Expeditions: Rome - the final Expeditions game from Logic Artists

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

You have reincarnated as this cat.

Cat food better than what most people will ever eat and the privilege of pissing in a high profile shoe? What's not to like?

 

[Avonaeon]

Still in gaming? Who are you working for now?

No longer in the industry, no

 

[Infinitron]

Meet Bestia Tabat, the Gladiator.

After a long and illustrious career in the arenas of Rome, this fighter of beasts finally earned his freedom. But what is a free man to do when all he knows is combat?

It's time to write your own history. Expeditions: Rome is coming January 20, 2022.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Still in gaming? Who are you working for now?

No longer in the industry, no

Full time writing?

 

[Avonaeon]

Still in gaming? Who are you working for now?

No longer in the industry, no

Full time writing?

I wasn't the writer on the games, that was Jonas I only wrote a couple of quests and encounters here and there.

 

[Parsimonious cook]

Played the demo, bought the game right away, cant wait for release. I loved Conquistadro, played Viking though it did not click with me, Rome is looking really great.

 

[Lyre Mors]

I loved Conquistadro, played Viking though it did not click with me

To this day it surprises me just how split people seem to be about the first two games. Almost everything from a gameplay standpoint is superior in Viking, from combat, character building, progression, individual location exploration, itemization, to maybe even the writing. The only thing that was objectively better about Conquistador was the overworld exploration element. Beyond that, I guess it just boils down to Conquistador having a more interesting setting. Still though, it continues to confuse me why some people tend to cling to Conquistador as the better of the two.

Not to say that you were asserting one was better than the other, but your general sentiment about it just spurred me to comment on it.

 

[Abu Antar]

Conquistador has much better writing than Vikings, no contest.

 

[Lyre Mors]

Conquistador has much better writing than Vikings, no contest.

That's not at all the sense I got, though it was several years between playthroughs for me. My overall sense was that the writing was more polished and less amateurish in Viking though, with additional attention placed on build-specific dialogue options.

 

[Abu Antar]

Conquistador has much better writing than Vikings, no contest.

That's not at all the sense I got, though it was several years between playthroughs for me. My overall sense was that the writing was more polished and less amateurish in Viking though, with additional attention placed on build-specific dialogue options.

I never felt that it wasn't professional. Conquistador's writing was one of the biggest surprises in a positive way.

It felt like they did write what they wanted. Not thinking about what people would think. They didn't compromise one bit, it felt like.

 

[Alphons]

Conquistador for me had this "adventure" feel. Camping, exploring the map with different encounters and secrets hidden around the map, managing your expedition members, their various interactions with each other and the world. I had 2 vastly different playthroughs by picking different characters each time.

Vikings is more traditional. Here's your roster of scripted companions (liked majority of them), travel and camping are simplified, you're no longer a faceless commander hiding behind your troops. Combat and writing are better, along with quest design.

I really liked them both, both are flawed, but fun games. Played each 2 times, I'll likely play them again.

Speaking of writing, I applaud the psycho that had written the various executions in both games.

 

[Parsimonious cook]

I loved Conquistadro, played Viking though it did not click with me

To this day it surprises me just how split people seem to be about the first two games. Almost everything from a gameplay standpoint is superior in Viking, from combat, character building, progression, individual location exploration, itemization, to maybe even the writing. The only thing that was objectively better about Conquistador was the overworld exploration element. Beyond that, I guess it just boils down to Conquistador having a more interesting setting. Still though, it continues to confuse me why some people tend to cling to Conquistador as the better of the two.

Not to say that you were asserting one was better than the other, but your general sentiment about it just spurred me to comment on it.

For me it is a matter of setting and atmosphere. In Conquistador, I had this great feeling of exploring a mysterious land inhabited by strange people. I guess that fact that I like the period depicted in the game helped too and this is basically only game that even deals with the subject matter of Conquista that I know of (well technically there is that datadisc for Age of Empires II I guess, but I wouldn’t count it on the same level).

The problem with Viking was that medieval England simply didnt have the same alure and the game itself simply couldn’t hold my interest just on the basis of the gameplay alone. I do agree that many aspects of the game were better/more polished as should be the case in a sequel, though for me it just wasnt enough.

In case of Rome, the setting is cool (I mean who doesn’t like Roman legions?) and the devs did good job with the new systems (ie you get to manage your legion, command it in battle AND there is the whole RPG stuff along with tactical combat with your retinue). The demo doesn’t show enough to see whether the exploration aspect will be good, however in this case the military aspect as well as the political infighting among powerful Roman families that forms the basis of the backstory are apparently going to be strong enough to carry the game on their own.

 

[Lyre Mors]

Yeah, now that I've actually started thinking about, it really does seem that the setting and atmosphere is the real reason that a lot of codexers prefer Conquistador.

I preferred the setting of Conquistador to Viking's myself, but not to the extent that I would deny that Viking is just an all-around improvement in terms of actual gameplay. It just goes to show once again how much the Codex tends towards narrative/setting/atmosphere over actual gameplay/mechanics/systems in the long run. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Just funny considering the way a lot of conversations ostensibly turn out around here.

 

[Alienman]

Conquistador didn't have OCD looting. Big win

Like others are saying, it felt more like an adventure, traveling to a new mysterious land filled with danger. The setting for Vikings didn't grab me at all, with its set storyline and characters. Anyway, stealing Aztec gold wins out traipsing around in cold old boring Denmark while being chased by wolves.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Vikings are practically barbarians. Case closed.
It also didn't have the disembodied player character feeling that Conquistador had.

 

[Darth Roxor]

It also didn't have the disembodied player character feeling that Conquistador had.

DON LAPTOP HAS NO STATS

 

[ERYFKRAD]

It also didn't have the disembodied player character feeling that Conquistador had.

DON LAPTOP HAS NO STATS

INCORRECT. DON LAPTOP HAS STATS.

 

[ArchAngel]

Yeah, now that I've actually started thinking about, it really does seem that the setting and atmosphere is the real reason that a lot of codexers prefer Conquistador.

I preferred the setting of Conquistador to Viking's myself, but not to the extent that I would deny that Viking is just an all-around improvement in terms of actual gameplay. It just goes to show once again how much the Codex tends towards narrative/setting/atmosphere over actual gameplay/mechanics/systems in the long run. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Just funny considering the way a lot of conversations ostensibly turn out around here.

I guess people didn't like all the extra RPG stuff that was added into Vikings that made it slower and less fun on exploring part.

 

[V_K]

Viking being "more RPG" also made it less unique from a mechanical perspective, not just from the setting perspective.

 

[Anonymous Wife Scholar]

It also didn't have the disembodied player character feeling that Conquistador had.

Thank you ERYFKRAD anon! You are a good strong friend anon!

 

[Hellion]

During the course of the story, you visit Egypt and

Spoiler

end up raising an African Legion of local Berbers to help you fight Ptolemy. You visit their camp and see fully-armed black Principes and Triarii dressed in Roman armor and speaking with a heavy african accent.

Some people here are going to have a field day with this game

 

[Alphons]

We all know why so many people enjoyed Conquistador and Vikings.

Spoiler

Killing kids and women.

So how's Rome in comparison?

 

[Infinitron]

Beware of Greeks bearing sticks:

Meet Syneros, the Mentor.

Your personal servant and teacher, the Greek philosopher has known you since you were a child. But the old man is surprisingly deadly in a fight. What hidden secrets lie buried in his past?

It's time to write your own history. Expeditions: Rome is coming January 20, 2022.

 

[Anonymous Wife Scholar]

Give me cute secret companion Amazon wife!

 

[baud]

During the course of the story, you visit Egypt and

Spoiler

end up raising an African Legion of local Berbers to help you fight Ptolemy. You visit their camp and see fully-armed black Principes and Triarii dressed in Roman armor and speaking with a heavy african accent.

Some people here are going to have a field day with this game

Spoiler

when romans hired local to fight, weren't they kept as auxiliary with their own style of combat like cavalry, light infantry and skirmishers? Also Triarii would have been phased out by the time of the game, no?