Скорошни рецензии на Dimitri Cosmos

Pillars of Eternity is credited with revitalising the CRPG genre. I believe this praise is justified.

PoE1 is a solid CRPG built around the classical formula of Infinity games from the past with some quality-of-life improvements that make it more accessible to the modern audience.

What I liked the most was the grim atmosphere, the tragic well-written stories, and that it's NOT using the DnD mechanics. Albeit the combat and classes are mostly the same as in DnD, all stats are relevant for each class, the min-maxing is not as crucial as in Infinity games, and the action outcomes are not decided by random dice throws (there is some probability involved, but to a lesser extent than in DnD).

If you take the time for reading the stat and ability descriptions, the game's cyclopedia, and the combat log, you start to realise how everything comes together. For example, you can choose between high armour rating with slow execution time or low armour rating with fast execution time; strong, but slow weapons or fast, but weak weapons; high accuracy (one-handed weapons) at the expense of attack frequency (dual-wielding), strong defence (shields) at the expense of accuracy (one-handed) or high attack frequency (dual-wielding) at the expense of accuracy (one-handed).

But the great thing is that all those choices work, if only you stay consistent and build upon them. The game is very flexible in this regard.

Different weapons and different spells provide different types of damage, different armours have different resistances and different enemies require a different approach. That's why you have to study the bestiary before each encounter, plan which weapons, spells, and items to use and how to position your party ahead of the combat. Since the combat is real-time with pause, the positioning is somewhat problematic, but it is still possible to use narrow passages, traps and flanking to your advantage. Everything can be bypassed and countered in this game, and that's what made the combat so enjoyable for me.

Although, I do have to admit that this level of micromanaging is not for everyone. Less patient people probably should just play on the normal difficulty. I grew tired of it by the end of the game myself. On the other hand, after progressing beyond level 8, most of the encounters become a cakewalk anyway. Only some of the high-level areas (in White March and Caed Nua) and bosses (like dragons) are somewhat challenging, unfortunately, mostly because of buffed-up damage resistances and health.

I also have to add, that in the typical Obsidian fashion, wizards and area attacks get the preferential treatment, even to the point that some of the scripted text adventures (there is such a thing in the game) require a wizard for the best outcome.

I also was not happy with the following. You can't dual-wield pistols and blunderbusses (like in PoE2). Weapon focuses don't increase the damage, but only the accuracy (by mediocre 6 points). Weapon focuses don't synergise with weapon styles well enough — each focus includes at least one two-handed, at least one one-handed and at least one ranged weapon, whereas the styles are: the one-handed style, the two-handed style, the two-weapon style, and the weapon-and-shield style; there also some passive talents for ranged weapons. With the two White March expansions the level cap is 16, which restricts the flexibility of your builds quite a bit. Consequently, some of the passive talents are not worth the cost. I guess this was done because the players get too powerful by the middle of the game. Likewise, the traps were nerfed and the talents that improve the traps and potions were dropped from the final game version.

Fortunately, all of these minor problems might be adjusted with the IE Mod to your heart's content.

As to the other major aspect of the game, the story, I can say that it's solid. It's nothing mind-blowing, but it's solid. It's a story that takes itself seriously. The game takes place in post-war Dyrwood, where children are being born without souls, wizards are experimenting on prisoners and lunatics, bandits are roaming the countryside, tyrants are oppressing the population, and various factions are competing for power. The quests are well written, intricate, and usually offer more than one way of solving them. If you pay attention to the details, you realise that more often than not they are also tragic. Sometimes, solving a quest requires choosing between a bad outcome and a worse outcome. But which is which — that is for you to decide — since morality in this game is rarely black and white. It's exactly this aspect that made me enjoy this game so much.

I only wish that the companions were more likeable. I didn't develop a sense of attachment to any of them. Only after completing the companion quests, did I learn to appreciate them more. I have used the word "tragic" a lot in this review, but their stories are precisely that — a tragedy. All of them have suffered some kind of injustice, personal loss, or a deeply traumatic event at some points in their lives. So, your job as a watcher (a soul-reader) is to help them to overcome the trauma in one way or another.
Or not. You can also play solo (the game does not favour that, especially, on the hardest difficulties, but it’s doable) or hire custom-made companions (with potentially better stats). Or you can use the canon companions and modify their stats and even classes with the IE mod.

Before concluding my review, a few words about the economy, graphics, and the soundtrack.

The economy is somewhat problematic. Everything is expensive, and fully upgrading your keep and items takes considerable effort and time. Perhaps, this was done to make stealing more viable, I don't know. Either way, you won't be swimming in money until the final chapter or until you have completed the White March expansions, which not only offer you the best unique items in the game, but also the most amount of loot to sell. Doing White March is not recommended until about level 10, so it's kind of late game anyway.

As to the graphics, well, what's not to like about pre-rendered 2D backgrounds? They look good even in the Infinity games, even more so in a modern game on a high resolution. It's hard to pick up the details on the 3D models, though, but you can adjust the zoom level with IE mod and a console command.

The soundtrack fits the atmosphere, although I'd say that it's somewhat generic most of the time — you know, your classic epic fantasy stuff you hear in Hollywood films and similar RPGs.

So, in total, I'd rate this game with 8/10. It's a solid CRPG with a good combat system and a great story. It doesn't reach for the stars, but “solid” is good enough for me. PoE tried to deliver the best of the old Infinity games to the modern audience, and I think it has succeeded in this task. With its relatively low budget, it's a praiseworthy achievement.

Short verdict: the game of the year that overwhelming majority of the players haven't finished...

... because it's long, tedious, confusing and its quality drops from stellar to mediocre in the second half of the game.

But the combat, indeed, is great. Probably, the best CRPG combat I have experienced. Although, some players might hate how the armour system protects against status effects and restricts the use of skills that apply those effects.

The writing is good, too. The quests are well-written and interesting. However, the overall story is convoluted mess.

This is amplified by pretty bad level design, which, in turn, is amplified by abundance of junk items and messy inventory management.

So, what you get in total is stretched-out and fragmented story progression, in which it's easy to mess up some quests, if you do them in the wrong order and/or not on time. Without guides, this is almost guaranteed, because quest markers are all over the maps.

It seems that Larian couldn't fully decide whether they want an open-world or a linear game. DOS2 is an open world game that feels like a linear game, because of the level limitations and quest design. The humour that is typical to Larian games also doesn't always fit well into the overall dark theme of the game. This game gives the impression that the writers and level designers worked independently on their separate tasks, and they did a good job on their own, but whoever coordinated and put their projects together failed.

At this point, I have played all the Divinity games, except for the Dragon Commander, and I must say that Larian keeps repeating the same mistakes for twenty years: too much trash loot, backtracking, messy level design, rushed end games, and, overall, biting off more than they can chew.

The first half of the game could have been an easy 9/10, but the messy quest progression brings my overall impression down to 7/10.

Definitely not a perfect CRPG, more like a flawed gem.

The story of Divinity Original Sin takes place 8800 years after Dragon Commander and before any other Divinity game released so far. It's not a prequel to Original Sin 2 in any meaningful way, since the events of OS2 take place more than 1200 years later.

Like any other game in the series, it's also built around the trope of the Chosen One(-s) saving the World. So, I can't say that the main story is great.

However, if you ignore the big story, the quests themselves are fun, intricate, and, often, sprinkled with a great dose of Larian's trademark humour. Often, there is more than one way to resolve a quest.

Unfortunately, the chronological and the geographical order of the quests are not always in line. It's possible to resolve or discover something that you were not supposed to do until several hours later. This, sometimes, messes up the quest progression and cause inconsistencies in dialogues with NPCs.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed the quests and dialogues quite a bit. It's the best part of the game, along with the combat system, which offers a lot of room for creativity, especially, since you are not restricted to your starting class.

Sneaking, tinkering with the inventory, setting enemies against each other, using the environment to your advantage, spells, grenades, special arrows, persuasion — it's all there. For me, the best thing is that the tactical aspect is straightforward and obvious. No need to think about dice rolls, difficulty classes, armour classes, saving throws and all that other DnD crap.

However, there are a few other downsides worth mentioning.

• There's a lack or equipment variety. If I remember correctly, there are only five non-unique armour sets and just a few visual variants for each weapon type. The robes, particularly, look awful. Fortunately, there is a mod that replaces them with cloth armour.
  
• There are quite a few of skills that are not worth the action points spent on them.
  
• Most of the loot is trash.
  
• You need to identify equipment items, before using them.
  
• There's a trait system in the game. It affects some missions and provide your characters with minor bonuses. It's tied to moral assessment's made by the two main characters, but the logic of those assessments does not always make sense.
  
• Inventory management is a chore.
  
• Finally, the crafting system is not polished well enough. Not all equipment items can be crafted or recycled. Some ingredients are too common, and some are too rare. And some, very common items have too many crafting steps to even bother with.

I should also warn you that this game can become a huge time sink for people who prefer to clear all locations completely (by completing every quest, looting every item and killing every enemy). One might suffer from choice paralysis, too.

However, if you overlook the minor faults, DOS is a fun RPG with good jokes and combat system. It can be even more enjoyable, if played with a friend (CoOp is supported). Don't forget to check the mods that can help you adjusting the gameplay to your needs.

My overall rating:8/10.

Pathfinder: Kingmaker has a good story, but the overall experience is ruined by the dull and tedious combat.

If old-school CRPGs (e.g., Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights) with their micromanagement are your thing, you're going to like this game. It even has many quality-of-life improvements (compared to those games) that make that micromanagement easier and more comfortable. You, probably, are also going to like this game, if you are a fan of the Pathfinder tabletop games.
But, for those of you who want a faster and more direct combat experience and progression, Kingmaker is going to be a test of your patience.

I'll admit that I'm not a fan of DnD CRPGs, in which many outcomes are determined by dice rolls. I used to think that the problem with those games was their clunky engines. But, after playing Pathfinder: Kingmaker, I realised that, actually, the problem is the ruleset. In my opinion, tabletop rules of DnD or Pathfinder simply do not translate well into a digital format. In a tabletop game, you have the dungeon master that (hopefully) interprets the game in a fun way. In a CRPG based on a tabletop version, you have fixed, rigid and repetitive algorithms.

These rulesets are too complicated and involve too much of randomness. The redundancy of the options offered to the player also does not improve the general experience. There are too many spells, items and weapons that accomplish pretty much the same thing. At least half or even two thirds of the arsenal available to the player could be reduced or grouped into subcategories sharing the same requirements and bonuses. Many of the classes are also too similar to each other. For example, a wizard is pretty much a wannabe sorcerer, and a sorcerer is pretty much a simpleton wizard; a barbarian is a fighter with a death wish; an inquisitor is a cleric with a better sense of style, and so on.

On top of all of that, Owlcat Games included too many combat encounters in general. There is abundance of loot of limited value that diminishes towards the end of the game. It's beyond my comprehension why the game presents unique items during the last few quests in the game, when your characters are already very powerful as they are and have the best or almost the best equipment in the game.

Likewise, there are many enemy types in this game, described in great detail in the bestiary, which is a part of the UI. Many of them are quite interesting and unique. Unfortunately, they all start to feel kind of the same a few chapters into the game.
The special feature of Pathfinder: Kingmaker is the kingdom management. It's like a game within the game and is deeply interconnected with the main storyline. It's also entirely optional and can be adjusted in the difficulty settings. You can even make it automatic and ignore it completely if you don't care about it.
It's annoying that it involves timed tasks, not all of which you'll have enough time to complete, simply because multitasking has limits.

Fortunately, kingdom management can be fixed with mods; as basically almost any other aspect of the game. You can finetune your gameplay experience with the default game settings, and you can take it even further with mods. They can remove some of the most annoying problems of Kingmaker. I think mods Bag of Tricks[www.nexusmods.com] and Kingdom Resolution[www.nexusmods.com] are almost mandatory for a bearable gameplay experience.

As I've said, the story is generally good — sometimes great, sometimes mediocre. The game has a pretty solid main plot with sufficient level of branching for roleplaying and moral choices. The companion quests are interesting and work well enough for you to develop a sense of care for your party members. Errand quests are also present (good for extra xp); most of them are unique, only a few fetch quests here and there. Kingdom quests tie into the story well enough, so I actually felt like a ruler, not just some vagabond running around and slashing all kinds of baddies.

There are plenty of fantasy tropes in the game, but nothing I want to complain about. You can also expect a good joke here and there.

The game is pretty, although a lot of assets and maps are recycled.

The soundtrack is pleasant, although many tracks are just variations of each other.

In general, the story is what kept me through 100+ hours required to complete everything in the main game, despite the grinding through dull and boring combat. I would rate the story with 8/10.

Yet, the combat is really, really NOT fun.

Therefore, my overall rating is only: 6/10.
Recommended DLCs: The Wildcards (extra class, extra companions, extra quests).
Not recommended: Beneath the Stolen Lands; Varnhold's Lot (extra grind).

I recommend this game to fans of the Pathfinder PnP modules and to any patient player who loves a good story. It's probably better to play this game in short bursts over a period of several weeks or even months, to not get tired of it, instead of rushing through it in one week.

I wish I could say that Tyranny is a diamond in the rough, but it's mostly rough. Its premise is that "the evil has won". The player is presented a world conquered by Overlord Kyros, a mysterious autocrat of which little is known, apart from the fact that he destroys anyone who doesn't bend the knee. He or she (it's not revealed in the game) maintains his power through powerful spells (edicts) and a system of vassals (archons). Archons are powerful individuals in their own right who rule over armies, territories and/or some aspects of the reality.
The player starts as a fatebinder in the court of one such vassal, Tunon — the Archon of Justice. A fatebinder is sort of like Judge Dread — a judge, and an executioner and, above all, the one who proclaims an edict. An edict is a conditional, very powerful spell that binds fates of others, hence the title — "Fatebinder", typically, over large territories and long periods.
In the prologue, the protagonist is thrown into the conquest of the last lands free of Kyros rule (called the Tiers), and his decisions determine the faith of certain factions and the protagonist's standing with them. Whereas the first chapter starts with an insurrection. The player is sent to ensure that the two main Kyros's generals subjugate the rebels and bring the Tiers under absolute control.
As the story progresses, the player is forced to side with one of the Kyros's factions, or can choose to side with the rebels, or betray any previously established alliances and carve his own path. It's also the story of "the Chosen One", since the player becomes so powerful that he can potentially overthrow Kyros, should he choose to do so. However, it should be noted that the game has only III acts, and the scope of the game is limited only to the fate of the Tiers. The game ends on a cliff hanger, giving a sense that there should be Tyranny 2, but that probably is never going to happen.
As you can see, there's a pretty solid narrative foundation, as one would expect from a CRPG, but it also falls short in many aspects.

• The game is built around the idea that, with enough practice, any skill can be honed to perfection. And certain exceptional individuals can even reach a level of a demigod. This is reflected in the fact that there are no class restrictions and that skill levels progress as fast as often those skills are used. This is also reflected in the concept of archons, who, through their innate talents and personal struggle, have become something more than humans. For example, Archon of War Graven Ashe became an archon through his military genius and deep care for his soldiers. As a result, he is able to heal his soldiers' wounds via magical protection referred to as "Aegis".
  I think it's a great idea, but I don't like its execution when it comes to playable characters.
  
  1. There are many skills. Skills determine damage output, resistance, and the ability to overcome certain restrictions. For, example lore, among other things, determines the complexity and power of spells that a character can learn. Skill can be trained passively through dialogue and skill checks. They can also be advanced via allocation of attribute points. I've no complaint about this part.
     
  2. But there are also talents. Talents are abilities that either grant permanent passive bonuses or powers that can be activated during combat and have a cooldown. I have several issues with the talent system.
     Firstly, there are too many of them. More options are always good in theory, but, frankly, I always ended up using the same four to five abilities per character all the time.
     Secondly, many of them are kind of the same. The damage type can be different, but a projectile is a projectile, and an area attack is an area attack. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, whether you set an enemy on fire with a fire arrow or a fireball.
     Thirdly, and most importantly, the animations and cooldowns are too long. It's easy to be interrupted by the enemies, and, often, you discover that your target was already taken down by your companion before your attack is even executed. Investing in the quickness attribute helps, but still, I believe, the devs could have halved the execution times.
     Fourthly, the talent trees do not match the AI behaviour pre-sets. The talent trees are adjusted toward certain play styles, whereas AI pre-sets take talents from two or more talent trees, often incorporating skills that are only attainable in the middle or late game. This means that the AI pre-sets cannot be fully utilised early on.
     Fifthly, spells and magical attacks are superior to melee and ranged attacks. It's possible to play as a melee or ranged soldier, but it's going to be harder, especially, early on. In general, it seems that whoever designed the combat system had a hard on for area attacks — so much so that even non-magical attacks feel like elemental area attacks.
     
  3. On the bright side, Tyranny allows to design your own spells from different elements that determine the type, range, and area of the spell. Many of the elements can be combined. So, for example, you can create a spell that deals both fire and frost damage (counterintuitively, as that is). It's a pretty cool feature. What is not cool, though, is that you can't obtain enough lore in one playthrough to create the most powerful spell combos possible. It's also kind of weird that any playable character can learn spells, even those chars who are based on the warrior or archer archetypes.
     
  4. Furthermore, you can even upgrade your relationships with characters and factions, which provide you with combo and reputation abilities respectively. The type of the abilities depends on whether your relationship is positive (loyalty/favour) or negative (fear/wrath).
     
  5. The reputation also extends to special items — artifacts — which become the more powerful, the more you use them (gaining renown levels).
     
  6. Additionally, the artifacts can be upgraded in the forge in the same way as any common or unique item (except for accessories).
  Btw, if you are still with me, all this part between the previous and next bullet point was about the idea of universal improvement. I just wanted to demonstrate how this common aspect of RPGs was taken to the extreme, and, perhaps, made redundant and imbalanced here and there.
  
• Flexibility is another aspect of the game.
  It manifests in the classless progress system. You can specialize your characters in any way you like. Still, it's better to decide, which role are you going to choose for them — a damage dealer, a tank, a healer, a ranger... And it's counterproductive to specialize in more than one or two weapons/fighting styles. Therefore, I don't see much point in removing class restrictions. It's just another thing that looks good on paper but doesn't have any practical value.
  Flexibility also manifests in the story decisions. You can switch sides and betray previously established loyalties or goals even until the very last mission. You can also drag your companions along with no serious consequences, even though they should be opposing or even leaving you based on their beliefs and previous affiliations. Not only does this diminishes the quality of the story in my eyes, but it's simply illogical.
  On the bright side, the same flexibility makes Tyranny quite replayable. Although the story progression itself is very linear and you can explore only one region at a time, there's enough side branches that could lead to four main outcomes and a few more outcomes with each of the factions and companions. However, it seems to me that the rebel ending is actually the cannon ending, as it has the least of logical contradictions, and the game sort of "pushes" you towards that outcome.

Continued in the comment section

Darkest Dungeon is a game where you walk around poorly lit hallways and rooms, collecting valuables and resources and fighting monsters. You can use those resources to upgrade your heroes and town buildings, making your roster of mercenaries stronger and your chances of success higher. Dying is almost an inevitability, semi-permanent stat debuffs (aflictions and diseases) are definitely an inevitability. You grind, die and grind again. A good variety of hero classes, trinkets and skills allows for tactical creativity. The game is hard, but with the difficulty levels, DLC disabling and mods you can adjust how hard you want it to be.

I recommend this game to patient people who love rogue-like games and don't mind the grinding.

My overall rating: 6/10

To everyone else I recommend Disciples 2, which does what Darkest Dungeon does, but better.

Age of Decadence is an old-school CRPG. Think of a mix between Fallout and Stargate with a Roman flavour.

It has a pretty good story set in a post-apocalyptic setting that feels like Roman Empire in ruins. You start as a nobody in one of the six roles offered to you: a mercenary, a merchant, a loremaster, a praetorian (something of a knight-diplomat), a thief, an assasin, a drifter, and a grifter. Each of these roles favor certain playstyles, character builds and starting reputation with the factions in the game.
As you progress, you soon discover that the game is harsh and unforgiving, that backstabing and trickery is common, that selfishness is rewarded and kindness is punished, and above all - that you are not an all-powerful hero. You join the power game and choose sides, advancing your skills, influence and trying not to get killed. As you play you discover bits and pieces of information about the ancient technologies and a mythological war of the past that lead to the current state of things. Eventually, you need to make a major decision that will determine the future of the mankind.

The AoD has all the elements of a good RPG, but the problem is that it doesn't entirely succeed at puting them together well.

• It has a good overall story, with detailed lore, well written dialogues, attention to details, but at the same time there are some pretty major things that felt unpolished. The major characters are quite unremarkable and bland and all of the endings are kind of the same. The factions are kind of the same, too. They differ in their priorities and approach, but they all are after power. Everything is presented in a detached and impersonal manner. The mythological element is very strong in this game and it overshadows everything else up to the point that the end game might make meaningless everything that you did before the final quest. As a player character I take on quests and make decisions, talk with NPCs and participate in fights, but at the same time it felt like my character is just a sidenote in someone else's story. I guess what I'm trying to say is that AoD felt more like a choose-your-own adventure novel than a CRPG, because of how predetermined and restrictive the story progression was. It's restrictive up to the point that it's not even possible to roleplay your chosen archetype consistently. Finally, the ending is abrupt and the end screens, mostly, present the same or very similar results, just replacing the names of the key characters.
  
• Combat is hard. The odds are often not in your favour. Not because you are outnumbered, but because there are very few opportunities to invest in your stats and equipment, so that you have just enough power and resistance to survive a fight. The investment in the combat skills comes at the expense of non-combat skills. But, if you don't invest in the non-combat skills, you miss out on a lot of content. If you invest too much in the non-combat skills you might not survive a fight that is inevitable once you fail a skill check.
  However, I liked that there is a great variety of weapons with their own advantages, disadvantages and strategies. The same goes for armour, although I didn't like that it's not possible to craft every helmet in the game. You can also utilize poisons, acids, nets, bolas, fire and potions in the game.
  It is possible to become an unstoppable butcher in the game, but there's a very narrow path towards that level of combat prowess.
  The game emphasizes that you don't have to take on every fight. The thing is that depending on the order of your quests, equipment and stat allocation, often, fighting is not even a realistic option. You just have to skip some fights and quests to make it through the end.
  
• The game has some replayability. There are different factions quests and quests with different possible outcomes. But mostly the replayability is achieved through restrictiveness. A lot of content and lore is hidden behind stat walls. And I really don't like it. I am fine with trying different factions, but I'm not ok with huge chunks of the story being hidden from me only because I couldn't persuade an NPC or didn't have enough crafting skill to fix a mechanism or enough lore to figure out an ancient text. I think the game lacks alternative exploration paths.
  
• As to the game world itself, I think it's cool that the devs chose some lesser used themes such as Roman Empire and Middle East for the overall atmosphere. But the world felt empty, static and soulless. The atmosphere was in the text, but it was not on the maps. The maps felt disconnected from the overall story. The world around you felt like an empty decoration, offering very poor immersion.

However, in general, I like the game.

I recommend Age of Decadence, primarily, to patient fans of old school RPGs like Fallout and Planescape: Torment, who don't mind the hard combat and restrictive quest progression. For everyone else, I recommend playing this game with minimal use of console commands or mods that increase skill point yields. No matter how you feel about the restrictive gameplay, it's still worth to try the game for its general story.

My overall rating: 7/10

A cool text-focused game demo (prologue) faithful to the VtM atmosphere. I hope it gets the support needed for full-scale development.

10/10.

WARNING: there is no save system in the game.

Crusader Kings is yet another entry in the game series that allow you to roleplay as a medieval monarch. Although presented as a "grand-strategy game", it, too, like its predecessors, feels more like a sandbox role-playing game, which might not be everyone's cup of tea.

Albeit it lacks many of the features present in CK2, CK3 does feel like a finished game. I enjoyed its pretty design and new customisation features, and, after more than 3000 hours in CK2, I don't think I will be returning to its predecessor. Although, arguably, CK2 is a better game (because it has more content), I like CK3 more. It has a good potential, and, if Paradox doesn't screw up, with more DLC and updates, CK3 might become something truly "grand".

Particularly, what I like about CK3 is that:

• It has more customisation options (better ruler designer, better coats of arms designer, cultural traditions and ethos, religion tenets and doctrines, diverging and hybrid cultures) than CK2;
  
• Lifestyle trees sort of put role-playing on rails;
  
• It's random, but less random than CK2 - I feel that I have more control over my dynasty and my realm than in CK2, I don't have to micromanage as much;
  
• Expanding is harder and there are better anti-blobbing mechanisms than the simplistic threat system and defensive alliances;
  
• The royal court is a nice feature, albeit limited in scope.

What I don't like about CK3 is that:

• As I've said, although CK3 is not as random as CK2, it's still random — many of the things happening don't make any sense;
  
• The lack of events means that the game becomes repetitive quite soon, and, similarly, as in CK2, once you've established and stabilised the empire, there's not much else to do. You always can find something to improve even in the late game, but what's the point, really? It's just number pushing at its core.
  
• The AI is dumb, as in all Paradox games (and, perhaps, as in all strategy games?). Although, I have to agree that it manages marriages and land distribution a bit better than in CK2. It also chooses the moments for attacking better.
  
• Although tooltips and encyclopaedia do a good job at explaining things, the UI in general is a step back. I prefer the more "medieval" design of the CK2, and I also think that CK2's interface was more logical in terms of compartmentalisation. Particularly, I don't like that the dynasty tree has no filters. I also wish that the character finder would have options like "OR", "at least", "no more than" and "NOT".
  
• The CoA designer still lacks some very basic emblems, for example, a throne, Virgin Mary, a child, a fir tree, a feather, a lynx, a moose etc.
  
• The music is good, but CK2 music was much, much better.

Finally, there are two major questions that need to be answered about CK3.

1. Is the game worth its price?
   
2. Is is better than CK2?

In short, I think the game is worth its price even in its current state. On one hand, it IS overpriced. There are better and more in-depth strategy games available on the market that cost less. They are more advanced in terms of the complexity of the assets. Whereas CK3 at its core is just a map, some numbers, scripts, and very basic 3D models. I don't think that the price is justified by the resources and time invested in this game relative to other big franchises. On the other hand, the cost of the Royal Edition equals 8 to 10 cinema tickets. With that in mind, I definitely had more fun with CK3 than I would have from watching a few films in the cinema. One should also remember that game development is becoming more expensive in general.

As to which game is better — the second or the third, well, they are different enough to try both of them. I am repeating myself, but I prefer CK3 and I know that it will become even better. For a CK2 veteran like me who has grown tired of CK2, it definitely makes more sense to play CK3. If you have no prior CK experience, I recommend trying CK2 first, which is available for free now and you can try all the additional CK2 content for a small subscription fee.

So, the short verdict: CK3 is a cool sandbox simulator about medieval dynasties, even cooler with mods and additional content.

My overall rating:8/10.

Short verdict: a decent RTS game, if you can look past the first three campaigns.

Ancestors Legacy suffers from poor level design, slow resource yields, restrictive and repetitive gameplay. Furthermore, the first three campaigns are so frustrating that I wanted to quit in almost every post-tutorial mission. Some of the latter missions were also frustrating, but to a lesser degree.
The reasons why I found them frustrating:

• Insufficient or slow resource yields. Quite often, the missions start at a negative budget, and the game pushes you to capture new villages before your troops start starving and the morale begins to drop.
  
• Which wouldn't be that bad if you wouldn't constantly have to protect the captured villages and your base against enemy skirmishes. Since you start only with a few squads, it's not possible to cover all spots and protect captured territories. And enemies do like to sneak up from all sides every few minutes. Since you can't protect your resources, you can't maintain/replenish your army. Since you can't maintain/replenish your army, you can't capture/protect resources. Thus, a vicious circle begins.
  
• It's further aggravated by the fact that building is slow, and upgrades and techs are expensive.
  
• The maps and missions are poorly designed. There are missions where there are not enough resources on the map to maintain the maximum of ten squads. There are missions where the villages are located so close to each other or to the enemy base that the enemy can shoot your buildings from his watchtowers.
  
• The missions are built around goals, which trigger certain events. These events can include betrayals and surprise attacks. Some goals need to be met within a certain period of time. Some goals require you to rush across the map or cancel the previous goals. There are even a couple of missions that you are supposed to lose. Just because. Literally. Like you have invested an hour in building your army and capturing territories, and then the game tells you to retreat, and the next mission begins.
  
• A rock-paper-scissors principle for units that sounds good in theory but fails in practice. The reason is the terrain that severely limits unit positioning and the fact that not all unit types are equally useful. Ballistae and scorpios are near useless. In theory, they do a lot of damage to enemy troops, but they are very slow and can barely protect themselves. Catapults are great at taking down buildings. Mounted units are good for hit and run charges. Infantry units (anti-ranged shield men, anti-shield axemen and anti-cavalry spearmen) have their own specialisations, but pretty much feel the same. However, the ranged units are far better than any other unit. They can sneak attack almost anything from distance and with sufficient numbers and upgrades they can even take down charging infantry or cavalry, before they reach them. Without sufficient numbers, there are infantrymen or heroes that can protect them on the front line. Whereas the mounted archers can outrun and sniper anyone. Grenadiers (unique Saracen units) are overpowered and burn down anyone and anything.

The progress is made through patience, narrow windows of opportunity and prioritising upgrades and goals. I managed to complete the frustrating and boring Viking and Anglo-Saxon campaigns and discovered that the Teuton campaigns are much better designed. The Polish campaigns were decent enough, but my favourite one were the Saracens. Not only they had unique assassin and grenadier units, but the missions were more complex, variable and longer than just the base games missions that were designed according to "capture the villages and destroy the enemies" formula.
This second part of the game is what changed my opinion about the game from negative to positive.
No matter the shortcomings, I enjoyed the visuals and the atmosphere of the game. The zoom view comes in handy when appreciating the detailed armours and buildings.The campaign stories were more or less fun.

Additionally, I like to talk about the historical accuracy of the game. The manual mentions that the developers tried to be as historically accurate, as possible. Yet, it seems like undeserved self-praise, when one considers that Lindisfarne Priory is depicted as a grand late medieval fortified citadel; the [Old] Prussians are referred to as "fellow Slavs" by one of the NPCs, speak Polish and are wearing Polish armour; and the Krivichs are not considered Eastern Slavs.
Although, in general, the developers did a good job at researching the historical events and characters. I am not sure why they decided to depict certain events from the perspective of the losing side or why some heroes were not historical, when they could have been.

As to the skirmish mode of the game, it's just a collection of maps that you can play against AI or other players with custom rules. The same principle applies as in the campaign: capture resources and destroy the enemy. Quite repetitive, especially, since most of the units feel and function the same, no matter the nation.
With more polish and effort, the game could have been good. But the way it came out, it's just a mediocre RTS. Probably, the best thing about it is that it offers a lot of content in terms of gameplay hours, if you have patience to tolerate its numerous faults. There is no reason to recommend this game over more popular and better polished RTS titles. However, it's not that bad to recommend against it.

My overall rating: 6/10.