Grand Ages: Rome

Oh, I am very, very bad. Why am I very bad? I broke down and bought both Left4Dead and Grand Ages: Rome yesterday. Both were on sale and combined were still less than a single new release.

I don't really plan on playing L4D much in the near future, but at $15 I couldn't pass up the deal. I'll probably do the same thing with L4D2 as well, I'm just like that. I played it a bit, and honestly, while it is a good game and all, I was hoping for a bit more of the classic Romero zombie (or at least the 28 Days Later-style fast zombie) rather than the super-hero 12-feet tall, giant fangs, semi-intelligent monster pseudo-zombie. No Valve designers, I do not need Brawndo to mutilate my thirst, I come from a far-off land called Subtlety.

I put some decent time into Grand Ages: Rome, and have to say I felt challenged on the very first level of the campaign. The basic of goal, which is to build 15 insulae and achieve a food satisfaction rate of 50% is not hard at all. But I had a rather devilish time achieving the supplementary 20% entertainment rate. Kudos to Haemimont Games on that one.

Although I also have to say I had a hard time with it initially owing  to the fact Grand Ages is much, much different game from Imperium Romanum. Resource allocation, population, supply distribution ... all much different. Though the game still has a feel to it that makes it seem very much like an Imperium Romanum 2. Looked at in that way, I also appreciate how Haemimont seems to be hitting a stride, as its differences make it both like and unlike its predecessor in ways one can still appreciate both.

One thing that is still "missing" is a supply-route mechanic. Meaning you do not need to build roads at all. In IR the lack made the game feel a little shallow, but it actually works quite well in GAR. It no longer feels like a core mechanic was left out.

Both a character system and technological research system have been added, which adds welcome layers of strategy to the mix. Very briefly:

• You character has talents which will add various bonuses (bonii, lol?) to  your cities. Talents are unlocked by spending points you receive upon completing scenarios.

• You also receive money a.k.a. denarii ("personal wealth") which you can spend on estates which function similar to talents, except they add material supplies to your cities. These can be both purchased and sold, as you are given a limited number of estate slots to use.

The difference that was causing me so much trouble in the beginning is that of supplies and their creation and distribution. IR is much like any other classic city-builder - you set up a wood shop and your warehouse fills up. Then you use what is in the warehouse for new buildings and maintenance. In GAR the warehouse is done away with and you are forced to balance your production levels directly with your needs with no intermediary.

I found building position becomes much more important with this as a factor and over-building (something I usually guilty of, lol) is heavily punished. So far I have found this to be a really interesting system, and not the less for it's tripping me up all last night as I was thinking I was still playing IR.

So far I have two main criticisms of the game, both aesthetic but both heavily affect the game.

1. The weather. I'm sure Haemimont spent a lot of time and put a lot of love into making the weather look as nice as it does. But I personally can't stand it, it just makes everything too hard to see. In IR you can turn it off through a shrine, but I haven't got that point in GAR yet. My point is that it should be able to be turned off from the options, not from an in-game building. So someone like me can just be done with it completely.
2. GAR's left-click build menu is not as good as IR's menu. I like both much more than many other city-builder menus, but GAR's menu is unnecessarily hard on system resources, it is too big and because sub-menus open up on-hover (as opposed to on-click) it is cumbersome to use. The menu in IR was essentially the same, but did not suffer the defects I just listed.

One last, very minor, criticism: I don't like the illustrative artwork in GAR as much as IR. This is pretty minor, but the general skill in representing human proportions is not as good. I also think the painterly style of both IR's and GAR's illustrations was better represented by the IR artist(s) than the GAR artist(s). If it happens to be the same artist, then dude you are slipping.

But that is just my opinion, all in all I'd say GAR is shaping up to be a quality title that I am enjoying quite a bit.