@Giglioroninomic Several new aspects of gameplay have been implemented since Rome (religion and crusades, faction skill trees, technology, etc.) while maintaining the core, Total War gameplay. I have to say that Empire changed the core gameplay of the series quite drastically by making the majority of field units ranged and having your success both on and off the battlefield heavily reliant on technology. Rome 2, however, is probably going to be quite different from all the other games in the series. Unit AI is just something they keep trying to improve on but that's no small task.

@Giglioroninomic The republic being split into families remarked upon the internal strife that plagued Rome and was a vital aspect of the Republic. I agree that it was stupid to implement them as actual, playable factions though, but the rise of Rome was as much of a political struggle as it was with actual conquest, it just made the gameplay interesting later on. Even though CA's games takes place in historical settings, gameplay is always going to supercede historical accuracy.

@Giglioroninomic TBH they're probably going to focus less on what's historically accurate/what they did in the first Rome and more on what they already know works from their previous games and what new features they can implement. Historical accuracy is both virtually impossible to fully achieve and irrelevant to the actual gameplay, As long as the game is reasonably historical, innovative, fun and EPIC, than it makes no difference to me.

Wouldn't a suspension of disbelief simply be believing, if not wanting to not believe? I understand what you're saying, but companies have been bundling their products and making cutbacks for centuries; it's all part of that risk-factor in business. Whether people buy their bundles or not is up to the consumer. I don't think the gaming industry is duping their customers any more than the next guy. There's no better way to tell a company that their product is insufficient than by simply not buy it. Caveat emptor.

They're remaking GTA, London 1969. Called it. :P

The only thing Cole really is is big-headed and bored, I wouldn't go so far as to say he's psychopathic, especially since the majority of these things are based on player choices. Yes, he awkwardly warns people about certain dead family members but that's basically an expansion of the option you choose. You can't base his sanity on the manner in which he divulges information since it was your choice to divulge it in the first place. And any disregard he displays for property and civilians (I'm assuming this in the way he drives because I can't think of him really doing anything he doesn't need to) is in no way his personality. You could say the same thing of Gordon Freeman, he greets everything with silence and shows no pity or remorse, thus he's psychopatic. I know he's not as developed as Cole is as a character, but you can't judge a character's personality with the actions of the player. I know this is speculative and just for fun but still it was kind of a waste of time imo.

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

This is one of the only games that I can recommend almost solely on it's sound design.

the only credible difference I actually see is that the guy who was playing the 360 version is better than the guy playing the ps3 version from the looks of the last two screens :P

It took you long enough to recognize it.