Expeditions: Rome

There are several reasons. The plot is full of holes and completely absurd choices. E.g. you kill a guy in the first act, but they magically show up in the second act. You're forced into self-mutilation or human sacrifice for no good reason at all. The legion battles are extremely boring, tedious, and pointless. Inconsistencies in the class design: E.g. all assassin type characters in the game are of the archer type class, but the assassin skill tree is under the skirmisher type class.

Oyun gayet güzel dönemi ve atmosferi gayet iyi yansıtmış. Aksiyon, oyunun sonlarına doğru biraz sıktı beni pasifize etme görevlerinden dolayı oralar da olamsaymış tadında bırakılsaymış mükemmel olurmuş. Oyunu oynarken sanki Rome(2005)' in içerisindeymiş gibi hissttiğim yereler oldu hoşuma gitti. Roma dönemini seviyorsanız iyi işlerden biri. Şayet sıra tabanlı aksiyondan çekiniyorsanız aksiyon sistemi biraz basit tutulmuş o yüzden çekinmeyin derim. Puanım; 8/10

I’m honestly pissed off. These fights are boring as hell every few rounds it’s just another wave of enemies spamming the battlefield. Endless reinforcements don’t make the game challenging, they make it tedious. I don’t get how they managed to make this newer title feel worse than their previous one. After yet another repetitive fight, I just turned it off, quit, and uninstalled. . The pacing is awful, combat feels like a chore, and the constant enemy spam kills any sense of strategy or fun. I actually liked this studio’s earlier game, which makes this even more disappointing. In my opinion, Expeditions: Rome just sucks I seriously hope their next Expedition game is way better, because this one? Not recommended.

Замечательная пошаговая стратегия

[h1] Expeditions: Rome - An interesting but flawed experience [/h1] After completing this game I thought long and hard about whether to give it a Thumbs-Up or Down and decided I slightly veered more to the negative. That isn't to say I disliked the game but more so that I couldn't recommend it as a whole and here's why: [h2] Gameplay and Ludo-narrative Dissonance [/h2] Ludo-narrative dissonance is when the gameplay and the plot mess with one another and make the experience feel off and this game is a prime example of it. It's a turn-based strategy RPG where you have a mixture of plot-important NPC's in your party and more generic praetorians that you can hire. In the story missions and maps you are encouraged to use the fleshed out NPC's who have full dialogue trees and interesting quirks but then at times the game forces you to use the generic praetorians in pacification missions or sieges. This creates a massive disconnect between the characters you put your time and effort into versus the ones you just use and creates frustration. This is further exacerbated by the player character's role in the plot. You play as a son or daughter in a noble family who is shipped off after escaping lethal political intrigue. You are snuck off to your mentor and then made a Legatus of a Roman Legion who has thousands of soldiers at their command. You're then expected to personally take charge of every situation and put yourself at risk in nearly every combat situation. Over the game you will find yourself thinking 'Why can't I just solve this situation by sending hundreds or thousands of my soldiers' while you're expected to send between 6 to 14 people depending on the situation. Including the sieges. I never really felt like I actually controlled a legion throughout the game and the later plot makes the idea farcical. You do vaguely control your legion on the world map but this to me was the most dreary part of the game and by the end I would have loved for it to be automated. Your legion is comprised mechanically of manpower and a few stats which are modified by your leaders (I can't remember what the game calls them) and stratagems that you and the CPU play in each round of mass combat. It literally just turns into a numbers game where you try and play the stratagem that gives you the best number on one or two stats while nullifying the negatives the CPU plays. In the later game (I think I'm beginning to sense a pattern here) this becomes incredibly swingy and repetitive. The actual strategy combat is very fun, at first. Unlike with something like XCom which allows for escalation by introducing wildly different units and technology on both sides, once you have a good set of armour and understand the best skills that remains what you'll do by the end of the game. The later game tries and fails to get around this by massively increasing the number of enemies and adding a couple of odd abilities like berserk but it won't stop the same strats that worked early game. [h2] But what about the actual plot? [/h2] I don't want to spoil it for you in case you decide to play the game but like the common theme throughout this review it starts off well and begins to peter out by the end. The overall conspiracy against your character's family is revealed rather early and then it feels like you're spinning your wheels in the various regions while the enemy continually gets unearned one-ups on you. The individual moments with your actual party and the various characters can be really interesting but the grand narrative goes out with a whimper. [h2] How does it look and feel? [/h2] I can't complain on that front, I enjoyed the voice cast overall and the world looked nice. At times the controls would feel rough and it was easy to move my characters the wrong way in combat but that's really on me. [h2] Overall [/h2] I would definitely be interested in trying the other Expeditions games. I feel like this one stumbles one too many times but there are positives here.

Open Letter to the Developers || Topic: Warehouse Tutorial To the Development Team, I am writing this not just as a player, but as someone who wanted to enjoy your work, loves tactical games and especially the time period your game is in. However, the opening missions of Expeditions: Rome—specifically the Warehouse encounter on Lesbos—represent some of the most poorly tuned, mathematically hostile "tutorial" design in the modern CRPG genre. 1. The Illusion of Choice vs. Mathematical Certainty You present the player with a cover system that, at Level 1, is effectively a trap. Against elevated archers with high-ground bonuses, "Partial Cover" is a death sentence. By depriving the player of any healing, tactical items, or viable ranged counters, you turn a tactical encounter into a coin-flip where the AI holds all the weighted dice. 2. The "Front-Loaded" Difficulty Wall A tutorial should teach mechanics through empowerment, not through a brutal gear-check before the player even has gear. Forcing a Level 1 party into a crossfire against "omniscient" snipers isn't "hardcore"—it’s a failure to understand player onboarding. You are punishing returning and new players alike for not already knowing the exploits required to bypass your broken accuracy scaling. 3. Respecting Player Time Difficulty should be a curve, not a vertical cliff face at the five-minute mark. Until the early-game accuracy and action economy are patched to reflect the actual tools available to a Level 1 party, Expeditions: Rome remains a brilliant game buried under an inexcusably "utter ♥♥♥♥" introduction. Now that I got this out of my system, I am doing something productive and more fulfilling with my life - like counting the cat turds my feline buddies left me in their litterbox overnight. At least my cats are honest about leaving me a pile of ♥♥♥♥.

норм