Playing Crusader Kings II again, I'm left wondering what the point is of replaying one of my previously played games. I thought I had a clear idea when I came up with this plan, but for the life of me, it's escaping me right now.
I think my intent was to try and see if the passage of time had brought a new perspective on an old game, in a form that would not be reliant on my vague memories of gaming past, but which would have a documented record of how I felt the first time and how I felt the second time. That way, I could easily contrast the two and not have to worry about the fog of memory causing me to see what I wanted to see.
But if that's the case, then I probably should not have let it be possible for me to replay a game I'd finished so recently. I'm not sure I have enough emotional distance to the game to reevaluate my previous opinion. It feels like I've barely been away at all.
That being said, the addition of the Conclave DLC has really shaken things up. I have to pay attention to my underlings in a way that's never been necessary before (at least, not since I learned the virtues of keeping my vassals small and divided). The result has been two hours of pure chaos . . . that covered 10 of my remaining 350 years.
That's the thing that strikes me the most about Crusader Kings II, after firing up my save file once more. I'm intimidated by its bigness. I know it covers an incredible span of time and it's inconceivable that I might get through it all.
But that's exactly how I felt at the end of my last go-round with Crusader Kings II. Will that change? If I keep going, will I reach a point where time seems to be on my side again? I'm tangled up in a history of my own making, but if I wander for long enough, might it not resolve into clarity?
I like to think that it will. That I am a the low point in the trough, but i will soon crest another peak and see the game from a new light. I've never finished one before, but if I keep going, I might have a shot.
And then I'll have something new to say about it.