In so many strategy games, you play as the incorporeal embodied spirit of a state (as with all of the other Paradox titles) or its immortal god-king (for instance in the Civilization series), with little sense that these societies are actually run by different people with different aims, personalities, desires and proclivities. The single best thing the Crusader Kings series has ever done is express the personal nature of rulership. And if you want updates whenever a new post appears, you can click below for email updates or follow me on twitter for updates as to new posts as well as my occasional ancient history, foreign policy or military history musings. Instead, I want to focus on CK3‘s big systems and how well they express fundamental realities about the societies being depicted, both because that is more interesting, but also because it is a fairer way to judge the game’s historicity, since big systems get more development time and attention than tiny details.Īs always, if you like what you are reading here, please share it if you really like it, you can support me on Patreon. I’m not going to get into small-picture nit-picking about the names and dates of individual techs or the starting castles of minor counts. So I want to draw out some elements of historical societies that I think CK3 expresses well, and some where I think it stumbles a bit. You are here for me to talk about the history behind the game.
If you like the sort of games Paradox puts out, Crusader Kings III is probably the best they’ve done in delivering on a core concept.īut you aren’t here for my game reviews.
So as a game, for just pure fun, it works. The addition of fully-body avatars (in place of portraits) for the characters and the new stress system move the actual gameplay and experience forward in important ways. As a game, Crusader Kings III is clearly a tremendous success and a marked improvement over its predecessor.
Now from the beginning I should note that this isn’t a game review.
0 kommentar(er)
