I'm a bit hesitant on how I feel about Crusader Kings II. I actually only decided to play it because I acquired it for free during one of their promotions and because of all the stories I've heard about the game. It's a bit legendary, you see, yet the Steam reviews don't really reflect that, and neither did my initial impression of it through looking at its gameplay and descriptions. And if you were to ask for my honest, in a way, opinion, I'd still have to agree with that. But after binging it for more than 12 hours on some days, how can I really walk away and say I didn't enjoy it and that it's not a good game?
Crusader Kings II is one of Paradox's Grand Strategy games. They're really a genre of their own. I would say they're most similar to Turn-Based Strategy games in that your main focus is on building up these cities (counties), keeping control of them, and using your armies to conquer more for yourself. Crusader Kings isn't really turn-based though - the simulation is always running, albeit slowly or even on pause whenever you want in singleplayer.
However, a big difference is that ultimately, this game is not about your counties and your armies, and how well they're doing. It's about you, as the ruler. And unlike other strategy games, you're just a human with all your human problems you need to take care of, and so are your subjects. Ruling too much land by yourself? You'll have trouble administrating it, meaning less taxes, and fewer armies. Divide your land up into pieces to give to your vassals? Better hope they're content with your rule, or they'll plot to rebel against you. Own a large kingdom but are about to succumb to disease or old age? Watch as your land gets divided amongst your children and your unhappy vassals use the opportunity to claim independence from you. And there's just so much more.
Ultimately, most of these differences from a regular TBS (or a 4X, to be more precise) are that things are more difficult. A large domain and a powerful army will never guarantee your success, and in the long run, nothing will. Rise and fall, and rise again, but so will your enemies. Some, myself included, would consider this lack of control and these restraints which seek to pull you from power ever stronger as you achieve more of it to be terrible. Why am I even playing and trying to grow larger if I can't truly win, or if I can ever only control a tiny speck of this land I own?
The latter was what frustrated me in Stellaris as well, which is considered to be like a halfway point between a Grand Strategy and a 4X game. You may recall I didn't ultimately like Stellaris, and although with different wording, I criticized this same uncertainty of it, where its gameplay can't quite decide where to fit. I approached CK2 with the same mindset, and I believe that's where I went wrong. CK2 is not a 4X game, and it shouldn't be played like one. It's not about the destination, it's about the journey there, and those same amazing little stories you can tell after your long playing sessions.
Overall, I can't deny I've enjoyed playing Crusader Kings after I got over the initial steep learning curve and past the 4X mindset of absolute control and conquest. Still, it's far from a great game in my opinion with lots of flaws, which would take too long to point out. The game's pretty massive with lots to do, and it's an experience you can't quite get anywhere else (aside from perhaps Paradox's other Grand Strategy games). And despite its flaws, I love this experience and would in fact recommend playing it if you have a ton of time to spend.
No comments:
Post a Comment