But I also saw a much stronger starting point for growth than CK2 represented in 2012. I saw what might have resolved into the edges of CK3's potential a little earlier than I wanted to, in a game of such colossal scope. I think there are some awkwardnesses still to be ironed out, but they're offset by a strong suite of new ideas. Which end of that spectrum you skew towards will depend on what details of CK2 your particular devils resided in. Or you might find that it has preserved the general structure, while losing the magic. You might find that CK3 preserves the best of CK2, while losing some of the irritations. If you have played CK2, however, then I honestly don't know what to say to you. Similarly, if you tried CK2 but bounced off, now would be your cue to come back for another bite of the turkey leg. It's very complex, but it does a better job than its predecessor of explaining itself, and offers more rewards along the learning curve. If you never played Crusader Kings 2, but were always interested, then I heartily recommend this extremely long, in-depth strategy/RPG hybrid about managing the successive lives of a dynasty of medieval problem people. The way I'd summarise Crusader Kings 3 depends heavily on where you're coming at the game from. I think I'll need another year of playing it to work out exactly how good it is, but that's another way of saying I want to play it for a year, so it must be pretty good. Crusader Kings 3 makes a fine execution of a daunting brief.

Is crusader kings 2 multiplayer