The strategic ressources are barely of any importance and neither are the buildings. The whole city management is very flat and lacks depth in Rome 2. The grand campaign map has barely any live on it like trade ships or caravans and so on. On top of that, ladders move magicaly unlike in Rome1 where they'd have to push them and the world and rain textures are awful. Rome2 does a somewhat decent job for a 3D game and that will just for me aesthetically never beat a fine 2D game. Rome2 is full with clipping and weird animations, a 3D game has to be looking phenomenal or else it looks trashy. There's no weird *** anti alising issues making everything look terrible. You may burst out in laughing now, but I honestly think its 2D graphics are superior. in Rome2 something about waging out the armies capabilities is seriously off. I lack experience against people but afaik Rome2 does a somewhat solid job there as the AI is the biggest flaw. Rome2 looks and plays disgustingly bad and pathetic in battles. I also played more battles in Rome1 and Medieval 2 because they were simply much better. That said I do appreciate a great battle. Knights of Honor has siege battles too and they work. Rome 2 would certainly have the somewhat better battles but the AI in sieges is still flawed and broken. I prefer the macro strategy part over the battles. I am not much of a fighting guy in total war and 4x games in general. But recently I started to play Knights of Honor again and man that game is at least 10 times better to me. I've been playing plenty of Total War and Rome 2 may be the one I played most.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |