Why is this not EU Rome 2?
- Thread starter fireonmyhand
- Start date
-
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.
The real question is if the next sequel will be Imperator: Rome 2 or 3 or break compleatly from the number naming scheme from now on with a new X: rome instead.
I support EU5: Imperator: Rome 3
I support EU5: Imperator: Rome 3
Think Johan said that this is the sequel to EU:Rome, but I'd imagine they want it to be fully its own IP rather than being presented as an EU spinoff.
I think that it represents a wish, in hindsight, that the first Rome had been fully it's own IP and not ladened with the EU preface, but at the time, EU was all they were known for.
It's a good way to make a soft reboot of a series. The primary title is now Imperator, instead of EU-spinoff Rome. The scope of the game have also changed dramatically, making it no longer a spinoff game with regional focus, but a full fledged franschise starter encompassing several ancient centers of civilization. Thus less of a need for "Rome" to be the primary title.
Also, it lessens the risk of being sued for trademark and copyright infringement by Creative Assembly.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same with the inevitable CK3, having the title of that game be either "Crusader Kings 3: #subtitle goes here#" or " #new main title#: Crusader Kings", since the scope of that game series have also changed dramatically.
Also, it lessens the risk of being sued for trademark and copyright infringement by Creative Assembly.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same with the inevitable CK3, having the title of that game be either "Crusader Kings 3: #subtitle goes here#" or " #new main title#: Crusader Kings", since the scope of that game series have also changed dramatically.
Maybe because the game has diverged enough from the EU series compared to the earlier one.
Also because they are probably trying to create an entirely new series with "Imperator" for multiple future sequels and titles.
Also because they are probably trying to create an entirely new series with "Imperator" for multiple future sequels and titles.
I assumed they were trolling because of all the 'when is Rome 2 coming out?' questions.
The old name was annoying: EU: Rome wasn't that much more like EU than other EU spin-offs (CK, Vicky, HoI), but was marketed as such likely to boost sales. sine the sequel will now use the long DLC model, it'll likely be more and more different from EU so the name will be even less justified.
I wouldn't be surprised if they just want to call it Imperator now, but kept the Rome part of the title because it's the sequel to the game we all like to call Rome.
I wouldn't be surprised if they just want to call it Imperator now, but kept the Rome part of the title because it's the sequel to the game we all like to call Rome.
The question is: Which design/game mistakes of EU:Rome should be NOT make their way into Imperator:Rome?
Because EU: Rome was Europa Universalis: Rome which implied it was a Spinoff of Europa Universalis and not it's own game. Imperator: Rome is a own IP just like Victoria, Crusader Kings, Stellaris etc. It would make no sense to call it 'Europa Universalis: Rome' if it is it's own game.
I think the sequel will be Imperator 2.
"Imperator: Rome" is a good compromise between creating a "Rome 2" and also having a new series which stands in its own right and is not a spinoff of Europa Universalis.
"Imperator: Rome" is a good compromise between creating a "Rome 2" and also having a new series which stands in its own right and is not a spinoff of Europa Universalis.
This. And the difference between imperator and eu4 seems to be much larger than that between eu: rome and eu3
As someone already said, I would say that their main idea was creating a new core ip separate from Europa Universalis.
Actually, a game about antiquity should not be called 'Europa' at all. Not only because what we call Europe today was not the most important part of the ancient world. Merely thanks to the fact that if ancient people had known the name 'Europa' in the first place, they would have considered it 'a name of a woman abducted by a bull'.
I honestly think that all of the unique Rome mechanics were good ones and that the only problems were in the implementation / balance rather than being conceptual.
Most of what we have heard so far suggests that this game is going to represent an evolution directly from EU:Rome with refined mechanics (and addition of monarch power) rather than it drawing directly from EU4. I'm not sure if there were any mechanics in EU:Rome which felt entirely unnecessary or negatively influencing the game. I wouldn't miss combat events, I don't think that they work all that well with a game on this scale, and I suspect that they are going to be folded into the new combat system with different tactics options etc.
The cynic in me wants to say that EU:Rome was a disappointment they would rather have forgotten.
The real answer is probably that EU:Rome was a long time ago, didn't make much impact to still be remembered, and they don't want this seen as a mere variation of EU but as its own thing.
I hope they don't throw out all the ideas in EU:Rome. Some of those were quite good, particularly having individual units build loyalties to their generals. The omens and internal politics systems had good bones, though imho they didn't quite work as well as hoped.
The real answer is probably that EU:Rome was a long time ago, didn't make much impact to still be remembered, and they don't want this seen as a mere variation of EU but as its own thing.
I hope they don't throw out all the ideas in EU:Rome. Some of those were quite good, particularly having individual units build loyalties to their generals. The omens and internal politics systems had good bones, though imho they didn't quite work as well as hoped.