Just curious, it has been moved today... the game is not selling anymore or what? Disappointed...:glare:
-
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.
Just noticed this myself. Could be bad, hopefully good but I think it definitely puts an end to the idea of any expansions.
EU:Rome II plz?
EU:Rome II plz?
I see this two ways. In one way I understand why it would be moved since vae victis was released so long ago as to clearly make it worthy of being a "classic" game, along with Arsenal of Democracy and Iron cross. However, on the other hand, I don't believe that any game that still has a beta patch should be shelved as a "classic" (meaning "no longer supported) game. Obviously there are some, like CK 1, that are still beta patched, and this is the concern for me. Will we continue to see games that are left unfinished while we move on the the next sequel? Not finishing your work was something that was given very bad grades in school, and incomplete work is grounds for demotion and termination in most businesses in the world, and yet it seems to be fully acceptible in the gaming world as a whole. Modders while creative, should NEVER be depended on to finish the job of those who are paid to do so. I understand this is a small company, but if they can't handle the volume, please slow down a bit and take pride in the fact that you are a focused niche game company that is loved and respected for that very reason by us fans.
While I understand everyones exhuberance for Rome 2 if there is one coming (most likely), I also think that we need to be assured that games will be finshed. Used to be that a gold edition or a complete edition was that assurance. Not anymore in the age of DLC. While I appreciate the concept that the work is never fully perfect, I also want to trust people at their word. On this, Johan has said to my question of the finishing the patch "eventually yes" and so I hope that is good enough.
While I understand everyones exhuberance for Rome 2 if there is one coming (most likely), I also think that we need to be assured that games will be finshed. Used to be that a gold edition or a complete edition was that assurance. Not anymore in the age of DLC. While I appreciate the concept that the work is never fully perfect, I also want to trust people at their word. On this, Johan has said to my question of the finishing the patch "eventually yes" and so I hope that is good enough.
Come on paradox, how difficult can it be to actually finish a patch? You're professional game-makers, for God's sake!
It's not a question of difficulty but of priority. As you can plainly see they are working on patches for both EU3 and CK2 right now. I have no idea if and when the Rome patch will be finished, but like any vendor they only have so many resources to devote to patching, and other games seem to have priority at the moment. I would assume they will get to it if and when they can.
Love the qualifier "if" in your statement, of "if and when they can." Seriously, how many people are really drinking the cool aid, that they accept an "if" as reasonable. Does anyone wish to hold them to their word that they will do this, and continue to hold them to the standards of a company who values customer satisfaction, or are we going to start using phases like," if and whenever you get to finishing the game you started, that would be great" I will use statements for modders, but not for the developers, unacceptable in my opinion, and it should be in yours if your spent any money on the game.
As I'm not a PI employee I have to qualify heavily - I simply don't know what the plans are at the moment. I'm simply trying to point out that they are working on other patches at the moment, so your rant implying that PI find it too difficult to finish patches is simply wrong.
What your point about me spending money on the games is, I have no idea. I've spent plenty.
Last edited:
Well we're not really asking for much, just a patch that doesn't introduce any new bugs for a change would be fine. I understand that they have a lot of work to do, but I still don't see how that justifies leaving faithful communities like this one hanging for so long.
I think it would be better for Rome to be given a sequel rather than a patch or an expansion.
The current game contains several inherent flaws that makes it enviable to further build on. Don't get me wrong, I think Rome is a great game, but it also lacks some of the replay value that the other PI games.
So I think creating a new sequel would help make some of the basics of the game more engaging and fun. While EU3 expansions surely have made the game more fun, none of them have changed the very basics of the game.
And I fear the engine for Rome is now so old, that it would quite a step backwards to create new patches or an expansion for PI.
The current game contains several inherent flaws that makes it enviable to further build on. Don't get me wrong, I think Rome is a great game, but it also lacks some of the replay value that the other PI games.
So I think creating a new sequel would help make some of the basics of the game more engaging and fun. While EU3 expansions surely have made the game more fun, none of them have changed the very basics of the game.
And I fear the engine for Rome is now so old, that it would quite a step backwards to create new patches or an expansion for PI.
True. The game needs some changes to its basic design, which isn't something you can do with just an expansion. A fully reworked sequel with the updated engine can on the other hand can be a really great game. I just hope that if Rome 2 gets made, then as much effort will be put to it as was put into CK2. Original Rome always suffered from feeling like EU-lite.
Which is partly why I hope they won't call it Europa Universalis: Rome 2 but something without the Europa Universalis name in it. I don't think Rome 2 is truly in line with the rest of the PI titles, which all have unique names, yet related to the setting; Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria and Hearts of Iron. Rome would just seem... bland. I assume that's why they tagged the EU-title onto the first game.
But that might also shown their initial seriousness towards the title itself.
I completely agree. I think it's better to work on sequels than trying to build patches and expansions if the inherent flaws are too much.
Andrew, my apologies if my reply sounded directed at you personally, it was not, and was not meant to be indicating that you somehow were at fault. I was stating that as a whole we as a community (and I see this on thread after thread) seem filled with uncertainty about whether games are going to be finished once released. I was pointing out that we are using that word "if" primarily because we don't know, and it is sad in my opinion that we have that uncertainty about games we have purchased. And yes we have all spent a bit of money on the games, and so I was sharing frustration that I know a lot of people have when they spend money on games, and then rather than see those games fully fixed, another game comes out and gets all the attention. If they have limited resources, then why are they trying to develop so many games at once if they can't handle the load? Just my thoughts, nothing more or less.
I think Rome 2 or something similar would be completely epic, but I still think it would be nice if we were given an unbugged patch for a change. I don't need anything else for a patch or any more game-extending patches as long as they do this.
I understand why there is a desire for a bug-free patch for Rome. However, EU: Rome was never that successful during its heyday, and other things got prioritised at Paradox; such as more expansions to EU3 and HoI3. Which meant that EU: Rome unfortunately suffered from lack of interest from the developers, even if it did receive an expansion. But after that, its focus declined.
I obviously cannot say this for certain, but it would make good sense to me. I feel that perhaps that to relieve this game of its bugs, one or more developers were focusing on this specifically, and perhaps they weren't being very successful (not all bugs are trivial, even if you know what is causing it). Then someone decided that their efforts would be better spent on EU3 or HoI3, which were far more successful and valued game series than EU: Rome.
Returning now to do a patch is problematic. The Clausewitz engine (which EU: Rome also uses) has been incredibly since then and can do a lot more. Going back to EU: Rome would mean only a handful of developers at PI would be familiar with its code, and these developers are probably already high-priority developers for big titles.
This is why software development decide at some point to deprecate certain tools or versions, because the code is being too archaic to maintain along the modern tools/versions/games.
True, it would be been feasible back when the patches were actually being released in beta, but at some point you got to make tough decisions when you have limited resources. And Paradox Interactive isn't exactly a development studio with endless amounts of hands.
It appears to me that EU: Rome has mustered quite a gathering after its heyday (like a cult film), which in practical development means it became too late for meaningful maintenance. Rather than trying to fully improve on the now rather dated engine that runs EU: Rome (i.e. get it up to speed with CK2, etc.), it would make far more sense to build a new Rome game from scratch.
At which point you release the code, tools and other misc items needed or that would be useful for the community to continue to care about their bought product (without support from PI ofc, figure-it-out-yourself basis).
If the items involved really is that archaic, it makes no difference.
Working on this patch would mean OTHER faithful communities get left hanging on for so long, in particular EU3. Can't work on them all at once.
You'd think, but there is really no precedence for that in the proprietary software industry. Yes, it has happened that old games' source have been released, such as Star Control 2. But at the time that happened, the game had been released ten years prior. EU: Rome is not yet that old either.
But even EU1 hasn't been released freely. So I don't see PI making an exception for EU: Rome.
All that being said, personally I would prefer if they did release the source code of their older games. But I am not holding my breath.
Well AFAIK the last DW patch was released in July 2011. The last VV patch was released in August 2010 and introduced a basically game-breaking bug. Then it takes more than a year for a beta patch to come along to fix this, and it has a lot of annoying bugs as well. I understand that there are many other communities waiting for another patch, but I think decisions concerning priority of patching should take into account the severity of the bugs needing to be fixed.