Welp, there we go, UnPopular Total War Opinions. Let me know your unpopular opinions down below so that I don't feel left out :) This video was another idea that was trending 2 years ago, that I finally have done for Total War. What next: Rome Total War Vs Super Hot Knife, or how many Total War discs can I stack on Fidget Spinners?
@@MelkorGG And if some rich person associated with the DeI Team and Community hired a computer engineer to crack the game for the purpose of making it even more moddable for DeI, how much do you think that would help?
-Melkor: "I've only done a full map completion twice." -Me hitting back to main menu in Attila once minor victory conditions have been reached: "Thank god I'm not alone."
@@jezinci16 idk, it seemed hard to me at first but after the first turn it can become easy (once you stabilize public order, research techs and start earning money)
The Warhammer games are simplistic and overrated yet, really fun to play. Shogun II is the most atmospherically engaging total war. Rome II is actually a good game and it’s flaws are somewhat overstated. I rather have a new Empire than a Medieval III, Rome III, etc.
My unpopular opinion is that I think CA intentionally drove off most of its pre-Rome 2 (and especially) pre-Warhammer audience (once it became evident that said Warhammer audience would stay) intentionally because those old fans would call CA out on stuff FAR more harshly.
Doubt. Although I admit that warhammer fans are still content with anything since it's far cheaper than playing it on tabletop and warhammer video games being absolutely trash besides a handful of exceptions
@@tise7709 a handful of exceptions... Mark of Chaos All 4 dawn of war ones All 3 dawn of wars 2 (and I dislike dawn of war 2) Vermintide 1 and 2 (though some DLC were c9mplete shite) Warhammer fantasy online had to few people but it wasn't bad Space marine is getting it's second game and I'll bet it'll be as epic as the first Blood Brawl Would you like me to continue?
@@tise7709 And I still prefer Mark of Chaos over total war warhammer. What can I say seems like CA can't make better Total war games than the guys who did Mark of Chaos nowadays.
@@lynarisevershadeshadowfall1684 sure but there still are a LOT more bad wh games than the good ones because of GW giving the license to literally everyone. As for the 40k games, I haven't played them since I've never been a fan of the setting. I'm more of a fantasy fan
-Empire naval battles are the best on the franchise. -TW Arena was a great game and the best multiplayer experience in TW. -All siege battles in all the games are a buggy mess
I think your last point is such a good one. People love to list messed up sieges as a problem with whichever TW game they don't like when, if we are honest, they all struggle.
Classic _Rome_ and _Medieval II_ fan here. I wouldn't underestimate _Rome II_ "niche" audience considering they are (on average) the 2nd largest playerbase on Steam after the _Warhammer II_ players.
I liked Rome 2 overall. The unit cards and some other minor stuff was irritating but I liked the province system and the client states and army stances.
I consider Rome 2 a great entry point for newer players, mainly because some things have been dumbed down slightly, like the camera and the battles. Unpopular fact: Rome 2 is still my most played Total War game, although Rome Remastered is climbing rapidly through the ranks. Rome Total War is from slightly before my generation, which is why it doesn't quite have the nostalgia for me. I do like the overall atmosphere of Rome and Medieval II better than the newer games, though.
Unpopular opinion: I really like Empire: Total war. If only it had more territories on the map (for example ,France being one region is ridiculous) and if sieges/city battles were implemented better it would have been a great game.
The lesser number of cities is to create a "gap", so you cant move from every city to city in one turn, to create higher number of field battles, instead of just sieges. Otherwise if there is more cities all battles would be just siege battles
@@Kaxcer Well you could have larger maps so that there would be enough open space in between those cities, or terrain/logistics/supplies/general skill could dictate how much an army could march. Also you could have economic/religious/industrial/etc settlements that they introduced in Empire play much bigger role than they do, and act as smaller towns around a larger city. Anyway, there is so much more potential in Empire. They tackled some new mechanics that are not present in other titles, such a shame it didn't get more appreciation. It could have been great. Tbh, I am anticipating Empire 2 even more than Medieval 3, even though Medieval 2 is my favorite TW title.
@@MrStanke993 Mm yeah but then there would be too much space, characters could miss and pass each other :D And not like CA gonna do anything extra. But I liked empire too, reasearch tree was well done and very deep with lot of choices. Tbh I hate when you research platoon firing it cancels fire by rank forever from units. I never research that. As it make your units worse. But many good things about empire. Spain is fun, I like the Galleons, Ottomans are fun. Well not wanna ruin your hopes but because Empire was terrible at launch it had very bad reputation not sure CA will come to that brand again, but Medieval 3 sure ... I hope they add naval battles to Medieval 3, always wanted to see those medieval vessels fight. Saracen pirates etc, crusaders on ships.
Agreed, always loved gunpowder total war games put like a combined 2000 hours into those style of games combined over Empire, Napoleon and playing Fall of the Samurai
Your enjoyment of a Total War game will be heavily dependent on how much you like the setting. That's why there are still people who like Empire and Britannia
My unpopular opinion is: it doesn't matter how crappy (they assume) naval combat is, at least we get to play with it. To me Its all merely an excuse to shuffle their devs and budget to other more "impactful" areas say marketing. Words cannot describe/measure my saltiness when they notify us how TW3K will not have boat warfare >.
I personally didn't enjoy naval battles because they took forever and I had A.I derp out many times and refuse to land during invasions so I couldn't finish the battle and had to restart. However they should have improved them rather then removed them altogether
Napoleon Total War is a really good Total War game. I respect your views on Medieval 2 and Atilla even though I really disagree with them, but Napoleon is actually one of my favorites. It feels very immersive to me and it is also much more balanced and refined than Empire. Plus it has some cool features like releasable nations.
I actually agree with most of your opinions here except for 3:23 The old TW2 engine is completely unsuitable for the eras of Empire and Napoleon, and if anything the new engine that was made for them only really suits that particular era. I think a new engine should have been used after Napoleon though. The TW3 engine is really bad for melee fighting, as it can only simulate 1v1 fighting with premade fancy animations. So you get situations like 1 soldier being completely surrounded by enemy soldiers, but they politely wait until he duels someone in front of him instead of just stabbing him in the back like they do in Rome 1 or Medieval 2. Also cavalry units are completely messed up because they have to completely stop to play a fancy animation of killing someone with their spear or whatnot instead of just stabbing someone as they ride. I guess we don't really notice these problems that well in Shogun 2, because of the stereotypes we have about samurais being all honorable and stuff, so we expect to only see them dueling 1v1 and not stabbing anyone in the back. But anyway, TLDR of what I'm saying is, TW3 engine was great for the gunpowder era of Empire and Napoleon, but afterwards they should have come up with a new melee oriented engine, like TW2 engine was.
My unpopular opinions: 1. CA shouldn’t have abandoned 3k, 3k brought in so many new players from markets they never had before who because of 3k may have bought and played the over games but now won’t due to the abandonment. They also promised content that we’ll now never get. (Probably not unpopular, I just wanted to mention this sin) 2. Naval battles were always bad and I’m glad they weren’t included in future titles. 3. While good for it’s time Rome 1 gets way too much praise and it’s issues are often ignored by those who do praise it.
I believe it is this high praise that killed enthousiasm for the Remastered version. It's like watching a movie that you loved as a kid, but as an adult you start seeing the cringey parts.
My opinion that’s probably going to be unpopular: Any other Total War game is better than the two Shoguns and Three Kingdoms. Those three games just look so dull with the same units in each faction.
Three Kingdoms has a nice concept and atmosphere, but it does feel lackluster as a Total War game because of the lack of diversity. With unit mods it is great fun, but unfortunately that's all we can count on as the game won't get more love than this, which sucks because there was enough things that could be added, like the Northern Tribes.
The moment they added the "unit health" system and streamlined the game at the cost of complexity was the day Total war diverged from it's path. Sadge. From realistic sim to arcade-ish. x(
I'm tired of hearing that modding is going to save a TW game or make it great again when I know that deep down the game fundamentally stays the same and any issues are set in stone, so on top of basically insulting the developers suggesting that simple toggles or adjustments fix the game for them, it's also putting pressure on modders to make the game worth it. The ultimate test is with Rome Remastered and I believe it might have had no other choice but to appeal to the modders while not doing proper fixes to battles, multiplayer and not really adding much like multiplayer campaigns or expanded unit rosters for the previously unplayable factions. Will that make the game worth it in the long run? Who knows. There's the argument that Darthmod saved Empire but it's still more or less the same game with some tweaks that makes it more enjoyable and all the flaws with the engine are still there. Game's more enjoyable but not really fixed technically. People should tone it down with basically overselling what the mods do so people don't get disappointed even further when the most moddable game Rome 1 is now having a spotlight on it via Remaster marketing itself as infinitely moddable. Really toxic imo
@@MelkorGG Then that shows the games they were built upon pretty good by themselves and especially when the mods feel like they're made for those who want more TW which doesn't make it appealing for those wanting a fixed game. If the players who are perfectly fine with the state of the game, busy playing TW and keeping the games alive does it really count as fixed? There had been one instance that I can recall where a mod comes out and the game becomes way more popular like with Third Age but it came with a game that allows for a lot tweaking (in some areas more than Rome Remastered), wasn't flawed with horrible and arcade-ey combat and has properly implemented terrain. It all just clicks together without creating a mess. What my issue with mods and how people recommend them is like if Rise of Mordor is supposed to make Attila into a really good game that can be replayed for years when it still has to deal with whatever Rome 2/Attila implemented so it still has to deal with horrible optimization, the potential disappointment of dwarves enveloping units with their spaghetti line formations and pmuch anything wrong about TW3 engine. The point is about how people assume mods are going to fix the game or how anyone complaining about the game's flaws are led to download mods, as if that fixes the fundamental flaws with the games, especially when Rome Remastered didn't do much to fix the original's issues with pathfinding, UI, unit behaviour on large scales and bugged formations like shield wall which mods seem to be using quite frequently. If battles can't really be modded the modders are essentially held hostage by the game's systems being good enough to support their mods.
My hot take is that most - not all, mind - people who want TW games to be realistic just don't know how realism would work. Hours-long battles every time, next to no control over your troops, basically no discrete unit types, extremely low casualty rates most of the time, etc.. There's totally a small niche of people who'd find that fun. I suspect most people who want the games to be "realistic" don't actually want that, though - they probably actually want a slightly different gameplay balance. Not even necessarily a particularly realistic balance, because in the grand scale of things, battles lasting 30m rather than 10m isn't much compared to averages that should be more along the lines of 3-4h! I say, if you're gonna ask for this stuff, be explicit about what you want. You want it to be balanced, and balanced in a certain way that advantages, say, conservation of stamina, intelligent use of mass, troop quality, and so on. That's still not realism for the above-mentioned reasons. Frame it that way, don't get into the slippery slope of where you arbitrarily stop trying to be realistic for fun reasons.
Unpopular opinions -Rome 2 battle is kinda bad, but the other aspects is good -Shogun 2 units design is the best design ever -Kush is actually broken -Medieval 2 has a better siege then thrones of britannia -England in Medieval 2 is the coolest faction after Holy roman empire -No dachi samurai is kinda useless -Rome 2 would be better if they implemented Rome 1 battle mechanics
Spicy take: Napoleon has some of the best battles in total war. Infantry combat feels good and unit abilities actually make a difference. Artillery is at it's best, sounds awesome and is very impactful. Cavalry are like glass cannons and can make a clear difference in battles if used right. The battles are also probably the most tactical and strategic in total war. (AI is kinda bad doe but mods improve this)
Not a spicy take i agree with it alot, loved napoleons combat, especially MP poured over >1300 hours into it because of how smoothly and amazing the battles felt.
By far my most unpopular, more like unheard of opinion: "CA won't do Total War title for Spring & Autumn - Warring States, Chu - Han Contention and Investiture of Gods".
> likes Attila and thinks it’s close to the best game > thinks Rome 2 is worst game in the series > doesn’t see Attila is a glorified Rome 2 expansion FFS mod Rome 2 and stop playing vanilla EDIT: To clarify, Rome 2 multiplayer campaigns modded is one of the best experiences you can have in gaming period. It’s pure heroin.
Trust me, You're not missing that much not having played Scythia. I like the faction but they really aren't that interesting to play a campaign with. All you do is spam horse archers, all the battles are the same and if you are really using them to pepper the enemy with arrows can take forever. Besides that you're a barbarian faction and there isn't much to do in terms of developing settlements, let alone that travel in your starting corner of the map takes long. It's a fun faction to play a battle with though I don't really play them in campaign often. I fully understand why in the original rome they weren't a playable faction as the Parthians do the same with horse archers but but more and better.
I love Scythia honestly. Your buildings suck, its too expensive to garrison your settlements and you just sack and retreat until someone invades. (Well thats what i do i know u dont have to)
Unpopular opinion: I like and enjoy Empire total war sometimes, even enjoy it more than Napoleon total war. But i know Empire is terrible and sucked XD It is just kind of one of those guilty pleasures i guess. With Coming back to the game sometimes.
I’m the same way. Empire is my favorite TW but for all the strides Napoleon made in terms of fixing bugs it just feels like a downgrade in terms of scale and campaign features. I only play Napoleon for when I feel like playing a custom battle every once and a while
I’m playing as the Sassanids in Attila right now and am really enjoying it. I think the downfall of that game is that most of the playable factions start out weak and barely have a chance to survive. The plethora of new mechanics are fun and give the game lots of dimension, but they can spiral out of control real fast.
It had some original ideas some of which worked and others didn't. I will say the sassanids really are the easy mode faction in that game(nothing wrong with that but they are) you are right tho most of the fun factions die quickly and the fact that factions don't even try to settle 1/3 of the map is kinda annoying but can be overlooked
I prefer vanilla Empire Total War than modded, the battle AI dont change at all, tbh i think the BAI in every total war game is hit or miss, sometimes it works and sometimes dont, i had awesome battles in Empire vanilla and some broken mess.
I think that Rome 1's autoresolve is nearly perfect, especially because it can "lie". Gotta stay on your toes and err on the side of fighting battles manually! Nothing's more boring than AR'ing everything. Only thing I would change is the ability to wipe out much weaker field armies with AR.
Barbarian Invasion was best TW game of all times. If it had technical level of medieval 2, it would be only TW I ever need. Excellent soundtrack, excellent atmosphere, lot of new interesting mechanics while retaining good ones from RTW...Ah, once can dream.
BI is very good campaign. Played it more than the original. Huge problem with it though is (other than infinite squalor) is that characters do not gain traits as fast as in the original. This makes character growth almost impossible.
@@hammer3721 The base BI campaign map is also very lacking compared to Rome 1's Imperial and mod maps. Unit rosters could have done with a bit more expansion (3-4 extra units per faction)
@@DillsyYourDaddy67 Indeed. Like, instead of updating Eastern Europe and Africa with more settlements, they removed settlements from Italy, Anatolia and Greece for no reason.
My favorite thing about Total War after Shogun II, (remember when they used numerals?) was the implementation of a health point system. I mean, who cares if a unit takes four volleys of arrows and only loses 15% of the soldiers, right? I also love unit modifiers. Like “75% Block chance because you press this button.” Don’t forget nu-Total War fans! They know sooooo much about Total War! They have been playing since Medieval I! They remember how it used to be! We had spells and combat modifiers back then! I remember when I put a campaign on very hard (no legendary back then) we had -7,000 morale, defense, attack and, especially “blahrp.” That was the most difficult thing to overcome. Get what I did there MELKOR? SheerEEEEEEESShhhh I remember those days.
Maybe not an unpopular opinion but Total War Warhammer is a mediocre Total War game but one of the best Warhammer licensed games. Empire was a fun game. Wish Napoleon had more of a sandbox campaign.
My hot takes: -Medieval II has a better campaign mode, but Rome has always had better battles -Attila only seems so good because it’s what Rome II should have been, while still being aggressively mediocre -Rome I battles are too fast; despite the above I prefer the slower battles of Medieval II since it boosts skirmishing -Empire and Napoleon are better than any TW game since Shogun II -Rome I Egypt is actually a good faction in terms of roster; as anachronistic as it is, there’s enough Hellenic factions in the game (wrote this before you actually said the same thing lol) -Rome Alexander is a lazy expansion, the laziest add-on until they started splitting up the game into Day One DLC packs
The last one is not too unpopular since i think many people thought that too. Just a bit of a lazy expansion. You don't even do alexander's FULL campaign.
My unpopular opinion - Flaming Pigs are the greatest unit CA ever made ! Also... Thrones of Brittania (the 1st Saga title) had 1 DLC (Blood) and 1 minor patch and then abandoned by CA. Rome 2 17 Major patches ??? and multiple DLC over many years. I'm expecting news of an historical title after Warhammer 3 has launched but fear it's going to be another Saga .
The only game I was able to play extensively without mods was Medieval 2. Nowadays I play DaC and SS, but I racked up almost 800 hours in it beforehand
Unpopular opinion: the 3K heroes and duels make 3K better as a game. None of it is accurate, everything is awesome. Same goes for Troy, bar the duel thing. I mean, why can't I call Hector out like the coward he is for longer than 10 seconds before his forces interrupt the duel?
I have so many, but here I go, and with no paragraph breaks: I disagree about overhaul mods, but not entirely. I don't hate them, but they're not for me. I like the vanilla games, in all their quirkiness. Bronze Age Egypt? Yes please. I don't need another Alexander Successor State clone with the same units but different shields. Thrones of Britannia has all the elements that I love, but it still sucks. I love the graphical style. The character development. The setting. I find the game boring though. Rome 2 is not a good game. Neither with mods, or without. Rome Remastered at launch was better than Rome 2. I don't care at all about the Warhammer games as fantasy just doesn't interest me, but my main beef with them is that I am afraid CA sees them as a cash cow and will put all its resources in developing them (like EA is doing with MUT) and the historical games will continue to be blah. Medieval 2 is just a Rome 1 overhaul mod. It has no soul. Medieval 1 is still a better game. I care far more about my family in Medieval 1, mainly because the game understands how to properly designate heirs as new ones become available, and if you don't have a proper family heir, the campaign is over., Man, I hated losing a great campaign because I had a seventy-year-old king with no true heirs, but it made the campaign interesting. Medieval 2, well, if the son is too young when you get a new king, a brother or son-in-law becomes heir and that's locked in. So I would go off and kill that bastard just so my kingdom could have a proper heir. I have so many more, but I'll end by saying this: Attilla is a fun game, but the apex of historical Total War was Barbarian Invasion.
I have no idea whether this opinion is unpopular or popular, but I hate all the mechanics that spawn armies from outside the map. I modded the files so the Mongols and the Timurids never invade in Medieval 2. I've been playing with Chaos invasion off ever since the option was added to Warhammer 2. If I play a sandbox game, I want everyone to play in the same sandbox. I don't want anyone to come with an excavator and pour sand from the outside.
I enjoy spawn army events as it prepares you for the incoming doom to the world and gives a challenge mid game/late game when you have become powerfull when no other faction can match you.
Troy is the biggest missed opportunity Creative Assembly has had since Rome 2. I feel with Troy that they had the potential to create something incredible but they never seemed to fully commit to the game. If the game was released how it is now, the game would be more positively viewed by the community. I feel that the biggest issue with Troy now is that it is very fun but not very replayable. I feel the faction count should be higher than what it currently is, the mid to late game is just a grind to get through and not that enjoyable, and the game still feels like it is missing something even though it has had several content DLCs since its launch.
Is totally war Troy fun? I think off buying it. Can you tyle some fun things so I get your opinion on it. I rather base myself then on your opinion than on a UA-cam that gets payed opinion. So pros and cons what can be better and what's absolutely incredible how is the campaign map and battles??
The remaster was actually really good, even at launch, and makes me only play the original when I want nostalgia. r/totalwar would totally berate me for this Also, Mundus Magnus shouldn’t be used for everything. The map is what I play for and I would rather a provincial campaign of bumfuck nowhere than another shovelware over complicated overhaul I never finish.
I've liked the RR since release don't know why so many were upset with it, it was a totally unexpected decision admittedly. But a good deal for all those who already owned the original.
@@seraphx26 my biggest problem worth the old ui is that everything takes 3 seconds to open in a scroll animation, which is bad when you speedrun the game
Numbers speak against Rome 2 being a Bad game. It is still in the Top 3 most played TW Games on Steam. Im very into history so I can really enjoy Rome 2. The Units look so cool, Rome 1 is too arcady in my opinion
@@Kili2807 Collisions suck, charges are awful, armies just blob, units are indistinguishable at a glance which makes micro difficult, unit cards dont tell you anything at a glance, and tooltips are not optimal. There is also just less depth to the game due to simplified gameplay. A game can be good for gameplay, or historically accuracy, not both, as they are at odds. Rome 2 tries to do both and ends up a tepid piss puddle.
@@taowroland8697 I like the unit cards and I have no problem telling them apart. I rather have difficulties to identify the Unit Cards from Attila or Thrones of Britannia
I actually really enjoyed Total War: Arena Edit: To further explain, I feel like the monetization model could have been improved and some aspects can be improved, I feel like having sub commanders controlling a larger force was a really cool idea.
I honestly loved the subcommander thing. I'm pretty casual and don't like massive battles with loads to manage, and I also like the more realistic feel of being a sub-commander. Though obviously that's not entirely the angle the game went with, since you're each a major historical commander. Still, being able to focus on, say, being an ambush/flanking commander whilst other people held the line and dealt with the bulk of the battle... a great feeling.
To be honest rome 2 total war is greater now than ever. It is probably the total war game that has recieved a lot of love by the company as they updated it and added dlc and other stuff for many years after it launched even during when warhammer 2 came out. Does it excuse the launch, no it was still terrible back then. But we can’t ignore how much better and support it recieved from the company to make it good. Right now if this was how rome 2 was launched it would probably be one of the best total wars.
Unpopular opinion: Rome II has the best unit card design out of every Total War. It fits the aesthetics of the time period, and I can easily identify the units. 3D unit card designs look bad to me, especially if it's an actual render of the unit, like how Total War Attila does it. There is a unit card mod for Rome II that makes it much worse in my opinion. Shogun 2 has great unit cards because they are 2D, and fit the art style of the period. With actual renders of the units, how can you make the unit cards have a theme like Rome II and Shogun II?
" It fits the aesthetics of the time period" Lol no they don't. That type of art style was outdated even by that period and I don't know you can unironically think they are "easily identifiable" or better than Shogun 2's which at least have color to differentiate them better.
I can not play medieval 2 without overhaul mods because I find the base campaign shallow at certain points, but I especially find the battles super slow and boring. So I think the base game should of medieval 2 to be one of the worst experiences I’ve had playing total war. I know this isn’t a unpopular opinion as much as an obscure opinion but I want a Bronze Age total war as the next historical game in the franchise
@@cc-bk3tx Because CA got really lazy by the time they started making them. Meanwhile, they appear to have dedicated themselves entirely to the British, Scythians and the Germans, whilst all the other Barbarian factions had copy-pasted units and temples from Gaul.
@@hammer3721 Yeah you know everyone loves to complain about rome 2 but tbh one thing rome 2 did just better than rome 1 was making the barbarians actually interesting overall. The rosters were more flushed out there
"Development time" is the biggest fallacy and excuse since games started deteriorating. Any game that has had unlimited amount of development time either never got completed or was released and had no vision nor direction. Case and point, Cyberpunk 2077.
I was going to say "Numidia is the best faction in Total War history" But then I realised that this is an opinion that anyone with a brain also has, and is therefore a very popular opinion
They aren't that bad provided you are able to micromanage ranged units which is honestly refreshing in comparison to other factions not to mention its quite challenging unlike other factions
I prefer armenia. Versatile roster with powerful heavy infantry and cav, and a strong starting position with large mountain ranges making it simple to know where your enemy is coming from
I'm going to have to disagree about CA dropping the TW2 engine too soon. It was a horribly coded mess that was hard to mess with (which is why many of the R1 OG bugs were still present in R1R). I do wish they could have kept some of the physics and "feel" from the old engine though.
Rome 1 feels like an arcade game, fights last less then five minutes, cavalry charges your units head on, no matter the depth of your unit, they all break and flee, even though one of the points of depth was to prevent cavalry from charging head first. Morale is awful, A.I never holds to their agreements, let alone send military help. D.E.I is a far better experience for realism, still has it's A.I cheating issues, but apparently the A.I cannot do anything without money cheats.
Why are you bringing up a Rome 2 mod like DEI when the original Rome already had plenty of mods that improve the AI, and are better for battles because the engine is not so shit at it?
@@rorschach1985ify How so? DEI blows OG Rome out of the water lol. There is literally no comparison. I take realism over cartoony graphics and arcady gameplay any day of the week.
I will say though that you're right about the A.I. money cheats in DEI. A faction that only holds a single village can somehow afford two full stacks. Doesn't make sense.
unpopular opinion of mine, Rome total war is overrated and medieval 2 is much better with way more interesting factions and map, like wtf why are the germanic and gallic tribes one faction?
The board game style map of the original Shogun and Medieval is superior to the later realistic maps. Armies represented as board game pieces are better too.
@@brydonthunder i'm in my 30s and I started with Medieval Total War, played Rome and M2 and then skipped Empire - Rome 2 because I had no internet back then for the DRM but I like Atilla and Warhammer despite the dumb AI
Unpopular opinion: Rome 2 has become a good game, and it's a gigantic game with colossal battles and such. It's not a bad game. There is nothing wrong with the concept of historical fantasy total war and dismissing Troy as a bad game is just not the right way to approach it when Troy has many good elements going for it. Same with Thrones of Britannia. Troy not expanding to the Bronze Age is a missed opportunity in my opinion and not giving the fullpowers of the time. The newer total wars have very good elements of ambience, sound design and immersive battle atmospheres that aren't given much attention or just overlooked. Rome 2 needs a battle map editor, and it needs TED. It could do with so much map overhauls I am disappointed so much with the copy-paste cities of Rome II
Creative Assembly is a bad game company. Their "work traditions" are horrible, they just do such a patch job on a boatload of matters in their games, not repairing features so they just remove them entirely (splitting armies going extinct in Rome 2 due to a graphical bug they didn't want to fix), not even adding in complex diplomacy and excluding other mechanics because "It's not war." These guys need competition if they are to ever have a hope of getting their act together, at best they'll clean up, and at worst if the new competitors outcompete them, it'll be because they're simply better at Total War than they are. For this reason, I support Manor Lords.
The latest games have seen an increase in diplomacy, Troy featured a multiple resources economy, 3K added a system, amongst other things, which told how much someone values a deal instead of just saying 'they *might* come to an agreement (lol nope)'. Look, I understand that you are heavily disappointed in CA, which is justified, and I agree that some competition would be great for the franchise, but it is not true that CA are purely licking windows at the moment. They have some genuinely good ideas implemented in their newest titles. Also, I don't really know what the graphical issue with splitting armies was, but given that it was build on a new engine it might have been for the better to not wrestle with it, given how poor the rest of the game performed at launch. There's only so much you can repair on a sinking boat. But the fact that it was a sinking boat is definitely not a compliment for the devs either.
@@the_tactician9858 Their AI rarely recieve improvements across the game, they're just bad at fighitng and the vast majority of AI factions rely on cheats to survive because they don't know how to play the game. Like in Warhammer? The AI always razes the cities it takes from you to the ground, no amtter what, this is because the AI operate with a cheat that nets them so much gold from destroying your settlements that it's legitimately profitable for them to annihilate everything you've built in a settlement you lost and then build it back up themselves! CA, even if they're not licking windows, are not trying as hard as they used to. And that aside, the later game's diplomacy features STILL don't come anywhere close to what Civ V offered, don't they?
Rome 2 is better than Rome 1 and Medieval 2, people who say otherwise are coping hard, I would say this about vanilla Rome after the ancestral update, when mods come into the picture it isn't even close. Medieval 2 is better than Rome 1 even with the remaster. The Rome remaster was good from the start, the UI was better than the original, deal with it, and it's the only reason going forward that we will get a new wave of Rome 1 mods that will breathe fresh air into the game/community.
My unpopular opinion Empire Total War wasnt that bad. It had large map with India and Americas. There was feeling like these colonial empires fight each other. And the Ottoman campaign is fun because its difficult.
Welp, there we go, UnPopular Total War Opinions. Let me know your unpopular opinions down below so that I don't feel left out :)
This video was another idea that was trending 2 years ago, that I finally have done for Total War. What next: Rome Total War Vs Super Hot Knife, or how many Total War discs can I stack on Fidget Spinners?
Rome2 is better than medieval2
Attila sucks
I don't know if someone else agrees or not
It's what i think
Have you ever played DeI in Rome 2? Since you believe it to be the worst game in the series, then this mod is just for you!
@@JMObyx I have played DEI. It was good, but the core issues with Rome 2, for me, are still there.
@@MelkorGG And if some rich person associated with the DeI Team and Community hired a computer engineer to crack the game for the purpose of making it even more moddable for DeI, how much do you think that would help?
-Melkor: "I've only done a full map completion twice."
-Me hitting back to main menu in Attila once minor victory conditions have been reached: "Thank god I'm not alone."
I completed the map like 2/3 times both in rome 1, medieval 2, Rome 2 and attila but yeah it's boring and make no sense
Attila is a hard game not gonna lie, even with strong factions like Sassanids its hard to get things done right
@@jezinci16 idk, it seemed hard to me at first but after the first turn it can become easy (once you stabilize public order, research techs and start earning money)
I did it only once, in Warhammer 2
relatable
"Everybody is equally crazy".... Wise words Melkor, wise words.
I sincerely disagree with that statement, I'm far and away more crazy than the average TW player 🤣🤣🤣
The Warhammer games are simplistic and overrated yet, really fun to play.
Shogun II is the most atmospherically engaging total war.
Rome II is actually a good game and it’s flaws are somewhat overstated.
I rather have a new Empire than a Medieval III, Rome III, etc.
The Hordes from Barbarian Invasion is a great time. The world is open for sacking regions and causing mayhem.
Empire: Total War isn't that bad.
It's the only game where I got a world conquest!
Im shocked.
It would be better if you could fix the damn forts.
@@phillyphil1690 you can, can’t you?
@@Inquisitor_Vex I think he ment battles because for example sending your men to man up the fort walls is pretty weird.
@@czechpatriot2230 ah, fair shout. It’s been a while since I’ve played. I forgot empire was especially buggy. Cheers 🍻
My unpopular opinion is that I think CA intentionally drove off most of its pre-Rome 2 (and especially) pre-Warhammer audience (once it became evident that said Warhammer audience would stay) intentionally because those old fans would call CA out on stuff FAR more harshly.
Doubt. Although I admit that warhammer fans are still content with anything since it's far cheaper than playing it on tabletop and warhammer video games being absolutely trash besides a handful of exceptions
@@tise7709 a handful of exceptions...
Mark of Chaos
All 4 dawn of war ones
All 3 dawn of wars 2 (and I dislike dawn of war 2)
Vermintide 1 and 2 (though some DLC were c9mplete shite)
Warhammer fantasy online had to few people but it wasn't bad
Space marine is getting it's second game and I'll bet it'll be as epic as the first
Blood Brawl
Would you like me to continue?
@@tise7709 And I still prefer Mark of Chaos over total war warhammer.
What can I say seems like CA can't make better Total war games than the guys who did Mark of Chaos nowadays.
@@lynarisevershadeshadowfall1684 sure but there still are a LOT more bad wh games than the good ones because of GW giving the license to literally everyone. As for the 40k games, I haven't played them since I've never been a fan of the setting. I'm more of a fantasy fan
Fantasy fans are easier to please, as long as there's the glitz and glamour of monsters, spells, and explosions, they'll eat it up.
Unpopular Opinion ??? Where are my Naval Battles ???
-Empire naval battles are the best on the franchise.
-TW Arena was a great game and the best multiplayer experience in TW.
-All siege battles in all the games are a buggy mess
I think your last point is such a good one. People love to list messed up sieges as a problem with whichever TW game they don't like when, if we are honest, they all struggle.
I am personally a Rome Total War supporter but I’m glad Rome 2 found a niche audience after the disaster launch
Classic _Rome_ and _Medieval II_ fan here. I wouldn't underestimate _Rome II_ "niche" audience considering they are (on average) the 2nd largest playerbase on Steam after the _Warhammer II_ players.
I liked Rome 2 overall. The unit cards and some other minor stuff was irritating but I liked the province system and the client states and army stances.
Divide Et Impera
I consider Rome 2 a great entry point for newer players, mainly because some things have been dumbed down slightly, like the camera and the battles. Unpopular fact: Rome 2 is still my most played Total War game, although Rome Remastered is climbing rapidly through the ranks. Rome Total War is from slightly before my generation, which is why it doesn't quite have the nostalgia for me. I do like the overall atmosphere of Rome and Medieval II better than the newer games, though.
@@the_tactician9858 They dumbed the camera down?
The pope mechanics in Medieval 2 total war are a great addition to the game
Unpopular opinion:
The Medieval 2 mods are so good, that they make u hate vanilla. lol
Unpopular opinion: I really like Empire: Total war. If only it had more territories on the map (for example ,France being one region is ridiculous) and if sieges/city battles were implemented better it would have been a great game.
The lesser number of cities is to create a "gap", so you cant move from every city to city in one turn, to create higher number of field battles, instead of just sieges.
Otherwise if there is more cities all battles would be just siege battles
@@Kaxcer Well you could have larger maps so that there would be enough open space in between those cities, or terrain/logistics/supplies/general skill could dictate how much an army could march. Also you could have economic/religious/industrial/etc settlements that they introduced in Empire play much bigger role than they do, and act as smaller towns around a larger city.
Anyway, there is so much more potential in Empire. They tackled some new mechanics that are not present in other titles, such a shame it didn't get more appreciation. It could have been great.
Tbh, I am anticipating Empire 2 even more than Medieval 3, even though Medieval 2 is my favorite TW title.
@@MrStanke993 Mm yeah but then there would be too much space, characters could miss and pass each other :D
And not like CA gonna do anything extra.
But I liked empire too, reasearch tree was well done and very deep with lot of choices.
Tbh I hate when you research platoon firing it cancels fire by rank forever from units. I never research that. As it make your units worse.
But many good things about empire.
Spain is fun, I like the Galleons, Ottomans are fun.
Well not wanna ruin your hopes but because Empire was terrible at launch it had very bad reputation not sure CA will come to that brand again, but Medieval 3 sure ... I hope they add naval battles to Medieval 3, always wanted to see those medieval vessels fight. Saracen pirates etc, crusaders on ships.
I loved Empire despite it's flaws. Then I got into Victoria 2, it's Empire TW on steroids.
Agreed, always loved gunpowder total war games put like a combined 2000 hours into those style of games combined over Empire, Napoleon and playing Fall of the Samurai
Your enjoyment of a Total War game will be heavily dependent on how much you like the setting. That's why there are still people who like Empire and Britannia
My unpopular opinion is: it doesn't matter how crappy (they assume) naval combat is, at least we get to play with it. To me Its all merely an excuse to shuffle their devs and budget to other more "impactful" areas say marketing. Words cannot describe/measure my saltiness when they notify us how TW3K will not have boat warfare >.
I personally didn't enjoy naval battles because they took forever and I had A.I derp out many times and refuse to land during invasions so I couldn't finish the battle and had to restart. However they should have improved them rather then removed them altogether
Napoleon Total War is a really good Total War game. I respect your views on Medieval 2 and Atilla even though I really disagree with them, but Napoleon is actually one of my favorites. It feels very immersive to me and it is also much more balanced and refined than Empire. Plus it has some cool features like releasable nations.
UA-camrs- if I sound weird it's because I have a cold
Me: *notices absolutely nothing*
I actually agree with most of your opinions here except for 3:23
The old TW2 engine is completely unsuitable for the eras of Empire and Napoleon, and if anything the new engine that was made for them only really suits that particular era. I think a new engine should have been used after Napoleon though. The TW3 engine is really bad for melee fighting, as it can only simulate 1v1 fighting with premade fancy animations. So you get situations like 1 soldier being completely surrounded by enemy soldiers, but they politely wait until he duels someone in front of him instead of just stabbing him in the back like they do in Rome 1 or Medieval 2. Also cavalry units are completely messed up because they have to completely stop to play a fancy animation of killing someone with their spear or whatnot instead of just stabbing someone as they ride. I guess we don't really notice these problems that well in Shogun 2, because of the stereotypes we have about samurais being all honorable and stuff, so we expect to only see them dueling 1v1 and not stabbing anyone in the back.
But anyway, TLDR of what I'm saying is, TW3 engine was great for the gunpowder era of Empire and Napoleon, but afterwards they should have come up with a new melee oriented engine, like TW2 engine was.
My unpopular opinions:
1. CA shouldn’t have abandoned 3k, 3k brought in so many new players from markets they never had before who because of 3k may have bought and played the over games but now won’t due to the abandonment. They also promised content that we’ll now never get. (Probably not unpopular, I just wanted to mention this sin)
2. Naval battles were always bad and I’m glad they weren’t included in future titles.
3. While good for it’s time Rome 1 gets way too much praise and it’s issues are often ignored by those who do praise it.
I believe it is this high praise that killed enthousiasm for the Remastered version. It's like watching a movie that you loved as a kid, but as an adult you start seeing the cringey parts.
My opinion that’s probably going to be unpopular: Any other Total War game is better than the two Shoguns and Three Kingdoms. Those three games just look so dull with the same units in each faction.
racist against asians
@@charlesmiv3842 everything is racism today. Maybe he just find asian theme/history boring.
@@havoquistao It's called a joke.
Three Kingdoms has a nice concept and atmosphere, but it does feel lackluster as a Total War game because of the lack of diversity. With unit mods it is great fun, but unfortunately that's all we can count on as the game won't get more love than this, which sucks because there was enough things that could be added, like the Northern Tribes.
This is not unpopular opinion, it is borderline herecy
The moment they added the "unit health" system and streamlined the game at the cost of complexity was the day Total war diverged from it's path. Sadge.
From realistic sim to arcade-ish. x(
I'm tired of hearing that modding is going to save a TW game or make it great again when I know that deep down the game fundamentally stays the same and any issues are set in stone, so on top of basically insulting the developers suggesting that simple toggles or adjustments fix the game for them, it's also putting pressure on modders to make the game worth it. The ultimate test is with Rome Remastered and I believe it might have had no other choice but to appeal to the modders while not doing proper fixes to battles, multiplayer and not really adding much like multiplayer campaigns or expanded unit rosters for the previously unplayable factions. Will that make the game worth it in the long run? Who knows.
There's the argument that Darthmod saved Empire but it's still more or less the same game with some tweaks that makes it more enjoyable and all the flaws with the engine are still there. Game's more enjoyable but not really fixed technically.
People should tone it down with basically overselling what the mods do so people don't get disappointed even further when the most moddable game Rome 1 is now having a spotlight on it via Remaster marketing itself as infinitely moddable. Really toxic imo
I would disagree. I don't think any old TW game would still be played if it was not for Mods. Mods keep all of them alive.
@@MelkorGG Then that shows the games they were built upon pretty good by themselves and especially when the mods feel like they're made for those who want more TW which doesn't make it appealing for those wanting a fixed game. If the players who are perfectly fine with the state of the game, busy playing TW and keeping the games alive does it really count as fixed? There had been one instance that I can recall where a mod comes out and the game becomes way more popular like with Third Age but it came with a game that allows for a lot tweaking (in some areas more than Rome Remastered), wasn't flawed with horrible and arcade-ey combat and has properly implemented terrain. It all just clicks together without creating a mess.
What my issue with mods and how people recommend them is like if Rise of Mordor is supposed to make Attila into a really good game that can be replayed for years when it still has to deal with whatever Rome 2/Attila implemented so it still has to deal with horrible optimization, the potential disappointment of dwarves enveloping units with their spaghetti line formations and pmuch anything wrong about TW3 engine. The point is about how people assume mods are going to fix the game or how anyone complaining about the game's flaws are led to download mods, as if that fixes the fundamental flaws with the games, especially when Rome Remastered didn't do much to fix the original's issues with pathfinding, UI, unit behaviour on large scales and bugged formations like shield wall which mods seem to be using quite frequently. If battles can't really be modded the modders are essentially held hostage by the game's systems being good enough to support their mods.
Unpopular opinions? Empire total war is a well made masterpiece
That's not an opinion, that's just straight up false.
The joke being is that it’s not an opinion
Empire is badly made masterpiece*
Its the total war I have played the most :D
@@thecrazytophatman7304 sorry bro it just hurt too much I couldn't think clearly
@@jarskil8862 couldn’t agree more
My hot take is that most - not all, mind - people who want TW games to be realistic just don't know how realism would work. Hours-long battles every time, next to no control over your troops, basically no discrete unit types, extremely low casualty rates most of the time, etc.. There's totally a small niche of people who'd find that fun. I suspect most people who want the games to be "realistic" don't actually want that, though - they probably actually want a slightly different gameplay balance. Not even necessarily a particularly realistic balance, because in the grand scale of things, battles lasting 30m rather than 10m isn't much compared to averages that should be more along the lines of 3-4h!
I say, if you're gonna ask for this stuff, be explicit about what you want. You want it to be balanced, and balanced in a certain way that advantages, say, conservation of stamina, intelligent use of mass, troop quality, and so on. That's still not realism for the above-mentioned reasons. Frame it that way, don't get into the slippery slope of where you arbitrarily stop trying to be realistic for fun reasons.
its not about being realistic its about feeling realistic get your facts right before commenting lmao
Unpopular opinions
-Rome 2 battle is kinda bad, but the other aspects is good
-Shogun 2 units design is the best design ever
-Kush is actually broken
-Medieval 2 has a better siege then thrones of britannia
-England in Medieval 2 is the coolest faction after Holy roman empire
-No dachi samurai is kinda useless
-Rome 2 would be better if they implemented Rome 1 battle mechanics
Spicy take:
Napoleon has some of the best battles in total war. Infantry combat feels good and unit abilities actually make a difference. Artillery is at it's best, sounds awesome and is very impactful. Cavalry are like glass cannons and can make a clear difference in battles if used right. The battles are also probably the most tactical and strategic in total war. (AI is kinda bad doe but mods improve this)
Not a spicy take i agree with it alot, loved napoleons combat, especially MP poured over >1300 hours into it because of how smoothly and amazing the battles felt.
By far my most unpopular, more like unheard of opinion:
"CA won't do Total War title for Spring & Autumn - Warring States, Chu - Han Contention and Investiture of Gods".
I'm having a blast with Rome Remastered although sometimes I hate the pathfinding problems that seem to happen time to time.
> likes Attila and thinks it’s close to the best game
> thinks Rome 2 is worst game in the series
> doesn’t see Attila is a glorified Rome 2 expansion
FFS mod Rome 2 and stop playing vanilla
EDIT: To clarify, Rome 2 multiplayer campaigns modded is one of the best experiences you can have in gaming period. It’s pure heroin.
Trust me, You're not missing that much not having played Scythia. I like the faction but they really aren't that interesting to play a campaign with. All you do is spam horse archers, all the battles are the same and if you are really using them to pepper the enemy with arrows can take forever. Besides that you're a barbarian faction and there isn't much to do in terms of developing settlements, let alone that travel in your starting corner of the map takes long. It's a fun faction to play a battle with though I don't really play them in campaign often. I fully understand why in the original rome they weren't a playable faction as the Parthians do the same with horse archers but but more and better.
I love Scythia honestly. Your buildings suck, its too expensive to garrison your settlements and you just sack and retreat until someone invades. (Well thats what i do i know u dont have to)
Wow Melkor, zero dislikes! I guess these opinions aren't as unpopular as you thought
Unpopular opinion: I like and enjoy Empire total war sometimes, even enjoy it more than Napoleon total war.
But i know Empire is terrible and sucked XD
It is just kind of one of those guilty pleasures i guess.
With Coming back to the game sometimes.
I’m the same way. Empire is my favorite TW but for all the strides Napoleon made in terms of fixing bugs it just feels like a downgrade in terms of scale and campaign features. I only play Napoleon for when I feel like playing a custom battle every once and a while
I’m playing as the Sassanids in Attila right now and am really enjoying it. I think the downfall of that game is that most of the playable factions start out weak and barely have a chance to survive. The plethora of new mechanics are fun and give the game lots of dimension, but they can spiral out of control real fast.
It had some original ideas some of which worked and others didn't. I will say the sassanids really are the easy mode faction in that game(nothing wrong with that but they are) you are right tho most of the fun factions die quickly and the fact that factions don't even try to settle 1/3 of the map is kinda annoying but can be overlooked
Here we go, i played more than 3k hours in medieval 2, only vanila, only with Spain, and i dont get bored
I have never "completed" a single campaign on any of the major overhaul mods - from Europa Barbarorum to Third Age: Total War.
Vanilla Medieval 2 is bad.
oof
I prefer vanilla Empire Total War than modded, the battle AI dont change at all, tbh i think the BAI in every total war game is hit or miss, sometimes it works and sometimes dont, i had awesome battles in Empire vanilla and some broken mess.
I think that Rome 1's autoresolve is nearly perfect, especially because it can "lie". Gotta stay on your toes and err on the side of fighting battles manually! Nothing's more boring than AR'ing everything. Only thing I would change is the ability to wipe out much weaker field armies with AR.
Barbarian Invasion was best TW game of all times. If it had technical level of medieval 2, it would be only TW I ever need. Excellent soundtrack, excellent atmosphere, lot of new interesting mechanics while retaining good ones from RTW...Ah, once can dream.
BI had no soundtrack, it was all just the same Rome 1 music, something that is one of its major flaws really.
BI is very good campaign. Played it more than the original. Huge problem with it though is (other than infinite squalor) is that characters do not gain traits as fast as in the original. This makes character growth almost impossible.
@@hammer3721 The base BI campaign map is also very lacking compared to Rome 1's Imperial and mod maps. Unit rosters could have done with a bit more expansion (3-4 extra units per faction)
@@DillsyYourDaddy67 Indeed. Like, instead of updating Eastern Europe and Africa with more settlements, they removed settlements from Italy, Anatolia and Greece for no reason.
Rome 2 isn’t the worst total war game in my opinion, but very far from the best
In its current state, it's actually pretty good. I'd rate it above Shogun 2 for instance. But it's not what it promised to be.
My favorite thing about Total War after Shogun II, (remember when they used numerals?) was the implementation of a health point system. I mean, who cares if a unit takes four volleys of arrows and only loses 15% of the soldiers, right? I also love unit modifiers. Like “75% Block chance because you press this button.”
Don’t forget nu-Total War fans! They know sooooo much about Total War! They have been playing since Medieval I! They remember how it used to be! We had spells and combat modifiers back then! I remember when I put a campaign on very hard (no legendary back then) we had -7,000 morale, defense, attack and, especially “blahrp.” That was the most difficult thing to overcome.
Get what I did there MELKOR? SheerEEEEEEESShhhh I remember those days.
Maybe not an unpopular opinion but Total War Warhammer is a mediocre Total War game but one of the best Warhammer licensed games.
Empire was a fun game. Wish Napoleon had more of a sandbox campaign.
My hot takes:
-Medieval II has a better campaign mode, but Rome has always had better battles
-Attila only seems so good because it’s what Rome II should have been, while still being aggressively mediocre
-Rome I battles are too fast; despite the above I prefer the slower battles of Medieval II since it boosts skirmishing
-Empire and Napoleon are better than any TW game since Shogun II
-Rome I Egypt is actually a good faction in terms of roster; as anachronistic as it is, there’s enough Hellenic factions in the game (wrote this before you actually said the same thing lol)
-Rome Alexander is a lazy expansion, the laziest add-on until they started splitting up the game into Day One DLC packs
The last one is not too unpopular since i think many people thought that too. Just a bit of a lazy expansion. You don't even do alexander's FULL campaign.
Shogun 2 best in the series.
5:15 Well, as long as that doesn't mean Navarre being owned by Portugal and calling Castille "Spain", I'm OK with that.
My unpopular opinion - Flaming Pigs are the greatest unit CA ever made !
Also...
Thrones of Brittania (the 1st Saga title) had 1 DLC (Blood) and 1 minor patch and then abandoned by CA.
Rome 2 17 Major patches ??? and multiple DLC over many years.
I'm expecting news of an historical title after Warhammer 3 has launched but fear it's going to be another Saga .
Flaming Pigs were indeed the funniest units ever in Total War games lol.
Playing total war without mods. Always sucks or gets boring after some time.
yep I buy TW mostly for mods :D
The only game I was able to play extensively without mods was Medieval 2. Nowadays I play DaC and SS, but I racked up almost 800 hours in it beforehand
@@J4R0D for me it was shogun 2...for some unknown reason xD
Rome 1> Medieval 2
Warhammer set a very dangerous precedent by splitting the game up into three parts
Empire>Napoleon
What about this: Shogun and Med 1 were actually great games, even by today's standards (putting the control schemes aside)..
Unpopular opinion: I wish they would stop with the fantasy settings, and single entity units. 😂😂
Unpopular opinion: the 3K heroes and duels make 3K better as a game. None of it is accurate, everything is awesome.
Same goes for Troy, bar the duel thing. I mean, why can't I call Hector out like the coward he is for longer than 10 seconds before his forces interrupt the duel?
"Video game journalists are...right" -Video Game Dunkey
Empire Total War is a decent Total War game. In my top 5 easily.
I have so many, but here I go, and with no paragraph breaks:
I disagree about overhaul mods, but not entirely. I don't hate them, but they're not for me. I like the vanilla games, in all their quirkiness. Bronze Age Egypt? Yes please. I don't need another Alexander Successor State clone with the same units but different shields. Thrones of Britannia has all the elements that I love, but it still sucks. I love the graphical style. The character development. The setting. I find the game boring though. Rome 2 is not a good game. Neither with mods, or without. Rome Remastered at launch was better than Rome 2. I don't care at all about the Warhammer games as fantasy just doesn't interest me, but my main beef with them is that I am afraid CA sees them as a cash cow and will put all its resources in developing them (like EA is doing with MUT) and the historical games will continue to be blah. Medieval 2 is just a Rome 1 overhaul mod. It has no soul. Medieval 1 is still a better game. I care far more about my family in Medieval 1, mainly because the game understands how to properly designate heirs as new ones become available, and if you don't have a proper family heir, the campaign is over., Man, I hated losing a great campaign because I had a seventy-year-old king with no true heirs, but it made the campaign interesting. Medieval 2, well, if the son is too young when you get a new king, a brother or son-in-law becomes heir and that's locked in. So I would go off and kill that bastard just so my kingdom could have a proper heir. I have so many more, but I'll end by saying this: Attilla is a fun game, but the apex of historical Total War was Barbarian Invasion.
I have no idea whether this opinion is unpopular or popular, but I hate all the mechanics that spawn armies from outside the map. I modded the files so the Mongols and the Timurids never invade in Medieval 2. I've been playing with Chaos invasion off ever since the option was added to Warhammer 2.
If I play a sandbox game, I want everyone to play in the same sandbox. I don't want anyone to come with an excavator and pour sand from the outside.
I enjoy spawn army events as it prepares you for the incoming doom to the world and gives a challenge mid game/late game when you have become powerfull when no other faction can match you.
Troy is the biggest missed opportunity Creative Assembly has had since Rome 2. I feel with Troy that they had the potential to create something incredible but they never seemed to fully commit to the game. If the game was released how it is now, the game would be more positively viewed by the community. I feel that the biggest issue with Troy now is that it is very fun but not very replayable. I feel the faction count should be higher than what it currently is, the mid to late game is just a grind to get through and not that enjoyable, and the game still feels like it is missing something even though it has had several content DLCs since its launch.
Is totally war Troy fun? I think off buying it. Can you tyle some fun things so I get your opinion on it. I rather base myself then on your opinion than on a UA-cam that gets payed opinion. So pros and cons what can be better and what's absolutely incredible how is the campaign map and battles??
The remaster was actually really good, even at launch, and makes me only play the original when I want nostalgia.
r/totalwar would totally berate me for this
Also, Mundus Magnus shouldn’t be used for everything. The map is what I play for and I would rather a provincial campaign of bumfuck nowhere than another shovelware over complicated overhaul I never finish.
I've liked the RR since release don't know why so many were upset with it, it was a totally unexpected decision admittedly. But a good deal for all those who already owned the original.
I liked the Remaster from launch, I think the new UI is better.
@@seraphx26 my biggest problem worth the old ui is that everything takes 3 seconds to open in a scroll animation, which is bad when you speedrun the game
@@aleaiactaest6503 I don't like/understand how to move retainers between Generals, preferred the old drag and drop.
R/totalwar ? You mean r/Warhammer
My unpopular opinion, Rome Two is more enjoyable than Rome I
(I'm sure that these responses will be polite and thoughtfull)
Oh you too?
Numbers speak against Rome 2 being a Bad game. It is still in the Top 3 most played TW Games on Steam. Im very into history so I can really enjoy Rome 2. The Units look so cool, Rome 1 is too arcady in my opinion
Agreed
The best rome 2 player literally says its engine is garbage.
@@taowroland8697 The game has problems but its still good
@@Kili2807 Collisions suck, charges are awful, armies just blob, units are indistinguishable at a glance which makes micro difficult, unit cards dont tell you anything at a glance, and tooltips are not optimal. There is also just less depth to the game due to simplified gameplay. A game can be good for gameplay, or historically accuracy, not both, as they are at odds. Rome 2 tries to do both and ends up a tepid piss puddle.
@@taowroland8697 I like the unit cards and I have no problem telling them apart. I rather have difficulties to identify the Unit Cards from Attila or Thrones of Britannia
I hate how people dislike just because they don't agree with your opinions. Even if it doesn't affect them in the slightest.
Unpopular opinion, Attila good, Warhammer overrated.
I only play Easy/Easy because I’d rather relax than think too much.
Yo Melkor, good to see you back
Unpopular opinion: Barbarian Invasion is my favorite campaign.
Rome Total War is terribly unbalanced in favor of Rome.
Well it is kind of the point but it’s the most satisfying thing when you push out the Romans from your lands and start conquering there’s
IRL was too
I actually really enjoyed Total War: Arena
Edit: To further explain, I feel like the monetization model could have been improved and some aspects can be improved, I feel like having sub commanders controlling a larger force was a really cool idea.
I honestly loved the subcommander thing. I'm pretty casual and don't like massive battles with loads to manage, and I also like the more realistic feel of being a sub-commander. Though obviously that's not entirely the angle the game went with, since you're each a major historical commander. Still, being able to focus on, say, being an ambush/flanking commander whilst other people held the line and dealt with the bulk of the battle... a great feeling.
I loved the uniqueness of the maps in total war arena. I wish more total war games had maps like those in arena.
To be honest rome 2 total war is greater now than ever.
It is probably the total war game that has recieved a lot of love by the company as they updated it and added dlc and other stuff for many years after it launched even during when warhammer 2 came out.
Does it excuse the launch, no it was still terrible back then.
But we can’t ignore how much better and support it recieved from the company to make it good.
Right now if this was how rome 2 was launched it would probably be one of the best total wars.
Just with DEI
Empire is one of my favorite titles.
This video gets a full 10/10, wish I could give it a heart in addition to the like
Unpopular opinion: Rome II has the best unit card design out of every Total War. It fits the aesthetics of the time period, and I can easily identify the units. 3D unit card designs look bad to me, especially if it's an actual render of the unit, like how Total War Attila does it. There is a unit card mod for Rome II that makes it much worse in my opinion. Shogun 2 has great unit cards because they are 2D, and fit the art style of the period. With actual renders of the units, how can you make the unit cards have a theme like Rome II and Shogun II?
" It fits the aesthetics of the time period"
Lol no they don't. That type of art style was outdated even by that period and I don't know you can unironically think they are "easily identifiable" or better than Shogun 2's which at least have color to differentiate them better.
Empire II should be the next total War game
I can not play medieval 2 without overhaul mods because I find the base campaign shallow at certain points, but I especially find the battles super slow and boring. So I think the base game should of medieval 2 to be one of the worst experiences I’ve had playing total war.
I know this isn’t a unpopular opinion as much as an obscure opinion but I want a Bronze Age total war as the next historical game in the franchise
Troy is a Bronze Age era game.
Dacia and Thrace are actually good factions in Rome. - Very unpopular opinion.
Oh that is a hot take! I don't see why they don't have much going for them in terms of roster
@@cc-bk3tx Because CA got really lazy by the time they started making them. Meanwhile, they appear to have dedicated themselves entirely to the British, Scythians and the Germans, whilst all the other Barbarian factions had copy-pasted units and temples from Gaul.
@@hammer3721 Yeah you know everyone loves to complain about rome 2 but tbh one thing rome 2 did just better than rome 1 was making the barbarians actually interesting overall. The rosters were more flushed out there
@@cc-bk3tx True, that was an improvement.
Stainless Steel is breathtaking in scope. If you're tired of Medieval II this was pretty much Medieval III.
"Development time" is the biggest fallacy and excuse since games started deteriorating. Any game that has had unlimited amount of development time either never got completed or was released and had no vision nor direction. Case and point, Cyberpunk 2077.
I was going to say "Numidia is the best faction in Total War history"
But then I realised that this is an opinion that anyone with a brain also has, and is therefore a very popular opinion
They aren't that bad provided you are able to micromanage ranged units which is honestly refreshing in comparison to other factions not to mention its quite challenging unlike other factions
Another unpopular opinion: I want to play as Pontus xD
(no I don't, I was just making a joke)
@@SereglothIV Thank god you were joking ;)
Numidia is easy. Numidian cavalry completely wrecks all the Carthaginian troops early game and all the Roman hastati.
I prefer armenia. Versatile roster with powerful heavy infantry and cav, and a strong starting position with large mountain ranges making it simple to know where your enemy is coming from
Here's an opinion: Broken Crescent + tweaks and fixes submod (if you're lucky having no crashes) is the best TW experience you can have.
Total war 3k is the best total war to date, it's good-average in combat but totally outclass any other game in campaign
And thus the wise one had spoken.
I'm going to have to disagree about CA dropping the TW2 engine too soon. It was a horribly coded mess that was hard to mess with (which is why many of the R1 OG bugs were still present in R1R). I do wish they could have kept some of the physics and "feel" from the old engine though.
My unpopular opinion is that thrones is a decent game
Closed captions gave me a seizure
Rome 1 feels like an arcade game, fights last less then five minutes, cavalry charges your units head on, no matter the depth of your unit, they all break and flee, even though one of the points of depth was to prevent cavalry from charging head first. Morale is awful, A.I never holds to their agreements, let alone send military help. D.E.I is a far better experience for realism, still has it's A.I cheating issues, but apparently the A.I cannot do anything without money cheats.
Why are you bringing up a Rome 2 mod like DEI when the original Rome already had plenty of mods that improve the AI, and are better for battles because the engine is not so shit at it?
@@rorschach1985ify Because DEI is legendary in it's own right.
@@charlesmiv3842 More like overrated in its own right.
@@rorschach1985ify How so? DEI blows OG Rome out of the water lol. There is literally no comparison. I take realism over cartoony graphics and arcady gameplay any day of the week.
I will say though that you're right about the A.I. money cheats in DEI. A faction that only holds a single village can somehow afford two full stacks. Doesn't make sense.
unpopular opinion: the new games UI is bad. its small and confusing for me the original UI back in rome total war and medieval 2 is way better
unpopular opinion of mine, Rome total war is overrated and medieval 2 is much better with way more interesting factions and map, like wtf why are the germanic and gallic tribes one faction?
Ok, but why is Spain a faction, why does Portugal even exist?
Both a inaccurate there.
The board game style map of the original Shogun and Medieval is superior to the later realistic maps. Armies represented as board game pieces are better too.
Came to say the same.
How old are you?
@@brydonthunder i'm in my 30s and I started with Medieval Total War, played Rome and M2 and then skipped Empire - Rome 2 because I had no internet back then for the DRM but I like Atilla and Warhammer despite the dumb AI
I like horse archers, *goes into boxing guard*, don't hit me Melkor!
Unpopular opinion: Pikes in Medieval 2 are actually amazing and Pike Militia is one of the best unit in multiplayer.
I ONLY play three kingdoms in records mode
Don't worry Melkor, we'll rescue you from your Fez!
;) ;)
Could you imagine a total war arena style game that is based around the napoleonic wars? Sounds glorious to me
Unpopular opinion:
Rome 2 has become a good game, and it's a gigantic game with colossal battles and such. It's not a bad game.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of historical fantasy total war and dismissing Troy as a bad game is just not the right way to approach it when Troy has many good elements going for it. Same with Thrones of Britannia.
Troy not expanding to the Bronze Age is a missed opportunity in my opinion and not giving the fullpowers of the time.
The newer total wars have very good elements of ambience, sound design and immersive battle atmospheres that aren't given much attention or just overlooked.
Rome 2 needs a battle map editor, and it needs TED. It could do with so much map overhauls I am disappointed so much with the copy-paste cities of Rome II
Empire total war is a underrated title
Creative Assembly is a bad game company.
Their "work traditions" are horrible, they just do such a patch job on a boatload of matters in their games, not repairing features so they just remove them entirely (splitting armies going extinct in Rome 2 due to a graphical bug they didn't want to fix), not even adding in complex diplomacy and excluding other mechanics because "It's not war."
These guys need competition if they are to ever have a hope of getting their act together, at best they'll clean up, and at worst if the new competitors outcompete them, it'll be because they're simply better at Total War than they are. For this reason, I support Manor Lords.
The latest games have seen an increase in diplomacy, Troy featured a multiple resources economy, 3K added a system, amongst other things, which told how much someone values a deal instead of just saying 'they *might* come to an agreement (lol nope)'.
Look, I understand that you are heavily disappointed in CA, which is justified, and I agree that some competition would be great for the franchise, but it is not true that CA are purely licking windows at the moment. They have some genuinely good ideas implemented in their newest titles.
Also, I don't really know what the graphical issue with splitting armies was, but given that it was build on a new engine it might have been for the better to not wrestle with it, given how poor the rest of the game performed at launch. There's only so much you can repair on a sinking boat. But the fact that it was a sinking boat is definitely not a compliment for the devs either.
@@the_tactician9858 Their AI rarely recieve improvements across the game, they're just bad at fighitng and the vast majority of AI factions rely on cheats to survive because they don't know how to play the game. Like in Warhammer? The AI always razes the cities it takes from you to the ground, no amtter what, this is because the AI operate with a cheat that nets them so much gold from destroying your settlements that it's legitimately profitable for them to annihilate everything you've built in a settlement you lost and then build it back up themselves!
CA, even if they're not licking windows, are not trying as hard as they used to. And that aside, the later game's diplomacy features STILL don't come anywhere close to what Civ V offered, don't they?
I hate single entity/hero units, yes even in Warhammer xD
I like Rome 2 more than Britannia
I do not like it when mods have slow battles. I prefer fast past battles. Also sieges are overrated
100% agree!
Unpopular opinion: Empire Total War is better than Shogun 2
How dare he say medieval 2 is overrate. I’m switching over to Gondor. Wait…
i didnt agree with almost anything you said about TW games in this video.. but I gave you like, because i respect your opinion.
Rome 2 is better than Rome 1 and Medieval 2, people who say otherwise are coping hard, I would say this about vanilla Rome after the ancestral update, when mods come into the picture it isn't even close.
Medieval 2 is better than Rome 1 even with the remaster.
The Rome remaster was good from the start, the UI was better than the original, deal with it, and it's the only reason going forward that we will get a new wave of Rome 1 mods that will breathe fresh air into the game/community.
My unpopular opinion
Empire Total War wasnt that bad.
It had large map with India and Americas. There was feeling like these colonial empires fight each other.
And the Ottoman campaign is fun because its difficult.