Angry Joe Reviews Total War: Rome 2 (43 minutes)

  • 57 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Superfriend (1697 posts) -

Joe is fairly new to me but I soon found that if you ignore the shouting you'll find he digs a hell of a lot deeper into gameplay mechanics, continuity, whatever - digs much deeper than almost any reviewers out there.

Yes. Dude knows what he is talking about and actually spends time playing games he is interested in. Sure the humor can be hit or miss.. but that show is so far above and beyond the "angry"-gimmick.. it´s fucking surreal. I wish people would just give things on the internet (or in life?!) a fair chance before shitting all over them. My honest opinion: A lot of games press guys could learn a thing or two from Angry Joe. As weird as that sounds.

#52 Posted by ArtisanBreads (6557 posts) -

Oh, and according to the one guy I talked to ( @rolyatkcinmai ) the game is fine and not the ridiculously buggy mess portrayed by Joe. Meh.

I've encountered a single bug in about 40 hours now.

AI and stuff has its issues, yes, but as far as things I noticed as bugs only one. A quit and reload and it was fine.

#53 Posted by Jimbo (10435 posts) -

I've been playing Total War as long as they've been making them, and give them the benefit of the doubt more than most, but Rome 2... it's pretty bad right now.

#54 Posted by LiquidPrince (16756 posts) -

I can never watch more then like 2 minutes of his reviews. He's so damn annoying.

#55 Posted by Crysack (523 posts) -

@captain_insano said:

I actually don't mind Angry Joe. His schtick can be irritating but I get that he has found his niche and he sticks to it.

I honestly believe that he enjoys the game and loves the franchise but he does want to point out its flaws. I haven't encountered quite as many problems as he or his fans have but I have run into some of them.

I think with Total War: Rome II, like anything, there are too few people willing to acknowledge the middle ground. This game is not 'horrendous' (as argued in another thread), nor is it the greatest thing ever (as argued on many CA forum posts) but is currently, sitting somewhere in the middle. I made a topic here on GB saying how hyped I was for the game, so far I've played 12 hours and I have really enjoyed myself (the time has flown by, with work, sports, gym etc I seldom get time to play games any more so 12 hours in a week is a lot for me) but there are aspects of the game which are ridiculously stupid.

I believe some of these issues can be resolved in patches, but I also agree that they shouldn't have to be. The game is good, it should be great but quite frankly it's not right now.

Good post.

I'm so tired of hyperbole by forum posters. Everything is either horrible or great, and they don't understand anything about how games are made.

I think the game will be fantastic within a few patches and some modding. The base is great. As I've said before, this is how TW games always are. People, who must have played previous games, act like this isn't how it is with every damn release. I'm genuinely confused.

(I argue with a poster who says there are no new features in the game, then he just responds saying all the added features are bad or were in the other games when they were not at all... okay dude...)

Cheers for the backhanded passive aggressive little thing you added at the end there.

I acknowledge that every TW game has a buggy release but it's pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that Rome 2 is their worst release to date. Ultimately, the concern I have is in fact that the base game is not that great at all - even discounting all of the bugs and AI quirks. I'm not someone who plays the campaign of TWs exclusively, I also play a ton of multiplayer. Consequently, the primary concern I have with the game is the new way which they calculate armour, armour penetration and health as well as the new distinctions they make between light, medium and heavy infantry - not to mention the lack of a guard mode, which makes an entire class of units (hoplites) completely useless unless they happen to be the heavy inf versions (i.e. royal spartans). Because of the new mechanics, the only units actually worth a damn in multiplayer are elite heavy infantry and heavy pikes and using anything else is just a waste of money. More importantly, none of these units can be balanced out according to CA's conventional balancing strategy (i.e. increasing or decreasing cost) because the armour and armour penetration mechanics quite simply make these units fundamentally broken, regardless of their cost, and fixing them would require a redesign of the core gameplay systems.

#56 Posted by ThePickle (4317 posts) -

@milkman said:

Please subscribe to my new YouTube channel, Cheesed Off Gamer!

NEW NO NO: If you're going to release a broken game on PC, I'm gonna break my PC with a hammer!

How you like them apples, Einstein!?


#57 Posted by OfficeGamer (1120 posts) -

I'm familiar with this guy and I can see how his gimmick is silly (pathetic) and his yelling gets annoying.

However, he dives deep into the mechanics of a game, scrutinizing its problems, and THAT'S what matters. I don't need the pretentious-ass reviewers of big websites who use reviews to exercise their fancy vocabulary and talk about the 'cool stuff,' I can see what's cool about games, I need to know what's wrong with them because games tend to have shit wrong with them.

Really enjoyed this long in-depth review because this guy has his heart in this, he has the passion that I think is essential. Never played a Total War game but he totally made me wanna try one because he makes them sound real interesting.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.