Review-bombing Imperator Rome is not the solution...

[Herennius]

Without promise of further development the game has 0 reason to be recommended to anyone. It's nowhere near finished, polished or deserving of 40 euros for basic or 120 for complete game with DLC's. Fundamental issues were never fixed and people are rating the game for what it is right now, not what Paradox promises might happen in 3 years if the moon aligns with seventh Chakra in Johans lover pinky toe

Beside that I don't think it's that bad...how do you calculate a price of 120 Euro with DLCs? Even if I consider the Deluxe version as gameplay wise necessary and add the 3 gameplay DLCs on top, I only end up with ~78 Euro if you buy everything at the moment.

 

[Husein]

Beside that I don't think it's that bad...how do you calculate a price of 120 Euro with DLCs? Even if I consider the Deluxe version as gameplay wise necessary and add the 3 gameplay DLCs on top, I only end up with ~78 Euro if you buy everything at the moment.

Add up everything plus tax, and that is my local price if I wanted to buy everything made for IR. Prices are different based on your location

 

[AggaWackTan]

There's too many aspects of the game left neglected for the game to be rated highly. A lot of the optimism surrounding IR was for what it could be but now that likelihood of further development is highly doubtful, it's only fair that the game has a mixed rating.

-The game has subjects but no vassal tab to interact with them. This was in EU4 and should have been in IR from the start.

-The game has trade goods but no maritime mechanics and an illogical price scale for foreign/ domestic imports so playing Carthage or minor Greek League states don't have interesting trade strategies and instead rely on conquest like everyone else.

-The game has various government types that were never developed properly. There's no Roman senate mechanics and an appalling lack of thought put into separating the style of play between the Big Factions.

-The game has an abundance of template features that were never fleshed out; holdings, sailors in the navy recruitment tab, characters not generating at a balanced rate.

-A thorny scorned family mechanic that should be fun is instead a chore.

My positive review on steam was for the hope of the future but even now I can't finish my Rome runs once I reach empire size. Not having enough Romans to appoint as Governors, tribunes and politicians and instead having to appoint foreign culture characters is game breaking for me. I can't imagine any Celt or Phoenician becoming a governor or legate in 200BC Rome. It's very haphazard and unfinished right now.

I enjoyed what Arheo, SC and the devs did with the game after launch but.. it took 2 years after launch to reach 2.0. It should have been that quality since launch, and that's not an entitled view as the deluxe was over €55 and IR on release was absolutely no where close to that quality. And with all the DLC on steam it amounts to €101. I got all of that in sales so probably for €50ish. That is a massive price tag, and for what you get I couldn't recommend it. Blame the product managers/ the QA team or whoever but Paradox needs to start releasing games once they've actually finished them. It's a waste of time waiting around for a game that I've already bought to be finished in the future. And then out of nowhere development stops. This has shattered my faith in Paradox and for a company that relies so much on their customers buying the belief in 'what their games could be' through development all I can say is goodbye.

 

[Lamisatr]

There's too many aspects of the game left neglected for the game to be rated highly. A lot of the optimism surrounding IR was for what it could be but now that likelihood of further development is highly doubtful, it's only fair that the game only has a mixed rating.

-The game has subjects but no vassal tab to interact with them. This was in EU4 and should have been in IR from the start.

-The game has trade goods but no maritime mechanics and an illogical price scale for foreign/ domestic imports so playing Carthage or minor Greek League states don't have interesting trade strategies and instead rely on conquest like everyone else.

-The game has various government types that were never developed properly. There's no Roman senate mechanics and an appalling lack of thought put into separating the style of play between the Big Factions.

-The game has an abundance of template features that were never fleshed out; holdings, sailors in the navy recruitment tab, characters not generating at a balanced rate.

-A thorny scorned family mechanic that should be fun is instead a chore.

My positive review on steam was for the hope of the future but even now I can't finish my Rome runs once I reach empire size. Not having enough Romans to appoint as Governors, tribunes and politicians and instead having to appoint foreign culture characters is game breaking for me. I can't imagine any Celt or Phoenician becoming a governor or legate in 200BC Rome. It's very haphazard and unfinished right now.

I enjoyed what Arheo, SC and the devs did with the game after launch but.. it took 2 years after launch to reach 2.0. It should have been that quality since launch, and that's not an entitled view as the deluxe was over €55 and IR on release was absolutely no where close to that quality. And with all the DLC on steam it amounts to €101. I got all of that in sales so probably for €50ish. That is a massive price tag, and for what you get I couldn't recommend it. Blame the product managers/ the QA team or whoever but Paradox needs to start releasing games once they've actually finished them. It's a waste of time waiting around for a game that I've already bought to be finished in the future. And then out of nowhere development stops. This has shattered my faith in Paradox and for a company that relies so much on their customers buying the belief in 'what their games could be' through development all I can say is goodbye.

I will never "buy in" financially or in terms of engagement with any new PDS release in future. I'll possibly buy the completely finished game with all DLC in the CD KEYS (their pricing is brilliant) bargain bin at a later date, but as for supporting the game throughout its developmental phase and "life" - no chance.

I'm out.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Here's our reply to @Dnote on this topic:

Imperator: Rome 2.0.3 is NOT a good game to play.

It's much better than any previous version, but still lacks diveristy (every nation plays the same, no extra content for many tags, cultures religions etc), many mechanics are still bad or rudimentary (trade, characters and families, diplomacy, subjects) and even the things that got reworked need more polish.

The great redeeming feature of IR until now was that the devs improved the game with every patch and reacted to feedback and suggestions.

Since you've halted development, this is gone, the game has to be judged by the current state, which is a solid foundation for more things that will never come.

A bad review (if it states the actual reason why the game is bad) is a fair warning to anyone who might otherwise buy the game.

 

[Nyrael]

That being said, what other means do people have?

Bombing EU4 or other PDS games? The main reason why I:R was put on Axe table was it's financial failure, and the only reason it's now "Paused" instead of "axed" is because 2.0 was damn well received (and if not for 2.0 being as good as it was, fewer people would have cared about the axe). Review bomb this game and you actually REDUCE the chance of it getting back.

There's simply 0 logic to review-bombing a game which is in danger due to higher-ups in PDS thinking it's a fluke.

 

[Lamisatr]

Bombing EU4 or other PDS games? The main reason why I:R was put on Axe table was it's financial failure, and the only reason it's now "Paused" instead of "axed" is because 2.0 was damn well received (and if not for 2.0 being as good as it was, fewer people would have cared about the axe). Review bomb this game and you actually REDUCE the chance of it getting back.

There's simply 0 logic to review-bombing a game which is in danger due to higher-ups in PDS thinking it's a fluke.

No, the only reason it's paused and not axed, is that paused it has far better optics than axed. They think we're stupid.

 

[stratigo]

Honestly, if they are going to judge whether to continue development or not by the amount of positives reviews, they are being very naive if they think those are going to be extremely positive after this decision because people are really upset right now, and they are right to be imo. The game is not going to have better reviews over time, and if it does it will be because of the modders, not because of the game itself as PDX has left it.

I mean, game companies have offered bonuses for metacritic ratings in the past.

Reviews are a thing companies pay attention to.

And, like, it's just giving ammo for a suit in an exec position to justify never resuming development over protests of developers.

Though I do not think they'll resume development.

 

[LordSkorpio]

I mean, game companies have offered bonuses for metacritic ratings in the past.

Reviews are a thing companies pay attention to.

And, like, it's just giving ammo for a suit in an exec position to justify never resuming development over protests of developers.

Though I do not think they'll resume development.

I don't think they really need an excuse to not resume development because they have managed to stop it when the game was practically at its finest hour since launch. One more patch at the end of the year with some improvements in diplomacy and internal politics, and this game would have gone from a beta to an Ancient World Victoria in just one year.

 

[cristofolmc]

Honestly, if they are going to judge whether to continue development or not by the amount of positives reviews, they are being very naive if they think those are going to be extremely positive after this decision because people are really upset right now, and they are right to be imo. The game is not going to have better reviews over time, and if it does it will be because of the modders, not because of the game itself as PDX has left it.

But you have to admit it's extremely stupid to tank the reviews of a game you like because they are shutting down a game you like. So lets review it badly on steam because I like the game and Im angry at PDX for abandoning it xd.

And yes, of course reviews will be taking into consideration. Positive reviews means more people picking up the game. Its sad but its how it works, we are like sheep.

 

[cristofolmc]

I:R is the best example for how a backlash from customers can lead to improvement, even if it was just temporary im case of I:R.

No its the best example of how to continually use IR as a punching bag to punish PDX left the game reviews in a state near impossible to recover (although we were getting almost there finally) which makes loads of potential buyers not bothering trying the game later on which has led to the game abandonment. 2.0 deserved most of the reviews to be flipped to positive. Even 1.2. But no, I have to punish PDX because of company policy reasons even though if the game Im helping to ruin is actually very decent and doesn't deserve a negative review!

Very mature.

Its like instead of giving a bad review on the Leviathan Steam page, you go to the CK3 page and review bomb it because of bad PDX releasing shit DLCs. Its not the place, and you're just hurting a good project.

 

[LordSkorpio]

But you have to admit it's extremely stupid to tank the reviews of a game you like because they are shutting down a game you like. So lets review it badly on steam because I like the game and Im angry at PDX for abandoning it xd.

And yes, of course reviews will be taking into consideration. Positive reviews means more people picking up the game. Its sad but its how it works, we are like sheep.

I woud not say it's stupid, it's just the logical reaction of upset people, what did they think people would do after that decision?. I did not let a bad review but I definitely think they deserve to receive them. Last thing we should do is to fool other people into buying this game just because we hope that letting positive reviews will eventually get the company to resume development.

 

[Algarde]

You are free to do so and the reasoning you come up with isn't surprising, but this thread is about whether that behaviour is beneficial in the end. I don't think so...

Nothing is beneficial in the end because Imperator brings no money to Paradox. I think it's their least played title, they had to give away at least two big patches\DLCs (1.2 and 2.0), that in other cases they would have charged €19.99, due to the disastrous launch, so in their mind this game simply made them lose money. They will never go back, what customers say or do is totally indifferent to them. And I'm not talking about developers, but about those who make decisions at the corporate level.

 

[andxa2]

I´m a bit confused how some people thought this is a good idea.
Wasn´t everyone saying the game is in a pretty good state right now ?
Do we want to express our support and love for the game by doing negative reviews on steam so it´s down to mixed again ?
Surely this way new players are going to buy this and give paradox an incentive to redistribute more ressources to it.
Let´s make sure nobody will get this game so it will definetly die.
That´s just strengething the position of everyone saying this fanbase is toxic, I´m honestly just disappointed.

If anything we should do a positive review bombing.

Have to admit that there are some low-quality users. But EU4's new DLC is really weak. I can't describe it.

 

[Darthvegeta800]

My initial review was negative but hopeful.
After 2.0 I changed it to positive with the added comment that they're on a good route but need to develop more. But there are very good solid foundations now.
Given that development is halted for an undetermined time I put it back negative.
As I can only recommend it now with good mods or a discount.

Paradox's marketing, dlc policy, bad PR and questionable choices all intersect. Hence the lines blur.
I go out of my way to point out problems like that in my reviews. But if it is good I put in that it is good. As I did. But when things like what happened happen it impacts my reviewscore.
Period.
If that means hope for further development is hampered so be it. I cannot foresee corporate decisions. They might have picked it up again or not. The fact I and many others do not wish to place my faith in them baseline should be in itself noteworthy. Too many game companies have walked the path they seem to be on. And the results are awesome from a corporate standpoint (at least short term) but awful for the customers.
All this also means that once more i'll draw my conclusions and skip a game or 2 in their lineup to return to see if they've wisened up. Maybe.

Positive and negative reviews on steam are pretty much the only feedback possibility left to the consumers nowadays. I find it rather frightening that people everywhere are so eager to promote limiting things like downvotes or negative reviews in response to experienced or perceived bad business practices.

 

[Anna_Gein]

It is ridiculous to review bomb the game now because of the announcement.

It is perfectly fine to leave a bad review rating if a game is indeed not good. But to do so for a game you actually like because the devs announced they will not developp DLC in the foreseen future ? Meh. Best way to bury the game you appreciete.

Gaming community can be so toxic at times.

 

[Darthvegeta800]

It is ridiculous to review bomb the game now because of the announcement.

It is perfectly fine to leave a bad review rating if a game is indeed not good. But to do so for a game you actually like because the devs announced they will not developp DLC in the foreseen future ? Meh. Best way to bury the game you appreciete.

Gaming community can be so toxic at times.

People changed their reviews because the game is not yet in a good state and now probably never will be.
Simple as that.
Nothing toxic about it.
If anything I regret changing it into a positive review after 2.0 due to being hopeful there would still be such continued necessary overhauls.

 

[n0cturn4l]

It is ridiculous to review bomb the game now because of the announcement.

It is perfectly fine to leave a bad review rating if a game is indeed not good. But to do so for a game you actually like because the devs announced they will not developp DLC in the foreseen future ? Meh. Best way to bury the game you appreciete.

Gaming community can be so toxic at times.

I can recommend an incomplete game that is being updated regularly. I'm far less inclined to do the same when development has been halted, probably forever.

 

[zaboli]

Without promise of further development the game has 0 reason to be recommended to anyone. It's nowhere near finished, polished or deserving of 40 euros for basic or 120 for complete game with DLC's. Fundamental issues were never fixed and people are rating the game for what it is right now, not what Paradox promises might happen in 3 years if the moon aligns with seventh Chakra in Johans lover pinky toe

It is perfectly playable... There are some bugs but nothing game-breaking. If you like PDX grand strategy then I don't see a reason why IR is bad.
IR is actually one of the better PDX games right now. EU4 and HOI4 have become a bloated & exploitable mess, where you just railroad your way to victory by pushing buttons that give you bonuses. CK3 has barely any strategic depth and feels more like a meme simulator than a game. IR was the closest thing that felt like the golden age of PDX games.

 

[Anna_Gein]

People changed their reviews because the game is not yet in a good state and now probably never will be.
Simple as that.
Nothing toxic about it.
If anything I regret changing it into a positive review after 2.0 due to being hopeful there would still be such continued necessary overhauls.

I can recommend an incomplete game that is being updated regularly. I'm far less inclined to do the same when development has been halted, probably forever.

I understand the logic. But at the same time why recommand a game you consider bad/incomplete atm ?

admittedly it would be better if Steam and others allowed greater nuance than just "positive" & "negative"