Why Imperator Rome was going to be a far better game than other Paradox titles we have now

[netgmx]

And then there is still the difference between just bombing and actually believing that paying for the game including future patches and that removing the future of the game depreciating the game's values.

Age of wonders 3 annouced end of developement - don't see torches and pitchforks there ;] I know, I know, the situation is a little different, here we expected pdx game, not just game

I'm not telling you that imperator situation is perfect, just that patches are not just bugfixes, pdx is able to make good game bad (eu4). Now that I think of what I wrote - bugfixes in patches - lately they have equal chance to introduce more new ones.. (sorry for still kicking eu4...)

"die a hero or live long enough to become a villain"

still believe that imperator could snowball into something great with another year of developement with small focused team (without typical lately rotation)

 

[MishaTX]

Would you be satisfied with a WW2 game with no almost WW2 in it?

... But enough about HoI IV...

 

[Kadanz]

I dunno, I'd consider two years of support pretty generous for a game with basically zero audience. I get that some of you here love the game and at times, I loved it too. But the patching the game got was a lot more than its audience size mandated.

Then again, they layed out an official roadmap, which was a commitment from paradox to atleast support the game until the end of said roadmap. They did. Sadly, imperator was a 'gem' in the rough that suffered from its initial release. And I agree with Lambert's sentiment, the game could've been marketted a lot more. The game was too much dependent on word to mouth from its relatively small player.

 

[Alspego]

Players have talked about Imperator as a joke and warned others not to even try the game. It was never as bad as some claimed and its been steadily improved through patches and DLC's.

Every time imperator got some patch that improved it, people still claimed it was a joke of a game and kept warning people to stay away and gave bad reviews.

And now that the game is one of the better GSG games people reviewbomb it to make sure that paradox wont bother recruiting more devs to work on it.

And still some wonders why development was put on hold.

Most players are not reading the forums etc, they just play the game as long as they enjoy it. I:R made a bad early impression on many players (maybe bad is the wrong term, painfully mediocre might fit it better) and that is the reason why you had fast drop-off in the player base.

 

[klopkr]

Imperator is the future games like EU4 and CK3 need to take note and learn from. The elegance of some of these systems is just so satisfying.

I fear EU5 will not learn anything from Imperator and crash hard on launch from continuing bad EU4 systems.

I'm gonna feel a gap in the current games where imperators civilization/population simulation is. Vicky is the closest other game and it's kind of a different coat of paint with the different time periods.

I hope they use Imperator type mechanics as a basis to future games.

 

[AppoX]

Personally I am happy and surprised with how much support from PDX Imperator got, the steam stats for Imperator had been looking terrible since launch - reaching vicky 2 player numbers (an 11 year old game) pretty quickly. Yet they kept trying to get it off the ground for two years. Unfortunately not even 2.0 could resurrect the player-base so the plug had to be pulled. To me its not surprising and perfectly understandable - Paradox is a for profit company after all, they can't keep supporting games which are not financially viable.

You can argue people buy PDX games with expectations of years of support and DLC, but that sort of thing can only work if the base game itself is successful, and people should know that. After all March of the Eagles and Sengoku didn't get very many DLCs. You should only buy a product based on what it is rather than hoping it will get better later. On release Imperator disappointed me quite heavily - and I liked EU: Rome, in fact I played more EU:Rome after the release of Imperator than I have played Imperator. I am saddened but not surprised by the loss of support. I think Imperator had potential, and if they gave the game resources and many more years of development - im sure it could've be one of the best Paradox games. But that is a pipe dream, the game just did not succeed on release so we didn't get that and I understand it.

Although I was much more saddened by March of the Eagles not receiving any DLC - that is actually one of my favourite Paradox GSG, even though the community considers it a 'meme'. It is a game I still return to periodically, each game taking only a few hours of fast-paced Napoleonic wars is just fun arcade casual GSG experience to me. I can only dream what the game could've been if they gave it EU4's level of DLC support....

I guess the example of Imperator, MOTE and Sengoku shows that PDX games need a good launch to really flourish into a great game with the DLCs and post-launch patches. I really hope the Vicky 3 release will be successful.

 

[Emberfox]

...Maybe they do think Imperator: Rome is one of their best games.
Thus, they need the teams to polish their other current games.

Also, I heard a lot of comparision with Victoria 2 (which i have not yet played) so maybe they need Arheo and some senior modders for their secret new game?
Maybe they *do* make Vicky 3? They have shown that they are willing to work on a game with a small playerbase and are hesitant to officially cancel development with it, so why not revive another game which had (according to what I have heard) a small'ish playerbase?

If they put I:R for ice a bit while the team finishes V3, I think a lot of anger may subside.

 

[Godd_Howard]

...Maybe they do think Imperator: Rome is one of their best games.
Thus, they need the teams to polish their other current games.

Also, I heard a lot of comparision with Victoria 2 (which i have not yet played) so maybe they need Arheo and some senior modders for their secret new game?
Maybe they *do* make Vicky 3? They have shown that they are willing to work on a game with a small playerbase and are hesitant to officially cancel development with it, so why not revive another game which had (according to what I have heard) a small'ish playerbase?

If they put I:R for ice a bit while the team finishes V3, I think a lot of anger may subside.

If Victoria III goes anything like CK3 or even worse Imperator then what's the point? That's the question I'm asking. What's the point of making a game called ROME and not do anything other than slap some texutures on the map and then wait for the players to magically like it? I have a strong feeling a lot of suits at Paradox were bitter about this game long before it came out and had their mind made up about it becasue it was a risky and innovative and they don't like taking risks, they like taking our money. That's why they didn't have anything going for the game on release, because the company itself wanted the game to fail. Imperator Rome is the only Paradox game I wish I could refund, not because I don't like it as a game(2.0 Imperator is a very good game) but becasue the copros at Paradox think they are way smarter than they actually are.

 

[Snow Crystal]

If Victoria III goes anything like CK3 or even worse Imperator then what's the point? That's the question I'm asking. What's the point of making a game called ROME and not do anything other than slap some texutures on the map and then wait for the players to magically like it? I have a strong feeling a lot of suits at Paradox were bitter about this game long before it came out and had their mind made up about it becasue it was a risky and innovative and they don't like taking risks, they like taking our money. That's why they didn't have anything going for the game on release, because the company itself wanted the game to fail. Imperator Rome is the only Paradox game I wish I could refund, not because I don't like it as a game(2.0 Imperator is a very good game) but becasue the copros at Paradox think they are way smarter than they actually are.

Can we stop with inane conspiracy theories already? This is just getting ridiculous.

 

[Godd_Howard]

Can we stop with inane conspiracy theories already? This is just getting ridiculous.

What's the conspiracy? I don't like CK3 even though I have 1000 hours in CK2 becasue it does close to 0 to innovate on what CK2 is. And that is the same reason it has more players than Imperator, becasue it's just safer to make than something completely new. That is why it was hyped up more and had more resources pulled into it.

Am I somehow wrong about the people in charge wanting to make more money with less trouble? I don't think I am. That's the whole point of running a business after all.

 

[Bovrick]

I have a strong feeling a lot of suits at Paradox were bitter about this game long before it came out and had their mind made up about it becasue it was a risky and innovative and they don't like taking risks, they like taking our money. That's why they didn't have anything going for the game on release, because the company itself wanted the game to fail.

There's no way a company would push a product to fail, that's just silly. I'd also argue that the initial backlash was due to a lack of innovation - it was a fusion of EU4 and EU:R, but mistakenly taking the parts from EU4 that people don't actually like.

 

[Godd_Howard]

I'd also argue that the initial backlash was due to a lack of innovation - it was a fusion of EU4 and EU:R, but mistakenly taking the parts from EU4 that people don't actually like.

And that was the exact point I was making. They didn't let it innovate at the start for this reason. Because they thought something familiar would sell better. But that was not enough to sell a game called Imperator Rome, and when the game starts picking up they put it to off the side for what? Making more DLCs for games that have a large player base.

 

[Stianas]

It keeps happening over and over with the Paradox titles. That people hold the games up to the standards of previous games with lots of DLC's and continued development. It was the case for Imperator Rome and people expected a game as fleshed out as EUIV from the beginning. The same can be said about Crusader Kings III. And to be fair CK3 probably has been the most fleshed out base game by Paradox ever. Still people complain about it. People are being way too impatient with these games. It is something else entirely to develop a complex grand strategy game and for example a platform game. Even strategy games from other developers like Civ 6 follow a model that is not too far off from Paradox' model. Therefore I do not think it makes much sense to compare to strategy games to games of other genres. Strategy games require a bit of patience and they do take a lot of testing to balance right.

 

[Emberfox]

Can we stop with inane conspiracy theories already? This is just getting ridiculous.

NEVER!

If Victoria III goes anything like CK3 or even worse Imperator then what's the point? That's the question I'm asking. What's the point of making a game called ROME and not do anything other than slap some texutures on the map and then wait for the players to magically like it? [...]

Just quoting this part, but I have a question here. I admit I have come late to the party, just a couple patches ago.
But I still found agame with fun sounding missions & some nice decisions. And a playground to recreate the ancient world.
And this comes from someone who prefers to play tribes in northern germany. (I even resorted to cheats to play a Istvaeonic tribe, because who wants to paly Saxons?)

If V3 is anything like I:R 1.5 or 2.0 I will play it and have fun.


Originally I actually only started it to create another world for CK3, while waiting for some mods to be finished. Didn't really enjoyed it, but I kept playing it.
Once I found my pace and playstyle, I had myself a nice game which I play much more than any other Paradox games.
Still, a lot of stuff I dislike, but to be honest, my dislike of the game is similiar to my dislike for elves.
I hate both, but can't keep my hands away.. ;-)

 

[Godd_Howard]

NEVER!



Just quoting this part, but I have a question here. I admit I have come late to the party, just a couple patches ago.
But I still found agame with fun sounding missions & some nice decisions. And a playground to recreate the ancient world.
And this comes from someone who prefers to play tribes in northern germany. (I even resorted to cheats to play a Istvaeonic tribe, because who wants to paly Saxons?)

If V3 is anything like I:R 1.5 or 2.0 I will play it and have fun.


Originally I actually only started it to create another world for CK3, while waiting for some mods to be finished. Didn't really enjoyed it, but I kept playing it.
Once I found my pace and playstyle, I had myself a nice game which I play much more than any other Paradox games.
Still, a lot of stuff I dislike, but to be honest, my dislike of the game is similiar to my dislike for elves.
I hate both, but can't keep my hands away.. ;-)

I meant it as: if they just add cool graphics on top of Victoria II then it's not Victoria III it's Victoria II with cool graphics. Of course you need the core of the game to be similar to the previous one but you also have to provide something above that becasue that's what a good sequel is. - that's the CK3 analogy

For the Imperator analogy it would be: they make Victoria III, nobody likes it becasue it's shallow and underwhelming but after 2 years when people finally start to warm up to it since the devs are doing a good job at improving the game the management pulls the resources from it to make another CK3 DLC.

 

[Torugu]

Can we stop with inane conspiracy theories already? This is just getting ridiculous.

It's blindingly obvious that Imperator was only released because every computer running IR sends out the 5G waves that Bill Gates uses to mind control people into believing the moon landing is real.

That's why IR got canceled! Now that they have implanted everybody with their vaccine microchips Imperator isn't needed anymore!

 

[Iosue Yu]

Can we stop with inane conspiracy theories already? This is just getting ridiculous.

Snow Crystal, you are here.

I would like your opinion on, if during Paradox Conference we Imperatores want to express how much we miss this game, which cause of action would be the best?

May not actually get a good result, but if there is such a possibility that someone senior takes a second look at this game, which action gives the biggest chance?

 

[Alspego]

It keeps happening over and over with the Paradox titles. That people hold the games up to the standards of previous games with lots of DLC's and continued development. It was the case for Imperator Rome and people expected a game as fleshed out as EUIV from the beginning. The same can be said about Crusader Kings III. And to be fair CK3 probably has been the most fleshed out base game by Paradox ever. Still people complain about it. People are being way too impatient with these games. It is something else entirely to develop a complex grand strategy game and for example a platform game. Even strategy games from other developers like Civ 6 follow a model that is not too far off from Paradox' model. Therefore I do not think it makes much sense to compare to strategy games to games of other genres. Strategy games require a bit of patience and they do take a lot of testing to balance right.

I do not think that this is necessarily wrong since the new game does compete with the old one. Why paying money for and playing a worse version of a game? Also, Paradox is now a much larger company compared to the times when they released CK2 or EU4. The player base is also much larger. Because of that, it would make sense to expect that Paradox can invest more money and manpower for the development of new titles.

 

[Stianas]

I do not think that this is necessarily wrong since the new game does compete with the old one. Why paying money for and playing a worse version of a game? Also, Paradox is now a much larger company compared to the times when they released CK2 or EU4. The player base is also much larger. Because of that, it would make sense to expect that Paradox can invest more money and manpower for the development of new titles.

I think each new title deserves to be seen as a new game. Also, it would not make sense to make Crusader Kings III if it plays exactly the same as Crusader Kings II, so I am not sure if we really disagree on that. I want I:R, because EU IV, to me, feels a bit dated. Same with CK 2. There are lots of improvements in CK 3 that makes it a better and more up to date game than CK2. Even if it at this point don't have the same amount of content I still think it is a better game overall.

I don't agree with you about what you are saying about the company. This is based on assumptions. In a perfect world you are right. This is how the perfect company would be run, but in my experience it is not how it happens in practice with most companies. A lot of small companies grow quickly and the infrastructure of the company does not follow that growth. This is especially difficult when growing from a mid-sized company to a large sized company where people no longer know everyone. Communication gets more difficult across the organization the larger the company gets. I have experienced this twice in two different companies (although in a different type of business), and perhaps something similar has happened with Paradox. I just don't think these expectations people have to companies in general are very realistic.

Besides a company does not sit on perfect information on how to act. It is a bit a process of trial and error. Especially when it has not been done before. Do they know exactly how many developers they need? Probably not. The more advanced the game gets they probably need more, but without having done that process before you cannot just go ahead and "do it". And you need to balance that with economy and expected sales, which you also do not have perfect information on. And these processes I am talking of have been in very succesful companies, otherwise they wouldn't be having that kind of growth. Sure more resources get invested, but it is not as simple as you make it seem.

 

[Niizram]

I bought every Imperator DLC not just because it had new content I wanted to try but also becasue I knew that would incentivize the Publisher to continue to work on the game,

Same... I'm sad thinking about it.