Talk:Total War: Rome II

Categories

Just a quick note that the categories I recently added to the article were based on those already present at Rome: Total War and Medieval II: Total War. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone update the non-playable factions? Samaritan, should read as Sarmatian, it's a simple editorial error by whoever entered the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.41 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding Sections

I think this page should have sections added, because the info on it is all clumped together and all over the place. Since I'm not good at editing the pages, aside from adding new info/refs to it, anyone willing to handle it? Bihseth ^{t / c} 07:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

YouTube interview

Hi, I've been asked on my user talk page to give an opinion regarding the recent removal and addition of information sourced to [1].

I am by no means an expert on policy regarding video game articles (so if you want the subject specialists' advice, start a new thread here); however, going on the relevant content guideline, I do not see what is wrong with adding expected release dates if they come from a reliable source. To quote from WP:VG/DATE:

For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources since their date is likely based on their best estimate of when the game is to be out; always look for corroborating statements from reliable sources to confirm these dates. If a general timeframe ("first quarter", "early") or even month is provided, include this before the year, but do not link these terms (see date formatting in the Manual of Style). Avoid the use of seasonal estimate release dates ("winter", "summer") as these have different meanings in different parts of the world. If the game is announced but no release date is given, state this as "TBA".

Therefore, from what I can tell, "TBA 2013" is wrong (since it says you should only use "TBA" when no date has been given), and e.g. "late 2013" would be better, since what is relevant here is that the developers have said as much – not that it will necessarily happen.

Still, to avoid speculation, as others have put it, perhaps you may want to write something like: "Developers have said in an interview that they will try to keep the game's minimum requirements the same as those of Total War: Shogun 2."

In any case, please discuss these things on the article's talk page instead of just reverting each other. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

I should point out, in light of some of the edit summaries being used when editing the article, that Sysops do not have any special authority in content disputes; my comments above are intended as suggestions on how to reach a compromise in the article, and as an invitation to discuss issues on the talk page, rather than as a bludgeon to hit people with. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Official Box Art for Total War: Rome II

Could someone adept at adding pictures/licensing them copy the Rome II box art photo from Total War's site and replace the Rome II logo with it? The box art is an official work by CA, and therefore better suited for the article than just a logo. I have seen it in better resolution on numerous gaming sites.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosius80 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Development

I've removed this section again 3 almost four months have passed since it was added, no reason to keep a blank section here Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Release date links

While the September 3 release is correct according to for example IGN. The links provided in the box are outdated [2] and [3] link to article that say "october 2013" and "late 2013" respectively. --205.167.7.125 (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

116 Factions

Creative Assembly and the article itself both say that Total War: Rome II has 117 factions. Listed in the article, including playable factions, non-playable factions and the faction packs, the total comes to 116. I used the campaign map planner on the Total War website, http://maps.totalwar.com/rome2map, to double check the number, and I simply cannot find the "rogue" faction that would bring the total to the stated 117. Any help with this would be immensely appreciated, as I am driving myself mad. Italia2006 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The 117th Faction is the Cessetani. I added them to the list. They are a Celt-Iberian faction. If you look at the Tarraco and Aracillum settlements on the Campaign Map Planner, you can deduce that a mistake was made: Tarraco should belong to the Cessetani (listed as Allies on the Aracillum settlement). You can also see that faction listed in a screenshot on this video at the 6:50 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awJQ5pq1Q3M --201.167.69.30 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User scores are not reliable

To avoid a potential edit war I suggest before any inclusion to discuss the reliability of Metacritic's user scores. The problem with said scores is that it is near impossible to gauge how many users are giving legitimate criticism by people who have played the game (for a period of time) verses vote stuffing, trolling and of course irrational initial reactions that fade in time and only count for the first week or two. If this article were to simply state "player reaction was worse than critical", this would be inaccurate and misleading, even to the many more players who did not score on Metacritic. The only time it seems valid to add a score is when it is brought up within context by another source reporting on it. For example in the well-written article for Portal 2, Metacritic backlash is reported on in regards to a separate matter. Currently as I personally know, no such context has occurred, only unclear views and reactions.

EDIT: As a side I have no problem reporting on user complaints about bugs such as the incgamers link, as it is an acknowledgment along with the many professional critics also reporting on it in their reviews. It's just the use of user scoring I take issue with. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Does it really matter whether user scores are "reliable" or fair from your personal perspective? The low user scores represent a decidedly atypical reaction to the game, and I see that as worthy of being reported (it's not something that happens with most games). As far as I'm aware Wikipedia has no obligation to worry about the fairness of reviews it mentions, aside from perhaps ensuring that viewers do not misinterpret user scores as being assigned by the actual "critics". Particularly when high critic scores are essentially bought off by publishers (access to review copies and privileges is often withheld under the guarantee of a certain minimum score), I don't see how one can really make the case that those are particularly reliable. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be included, but I don't see why evaluative judgments should have more importance in the reporting of user scores than of critic scores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.86.154 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Professional critics, despite your own assumptions of their credibility is the standard of which is used for every article on games, same goes for films and other media. If you have a personal opinion of one certain critic, one that might be one of the longest standing, wildly cited example, it is irrelevant as we include multiple perspectives/reviews anyway and a researched, properly written, based on actual experiences, notable source is not comparable with a sudden flood of 0/10 reviews that were and will be made before and very shortly after a release of said game based on one aspect they find disagreeable. In a news story we don't report on user comments below them.

The proper way in which the public's reaction is usually handled in articles in the past on this site are news stories/editorials that mention it in regards to a greater story. For example "developer responds to player complaints" or "controversy surrounds etc" type news pieces. In fact we already have one reference and no doubt we could find or wait for more. If players are complaining about current issues, referencing them is fine. Mentioning a user score as just a user score is not referencing a recurring complaint, especially since one could ask how many of those will change their minds if a patch fixes their issue? Since we can't assume that, we shouldn't assume the complete credibility of all user scores either, positive ones included. I'll even go as far to say most Metacritic user scores are lower than the critics, even if overall positive. The only other time user votes are referenced in most articles are typically choice awards. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just stating the facts of how the "real critics" work, but ultimately that's irrelevant indeed. You're generalizing too much about these reviews by representing them as impulsively based on "one aspect". In fact, many of the users cite their qualms with the game's design, and the technical issues are supposedly rather all-encompassing. Does it matter whether the people who scored it change their minds? I see it as simply saying "this is what happened", rather than waiting around to see if things change because we might not like what happened. Just because a future patch might fix all the issues doesn't mean that the fact that those issues existed at one time is erased from time. It's really not our job to evaluate the credibility of opinions, and for me the only consideration is whether that opinion is shared by enough people to be noteworthy. You can make a case that Metacritic users represent a minority, but there's not any better source that I know of.

Perhaps the best approach to this would be to include separate sections for "Release" (and the problems associated with it) and "Reception" (critical reviews), like how the Sim City page does it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.86.154 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By no means do I want to not include the technical complaints. Professional reviews have mentioned them on release and they will remain as such as the vast majority do not do amended reviews. That I'm not debating. If however we need to mention them, what is the better, more reliable method? Cited professional reviews that detail technical faults alongside the other aspects of the game/gameplay and news pieces where the developer acknowledges said complaints, both of which you can find multiple references to OR a low user score on one website that currently stands at only just over 500 users (of mixed opinions) of a dubious nature that we cannot accurately gauge how much is legitimate and how much is reactionary? If even we were to cite it as an example of player complaints channeled at the developers to highlight it further, so far all edits related to it just add it as "the game currently has a Metacritic user score of etc", which is the whole reason for my concern because that alone without context implies and accurate reflection of the overall critical thinking of the majority of players just like the critical reception, which it is clearly not at the moment. Instead it shows that there are some players who have complaints about technical faults they have personally experienced. A minority as you put it.

I do however like the idea of separating it like Sim City. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim does this to with gameplay criticism separate from technical complaints. It should also be noted that Skyrim also received a lower Metacritic score (the PS3 the most) yet was not required in the article. As a side, please sign your posts.

EDIT - BTW I also suggested waiting previously as no doubt more stories will come out because of these current issues. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, for the time being I've put the reference to user scores along with the general statement about technical complaints as so far it is the only portion with any notability and context but. EDIT: Without a news source reporting on it, they violate WP:SPS. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Stabby Joe has already explained it pretty well; in support I will just reiterate some key points in the hopes that others can understand. Metacritic user reviews are self-published and are not reliable. Because of their self-published nature, we have no idea if:

• Are these people making a genuine attempt to assess the game?
• Have they even played the game?
• Are there people submitting multiple reviews? We don't even know how many of these reviews are from unique people.

Thus they cannot be used as a source, as all Wikipedia sources must be reliable. In this context, "reliability" has to do with editorial process and oversight, which Metacritic user reviews have none of. See WP:RS and WP:SOURCE for more information. --SubSeven (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

All of the above incorrectly assumes that the point of including the user reviews was for their portrayal of the game's quality to sway readers opinions of the game. In fact, I thought it was worth including mention of simply because it was an interesting occurrence tied with the game's release. I could definitely see the argument that it doesn't belong in the "Reception" section if that is reserved for "reliable" sources, and that's why I suggested putting it in a different section, but honestly it's not that important so w/e... furthermore I will merely mention again the irony of critics being considered quintessentially reliable sources when there is a financial conflict of interest as I said before, not that I expect Wikipedia's policies on the matter to change.

EDIT - We can't state that all professional critics may be compromised in some way. The critics wikipedia general uses are known to be established, trusted as legitimate writers, paid journalists in a working environment who are given time in order to fully research and experience the title. That we do know, user scores we do not. Otherwise this line of thought would apply to ALL of Wikipedia's policies towards referencing news and review sources. For example you may question a online news source but we don't quote the user comments either. Not "ironic" really. Reliable sources in general are not reserved just for the reception, it is for all of an article. Stabby Joe (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So the people who get fired if they give a low score to a high budget game are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what source you are referring to but we are not here to debate the credibility of one professional reviewer in regards to wikipedia's wider policies. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a single "source"; that's simply how game reviewing works as a whole. And I see that the article has been "semi-protected" now, so let me suggest some edits since the current "Reception" section gives a bit of a disproportionate representation: -updating the Metacritic score to 81% -referencing one or two examples of negative and mixed reviews corroborating widespread user complaints: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/06/total-war-rome-ii-review or http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2013/09/06/creative-assembly-fiddles-rome-ii-loads/ or http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/total-war-rome-ii-review-a-total-mess/ or http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/09/03/the-rps-verdict-total-war-rome-ii/ or http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/09/02/wot-i-think-total-war-rome-ii/ or even this "unreliable" user review http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/81021-Review-from-an-Anonymous-Developer-CA-response -acknowledging that several critical reviews mention design flaws or even boring-ness, not just "technical issues" -possibly mentioning how a developer response, including promises of patching and going so far as to apologize for the "state of the game", was motivated by the widespread dissatisfaction: http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/82496-Sorry-From-CA-Current-State-of-the-Game-and-What-Happens-Next?s=5a9d0d1ed5e748867e7710781844a210

Again, not sure what site you are referring to and evidence of this happening on a larger scale. ANYWAY, many of those references are fine and can be used when expanding the reception section as the technical issues are a point of major criticism surrounding its release. As I've said before it is the use of user scores that was the issue, not any form of criticism being reported on be reliable sources. The article has been semi-protected to avoid edit warring given that with most controversies, around a release edits can be made as reactionary by angry gamers rather than a neutral outline for encyclopedic purposes. Stabby Joe (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.gamefront.com/anon-dev-creative-assembly-comprehensively-failed-to-test-rome-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.86.154 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite repeated disagreements, like I mentioned earlier more new reliable sources have appeared with time. Great that they are being shared now. Stabby Joe (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This first source represents the fact that the situation dictates continuing atonement attempts by CA, which is somewhat out of the ordinary. http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/89314-Second-statement-from-CA-on-Rome-II-s-release-%2811-Sep-2013%29?s=cac91284bc0b6b3f84546390df27a5e1 This second source references the questionable legitimacy of mainstream reviews and references the low Metacritic user score that was omitted from this Wiki entry for lack of sources. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Total-War-Rome-2-Controversy-Spotlights-Poor-Integrity-Game-Reviews-59021.html And here's a practically viral Youtube review of the game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_QK-lcW8a8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.86.154 (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Joe is actually already in the article, having his own website and wiki page, being something of a point of complaints players are having. I'll have a look through those other sources. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A potential way to quantify the game's success and reliability: I'm pretty sure that twitch.tv makes available viewer statistics for each game that is broadcast, including TWR2. While this is a measure of video games as a spectator sport, whether or not the game is watched OR played is ultimately dependent upon the functionality and ease of use of the game itself. Twitch viewership of TWR2 cratered within two weeks, and even the multiplayer component of the game--which was highly anticipated by a large group of professional gamers--is now watched by fewer than 100 people worldwide at any given time less than eight weeks after the game's troubled release. Compare to Grand Theft Auto V, which also had a somewhat troubled release two weeks after TWR2 and a two-week planned delay in implementation of online play. Viewership on Twitch.tv of that game at the moment of this writing is over 3000. GTA V is a console game and therefore it is not nearly as easy to stream as RTW2 is, which further suggests that public interest in RTW2 has been irretrievably lost.

As a more precise example, right now the TWCC Fall Cup tournament for Total War Rome II is being played. It is being watched by 55 viewers worldwide, including this author, out of approximately half a million total Twitch.tv viewers. That is as close to zero interest as one is likely to quantify. Sofa King (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat dubious actually. I'm not speaking anything of twitch but that doesn't reflect the larger user base as it makes up only a portion as many people don't watch game sport events. Also one could argue GTA V is more mainstream/popular, breaking sales records and what not. For example I didn't even know it was on but then again like many others I wasn't going to watch it anyway regardless of the quality of the original release. Basically reasons for a low viewership can't be assumed to be for a singular reason. To be fair though, I think simply stating that "the game did get negative feedback for X reasons, here are some articles on it" is fine. I don't understand why this must be a point of focus in the article. This is far from the first game with a rocky release with disgruntled fans. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Just fyi, the article needs updating as the Metacritic score from pro reviews has dropped to 76 now. Also, while I agree whole heartedly that user reviews on their own are not generally reliable, the degree of outcry here still deserves some mention. Even one sentence at the end could be sufficient. For example, "However, reception among fans has been far more mixed, with Rome II having one of the lowest scores on Metacritic from users (3.8) [and yes, that is one of the lowest] and with critic Joe Vargas calling the game a "beta test" in reference to the bugs and issues present at launch." That would reference the general rage without suggesting that the users are reliable critics. Reception isn't about quality but reactions and the reaction has been pretty negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.6.250 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, without a reliable source reporting/referencing it, user scores are self published and not reliable. Also the negative reaction from critics, news pieces, editorials and the developer apologies themselves together reflect the negative out pour this game received. What "fans" thought is rarely required by wiki standards. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

can you put the 'Technical Problems' word please

Hi can you put the word 'Technical Problems' please on this page. Can you change that as soon as possible. RealTimeLords1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request Extra Credit(s)

In the History section

You might want to replace "Extra Credit" with Extra Credits (plural / link) 205.167.7.122 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Factions Section Removal

I would like to open up a discussion following several edits which I find take away from the article more than benefit it, and these involve the removal of ALL listings of factions in the article. I could understand perhaps if the non-playable factions section was removed, but I can not at all understand why this user felt the need to remove any mention of who the playable factions are. It seems illogical. I request that at the very least a list of the playable factions be reentered into the article. Italia2006 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Re-insertion of factions into the article. Clearly not WP: GAMECRUFT. Admiral Caius (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly. Italia2006 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Per WP: BOLD, I re-inserted the material. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys (Admiral Caius (talk · contribs) and Italia2006 (talk · contribs)), I was that user, and I had to revert it once more. In its previous condition the section was nothing more than a list of in-game playable factions. What does that say about the game, or gameplay? Reverted, it says

The game features 117 different factions around the campaign map, each with their own unit roster and agenda. Eight of these are playable on the initial release, with more included as either free or paid downloadable content. The playable factions are be divided into four cultural groups: Hellenistic, Roman, Barbarian and Eastern. Each have a unique play style associated with them, and each bring a completely different Total War: Rome II experience. Some of them are bound on military conquest, while others focus more on diplomacy and trade.

It mentions specifically that the playable factions have different playstyles and options, faction-specific units, divided into groups, can be used for a more subtle approach or to go barbaric on the other guys. This makes it clear what gameplay specific use these factions have, what a video game article is essence should be about. Merely mentioning that the Suebi tribe or the kingdom of Pontus are playable factions doesn't say anything. --Soetermans. T / C 12:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Why does an ingame factions list have to do anything beyond listing the playable factions? Why is everyone obsessed with removing the factions list? And what do you mean "Merely mentioning that the Suebi tribe of the kingdom of Pontus are playable factions doesn't say anything." What does that even mean? What is it supposed to say? Italia2006 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous? You do know that I didn't come up with this stuff right? I suggest you read WP:VG/MOS, where you can find all the guidelines on video game related articles. In short: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gameguide. You won't find lists of in-game weapons or cars either; the fact that you can choose to play all these factions doesn't say anything substantial about the game, unlike the old version, which you took out. Mentioning and linking to the real historic Suebi doesn't communicate any relevant information. I'll revert back to the old revision once more. If you don't agree, we can always stop by WT:VG and ask for their input. I'm pretty sure they'll say the same thing. --Soetermans. T / C 13:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that my revised version of the factions list contains no strategic game info on the playable factions. Simply giving the historical factions in this historical video game is neither a gameguide, nor an irrelevant list of information, especially since other games in the same category also have collections of playable civilizations/factions. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; whether or not this game is based upon history doesn't matter. The fact is that are you just listing stuff right now, and that is WP:GAMECRUFT. You do see the huge difference between the one you presented with Age of Empires Online and this one right? The AoEO does have info on it what particular culture brings to a game, and that is a reason to include it. --Soetermans. T / C 15:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - Listing a bunch of in-game entities, without any sort of description of importance to gameplay or anything, is textbook WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• (from WT:VG) (edit conflict) A quick look shows that the list in its current form is WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:TRIVIA without additional context. Merely listing all the factions adds no encyclopedic understanding without some kind of context. Who are they, how are they different, why are they included and not others, what did developer want to do, what did they do, how did players and critics respond, what are the parallels with real world, what are the differences? That is the kind of material WP:WAF expects. And that material is suited for prose. Including some examples is fine, but listing them all (especially in bullet-point form) is unnecessary. At best, a single paragraph could list all of them easily. Gameplay section is already way too long. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose list as it is WP:GAMECRUFT. The information should be presented in a similar way Soetermans stated in their first response of this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose list - This does not seem appropriate here, if it is anywhere. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose list per WP:GAMECRUFT. The1337gamer (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I scrapped the list and added the paragraphed form again with a little polish. Hopefully we can work on it from there. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just fully protected this article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark Arsten (talk · contribs), thanks for your input. The last reverts were the result of a misunderstanding between me and Italia2006 (talk · contribs). The edit conflict has almost been resolved, only now two paragraphs are nearly the same (see diff, below the headings 'Factions' and 'Playable factions). Instead of reincorporating the new text into the old, I simply hit the revert button, for which I am sorry. Could you do the honors, or otherwise lift the block? Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 14:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree, this wasn't a true edit war but rather a misunderstanding. No need for the article to be protected. Soetermans and I have had our disagreements, but we came to a constructive conclusion. Italia2006 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. Don't make me regret this :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Reception

Part of the controversy of the game's release is the relatively high score given by the official critics and the sceptical reactions by some gamers (this goes beyond Metacritic user reviews, but direct user responses to the high scoring reviews and ongoing debates on different TW forums). However, the difference between these two scores on the Metacritic site is glaring. The user responses to the high scores assigned by the likes of, say, "Digital Fix" (10/10 I think) have drawn withering criticism with gamers posting sceptical and sarcastic responses to that particular review.

I would suggest that the section entitled "Reception" is by its very nature going to be partial and grossly slanted given that it concentrates on what many believe to be very dubious reviews. Not too sure how you would deal with that. Add a section called "User Reception"? I suppose this is partially covered by the "Technical Problems and Controversy" section. Still seems inadequate given that the problems seem to go beyond bugs and into design decisions and accusations of "false advertizing" on the main Total War modding forums.

Again, the section entitled "Reception" needs more context at least. Otherwise it is repeating the high scores that some distrust. Why not add the Guardian and PCPowerPlay (score of 4) reviews to this section? And at least a brief allusion to the low user scores and ongoing debates about the games quality? Although on reflection, yes this is somewhat offset by the following section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.112.70 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Again as this topic has been brought up before in the talk page, user scores and forum posts are self-published works and original research and thus are not reliable. We can also not simply declare one critic's score as outright dubious, not being a neutral point of view. Any fanbase issues are usually mentioned within the context of an article or news piece on the matter from a reliable references by Wikipedia's standards.

Also the fact that the reception section has it's own subsection for technical and other issues itself reflects said controversies and not slanting the reception based on the references we have available. The Guardian article you mention is in the article and the critical score table for example, while those outside of Metacritic like Joe Vargas are also given mention. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest adding some information about the changes and their impact on gameplay, as a hint on the very negative fan reception. Indeed positive professional reviews are caused by the arguably great graphics, while user reviews sanction the bad gameplay. Example : "Limited general numbers and no army without a general. Effects: More personality in armies, perks of the army, lack of flexibility, more complicated reinforcement, impossibility to leave garrison in cities." or "Armies can sail without a navy. Effects: Simpler and more fluid gameplay, lower realism, dominating a sea becomes less useful as you can cross the sea within one turn." etc... Those examples are of course negative (I hate this game), but are to be completed by people who liked the game, and other modifications can be added too. FSM Forever (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Any professional reviews that mention gameplay changes in either the positive or negative sense are perfectly valid, just make sure we don't get too unbalanced with the overall reception. Frankly Man (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

New DLC

Upcoming DLC called "Empire Divided" per http://store.steampowered.com/app/694880/Total_War_ROME_II__Empire_Divided/ Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)