PSA: Imperator is the sequel to EU: Rome

[Slippd]

I just feel bad for Johan, okay? To work so hard on giving the fans what they asked for and then seeing as no one is pleased because everyone has at least some pet feature you couldn't fit in

Saying no one is pleased is very, very, very wrong. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm both pleased with (what we've seen so far) and super hyped for this game.

 

[PanzerCorps]

Saying no one is pleased is very, very, very wrong. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm both pleased with (what we've seen so far) and super hyped for this game.

True, I guess, so am I! It just seems that the majority of the posters here at least are not

 

[Denkt]

Saying no one is pleased is very, very, very wrong. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm both pleased with (what we've seen so far) and super hyped for this game.

I joined the forums because of EU: Rome and this game look like a very worthy successor.

 

[Spartanlemur]

Well, yes, a jack-of-all-trades it is, but I don't see why that would be necessarily a bad thing. If you want to expand a set of features too much, it will either be at the expense of the others, or you will have to expand all features and it will just become really hard to follow. I am scared of those things, as I had to stop updating CK2 and EU4 because they gained new features too fast for me to keep up, and that was after dozens of hours of experience in them. I can't see how I could handle a Rome game with all those detailed systems in it from the start. And while I am definitely one of the more casual paradox fans on the forums, I think that compared to the average fan overall I am not that far behind.

CK2 is an absolutely fantastic game after all of those expansions. Probably one of the best games ever made, and this could not be said of it at launch. Holy Fury has a lot of hype surrounding it because it promises to add in meaningful features which are presented with great visual appeal.

Given the game is almost finished, you probably needn't worry about all of these things people want making it into the game to begin with, but DLC is inevitably going to need to add depth in order for it to catch interest.

I agree to a point. For example, I never got the hang of Victoria 2, but I absolutely loved CK2 for a while. I wouldn't mind seeing more of those mechanics here at all. But the question still is, can they handle it without increasing complexity too much? I get what you are saying about easy to learn, hard to master, but that is the ideal situation and often very hard to achieve. If you can have both, have both, but I guess the question is if you can only have one which would you rather go for?

Either way, yes, let's wait until release at least. If nothing else, I'm sure there will be mods to add extra features. It seems very moddable so far, even allowing people to remove "mana" if they so wish I think.

Well, that's like asking whether it's better to be too hot or too cold

I expect Imperator will be a fun game on launch, and after players have each plunged 100 or so hours into it, they'll start to really see the areas in which it is lacking, and all of these complaints/suggestions will become far more useful than they are now.

As you say, we'll have mods, and these will also help to show the devs what things people want from the game. In the end, it'll be tremendous fun, as Paradox games usually are after expansions and much patching.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

I think the specific clash here is that "Rome 2" was always an idea which amalgamated "a new Paradox game set in Rome with features from my favourite Paradox game" and "a sequel to Rome 2".

Consequently, Paradox deciding in favour of the latter leaves the other group unhappy. This was always going to be an issue, because EU: Rome didn't have a large following, while the more recent Paradox games did, and brought in hordes of new fans (I was part of the CK2 inflow).

This is very true. I can remember when CK2 had been around for a little while and started picking up steam more and more people would come into the Rome2 thread asking for a CK2 clone set in Rome. It reminds me of the expression 'flavour of the month'. People want what's popular at the time.

You say the EU:Rome fan base is small, you're right it is small compared to the CK2 fans or the EU or even the Vicky fans.

But it is GIGANTIC compared to the CK1 fan base that were asking for a CK2. You could probably have counted those people on two hands.

Context is key. EU:Rome had it's faults but that's because it was more of an experiment, like Sengoku or MotE. It was never finished and never even got it's final patch released on steam. Now it will be getting the CK2 treatment. Thousands upon thousands of man hours of work. If we look at how much of an improvement CK2 was from CK1 and if you look at the popularity of CK1 compared to EU:Rome then this game should far surpass CK2.

I can't wait for the threads asking for CK3 to be a clone of Imperator:Rome.

 

[Borgratz]

I somehow read all of Johan's posts as mildly annoyed with all these plebs in this forum talking about his precious game :>

I hope this will get better, once we have some more information. So far this forum feels a bit less welcoming than the other paradox forums I have posted in.

@maybe the topic: Thanks to the vagueness of this PSA it's not quite clear what to argue about, but if this is some sort of dig at people wondering if feature x from game y will be in imperator: why on earth would you be suprised about that? Your games borrow from each other all the time. Talking about which features we would or would not like to see is pretty reasonable.

 

[stratigo]

I don't think there is harm in providing constructive feedback. The pop names/split have received some criticism, keeping the old names just because a game is a sequel doesn't make sense when an easy improvement can be made there.

I also don't think pulling some relevant ideas from other titles is a bad thing for iterative progress.

The problem is that people want to make the pops in even worse ways cause they read those words in a book once

 

[Samitte]

True, I guess, so am I! It just seems that the majority of the posters here at least are not

A lot of them are the same people posting a lot. I try to contribute but so far I am happy with what I see, even started working in a full overhaul mod. Would like to add that some of the people unhappy are actually doing their best, trying to contribute and to give ideas of how things could be different in their eyes, and much respect to that.

 

[Kljunas]

This is very true. I can remember when CK2 had been around for a little while and started picking up steam more and more people would come into the Rome2 thread asking for a CK2 clone set in Rome. It reminds me of the expression 'flavour of the month'. People want what's popular at the time.

You say the EU:Rome fan base is small, you're right it is small compared to the CK2 fans or the EU or even the Vicky fans.

But it is GIGANTIC compared to the CK1 fan base that were asking for a CK2. You could probably have counted those people on two hands.

Context is key. EU:Rome had it's faults but that's because it was more of an experiment, like Sengoku or MotE. It was never finished and never even got it's final patch released on steam. Now it will be getting the CK2 treatment. Thousands upon thousands of man hours of work. If we look at how much of an improvement CK2 was from CK1 and if you look at the popularity of CK1 compared to EU:Rome then this game should far surpass CK2.

I can't wait for the threads asking for CK3 to be a clone of Imperator:Rome.

tbh if I had to choose between the two, CK makes more sense as a base for any kind of pre-modern setting than EU. Not that I want this to be CK: Rome but I don't see why it should hold onto this EU legacy either.

I don't think that CK2 is the "flavour of the month" though (it's been 6 years and there's been three other PDS games released since). That game was lightning in a bottle and it's probably here to stay.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

tbh if I had to choose between the two, CK makes more sense as a base for any kind of pre-modern setting than EU. Not that I want this to be CK: Rome but I don't see why it should hold onto this EU legacy either.

I don't think that CK2 is the "flavour of the month" though (it's been 6 years and there's been three other PDS games released since). That game was lightning in a bottle and it's probably here to stay.

What EU legacy? Honestly people make way too much of EU:Rome's prefix. The EU was probably there as a marketing strategy to tie it in with what was then the flagship franchise. This isn't a choice between EU and CK it's a hybrid. As the quote at the top of their game design says;

The balance between CK2 and EU4/Vic2 should remain in Rome2. Rome was a fantastic mix between CK1(characters), EU3 (diplomacy, and war) and Vic1(parties, provinces system and population dynamic) and its own feature like barbaric migration and the best civil wars in Paradox games

Flavour of the month is figurative not literal, due to the time in between new games. We'll say flavour of the decade, if that's better. I strongly disagree that it was lightning in a bottle. I think from launch to the present day it always had it's problems. But more than anything else, I've mastered CK2. I have played it more than any other paradox game. Around the time WoL came out it became completely boring for me to the point that I can't enjoy it at all now. Personally I need something new. That isn't EU4 and isn't CK2. Unfortunately Stellaris didn't scratch that itch. You're not at all bored with CK2?

 

[S. Dole Melipone]

Imagine how annoying it would be if CK3 was announced and EU4 fans were constantly making comments about how CK2 was terrible and it should be more like EU4.

Imagine how annoying it would be if Vicky 3 was announced and CK2 fans were constantly making comments about how Vicky 2 was terrible and it should be more like CK2

Imagine how annoying it would be if EU5 was announced and Vicky2 fans were constantly making comments about how EU4 was terrible and it should be more like Vicky2..

My favourite game is EU:Rome. If you hated EU:Rome maybe wait until release to decide whether you want to try Imperator or not. Rather than constantly whining about the thing that some of us have wanted from paradox for years. Your game will come, in time. Stop trying to impose your game on our game.

I needed to say that

One of the reasons I'm excited about I:R is to get a totally new game. Sadly EU:Rome doesn't play nice on my rig so far, but on the upside it will be a totally fresh experience for me.

I don't want all my favourite mechanics from other games, I want new favourites!

And it's great to hear from and discuss with the original fans... which is why I quote you in agreement a lot Manic Eskimo

 

[Druplesnubb]

One of the reasons I'm excited about I:R is to get a totally new game. Sadly EU:Rome doesn't play nice on my rig so far, but on the upside it will be a totally fresh experience for me.

I don't want all my favourite mechanics from other games, I want new favourites!

And it's great to hear from and discuss with the original fans... which is why I quote you in agreement a lot Manic Eskimo

This is why so many are upset that they copy-pasted EU4's Monarch Points into the game.

 

[Hugus]

Being a sequel does not change the legitimacy of any of the criticism that forum users may direct at DDs

If the names being given to the pops are poor ones, people criticize. If the mechanics do not feel good enough, people criticize.
Either own it and accept it is not a perfect system, but you are confident in choices made so far; or incorporate the critics into improving the game.

Making a sequel is not all about inheriting things, it's about improving them and maybe even incorporate ideas from other games!!

 

[VineFynn]

Its not the sequel to Vicky 2.

Its not the sequel to EU4.

Its not the sequel to HoI4.

Its not the sequel to CK2.

God, I do not envy you at all right now Johan. Must suck to have so many people tearing into a vision you've already put so much work into.

edit: is the disagree saying that I do envy him, that it doesn't suck, or that people aren't tearing into his vision? I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. Empathy?

 

[HandicapdHippo]

It is? I mean its not called EU Rome 2, wasn't the point of giving it a standalone name to make a clean break from EU Rome and make it more a spiritual successor rather than a direct sequel?

 

[Denkt]

It is? I mean its not called EU Rome 2, wasn't the point of giving it a standalone name to make a clean break from EU Rome and make it more a spiritual successor rather than a direct sequel?

So it can be its own IP.

 

[Dsingis]

I honestly have absolutely no clue what this thread is supposed to tell me.
Can anyone tell me what the hell is going on here?

 

[qer]

I don't think it is a question of sequel, rather a matter of the person behind the game. Different directors makes different movies , and the same goes for videogames. Even inside PDX it would be foolish to think that all project leads are the same. So making this an issue of sequels seems rather foolish to me. Heck, in the future the game director may change and the game change with it as well

 

[Black Turtle]

Right on. I have mad respect for game devs who stick to their vision.

 

[ApocalypseMao]

I honestly have absolutely no clue what this thread is supposed to tell me.
Can anyone tell me what the hell is going on here?

One group is complaining about IR including mechanics they didn't like from prior games. Another group is complaining about IR not including mechanics they did like from prior games.

Both parties are assuming a lot since there hasn't been a lot of detail released by the devs thus far.

Johan is pointing out that IR is a new game and one should consider it as such, instead of judging it as a sequel to whatever your favorite game happens to be.