|
So I got some time with Imperator Rome as it was free on Steam (and discounted heavily so figured if I liked it I'd just grab it) - and I really don't get it. I've heard people say it's a far better game than it was at release and so it must have been really bad back then.
Positives - it doesn't crash all the time (which is an achievement for a Paradox game less than a couple years old) and is pretty nice to look at, but that's about all I can say that is good for it.
Fundamentally it feels like they based it off the wrong game, it's basically an EU4 clone (with the Total War family interface bolted almost verbatim on top which is an interesting choice) - why didn't they follow CK2 in both cases? The setting just doesn't seem to work and everything just feels jarring, like I'm playing some half baked EU4 mod that keeps the core concepts together but has just changed the era and a few of the mechanics. There doesn't appear like there's fundamentally anything to do other than ally a bunch of countries around you, declare war, blob a bit, wait for truce to expire, declare war and blob a bit more, which is the least interesting part of an EU4 game. Is that how diplomacy and warfare worked in pre-AD Britain - I can't believe it is, but even if it is it's nowhere near a fun game.
|