Rome:Total War remaster to be released April 29th

[Dowly]

https://store.steampowered.com/app/8...ME_REMASTERED/


Many A True Nerd made a 44min video about it. He is no stranger to the original, and is very pleased with the remaster.

[Catfish]

Interesting, but i think no remastering will top the RS III mod from TotalWarCentral.

I have tried almost three weeks to get Rome Total War I running over Christmas with the Roma surrectum III mod, but no success
Total screw-up of the screen size every f'n time. Not the disc, not the steam version due to Windows not allowing access to certain files.
SCREW YOU MICKEYSOFT

[HunterICX]

13 hours in and loving it, UI was a bit getting used to not really understanding the hate about it aside that I'd rather had the one in battles be more like the original in terms of aesthetics.


Runs smooth unlike the original which I never could get to run properly on a modern rig. The graphical upgrade is just about right, enough to remember the original by but looking fresh and new.

[Sonarman]

Make you wonder if a campaign to ubisoft could prompt them to contact Feral Interactive to complete a remaster on SHIii for us

[zachanscom]

looks p bad ngl. same 3 decade old low poly models just with high texture resolution. what's the point of this? it looks like a cash grab to me. they recently trademarked total war medieval. a lot of people think it's gonna be be medieval 3, but the cynic in me says it's just another cash grab and they're gonna "remaster" medieval 2 by running all textures through an ai algorithm in photoshop and proceed to rake in the cash from gullible nostalgia goggles wearing drunks

[HunterICX]

The point?



What most people want from a remaster is that it runs on modern systems smoothly at resolutions up to 4K and ultra Wide support. That most of the things they know from the original is left untouched (for nostalgia reasons or well a remaster is not a remake) or least have them toggable between the Remaster version and the Original (Which Rome Remaster does).


This remaster isn't just a new coat of paint, they included a lot of things (which again can be turned off to what they where in the original) in the campaign settings. Other gameplay settings you can switch between Original and Remaster, new factions added, new agent on the campaign map to name a few things. Also it included both expansions and if you happen to have the original you get till June a 50% discount on the whole lot.



And seeying the current state of most modern Total War Games (Rome II, Attila, Brittania etc) , yeah I rather be the gullible nostalgic goggle wearing drunk. I like to be able to enjoy older games again with some improvements on a modern rigs because the original didn't run, runs unstable or not smooth or doesn't support higher resolutions.

[Threadfin]

Not feeling this one. Rome 1 was my entry point in to the series, and I have fond memories and still to this day I can recall how beautiful the strat map music was. It was a fresh and fantastic experience for me at the time. Now I own every main title aside from Med and Shogun, versions 1, and Three Kingdoms.

Nostalgia is powerful, but if I strip it away I'm left feeling that a remaster is not going quite far enough, though several of my friends have it and like it. Among the things that keep me from picking it up are pathfinding, terrible siege mechanics, an overly-cumbersome UI, and those silly battles in the mountains where you had to trudge to the top to kill the slingers up there.

I haven't ruled it out, but not chomping at the bit either.

The comment above is interesting, seeming to suggest that titles like Rome 2 and Attila are currently substandard in some way? And in comparison to Rome 1? I hold a very different view, but that's cool.

Even if I do not take this plunge I hope the remaster does well, in case it may lead to similar treatment for Med 2.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Threadfin

The comment above is interesting, seeming to suggest that titles like Rome 2 and Attila are currently substandard in some way? And in comparison to Rome 1? I hold a very different view, but that's cool.

I've beeing playing Total War games since the Original Shogun back in 2000. from my experience the games have gone upwards till Rome Total War with the Barbarian Invasion expansion and Medieval 2 with the expansions , after that I only liked Shogun 2 and I've got issues with that game from some perspectives compared to earlier titles and the original Shogun. Empire was a disaster, Napoleon fixed some but I found it to be mediocre at best and well I don't refund often but Rome II is one of the few games I did.



The AI is nothing to write home about in RTW (or any TW game for that matter) true but they haven't really fixed it in their newer titles (or the remaster for that matter, still has the same quirks as they did in the original) and removed features like how raising troops no longer takes away pops from your cities thus having the AI able to just keep spamming full stacks and you no longer can use the tactic of attrition draining the enemy pops dry, how you can recruit generals instead of having to wait for a marriage or son come of age. just to name a few issues I have with the newer games in the series. I haven't gotten a new Total War game after Rome II (which I refunded) and don't really plan to with whatever they come up with next. Not saying the games are bad as there's plenty of enjoy them and hell I've gotten something like 300H and 200H in Empire and Shogun 2 but there's just things they streamlined from their earlier titles that draws me away from being interesting to play for me.

[Threadfin]

Fair enough mate, there's no accounting for taste. I began with Rome 1 as mentioned, and since then I've bought it all, aside from Three Kingdoms and the first two titles, as noted above (and a couple of the sagas, but they don't count lol).

I don't share your view, which is fine, and I think Attila and Rome 2 are great games, now. I really like the campaigns in each of these. My run as WRE in Attila is probably my most memorable Total War campaign. Those of us (I am including you Hunter) who have been playing since the early-oughts have seen all the changes, we recall when recruitment and replenishment were limited to cities that could actually build that unit, as I am sure it remains in the remaster.

I see strengths and weaknesses in every Total War title. A good example is Shogun 2. A great campaign, period flavor, tech trees, artwork and battles, especially in FotS with the bridging from steel to gunpowder eras. On the other hand, Realm Divide is a horrible mechanic in my view, and the ocean trade node mechanic was a disaster as far as I am concerned. I could talk about similar dichotomies in every title.

For a long time I was a historical snob, and had no interest in Warhammer. Then one day I thought, well why is that? So I tried it and absolutely love it. The 'factionality' as I call it, or the sheer uniqueness of each and every faction is awesome. No TW title has better replay value in my mind, even if Med 2 is far and away my most played TW game. For those of us who own both WH titles, there is a campaign (Mortal Empires) which stitches together all factions and the map from both games. It is epic. At the same time it has a tiresome end-game mechanic and city building is perhaps too simple, with little or no equivalent to squalor. But I don't dismiss everything that is great about it over the few things I feel are a miss, like Shogun 2 and well, every game in the series.

Personally, as much as I like Rome 1, and especially for the place it holds as my first taste of CA's winning formula, it just doesn't hold up well to titles like Warhammer 2, Attila and yes, even Rome 2.

A big part of the equation I think is a given player's interest in the historical era being portrayed. Ancient Rome isn't as interesting to me as Medieval or Renaissance eras. But I still enjoy the games set then and try not to let my personal bias affect my assessment of the game itself.

Matter of fact, the remaster got me looking, and I only purchased Rome 2 last week and am playing a campaign now as Baktria. The release was a disaster, but after nearly eight years of seasoning I found the current version to be really good. The remaster failed to convince me, but it led to giving Rome 2 a closer look, and the Steam sale didn't hurt.

[HunterICX]

For me nothing comes close as what Shogun (the original) did. While the graphics haven't aged well...the campaign map, the units as chess pieces on the map , the harvest that provided you your big income once a year and you had to have it last for 3 turns keeping your units up. The little cutscenes with agents, the diplomacy room.... that game just had so much immersive flavour which I've yet seen recreated in any other game with the exception of Medieval Total War (2002) but..... my favorite campaign goes to Medieval Total War 2 : Kingdoms and specifcily the Teutonic Campaign.

Shogun 2 came really close , it had some things I really liked about it some things I didn't but overal I hold it in high regard in the series. A bit biased because I'm a big sucker for Feudal Japan so I take a lot of it granted.

And as you put it , it comes down to flavour of not just the time period but also what it does with the campaign mechanics and battle mechanics. I have been eyeballing the WH side of it as well , I like the lore enough thought not that well versed with it and perhaps I find the newer mechanics fit better in a Fantasy setting then a historical setting. Who knows that I might be poised to grab one with a sale which are plenty throughout the year.


As for the Remaster, my main reason was to get it so I could play Rome Total War again which the original didn't do so well on my modern rig and it came with Alexander expansion which I never gotten so there's that to explore.

[Threadfin]

The Teutonic Order had great hats, which is worth a couple battlefield victories right there!

I really liked playing that faction too.

About Warhammer.... yeah, I dismissed it for a long time, the fantasy didn't interest me, being a student of history, and I knew nothing about the Warhammer universe. But I couldn't help but notice how popular it is.

So when it went on sale several years ago I thought why not? Maybe I'll like it, or not, but on sale it wasn't a big punt. Now? I own ALL of the DLC haha.

In any strategy game I am a sucker for asymmetry. Honestly it's one of the weaknesses of the historical titles. They must remain faithful to history, which constrains the devs to a degree. I really like Napoleon, but it does suffer from the fact that playing as France is not that much different than playing as Prussia, or anyone really, in a general sense.

Warhammer though throws off these shackles, CA was free to run wild, and they did a marvelous job of it in my view. I have quite a few friends who refuse to play it, strictly out of historical snobbery. It's simply the fact that it is fantasy. I felt so too at one stage, but very glad I questioned my own position and now have a great game to play.

One of the problems with TW's formula is that while the early and mid game are great, there comes a point where you become unstoppable. WH2 attempts to address this with the Vortex campaign, where the challenge ramps alongside your growing power, and it's an interesting twist to this series.

The factions themselves are so varied and wonderful that the replay value is off the charts. Everything is unique, from rosters to tech trees to campaign mechanics. I get it when folks shy away, especially those who consider themselves students of history, but man are they missing a great game.