salty mud
Deity
I'm slightly surprised to see Old World sitting at a disappointing "mixed" rating on Steam, with only 67% of reviews being positive recently. A quick glance at some of the reviews highlights the following issues:
- The game is RNG heavy and games can be won or lost through a random event.
- AI builds and trains quicker than the human player, enemy units move too far each turn.
- Characters and dynasties not meaningful/impactful enough
- Poor performance and bugs
- "not enough depth"
I can see where some of these complaints come from. Game performance is still unacceptably poor and must be improved; my PC is well above the recommended specs and still chugs along after turn 80 or so. This should be a priority for the developers. I also agree the game is rather heavy on the RNG and sometimes offers some lose-lose situations, such as two neighbouring nations seemingly enjoying cordial relations until the game decides they will go to war and drag you into one side whether you like it or not. I find that the "reduced" setting of random events is the sweet spot. I believe complaints about units and movement has been addressed in that the AI won't use forced march now unless the game rules allow it. That said, I think this comes down to a learn-to-play skill issue - the AI is not playing by any other ruleset.
People often make comparisons to Crusader Kings and how the characters here are not as detailled as their CK counterparts. This I find odd. In CK, characters are nothing but stats. This is slightly mitigated in CK3 with the stress system where players should act within their characters' traits but it honestly doesn't go far enough. I really enjoy Old World's archetype system that gives each character a defined role - a tactition leader can take a leading role on the battlefield, stunning enemy units, whereas a scholar will be much better used as a governor. I would like to see this go further and archetypes be given even more options that impact gameplay.
"Depth" is a funny word because it seems to have different meanings to each person. To me, if I have to worry about a lot of things, the game has depth. I definitely find that the case in Old World, with growth, culture, production, family relations, research and warfare all asking my attention and interacting with each other. I guess "depth" is just a catch-all word used when a game doesn't quite hit you the way it should.
What are your thoughts?
- The game is RNG heavy and games can be won or lost through a random event.
- AI builds and trains quicker than the human player, enemy units move too far each turn.
- Characters and dynasties not meaningful/impactful enough
- Poor performance and bugs
- "not enough depth"
I can see where some of these complaints come from. Game performance is still unacceptably poor and must be improved; my PC is well above the recommended specs and still chugs along after turn 80 or so. This should be a priority for the developers. I also agree the game is rather heavy on the RNG and sometimes offers some lose-lose situations, such as two neighbouring nations seemingly enjoying cordial relations until the game decides they will go to war and drag you into one side whether you like it or not. I find that the "reduced" setting of random events is the sweet spot. I believe complaints about units and movement has been addressed in that the AI won't use forced march now unless the game rules allow it. That said, I think this comes down to a learn-to-play skill issue - the AI is not playing by any other ruleset.
People often make comparisons to Crusader Kings and how the characters here are not as detailled as their CK counterparts. This I find odd. In CK, characters are nothing but stats. This is slightly mitigated in CK3 with the stress system where players should act within their characters' traits but it honestly doesn't go far enough. I really enjoy Old World's archetype system that gives each character a defined role - a tactition leader can take a leading role on the battlefield, stunning enemy units, whereas a scholar will be much better used as a governor. I would like to see this go further and archetypes be given even more options that impact gameplay.
"Depth" is a funny word because it seems to have different meanings to each person. To me, if I have to worry about a lot of things, the game has depth. I definitely find that the case in Old World, with growth, culture, production, family relations, research and warfare all asking my attention and interacting with each other. I guess "depth" is just a catch-all word used when a game doesn't quite hit you the way it should.
What are your thoughts?