Bad Game?

[ShySkullDice]

This game isn't bad lol far from it, Why do people get so mad around video games.?

When played like EUIV it's better than EUIV easily, This is why I don't listen to opinion unless it's my own opinion because my own opinion is the only opinion that isn't biased lol

This game isn't bad and actually it's micro manager tool for armies is way better than any other feature they've ever done in any of their titles.

I think people don't like the game for 1 to 2 reasons.

1. You don't understand how to play it
2. You don't like games that are built for scaling because with pops this game is just one huge scaling simulator but it's not bad at all

The only bad parts to this game from what I played of it on someone else's computer was the character system is irrelevant the character don't matter at all outside of just rank and the politics is really boring but it's early roman era so obviously the politics are boring

Other than that the game is solid. To be fair to Paradox though if I hate to read all them crap posts about how bad the game is when it isn't I would have left development too lol

You guys overall should complain less and give positive constructive feedback otherwise how do you expect for anything to ever improve?

There is enough in the game though it's awesome don't listen to horrendous opinion on the game decide for yourself if it is worth it for you ^^

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by Krischel:

Originally posted by duncanjmcintyre:

It's a great game, I'm playing with 'Invictus', 'Better UI' and 'Full mechanical overhaul' and the mods are great, they take it to a whole new level.

AND that's why!
First "buyers" have to make the effort to make a "semi-finished" game what it should actually be. In addition, there is also the DLC policy, especially from Paradox!
I'm 59 years old and have been playing games, especially strategy, for 40 years. Yes, even if I come across as "old-fashioned" now, publishers used to release games that didn't even need to be patched (CIV1)... and why not....no real internet!
Nothing is sacred to publishers these days, including unfinished games that are released under time pressure ... and if someone then complains, blocking them on their own forum page! ... THIS is called "decadence" by the way!
For me, the problem is that it's all about money and not about producing a diamond and going down in history, like Sid Meyer!
YES, everything used to be better for me, even the future!

I agree 100% its all about the money i just don't get how gamer's can accept half finished games as the norm nowadays , If paradox had a member of the board with some balls and actually suggested releasing a game that was more fleshed out for more money i think IR would have been a success.

Imperator Rome £59.99 with a fully fleshed out game mechanic with optional cosmetic DLC like Unit sprites i pretty sure the game would have been a huge success however some bright spark decided to flog a half baked game and try to deceive PDX fans that its the norm for Paradox games to do this just accept it but of course Joe Public did the opposite and rebelled.

CA have done the same they have gone from a company who made creative and push the boundaries games that made some profit to a copy and paste boring cartoonist multi million dollar company you have to blame the public for buying the trash games made after 2013.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

It's not decadence, it's addiction.
The video game market works like any other addictive products market. Just read some players: they just want more. More flavor stuffs even, not current deeper impacting mechanics. No. Skins. Little side (useless) missions. Anything to feel a bit more. They're unsatisfied with what they have while what they have currently is better than what we used to have in 80-90's or even before.
They don't mind paying crazy prices to get the game before it's even on beta. Early access works because many players are addicts. We used to be paid to test games. Now they pay to work for developers without even realizing they work by sending feedbacks. Without realizing that's addiction kicking and there's nothing nice about it.
Any market with plenty of innovations and a good consumer base tend to see its prices decrease on the long term (because costs decrease). And dematerialization should have make prices decrease for most "AAA" games. It only did with some, but he mostly did for indie developers. Take a FIFA. There's one every single year and the price is about 20-30€ more than during the late 90's while the game is mostly a copy/paste of the previous one. Goods with an increasing marginal utility are specific to addictive markets in economy.

Companies are just benefiting from that, at least in short-mid term period. And it's even worse: companies that don't follow those addicts get bashed by this noisy addict public. And they are under pressure, they're investors pushing in addition to this public. No wonder there're studies warning about screens, serie binging, competitive internet,... It's a thing. Video games don't make people serial killers, but can be harmful for people with social fragilities, sleeping issues,... It's not kicking as hard as alcohol or tobacco, but it may be problematic to some. And the market is growing big time, even 0.1% of people is enough when we're speaking millions of people, even more. Even people that aren't into video games like sometimes play on they phone without noticing they're into video games now. This is not geeky or nerdy anymore, it's becoming an habit, a routine for some.
Again, it's not decadence, it's just part of our constant innovative period the internet brought few decades ago. It's reshaping plenty of stuff. Some for the better, some for the worse.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

It's not decadence, it's addiction.
The video game market works like any other addictive products market. Just read some players: they just want more. More flavor stuffs even, not current deeper impacting mechanics. No. Skins. Little side (useless) missions. Anything to feel a bit more. They're unsatisfied with what they have while what they have currently is better than what we used to have in 80-90's or even before.
They don't mind paying crazy prices to get the game before it's even on beta. Early access works because many players are addicts. We used to be paid to test games. Now they pay to work for developers without even realizing they work by sending feedbacks. Without realizing that's addiction kicking and there's nothing nice about it.
Any market with plenty of innovations and a good consumer base tend to see its prices decrease on the long term (because costs decrease). And dematerialization should have make prices decrease for most "AAA" games. It only did with some, but he mostly did for indie developers. Take a FIFA. There's one every single year and the price is about 20-30€ more than during the late 90's while the game is mostly a copy/paste of the previous one. Goods with an increasing marginal utility are specific to addictive markets in economy.

Companies are just benefiting from that, at least in short-mid term period. And it's even worse: companies that don't follow those addicts get bashed by this noisy addict public. And they are under pressure, they're investors pushing in addition to this public. No wonder there're studies warning about screens, serie binging, competitive internet,... It's a thing. Video games don't make people serial killers, but can be harmful for people with social fragilities, sleeping issues,... It's not kicking as hard as alcohol or tobacco, but it may be problematic to some. And the market is growing big time, even 0.1% of people is enough when we're speaking millions of people, even more. Even people that aren't into video games like sometimes play on they phone without noticing they're into video games now. This is not geeky or nerdy anymore, it's becoming an habit, a routine for some.
Again, it's not decadence, it's just part of our constant innovative period the internet brought few decades ago. It's reshaping plenty of stuff. Some for the better, some for the worse.

Well wrote and i cant fault you , Your right of course i don't think we will ever go back to the Golden era of games before 2013 that's not to say those games were perfect but they did have the element of being complete but of course PDX broke that mold and paved the way for the selling of game mechanics.

[Shibbyland]

It's funny that <2013 is considered the golden era of games. I'd really never considered it but now you've put a number on it, I think that's probably right.

AAA titles have been terrible for a long time. Early access games used to be alright but became a plague and I almost never buy early access now.

Some of the games I've enjoyed most came out 2008-2010. I buy a lot less games than I used to and franchises I would pre-order, I don't even buy on sale anymore.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

I don't know, I'd place it around the 2000's. "Before Steam" (the "Jesus" of multiplayers) and the growing intrications between Steam and developers. It kicked me when I bought Civization V and was forced into creating a Steam account to be able to play it.
Yet, I think this is a new golden era of video games. There's plenty of great games from unknown developers (I can name Underrail which is great, Black Book that has a great ambiance, Ori, Pathfinder,...). Too much. Like books. And plenty are just fine and don't need patching. My preferences go to games I enjoyed when I was a kid and a teen, so late 80's and the 90's, but it's mostly because I was discovering, it was stimulating.

I buy few games all alone. The Humble Choice is still a great way to discover new stuff and get some big hits from time to time without spending more than 9€ a month.

[Jiggy]

Originally posted by Krischel:

-snip-

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

-snip-

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

-snip-

Originally posted by Shibbyland:

-snip-

We had a discussion on similar lines on other board.

There are some 'present day' facts we need to understand.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/289070/discussions/0/3825284144461962826/?ctp=2#c3825284575368023411

[Shibbyland]

Originally posted by Jiggy:

Originally posted by Krischel:

-snip-

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

-snip-

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

-snip-

Originally posted by Shibbyland:

-snip-

We had a discussion on similar lines on other board.

There are some 'present day' facts we need to understand.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/289070/discussions/0/3825284144461962826/?ctp=2#c3825284575368023411

All fair points. The thing is, there are certain companies that it doesn't matter how well they market, how good their trailer is, how good the reviews are, I won't buy anything they make because they are objectively s**t.

I pay no attention to reviewers, instead I rely on discussions like this, a small number of youtubers and the ability to refund.

[(ZX-S) sceptre]

Yes the DLC's have given relevance to a lot of paradox titles that really have gone well past there due date, not to say that most of their games are not worth playing because they are. What the DLC do is stop creative balance that should go toward a new IP instead of the same old old old old way of thinking ( biggest problem of the world is old senile poeple in charge of the MAJORITIES lives, just because you live longer doesnt mean you have all your marbles LOL ) The video game industry has gone into dairy farming and they milk all of us like the cows we are.

[Krischel]

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

It's not decadence, it's addiction.
The video game market works like any other addictive products market. Just read some players: they just want more. More flavor stuffs even, not current deeper impacting mechanics. No. Skins. Little side (useless) missions. Anything to feel a bit more. They're unsatisfied with what they have while what they have currently is better than what we used to have in 80-90's or even before.
They don't mind paying crazy prices to get the game before it's even on beta. Early access works because many players are addicts. We used to be paid to test games. Now they pay to work for developers without even realizing they work by sending feedbacks. Without realizing that's addiction kicking and there's nothing nice about it.
Any market with plenty of innovations and a good consumer base tend to see its prices decrease on the long term (because costs decrease). And dematerialization should have make prices decrease for most "AAA" games. It only did with some, but he mostly did for indie developers. Take a FIFA. There's one every single year and the price is about 20-30€ more than during the late 90's while the game is mostly a copy/paste of the previous one. Goods with an increasing marginal utility are specific to addictive markets in economy.

Companies are just benefiting from that, at least in short-mid term period. And it's even worse: companies that don't follow those addicts get bashed by this noisy addict public. And they are under pressure, they're investors pushing in addition to this public. No wonder there're studies warning about screens, serie binging, competitive internet,... It's a thing. Video games don't make people serial killers, but can be harmful for people with social fragilities, sleeping issues,... It's not kicking as hard as alcohol or tobacco, but it may be problematic to some. And the market is growing big time, even 0.1% of people is enough when we're speaking millions of people, even more. Even people that aren't into video games like sometimes play on they phone without noticing they're into video games now. This is not geeky or nerdy anymore, it's becoming an habit, a routine for some.
Again, it's not decadence, it's just part of our constant innovative period the internet brought few decades ago. It's reshaping plenty of stuff. Some for the better, some for the worse.

Of course they are absolutely right. They exploit people's addictive potential.
In the case of Paradox, I find that extremely obvious. Actually pretty reprehensible. But what does it matter to a company that is endowed on the stock exchange. PROFITS is all they care about. YES, the truth is never pretty.
Also companies like BMW are slowly starting to claim this "DLC" for themselves. If you want your BMW to accelerate faster, then buy the APP in real time!

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Well, you don't need to be a first buyer. I bought EU4 with 90% of the content for 18€ few months ago. And before that, I used Torrent to see how it fares. Because there's almost always a way not to pay at all.
Like my fruits and vegetables at the market, I like to taste things before buying. That's why demo used to be the norm in gaming and it slowy comes back.

There's nothing reprehensible into exploiting people's bad behavior. We all try to maximize our own comfort, and because ressources are not illimited, it's always done at the expense of someone else. That's what they do too.
It's to players to change their habits.
And the problem is just deeper than just exploiting: they need money to pay wages, infrastructures,... Either you make one or two games every year, either you find a way to have something to sell on a regular basis. The car industry is huge. People who need a car usually already have one. They'll probably won't buy a new one before long. So you add options in your car. That's how you sustain your activity until people buy new cars. It was that way already in the 80-90's.
If a company closes, it's less job available overall. And we're far from a society which knows how to deal with less and less labor.

[kek]

I agree, it's an overall great and enjoyable game with potential to be arguably the best Paradox title. And if only it were received better and they continued working on it I'm sure they would polish it and fix any problems that it has. It does feel like it lacks something at the moment, but It's hard to put my finger on exactly what it is.

However, one big problem for me personally, which I can state very clearly, is balance. Rome is completely overpowered. It steamrolls everything around and wipes the floor with all the initial great powers such as Seleukids or Carthage. There's no suspense or surprise, it goes the same every time. Not sometimes, not more often than not. Every. Single. Time. It ruins every campaign. By the time you get your small tribe into great powers of the world, you already have Rome encroaching towards you tens of times stronger than you could ever be. It's like playing an OPM next to France or Ottomans in EU4 except anywhere on the map, there is nowhere to hide from Roman menace. Because of this, there's no "start in this historical setting, and write your own history", for which we love other titles. Instead, it's "observe Rome dominating the known world same as in our timeline, just slightly differently every time". Obviously, it's not very fun until they fix that. I do dream of a day when I'll finally be able to burn Rome to the ground and turn it into uncolonized wasteland. Roma delenda est!

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Italy and Magna Graecia are very populated with a lot of cities which means a lot of incomes (Rome uses a lot of big mercenaries). Rome's levy composition is extremely powerful, which is quite normal considering the name of the game and the historic period we're playing.
Also, Rome tends to integrate almost all populated culture inside its territory which greatly increase its armies, especially when it begins to build legions for an almost full heavy infantery ones, which adds to the bonuses from military traditions.
So yes, Rome is very powerful, but also manageable even when huge. Rome is constantly at war which makes securing war goals fairly easy. Just wait for Rome to send its armies far away and don't waste time on battles you might lose, decreasing your warscore. Have a big amount of gold to buy your own mercenaries and to corrupt Rome's one (at least, those close to you). There's no limit to the number of mercenaries you can corrupt, allowing you to go offlimit.
Also, at one point, you might want to take advantage of its massive civil wars that can last decades. As Rome integrates a lot of cultures, it plunders its happiness. As for war exhaustion and stability drop from aggressive expansion.
Even if it's quite random, make friends with high martiality Roman people of influence. They can assassinate loyal big family characters with high stats, diminishing their number which might lead to big disloyalty in families.

There's room to dispatch a massive Rome bits by bits. It's not an easy task, but it's doable. Either with a hellenic or anatolian culture, but also with germanic nomadic tribes with -100% centralization with massive levy size by mid-game.

[galadon3]

Don't forget the mission trees and events rome gets early on making its takeover of italy even easier.
Oh and the fact that its a lucky nation (still think its a shame you can't deactivate those in the options like you can in other pdx titles)

And the problem with rome is not that its unbeatable, but the problem is that it makes the games feel kinda samey after the initial phase.
You can kinda alleviate the problem by changing the files to get rid of the lucky nations bonusses and if you play a small tribe go on low diff, but the problem is that makes the start when you fight smaller neighbours pretty easy.

[Hugh de Salle]

Lol you could by IR and all DLC for less than the new Eu4 DLC....

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

If you focus on Rome early on, you solve the problem. You'll see that a Diadochi will replace Rome. Most likely Egypt or Antigonides.
Also, in one of my last run, Rome didn't succeed into taking down Etruscan or Carthage which made a strong alliance. Rome stopped at Epirus in Greece and never grew there either. I just finished the Vandal achievement in very difficult in about 60 years. Just before targeting Rome, I made a maximum number of alliances with its neighbours to increase my chances. It went fine.
I expect Rome to be the biggest rival in this game, I'd be disappointed if it wasn't the case. The name of the game wouldn't be as accurate. Like in EU, not seing a European nation or Ottomans dominating by the XVII-XIXth centuries would be disappointing.