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?

1235»

Comments

  • easytargeteasytarget Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,432
    edited September 2014
    Hated Shogun 2, personally.

    I loved it, personally.
    This space intentionally left blank.
  • fluffersfluffers Member Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited September 2014
    I start a Rome 2 campaign. The music is so bland that right from the start I feel nothing drawing me in to the game. I'd like to see who the big players are in my faction, who is the leader, where are his family? He's a non-entity and he has no family because every general is identical and there is no family tree. I look at my provinces... they're identical. The building cards look like **** and I can't even build roads. For some reason my citizens in one city are unhappy because my citizens in a completely different city are of a different culture. I can't exempt one problematic city from taxes, I have to exempt an entire region. I fight a battle. Again the music is so bland that I'm bored before I've even deployed my troops. The unit cards are bizarre and I can't tell which of my units are which because they all look the same.

    I start a game in Shogun 2. There's a beautiful intro video that explains the age and also my chosen faction's role and situation in it. The game begins, the music is beautiful and draws me in to the era that is being portrayed. I open my clan information panel and I see that my clan is ruled by a family. It has a head, the head has a wife and siblings and children and generals. I can make that general more loyal to my clan by letting him marry my daughter. I can give him a role in governing my clan by making him commissioner for warfare, economy, etcetera. I open my technology tree and it's an actual tree. I send a spy to infiltrate an enemy city and I see a beautifully made video showing the spy trying to sneak in. If my general dies he isn't simply replaced by an identical one - he's bloody dead. Same goes for the head of my family. He's dead, all his traits and army bonuses died with him. I am much more immersed, I want to keep playing.

    These are just a few of the reasons I'm playing Shogun 2 right now but have only played Rome 2 for 25 hours in over a year.

    See this is what I mean about the ridiculous hype. I'd say that whatever disappointment you feel about R2, that's what I feel about S2.

    -The music sucks. Yes. Thankfully there's a mod for that.
    -The family tree complaint is ridiculous. In Rome 2 you have a politics system, with a faction head and a bunch of other guys, who instead of commissions get political promotions. I really don't care which of my generals are ******g my other generals' daughters and sisters.
    -How are the provinces identical??? They have different resources, just like Shogun 2.
    -Yes the lack of videos kills immersion, but that's passable since everyone skips them eventually anyway.
    -Unit cards take a few minutes to learn. It takes at most 2 battles before you can distinguish hastati from triarii.

    These complaints are cosmetic or trivial.
  • TheSuebiBerserkerTheSuebiBerserker Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 412
    edited September 2014
    easytarget wrote: »
    I loved it, personally.
    Well, I'd say hate is an over exaggeration. I preferred Rome 2, but Shogun 2, despite being my first TW game, is my least favorite TW game. I don't like the identical troop trees and identical units, I don't like how each campaign ends up being divided into three factions that somehow always have the same borders, and I don't like the lack of several units that increase tactics, like siege equipment and shields.
    All of my posts in the Rome 2 forums are satire unless I say otherwise.
    Add me on Steam! Ultimate Baconator
    SeeInnS wrote: »
    40 euro was my present to american economic.glhf
    My countdown of top Total War games:
    1) Rome 2/Napoleon
    2) Empire
    3) Medieval 2
    4) Rome 1
    5) Shogun 2
  • easytargeteasytarget Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,432
    edited September 2014
    Funny you should mention unit similarity, as that is a common complaint that really holds little actual meaning. All TW games are based around rock, paper scissors, so wrapping them up in a thousand slightly different variations doesn't change that fact.

    As for faction break up, what you find a complaint is actually the reason the end game doesn't suck like it does in Rome 2, where no power remains by mid-game to challenge the player. Why do you think they are changing politics and civil war in Rome 2, because it works?

    As for sieges, yeah, those work great in Rome 2 don't they?!
    This space intentionally left blank.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    edited September 2014
    This will take a bit, so please bear with me.

    Perhaps because Shogun 2 did not have to be as diverse. When you look at shogun 2, the factions are not really all that different. Some train a class of unit better, others have some bonuses; but they feel pretty much the same. This allowed CA to really create a more focused experience.

    Shogun 2 could afford a Rock Papers Scissors system, which people could get comfortable with easily. The RPS mechanic was stirred up a little using the distinction between Ashigaru, Monks and Samurai. The basic system however remained sound, such that unlike Rome 2, no unit would really surprise you (a definite advantage in Rome 2, in my opinion); there really weren't any general cross purpose or unconventional units in Shogun 2, and every unit had a well defined role to play.

    Rome 2 on the other hand, deals with a much more divers slice of history. The legions of Rome would be pitted against the barbarian warriors of Gaul, the disciplined Hoplites and Pikemen of the Successors, the nimble and deadly horsemen of the east, the infamous 'pupil soldiers' of Nubia, and the list goes on and on. Applying a system similar to Shogun 2 would be a foolish move in such a situation, where units never really occupied a definite role; Hoplites were spear-men armed with swords who were meant to face off against infantry, the legionnaire was an infantryman armed with 2 pila to throw, peltasts were skirmishers who also functioned as light infantry, barbarian warriors hit hard but were generally lightly armored; and that's not even mentioning the more exotic units like elephants, chariots and dogs.

    The only feasible move in such a situation was to just try to model the units accurately-ish and let them have a free for all. As units did not occupy well defined roles, there was a lot of space for more and varied tactics. This however would disconcert anyone used to the more narrow system of Shogun 2. Veterans for example didn't just do their original jobs better, bit (like actual veterans) became a more versatile fighting force that could be relied on to perform other duties.

    I would say that (at the risk of committing blasphemy to some here) the battles in Shogun 2 were much faster and arcade like than those in Rome 2 at the moment. I've seen just the infantry fight last longer than the duration of most engagements in Shogun 2, using the current patch 15 beta. I really have to think a lot more before committing my units to any action; cavalry for example is not just a unit that i can send to tear through enemy skirmishers, because the skirmishers won't just break immediately and the action leaves my cavalry open to being caught by enemy spear-men.

    While this system makes for great campaign gameplay, it is unsuitable for the faster and tighter gameplay preferred in multiplayer, where each faction is not equal in every battle (unlike Shogun 2). Consequently the more arcade like gameplay of Shogun 2 would be more preferable to those who like to focus on Multiplayer, but Rome 2 would appeal to the more campaign focused player.
  • TheSuebiBerserkerTheSuebiBerserker Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 412
    edited September 2014
    easytarget wrote: »
    Funny you should mention unit similarity, as that is a common complaint that really holds little actual meaning. All TW games are based around rock, paper scissors, so wrapping them up in a thousand slightly different variations doesn't change that fact.

    As for faction break up, what you find a complaint is actually the reason the end game doesn't suck like it does in Rome 2, where no power remains by mid-game to challenge the player. Why do you think they are changing politics and civil war in Rome 2, because it works?

    As for sieges, yeah, those work great in Rome 2 don't they?!
    Eh, I still don't really like it.
    All of my posts in the Rome 2 forums are satire unless I say otherwise.
    Add me on Steam! Ultimate Baconator
    SeeInnS wrote: »
    40 euro was my present to american economic.glhf
    My countdown of top Total War games:
    1) Rome 2/Napoleon
    2) Empire
    3) Medieval 2
    4) Rome 1
    5) Shogun 2
  • easytargeteasytarget Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,432
    edited September 2014
    Eh, I still don't really like it.

    Meh, and I feel the same way (and have a lot more company in my opinion than you do) about Rome 2. :rolleyes:
    This space intentionally left blank.
  • Man o' WarMan o' War Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 973
    edited September 2014
    As a stand alone unmodded game for panache and attention to detail R2 pales into insignificance when compared to all previous Total War titles and particularly so when compared to S2.

    R2 = "A mod can fix this"..."a mod can fix that"...
  • EllEzDeeEllEzDee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 864
    edited September 2014
    I really can't see the attention to detail in Shogun 2. Everything seems stripped down and bland. There's no variety to be found anywhere.
    The few buildings that exist in the game follow the same upgrade pattern. For example, no matter where you are on the island, you're always building rice farms, and the rice farms always provide the same +1 food. Doesn't matter if the soil's barren or fertile, +1 food.
    Even worse is that the small handful of buildings are locked out by an unnecssary and uninteresting tech tree. For the first half of the game you have a tier 1 farm to build. If you focus on military, that's the only building you'll have for the entire game. If you don't focus on military, you can go ahead and get that tier 2 building, but you'll be stuck using the same military units for the entirety of the game. You have to make a binary choice between being a war or economic faction. How interesting!

    Then there's things like upgrade trees, which are so poorly implemented that it baffles me how they could have got it so wrong when their previous games had it so right.
    Won (yet another) siege battle? Now your general's a better sea commander! Won a battle exclusively with infantry? Now he's an expert with cavalry.
    As if that's not bad enough, the majority of upgrades in the tree are entirely useless. You follow the same upgrade path or you end up with a useless general.
    Everything seems so incredibly stripped of features.
    [portable-ID]lsd[/portable-ID]
    Feel free to check out my Steam guide on naval combat in E:TW
  • foxhound71foxhound71 Member Registered Users Posts: 78
    edited September 2014
    Naturally, due to its setting, the map in S2 is much smaller, the clans aren't all that different from each other and unit variety is limited. But because of the more limited scope it ended up being a much more polished and tighter TW experience.
    You do however need to have at least some interest in the Japanese setting for it to have a more lasting appeal and to appreciate some of the details in its design IMO. Even when I eventually get bored with it after a few of campaigns (thankfully there's FOTS and ROTS for some extra needed variety), I keep coming back to it, which I don't see myself doing with R2 as much, if at all.
  • OrklordOrklord Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4
    edited January 2015
    1. Shogun is the only total War Game where the Multiplayer Campaign works without any problems !:D
    2. Only in the Shogun Campaign, the second Player can work in the turn of the other Player ( very importand in round-gameplay ) :D This was the best they could Add ,...... so...why on Hell they dont made this on Rom 2 ????:mad:

    I will buy new total war Games only if this is possible because the Multiplayer is much more importand then the Singleplayer !!!
    The only good idea in Rom2 was : Make it possible to upgrade the Armor and Weapons of old and already skillt Units !:p

    I hope all Total War games in the Future will have a Multiplayer Campaign like Shogun2 and with the change to upgrade old Units with new Buildings or upgraded Buildings !!!!:rolleyes: Anything else is not exepteble !!! We know you can do it , so make it possible for the Comunity and We will buy:) ,.....otherwise many will not !:(

    Biggest Total War Wish of Mine : Total War- Lord of the Rings :p( will bring you a lot more Fans )!! Empire 2 Total War with Multiplayer Campaign like in Shogun 2 !!!
    Im a total War Fan of the first Houer ( sice Shogun 1 )Also loved Medieval the most but part 2 was not playeble because of the **** Trade-units who was taking you over without any change ( im fine with Spy spam but not if your hole Money incomming is impossible ) Traders as Units was the worst idea ever ! Today i play Medieval 1,Shogun 2 and sometimes Empire when im Online alone or when i wanna play Austria :)
  • easytargeteasytarget Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,432
    edited January 2015
    Nice necro w/ your first post. Hope you didn't sign up just for that.
    This space intentionally left blank.
  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,887
    edited January 2015
    I've seen worst necropests than this...believe me.
    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
  • mtmanmtman Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited February 2015
    I have Rome Total War since 2004 & I love the game. When I bought Rome Total War 2 it change my first game Rome Total War. The 1st game showed all the map when I sent one of my guys their. Now when I go on my RTW game it only shows Italy. The game must be set on hard & I just can't win the game. I deleted RTW 2 & RTW & reload RTW but still can't get the old RTW. Can you help me get back my old game?

    ****
  • OacusOacus Registered Users Posts: 2
    From my stand point Rome 2 is more realistic, not all civilizations are equal to each other and many will have massive disadvantages. Rome 2 is more for serious strategy players and history buffs than Shogun 2 which in my opinion is more casual. Carthage and Rome were vastly different and the game shows that fact. It is brutally honest, history shows us that not all nations can do what others can, despite logic. Why could tribes of Mongols conquer the most powerful nations in the world? It also treats the world like it was, every part of Roman life was calculated and planned to strengthen ones standing in life. If you aren't a history buff or a skilled strategy gamer looking for a challenge, get Shogun 2.
  • easytargeteasytarget Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,432
    edited January 2016
    More realistic, what a laugh, all CA games are historically based, there's no accuracy whatsoever in how the battles play out, unless your under the misguided belief rock, paper scissors is a thing in real life.

    And if "historical accuracy" is judged by what actually happens in the game, odd how the power houses in Rome 2 so rarely actually survive, yet in Shogun 2 from a game play stand point there is almost always one or two clans that are strong enough to challenge the player mid to late game. Sort of puts your comment of skilled strategy gamer in a proper context doesn't it?!

    Saying Rome 2 is more serious is equally absurd. Neither game is anything more than historically based as CA has made no bones about the fact they make games not simulations, so to suggest one is "more serious" or more "casual" is an opinion not based in what the developers themselves have stated about their own games.

    So, if you want to go by which game was better reviewed by both critics and players you'd play Shogun 2, if you wanted to play the game that was reviewed so badly by critics and players CA spent the next year and 17 patches fixing it go w/ Rome 2.
    This space intentionally left blank.
  • OacusOacus Registered Users Posts: 2
    Oh no, the series is rock paper scissors, Rome 2 is chess. In that matter all war was treated just like that, moving pieces to positions according to their strengths until finally the enemy is trapped. As to the part about powerhouses falling fast, we aren't talking about metal tanks or planes. Stronger soldiers are still people they will die just as much as a grunt will. I believe experience should be the way veterans should progress in games, not health. If a elephant manages to kill a massive amount of troops and survive, it will make sense for it to have higher damage or a morale boost but not more health. Rome 2 is more broken, but consider the scope of the game, it was extremely ambitious while Shogun 2 is better because it is smaller and its maps soldiers etc. are less diverse because of it's regions. This makes it easier for the developers to make it and focus on its bugs. Like Skyrim and Dragon Age, is one buggy broken and has glitches to high hell? Yes. But is it bigger, more unique and arguably better absolutely. That is my two cents anyway.
  • TalkersTalkers Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 251
    First, I cant really tell to current state. I played it last time early 2014, as it was entirely broken.

    Still angry on CA to release this product as "awesome, amazing game" with huge promotion, asking 40 euro or more for access to game in state of beta-test. And not solving issues quickly, but releasing DLCs, empire edition and other stuff.

    Now it might be better game than shogun 2, but I dont have the connection to the game as I had to all TW games before.

    Hope CA will be smarter with next game and will make some beta-tests with Warhammer. I am not buying it anyway till the first special price offer knocks in. No reason to pay full price to access beta test. I will wait for complete game for half price.
  • knodo85knodo85 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,135
    Shogun 2 just has a beautiful atmosphere. It sucks you into the era. Rome 2 doesn't really.
  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,887
    knodo85 said:

    Shogun 2 just has a beautiful atmosphere. It sucks you into the era. Rome 2 doesn't really.

    Only really one culture to focus in Shogun 2 :p
    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Also, good Lord, this topic that keeps going.
    Talkers said:

    First, I cant really tell to current state. I played it last time early 2014, as it was entirely broken.

    Still angry on CA to release this product as "awesome, amazing game" with huge promotion, asking 40 euro or more for access to game in state of beta-test. And not solving issues quickly, but releasing DLCs, empire edition and other stuff.

    Now it might be better game than shogun 2, but I dont have the connection to the game as I had to all TW games before.

    Hope CA will be smarter with next game and will make some beta-tests with Warhammer. I am not buying it anyway till the first special price offer knocks in. No reason to pay full price to access beta test. I will wait for complete game for half price.

    That and supposedly they were going to support if for the longest of any Total War game. Too bad they didn't.
    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
  • lessavinilessavini Registered Users Posts: 7


    And while I agree with your conclusion different people are going to like different works TW has made, I also believe in the test of time, and I'm fine with putting some distance behind us and we'll see down the road a decade or two which of these is remembered as a masterpiece and what is considered the high water mark of CA's work. My money is on Shogun 2 as I've already stated.

    The test of time has spoken. Almost a decade after Shogun2 released and its still the zenit of the series, while Rome2 is mediocre even after being supported to this day.
Sign In or Register to comment.