The real reason Imperator:Rome failed, and the secret to Caesar's success

[Arizal]

Why not just have the game be set in a randomized (and procedurally generated) fantasy world with a completely made up map and completely made up nations? That way everything would be new and different every playthrough.

The second part of my comment was aimed precisely to refute such crude strawman. I’m no further interested than you by a completely random game and I’m sure you know it after all the conversations we had in the past about this subject.

About calling railroading mechanics such as mission trees “content”, it is true they can seem grounding, but they also limit the perceived scope of the game to what they present and, if associated with powerful rewards, they give “unfair” advantages to players who happen to play the “intended” way, which makes the whole game a glorified graphic novel or book you are the hero of, especially as the normal mechanics get ignored or bypassed by their use.

 

[dbruser]

For you maybe. If you think that it has high resonance across the globe, then you are in for a suprise. People in the middle east care more about arab-islamic, persian or turkic history. If I can play my ancestors in a time period that I am interested in, why play the same game in another time period?

Rome total war is kept in high regards, because it was the entry to the total war series for many people. Medieval with mods is much more popular and their flag ship is warhammer. So not sure what your point is. I like Rome total war as well, but not for its time period, but for how the game plays.

Eitherway calling it "pinnacle of the total war series" is absolutely wild.

Well thanks for agreeing with me after disagreeing with me.

Maybe not across the world, but Paradox games tend to be marketed towards western nations and I suspect that they are more popular there (though I don't really have much hard evidence other than the popularity on forums - though language barriers could contribute).

I meant it was one of the pinnacles of it's series, not necessarily the best. Rome 2 for example has BY FAR the highest sales out of any (non-warhammer) total war game other than 3 kingdoms.

I just meant that a lot of people find rome itself and roman history interesting, but one reason Imperator flopped because you can't make an EU4-style game when people only care or know about like 5 nations total.

 

[strattonthebard]

Honestly I think what killed I:R was the bad launch combined with bad PR. I think other paradox games have managed to survive similarly rocky launches and 2.0 was a pretty respectable game, although a bit lean on content. There was just no coming back from the reputation the game developed at launch.

 

[dbruser]

Honestly I think what killed I:R was the bad launch combined with bad PR. I think other paradox games have managed to survive similarly rocky launches and 2.0 was a pretty respectable game, although a bit lean on content. There was just no coming back from the reputation the game developed at launch.

Eh, that may be part of it, but the gameplay issues were even more apparent than other games and it took awhile to fix it as they had to overhaul core systems.

 

[SAmaster]

The second part of my comment was aimed precisely to refute such crude strawman. I’m no further interested than you by a completely random game and I’m sure you know it after all the conversations we had in the past about this subject.

About calling railroading mechanics such as mission trees “content”, it is true they can seem grounding, but they also limit the perceived scope of the game to what they present and, if associated with powerful rewards, they give “unfair” advantages to players who happen to play the “intended” way, which makes the whole game a glorified graphic novel or book you are the hero of, especially as the normal mechanics get ignored or bypassed by their use.

You have to recognize at this point the value that people would ascribe to more curated content. You have to realize by this point that there's a tradeoff in the content you get between a complete freeform experience and a more limited narrativized one.

 

[Arizal]

You have to recognize at this point the value that people would ascribe to more curated content. You have to realize by this point that there's a tradeoff in the content you get between a complete freeform experience and a more limited narrativized one.

Yes, they give value to those tools, and I also want the game to represent many historical realities. It just doesn't have to come in the way late-EUIV and HoI4 presented.

I also value a game which have mechanics who stand on their feet when it comes to representing historical processes and choices faced by countries.

 

[SAmaster]

Yes, they give value to those tools, and I also want the game to represent many historical realities. It just doesn't have to come in the way late-EUIV and HoI4 presented.

I also value a game which have mechanics who stand on their feet when it comes to representing historical processes and choices faced by countries.

Then say that instead.

 

[Tusade]

It failed because it was a (bad) copy paste from Europa Universalis IV, because the only "flavoured countries" are Rome and the greeks diadochi. Because the Parthian Empire never happens and never becomes a threat to Rome, I mean, there is no "end game challenges" like the Mongol Horde and the Black Death (or the fourth crusade if you are Byzantium) in CK3, or the revolution in EU4.

Once you conquer Greece and Carthage, that is the end of the game, because there is no more challenges to your big, unstopable, unbroken, invincible, republican Empire.

 

[SAmaster]

It failed because it was a (bad) copy paste from Europa Universalis IV, because the only "flavoured countries" are Rome and the greeks diadochi. Because the Parthian Empire never happens and never becomes a threat to Rome, I mean, there is no "end game challenges" like the Mongol Horde and the Black Death (or the fourth crusade if you are Byzantium) in CK3, or the revolution in EU4.

Once you conquer Greece and Carthage, that is the end of the game, because there is no more challenges to your big, unstopable, unbroken, invincible, republican Empire.

To be fair, Rome had a great few centuries going there.

 

[Asterios_III]

What truly matters is not the mechanics or content themselves, but rather the post-release support.
It’s about how quickly the developers can respond to bugs, add new content, and address player feedback.

The frequent criticism seen on the CK3 forums likely stems from delays in this kind of support.
Of course, I understand that the developers are working hard and not ignoring the players’ voices.
It just sometimes feels that way.

I wish there were more opportunities to learn about the developers’ thoughts and activities—
for example, what bugs they’re currently working on fixing, or what kind of content they’re planning for the next DLC.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Maybe not across the world, but Paradox games tend to be marketed towards western nations and I suspect that they are more popular there (though I don't really have much hard evidence other than the popularity on forums - though language barriers could contribute).

If that was the case and the core audience in the west are also "latins" interested in the time period, then Imperator would have been much more played. The game is superior to EU4. Evidentally that (I:R>EU4 players) is not the case.

I meant it was one of the pinnacles of it's series, not necessarily the best. Rome 2 for example has BY FAR the highest sales out of any (non-warhammer) total war game other than 3 kingdoms.

And Rome 2 is also the entry in the series that was the worst. I dont think you realize how bad the game was upon release. People were starving for a new, up-to-date total war game (for that reason the next entry will be a commercial success). It got massive hype thanks to its "beautified" gameplay trailers. It took years upon years to make it playable to the state of Rome 1.

Eitherway I dont want to continue arguing about this. The main point is: I dont think antiquity is as much of an interesting time period for people that you make it out to be. The latest entry was in the bronze period and it also flopped hard. Rome is just going to have a special spot (for myself included), because it was a very special game, when it first came out.

I just meant that a lot of people find rome itself and roman history interesting,

Never said anything disputing that. When I am talking about interest, I am talking about it in terms of playing in that time period.

but one reason Imperator flopped because you can't make an EU4-style game when people only care or know about like 5 nations total.

Yes. What does that mean when they only care for 5 nations? That there is overall less interest in the time period (as in playing in that time period).

Caring for more nations in a specific time period = more interest.

Btw my analogy with "playing your ancestors" still stands. I played my home-country region and culture in EU4 much more than I played any nation in I:R. There is just overall less interest. This doesnt mean that people dont find antiquity interesting, they do (I do as well), but it still doesnt make up for a good time period to play in.

The ressources would have been much better spent in a fantasy setting, EU4/EU5-style game.

 

[Kvesir]

Johan once summed up the reason IR failed as "lack of content."
I think this perception is wrong.

The real reason IR failed is that "AI cannot create a world map like the historical one."
In other words, we were disappointed that AI Rome did not conquer the Mediterranean world.

We must not repeat this mistake with Caesar.
In other words,

・AI Ottoman must expand into the Eastern Mediterranean.

・AI Britain, AI France, AI Spain, and AI Portugal must create colonies all over the world.

・In the first place, AI Spain must be established with a probability of more than 80%.

・AI Persia and AI Mughal must be established.

・It is desirable for AI China to be unified by some force.

・Of course, there may be times when AI China and AI India are split, but that should not be the case all the time.

We want a solid AI nation to grow, not a world divided into small pieces.

Partly agree, I think the core of what you are describing is the lack of content that Johan saw in IR.

Contrary to what many forum users think, EU5 can't be a perfect simulation of the entire universe down to the atoms, its simulation aspect clearly has limits in its scope (and I am calling it now: Vicky3 will always have a deeper societal simulation than EU5).
Unique content around historical outcomes like all the points you said will remedy this by making the game varied by region and giving us unique challenges based on things that actually happened.
But for a piece of historical content to be likely to appear, an earlier piece of content needs to "nudge" (not railroad) the game in that direction. Like the Western Schism raising Catholicism's reform desire, thus making the Reformation more likely to succeed, thus making the League Wars more likely to appear. This enriches the game.
If we won't have enough of this kind of content (including late game content) we will criticize the game for being bland at launch and for all countries feeling the same, which is the exact reaction Vicky3 and Imperator Rome got too.

Imperator Rome could never solve this issue by introducing more content, because on the one hand it is an EU spinoff and its simulation is not as deep as Vicky3 (it's too mana focused), so it couldn't enrich the experience with deeper aspects of the simulation without completely redesigning itself, and on the other hand most countries in IR are unrecognizable today and the only historical narrative we have from that period that can turn into new content is Rome conquering everything. They could make more content that is only for Rome, but I imagine they wanted the game to still feel balanced and not have Rome stomp everyone each time.
Hence why IR remained a bland game, too mana-intensive to reform and stuck in a period without narratives to give to most countries. I believe this is the lesson Johan learned from IR when he designed EU5.

In my opinion IR would have been better off as a game where you play as a character in Rome. Make the game about managing your patrician family and network, and give Rome all the content and narratives it needs while it conquers the known world or fails to do so by your hand. Then, perhaps, we would have gotten DLCs to play in places like Carthage with a similar depth.