<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts: Expeditions Rome</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-expeditions-rome/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-expeditions-rome/</link>
	<description>Science, gaming, and all things in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:05:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.36</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: BletchleyGeek</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-expeditions-rome/#comment-61014</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BletchleyGeek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=6798#comment-61014</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have not really enjoyed the Expeditions games much, but always appreciated the effort the devs made to keep me entertained for a few hours.

The news of them leaving relatively niche PC CRPGs for NFT &quot;games&quot; was a bit like wtf. If they were looking for jobs that paid mortgages there are better lines of work...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have not really enjoyed the Expeditions games much, but always appreciated the effort the devs made to keep me entertained for a few hours.</p>
<p>The news of them leaving relatively niche PC CRPGs for NFT &#8220;games&#8221; was a bit like wtf. If they were looking for jobs that paid mortgages there are better lines of work&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ilitarist</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-expeditions-rome/#comment-61013</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ilitarist]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=6798#comment-61013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve played Expedition Vikings just recently. I liked its approach to history (I think it did a good job highlighting ahistorical concessions to gameplay or story. Certainly a lot better than Assassins Creed Valhalla that basically has the same plot) and tactical battles. But I agree with you about the abundance of incohesive mechanics. Whole survival aspect interacts with the time limit, but that time limit is extremely generous. Very rarely you have to fight a series of battles and injury system comes in place, and I don&#039;t think my people ever fought while starving or exhausted. There are defended resting places that are probably supposed to give you unique opportunity for a small battle when your party is not at full strength, but you can just walk few hours more and sleep there, it&#039;s a no-brainer. Especially with the game having a little too many tactical fights already. Many of them had unique maps or challenges but there was enough generic ones too. It&#039;s always sad when complex looking systems turn out to be a puzzle you solve once and then it&#039;s busywork.

I also think that tactical gameplay was good but suffered from classless system allowing to make characters that are just a little too perfect. Glad to hear Rome has class system. You sold me this game even if strategic map mechanics do not sound interesting.

And yes, full voice acting is a plague of RPGs. Pillars of Eternity 1 (2 tries to pretend it has full VA but has a lot of book interactions that have no VA) or Pathfinder is the best approach really, make VA for the most important scenes, give it to important characters. Don&#039;t set script in stone months before release or force an actor to invent a new voice for unnamed peasant #24.

That review ending is M. Night Shyamalan level shit.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve played Expedition Vikings just recently. I liked its approach to history (I think it did a good job highlighting ahistorical concessions to gameplay or story. Certainly a lot better than Assassins Creed Valhalla that basically has the same plot) and tactical battles. But I agree with you about the abundance of incohesive mechanics. Whole survival aspect interacts with the time limit, but that time limit is extremely generous. Very rarely you have to fight a series of battles and injury system comes in place, and I don&#8217;t think my people ever fought while starving or exhausted. There are defended resting places that are probably supposed to give you unique opportunity for a small battle when your party is not at full strength, but you can just walk few hours more and sleep there, it&#8217;s a no-brainer. Especially with the game having a little too many tactical fights already. Many of them had unique maps or challenges but there was enough generic ones too. It&#8217;s always sad when complex looking systems turn out to be a puzzle you solve once and then it&#8217;s busywork.</p>
<p>I also think that tactical gameplay was good but suffered from classless system allowing to make characters that are just a little too perfect. Glad to hear Rome has class system. You sold me this game even if strategic map mechanics do not sound interesting.</p>
<p>And yes, full voice acting is a plague of RPGs. Pillars of Eternity 1 (2 tries to pretend it has full VA but has a lot of book interactions that have no VA) or Pathfinder is the best approach really, make VA for the most important scenes, give it to important characters. Don&#8217;t set script in stone months before release or force an actor to invent a new voice for unnamed peasant #24.</p>
<p>That review ending is M. Night Shyamalan level shit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
