Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Rome 1 suffered with performance issue on new systems in a way ME2 doesn't.
The improvements to Rome remaster were nicer looking units, and merchants with a bit of balancing and improved modding support.
Although they said they worked on AI and unit pathing. The effects are negligible in game.
Given how medievel 2 doesn't have the same issues, given the fact it would release with no mods available, and yet there's a vast number of mods for the base game. It's difficult to see how you would encourage the player base to move to the remaster.
You can buy ME2 and play it without issues and have access to countless mods. A remaster is not (for my money) going to improve your experience of the game.
See youtube channel 'Broken Rampart Interactive'
Please don't change the UI. I hate the Rome remaster one that expects me to carry a magnifying glass with me.
I too find the UI atrocious, have you found a way to make unit banners on the battlefield bigger?
The same thing the vast majority of remasters improve... the graphics. No, doing so does not necessarily add anything groundbreaking or fix any major issues, but so what?
A remaster is not a remake. When you buy a remastered movie you don't expect them to switch a bad actor for a good one, change scenes, or fill in plot holes. They are made to bring an old movie with "substandard" audio/visuals closer to current standards.
The same is true of game remasters, of which there are many, and Medieval 2 could certainly benefit from this process. A remake would be Medieval 3 (or a clone by another dev that is similar in all but name), at which point new features would certainly be expected.
Also, the modding aspect isn't really relevant. The reality is that the vast majority of people who buy and play a game never delve into the modding side of things. Of those that do, very few have purchased a game solely for it's mods. So a game's profits (or loses) do not hinge on how moddable it is, or whether it will achieve a respectable modding community.
I'm not so sure.
One of the main reasons the game is still being played to the extent it is 17 years later is the vast numbers of mods creating endless replay-ability.
So, you'd be expecting people to move over to the remaster on the back of just better graphics ...
Original Rome didn't have much of a player base due to the performance issues, but even now original Rome has nearly as many players as the remaster gets.
Take a game with a decent player base, without performance issues and with vast numbers of mods. The outcome won't be as good as Rome. And Romes numbers were poor.
There's no outcome here where the effort and cost to make a Medieval 2 remaster is worth the reward for CA/Sega/Feral.