Análises recentes de Beans

I'm still finishing the tutorial. gg

I've played over 1000 hours of CK2, on and off for the last few years. CK3 is definitely slightly more story focused than its predecessor. You very rarely are able to just shrug off a close relative dying unless you have specific traits, such as callous or sadistic, and you can't go against the nature of your character without him/her becoming stressed. It feels like you can journey along with the character you're playing, especially after you've passed the opening generation. Each character or succession feels like something completely new: you can be a sadist that enjoys torturing their vassals with one ruler and a warmongering zealot the next. The enhanced graphics make it feel like the person you're playing is more dynamic, rather than portraits that often felt expressionless in the previous game. Compared to Imperator, this was a strong start to a new game.

In my only lengthy game so far I've guided the House of Leon as counts of Astorga and Monterrei to being Dukes of Galicia and Leon and then to being rightfully Kings of Leon (primary), Portugal and Syria (all as separate kingdoms), while destroying the Jimena - not that I needed to do much, they are good at imploding without help. Meanwhile in France, the Robertines have spawned 22 cadet branches and the Holy Roman Empire controls Poland, Hungary and Ruthenia.

Update for Cicero:

After a few months past release, the game is beginning to resemble a game that would be worthy of being released. That extra few months of updates did Imperator a lot of good. Now, so far I've only played Rome in Cicero and it feels a lot less like a map painter and more like a strategy game. You now need to balance between what the senate wants and what you want, it's now more important to keep your families loyal at risk of civil war. Population and building changes feel a lot more impactful now as well. There's a lot of work left to do to make this game substantial to convince everyone but I feel that this version of the game should've been the version that Paradox released, instead of the Frankenstein's monster of CK2, EU4, Victoria etc. they released in April.

There are a few things I have a problem with but they are relatively minor compared to the glaring problems at launch.

Previous review from April:

Imperator could've been a wonderful game, charting the rise of the Roman Republic to the establishment of the empire, while you are guiding them in the process. But that process often seems tedious. I got a good fifty years into the game without needing to bribe, assassinate or even participate in the politics. You're given casus belli but no direction. The Roman Republic had specific aims and specific threats but Carthage/Epirus/Etruscan League just seem mediocre. The vast web of alliances these nations had don't exist in the game. Southern Italy is left to the dogs because AI Epirus can't figure out how to navy. I watched Etruria be devoured by Boi, which is a bit of a metaphor I suppose. Carthage couldn't conquer the other nation on Sardinia because like Epirus, it couldn't figure out how to use a navy. All three of these nations are regional powers. I also felt like I could devour nations without being impeded. Nobody cared.

I remember being enthralled with Europa Universalis IV when it first came out. Playing any great power (before you paid to have great powers actually implemented) felt like a unique experience. Here I could play Athens, Sparta, Massalia, Megaris, Boetia and aside from the map location and sprites, it feels the same. It just feels unfinished. There's no incentive to play anyone other than Rome and even then, it's just a map painting sim.

My main issues:
- Everyone only has access to a trireme in the age of Quadrireme (332 BC), Quinquereme (399 BC) amongst other ships, that defined ancient naval warfare.
- Every single land unit is the same
- The technology feels more like bonuses. You don't really unlock anything new.

What I do like is the detailed map, the historical detail of the nations in it. The details of the characters, families, rivalries and so on. I just think all of it was poorly assembled together to create this. The trade system I also like. It's one of the few truly unique things about this game.

As an addendum, I wouldn't normally post a review but after six years of playing pdx games. from playing EU3 to this, I feel like Paradox has betrayed their values of making good games in order to make money and it feels like in their quest they are losing a once fairly loyal fan base. I'm quite happy to continue playing their games but I feel like I need to speak out about it. This feels like an unpolished game. Not even that, it shouldn't have been released and certainly not at £35. Paradox have even begun specifying whether their updates are 'free' or not, acting it seems more in corporate terms rather than engaging with the community in a meaningful manner. However, I do look forward to the future of the game, but I'm not even remotely confident that Paradox will not be shaking a money tin at me in the process.