WC: Nine years ago the Creative Assembly team released Rome: Total War. It has gone on to become one of the most critically acclaimed and bestselling PC strategy games in history. Despite having brought out several more Total War games since; Rome is still considered to be the best by many fans of the series and for years they have been calling for the sequel. Well it’s finally been announced and Rome II will be released towards the end of this year.
With many new features having been introduced in the previous few games, the Total War series has progressed and become better with each passing year. Rome II will combine the advancements in technology made in the last decade with the new features that the Creative Assembly team have introduced to the Total War series. This, combined with a 40% higher budget than normal and the fact the series is returning to what is undoubtedly the most exciting and interesting period in history, looks set to make Rome II the best Total War game ever and – possibly – the best game to be released in 2013.
Read on to see 5 reasons why Rome II will be so good.
Total War: Rome II launched 10 years ago today, and remains a staple in the grand strategy genre in PC gaming.
From underrated Xbox One launch titles to absolute emperors of the strategy genre, history heads will love these games based around Ancient Rome.
Ryse was awesome, i have no idea why it wasnt recieved well and why we havnt seen another, Rome conquered so much, you could take the action anywhere, and it looked great when xbox one came out, now would be even better.
Bárbara writes: "History-inspired games have been around for a while and I’m pretty sure every gamer has come across one or two in their lifetime. And while they can be incredibly fun to play, their historical accuracy is often pretty shaky. Don’t get me wrong, in recent years developers have started to work harder to get facts right, but we’re still far from reality. Today we will explore 4 big games that butchered the chapters of history they are based on."
EA tried to market Battlefield 1 as an epic WW1 period piece. It was really just a hybrid of stripped down Battlefield 4 and Star Wars Battlefront (2015) disguised as WW1 shooter.
I'm not sure what it was you played but it certainly weren't BF1. The campaign showing the different periods of the war through the eyes of different soldiers was a good way to show the harsh reality of a WW. Was it groundbreaking? No, but it was a good effort.
It also played nothing like SW and added a whole heap of things to the BF formula to simply be called a reskin.
The “harsh reality” of WW1 was not shown by BF1. There is mission where the player is wearing tank-like armour that is repeatedly stated as being near impervious to damage. Metal armour existed in WW1, but was quickly abandoned as it wasn’t effective against bullets or explosives. Or the other reality breaking mission we’re you play as a man with superhuman speed....
BF1 streamed down the guns mechanics making all weapons easier to use. Classes were marginalized and team-play was stripped down. BF1 focused on chaotic gameplay with no emphasis on strategy, just like Battlefront. Reduced gun skill , again just like Battlefront.
So you you are telling me historically you cant jump off a ten story building into hay and live.
Indeed. Ezio actually died in ACII when he jumped off that tall building in Florence. If I recall correctly, that one was actually a cart with a pile of flower petals. Everything that happened after that was him in the afterlife envisioning where life would have taken him had he lived. Clearly the guy had a grim view on his future...
I should of read this before I juuuuummmppee................. ............................... .....
