Worth buying?

[Swuul]

Well I clearly haven't attained the level of en1337enment where I can detect a 'deep system' at the heart of the game, no.

You don't like the game because it is too shallow in your opinion, fair enough. I think you have not spent enough time with the game to utter such an opinion. No need to go to personal insults because of that, is there?

I like the game because it has many more cross-affecting factors than seen in other Paradox games; every decission you take affect usually many aspects, there are no single no-brainer options in the game. Yes, in SP the game can get dull and boring (the AI really simply is not good enough to take advantage of all the possibilities, which means a human player can (just like in all wargames) invent one trick and "win" with it without a sweat), yes there are things that should/could be streamlined (senate matters in republics (the character systems works IMO excellently for kingdoms and tribes, but can get quite clunky in republics), omens should be more automated, make the different things affecting military more obvious (oh how nice it would have visible in the military screen all the things affecting discipline, offense/defense, reorganisation, morale (instead of just showing the general morale level as seen now), etc), but does those make the game shallow?

The game has so much in it, but the things are so damn well hidden Personally I like to dig up the deep structure, but I can freely admit others might not. Still, please don't call the game shallow if you have not bothered to check the things going on under the hood.

 

[unmerged(42723)]

I think it's not very deep.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

...

OK, thanks for expanding. You're right in that I've never tried it in MP.

 

[Moogel]

i bought vv during the sale and have been playing since. New chances make the game better and more fun. Its more straightforward that EU3 in various options you can make, but has cause and effects enough to force player to consider choises.
In my current game as rome i used great military leaders from captured nations in my armies. That was ok as long military, merc or civic parties in charge. But as religious was chosen as consul i got a mission to purge all non roman religion men from offices.
Also avoiding populist party consuls takes effort, i had populist party leader as next consul and was wondering to assassinate him or what. Problem went away as i started war to fulfill a mission, that war increased military leaders popularity and he was chosen as consul instead. Few years after populist party leader committed suicide. CK and Rome tend to create great stories

 

[Landwalker]

The game has so much in it, but the things are so damn well hidden

This, here, is the primary problem, and is a recurring one throughout Paradox's lineup. The games are very complex, and very deep, and I love that. But the games are also horribly documented and have utterly worthless tutorials, leaving a new player with at best a very basic knowledge of the superficial effects of a handful of the hundreds of possible decisions they can make and no understanding of how those decisions tie together or how they (the player) should interact with them.

Rome is not a bad a game, and it is not a shallow game (although whether or not it is a narrow game is another matter), but unless you have the patience, it is a very frustrating game. Like all other Paradox games, the best place to learn the game is the forums -- asking questions, no matter how stupid they might seem to you (that said, do read the manual, however bad it is, to avoid the most basic questions), in order to benefit from the collective experience. If it weren't for the forums, I wouldn't know that Populist faction members could convert their allegiance, I wouldn't know that there is a minimum attribute threshold for a governor to be able to convert a province's culture, and I wouldn't know a lot of other things about the game -- and the same holds true for Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis III. The forums are your best resource to learn the nuances of the game, but that learning is going to require a lot more patience than most other games demand. Of course, that makes it all the more rewarding in the end (assuming you reach the end).

Cheers.

 

[Marcus Scipio]

Most players like a straightforward game with a clear goal. Defeat the enemy, conquer the world of be the first to reach the moon. These are (mostly) wargamers. Some other players like interaction, like in 'Diplomacy'. Those people play mostly RPG's.

Most Paradox games have elements of both kind of games in them, tough some emphasise more on the wargame-element, like HoI, and can be played purely as such. Rome can't, as it lacks certain elements which you see in HoUI and EU. For some people that is a disappointment.
Rome is more of an RPG, and people who like RPG's (and no, RPG's are not First person shooters which happen to have a narratory element) will find the deeper layers which consist of Roleplaying and Diplomacy.

As such Jarkko is correct. And as such, BeBro is too.

 

[Bertouch]

Defeat the enemy, conquer the world of be the first to reach the moon. These are (mostly) wargamers. Some other players like interaction, like in 'Diplomacy'. Those people play mostly RPG's.

I think you'll find that most RPG players rank in order of game interest, combat, combat, and then, finally, combat. Not all RPGers, of course, but the majority, who can talk about nothing save boss monsters, the weapons and armor they've found, etc. What RPGs did you have in mind? Just curious. Surely a product like the celebrated Planescape: Torment is all the way to one side, and unrepresentative.

As for Rome, I would call it a strategy title that includes both state and character management. I don't think it does the first as well as EU3, and the second still needs considerable work. Hopefully Imperium will take up the slack Paradox left, though it's a shame the company didn't release a second add-on to further strengthen the core game. With all their resources now in HoI 3, the chances of getting what Rome needs are pretty slim.

 

[Marcus Scipio]

I think you'll find that most RPG players rank in order of game interest, combat, combat, and then, finally, combat. Not all RPGers, of course, but the majority, who can talk about nothing save boss monsters, the weapons and armor they've found, etc. What RPGs did you have in mind?

When I talk about RPG's, I am not talking about the combat oriented PC games you see hanging around, but the original, pen-and-paper ones (of which some are quite well converted to PC or console). One of the best assets of RPG's is character creation or development. Sure, it's fun to boast about that defeated dragon, but isn't it at least as much fun if your character managed to steal part of his horde as a thief? Personally, I think a lvl 20 Thief or Druid is much more fun then a lvl 25 fighter.

Just curious. Surely a product like the celebrated Planescape: Torment is all the way to one side, and unrepresentative.

Actually, that is quite a good an example. Fun game for people who like to be a fighter and thrash the enemy, but it lacks depth. Right? Unless you play as a wizard, set combat to easy and see the real story develop ('Don't thrust the freakin' skull!')

As for Rome, I would call it a strategy title that includes both state and character management. I don't think it does the first as well as EU3, and the second still needs considerable work. Hopefully Imperium will take up the slack Paradox left, though it's a shame the company didn't release a second add-on to further strengthen the core game.

I quite agree with you, and it's indeed good to see that the community steps in to the gap left with Imperium. Perhaps the critics should try this mod and start playing instead of nagging on the fora...

 

[unmerged(84132)]

I quite agree with you, and it's indeed good to see that the community steps in to the gap left with Imperium. Perhaps the critics should try this mod and start playing instead of nagging on the fora...

It should not be the job of modders to fix blatant problems in games and that is what they have had to do with EU Rome.

Rome has alot of great ideas, I just wish they (Paradox) would have taken more time to polish the game.

 

[Bertouch]

When I talk about RPG's, I am not talking about the combat oriented PC games you see hanging around, but the original, pen-and-paper ones (of which some are quite well converted to PC or console). One of the best assets of RPG's is character creation or development. Sure, it's fun to boast about that defeated dragon, but isn't it at least as much fun if your character managed to steal part of his horde as a thief? Personally, I think a lvl 20 Thief or Druid is much more fun then a lvl 25 fighter.

Fair enough! And I agree completely. You can separate out the true RPGers from the action kiddie crowd by looking at what they play, and how much of their imagination is truly engaged by the product.

Actually, that is quite a good an example. Fun game for people who like to be a fighter and thrash the enemy, but it lacks depth. Right? Unless you play as a wizard, set combat to easy and see the real story develop ('Don't thrust the freakin' skull!')

PS:T is easily the best computer-based RPG--if you play it the second way, that is.

I quite agree with you, and it's indeed good to see that the community steps in to the gap left with Imperium. Perhaps the critics should try this mod and start playing instead of nagging on the fora...

I've yet to see a review of Magna Mundi, either, so what are the chances of Imperium getting one? Neither Ubik nor Descartes spend enough PR money or advertising dollars to make it worthwhile for a magazine or game site, sadly.

 

[Bertouch]

It should not be the job of modders to fix blatant problems in games and that is what they have had to do with EU Rome.

All the more reason to praise people who spend their energy, time, and expertise doing exactly that. But I agree with you. Still, what can we do? Give us some other options. I don't think "stop buying their games" will accomplish much that's positive.

Rome has alot of great ideas, I just wish they (Paradox) would have taken more time to polish the game.

I would suggest that it is pretty polished, thanks in part to all our free beta-testing for them. What it lacks is depth.

 

[unmerged(76560)]

I don't think "stop buying their games" will accomplish much that's positive.

I agree, but we don't have neither to buy all their games. The OP asked our opinion on how good we find this game. Some of us don't enjoy it, say why, and advise to try maybe another title from paradox.
By explaining what we like or dislike, we also help paradox to make better games, i think.

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

Most players like a straightforward game with a clear goal. Defeat the enemy, conquer the world of be the first to reach the moon. These are (mostly) wargamers. Some other players like interaction, like in 'Diplomacy'. Those people play mostly RPG's.

Most Paradox games have elements of both kind of games in them, tough some emphasise more on the wargame-element, like HoI, and can be played purely as such. Rome can't, as it lacks certain elements which you see in HoUI and EU. For some people that is a disappointment.
Rome is more of an RPG, and people who like RPG's (and no, RPG's are not First person shooters which happen to have a narratory element) will find the deeper layers which consist of Roleplaying and Diplomacy.

As such Jarkko is correct. And as such, BeBro is too.

I like nothing more than the roleplaying aspect of Paradox games, and therefor enjoy CK so much. But i never managed to get attached to the characters in Rome somehow, ´perhaps because on the one hand it really is very deep in this aspect and my brain cant emotionally be attached to a whole political class. Also the hard to remember names may have something to do with it, but mostly it is because there is no "you" in Rome if you know what i mean. The good guys cant win basically ;-)
Also there are some minor flaws very bad for the roleplaying aspect, like the lack of women and most characters just popping up instead of huge branches of families like in CK. I must admit : Characters in CK are persons for me, while in Rome they are just stats. Thats the main problem why i dont get attached to the game.
Also the playing field just isnt big enough for interesting stories, games tend to be very much the same anytime you play for the lack of provinces you can conquer. This wouldnt be such a problem if there was a deep cultural and diplomatical background to the game. But while diplomacy has many options it just isnt very essential to the game and you can basically ignore it. There should be more interaction between the states.
With the historical aspect i mean that you just dont get the feeling to play a game in ancient time. The world is so sterile you think you play on Mars sometimes. All we know from ancient history is very much based on its culture. So give us Olympics, Myth and things like that.
The game in a nutshell is: Conquer province X that isnt much different from province Y and look to keep the populists out oif the senate...thats not enough to entertain me. That being said: EU III vanilla wasnt much better, so there still is hope, mostly in Descartes work... what willsurely always be a problem is the unbalanced setup of countries and map. Dont know how much projects like RIMP can change this. A bigger map isnt necessarily a better one, i personally fear the huge landmass to the east unbalance the game even more.

 

[Marcus Scipio]

Fair enough! And I agree completely. You can
I've yet to see a review of Magna Mundi, either, so what are the chances of Imperium getting one? Neither Ubik nor Descartes spend enough PR money or advertising dollars to make it worthwhile for a magazine or game site, sadly.

I meant the critics on the forum here....

 

[Bertouch]

I meant the critics on the forum here....

Well, we have two sets of critics, from my perspective:

1) The ones who automatically hate it all. Doom, gloom, Heliogabalus in charge, it's all going to hell, anyway.

2) The ones who have a balanced view, and may play (or even create) mods, but want to focus on Bethsoft's game because they desire improvements in the hard code, itself.

It appears to me that Imperium doesn't get the respect it deserves, but that's probably because few of us tout it. On the other hand, there are several members on the MMP team in the EU3 forums who regularly mention it, and Ubik of course includes a colorful sig with links. So advertising is as much a part of the problem, here.

...and by the way, if anybody is reading this who doesn't know what we're talking about, it's a mod called Imperium. And this is a list of its features.

 

[unmerged(42723)]

I'm mostly critic because I like P'dox' games in general and wish to see improvements in certain fields. If I wouldn't care, I wouldn't post at all.

 

[Octavio]

the clearly distinguishable governmental systems + the character overview make it, in my opinion, a must have for every EU gamer.

 

[unmerged(84132)]

the clearly distinguishable governmental systems + the character overview make it, in my opinion, a must have for every EU gamer.

This is where I think there is some lack of polish. I like the fact that in Rome, governments actually mean something (where in EU3 they do not). However, having a senate is more of a pain than it is fun.

To me it does not make sense that people gain civic faction when you refuse to build buildings, gain merchant faction when you refuse to trade, gain military faction when you refuse to make people generals, and gain religious faction when you refuse to make omens. It should be the exact opposite.

Why would you want to join a religious faction when nobody cares about religion? Why would you want to join the military faction when you army is poorly managed? You wouldn't. It seems to me that people are drawn to populist parties when their country is failing on some level, not succeeding.

Also, It seems that if you play the game correctly, you get punished for making intelligent decisions.

This game has very little power balance. It is almost like there is Rome and there is everyone else. An expansion pack that makes the start date earlier (when Rome was just a collection of city states), would make it more interesting to play Carthage, to play Greece, to play Egypt because you are more on equal footings.

Yes, it can still be fun to play as Greece, but if Rome wants to attack you at the start, you pretty much lose.

 

[Garak]

I like nothing more than the roleplaying aspect of Paradox games, and therefor enjoy CK so much. But i never managed to get attached to the characters in Rome somehow, ´perhaps because on the one hand it really is very deep in this aspect and my brain cant emotionally be attached to a whole political class. Also the hard to remember names may have something to do with it, but mostly it is because there is no "you" in Rome if you know what i mean. The good guys cant win basically ;-)
Also there are some minor flaws very bad for the roleplaying aspect, like the lack of women and most characters just popping up instead of huge branches of families like in CK. I must admit : Characters in CK are persons for me, while in Rome they are just stats. Thats the main problem why i dont get attached to the game.
Also the playing field just isnt big enough for interesting stories, games tend to be very much the same anytime you play for the lack of provinces you can conquer. This wouldnt be such a problem if there was a deep cultural and diplomatical background to the game. But while diplomacy has many options it just isnt very essential to the game and you can basically ignore it. There should be more interaction between the states.

Weirdly enough, although I enjoy the game very much, I also agree with most of this, especially the bit about characters. I love CK. It's probably my favorite Paradox game, but I agree that the characters in this game are much harder to keep track of or care about. But, like I said, I still like the game and would buy it again.

 

[Nats]

I bought this game after having played the demo quite a bit and then decided to buy EU3 IN instead becuase I thought bigger was better! But after playing EU3 for a while I got really bored and quit it. I just felt there wasnt any soul. But This Rome game kept sitting in the back of my mind and evetually I bought in over Steam with the VV expansion. I really enjoy the narrower setting from EU3 and I seem to enjoy the warfare more as its more intense and wider ranging than the limited EU3 conflicts. But for me by far the best bit about Rome is the characters - they are really interesting. They create their own stories and histories you can dabble in being a god and affecting their lives its kind of addictive. Plus all the factors of the game seem so wel interwoven that there seems to be always something interesting happening not like EU3.

I guess in answer yes its almost the same game as EU3 except it looks far better, is far more involving and atmospheric and you are playing in a vastly brutal time when wars were fought often so unlike EU3 you seem to be fighting a lot of the time and in fact are expected to be at war unlike EU34 where you struggle when at war. And when not at war the characters carry the game.

I like Rome far more than EU3.