It's been a bit of a rough month for me, which is part of the reason I've released no reviews. I finally got around to playing Crusader Kings III though. Played it with my friends during the recent free weekend, although Crusader Kings has never really been much of a multiplayer game. Fighting against one another is quick to lead to someone being knocked out of the game, and there aren't a lot of opportunities for co-operative play. Sure you could form an alliance, or invite each other to events, or divvy up the land, but you're not really having too much of an impact on each other.
While I was thinking about what to write about, I went back to read my Crusader Kings II review. I realized not much has changed, so you can go read that, and then return. There definitely are some differences, many possibly arising from the 8 years between the release dates of the two games. I would overall say Crusader Kings III is better, because it just refreshes the game. The UI, graphics, and presentation is more modern, and a lot more accessible. One could argue that the additional accessibility makes the game easier, but I've never felt that difficulty through obtusity is a good thing in any way. A lot of it also comes down to personal preference, or a preference for the old game, because it's already familiar. I definitely think some things have gotten worse, while other things have gotten better. They're still making updates 4 years in, so I have faith there's more improvements to be made yet.
Overall, Crusader Kings III is very similar to its predecessor. A bit too much so, if I were to be honest, where I didn't really get a novel experience playing it. Ultimately, I'm okay with this. I think the game has improved, and making the same thing, but better, is a valid direction for a sequel. To that end, I'd recommend Crusader Kings III just as I recommended its prdecessor. In fact, I'm replacing it in my favorite games of all time list, because I don't see a reason to go back to the old game.
No comments:
Post a Comment