Total War: Rome II

 PC
  • Publisher: Sega
  • Release Date: Sep 2, 2013
User Score
4.4

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 3974 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,184 out of 3974
  2. Mixed: 613 out of 3974
  3. Negative: 2,177 out of 3974
Buy Now
Buy on

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
view
per page
  1. Heimskringla91
    Sep 10, 2013
    0
    Absolutely horrendous. AI is utterly stupid and the addition of "capture the flag" greatly decreases the challenge of battles. Naval battles are disgustingly impossible due to glitches, they are a required auto-resolve. Pay an additional $8 in order to play This game is just completely broken. As an avid Total War since the first Shogun Total War, I am disgusted. I really hope I canAbsolutely horrendous. AI is utterly stupid and the addition of "capture the flag" greatly decreases the challenge of battles. Naval battles are disgustingly impossible due to glitches, they are a required auto-resolve. Pay an additional $8 in order to play This game is just completely broken. As an avid Total War since the first Shogun Total War, I am disgusted. I really hope I can get my money back for this. I'm pissed at the positive reviews this is receiving from critics. Quite the travesty.… Expand
  2. HaZZarD88
    Sep 5, 2013
    0
    waited years and paid lot of bucks for what a F**kin BETA ????

    the other sad thing is that the worst total war ever made is also the one in my favorite era ....

    thanks CA and SEGA

    you really deserve my ZERO
  3. Kolombus
    Sep 6, 2013
    3
    Ok, where to start... bought the game and well, disappointing is the first word that comes to mind. It feels unfinished, almost rushed. The ingredients of a great game are there, but it just doesn't deliver on any level as previous TW titles did.
  4. Caesar_Flavus
    Sep 6, 2013
    5
    Well I believe that all the positive reviews were written by company employees or some test group guys? most positive reviews state nothing and look like advertisement: "buy it buy it buy it!" Now about the game, IMHO Napoleon and Shogun were much better. There is no more good old TW experience here, I just don't know how to describe it. Game design looks bad and they removed many goodWell I believe that all the positive reviews were written by company employees or some test group guys? most positive reviews state nothing and look like advertisement: "buy it buy it buy it!" Now about the game, IMHO Napoleon and Shogun were much better. There is no more good old TW experience here, I just don't know how to describe it. Game design looks bad and they removed many good things such as family tree. I d recommend to play Rome 1 with Roma surrectum 2 mod, you ll get more fun.… Expand
  5. Roller_101
    Sep 6, 2013
    0
    This game is a disaster. A lof of technical issues (no AA, no SLI support, very bad framerate considering how ugly it is, etc), very confusing and awful menus (tech tree menu and unit cards are just super nasty, etc), strange design decisions (NO FAMILY TREE, idotic skills for armie casual simplified province thing, etc and VERY imbalanced. Currently this game plays like unplayable beta.This game is a disaster. A lof of technical issues (no AA, no SLI support, very bad framerate considering how ugly it is, etc), very confusing and awful menus (tech tree menu and unit cards are just super nasty, etc), strange design decisions (NO FAMILY TREE, idotic skills for armie casual simplified province thing, etc and VERY imbalanced. Currently this game plays like unplayable beta. AVOID AT ALL COST!… Expand
  6. Machinist_X
    Sep 8, 2013
    2
    Totally disappointed in the buggy casual game that rome 2 is, they have removed previous features much loved by the community for no reason but to make the game easier for braindeads, UI has gone backwards for ease of use, trade information for example are simplified, diplomacy is broken for example you will need to pay 3000 for a trade agreement with a faction worth 60-120 per turn, AI isTotally disappointed in the buggy casual game that rome 2 is, they have removed previous features much loved by the community for no reason but to make the game easier for braindeads, UI has gone backwards for ease of use, trade information for example are simplified, diplomacy is broken for example you will need to pay 3000 for a trade agreement with a faction worth 60-120 per turn, AI is extremely passive even on the hardest difficultly allowing you to basically expand with ease, land units can magically turn into a naval unit and sail around the seven seas without actually needing to build ships, the game is not optimized even i have had graphics problems with a 770gtx which is one of the best cards available on a fresh install of windows 8, multiplayer is still capped at 2 player and has desync issues and crashing like shogun 2 did previously, unit balancing is awful, you can spam foot companions with macedon for example and rape a full army within 2 minutes of battle. AI bugs in battles and get stuck in sieges and open battles due to bad pathing. CA are pumping out DLC factions you have to pay for on day 1 which should be in the game from day 1 anyway and its just pure greed of them to charge for them. Currently i have no movitation to play the game even though i only owned it a few days and was waiting for it for years, its like total war has been consoled ported, i can only hope the modding community is given the tools to sort out this mess out and i doubt i will buy another total war game even with preorder bonuses.… Expand
  7. Viljanen
    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.
  8. Red_Oktoberfest
    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    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
  9. Latrec
    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    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
  10. Chamber
    Sep 5, 2013
    0
    I have played every Total War game since Medieval. My favorites are Rome and Medieval between which I logged in over 1000 hours (including mods) of gameplay.

    I feel compelled to share what I have experienced playing Rome II. What follows is a short summary of my 19 hour-long campaign thus far from installation (steam) through my last turn (85) playing on HARD/HARD mode as Rome, the    I have played every Total War game since Medieval. My favorites are Rome and Medieval between which I logged in over 1000 hours (including mods) of gameplay.

    I feel compelled to share what I have experienced playing Rome II. What follows is a short summary of my 19 hour-long campaign thus far from installation (steam) through my last turn (85) playing on HARD/HARD mode as Rome, the House of Julii.

    The game installs without a hitch. I'm glad given how anxious I felt after having read so many negative reviews. The optimist in me feels vindicated.

    The intro plays and while I feel underwhelmed I do not care. After all, I want to play a strategy game and not watch pretty rendered videos.

    I jump into the campaign as the House of Julii and then I see the campaign map with Roma at its center in all its glory. I get giddy with excitement at what's to come.

    Everything looks good but it lags a bit, running at 20-22 fps. I look at video options and the graphics are set at “Extreme” by default. Curious, I think, that this would be the default. I dismiss it as a quibble and proceed to change it to “Ultra” just so that I can get 30 fps. I still get the same performance despite lowering the settings. Even if I lower the settings to "High" (And I have a semi-monster rig) the fps in the campaign map remains at 20-25 fps at best. So I keep it at "Ultra".

    Oh well, it's not a big deal. I decide to accomplish the given objectives by taking out the Etruscan League. I proceed to attack one of their cities and a battle ensues.

    My first battle in Rome II. Oh, the anticipation, the excitement, the folly of hope! It happens to take place at dusk and everything looks very brown and very dull. But the my army is amassed before me and I must lead them. So I look at them. Maybe I drank the Kool-Aid for too long, but I am shocked to see that the models still look like clones of each other. It doesn't matter, I think to myself, let's see them march. Interesting, the sound of marching is not in-sync with their motion. Oh well, not a big deal.

    I look at my control options and I see that I cannot set them to "Guard" which I find odd. I start the attack and follow my units with the new cinematic option just so that I that I can take it all in. I await the fruit of a "40% higher budget than Shogun 2" and "50% more animations" with joy. One minute and 34 seconds the battle is over. Say what?

    Yes, Rome II's battles give a new meaning to Caesar's famous remark: I came, I saw, I just paid $60 for this!

    I'm getting ahead of myself. There was a full minute and 34 seconds of glorious fighting to describe. Two perfectly formed and organized armies make contact, disintegrate into a blob of hard to distinguish clones each attempting to perform a ridiculous animation that in no way relates to what each unit is doing. And this at an incredibly fast pace where it is almost impossible to appreciate the nuance of the bloated animations.

    I decide to auto-resolve battles as much as I can from now on, although from my experience with other TW games I know that is not very smart, especially early on. In fact, on Hard mode it was impossible to get anywhere in past TW games if you just auto-resolved battles before the mid-game.

    I'm on turn 85 and I have auto resolved every single battle except 4 including that first battle. If this fact by itself is does not prove that the AI is ridiculously bad then I don't know what does. But moving on.

    I like the campaign map despite its low fps so I stick to that. I quickly overrun ever Etruscan League city in Italy without a challenge. Their last city is in Corsica so I worry about building a transport. No need, my troops can just walk on water a la Jesus.

    They have 2 large armies stationed there and I think to myself, "Well, I think I'm gonna have to fight this battle. This is too important to leave up to auto-resolve, however effective it's been."

    I land and then during their turn the Etruscans move their entire 2 armies into the sea. Oh well, I take over their city with, you guessed it, auto-resolve.

    They then suicide by attacking Rome with ONE ARMY at a time. Man, no wonder no one talks about the Etruscans --history is written by those who are not mentally challenged.

    By now I am very frustrated with the game, but I keep playing. Why? Because I am a true fan, I set aside this week to do so and I still believe in the glory that is Rome. (Or maybe the hype machine really did a number on me, who knows?"

    So I keep playing. I get acquainted with the UI which is a bit frustrating because the Encyclopedia which explains the building orders is not user friendly. Nor in some cases even helpful. For instance, no where does it say that you have to build a Training Field in your Province Capital. Nor is attrition and food explained in detail anywhere. Eventually you understand it but you cannot read up on it like you used to.

    I actually like the concept of attrition and food a lot and I think that it was a good design choice. The fact that all your regions' food supplies are linked into one unified supply is clever. Also, linking your army's replenishment rate to your food supply is intuitive and makes it important to maintain a good food supply. This is one of the few things in the game that matter because they have actual consequences. Around turn 30 I lose of my men due to attrition. It feels good because it hurts.

    Now, let me talk about public order. Never mind that it is a complete mystery knowing why it goes up or down (I don't feel like qualifying this statement but if anyone challenges me on it, I will), it has no consequences and it's therefore thrash. Now this I must qualify. So there is an imminent threat of a slave revolt in Magna Graecia despite my attempts to avoid it and the next turn a cinematic comes on. Oh it's Spartacus(not really)! is about to get real!

    Unfortunately, the slaves driven to cast off their chains by the cruelty of their masters get ready to bring about a Mexican standoff lasting 10 or 12 turns, until I decide to attack them just to raise my general's stats.

    I have since experienced 11 slave revolts and they never, ever attack my cities. Nor do they have a measurable adverse effect on my economy or diplomacy or anything. They just stand there. Endlessly.

    When I do crush them I get this other video. I actually like both videos and I guess I better because 85 turns in they are the ONLY in-game cinematics I've seen. So by around turn 40, I start to ignore public order altogether. It is broken and it means absolutely nothing.

    I also face many, many non-slave rebellions and only once was one of my cities attacked. Of course, it would be more accurate to say that only once did the rebels suicide against my impregnable walls.

    I cannot emphasize how disappointing this is. When playing Rome, that masterpiece which now shines brighter by comparison, I used to dread rebellions. They could undo your conquests, they could outright end you. They definitely meant something. Now they mean nothing. They are a joke. By the way, let me take this opportunity to address something else. AI turns take way too long to complete. By turn 40, they can take up to 3 minutes; by turn 80 they can take up to 5 minutes. And campaign fps even at HIGH” on a great rig lags down to 7-8 fps. Ultimately, that is why I stopped playing. I couldn’t put up with it anymore. There are other things to address such as diplomacy a joke) and internal politics which has to be the single most disappointing thing about this game. In a few words, it's not a feature to speak of, it's a whole lot of nothing. It's a pre-alpha concept that was not developed. It's a slap on our collective face is what it is. I'm too tired now. I'm going to bed. Perhaps in my dreams I will play the Rome II that I envisioned. Maybe I'll just play Rome I before going to sleep. A sad day, indeed.    … Expand
  11. ExTotalWarFan
    Sep 5, 2013
    1
    This is what happens when you decide to forsake your fanbase for the console kids. Rome 2 isn't a worthy successor to Rome 1 by any stretch of the imagination. Creative Assembly deserves to be shamed and Sega deserves to lose profit for releasing a casualized, unfinished game.
  12. MDLion
    Sep 5, 2013
    0
    we all know the issue by now. the game is a stripped down console version and total war is dead. the critic reviews are total garbage and flat out lies.

    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.

    shame on you all for that. shame on you.
  13. nihonsean
    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 copiesThis 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
  14. Sheridan
    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    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
  15. Mike_Mac
    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 andPlease, 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
  16. themrchook
    Sep 6, 2013
    2
    Very poor optimisation, AI is poor and siege AI is just non-functioning with issues like enemy units just standing there or even more bizarrely wandering off in random directions until they just run into archer fire and die, simplified mechanics and game functionality when compared to Total War: Rome (seems to be the trend, would have like to have seen it broken for this game) but thisVery poor optimisation, AI is poor and siege AI is just non-functioning with issues like enemy units just standing there or even more bizarrely wandering off in random directions until they just run into archer fire and die, simplified mechanics and game functionality when compared to Total War: Rome (seems to be the trend, would have like to have seen it broken for this game) but this does not make the game more fun, punchy or exciting. Slightly updated graphics but nowhere near what I expected. I can forgive releasing with a few bugs and issues as this is normal but there are just such a large amount of them. This is why people pirate games, you don't deserve my money for this and you won't be getting it ever again.… Expand
  17. Radox0
    Sep 6, 2013
    2
    I've enjoyed the Total War series immensely through the years: I even enjoyed Empire at release as I didn't really encounter any of the crashes others did, and the bugs that were there were play through-able Rome 2 on the other hand, is a half finished game; I hope they realise their mistakes and patch it relentlessly to get it up to scratch as I want this game to be a success but rightI've enjoyed the Total War series immensely through the years: I even enjoyed Empire at release as I didn't really encounter any of the crashes others did, and the bugs that were there were play through-able Rome 2 on the other hand, is a half finished game; I hope they realise their mistakes and patch it relentlessly to get it up to scratch as I want this game to be a success but right now, as it is, it's not even deserving of a 5/10 average score… Expand
  18. nguyenhoainam
    Sep 6, 2013
    2
    When I first played Shogun: Total War, I thought "Damn! How is this game possible?" Shogun was well ahead of its time in terms of ideas, scale, quality... every aspects! It was just GREAT!!! So great you just cant believe it...

    I became a fan, played every games in the series... I think Rome is truly the pinnacle of them! Cant remember how much time I spent in that game, but I'm sure it    When I first played Shogun: Total War, I thought "Damn! How is this game possible?" Shogun was well ahead of its time in terms of ideas, scale, quality... every aspects! It was just GREAT!!! So great you just cant believe it...

    I became a fan, played every games in the series... I think Rome is truly the pinnacle of them! Cant remember how much time I spent in that game, but I'm sure it was plenty...

    Then came Medieval II, which I thought was great too. I just wasnt captivated by that era as much as by Rome's.

    Napoleon disappointed me, but I still believe that CA will come back with another masterpiece to revive the franchise!

    When they released Shogun II, I thought to myself Well, back to Japan is not half bad, though I would appreciate a new place to wage war though"

    And now, Rome II... Ok, I loved the first game and that era, just improve the graphics, the gameplay and I will spend countless time again in this game.

    But what have they done???

    - AI sucks
    - Graphics bugs
    - Gameplay lacks depth and options
    - Music and sounds is many steps backward
    - Multiplayer gone to (I play Steam version and let me remind you that Steam is argue-ably the best multiplay-experience provider out there, but it still sucks big time!)

    To sum it up, let me quote a comment some guy here said "CA put crap in a box and we spent 60$ for it"

    THAT'S HOW THEY TREATED US, LOYAL FANS OF THE FRANCHISE!

    **** YOU CA!!!    … Expand
  19. poerk55
    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.
  20. Vastator
    Sep 5, 2013
    0
    I can tolerate problems such pathetic AI on sieges, worst UI of the series, fast and arcadish battles, "WTF" diplomacy, because these things can (hopefully in several months) be modded or patched.

    But what i can't tolerate are the lies of the devs and the false advertisement made before the game release: they advertised the game to be optimized and playable on every PC, and they    I can tolerate problems such pathetic AI on sieges, worst UI of the series, fast and arcadish battles, "WTF" diplomacy, because these things can (hopefully in several months) be modded or patched.

    But what i can't tolerate are the lies of the devs and the false advertisement made before the game release: they advertised the game to be optimized and playable on every PC, and they declared those very low requirements: complete lie!! You can't play such a huge game on a single core or on a weak dual core (i have though a way stronger PC), there are many people that have been fooled of that, go and see on the support forums! They are seeking help because the game (CPU intensive) run on 10 FPS! They can't be helped with that hw, they have been fooled by the minimum reqs.

    They showed totally different "alpha footage" than actually is on the game (go and see the old carthage walkthrough and compare with the actual one, it's depressing!). And what about day one DLC? They said that they were making them because the core game was finished and there was time to make them!! WTF, "finished"????

    Let's not talk about the performance: no matter what settings i choose, when the melee start the game becomem unplayable due to lag and low FPS (and i can play B3, C3 and Shogun 2 on high/ultra). Turns take 3 minutes to finish, and the campaign map lags as hell.

    CA was my favorite game company. With this score i feel like killing my father. But my father has raped me with Rome II :(

    I'm so sad, so sad about the current state of the game that you can't imagine. I followed its development from the July 2012 with very high hopes. Now all is lost.

    Why this?? WHY!!??    … Expand
  21. SlickNick
    Sep 6, 2013
    0
    The game as it stands is unplayable for the following reasons:
    1. UI
    2. UI
    3. UI
    4. UI
    5. UI
    6. Camera
    7. AI
    8. Lag

    Back to europa barbarium. Sigh.
  22. Ayreos
    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.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
  23. jesterx7769
    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    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
  24. psychoravin
    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 aI 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
  25. naox
    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.
  26. jesperkjensen
    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 madeI 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. Romanium54
    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?
  28. DuskRaider
    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.
  29. Kaje85
    Sep 5, 2013
    2
    My concerns with this product are not technical, they are functional. Whilst the game does have it's bugs, they are easy enough to fix with patches over time the deeper issues with this game lie in the fact it is essentially a prettier total conversion mod for Empire Total War.
    Gone are the little quirks that made Shogun 2 a charismatic foray into the world of a Japanese warlord, instead    My concerns with this product are not technical, they are functional. Whilst the game does have it's bugs, they are easy enough to fix with patches over time the deeper issues with this game lie in the fact it is essentially a prettier total conversion mod for Empire Total War.
    Gone are the little quirks that made Shogun 2 a charismatic foray into the world of a Japanese warlord, instead we are back to a campaign mode with as much charm and tact as a Syrian politician.
    It feels like a gross afterthought, there's nothing to do other than for it to serve as something to look at between battles and the latter aren't that great either. A rock/paper/scissors game where the AI has the intelligence of a PE teacher.
    Seriously, a huge step back for Creative Assembly.    … Expand
  30. kopiko
    Sep 6, 2013
    2
    In a nutshell, this game overpromised and underdeliver. Hell, even that is an understatement. I'm not gonna touch on the AI/FPS issues, nor the multiplayer component and just focus something so fundamentally wrong with the campaign. Here's the thing, if the game needs 1 min 30 secs to complete a campaign turn during the opening stages of the game on a Intel i7-3849QM 2.80GHz, 16gb ram,In a nutshell, this game overpromised and underdeliver. Hell, even that is an understatement. I'm not gonna touch on the AI/FPS issues, nor the multiplayer component and just focus something so fundamentally wrong with the campaign. Here's the thing, if the game needs 1 min 30 secs to complete a campaign turn during the opening stages of the game on a Intel i7-3849QM 2.80GHz, 16gb ram, something is very wrong.

    Simply put, it is far too ambitious for its own good. There is far too many minor factions to process and when it is finally your turn, you find that there is very little to do apart from moving your spy or pretend that you have something to build in your province. The kicker is the more you explore which you kinda have to do if you want establish more trade routes, hence more gold in your coffer the slower the turn gets! The total war series used to suck me in with me telling myself that my next turn will be my last one(which is obviously a lie) and when I finally dare to glance up at the clock, it is 5am, Now, I don't even want to click the 'end turn' button any more, I just don't know what I am supposed to do while I wait for the AI to finish their turns. Read a book? I probably can play a movie on my iPad as I wait. Maybe I can even walk the dog when I am about 75 turns in.

    The worst part is I don't think this is something patch-able. Sure, you can improve the framerates issues, maybe even inject a smarter thought process for the AI in a later patch, but the cutting down the waiting time for a campaign turn? That is bit rich all things considered. Unless they trim down the amount of minor factions or limit the size of the map(what are the chances eh?), I don't think any number of patch is gonna help. And that makes everything sad.    … Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

4
#4 Most Discussed PC Game of 2013
7
#7 Most Shared PC Game of 2013

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
76

Generally favorable reviews - based on 71 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 49 out of 71
  2. Mixed: 15 out of 71
  3. Negative: 7 out of 71
  1. Worth Playing
    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.
    Read full review
  2. PCGamesN
    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.
    Read full review
  3. PC PowerPlay
    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]
See all critic reviews »