• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Total War: Rome 2 |OT| I Came, I Saw, I Came

Dinosaur Tamer said:
I have a 660. There is no way I should have to use the predefined medium setting to get more than 30 fps.
Click to expand...
Why?

It's not like games are released where 'High' should equate to a mid range card with a great framerate. Often games aren't able to be played on high levels until future hardware is released. See: Crysis.
publicpwnerer said:
Well, at the time of purchasing my cards (680 SLI), the Titan wasn't announced and the cost of a 690 was far greater than the two 680's, even for the performance boost it gave. It just wasn't worth the price.

The frustrating problem I'm having with PC gaming is the fact that regardless of how powerful your rig is...a poorly optimised game (Rome II) will render it unplayable. I dream of a day when you spend your ludicrous amounts to build a rig...then just turn it on and crank every game to Ultra with max AA...and get 70+ FPS with zero hiccup or drops.
Click to expand...
Turn down your settings, and see above.

You are playing with a single 680. Why should ultra be playable with that kind of framerate? Does money unlock some sort of magical barrier to accessibility? Should it? Kind of a silly argument you have there :P
 
Gaz_RB said:
Sparta is just as awesome as I thought it would be. Gonna unite Greece and kill Rome.
Click to expand...

Sparta really seems like the "Eff the World" faction. It's always nice when strategy games include one.

"Screw ports, screw cavalry, screw archers, and screw you, Macedon! You're not my dad, I'm punching elephants to death."
 
2500k @ 4.4
670 SLI
8GB Ram

Going by the benchmark, I'm actually not doing too bad with performance. Which is especially interesting, since I have SLI, so only one of my cards is really working? Able to get a fairly consistent 60fps, setting the game to very high and throwing on anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering to maximum. There are some crazy spikes shown on the graph at the end however.

I still think Shogun 2 definitely looks and runs better for me though.
 
I feel like I am in a small minority that isn't having any issues with this game. It runs like garbage but lowering the settings helped. Haven't really run into bugs in 12 hours of playing. Gameplay wise it is far and away the best total war yet. I just don't understand people hating on it.
 
Kainazzo said:
Sparta really seems like the "Eff the World" faction. It's always nice when strategy games include one.

"Screw ports, screw cavalry, screw archers, and screw you, Macedon! You're not my dad, I'm punching elephants to death."
Click to expand...
Exactly! I love it. Macedonia really does seem to think they own Sparta and Athens. Not for long.
 
How can a game which has so much graphical detail at times not have SLI or CF in this day and age???

Total War series is a good series, but oh boy are they going to be working on this title for a few months...
 
Had a tough time in one of the prologue missions because my general is made out of wafers and shame. I succeeded and the mission glitched out -_-

Again if anyone wants to play I'm NeoTyger122 on Steam.
 
mkenyon said:
Why?

It's not like games are released where 'High' should equate to a mid range card with a great framerate. Often games aren't able to be played on high levels until future hardware is released. See: Crysis.

Turn down your settings, and see above.

You are playing with a single 680. Why should ultra be playable with that kind of framerate? Does money unlock some sort of magical barrier to accessibility? Should it? Kind of a silly argument you have there :P
Click to expand...

Rome II doesn't seem to be in the same league as Crysis. It's equal or slightly under Shogun 2 which seems to be much more playable with mid range rigs.
 
haikira said:
2500k @ 4.4
670 SLI
8GB Ram

Going by the benchmark, I'm actually not doing too bad with performance. Which is especially interesting, since I have SLI, so only one of my cards is really working? Able to get a fairly consistent 60fps, setting the game to very high and throwing on anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering to maximum. There are some crazy spikes shown on the graph at the end however.

I still think Shogun 2 definitely looks and runs better for me though.
Click to expand...

You can confirm with GPU-Z. I didnt do that but Im fairly sure that one card being at 75C and the other at 35C is enough evidence.

I had one spike drop me down to 20fps when the troops first appeared in the benchmark.

I am confident we will still see a patch in the near future that will at least improve performance.
 
DTKT said:
Rome II doesn't seem to be in the same league as Crysis. It's equal or slightly under Shogun 2 which seems to be much more playable with mid range rigs.
Click to expand...

Yeah the difference here is that Crysis was a beautiful game. Rome 2, in it's current state, is not.
 
Gaz_RB said:
Yeah the difference here is that Crysis was a beautiful game. Rome 2, in it's current state, is not.
Click to expand...

Gahh talk about a credit series (Crysis) that also went down the tubes over time...

Crysis was up there with Half-Life for game changing FPS experience.
 
haikira said:
2500k @ 4.4
670 SLI
8GB Ram

Going by the benchmark, I'm actually not doing too bad with performance. Which is especially interesting, since I have SLI, so only one of my cards is really working? Able to get a fairly consistent 60fps, setting the game to very high and throwing on anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering to maximum. There are some crazy spikes shown on the graph at the end however.

I still think Shogun 2 definitely looks and runs better for me though.
Click to expand...

You can confirm with GPU-Z. I didnt do that but Im fairly sure that one card being at 75C and the other at 35C is enough evidence. Aside from the fact that it is already confirmed.

Andy says turning the Vegetation Alpha off gives a big boost, so I will have to rerun with that disabled when i get home.
 
I'm still unable to even start this damn game. I did everything I could, it's now in the hands of CA
lol, I'm screwed
to decide if I've just trown 30€ down the drain.
 
Azulsky said:
.
Andy says turning the Vegetation Alpha off gives a big boost, so I will have to rerun with that disabled when i get home.
Click to expand...

It gave me between 3 to 5 fps boost when zoomed in but it's not the main issue. Performance and AA is totally boinked at the moment.

And the 680 is considered a midrange card already?
 
ricochetguro said:
It gave me between 3 to 5 fps boost when zoomed in but it's not the main issue. Performance and AA is totally boinked at the moment.

And the 680 is considered a midrange card already?
Click to expand...
No, but the 660 is.

Though I'm only commenting on the performance stuff, I'm living vicariously through all of your posts. I won't be able to play until next Monday, as that's when I get my net connection turned on at my new house.

How is the strategy portion of the game outside of the battles? Currently on a big EUIV kick, and I'm hoping it's at least somewhat improved over previous titles. I love them RTS battles, but if the main campaign component is borked (at least in comparison to EUIV), not sure if I'll totally dig it.
 
mkenyon said:
Why?

It's not like games are released where 'High' should equate to a mid range card with a great framerate. Often games aren't able to be played on high levels until future hardware is released. See: Crysis.

Turn down your settings, and see above.

You are playing with a single 680. Why should ultra be playable with that kind of framerate? Does money unlock some sort of magical barrier to accessibility? Should it? Kind of a silly argument you have there :P
Click to expand...

Well, I never really looked at it from the perspective of games being made for future hardware.

When I bought my rig, I kinda expected to be able to enjoy games at a high / decent setting for the next couple of years or so. I don't think I have the patience (or finances) anymore to keep upgrading my PC. I know others find 30-45 FPS, or medium etc acceptable, but the biggest boon to PC gaming (for me) is being able to pay a premium to get the highest level of fidelity as well as a more superior experience in comparison to any other gaming device on the market.


So now I'm wondering, when Rome II is inevitably patched up & Nvidia release their drivers...will it be significant in the way of 20+ FPS better, or still shitty?
 
publicpwnerer said:
Well, I never really looked at it from the perspective of games being made for future hardware.

When I bought my rig, I kinda expected to be able to enjoy games at a high / decent setting for the next couple of years or so. I don't think I have the patience (or finances) anymore to keep upgrading my PC. I know others find 30-45 FPS, or medium etc acceptable, but the biggest boon to PC gaming (for me) is being able to pay a premium to get the highest level of fidelity as well as a more superior experience in comparison to any other gaming device on the market.


So now I'm wondering, when Rome II is inevitably patched up & Nvidia release their drivers...will it be significant in the way of 20+ FPS better, or still shitty?
Click to expand...

If Shogun 2 is anything to go by, performance gains will be large.
 
ricochetguro said:
I read his response as being towards the guy with the 680. Any idea of when the drivers will be coming Andy?
Click to expand...

Our folks will of course look at optimization; sometimes there isn't anything to find, but more often than not it's on the developer's end that things need to change. Then we can implement driver-end stuff.

In this case, I have nothing to report at this time.
 
publicpwnerer said:
Well, I never really looked at it from the perspective of games being made for future hardware.

When I bought my rig, I kinda expected to be able to enjoy games at a high / decent setting for the next couple of years or so. I don't think I have the patience (or finances) anymore to keep upgrading my PC. I know others find 30-45 FPS, or medium etc acceptable, but the biggest boon to PC gaming (for me) is being able to pay a premium to get the highest level of fidelity as well as a more superior experience in comparison to any other gaming device on the market.


So now I'm wondering, when Rome II is inevitably patched up & Nvidia release their drivers...will it be significant in the way of 20+ FPS better, or still shitty?
Click to expand...
So, one game where you are only able to use half of your GPU power (even less considering no driver specific improvements) destroys your PC experience? Not sure I follow.

Creative Assembly seems to put this on the backburner way too often. I remember Medieval II and Empire running like poo first week. Don't be looking at NVIDIA to fix everything, these optimizations are very much a two way street with a lot of effort required on the dev's side to get things going.
 
S¡mon;79814405 said:
I'm a PlayStation-gamer, but somehow I am really, really tempted to buy this.
Click to expand...

Unless you have a monster rig I dont think you should get it on impulse. Think on it and decide when a few patches have come out and the price is perhaps a bit more favorable.
 
As a follow up to my earlier post, I just installed it on both my aging desktop PC and my newer HP Elitebook.
Played a little campaign and some of the Prologue battles.

PC specs:
Q6600 2.4 overclocked to 3.0 Ghz
8 GB DDR2 RAM
Radeon 4870 1GB
Win 7 64 bit
Played at 1680 x 1050

The game first set me on Ultra, which gave 15-20 fps in combat, mid-high 20s in campaign.
I reduced all settings to very high, and disabled all the nice effects, resulting low-mid 20 fps in combat, and high 20/low 30 fps on the map, which for me is playable and about what I was getting in Empire.

On my i5 3360M @2.8 GHz SSD Elitebook
Video: ATI HD 7570m 1GB
8 GB RAM
Win 7 64

Installed very fast amd played briefly at 1600x900 and I reduced most settings one step lower to High and found combat still dips well below 20 fps while campaign feels more stable in the low 20's.

Now I must find time to play.
 
It's sad that I even have to do this but at least I found a comfortable setting now. 2560x1600 and it's running smooth, can zoom and watch heavy action plus all the effects that matter are still kept to a max. Might even drop DoF an extra notch as I don't feel it adds that much.

1haymr.png
 
So as Britons I conquered all France and spain. Now going for Rome.

How do you win this game ? I'm so confused. I miss all my windows from shogun. I can't find half of the information I need... I play so safe and I feel i'm missing so much. I hate first playthrough haha
 
maabus1999 said:
How can a game which has so much graphical detail at times not have SLI or CF in this day and age???

Total War series is a good series, but oh boy are they going to be working on this title for a few months...
Click to expand...

Seriously!

These things should be STANDARD by now.

Seems ridiculous that friggin Splinter Cell has one, but this doesn't as a high profile PC exclusive
 
mkenyon said:
Why?

It's not like games are released where 'High' should equate to a mid range card with a great framerate. Often games aren't able to be played on high levels until future hardware is released. See: Crysis.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that does not seem to apply to Rome II. Given reasonable optimization, there really isn't anything in the game that should be impossible for mid range rigs.

It looks like with most of the recent iterations of the series the game is just poorly optimized. Apart from the game not using all the power that is available (the same was a huge problem with Shogun 2), it looks like CA made some pretty insane decisions when it comes to performance. Like actually rendering every unit that is currently following a movement command twice when you press space during a battle.
 
The prologue/tutorial was a pain in the ass to complete for me. It bugged up on me sometimes when I didn't let the advisor finish talking before I did what he wanted, or I was forced to wait for him. Best thing to do is either finish it up quickly or go straight to a campagin and learn from there, in my opinion at least.
 
Singleplayer works fine and is a very awesome game with a few niggles here and there but man.....I wanted to punch a kitten when me and my buddy found out that co-op campaign is completely broken....
Every single battle leads to a desynch and then the game gets confused and you have to close it down....man did they even try playing multiplayer even once? (custom battles vs ai creates desynchs as well....)
 
So from what I gathered thus far, I should wait a few weeks to pick this up? :( Was really looking forward to playing tonight.
 
Oh boy, so disappointed.

Looks like shit, runs like shit. Shogun is miles ahead of this.....it's not even funny.

Brb (in 6 months)
 
Yeah this game needs a handful of patches. My biggest shock is how bad it runs for looking not so impressive. The gameplay is what you expect but the bugs and poor performance are ruining it. I was so hyped for it, too. Blah. ;-;
 
Would it be possible to run an identical battle sequence an infinite amount of times?

Asking for possible benching figures.
 
Ticking the unlimited vram thing solved the whole looks like shit runs like shit issue for me. It looks good now and performance is solid with most settings on ultra with a gtx660. Had one crash so far during deployment phase of a siege but otherwise it's been smooth sailing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I wish Turn 10 would make a rally game
14
4K
swagNextTuber replied
TEKKEN 7 |OT| How I killed your mother
241 242 243 244 245
12K
1M
Life replied
NieR: Automata |OT| "I wouldn't expect too much from this game if I were you."
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
RokkanStoned replied
Giant Bomb |OT31| I Think it Might Be for Show
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
Fantastapotamus replied
FireWall Zero Hour |OT| VR Group Sex With Optional Toys Required
22
5K
Bullet Club replied
Top Bottom