This game has higher requirements than Rome 2 Total War

[Mållgan]

Let that fact sink in. Along with the fact that Rome 2 Total War is extremely unoptimized, it seems like CA hasn't learned from their previous fiasco. This game with 2004 graphics needs a Ryzen 5 2600 and GTX 1070. It also needs 70GB in space.


This is a f*cking joke.


Edit. The game also has higher system requirements than Total War Warhammer 2.

[Jambie Lionheart]

The ram is kinda sits where I expected it too, but the cpu and disk space is a little higher than I thought.

[No Longer A Demon Door]

This, along with the fact that the Alexander campaign has seen zero improvement, makes me seriously swing towards publishing a negative review as soon as the remaster is released.

[Andy]

Originally posted by Generic Player:

This game with 2004 graphics needs a Ryzen 5 2600 and GTX 1070.

No, it doesn't.

Originally posted by Cheeky Demon Door:

This, along with the fact that the Alexander campaign has seen zero improvement, makes me seriously swing towards publishing a negative review as soon as the remaster is released.

The Alexander campaign was always a bit rubbish. So, Ferel have done exactly what they could have done. Make it look prettier with some quality of life improvements.
Anything outside of that scope is outside the scope of a remaster. Expecting more is unrealistic.
You still get Rome and BI.

[mrartist]

You probably should do that Cheeky, unfortunately I purchased the darn thing and I did it without the discount since I had long deleted the original and I should be able to run that my my now old machine but it's good enough to clunk through Rome 2 with no dx issues and that original if memory serves me right was dx 7 ish. I'm not buying another rig to play this and I don't play shooters. if it runs it runs if not I'll surse silently, and remove it from steam.

[Mållgan]

Originally posted by Andy:

Originally posted by Generic Player:

This game with 2004 graphics needs a Ryzen 5 2600 and GTX 1070.

No, it doesn't.

Originally posted by Cheeky Demon Door:

This, along with the fact that the Alexander campaign has seen zero improvement, makes me seriously swing towards publishing a negative review as soon as the remaster is released.

The Alexander campaign was always a bit rubbish. So, Ferel have done exactly what they could have done. Make it look prettier with some quality of life improvements.
Anything outside of that scope is outside the scope of a remaster. Expecting more is unrealistic.
You still get Rome and BI.

The game isn't "prettier". There are some color changes but it still looks like the same old game from 2004.

[Andy]

Originally posted by Generic Player:

Originally posted by Andy:

No, it doesn't.



The Alexander campaign was always a bit rubbish. So, Ferel have done exactly what they could have done. Make it look prettier with some quality of life improvements.
Anything outside of that scope is outside the scope of a remaster. Expecting more is unrealistic.
You still get Rome and BI.

The game isn't "prettier". There are some color changes but it still looks like the same old game from 2004.

There are 4K textures. you may not like them, but they are there.

And, the reason Rome 2 specs are lower is in the requirements if you had read them.

Rome 2s requirements from 8 years ago are assuming minimum specs are for 1024x768 and recomended specs are 1080p
Remasters minimum specs are based on 1080p. So, that's why you have the difference. 8 years ago the expectation was for people to be playing on lower resolution, and the system requirements are written with that in mind.

[Mållgan]

Originally posted by Andy:

Originally posted by Generic Player:

The game isn't "prettier". There are some color changes but it still looks like the same old game from 2004.

There are 4K textures. you may not like them, but they are there.

And, the reason Rome 2 specs are lower is in the requirements if you had read them.

Rome 2s requirements from 8 years ago are assuming minimum specs are for 720p and recomended specs are 1080p
Remasters minimum specs are based on 1080p. So, that's why you have the difference. 8 years ago the expectation was for people to be playing on lower resolution, and the system requirements are written with that in mind.

Doood, this game has higher system requirements than Warhammer 2. You are so full of sh*t. There is no way this old af game needs higher specs than Warhammer 2.

[Andy]

Originally posted by Generic Player:

Doood, this game has higher system requirements than Warhammer 2. You are so full of sh*t. There is no way this old af game needs higher specs than Warhammer 2.

You made the comparison against Rome 2, not warhammer 2. So, naturally that's what i responded to. And, my post was entirely factually accurate.
You can't make the comparison vs Rome 2 then complain i didn't talk about warhammer 2.
Your straight up straw manning. Pathetic.
Just gonna stick you on my ignore list. Your clearly a crackpot.

[Zenon]

Originally posted by Generic Player:

Let that fact sink in. Along with the fact that Rome 2 Total War is extremely unoptimized, it seems like CA hasn't learned from their previous fiasco. This game with 2004 graphics needs a Ryzen 5 2600 and GTX 1070. It also needs 70GB in space.


This is a f*cking joke.

The graphics are NOT 2004, they reworked the engine. Stop your fake news.

[Eren Jäger]

Originally posted by Generic Player:

Originally posted by Andy:

No, it doesn't.



The Alexander campaign was always a bit rubbish. So, Ferel have done exactly what they could have done. Make it look prettier with some quality of life improvements.
Anything outside of that scope is outside the scope of a remaster. Expecting more is unrealistic.
You still get Rome and BI.

The game isn't "prettier". There are some color changes but it still looks like the same old game from 2004.

The game clearly looks better than the old version. I wonder what you expect from a Remaster? Rome 3?

[Mållgan]

Originally posted by Eren Jäger:

Originally posted by Generic Player:

The game isn't "prettier". There are some color changes but it still looks like the same old game from 2004.

The game clearly looks better than the old version. I wonder what you expect from a Remaster? Rome 3?

I don't expect it to be an unoptimized mess. But from the looks of it, that's exactly what it's going to be.

[Eekhoorn]

Let's all calm down and see how it works, alright? The store page even mentions integrated graphics support so it can't be that bad. Most people will be able to play this.

If your computer doesn't meet the minimum requirements, you're better off playing the original anyway.

[easytarget]

Generic player makes generic whine. Steam forums, same as it ever was.

[Truggs]

Guys they only put recommended at that to run the 4k features and extreme unit sizes, etc without a hitch. I wouldn't worry about running this game, if you can run rome 2 you will be running this especially at 1080p max graphics.

[Jack]

Having 4k textures on ♥♥♥♥ low poly models is retarded pointless and a waste of space if anything. Longer load times heavier system requirements for little to no improvement. This entire remaster is dodgy at best. Whatever happened to optimising games smh.