Expeditions: Rome - Reviews Roundup

I still need to try the demo for this.

Originally Posted by largh
I am not concerned about the quality of the game. I am sure it will eventually be the same or better than the previous games which are among my favorite RPGs.

I'm surprised when I see people call the Expeditions games RPGs. I haven't played Vikings, but Conquistador was more of a strategy game than RPG to me. Maybe a hybrid at the most.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I still need to try the demo for this.



I'm surprised when I see people call the Expeditions games RPGs. I haven't played Vikings, but Conquistador was more of a strategy game than RPG to me. Maybe a hybrid at the most.

I haven't played Conquistador, maybe it was different.

In both Viking and Rome, you define your character attributes, they have abilities and skills that you get from gear or that you can extend from skill points. You get those points by completing quests. There's a party, a world map with areas in which you can talk with NPCs, factions, and turn-based combat.

It's really your typical RPG with a custom ruleset.

Rome added extra components like a siege after each story arc (if there's something similar in Viking, I haven't seen it yet).

Conquistador has most of those things, but I still wouldn't call it a typical RPG. To me, it's a tactical RPG or SRPG. Closer to something like HoMM but with a little more emphasis on the RPG parts.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I'm surprised when I see people call the Expeditions games RPGs. I haven't played Vikings, but Conquistador was more of a strategy game than RPG to me. Maybe a hybrid at the most.

I roleplayed the Vikings and felt it was as much of an RPG than Pathfinder: Kingmaker or Baldur's Gate for that matter. I doesn't need magic to become an RPG Anyway, we both know that defining the genre is like trying to draw a line in water. Let's not start that discussion again

Originally Posted by largh
I played the Vikings as an RPG and felt it was as much of an RPG than Pathfinder: Kingmaker or Baldur's Gate for that matter.

That's certainly an interesting opinion I think. What really matters though is that you enjoyed the game.

Corrected the wording to "roleplayed" as "play as an RPG" was a bit vague. Anyway, the Vikings was a great game. Tactical or not, that does not dilute "an RPG experience".

Are you going to preorder or will you wait and play later?

I still have not decided. Perhaps waiting until the summer would be most reasonable…

Originally Posted by JDR13
I still need to try the demo for this.



I'm surprised when I see people call the Expeditions games RPGs. I haven't played Vikings, but Conquistador was more of a strategy game than RPG to me. Maybe a hybrid at the most.

Having played both, Vikings is much more of an RPG than Conquistidors, even if I think Conquistidors was the mre interesting game. Gone in Vikings is the Heroes of Might and Magic type exploration, rather you have areas on a world map like in Baldur's Gate 2. Mechanically character building has a lot more options, basically a classical classless skill based system. Also the areas, quests, npcs and exploration is much more similar to a classic crpg, with obvious influence from the infinity engine type games. Its definitely worth a playthrough if you haven't tried it.

For the nuances of RPG I'll pass my turn, but by strategy games I understand RTS like Europa Universalis, RUSE, Total War and so on. It's not that, not even close.

There are some extra strategic or tactical elements in Rome like capturing outposts and the big sieges, but I see that as an extra layer like Pathfinder's kingdom management or crusade system. I haven't had the impression of playing a strategy game at all in Viking or in the demo of Rome. It's a war setting though, so there is a feeling of battle and conquest.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
Having played both, Vikings is much more of an RPG than Conquistidors, even if I think Conquistidors was the mre interesting game. Gone in Vikings is the Heroes of Might and Magic type exploration, rather you have areas on a world map like in Baldur's Gate 2. Mechanically character building has a lot more options, basically a classical classless skill based system. Also the areas, quests, npcs and exploration is much more similar to a classic crpg, with obvious influence from the infinity engine type games. Its definitely worth a playthrough if you haven't tried it.

Thanks. I had assumed Viking was more similar to Conquistidor except with a different theme. It does sound like they added more RPG elements. I'll probably try Rome as that settings appeals to me more right now.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Thanks. I had assumed Viking was more similar to Conquistidor except with a different theme. It does sound like they added more RPG elements. I'll probably try Rome as that settings appeals to me more right now.

Viking is almost pure CRPG. It has some homestead upgrades elements, but aside from that its just CRPG with old mechanics like camping etc. Conquistator is really tactical RPG as you wrote.
Rome is more closer to Viking, but it has more strategic elements than Viking, legion camp upgrades or dynamic strategic map as Jonas said in our recently published interview.

I'd agree that Vikings progressed from what Conquistadors started, in that it seemed to become a real CRPG to me. When you think back on the concept of both games, honestly in my head they shouldn't work as well as they do. I give huge kudos to the teams involved for pulling it off both times, and I suspect they did the very same thing this time with Rome.