Darren's thoughts on Imperator news

[schultz]

I agree that the game desperately needed content.
I have been complaining about this since release.
As it stands, unique events drop off to near zero about 50 or so years into the game.

Anyway, the point is moot. Paradox is abandoning a great game, and leaving its fans out in the cold.
So long Paradox. I'm taking my business elsewhere.

 

[Basileus2]

Wow...Darren's pretty jaded, it seems. I get he doesn't like the game but his commentary was laced with spite.

 

[Godd_Howard]

Playing devils advocate here, his view was tarnished by the launch. He didn't go back because the updates had more negative review.

2.0 was too late to save him -and you have to assume- many others returning to the game.

We already know the game launched too soon and was too reliant on mana.

2.0 is great. Enjoyable, really playable and solid. But 1.0 turned many away, for good.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I hated the game at launch but I love 2.0 it's a close 2nd after CK2 for me. Shame there will be no more content and patches.

 

[AggaWackTan]

He’s absolutely right about what the game lacks though and how a lot of what the updates were focused on could have been prioritised for later.

If the games a civilisation builder why is there such a poor building design and total lack of variety of buildings between European tribes, Mediterranean monarchies and republics to Eastern and Indian empires.

No variety or focus on units. At the end of the day it still feels like how many units you have in a stack is what matters most, there’s no pitting Roman legions against the Hellenic phalanx, and even then all professional armies across all cultures are legions. And Hellenic kings can’t lead their professional army. Bonkers.

There’s no core Roman gameplay here. The senate has a nice tab but there’s no bribing/ political manoeuvring, no representatio of the socii and the Roman republics basically play the same as any other republic and that type of government play style isn’t very fun.

Roman republics should be class orientated while Carthage should be wealth orientated, there’s no difference culturally between how they play or what determines who’s voted to office. And the maritime gameplay that should absolutely be in the game to play factions like Carthage has not been developed AT ALL.

Paardox seem to really believe this game should have succeeded but are blind to the fact that even though an immense amount of work has been put into it, that all the systems have not been developed or fleshed out and the game still doesn’t represent what it’s trying to portray. It really should not have been released until 2021, the fact it was released in 2019 is a joke.

 

[IsaacCAT]

He’s absolutely right about what the game lacks though and how a lot of what the updates were focused on could have been prioritised for later.

If the games a civilisation builder why is there such a poor building design and total lack of variety of buildings between European tribes, Mediterranean monarchies and republics to Eastern and Indian empires.

No variety or focus on units. At the end of the day it still feels like how many units you have in a stack is what matters most, there’s no pitting Roman legions against the Hellenic phalanx, and even then all professional armies across all cultures are legions. And Hellenic kings can’t lead their professional army. Bonkers.

There’s no core Roman gameplay here. The senate has a nice tab but there’s no bribing/ political manoeuvring, no representatio of the socii and the Roman republics basically play the same as any other republic and that type of government play style isn’t very fun.

Roman republics should be class orientated while Carthage should be wealth orientated, there’s no difference culturally between how they play or what determines who’s voted to office. And the maritime gameplay that should absolutely be in the game to play factions like Carthage has not been developed AT ALL.

Paardox seem to really believe this game should have succeeded but are blind to the fact that even though an immense amount of work has been put into it, that all the systems have not been developed or fleshed out and the game still doesn’t represent what it’s trying to portray. It really should not have been released until 2021, the fact it was released in 2019 is a joke.

Many things you say are true, but I cannot agree with your conclusion.

The best thing about PDS games is that they have the knowhow and the resources but the fans help shape their games to something else.

For that, you need PDS to release the game and support it for many years, shapping it with the community. They do not know everything and need us, the same we need them to produce and develop the games in the first place.

That is why the temporal pause in I:R is disheartning.

 

[AggaWackTan]

Many things you say are true, but I cannot agree with your conclusion.

For that, you need PDS to release the game and support it for many years, shapping it with the community. They do not know everything and needs us, the same we need them to produce and develop the games in the first

Agree to disagree then. For me I like to buy a game in a polished state and if the developer makes it better in the future with expansions great. But Paradox are abusing that ‘community interaction’ concept to release games in a terribly under developed state and spend years to build them into something playable.

But Imperator was nowhere near polished and a lot of Rome games have been created in the past, Paradox should have had a better idea what to create. So charging a premium rate for an unpolished and barebones game and then halting that development you credit them for 2 years into its release is unacceptable to me.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Agree to disagree then. For me I like to buy a game in a polished state and if the developer makes it better in the future with expansions great. But Paradox are abusing that ‘community interaction’ concept to release games in a terribly under developed state and spend years to build them into something playable.

But Imperator was nowhere near polished and a lot of Rome games have been created in the past, Paradox should have had a better idea what to create. So charging a premium rate for an unpolished and barebones game and then halting that development you credit them for 2 years into its release is unacceptable to me.

You have a valid point.

Not an easy business, I think they thought it was valid but in hindsight it was not.

 

[Reiryc]

Hey there, Darren here from the video.
If I may, let me explain my position as there's only half the story in the replies here.

Before Imperator came out, I was the most viewed channel for it. I was very interested in the game and covered the diaries, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively.
When the game launched, my review was largely negative. I enoyed characters, and the battle system, but not much else.

Because I had built up the audience for the game, each time it was updated, I would get asked by the 100's "Is it fixed?" - so I covered each major Patch with the title "Imperator ROME 1.X - Is it fixed". You can call it clickbaity, but that's literally the subject of the video, is the game worth coming back to etc.

1.1 - Positive Review
1.2 - Very Positive Review

It was at this time I started a Let's Play for the game, I wanted to get the word out, and uploaded a 40 part LP as Bosporan Kingdom, on a mission to secure the Black Sea completely. I also did a 1.2 Quick Summary video to tell people the biggest issues were fixed.

1.3 - Mostly Positive, though I wasn't a fan of missions.

I started another Let's Play, focused on Carthage conquering the Med on VH. This was 60 episodes.

1.4 - Negative Impressions overall.
1.5 - Negative Impressions overall.

If you want more info, watch the videos, they're deep dives on each mechanic and thorough explanations of why I like or don't like them.
Whether positive, mixed or negative, the videos were always called "Is it fixed" because that's what people asked me.

Because the game was going in a direction I didn't like anymore, and to stop being negative, I stopped covering the game. I said 1.5 would be my last video on it, because I don't like to be negative, it's awkward, confrontational, and I'd rather promote games I enjoy.

When 2.0 came out, it was received very well. I played it and also think it's good, though my "problems" with the game, is a lack of content. It's great they improve systems, but I didn't personally have an issue with Religion, Culture, Military, Loyalty, Republics etc. My issue is that I don't like that there's no unique buildings, units or proper diversity between cultures that doesn't amount to modifiers. To me, there are 3 playstyles in the game; Tribe, Monarchy and Republic, and once you've played one, it's just a different location, but the same gameplay. That's just me, you don't have to share that opinion. So seeing that 2.0 was so well received, but knowing it wasn't really for me still, I kept quiet. No point dragging a game when others enjoy it.

But, because I became somewhat known for Imperator, I still get asked about it all the time, and asked if I'll cover 2.0 in a video etc. Here, in this video, on a stream, I was informed that the game was stopping development, and my summary take is "sucks for the people who like it, but I'm not going to pretend I care on a personal note, that'd be fake" I also mention that "it's not a good thing, I'm not happy it's stopping development" but I also argue the logic behind "if it can improve their other games by reinforcing them, and I was a business, I would also kill the least played game after a couple years of support, which is more than most companies give it"

Again, I know here especially this will be an unpopular take. But at least you have more context than "ra ra he's a clickbaity hate youtuber, he never liked the game"

edit*
I should also add that I've never hoped the game would fail, or cease development. I've only stated my surprise that they didn't abandon it earlier, not that they should have. When the reviews for the game turned positive with 2.0, I was very happy, even though it wasn't for me anymore. I stand nothing to gain from a PDX game not doing well.

I like your videos and watched the Bosporan Kingdom play. I even played that nation because of your let's play. I think people are being too hard on you for expressing your opinion on the game. I appreciate where you are coming from regarding the diversity between nations not really being present. I think the game needs more content updates without any game changes. It would be nice to see them flesh out some tribal nations and give a bit more variety between playing tribal nation X and Y.

I'd happily pay $9.99 for more of that content but I think that ship sailed due to paradox having to commit the dev team to fixing the issues at release. If they instead had release several content packs along with a major dlc that is pretty common after 2 years after release, I think the game would be in a much better state.

For my part, I wish they would have given the game 1 more year of content releases post 2.0 to see where the game would be now in relation to number of players and sales.

 

[tribunus_plebis]

If the games a civilisation builder why is there such a poor building design and total lack of variety of buildings between European tribes, Mediterranean monarchies and republics to Eastern and Indian empires.

This was my complaint since release.
I was quite neutral on the religious mechanics (clearly not an urgent aspect to be addressed), same with the missions (a cool add on). But what needed to be fixed since day one was the horrible building development system (primitive Germanic tribes with aqueducts... right. Not to mention having cities with +30 aqueducts). For me all these aspects were super immersion breaking as it felt a repetitive mechanic inside a cold excel sheet of just modifiers.

I did like however the distinction between urban and rural provinces, that was jackpot. However, after you build your slave state that was it... no further development in that province and nothing else to do. I had hopes that 2.0 would maybe address this aspects, but in return I got a UI rework that I really didn't need at all.

Looking in perspective, and for my gaming experience, I feel that pdx with Imperator focused a lot of resources in the wrong areas, leading to waste.
A bit like watering plants at noon.

 

[GloryGloryByzantium]

I don't know if there's some bad blood here from PDX blacklisting him, but as I've only heard one side of the story, I'll refrain from passing any judgement.

Wow...Darren's pretty jaded, it seems. I get he doesn't like the game but his commentary was laced with spite.

I definitely heard some sweet vengeance even in his apparently nonchalant attitude about it. Part of me now feels justified in ignoring his commentary (his takes on the culture rework were bad; I don't think he understood what was going on) and part of me sympathizes partly - assuming the narrative is true that he was blacklisted for giving legitimate commentary. Either way, it's important context about all his update reviews that I didn't know about until he divulged it here.