-
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
Me too=)
Give me CK:Rome 2 or else I have to go back to Constantinopol and conquer world again=)
Give me CK:Rome 2 or else I have to go back to Constantinopol and conquer world again=)
Rome 2 Total war let me down and I'm feeling a bit ripped off. I think Paradox's Rome 2 would greatly be appreciated to make up for the failure of the other Rome.
I have no doubt that sooner or later they will give Rome2 a try but I think they lost a wonderful chance to pickup market from the discontent segment that has left RTW2.
Aye, I agree completely.... and am looking forward to Paradox's next work set in the ancient world....
I probably wouldn't be that interested. I'd much prefer a victoria III
That was actually the context of the original Eu:Rome and that worked very well for Paradox
That was actually the context of the original Eu:Rome and that worked very well for Paradox
I am more interested in a Dark ages game, But rome 2 is something I would enjoy.
Anything else would be more interesting than Hearts of Iron IV, which they're doing now. I would like to see both Rome2 and Vicky3 at some point in the future.
Indeed, especially since HOI is a military sim and nothing more.
On the other hand, I'd only like to see Rome 2 if it's of a similar quality to CK2, not as a side project ala Sengoku.
Personally I think to be realistic it wouldn't be so bad seeing it as a side-project, because some devs already said they didn't think a rome sequel was overly marketable
not that I wouldn't love a full fledged rome 2
not that I wouldn't love a full fledged rome 2
It's really quite an awkward situation in my opinion.
EU:Rome 2 has very little market potential, given the poor performance of the first game. If they make a sequel to that game, they should do it as a side project, as it won't go anywhere.
Crusader Kings: Rome (or a new IP) however has huge market potential, as they'd firstly be capturing the fans which Rome 2 lost by having very poor character mechanics and secondly they'd be "starting afresh" so to speak.
What they need to do it scrap the draconian restrictions of EU:Rome and build a character based game which might be imported into a dark ages game (if not directly into CK2 or CK3). I mean, Paradox must by now realise that they've split their fanbase (I know many people are into both styles, but many also aren't) into those who like Crusader Kings 2 style gameplay and those who like EU style gameplay.
HoI, Vicky and EU all feature the "EU style" of gameplay, while only CK features the character-based gameplay which a lot of us are a fan of. Many CK2 fans didn't really get into Europa Universalis, and consequently, they're left wanting a non-medieval Paradox game which features character based gameplay. What better period to do that with than ancent Rome and the classical period?
Furthermore, the game would be different enough from CK2 seeing as they'd have to really diversify the character-based approach away from feudalism, which would surely be both a new experience for all of us and an aid to CK3 when they eventually get around to making it.
So yes, EU:Rome 2 would be a disaster, but a new ip which is basically Crusader Kings: Rome would easily be a big hit for the studio, both financially and as a development of their character-based formula.
I completely agree. The thing is that Rome 2 is an excellent wargame (as of patch 9) with a terrible, awful political system, which is never truly going to be fixed no matter how much work they put into it. Each faction basically feels the same beyond their unit differences, which makes campaign mode awful. What PI could develop to appeal to Total War's lost players is a passable wargame with an extensive, accurate and enjoyable model of classical era politics, diplomacy and events.
Last edited:
I think u will find that most advocates of a Rome game do not want it to be a CK game, including myself.
This makes no sense, Rome sold very well and how can you predict the future?
I guess you mean Rome Total War?
Because EU: Rome didn't sell. It was a comercial failure, and that's why Paradox abandoned it.
Spartanlemur raises a very interesting point. Making a brand new game from a new perspective and forgetting about the old one is usually a much better strategy, and results in a far superior game, than pleasing a bunch of hardcore fans by repeating the same mistakes just like they tell you to do.
I loved EU: Rome. But it sucks extremely hard compared to CK2. And EU4... well, I wouldn't want anything done taking EU4 as a base, honestly.
Last edited:
Johan has said many times it sold at least on par with Victoria II, and your judgment of the gem is subjective lol
It did? Well, I really didn't expect that, considering how the game was treated and how the sequel has been postponed again and again. You would think a commercially succesful game would have received more attention.
I guess the less-than-stellar (and totally fair) critical reception of the game was the problem, then?
Last edited:
- Status