Not So MMO: Total War: Rome Remastered Review | MMORPG.com

System

Not So MMO: Total War: Rome Remastered Review | MMORPG.com

Rome: Total War is one of Bradford's favorite Total War games of all time, so jumping back in with its remastered version brought back a lot of memories. However, how does the experience, built originally in 2004 hold up here in 2021, even with the new improvements brough by Feral? Surprisingly well, actually.

Read the full story here

Flharfh

Have they improved the AI? That was the weakest part of the original and would be unacceptably bad in a modern game.

FrodoFragins

Flharfh said:

Have they improved the AI? That was the weakest part of the original and would be unacceptably bad in a modern game.

Not really no.  They claimed it would require much more work than was in the scope of the remaster.

cameltosis

Good article and nice review.

I will admit, I'm confused as to why they bothered with a remaster in the first place. Were there a lot of people asking for it? Was it a particularly successful entry that they're trying to milk?

Given that there was a Rome 2, a remaster of the first one feels redundant.

For me personally, Total War: Rome was my least favourite entry in the series. I've never had much interest in that particular time period so there wasn't much pull to begin with, but the thing that drove me off was the lack of unit diversity in comparison to other Total War games.

Granted, its been many years since I played, but I distinctly remember each of the armies I tried out only having 4 or 5 usable units at any given time. Building every army from such a narrow roster of units became boring extremely quickly. Was there some sort of era mechanic? I remember some mechanic that made old units redundant very quickly, so despite each army technically having 10-15 units to recruit, most were redundant.

Has that changed at all? Hows the unit diversity?

lotrlore

cameltosis said:

Good article and nice review.

I will admit, I'm confused as to why they bothered with a remaster in the first place. Were there a lot of people asking for it? Was it a particularly successful entry that they're trying to milk?

Given that there was a Rome 2, a remaster of the first one feels redundant.

For me personally, Total War: Rome was my least favourite entry in the series. I've never had much interest in that particular time period so there wasn't much pull to begin with, but the thing that drove me off was the lack of unit diversity in comparison to other Total War games.

Granted, its been many years since I played, but I distinctly remember each of the armies I tried out only having 4 or 5 usable units at any given time. Building every army from such a narrow roster of units became boring extremely quickly. Was there some sort of era mechanic? I remember some mechanic that made old units redundant very quickly, so despite each army technically having 10-15 units to recruit, most were redundant.

Has that changed at all? Hows the unit diversity?

Appreciate the read! 

Unit diversity is pretty, well, diverse, especially before the Marian reforms. Once you get to a certain part of the timeline, the unit roster does become more streamlined to reflect the change in how the Roman army was organized. BUT even then you still have different tiers of these units, from Auxillia archers and cavalry, to Praetorian Cohorts, Arcani and more. 

The other factions all have diverse armies as well, especially in the late game. It's still the basic rock paper scissors formula in the end, but it does well to kit your army with different types of units to make the best possible force to put in the field.

Scot

"Good article and nice review. I will admit, I'm confused as to why they bothered with a remaster in the first place. Were there a lot of people asking for it? Was it a particularly successful entry that they're trying to milk?"

Gaming companies might as well be dairy companies when it comes to milking it these days.

R:TW Game 9/10, deciding to do a "remaster" 1/10.

titanofdoom

Rebrand the name of the site...mmorpg's are dead.com...sadly!

Scot

titanofdoom said:

Rebrand the name of the site...mmorpg's are dead.com...sadly!

The site has been doing "Not So" articles since Suzie invented the term way back. I see no reason why the site can't cover RPG, strategyand MMO-like, which are traditional associated with MMORPG players. As for the hardware reviews, well who does not use hardware?