the entire province. There was no internal politics system, as there should have been. Medieval Japan was a world of starkly hypocritical loyalty and betrayal, but that has no representation of this in Shogun 2. What about the invasion of Korea? Nope, Realm Divide. It was, with multiplayer campaign, however, a great game. (CERTAINLY better than the **** that is Rome 2)
    Rome II better become realistic and historically sensible:

    http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/119555-So-Close-to-Being-a-Good-Game...
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,513
    edited November 2013
    LSD wrote: »
    It's like comparing a cheap chocolate bar to a ****. It might not be a nice chocolate bar, but the alternative is a ****.
    Cruel, but admittedly excellent imagery. Even if one disagrees.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • thesocraticbreedthesocraticbreed Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited January 2014
    Just curious as to everyone's opinion. I happen to agree.

    First, let me answer the question before I answer with my own opinion of the two.

    Lets look at the strategy of Creative Assembly which lead to the start of the hate for Rome II:
    1. That the Greeks, which everyone seems to love did not return without getting DLC.
    2. The game was released too early and is inconsistent when it comes to how stable it is. Each new patch means to delete the appdata folder each time.
    3. People have a general bias for the Samurai even though the samurai are warriors shrouded in myth, they didn't have great weapons(unlike the Chinese who had all sorts of weapons:even the legendary gunfa which was used by irregular warriors like the the shaolin monks)

    My opinion is this:


    Rome II:
    1. That despite the fact Rome II was released too early before it was actually done, the game is one of the best although it suffers from the same thing that Empire did.. and look at Empire right now, it turned out just fine just like how Rome is..despite the rapid need for patches due to the new intensity of it.
    2. Rome II has a problem of soldiers dying too easily based on the amount of archers, slingers or javelins... yeah, big shields like that which is common in Rome II means that that even the chainmail under the armor won't be hit easily.. which means soldiers won't die as easily in reality.
    3. Though I was hoping for like Bismarck Total war or something of later era leading up to WWI.. the game has tons of amazing improvements on past total wars including the more realistic provincial structure and the use of warfare by ships at the same time as you are having a land battle...
    4. Caesar in Gaul was one of my favorite DLCs of all time.. next to Kingdoms with Crusades in Medieval II and tied withe Fall of The Samurai.

    Shogun II:

    1.Creative Assembly did a generally good job,but the multiplayer sucks with the roleplaying system which was misaapplied and gives people in the Avatar Conquest too big an advantage without tactical consideration...
    2.Not enough units.
    3. Economics are too difficult.

    Rome II is generally a better game.
  • TilenTilen Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 136
    edited January 2014
    I guess I could describe it with Rome 2 not having the "it" factor; as somebody before me so eloquently put it.
    I can't shake off the feeling that some mechanics are just too gimmicky, whereas in S2 it is evident that CA knew exactly what they were going for, why and how. Shogun 2 has soul. Rome 2 is pretty, fun and all but is ultimately a collection of questionable and poorly explained game mechanics with, occasionally, pretty effects.
  • Tundra98Tundra98 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 109
    edited February 2014
    Well, what makes Shogun 2 Superior for me over rome 2 (for now) is how it engaged me into the game

    For example, i played the Date on Shogun 2. I Watched one of my strongest Generals being born, while he was a kid i had to make him a hostage of the Uesugi Clan (which was pretty powerful back then) because i had to do peace with them, their army was kinda matched with me, but i had little Strategic skills back then. Anyways, i made the Uesugi a powerful ally to Date, and with their help, i conquered a good part of japan (meanwhile allies on Rome 2 hardly do ****, only ONCE have ONE OF THEM proved worthy of being my ally by crushing a transport fleet outside their city), Date and Uesugi were like 2 Brother factions. i Helped them on their conflicts, they helped me on my conquest. Time passed, and they released the boy, whom i had named Heir to the Date. He was near to become of age to be general. And when he did, i put him in charge of his own army, Forged specificaly for him to lead. He quickly learned the arts of a True warrior: night attacks, religious converting, Various battlefield abilities, he learned them all.

    Back then i was at war with Oda (who oddly had become pretty powerful on Japan's center). i was attacking with both my Daimiyo and with my heir, with support from Kenshin Uesugi himself. But the oda ambushed my Daimiyo. I lost that battle (due to some micro-managing errors and a DEVASTATING cavalry charge which i should have stopped with my Yari Ashigaru/samurai) and my Daimiyo, Date Harumune i think he was, was killed, His whole bodyguard was destroyed, and from what was a really powerful army only 500 or so remained. Under those circumstances he became the Daimiyo. the survivors from his father's army joined mine (some of them at least, there were like 2 units of yari samurai whom i changed with my ashigaru, but the rest was worthless ashigaru, which i disbanded). I wanted to crush the oda army, but Uesugi got them first, no survivors were found. but neither nobuhide nor his heir, nobunaga, were on that army. they were at their castle, back on owari. I had LOTS of ninjas (like 3-4) some were trained like assassins, others like saboteurs, but they served me well. I sent them to owari, and proceeded to do a fairly similar representation of the Red Wedding (from a song of fire and ice AKA game of thrones), by that i mean both daimiyo and heir were Executed, their armies were maimed and their castle was sabotaged, opened, and ripe for the taking.

    That year my general marched upon owari, and soon enough the center of the country (excluding some Uesugi conquests that they made) had fallen under my control. Soon Enough i got kyoto under my control (i was already on RD) And thus started the Date Shogunate, after that i lead a campaign to the southern japan, which had fallen to Shimazu, and so i discovered that the land was divided into 2, Date (and his ally Uesugi) and shimazu.

    Needless to say the war lasted for a long time. Uesugi even betrayed me thanks to RD, but i crushed them with an army i had on the northerm part of japan. Shimazu gave me a REALLY hard time with their Katanas (which cut down Samurai and warrior monks alike) But finally, i won the war against the Shimazu, and so, unified Japan. All of that was thanks to the Shogun of Date. I think his name was Date Terumune(or something like that). But i knew how i wanted to refer to him; Date Masamune, the one-eyed Dragon who made japan fall to his knees.

    Now lets compare all of that to what it is offered on Rome 2. Yes, the map is gigantic and gives a bigger sense of Conquest, But there is no inmersion to it. Conquering Rome is a joke, allies dont do **** (unlike Shogun 2) except when and Ai TRANSPORT SHIP FLEET, tries to blockade a city of theirs, and gets roflstomped by their army. Your generals not only drop like flies, but you really do not care for them Dropping like flies. Hell, i dont even know the name of my faction (macedon) leader, what is it antigotos gonatas? who cares he will be dead 60 turns from now! So, after all that **** your empire goes strong, nad manages to march north (or south), And what do you get? Just a god **** german confederation with, what, 4 TERRITORIES? wtf did the Barbarians do on the last century, Scratch their asses until a greek comes and stomps them? even ****tier, the rest of europe is still divided, no pround northern empires unless you are a barbarian; i have seen the map get divided into 4 parts ONCE, and that was only on a thread here on the forums, so idk if it was true. I always thought that the real challenge wasnt that facerape thing that CA put into their games (mongols, RD, Civil war, you name it) but it was to encounter large empires, whom you have heard all along your campaign by "faction destroyed" messages, this doesnt happen here, oh and did i say Politics on this game are TOTATLY SCREWED?! Yes i admit that the Battle AI is good (not counting the siege AI) and the CAI is even better (except for allies, idk if patch 9 fixed it) but you know TW isnt just about battles, its about economy, politics, Familiy,alliances, betrayals, and so much more.

    Although i agree that rome 2 is a decent game (75/100 imo) i think shogun 2 is better (90/100) for now, i think if CA fixed politics to be more engaging and adding a valid family tree, to make me care about my dynasty, also fixing sieges, this game would reach shogun 2 status, and beyond of that imo, that is my opinion on why shogun 2 is better for now
  • easytargeteasytarget Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,432
    edited February 2014
    Thesocraticbreed,

    Way to make your 1st post a necro.
    This space intentionally left blank.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,991
    edited February 2014
    Look at the lighting of Rome 2, its dark and looks dead.
  • kkoopman3kkoopman3 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    edited February 2014
    LSD wrote: »
    It's like comparing a cheap chocolate bar to a ****. It might not be a nice chocolate bar, but the alternative is a ****.

    I just died a little inside. On the other hand, this is perhaps the deepest quote I've heard in days.

    On a more serious note:
    I would hardly compare Rome II to a ****. Granted it did have a catastrophic launch, but other than that... Oh! and there's the tiny problem with the AI where it is really dumb (and I mean really, really, really stupid), but otherwise... oh, yeah. And you can't see the General upgrade track thingy so you don't know what anything leads to. However... Oh! Almost forgot the fact that Very Hard mode should be renamed "Very Easy," adding another "Very" to each difficulty level below very hard. But other than the fact that it's an awful game when compared to other TWs, it really came out well!

    Shogun 2 blends trademark Total War tactics with truly wonderful graphics, and an artful representation of Japanese culture. Rome II blends trademark Total War tactics with truly wonderful (but laggy) graphics, and a plain representation of no culture in particular.
    昔の良い戦闘機は最初の敗北の可能性を超えて手に入れたし、次に敵を倒す機会を待った。
    Mukashi no yoi sentōki wa saisho no haiboku no kanōsei o koete teniireta shi, tsugini tekiwotaosu kikai o matta.
    "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy."
  • JestinaJestina Member Registered Users Posts: 68
    edited March 2014
    Shogun 2 is like a beautiful work of art, you wouldn't be embarrassed to display in your home. Rome 2 is so ugly, you'd want hide it in the attic when anyone visits. Rome 2 seems to be a casualty of the...getting rushed out the door for a cash grab, tactic that a lot of major game producers now employ.
  • The_YFNAThe_YFNA Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 7
    edited March 2014
    I was always partial to and will still argue that Medieval Total War is the best overall in the series.
    Graphics don't mean much to me if the game isn't fun.
    Shogun was fun.
    MTW was fun.
    Rome was fun, though the head throwers, screaming women annoyed me.
    MTW2 was fun.
    Empire was tedious after a while.
    Shogun 2 was fun.
    Rome 2 isn't fun.
    If it ain't broken....oh, it is broken?
  • JestinaJestina Member Registered Users Posts: 68
    edited March 2014
    I like troop progression best in Medieval 2. You were not spammed with high end units in Med 2 from the beginning of the game like you are in the newer TW's. Medieval 2 felt more realistic in that you were mostly using levy troops for much of the game, and armored lords running around the battlefield was not all that common. Samurai should have been rare, not as common as flies.
  • kkoopman3kkoopman3 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    edited March 2014
    The_YFNA wrote: »
    I was always partial to and will still argue that Medieval Total War is the best overall in the series.
    Graphics don't mean much to me if the game isn't fun.
    Shogun was fun.
    MTW was fun.
    Rome was fun, though the head throwers, screaming women annoyed me.
    MTW2 was fun.
    Empire was tedious after a while.
    Shogun 2 was fun.
    Rome 2 isn't fun.
    I love the mechanics, units, and realism of MW2. However, I always found that it was much easier to get a solid base, and then steamroll the AI in MW, as opposed to Shogun 2, where nothing is a guarantee.
    I like troop progression best in Medieval 2. You were not spammed with high end units in Med 2 from the beginning of the game like you are in the newer TW's. Medieval 2 felt more realistic in that you were mostly using levy troops for much of the game, and armored lords running around the battlefield was not all that common. Samurai should have been rare, not as common as flies.
    I agree that Samurai shoukd be very rare, but I find that Shogun has a very interesting way of making you focus on tactics, rather than strength and numbers. It seems to me that once you get above levy and ashigaru infantry, most units are fairly equal, and this makes for a more dynamic and interesting game.
    昔の良い戦闘機は最初の敗北の可能性を超えて手に入れたし、次に敵を倒す機会を待った。
    Mukashi no yoi sentōki wa saisho no haiboku no kanōsei o koete teniireta shi, tsugini tekiwotaosu kikai o matta.
    "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy."
  • kkoopman3kkoopman3 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    edited March 2014
    Sorry, accidentally posted the above twice and now can't delete this second one. Please enjoy this picture of a cute puppy:
    imgres?imgurl&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcutedogsnpets.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F02%2Fpuppies-and-kittens-together-pictures.html&h=0&w=0&tbnid=Pm2IgL0JzHPGlM&tbnh=198&tbnw=254&zoom=1&docid=Mf9WpS6GDWpFtM&ei=9fYYU7qTBMuNkAe15IHoDA&ved=0CAsQsCUoAw&biw=1920&bih=908
    昔の良い戦闘機は最初の敗北の可能性を超えて手に入れたし、次に敵を倒す機会を待った。
    Mukashi no yoi sentōki wa saisho no haiboku no kanōsei o koete teniireta shi, tsugini tekiwotaosu kikai o matta.
    "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy."
  • kkoopman3kkoopman3 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    edited March 2014
    Sorry about that ^ 'Twas an accident.
    昔の良い戦闘機は最初の敗北の可能性を超えて手に入れたし、次に敵を倒す機会を待った。
    Mukashi no yoi sentōki wa saisho no haiboku no kanōsei o koete teniireta shi, tsugini tekiwotaosu kikai o matta.
    "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy."
  • snowmansnowman Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited March 2014
    Hi all, new to this forum but I grew up with total war and it has defined my choice of games by a long shot.

    So this topic was about how shogun 2 was superior to Rome 2, and it is lets agree on that.

    I remember rome 1 being a awesome game, although when you survived the first couple of turns on hard mode, you could steam roll all the smaller ones, eventually it became a chore to just conquer the world, and I am not talking about lame diplomacy.

    Then came medieval, diplomacy still sucked and Ai was getting a whole lot smarter, at least they flanked and sieged correctly, it was much more fun to see your own units trampled in the dust by enemy warlord and trying to kill him with levy spearmen. units where more fun since later game you still didnt have full stack golden chevrons high tier units but you relied on mass numbers for the win.

    Shogun 2, Diplomacy was getting a whole lot better and you had to pick targets carefully, units where all the same mostly so make best use of your best units to force a win, AI gotten a whole lot better, mainly trough the fort being random and easy to take.

    Rome 2, 4 stacks of 3 different factions attack my capital, they forget about my gates and send 1 unit to fire bomb it, that one dies, they send 5 more and end the gate, all rush trough and I just keep them there and kill them all with boiling oil- velites , when they run I trample em down and have 9000000 slaves ???

    Diplomacy is a bit better since they actually do what you ask them to and for once !!!! they actually attack your enenemy, had a athens taking out nova carthago while I was busy with gaul. that was just a wow for me since that has never ever happend before.
  • oldschoololdschool Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 18
    edited March 2014
    I've been playing Shogun 2 on and off for several months, and just 2-3 days ago i decided to try out Rome 2 despite all the things i've heard.

    I like what they tried to do with the whole province, public order management system even if it does have a few minor flaws. There are also a few new things which i dont fully agree with. I dislike how an army in Rome 2 can just go to the water and board transports out of nowhere. I like fighting on land more then i do fighting sea battles. But sometimes when i am approaching from the sea with my invasion army and a dedicated navy escort the enemy armies who were on land will go to the sea in their transports and start start tracking me down.

    I'm also starting to see some weird AI behavior. I still consider myself in the learning process so i've started about 5 different campaigns all in Rome. Because of that i will do stuff intentionally just to see how the AI reacts, even if what i'm doing isnt normal strategy. Some stuff that i have noticed:

    -while chasing 2 small enemy armies on Italia with my bigger 1800 man army i chased them to the waters edge where i thought i had them cornered, but instead they loaded up on ships and sailed away. THEN they sailed back when i had to stop chasing them for a different reason. Normal mechanic i know, but after playing with Shogun 2's transport system for so long Rome 2's system kinda annoyed me.

    -enemy army attempted to land transports at the settlement south of Romas (Neapolitus?). So i moved my army down to intercept them. Since i was down there the transports sailed north to the settlement north of Romas (V-something?). I moved my army up north and in 1 turn got to within range of the settlement. By this time a second transport joined in and now both of them sailed back down south. I followed them one more time, got bored/annoyed and logged off.

    -One of the factions up north of Italia declared war on me. A turn or two later, he sent his general to attack my northern settlement. I just let the default garrison, (wasnt even my regular army) take care of him. It was just an enemy generals bodyguard unit by himself, he had no other units with him.

    -Syracuse declared war on me, then 2-3 turns later wanted a peace treaty.

    EDIT: ohh and there is also the graphics issue and the feeling that my resolution is set to 640x480. My PC isnt exactly a potato...built it a month after GW2 came out. Has 16gb ram, SSD, MSI N680GTX Twin Frozr but i still get some minor framerate drop doesnt matter if its ultra, extreme or low. Though i hear this is a common complaint
  • PisikPisik Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 207
    edited March 2014
    Shogun 2 is one of the best Total War games. But, tbh, I think Rome 2 is becoming better and better. So, if I would give vote to one of them, would pick Rome 2.
  • oldschoololdschool Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 18
    edited March 2014
    Pisik wrote: »
    Shogun 2 is one of the best Total War games. But, tbh, I think Rome 2 is becoming better and better. So, if I would give vote to one of them, would pick Rome 2.

    Would be nice to see them improve Rome 2, but i havent played a single player game since before i got into WoW in 06 or 07 i think? i dont know how good companies are nowadays with keeping their SP games up to date and current with patches and content.

    I want to like Rome 2 but just the past couple of days of playing it have been frustrating. I played my first campaign with Roma (my other campaigns were just me learning) and right now i'm only at turn 20 or so. Lost 1 general to a battle which is no big deal, but now my generals and admirals are starting to die of natural causes. Not sure quite what to make of that, because it makes traiting them seem kind of pointless.

    Another one i noticed too was with two factions that are unfriendly with me but have not yet declared war. One was Sparta the other was Dec-something. D-something has had two troop transports just sitting right outside of Arinimum and they have been there for about 5-10 turns already. Not a blockade, not at war, just sitting off the coast hanging out. And based on the number of bars between the two of the tranport icons there must be about 3000+ maybe closer to 4000 soldiers out there. Sparta keeps doing the same thing and sending transports to the "heel" of Italy and their transports look to have between 2500-3000 soldiers. This is happening while i am at turn 20, with my army having defeated the EL about 10 turns ago, and me trying to take all of the islands in Sardinia and Magna Greacia.

    Ohh...and apparently everyone hates me and all my diplomacy attempts have been rejected so i have to figure out how diplomacy works. I havent even had the pleasure of meeting any uber enemy agents and i've only done 2 city fights which i was able to autoresolve. And i need to learn how to build a proper navy cause i guess legionnaire triremes and firepots are bad because mine always die (maybe they are meant to die?) but then it takes a long time to replenish them.

    Lots of L2P issues on my end i know, but the weird AI behavior over what i was used to in Shogun 2 doesnt make learning any easier. And i'm already on normal mode!
  • nordnord Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 176
    edited March 2014
    Polish and a coherent design philosophy that hangs all of the game's elements together.
  • easytargeteasytarget Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,432
    edited March 2014
    Yep, it really is that simple to describe. And I'll be the first to concede it's not easily done. In any event, it doesn't take 5 minutes in each game to see it.
    This space intentionally left blank.
  • VelmargVelmarg Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 6
    edited March 2014
    Agree whole-heartedly with the last two posts. Everything in Shogun 2 clicks together in a way that I don't think any other Total War can compare, much less Rome 2. I don't mean overall quality necessarily (though that may be true as well); more just plain cohesion.

    Shogun 2's also a game that has a heart and a soul about it - that's about the best way to describe it, I guess. Some might get my meaning and others might not, but everything in Shogun 2's grim but serene aesthetic just... worked. Beautifully. Perfectly, even.
  • ranknfileranknfile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,425
    edited March 2014
    Jestina wrote: »
    I like troop progression best in Medieval 2. You were not spammed with high end units in Med 2 from the beginning of the game like you are in the newer TW's. Medieval 2 felt more realistic in that you were mostly using levy troops for much of the game, and armored lords running around the battlefield was not all that common. Samurai should have been rare, not as common as flies.

    "...not as common as flies." I like that. Odd that so many "history buffs" had no problem with what was essentially "Ashigaru pike (nagae yari) warfare" being depicted as "Samurai Katana Warfare." May as well depict the U.S. in WWII as armies of dudes with .45 acp pistols as their primary weapon.

    In any case, this is an interesting thread for the most part; many good points are made. To me each TW game has improved on previous ones; unfortunately each game also leaves something out from the previous one that I wished had been kept. Also most TW games need time for CA to fix the bugs and tweek things a bit. Still that "final product" is usually lacking in some respects but mods will make the game better.

    What is apparent reading people's complaints is that many people are so enamored of a period that they are more tolerant of a games shortcomings due to that preference. In any case while I loved Shogun 2 and played many hundreds of hours of it I still enjoy less immersive games like NTW (le Montee de le Empire being my favorite mod for this) and Rome II. As far as any one of these games being "better" than the other, to me that is pointless. I'll tire of one game and go back to play another. Each game has its flaws, either one can use mods to fix this, live with it or simply not play that particular game.
    "Whoever desires is always poor" - Claudian
Sign In or Register to comment.