Compared to Vikings?

[Adeptus Lebowski]

I just bought Vikings because it was on sale and immediately am more interested in the Viking theme, mainly because Rome has been way overdone for me. How do the two games compare though? I'm looking forward to playing Vikings when i have time tomorrow but is the new game vastly better? Did Viking have many flaws or is it still a great game to play in 2022?

[Itacira]

In terms of writing (story, character, decisions), Vikings is better in all ways. Fighting gameplay is better in Rome though.
I did like the time constraint in Vikings (it wasn't unforgiving enough that i had to constantly micro manage, while still giving as sense of urgency), but that's just me. And while the camping window (assigning hunters, etc) was tiresome at times, I kind of liked it anyway? S'been a while since I played it, but I remember being so pleasantly surprised by that little game I hadn't heard anyone speak of before.

[Asgar]

Depends on what you want. Viking was basically a Bioware-style RPG, this game is more like XCOM with Romans.

[Whitman1855]

I disagree with Asgar, Rome is even more Bioware styled than Vikings when it comes to the main characters.

[Oggy]

In Vikings you had to manage your little adventurer group in Rome you have to lead a Legion, that is the difference.
Both are similar combat-wise, the main difference here is that Rome uses a class system with random skills for the equipment while Vikings has given you a bit more leeway to build your characters and you had to learn specific skills for specific equipment.

[Asgar]

Originally posted by Whitman1855:

I disagree with Asgar, Rome is even more Bioware styled than Vikings when it comes to the main characters.

There is certainly still plenty of story and character stuff, yes.

What I meant was that in Rome, you lead a large-scale military campaign. While Viking was a bit closer in nature to the old D&D style of play of travelling the land with a small party, exploring settlements and obscure locations, trying to gather treasure, and getting involved in quests. And you are using what you gathered to build up your village as your permanent player home base.

Maybe it's just my gut feeling, but I had the impression that Rome didn't have as much of that. It's certainly still there, but not quite in the same way.

[Ricinius]

Originally posted by Mala:

In Vikings you had to manage your little adventurer group in Rome you have to lead a Legion, that is the difference.

This makes me want to try Vikings. Even though I looked at the gameplay it looks real dated compared to Rome. I felt in Rome the micromanaging wasted a lot of time. they could have did away with the praetorians entirely since you dont feel connected to them. The legion battles were boring too, all RNG. I saved before every single one because centurions randomly died. The whole game without all the fluff coud be consolidated into 10-15 hours. So many times im on my way to a main story quest just for a character to slip on a rock or get injured by a boar. Back to camp, hospital, exit camp, pass time. Rinse repeat.

[Adeptus Lebowski]

ok thanks everyone for the info. Sounds like i should play both imo ;)

[ROE]

They both have flaws, but as of right now I like Vikings much more.

For some reason Rome has failed to capture my attention the way Vikings did. I really do not like the legion battle mini-game. It is poorly done and adds nothing to the game. The floaty camera in Rome annoys me too, always zooming in and out. Can't say I care for the strict armor / weapon class system either. There are a host of QOL problems too.

Maybe things will be changed with future patches. idk.

No barrel busting though, lol.

[Oggy]

Originally posted by ♛Emma Watson♛:

Originally posted by Mala:

In Vikings you had to manage your little adventurer group in Rome you have to lead a Legion, that is the difference.

This makes me want to try Vikings. Even though I looked at the gameplay it looks real dated compared to Rome. I felt in Rome the micromanaging wasted a lot of time. they could have did away with the praetorians entirely since you dont feel connected to them. ...

Well, there is even more micromanagment in Vikings :P.
I do not remember the party size, but like in Rome there where more partymembers than slots for the active group.
Most of the time you took your best fighters, then you had some reserve dudes in case of injuries and then some "camp followers" for cooking and crafting.
Your group could not travel forever, every now and then you had to take a rest und you had to assign some task, guard post, hunter, cook, healer etc. (a bit like in baldurs gate 3).

There were random mercenaries without backstory as well, mostly to fill the ranks of your group.