To make Rome 2 change has to be made. Real change.

[eduhum]

Since the release of EU1 the Paradox different series have advanced in an extremely fashioned way. Its so nice. You just can compare a screenshot of EU1 and CK2 or EU4.
But I played Rome 1, and although I loved the game, I couldn't get off a sense of...emptiness or syntheticness. The tribes i gallia were 1 province minors that couldn't progress nothing, the colonisation system was province by province. What I try to say is that civs like Rome or Carthage were put at the same level as the suebii or the lusitanii, mere tribes...
I think that Paradox, in order to make Rome 2 must overhaul the faction system. There must be different kind of civilization levels, non colonised lands shouldn't be divided in provinces...
And talking about provinces, I'd topically expect a Much more geographically accurate and big map, that would permit create provinces and borders as you were playing with paint, and make the armies move more like in Total War, where they stand in a single point and don't encompass an entire province. To use this system the EU4 power points should be used, so that you were able to engulf large swaths of lands at once, and not colonize anything in a long period of time. Right now in EU Rome 1 it is technically impossible to conquer Gaul as Caesar did, and Paradox games point to historical plausibility.

Just opinions.

 

[unmerged(616751)]

If you and other people really want Rome 2, there will be a kickstarter for people to fund if they want to make it happen.

 

[Ipsissimus]

I would gladly support it in kickstarter.

 

[Sardoniscorn]

EDIT: Bugger my previous point, I just watched the video where they explicitly mention Kickstarter in relation to Rome 2.

So, I say. Bring it on, what are you waiting for? It would be an immediate pledge from me an, I suspect, the rest of the "vocal minority". Then you can really see if it has enough support.


Put your (our) money where you mouth is and make this Kickstarter (or equivalent).

 

[stilgarpl]

If you and other people really want Rome 2, there will be a kickstarter for people to fund if they want to make it happen.

Where did you get this info? When will it be? I can't miss it!

 

[unmerged(616751)]

Where did you get this info?

Their latest video on their youtube channel,

 

[Mixxer5]

Their latest video on their youtube channel,

Wow, if that's true... Than it's great!

 

[Bad_Haggis]

I was the first one to ask about it in that thread, so I'll take all the credit for it .

Seriously though, it would have to be significant overhaul of the EU: Rome systems (as the OP says) before I would start getting really interested. I don't mind if it's EU: Rome 2, but I would prefer them to go down a different, more character-based, path. I'm not sure if making the game very similar to CK2 would work, but I would prefer it if there was a lot more emphasis put on internal struggles (like CK2 does so well).

 

[Pete0714]

EDIT: Bugger my previous point, I just watched the video where they explicitly mention Kickstarter in relation to Rome 2.

So, I say. Bring it on, what are you waiting for? It would be an immediate pledge from me an, I suspect, the rest of the "vocal minority". Then you can really see if it has enough support.


Put your (our) money where you mouth is and make this Kickstarter (or equivalent).

Seriously, if I'm putting money anywhere, they better treat investors like fellow developers, and listen to what we actually want out of the game, and not make a base for modders to fix for free. Better yet, open up the Clausewitz 2.5 engine to modders and let them do it.
Frankly, I think that kind of preinvestment is ridiculous. Its not a charity, its a company. Games fail to sell because they are either poorly marketed, or poorly developed and got panned as such, not because consumers somehow failed in their obligation to buy based on loyalty or some cult mentality. They want money, stop spending capital on 90's era retro throwbacks like Knights of pen and paper and teleglitch, take a look at what you did not do right about the games you have, and make needed improvements. But really, fundraising to beg for them to develop a game sequel from a game they never finished?? That's downright insulting. Don't do anyone any favors, if you don't want to do it, fine. But stop blaming the consumer.

 

[Sardoniscorn]

I cannot figure out how Paradox thinks that Rome 2 does not have a market?

How did they justify remaking CK and Vicky, when those were nowhere near as popular as titles like HOI or EU?

I think its quite uncontroversial that people didn't buy EU:Rome because of the bad feedback on the game, not because people aren't interested in the Roman period.

Yeh, I guess their suggestion that we put blind faith in a project and pledge money is not the best idea. It is up to them to figure out the market potential and develop based on that.

However, they surely can't be saying, "Oh, EUR didn't sell well, therefore a sequel has no chance"

It didn't sell well because it had a host of problems. If they can convince the buyers with lovely promises and their recent reputation, they can harness the "potential" that everyone harps on that EUR has channel it into sales.

I'm no marketing guy, but how can they not see how Rome 2 can be spun into a moneymaker?

Also, I'd be willing to bet that in a general poll far more people will say that they're interested in the Roman period than the Middle Ages or the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Zarine]

They want money, stop spending capital on 90's era retro throwbacks like Knights of pen and paper and teleglitch, take a look at what you did not do right about the games you have, and make needed improvements.

You must separate PI as developing company to Paradox as publisher.

PI who works on EU, Vicky, HoI and CK is doing an amazing job improving their game both in accessibility and stability without removing deepness.

Paradox decide to help small game company that they think deserve a chance. They are making 90's retro game, but guess what, that's current trend in the casual gaming area : simple graphics but fun to play.
Now you may not like those game, but they are not bad and it doesn't suck away PI time. It is only taking part of Paradox time which has little thing to do when there isn't a big PI game to advertise and plan for release.

Add to that the fact that those small game companies might grow and create better game. Who do you think they will choose to continue publishing their game and help them with the money upfront?
It's an investment and hopefully, Paradox will make the good one.
There will be fail (and already was) but there will also be good things (War of the Roses and Cities in Motion are the one on top of my head).



Now on the Rome 2 topic, I must agree that I felt EU : Rome was empty. I made maybe 3 plays and stopped because I felt there was nothing to do. And I think that's the main reason why it didn't go very far.
Hopefully, PI will think about a Rome 2 and work out the emptiness to bring something interesting.

 

[stilgarpl]

Their latest video on their youtube channel,

But they only talk about it hipotelicaly...

I cannot figure out how Paradox thinks that Rome 2 does not have a market?

How did they justify remaking CK and Vicky, when those were nowhere near as popular as titles like HOI or EU?

I guess EU:R didn't sell well, but I don't think CK1 was a hit either.

And about Victoria 2...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_2
THIS:

The decision to create Victoria II was influenced by voting on the Paradox Interactive forums and debate within the company. The CEO of Paradox Interactive, Fredrik Wester, publicly announced his belief that the game would never see a profit while other members of the company such as Johan Andersson were confident it would be profitable. To this end Wester promised that if the game did indeed make a profit he would shave his head and post the pictures onto the forum.[11] This belief stemmed from the first game's lackluster sales numbers. It was revealed in a German interview with Frederik that 70,000 copies would need to be sold in order for Victoria II to be profitable.[12] On 17 June, Jessica Chobot from IGN shaved it off for him.[13]

 

[Cadoc]

I am all for Rome 2, but the absolutely, unbelievably rude way in which Rome fans were addressed in that recent videos have really soured me on the day of a kickstarter in support of it. I am honestly surprised more people aren't angry about it - I honestly haven't seen a company, any company, address its fans so disrespectfully.

 

[Pete0714]

I am all for Rome 2, but the absolutely, unbelievably rude way in which Rome fans were addressed in that recent videos have really soured me on the day of a kickstarter in support of it. I am honestly surprised more people aren't angry about it - I have honestly haven't seen a company, any company, address its fans so disrespectfully.

Oh, I was angered by it, believe me. Arrogant and patronizing were two words that came to mind. Also defensive, as they didn't make any suggestion that maybe Rome didn't sell because it was not a semipolished game, but it was because customers didn't support it, like we were not loyal enough.

 

[Sardoniscorn]

Arrogant and patronizing were two words that came to mind.

I didn't really notice the first time I watched it, but yes, this does sadly seem to be the case.

 

[Mixxer5]

I think that they'r right in this case. I mean- as much as I'd like to see R2, I understand that it might not be exactly profitable... Especially considering how much dead Rome forum currently is. So kickstarter seems like a good way to solve this.

 

[Cadoc]

Especially considering how much dead Rome forum currently is.

That has everything with Rome just not being particularly good game when it was first released, and aging very poorly now that CK2 does almost everything it did, but better.

Really, the Roman period is more popular than EU's or Victoria's settings, so I don't see why a *good* Rome game wouldn't be popular. Rome 1 remains Creative Assembly's best Total War title, and the sequel is gathering a *lot* of attention.

 

[donaldduck]

I want Rome2, too. But I don't think it is wise to make it right now, for Total War Rome II will be out soon, some people will compare two games together, which is somewhat not good for Paradox.

 

[delra]

We want Rome because we can't have it.

 

[Bad_Haggis]

Would anyone else rather they start a new game series in the Roman era, not connected to EU: Rome? I think they would have more scope for change if the did this.