60 ms·
Crusader Kings 2 were the only single-player game I could play, where AI wouldn’t be immersion-breaking reminder that I am simply doing another version of compu
by wellthisisgreat 4y ago
Crusader Kings 2 were the only single-player game I could play, where AI wouldn’t be immersion-breaking reminder that I am simply doing another version of computer work.
If anyone has any interest in gaming whatsoever you owe to yourself to check out that (or Crusader Kings 3) masterpiece.
It’s also the closest I’ve ever seen the game come to a book reading experience. It usually delivers the same sensation as reading some Crusade’s chronicles. Incredible, really.
Also, incredibly, it’s a game where winning doesn’t matter. Not in a GTA-like sandbox where you aimlessly wander. In CK2/CK3 you are trying to fulfill your dynansty’s destiny. And sometimes you’ll conquer Europe, but sometimes you’ll rise and fall and fizzle on the outskirts of the civilized world. The story is always there.
- vintermann 4y agoI liked many things about CKII, but I think the expansions very quickly began to jump the shark, and they sometimes sacrificed historical accuracy to cater to popular perceptions. For instance, Paradox knew well that the kind of "haw-haw let's sacrifice our enemies to Odin" paganism that people wanted didn't resemble those historical belief systems very much, so they came up with the option of establishing "reformed pagan" faiths which just happened to be what people wanted. And don't even get me started on secret societies. You could play without those expansions, but then you felt like you were playing a long-abandoned game.