Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

So I've become intrigued enough with this game to purchase it.  The EU IV base game was just a dollar more, go figure.  Mainly picking it up because the era is so interesting.

Personally, I think this game is just a test platform for CK3.  Would have been less pissed off by them doing that if I had realized the full implications of that with Sengoku.  Would not advise purchasing at full price with that information.  Apparently, the previous EU: Rome was the exact same thing (almost think it might have been the test platform for the original Crusader Kings).

[pisskop]

One of the first things you learn about behavioral psychology is that you can reinforce a behavior best by adding mixed rewards.  Sometimes you give them a good game, sometimes you sell them your beta sandbox to playtest and complain about

[scriver]

Crusader Kings 1 was not developed in-house. Paradox developing teams only stepped in at the end to finish it because something fell through.

[Cruxador]

Personally, I think this game is just a test platform for CK3.

That isn't consistent with the amount of marketing it received. Although most of the game effort is clearly put into underlying systems, there's a lot of very substantial difference compared to the focus of CK3, and the most essential (character-based) features of CK3 aren't present in any form in Imperator, they have a totally different system instead. From my perspective, they honestly in that they flubbed the design. Just because they've made great games in the past doesn't mean that they can only make great games, and their competence is that of mortals, not of gods. There's a saying: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"; while the wording of that is harsher than I'd be inclined to be, the fact is that it's very easy for a designer to get stuck in the weeds of simulationism and forget to make solid gameplay, especially when the gameplay loop is basically the same as what's worked before and the differences that can make a game thrive or fail are often very non-obvious.

[EuchreJack]

Well, I've gotten a chance to fiddle around with Imperator: Rome, and I have to say, it's not trying to be Crusader Kings.  It's somewhat misleading in that it actually details characters, but I get more of a EU/Victoria vibe from it overall.

Maybe I haven't played it enough, but I wouldn't call it a "bad" game per se.  I imagine most of the hatred is because it's not CK, other games have set the bar pretty high, and it seems to be at the end of its development cycle even though it could be so much better.

Crusader Kings 1 was not developed in-house. Paradox developing teams only stepped in at the end to finish it because something fell through.

Yeah, I forgot about that, so ignore most of my speculation on that.  Although Paradox gets credit for getting it to work.

It's mildly interesting to review Paradox's rise to its current state and how they're viewed.  They used to an unknown, then an indy, then a developer, and now they're treated like an A developer (still not AAA, not yet at least).  And now I've been reading about the complaints of their business model.  I'm sorry folks, their business model hasn't really changed in any of those stages, its only got more refined.

I don't really buy the whole "we can't fix it, we're moving on".  It seems kinda disingenuous.  I think its more realistically "we're not going to make as much money fixing this as we could make on a new project, so we're moving on".  They know they're going to make tons of cash on CK3 if they can avoid flubbing it, so they're putting their staff on that project and pulling them from upgrading this one.  Although again, they did release an update just a month ago, so at least they improved it before pulling out.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were a couple more updates released as their people get an idea or two and "relax" from the CK3 development by working on this.

[Cruxador]

It's mildly interesting to review Paradox's rise to its current state and how they're viewed.  They used to an unknown, then an indy, then a developer, and now they're treated like an A developer (still not AAA, not yet at least).  And now I've been reading about the complaints of their business model.  I'm sorry folks, their business model hasn't really changed in any of those stages, its only got more refined.

This reflects a general market change and not just them, but prior to CK2 they made a couple expansions, not a shit-ton of DLC. That's a pretty substantive change. And they've actually improved their pre-launch QA substantially just before CK2 as well. I don't think there's been a major change since then, but new Paradox is definitely different from the indy dev they used to be. And that's just their own games, there's more to discuss on the publishing side (and more recent) but it's not really relevant to Imperator.

[nautilu]

I was so excited about Imperator, it was going to be my first game purchase in years. I spent months in the forums, until I realized they werent really listening to feedback at all. After it came out it was obvious Johan pitched the idea of a simplified multiplayer quick match ala HOI4, set in the ancient era, to his bosses. He literally said they delivered the game they meant to make and dismissed all criticism. Im sure they did. Every mechanic except multiplayer war was glossed over or half baked. Mana was used because its the laziest way to put timers into the game to slow it down.
To PDX it was hugely successful. They burned the fans for a quick payout. They alienated the forums and banned a lot of critics. I knew all was lost when Johan literally said he doesnt know where to go with this title. Despite saying they would not abandon it, I knew they didnt have a clue how to fix it, because they never listened to what was wrong in the first place. Here it is a year later and they still dont. Arheo took over and the games still hasnt nailed down its mechanics loop or purpose.
I have no problem with DLC. It extends the life of popular products. Its not always a good business decision but thats up to the publisher. It should never be an asset flip tho. Would you buy an asset flipped game of another popular title? It should have something unique to it or extend it beyond the original. Instead of one extra color of solider, or one extra ending it should be a post ending quest or new mechanics.

[LoSboccacc]

same with eu:rome, most of the interesting ck stuff weren't included. same with stellaris, got burned there as well with a game that's puddle deep.

most of this come from confusing paradox publisher with paradox dev, which I've since learned, even if at my expenses.

[Cruxador]

To PDX it was hugely successful.

Well, sort of but not really. They sold plenty of launch copies, but Paradox normally relies on continuing playerbase to sell DLC, and the playerbase of Imperator mostly quit playing right out the gate. It can be considered a success only in the short term, which isn't what Paradox wants from their games.

[Sartain]

I was so excited about Imperator, it was going to be my first game purchase in years. I spent months in the forums, until I realized they werent really listening to feedback at all. After it came out it was obvious Johan pitched the idea of a simplified multiplayer quick match ala HOI4, set in the ancient era, to his bosses. He literally said they delivered the game they meant to make and dismissed all criticism. Im sure they did. Every mechanic except multiplayer war was glossed over or half baked. Mana was used because its the laziest way to put timers into the game to slow it down.
To PDX it was hugely successful. They burned the fans for a quick payout. They alienated the forums and banned a lot of critics. I knew all was lost when Johan literally said he doesnt know where to go with this title. Despite saying they would not abandon it, I knew they didnt have a clue how to fix it, because they never listened to what was wrong in the first place. Here it is a year later and they still dont. Arheo took over and the games still hasnt nailed down its mechanics loop or purpose.
I have no problem with DLC. It extends the life of popular products. Its not always a good business decision but thats up to the publisher. It should never be an asset flip tho. Would you buy an asset flipped game of another popular title? It should have something unique to it or extend it beyond the original. Instead of one extra color of solider, or one extra ending it should be a post ending quest or new mechanics.

I feel like there's a similar issue going on with Stellaris, once you start to dig into it and realise how half-baked and poorly balanced many of its features and concepts are. Especially since many of the systems have been nerfed and adjusted in the name of said balance but I don't actually think anyone actually compared the number-mechanics of all the various tacked-on systems we now have to each, meaning that most of the newer stuff basically exists in a vacuum (haha) and the older stuff hasn't been updated to consider the newer stuff. So many terrible design choices 

As for Imperator, I've put maybe 6 hours into it and it is pretty but ultimately so damn boring. Clik mana to win, the game has no sense of anything you doing being relevant for anything other than the sake of doing it.

[nautilu]

I feel like there's a similar issue going on with Stellaris, once you start to dig into it and realise how half-baked and poorly balanced many of its features and concepts are. Especially since many of the systems have been nerfed and adjusted in the name of said balance but I don't actually think anyone actually compared the number-mechanics of all the various tacked-on systems we now have to each, meaning that most of the newer stuff basically exists in a vacuum (haha) and the older stuff hasn't been updated to consider the newer stuff. So many terrible design choices 

As for Imperator, I've put maybe 6 hours into it and it is pretty but ultimately so damn boring. Clik mana to win, the game has no sense of anything you doing being relevant for anything other than the sake of doing it.

I tried Stellaris and it was ok for one playthrough, but it seemed like I experienced everything it had to offer so I stopped. Thats probably how it feels after every update. I think PDX is really lacking design creativity. Players expect each game mechanic to have a well thought out reason. Like it was someones job to chart all the connections and effects of things to make a balanced game. PDX is just winging it with a +1% manpower, +20% enemy attrition, etc all over the place. They leave it to the modders to fix.
I have no faith PDX will change for the better. They are moving into mobile gaming. CK3 may be cross platform, but it will be streamlined for phones.

[EuchreJack]

I'm still in the early enjoyment stage of Imperator: Rome, but I'm having fun.  I imagine that I'll get my 40 hours of gameplay out of it.

I can't help to think that the reason its hated is:
1) It was much worse at release (I only bought it recently)
2) It's not as good as Crusader Kings 2 or EU4.

Basically, if this was the first game that a developer made, and it was the same quality as today, would people actually like it?

[nautilu]

I'm still in the early enjoyment stage of Imperator: Rome, but I'm having fun.  I imagine that I'll get my 40 hours of gameplay out of it.

I can't help to think that the reason its hated is:
1) It was much worse at release (I only bought it recently)
2) It's not as good as Crusader Kings 2 or EU4.

Basically, if this was the first game that a developer made, and it was the same quality as today, would people actually like it?

It was many factors. You're 1 and 2 are correct.
3. Game was extremely shallow for the price. Even if it wasnt fwith other PDX titles, it was a little high. It's actual worth was around $10-20, which I think is how much it costs on sale now.
4. PDX did not listen to fans. They also did not listen to their play testers and QA department.
5. Their game director was extremely rude to the players. Criticisms were banned from their forums, even ones made with good intentions.
6. There was some suspicion of bought good reviews. Every reviewer gave it high ratings without mentioning the obvious flaws.
7. Lack of Quality control with many bugs, errors, and a game breaking stuttering issue they ignored. It was amazing they let this game out. Its almost like no one played it prior to release.
8. Lack of direction post launch, their prior dlc policy, conflicting statements from their developers.

Probably more I havent mentioned. Their forums are a ghost town now. A game that is less than a year old with a max of 1500 players per day, with daily forum activity of dozens of people, half of which are people complaining of bugs, game breaking bugs still not fixed.. points to a borked project.

They think they can keep getting away with this. All I know is that it really made me reconsider ever buying anything from PDX, even their non strategy titles. I would expect to wait a minimum of a year of anything they publish to see if its well made.

[Sartain]

Paradox definitely dug their own grave with regards to Imperator and I guess to some extent Stellaris. Long-time fanboys (like me) have come to expect a certain level of quality and depth that they simply haven't managed to make with either of those titles (Stellaris has the mechanics but there's no real design philosophy behind the choices you make). At least Imperator still has the chance to become something through expansions, though I doubt it as its harsh to support a dead game

[Trolldefender99]

A lot of people aren't happy with the Paradox launcher either. Now to be forward, I can't confirm these and they may be false, mistaken or lies. But there are reports of keyloggers being put in, trackers on launcher to track peoples activities to show them ads (ads that can have nothing to do with paradox games), launcher that outright breaks any and all mods (this one I can confirm) and overall does feel like a complete spyware style program more than a launcher. But I'm not sure how much is true or not besides it breaking mods. Very different than say GOG galaxy, which is a launcher but doesn't have all that junk in it.