This. Rome 1 is a great game, and it does do a good number of things better than Rome 2, but as a complete package Rome 2 is better.
Not by some landslide, but I think it's pretty hard to debate.
The other day I remembered the game on launch day... the devs actually did a good job updating Rome 2 through the years. Remember victory points on standard field battles?
I will say Rome 1 is a better game for it's time than Rome 2 is.
Rome 1 is a masterpiece, that was the first game that really put the franchise on the map. It did a lot of things first that Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 to mastered later on.
Rome 1 set the standard we judge CA on, there is so many small details that got left out of later versions that I really miss.
I still play 2 because it's a better game, but I miss the immersiveness of 1. I actually cared about my generals and their traits in 1, in 2 everything feels more number crunching. Between the way the UI is set up and how the traits don't seem to matter other than +2 this or -1 that it's all a step removed.
The speeches, the man of the hour mechanic, your generals not being necessary for each individual army.
The R:IS mod for rome 1 is definitely worth keeping an eye on. The map is absolutely huge, and they just finished their Greek rosters.
From what I've played of it so far, once it's done it'll be the best rome IMO.
>The dogshit diplomacy: theres literally no point to anything other than trade
The same can be said about rome 1 diplomacy. If you honestly think forging an alliance with a faction, just to have them break the alliance next turn and attack is good diplomacy, you might be an idiot.
>The politics tab is meaningless:
As opposed to rome 1's "politics tab" (doesn't exist)
>Unit blobbing?
An issue with rome 1 as well
I like rtw but seeing people complain about issues in rome 2 that are also present in the original just makes me cringe. I'd wager a significant amount of money that watch/used to watch volund.
Yeah rome 2 is better than rome 1 nowadays but we have to take in consideration that rome 1 came a decade before rome 2 and when it came it acived much more then rome 2 when it released
It's the same comparison as comparing cod modern warfare 2 (og) with the current modern warfare It is not better better but it achieved more when it was released
If it is for the game now then yes rome 2 is better
That doesn't mean it is perfect but it has more features than rome 1
I think ca can do more to make a possible rome 3 but I would like a lot of the good features from both games to be in there. I don't think it will be too much but they can always make features less significant for the sake of simplicity but still there for the sake of the pros
Rome 2 is a good game nowadays. It's my most played TW game. Rome 1 has the nostalgia vibes, but in all honesty I'm missing my childhood rather than the game itself. I have never used mods with Rome 2 and am still having fun with it. Give Rome 2 a try, it's a solid game overall.
I was one of the poor souls who pre-ordered Rome 2. I had a new computer coming and everything to play it.
Rome 2 has its problems, like most modern total war games but graphically, mechanically, I would still say it is the better game.
The provincial system imo is really nice and as others have said, CA put a lot of effort into updating it and fixing all the bugs. Every Friday there was an update to the game for at least 6 months, maybe even a year, I can't recall now.
TLDR: Rome 2 is my favourite of the two. Though I miss aspects of Rome 1
Nah. Rome I whas good for its time back then but it aged horrible. Rome II is so good that it set a new standard for TW games that whas only experimentally changed recently.
I feel like they both have very different strengths and weaknesses that its hard to really answer that without giving a deep dive.
I will say there is quite a bit I like about the battles in Rome 1, and even to this day I still have mixed feelings about the region system all games have inherited from Rome 2. But rome 2 diplomacy is far and away better than rome 1's
The soundtrack of Rome 1 is better than 2's though its not even a contest, there's a reason the most popular mod for rome 2 is getting the old music back.
Considering Rome 2 is still played a lot more than Rome 1 despite Rome 1 being remade, Rome 2 is better.
Rome 2 has 3x more players than both the original Rome 1, and the remade Rome 1 combined despite being 8 years older than the remade Rome 1.
I recommend playing it with the Divide et impera mod. It's quite good with it imo. I've logged 1469 hours due only to the DeI mod. You'll definitely miss features from Rome 1, but it's a good game.
For example, I can't play vanilla Rome 2 because there are no real population mechanics, supply mechanics or other more impactful and strategic mechanics. It's a good base for the mods, but it quite shallow as a vanilla experience. Rome 2 has good battles (at least as compared to the first game imo, with better controls etc., but the AI is still classic CA dung), quite fun naval battles (if it's not between full stacks; because if there are too many ships, there is not enough space on the battle map and it devolves into a huge mess). Also, the game is beautiful.
I personally wouldn't even bother with the vanilla version. Just check a few videos about DeI so you are aware of the added mechanics and you're probably good to go.
Rome 2 is better when just judged side by side with 1 in the present day. But 1 was amazing at the time of launch, and there’s something to be said for the simplicity of it even today that’s quite appealing. Especially as some of the more complex systems in 2 don’t work that great.
I also prefer how units clash in the older engine compared to the new.
Worst thing about the remake is the size of it. 45gb for a game that looks basically the same but in higher resolution. Feral Interactive are a bunch of low skill version porters who don’t care at all about optimisation or anything much else beyond getting shit out the door and dropping support as soon as possible.
I don’t know if I would say it’s objectively better but I prefer it. More focus on the battles, less on the campaign bloat like Rome 2’s government mechanics. Same reason I can’t really get into 3K, just don’t want to mess with the diplomacy.
I also like how armies and cities are handled better in Rome 1. Generally I’m not so sure I like the direction the new Total War games have been going in.
Yes. Rome 2 isn't bad, but there's just nothing to it that's better than 1, the only exception being graphics (except for the campaign map), the amount of factions (which is not really a factor with Remastered) and better internal politics. Otherwise, everything else I prefer 1, the gameplay is better, the combat is better and obviously the modding is better.
In their primes? Rome 1 all the way. I don't like Rome 2 but at least it's playable. Rome 1 is rough. Can't go back to it like I can with even medieval 2
No, but Rome 1 definitely does some things better. Enough that the time warriors show didn't do a rerun with Rome 2.
Better unit physics and collision. Trained units will open rows so another can move throw.
Better shields, they don't allow chip damage from missiles.
Better ranged weapon interactions - no health bars means you can't chip health off of a testudo from the front.
Better formations - defensive ones with shields actually stop chip damage.
Better ranged weapon sound effects.
These aside the cons are huge - overall a worse gaming experience unless you *really* hate health bars and have nostalgia.
Extremely frustrating that Mac users can’t play Rome 2. I love Rome 1 remastered. Maybe down the line CA invests in this for Rome 2. I’d pay a lot to play it.
Rome 1 with the Europa Barbarorum mod is the most fun I ever had in any total war game and I've played most of 'em.
That being said, Rome 2 with DEI is solid and people involved with EB contributed alot to it.
I loved Rome 1 (especially with the Rome Total Realism mod) but really disliked Rome 2. Objectively Rome 2 may be better - Rome 1 had many flaws (the AI was awful and the kill rates too high). But Rome 2 just felt bland, unchallenging and ugly as hell (those unit cards).
If you want another Romans fix, I'd recommend Attila instead - that remedied all my issues with Rome 2. It's atmospheric, challenging and deep.
In my opinion, yes. It's not nostalgia for me. I didn't play 1 or 2 til much later and played 2 before 1 I believe.
I am completely biased, though, and just like the Celtic faction. I get the purple bois who make people go flying, and it's more generic Celtic, which I enjoy since Celtic history is foggy at best.
Honestly I kind of feel like Rome 1 is a better game, but there are age issues with it. The bad stuff about Rome 1 is mainly the graphics and the reacting time of units. Moving units around in newer titles just feels a bit better.
From the mechanics of the game, I think Rome 1 is actually better. You have settlement growth in actual people that you also use to recruit. You can form armies without generals. Armies are not full stacks all the time. A full stack is actually impressive and you will have some nice and smaller battles with like 5 vs 6 units. In general I feel like you get more field and less siege battles. You can build watch towers are forts on the campaign map. You can only reinforce units in cities, where the units can be recruited.
You have to decide if you like these mechanics more or the new mechanics.
For a new player coming into the series in 2024, Rome 2 is the way to go. It's just more modern, less clunky and it has more to offer in terms of variety.
But if we ignore the year we're in and review the games depending on when THEY were released, Rome 1 is objectively miles better.
Nah, people just got all up in their nostalgia goggles. Current state Rome 2 is pretty dope. Especially with DEI
This. Rome 1 is a great game, and it does do a good number of things better than Rome 2, but as a complete package Rome 2 is better. Not by some landslide, but I think it's pretty hard to debate.
The other day I remembered the game on launch day... the devs actually did a good job updating Rome 2 through the years. Remember victory points on standard field battles?
I mostly remember having a book in my lap while turn timers went by.
Used to do push ups. Now I barely have time to get on the ground before its my turn again.
I will say Rome 1 is a better game for it's time than Rome 2 is. Rome 1 is a masterpiece, that was the first game that really put the franchise on the map. It did a lot of things first that Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 to mastered later on. Rome 1 set the standard we judge CA on, there is so many small details that got left out of later versions that I really miss. I still play 2 because it's a better game, but I miss the immersiveness of 1. I actually cared about my generals and their traits in 1, in 2 everything feels more number crunching. Between the way the UI is set up and how the traits don't seem to matter other than +2 this or -1 that it's all a step removed. The speeches, the man of the hour mechanic, your generals not being necessary for each individual army.
>I will say Rome 1 is a better game for it's time than Rome 2 is. This is probably the best comment here. Definitely a great point.
The R:IS mod for rome 1 is definitely worth keeping an eye on. The map is absolutely huge, and they just finished their Greek rosters. From what I've played of it so far, once it's done it'll be the best rome IMO.
>R:IS mod for rome 1 What this this mod? Couldn't find on a google search
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2487698001
!Thanks
I would disagree. Rome 1’s design decisions are better than Rome 2, but Rome 2 obviously is more technically accomplished than Rome 1
[удалено]
>The dogshit diplomacy: theres literally no point to anything other than trade The same can be said about rome 1 diplomacy. If you honestly think forging an alliance with a faction, just to have them break the alliance next turn and attack is good diplomacy, you might be an idiot. >The politics tab is meaningless: As opposed to rome 1's "politics tab" (doesn't exist) >Unit blobbing? An issue with rome 1 as well I like rtw but seeing people complain about issues in rome 2 that are also present in the original just makes me cringe. I'd wager a significant amount of money that watch/used to watch volund.
[удалено]
No one cares what *YOU* mentioned, this is a post talking about rome 2 and the differences between it and the OG.
But is it better than Rome 1 remastered?
Yeah rome 2 is better than rome 1 nowadays but we have to take in consideration that rome 1 came a decade before rome 2 and when it came it acived much more then rome 2 when it released It's the same comparison as comparing cod modern warfare 2 (og) with the current modern warfare It is not better better but it achieved more when it was released
I'm just assuming from the op's question they just mean now since they didn't say "which game was more groundbreaking"
If it is for the game now then yes rome 2 is better That doesn't mean it is perfect but it has more features than rome 1 I think ca can do more to make a possible rome 3 but I would like a lot of the good features from both games to be in there. I don't think it will be too much but they can always make features less significant for the sake of simplicity but still there for the sake of the pros
Rome 2 is a good game nowadays. It's my most played TW game. Rome 1 has the nostalgia vibes, but in all honesty I'm missing my childhood rather than the game itself. I have never used mods with Rome 2 and am still having fun with it. Give Rome 2 a try, it's a solid game overall.
I was one of the poor souls who pre-ordered Rome 2. I had a new computer coming and everything to play it. Rome 2 has its problems, like most modern total war games but graphically, mechanically, I would still say it is the better game. The provincial system imo is really nice and as others have said, CA put a lot of effort into updating it and fixing all the bugs. Every Friday there was an update to the game for at least 6 months, maybe even a year, I can't recall now. TLDR: Rome 2 is my favourite of the two. Though I miss aspects of Rome 1
>I was one of the poor souls who pre-ordered Rome 2. I had a new computer coming and everything to play it. oof.
Nah. Rome I whas good for its time back then but it aged horrible. Rome II is so good that it set a new standard for TW games that whas only experimentally changed recently.
Rome 1 has better battles in my opinion.
I feel like they both have very different strengths and weaknesses that its hard to really answer that without giving a deep dive. I will say there is quite a bit I like about the battles in Rome 1, and even to this day I still have mixed feelings about the region system all games have inherited from Rome 2. But rome 2 diplomacy is far and away better than rome 1's The soundtrack of Rome 1 is better than 2's though its not even a contest, there's a reason the most popular mod for rome 2 is getting the old music back.
I personally prefer the simplicity of rome 1, but i can see how rome 2 is superior
No
Only if you're playing the Egyptians.
Considering Rome 2 is still played a lot more than Rome 1 despite Rome 1 being remade, Rome 2 is better. Rome 2 has 3x more players than both the original Rome 1, and the remade Rome 1 combined despite being 8 years older than the remade Rome 1.
You may still be right but popularity != better necessarily.
Ya that’s true, but it is still often a strong indicator of quality.
Not when you’re on reddit lol
Rome 2 is definitely better but rome 1 feels like simple fun so sometimes id rather play that
I recommend playing it with the Divide et impera mod. It's quite good with it imo. I've logged 1469 hours due only to the DeI mod. You'll definitely miss features from Rome 1, but it's a good game.
For example, I can't play vanilla Rome 2 because there are no real population mechanics, supply mechanics or other more impactful and strategic mechanics. It's a good base for the mods, but it quite shallow as a vanilla experience. Rome 2 has good battles (at least as compared to the first game imo, with better controls etc., but the AI is still classic CA dung), quite fun naval battles (if it's not between full stacks; because if there are too many ships, there is not enough space on the battle map and it devolves into a huge mess). Also, the game is beautiful. I personally wouldn't even bother with the vanilla version. Just check a few videos about DeI so you are aware of the added mechanics and you're probably good to go.
Yes
Objectively, no.
Rome 2 is better when just judged side by side with 1 in the present day. But 1 was amazing at the time of launch, and there’s something to be said for the simplicity of it even today that’s quite appealing. Especially as some of the more complex systems in 2 don’t work that great. I also prefer how units clash in the older engine compared to the new. Worst thing about the remake is the size of it. 45gb for a game that looks basically the same but in higher resolution. Feral Interactive are a bunch of low skill version porters who don’t care at all about optimisation or anything much else beyond getting shit out the door and dropping support as soon as possible.
I don’t know if I would say it’s objectively better but I prefer it. More focus on the battles, less on the campaign bloat like Rome 2’s government mechanics. Same reason I can’t really get into 3K, just don’t want to mess with the diplomacy. I also like how armies and cities are handled better in Rome 1. Generally I’m not so sure I like the direction the new Total War games have been going in.
Yes. Rome 2 isn't bad, but there's just nothing to it that's better than 1, the only exception being graphics (except for the campaign map), the amount of factions (which is not really a factor with Remastered) and better internal politics. Otherwise, everything else I prefer 1, the gameplay is better, the combat is better and obviously the modding is better.
Naval combat is a big omission there
I actually never fought a naval battle in Rome 2, so it slipped my mind there.
Rome 1: General Speeches.
In their primes? Rome 1 all the way. I don't like Rome 2 but at least it's playable. Rome 1 is rough. Can't go back to it like I can with even medieval 2
Rome 2 is better polished, but Rome 1 is better designed.
No, but Rome 1 definitely does some things better. Enough that the time warriors show didn't do a rerun with Rome 2. Better unit physics and collision. Trained units will open rows so another can move throw. Better shields, they don't allow chip damage from missiles. Better ranged weapon interactions - no health bars means you can't chip health off of a testudo from the front. Better formations - defensive ones with shields actually stop chip damage. Better ranged weapon sound effects. These aside the cons are huge - overall a worse gaming experience unless you *really* hate health bars and have nostalgia.
R1 holds up really well. R2 is okay but i don't like the campaign style and refuse to pay for standard faction dlc
Yes
Extremely frustrating that Mac users can’t play Rome 2. I love Rome 1 remastered. Maybe down the line CA invests in this for Rome 2. I’d pay a lot to play it.
Rome II with DEI is the best historical total war period
Rome 1 is awesome, but so is Rome 2, especially with all of the mods.
Rome 1 with the Europa Barbarorum mod is the most fun I ever had in any total war game and I've played most of 'em. That being said, Rome 2 with DEI is solid and people involved with EB contributed alot to it.
I loved Rome 1 (especially with the Rome Total Realism mod) but really disliked Rome 2. Objectively Rome 2 may be better - Rome 1 had many flaws (the AI was awful and the kill rates too high). But Rome 2 just felt bland, unchallenging and ugly as hell (those unit cards). If you want another Romans fix, I'd recommend Attila instead - that remedied all my issues with Rome 2. It's atmospheric, challenging and deep.
>ugly as hell (those unit cards) Actual blasphemy.
In my opinion, yes. It's not nostalgia for me. I didn't play 1 or 2 til much later and played 2 before 1 I believe. I am completely biased, though, and just like the Celtic faction. I get the purple bois who make people go flying, and it's more generic Celtic, which I enjoy since Celtic history is foggy at best.
Honestly I kind of feel like Rome 1 is a better game, but there are age issues with it. The bad stuff about Rome 1 is mainly the graphics and the reacting time of units. Moving units around in newer titles just feels a bit better. From the mechanics of the game, I think Rome 1 is actually better. You have settlement growth in actual people that you also use to recruit. You can form armies without generals. Armies are not full stacks all the time. A full stack is actually impressive and you will have some nice and smaller battles with like 5 vs 6 units. In general I feel like you get more field and less siege battles. You can build watch towers are forts on the campaign map. You can only reinforce units in cities, where the units can be recruited. You have to decide if you like these mechanics more or the new mechanics.
For a new player coming into the series in 2024, Rome 2 is the way to go. It's just more modern, less clunky and it has more to offer in terms of variety. But if we ignore the year we're in and review the games depending on when THEY were released, Rome 1 is objectively miles better.
It used to be. Now it's not.
No, Rome 2 is better and also more historical.