Paradox's Upcoming Game - Imperator: Rome ...Excellent News!

[Anguille]

I think the reactions upon release of SOTS2 were hardly mixed. They were closer to overwhelmingly negative...although it might have been before the review system was implemented. I simply don't see a comparison in any vein.

Bad comparison then. Still, i am surprised how strong the reactions are. I hope the game will recover because i see a lot of potential.

Right now, can someone tell me what is really different to Europa Universalis: Rome?

[Ian C]

This isn't a criticism of this game in particular, but one on the whole game industry in general:

If you enjoy a game at release and it works for you, that's great. I can't criticize the individual experiences that we all have which are different for everyone.

However, in my view, what I've seen in the past few years is a degrading of the customer experience. Despite the huge sales of games like this, HOI4 and CK2 there is a trend that's become standard business practice that doesn't inspire me and leaves me feeling a bit irritated. I don't enjoy ranting or criticizing games - I want to play them and have fun.

The games are released, not wholly incomplete, but somewhat lacking in depth that is then remedied by DLC; and I think this is deliberate. Snag our attention, make us commit to the purchasing cycle and then promise more. Always leave it short of 'the perfect  game' in a hope it will be complete one day. Promising that the game 'will be fixed' is a crap incentive to buy or follow. How about making the game whole at release and then creating DLC that will blow our minds with a 'wow' reaction?

The community of fans saying things will be great in a few years and roasting you on their forums when you raise an issue. I could be abducted by space aliens in a few years. I want a great game now.

No manual. No real tutorial. It takes dozens of hours of other people's time to create and publish videos of how to play the game. Do-it yourself manuals. So the game we get is a kind of mystery-strategy game, where we learn by pointing and clicking. Because of this culture, the company knows it doesn't have to spend resources on writing a proper manual or coding a proper tutorial. Lazy and crappy in my opinion.

I remember the times when a game *sometimes* got a 1.01 patch if it needed it and on release it worked great. You unlocked stuff in the game by gameplay and not paying for it and it was all included at launch.

'We have the resources to make a great game at launch with a tutorial, a manual, a demo and all possible features and content included. Then let's find out what the fans want and need and do it as DLC' appears to be an idealistic and old-fashioned view but, tell me, how is it good that it's progressed from that to the state we are in?

The easy solution? Wait a few years to get the game with all it's DLC and patches at a sale price, which is in fact what I have been doing for some but it's a long process and I could be abducted by space aliens in the meantime.


Sorry, it's Saturday morning, I'm waiting for my breakfast and I'm over 50.

[Rayfer]

This isn't a criticism of this game in particular, but one on the whole game industry in general:

If you enjoy a game at release and it works for you, that's great. I can't criticize the individual experiences that we all have which are different for everyone.

However, in my view, what I've seen in the past few years is a degrading of the customer experience. Despite the huge sales of games like this, HOI4 and CK2 there is a trend that's become standard business practice that doesn't inspire me and leaves me feeling a bit irritated. I don't enjoy ranting or criticizing games - I want to play them and have fun.

The games are released, not wholly incomplete, but somewhat lacking in depth that is then remedied by DLC; and I think this is deliberate. Snag our attention, make us commit to the purchasing cycle and then promise more. Always leave it short of 'the perfect  game' in a hope it will be complete one day. Promising that the game 'will be fixed' is a crap incentive to buy or follow. How about making the game whole at release and then creating DLC that will blow our minds with a 'wow' reaction?

The community of fans saying things will be great in a few years and roasting you on their forums when you raise an issue. I could be abducted by space aliens in a few years. I want a great game now.

No manual. No real tutorial. It takes dozens of hours of other people's time to create and publish videos of how to play the game. Do-it yourself manuals. So the game we get is a kind of mystery-strategy game, where we learn by pointing and clicking. Because of this culture, the company knows it doesn't have to spend resources on writing a proper manual or coding a proper tutorial. Lazy and crappy in my opinion.

I remember the times when a game *sometimes* got a 1.01 patch if it needed it and on release it worked great. You unlocked stuff in the game by gameplay and not paying for it and it was all included at launch.

'We have the resources to make a great game at launch with a tutorial, a manual, a demo and all possible features and content included. Then let's find out what the fans want and need and do it as DLC' appears to be an idealistic and old-fashioned view but, tell me, how is it good that it's progressed from that to the state we are in?

The easy solution? Wait a few years to get the game with all it's DLC and patches at a sale price, which is in fact what I have been doing for some but it's a long process and I could be abducted by space aliens in the meantime.


Sorry, it's Saturday morning, I'm waiting for my breakfast and I'm over 50.

Well stated IanC...that last part which I bolded is, with a few rare exceptions, exactly what I've done for years now.  Play now what I have in backlog and wait a couple of years to buy a $40 game with all the DLC (probably another $40) all for $10.

[Grim.Reaper]

This isn't a criticism of this game in particular, but one on the whole game industry in general:

If you enjoy a game at release and it works for you, that's great. I can't criticize the individual experiences that we all have which are different for everyone.

However, in my view, what I've seen in the past few years is a degrading of the customer experience. Despite the huge sales of games like this, HOI4 and CK2 there is a trend that's become standard business practice that doesn't inspire me and leaves me feeling a bit irritated. I don't enjoy ranting or criticizing games - I want to play them and have fun.

The games are released, not wholly incomplete, but somewhat lacking in depth that is then remedied by DLC; and I think this is deliberate. Snag our attention, make us commit to the purchasing cycle and then promise more. Always leave it short of 'the perfect  game' in a hope it will be complete one day. Promising that the game 'will be fixed' is a crap incentive to buy or follow. How about making the game whole at release and then creating DLC that will blow our minds with a 'wow' reaction?

The community of fans saying things will be great in a few years and roasting you on their forums when you raise an issue. I could be abducted by space aliens in a few years. I want a great game now.

No manual. No real tutorial. It takes dozens of hours of other people's time to create and publish videos of how to play the game. Do-it yourself manuals. So the game we get is a kind of mystery-strategy game, where we learn by pointing and clicking. Because of this culture, the company knows it doesn't have to spend resources on writing a proper manual or coding a proper tutorial. Lazy and crappy in my opinion.

I remember the times when a game *sometimes* got a 1.01 patch if it needed it and on release it worked great. You unlocked stuff in the game by gameplay and not paying for it and it was all included at launch.

'We have the resources to make a great game at launch with a tutorial, a manual, a demo and all possible features and content included. Then let's find out what the fans want and need and do it as DLC' appears to be an idealistic and old-fashioned view but, tell me, how is it good that it's progressed from that to the state we are in?

The easy solution? Wait a few years to get the game with all it's DLC and patches at a sale price, which is in fact what I have been doing for some but it's a long process and I could be abducted by space aliens in the meantime.


Sorry, it's Saturday morning, I'm waiting for my breakfast and I'm over 50.

Pros and cons to anything......personally, I have no problem with their approach.  Sometimes I think people confuse DLC and actual patches released by Paradox.  Yes, DLC has been introduced to enhance some of the factions and/or game concepts and to add some graphic improvements.  But most of the core improvements have been included in free patches that still continue to be released after (7) years of the game being out (CK2).  So you don't necessarily need to purchase the DLC especially if the area contained in the DLC does not even interest you.

Would the games continue to still receive this much support without DLC?  Probably not and personally I would prefer a game to continue being improved over time versus just being abandoned (take a look at many Matrix games where the developers just disappear).  If it is a good gaming experience, I much rather have incremental improvements through patches and DLC versus the game having to reinvent itself all the time or worse yet, simply go away.

People always say the games are incomplete and will only be complete once all DLC made available.  I don't agree with that.  What's the alternative?  Have the company take 7 years to build the perfect game with everything included and then release it?  Then charge $200?  No way would I ever want to see that.  Much rather get something basic and let it evolve over time.  Gives me time to learn things and start playing much earlier.  Probably the majority of the game players don't even use 20% of the game content so they likely are content.

I really don't get all the angst against Paradox recently and this release especially.  Absolutely no one should be surprised by what they are getting, this has been their formula for years.  Sure you might not like it, but this obviously is something that works for them.  People that don't like the system certainly has the right not to like it and not buy it...no problem.  But I just don't get the continued complaints and everyone always talking about the DLC.  Heck even Mius Front who continues to get high praises is rapidly throwing out DLC (up to around 11) and nobody is complaining about them?  Should they have included all the DLC content from the start?  Absolutely not.

Just my two cents....

[Grim.Reaper]

Well stated IanC...that last part which I bolded is, with a few rare exceptions, exactly what I've done for years now.  Play now what I have in backlog and wait a couple of years to buy a $40 game with all the DLC (probably another $40) all for $10.

But why does everyone need every piece of DLC to enjoy the game?  Does everyone honestly use every piece of the DLC when they play?

I am in the business where we develop and deliver software to customers.  Even in the business world companies have adopted an 'agile' approach to delivering products so that customers can receive the most critical features first in the earliest amount of time possible.  Then after that, incremental features are added......a product is never complete, just an evolution of capability.  Benefits of this is customer getting the things they most want and need more quickly and it also allows the developers to get feedback quicker from the customers to make further improvements....just like Paradox has done.

This is where most of the world is moving to (if not already), whether in business software or games.  Heck, even a lot of business software is moving to a subscription model which is similar to DLC where you continue to pay as you go.

Again, everyone is free to choose for themselves, but people saying DLC is horrible or companies are delivering incomplete products, I just don't buy it....certainly may not be want some people want, but I am guessing it satisfies the silent majority.

[Jarhead0331]

The overall claim seems to be essentially, "they release an incomplete game lacking depth and then eventually fix it with paiid DLCs..."

I don't believe this is the rule with Paradox games, or the intention in the least. I do not think there is any evidence of nefarious intent here at all. I think someone would be hard pressed to argue that games like Hearts of Iron or EUIV "lacked depth" when they were released. They were anything but incomplete games, and I don't think a serious argument can made that they were missing whole features or fundamental mechanics at release. Rather, with paradox, their games evolve over time based on tens of thousands of hours of play and extensive player feedback. This is inherent due to the fact that the games are so complex in so many different ways.

Overall, That a developer continues aggressively supporting its titles for damn near a decade should be applauded.

[mbar]

Has anyone seen yet how far the game runs? I know there's a game-over date which can be disabled in various not-overly-obvious ways, but I don't know the date. (I infer it's in the Christian/Common Era, because I know there's code to switch overt the dating system at some point or to show both types of dates, Roman and Christian.)

James Allen from Out-of-8 said it goes to 27BC

[Pete Dero]

The overall claim seems to be essentially, "they release an incomplete game lacking depth and then eventually fix it with paiid DLCs..."

And then they buy FIFA 19 because it adds a facial animation that FIFA 18 didn't have  >:D

Most of the negative reviews feel like they review the history and track record of Paradox and not this game.

Also, don't forget that most or all of those paid DLC were accompanied with free updates/patches.

[jamus34]

I think paradox has decided on the approach to make a game as vanilla as possible and then let the customers wishes and demands give direction to growth organically. 

[Ian C]

Running a restaurant on this principle:

When you arrive there's no obvious plan or layout of the dining area. You get lost frequently but a previous customer has made a map, so you find a seat.
You order a Steak Dinner but get the steak done one way only -medium rare. If you want well-done or rare or extra-rare, you pay extra.

Then, you are told the fries are not available now, but will be out at later date as a paid extra but they throw in salt and pepper as a free update to the menu. There's bread & butter - and tell you that you should be happy. You say "well it's not really a steak dinner., not like I remember..."

People complain saying the fries should have been included in the basic dinner but fans of the restaurant disagree and say it's perfectly reasonable.

Then people complain there are no sauces available so they bring out a sauces DLC but the sauce is cheese, because the restaurant likes cheese sauces. People complain and say peppercorn is the most popular choice and is more like what a real steak dinner would have but the restaurant doesn't agree, because all the young kids don't like peppercorn sauce and cheese is what they are into because it's easier to taste. The older steak veterans just shrug and say "ok" and go along with it, because hell, they just want a steak dinner. So someone has to self-cook the peppercorn sauce (make a mod) and then offer it for free to everyone in the restaurant. After a while the restaurant sees how well it's going and then takes the work of the self-cooking person and offers it for sale themselves.

Despite all of this, people keep coming back to the restaurant because it's the only place that does steak dinners.
The smarter people wait until there's a special event where they can buy the finished steak dinner (after it took 5 years to get right) with all the trimmings, sauces and conditions (and even a dessert!), for 25% of the price.

Then the restaurant announces it's going to be putting 'Steak Dinner II' on the menu and the entire cycle gets repeated again. Except this time the restaurant has decided that eating on beanbags on the floor is cool and tables and chairs are a thing of the past. Until after many complaints and people being banned from the restaurant they bring them back in paid DLC 3 years later. But then change the knives and forks for chopsticks in an update.

[Grim.Reaper]

If you are so against the model, why was it ever so close to being in your wallet besides one review stopping you?

[Jarhead0331]

^ummm, yeah. That's a bit of a stretch. But, whatever. Building a complicated simulation that balances the economy, trade, technology, research and warfare covering hundreds of years of human history is a little different than making a steak dinner.

[Ian C]

It's not that I'm against the model (which I think is absurd), I'm just one of those people hungry for a steak dinner who has to take what's on offer.
I always take notice of coherent reviews. They might prevent me from buying a game if I agree with the points they make; and since companies no longer make demos (and 2 hours on STEAM is not long enough to evaluate the game) I must make a considered call whether to buy or not.

Like I said in my first post, this isn't a criticism of this game in particular, but one on the whole game industry in general.

[Grim.Reaper]

I am confused.... you think it's absurd but your not against?

[jamus34]

I think paradox has decided on the approach to make a game as vanilla as possible and then let the customers wishes and demands give direction to growth organically.

To add to this - they do not give up on their games; at least most of the recent releases.

You look at the AAA developers (specifically EA) and they don't hit their week 1 sales numbers and it's instantly a dumpster fire; staff getting laid off and all support for said game yanked.

I'm sorry, but for all of their faults I'll gladly spend my money to support the Pdox model vs the EA one.