That's like saying EU:Rome is a sequel to RTW1 with the same "problems". They're hardly the same sort of game, even though they both have "Rome conquers world" as its main theme.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Yes, that's why I didn't quite get that comment. Paradox games are so different from a tactical battle level RTS that I didn't really understand it.
I'm working on it
basically because Paradox has already said they won't do a EU:Rome sequel for a "long, long time".
Well, during the stream it was pretty much confirmed Rome 2 is not at all even considered, due to it not having potential to become a financial success.:sad:
They'll get around to it eventually. I doubt that they'd be willing to totally skip out on having a game during the time period.
At this point I would be happy if they just would fix broken Vae Victis beta patch. I don't assume that they will actually finish the patch, just like they never finished Deus Vult patch. But at least Deus Vult beta was stable and didn't crash almost every time when you're trying to organize your government. Luckily there are other Paradox games I can play, but constant crashing is the reason why I haven't been able to play this game for a year and I would love to play it again.
I don't use the beta myself; though even if it were fixed, would you really be fully satisfied on that alone? If an EU Rome II could be much as an improvement over CK II is over the first CK (DV included), it's worth hoping for, at least.
If an EU Rome II could be much as an improvement over CK II is over the first CK (DV included), it's worth hoping for, at least.
I don't use the beta myself; though even if it were fixed, would you really be fully satisfied on that alone?
I would be happy if they just made it playable once again, because once you have tried the new features of the patch there is no going back, but the game isn't stable enough for playing longer games. I don't believe that Rome will be resurrected ever again and I think that it's unlikely that they will even finish the patch, because while at first Paradox treated Rome like it was a major title, more recently they have started to treat it like it belongs to same category with Sengoku and Paradox' recent comments about both games are very similar. Which is a pity, because while Rome was a truly great and unique game which sold well, Sengoku was a complete failure which didn't sell very well. Demo was enough to convince me that it's not worth it, despite the fact that Sengoku uses some of the features of CKII.
What are the new features in the patch?
Pity if they didn't finish it, though as old as the game is, it would be a bit of surprised to expect it to be.
Pity if they didn't finish it, though as old as the game is, it would be a bit of surprised to expect it to be.
Rome betas introduce plenty of fixes to bugs, but most important feature is removal of cascading alliances, so ordinary border conflict with your neighbor doesn't usually turn into ancient world war. More recent betas fix previous crash bugs, but unfortunately also introduce new crash bugs.
Game in unplayable for me unfortunately, I reinstall it every three months and within two hours have uninstalled it due to constant crashes. I just wish they would fix the most recent beta patch.
What did they say specifically? I find this kind of peculiar, actually, since it had been noted by devs previously that Rome was actually one of their better-selling titles despite its lack of long-term support. Granted, that was before CK2 was a game-changer for Paradox sales expectations, but it seems odd that their most outdated "current" game, with a popular setting like ancient Rome, is ruled out from getting a sequel. I mean, I love(d) Victoria to pieces, but I have to presume the potential market for a Rome sequel absolutely dwarfs that of Victoria II (or III).
I rather think VICII is a little more popular because of the familiar political systems and the emphasis on factories as vehicles of industrialization and such
though I love them both
My instinct was (is?) that the time period is just too "big" to pass up, but maybe they prefer to focus their best energies on other eras. Perhaps the 19th century just has bigger general appeal whereas Rome/Ancient Period is considered somewhat more of a niche.
The amount of games centred on the Victorian period versus the amount of games centred on Rome would seem to suggest otherwise, however.
Yeah, I would think the Victorian era would be more niche. Ancient world is generally fairly big in gaming, usually second to WWII, ahead of Napoleonic, Middle Ages, Early Modern, etc.
The key, of course, is that a game needs to be entertaining, and reasonably bug-free. Whether Paradox has an engine capable of delivering on that in any Ancient World setting is open to question. But Rise of Rome, Fall of Rome, Greece, Alexander, End of the Bronze Age all seem like scenarios that could have an audience, if an acceptable product were offered.
.png){kind=avatar}
Honestly I've been wanting a new EU:Rome for a while now, and would definitely prefer it even over EU4. And all the latest news about R2TW is only making me want a paradox version even more. They did it with sengoku, why not Rome?
- Status