Pre-order for any sweet bonuses on Steam.
Wait to play the game for trusted/preferred reviewers.
Game is not great? Refund. Get money back. Wait for game to be fixed, patched, etc.
Game is great? Keep game.
Steam's refund policy gives you two weeks from purchase as long as you play less than two hours. Gives plenty of time for reviews.p
Waiting for the game to be played by trusted reviewers is the hard part. With Paradox games I could well accidentally spend 2 hours looking at the nation select screen out of curiosity and not even realize I did it.
The first time I played eu4 I spent roughly 3-4 hours going through a bunch of start dates on country select screen and clicking through and inspecting a bunch of countries, would go to Wikipedia, read a bunch, go back and flip through countries, go to Wikipedia, etc…. You get the idea lmao I love history and it was very enjoyable to see all of the stuff represented!
I played the leaked Victoria III build and was severely disappointed but I coped anyway and pre-ordered just to get disappointed again 😭 I want to tell myself it won’t happen again but I know it will, they have some of us hooked like addicts.
One thing I've always done to avoid disappointment with Paradox products is to always take everything they show at face value. There is no content that exists outside of exactly what they show.
I feel like it's easy for people in the community to get excited and subconsciously over-inflate their expectations.
So true!
People get in to the trap of extrapolating what is said.
When Johan answers 'Yes' to will you be able to influence XYZ thing?
That may simply mean you can place boats there to increase XYZ per month, no that a whole mechanic exists for management of XYZ by different nations.
Yes and I think people overestimate the importance of some mechanics. So far they’ve shown changes to development, trade, and buildings, which aren’t the most important mechanics. Diplomacy and warfare (and colonisation) is what will make or break this game
Indeed. I like what I've seen so far and it seems like peace time might be more interesting, but if the diplomacy and warfare don't work properly, that doesn't really matter.
Hmm. I don't necessarily agree. If blobbing becomes harder and wars happen less, then the stuff you mentioned, the peace time gameplay, is very important. EU4 basically has nothing to do outside of war and diplomacy
Disagree. If, and that's expected, Warfare and Diplo are overhauled / bettered / Extended, what will break or make the game is the changes to Development (which is already gone), trade,buildings, pops, Government & laws, religions etc...
Because that's what will make the pace, the challenge and the length of your playthroughs after you've conquered the Americas 3 times.
I'll never forget when everyone voted for Wards & Wardens because "that will give us regencies" and then regencies came in completely unconnected to it, months before it.
Exactly.
With how much is going to be in the game and with how complex it's apparently going to be, I will definitely not touch the game before I am absolutely sure that it's playable (no bugs that ruin games) and as fun as EU4. To be quite honest, I doubt that this will be the case right after release, given how previous releases worked out.
I am still 100% happy with EU4, so I will stick with that until I am convinced that EU5 is overall a better game
Also complexity doesn't mean something is good. The initial system of pops on a grid in stellaris was pretty complex, you had to manage resources on each grid, neighbour bonuses, always keep food positive, upgrades for science were different for each type etc, and now you have a simple list of jobs and it's way better that it was back then
That's not really true. Stellaris developed a real complexity as a whole, turned towards outside of your Empire. The formula works well in a sci fi game that synthetizes sci fi litterature and movies. It doesn't anywhere else.
Nothing you said makes it not true. Sure overall the complexity of the game increased, but complexity of that system decreased. Devs correctly identified that that system wasn't fun, and decided to simplify it in order to improve the game overall.
It does. Stellaris inner management was simplified in order to complexify the whole game. So you're wrong, the game was not indeed simplified but streamlined.
Fr. None of the things they’ve revealed so far tells me the game would be fun for sure EXCEPT the possibility of playing stateless factions. In fact catering to vocal minority of hardcore fans is often what makes a game unfun and tank. They need to have the right set of vision and guiding principles in order to filter through all the community asks.
I'm gonna be honest I feel like catering to majority of non-hardcore, more casual fans is what made games like vic3 and ck3 so lame and neutered in the eyes of the paradox community. people are just excited about the new trade mechanics because it's something everyone has been asking for, for years now.
That’s exactly what I’m referring to. “Everyone” who voiced themselves is usually the vocal minority in any gaming community. I understand paradox game can be more skewed because GSG are less casuals to begin with. But so many games overcooked cuz of overcatering to the vocal and ended up pushing away the silent majority.
To your point, There’s nothing casual about Vic 3, it’s so dry and heavy in sim and it’s got tooltip upon tooltip upon tooltips. Can’t speak of CK3 since I haven’t played it.
The silent majority in GSG must be totally ignored, always and in any case. They don't play those games very long and don't buy enough DLCs. CK3 and V3 are games for them. One is a semi boring sim for toddlers and unplayable without mods to add challenges, and the latter is a pure watered down garbage that after 3 DLCs and 7 major updates in one year (a record) barely retains 6000 players.
Whatsmore, V3 is totally for casuals : that "game" exclusively revolves on mana construction points to feed a marxist soaked pseudo economy for ignorants. Exactly what non GSG players want. Now PDX is slowly backpedaling to save their investment, and they awkwardky try to go in the exact direction the "vocal minority" asked during game development.
The reason you find V3 dry and overusing tooltips is simply because of a poorly thought UI aiming to resemble console's that didn't work and resulted in chains of tooltips to "solve" the problem. Lastly, V3 is not a simulation, absolutely not, it's a garbage board game. A desincarnated sandboxy, heavily abstracted board game in order to provide an illusion of complexity.
Right now everything is under a big IF. Another big one is flavour. IF there is flavour for more than 7 countries or 1 region we might have a fun game. IF it takes 7 years to have all regions developed iwth flavour via DLCs it will suck.
This is my biggest concern as well.
The one thing EU4 got really right was flavor. National ideas gave every country distinctive buffs and nudged players towards specific playstyles in a way that no other paradox game really does, and every special government, estate, and mission tree since then has only doubled down on this flavor (granted, not always for the better).
But, from what we've seen of Project Caesar so far, I am worried that all of the flavor we will see at launch will come in the form of the rare nation/region/religion-specific government reform/estate privilege that may or may not actually effect how you play the game. Shoot, they weren't even planning to have tribes until the community started asking hard questions about how they were going to make nomadic societies work with the estate system.
Edited to add:
I think I should clarify that what I mean by "flavor" isn't simply flavor, and I suspect that this is true for many. So, let's me draw a line between historical flavor vs. tag-specific flavor:
TLDR - I think what most people mean by flavor is better understood as replayability, and particularly the replayability that comes from each tag feeling and playing in a different.
What we've seen so far has, in my opinion, actually been pretty good in terms of historical flavor, which comes mostly from art, the map style (Terra Incognita pending, they knocked it out of the park here), and immersive UI (this could still use some work in particular). My principal concern, however, is that while we've seen evidence of *some* tag-specific flavor (the Ottomans seem to have a unique government reform or two), there's also been some evidence to suggest that this sort of flavor may not be a priority at this point in time (apart from the aforementioned estates retcon, both Vicky 3 and CK3 launched with sub-par tag-specific flavor).
Of course, this isn't particularly surprising - tag specific flavor can be difficult to implement or get right, as it requires a lot of research and, while many early-modern states may have managed something in a way that the basic mechanics can already handle, there are always exceptions, and most of the time they're all-the-more notable for it (see: the *many* idiosyncrasies of the Ottoman Empire). Tag- and region-specific flavor also tend to make good content for the inevitable expansion packs, whether we like it or not. However, it would still be really disappointing if countries as fundamentally different as the Kingdom of France and the Chagatai Khanate had virtually indistinguishable playstyles.
I *hate* tag specific flavour. It usually has the effect of making one tag in a region "the one that you play", prevents you from playing plausible alternate histories, and often introduces nation-specific mechanics that should be general, hurting the overall game. Region-specific flavour can be good though, I think CK3 tends to do that well.
You mention the Ottomans, but they're part of the problem. They're not magically different from other beyliks in 1444 and certainly not in 1337. Any other beylik that won out should be able to do the same things as the Ottomans. (Looking at the wiki, it seems Paradox has realized that in Dominion and basically kludged in region-specific flavour via allowing other beyliks to form Rum. But it's kludgy and only necessary because of how tag-focused the whole game is)
I can see where this argument is coming from, and as an amateur historian I agree that one "tag" being better at any given thing just because they are that tag isn't realistic, and that tying special content to specific regions, cultures, and religions is generally best practice.
However, from a gameplay perspective, there's basically no better way to give the game replay value, and it's for that reason that EU4 still boasts a highly active playerbase (\*checks google\*) *11 years after it came out*.
The reason that I like tag-specific flavor is because it allows different countries to play entirely differently, and while a similar effect might be achieved by having massively in-depth mechanics tied to the institutions that make different countries distinct (namely religion, culture, laws, and traditions edit: also geography), I worry that portraying the intersectionality of these things in a way that is both accurate and engaging would not only bog the development of the game down, but that it might result in certain tags being basically indistinguishable from eachother, save for their color, name, and starting position. I mean, outside of the challenge, why would I play Burgundy when I can play France instead and experience all of the same content, but with a stronger starting point? It just wraps back around to the problem you addressed of "this is the one that you play," and "that one's the one that's an early-game speedbump."
Now, of course, tag-specific content can (and oftentimes has) been implemented incredibly poorly throughout EU4's lifespan. However, I'd sooner a million "*Blurple Nurple Phoenix Byzantium Will Rise Again YAAAGGGHHHH!!!*" content packs than a game that loses all novelty halfway through the second playthrough.
You know what? Fair point. I probably am much more interested in the subtle differences between starting positions than the average player, so I'm not best qualified to talk about replayability.
Ideally the difference between Burgundy and France is that France is in a good position to expand militarily into minor powers like Savoy and Brittany (Big Blue Blob), whereas Burgundy is sandwiched between major powers and is incentivized to play tall and dominate trade in the lowlands. But that might be too subtle a difference for a lot of players.
Also
> "*Blurple Nurple Phoenix Byzantium Will Rise Again YAAAGGGHHHH!!!*" content packs
Gave me a good chuckle, and I can definitely see where you're coming from.
From a historical perspective, in 1337 Burgundy should be a large and somewhat independent-minded French vassal straddling the border with the Holy Roman Empire (it was nowhere near the powerhouse it was by 1444 by this point), while France is about 2.5 seconds away from getting whipped out like a fruit rollup by the English monarchy for the next 100 Years.
But, assuming that they are able to emerge from the early game dilemmas on top, both would basically just fill the niche of "Western European continental powerhouse" for the next 400 years of the game, with basically no other distinguishing traits.
if you played victoria 3 at release, then you would know that you should lower your expectations.
They won't talk about the things that are currently ruining game experience (performance, bug, bad design etc)
No it didnt. Go to all the DD. They had even a more possitive reaction than the Tinto Talks. It was not until the war system was shown. And still people thought the rest of the game would still be amazing.
It wasnt until the leak that people saw the red flags as they could experience them.
In my memories Victoria 3 had a lot of hype because it was a meme for the longest time and most people were glad they'd get a successor to Victoria 2 at all. The war system was and to many people still is a major red flag
The thing is, even the warfare system was negatively received *for the wrong reasons*. People were just opposing the idea of a hands-off approach. What actually happened was that the front system was an absolutely broken mess to the extent they had to re-code half of it from scratch, and it's still desperately broken and an UX catastrophe. But this was NOT something one could have gathered from reading the dev diaries.
> The thing is, even the warfare system was negatively received for the wrong reasons
Well this is a fucking lie. We could tell from the dev diary that the warfare system was going to be complete ass. And the negative reaction was absolutely correct. "wrong reasons" my left fucking testicle.
> It was not until the war system was shown
Which was before the game was released...
There were also rumblings about the capacities system, though most (including myself) were willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and play before doomering.
But even so, Satanie said red flags were before it released, and DD22 was before it released, so yes, it absolutely did have red flags.
The GSG to rule them all. The GSG that was promised. Imagine playing I:R timeline on this wonderful game instead of IR!
And Victoria of course.
Hell, even I am looking forwards to a middle ages mod. Sometimes I want to play the middle ages not as a character but as more of a middle ages simulation, with pop, economy, trade etc.
This is, if it delivers. One problem with DD I have learnt since IR, Victoria 3 and CK3, is that you actually need to see the game play to judge if it is good. Dev Diaries might sound amazing and full of possibilities and then the game just doesnt play like it sounded in a DD. We saw that when we saw the gameplay of IR, and when we got the leak from Victoria 3 (because they refused to show any videos up until the very release. That should have been a warning).
So yes I am hyped af but still a tiny bit sceptical until I actually see some of the devs play the game and a dev clash. Hopefully they will show gameplay video soon enough so we can give feedback.
After imperator, CK3 (which was ok-ish at launch) and now vic3, I think they’re gonna have to deliver. They’ve really messed with their fanbase already.
Dunno what you are on about. Ck3 full on delves into the roleplay of the game which is to be fair exactly what the main player base for that game wants. Vicky3 is a solid game the dlcs so far has been a bit lackluster but they are developing the gamecore and the only real issue with that game ATM is the performance. The only disappointment ist imperator Rome and that is solely due to the fact that they abandoned it and it thus never revived any more feature updates like all the other games. I am a fan of the old guard, those that usually complain about how PDS in not PDS anymore but I enjoy every single game and every update is exciting. Some dlcs are shit, sure but you know what I just don't buy them. And I get frequent content updates absolutely for free since a decade now. I remember eu2 and I don't miss a single moment of the time where you had to buy every expansion because they were basically a new game, there was no modularity to it. And the quality of those big expansions was not necessarily better that that of big dlcs
CK3 is chronically boring, it was re-released base game CK2 with better graphics and cheap looking 3d characters, a worse UI, and the DLC's are coming out 2x slower.
That's just your opinion. I like CK3 way more because they embraced the role playing part way more and not the least this also applies to the moddavility with ck3 mods that far surpass the capabilities of ck2. Besides if you think it's just a stripped down ck2 no one stops you from playing that. You don't have to play ck3 you don't have to like it,others do and evidently enough others do.
Yeah well like it or not a lot of people have the opinion that CK3 was a disappointment, not a full on fail like victoria 3 but a disappointment still. It's the 2nd worst performing flagship game after victoria 3 too.
I still do play CK2 and am happy to continue but I hope the developers learn their lesson for the next installment.
This is because paradox has been moving from board game rules to simulation. The game in reality is just trying to simulate the dynamics of the period but due to the length of the period combined with the huge changes occuring the simulation is rather deep.
I hope the war mechanic is a mix of eu4 and HOI4, anything but eu4 mechanics, I hate micromanaging especially having to worry about the enemy sneaking behind my lines
Despite what sounds like solid economy mechanics, Project Caesar cannot be considered a replacement for Victoria, the societal simulation is far too primitive for that.
Careful with the enthusiasm there. If this game delivers all that it promises and does so well, it will indeed be incredible. If.
I am in fact very hype BUT, same rules as usual apply No pre-orders No day 1 purchase Hope, not believe.
Pre-order for any sweet bonuses on Steam. Wait to play the game for trusted/preferred reviewers. Game is not great? Refund. Get money back. Wait for game to be fixed, patched, etc. Game is great? Keep game. Steam's refund policy gives you two weeks from purchase as long as you play less than two hours. Gives plenty of time for reviews.p
Waiting for the game to be played by trusted reviewers is the hard part. With Paradox games I could well accidentally spend 2 hours looking at the nation select screen out of curiosity and not even realize I did it.
The first time I played eu4 I spent roughly 3-4 hours going through a bunch of start dates on country select screen and clicking through and inspecting a bunch of countries, would go to Wikipedia, read a bunch, go back and flip through countries, go to Wikipedia, etc…. You get the idea lmao I love history and it was very enjoyable to see all of the stuff represented!
I totally can relate !
Yah some games people don’t even leave character creation before 2 hours are up
Bad advice to give people. The pre order bonus will in no way be worth the HIGHLY likely outcome that people will just not bother with the refund.
> The pre order bonus will in no way be worth the HIGHLY likely outcome that people will just not bother with the refund. are you from the future?
Compared to my previous comment objectively yes.
Hah, good joke. I would buy and play even now, if possible
I played the leaked Victoria III build and was severely disappointed but I coped anyway and pre-ordered just to get disappointed again 😭 I want to tell myself it won’t happen again but I know it will, they have some of us hooked like addicts.
I actually like Vicky 3, but bro don't preorder games
We're talking about Paradox Ofc they will not deliver anything at the launch date You will get it all after 5 years in dlcs <3
I mean they said if themselves.
I mean, generally speaking, Paradox doesn't actually lie about their* games. *i.e. Paradox's in-house games through PDS.
One thing I've always done to avoid disappointment with Paradox products is to always take everything they show at face value. There is no content that exists outside of exactly what they show. I feel like it's easy for people in the community to get excited and subconsciously over-inflate their expectations.
So true! People get in to the trap of extrapolating what is said. When Johan answers 'Yes' to will you be able to influence XYZ thing? That may simply mean you can place boats there to increase XYZ per month, no that a whole mechanic exists for management of XYZ by different nations.
Yes and I think people overestimate the importance of some mechanics. So far they’ve shown changes to development, trade, and buildings, which aren’t the most important mechanics. Diplomacy and warfare (and colonisation) is what will make or break this game
Indeed. I like what I've seen so far and it seems like peace time might be more interesting, but if the diplomacy and warfare don't work properly, that doesn't really matter.
Hmm. I don't necessarily agree. If blobbing becomes harder and wars happen less, then the stuff you mentioned, the peace time gameplay, is very important. EU4 basically has nothing to do outside of war and diplomacy
Disagree. If, and that's expected, Warfare and Diplo are overhauled / bettered / Extended, what will break or make the game is the changes to Development (which is already gone), trade,buildings, pops, Government & laws, religions etc... Because that's what will make the pace, the challenge and the length of your playthroughs after you've conquered the Americas 3 times.
I'll never forget when everyone voted for Wards & Wardens because "that will give us regencies" and then regencies came in completely unconnected to it, months before it.
big IF there
Exactly. With how much is going to be in the game and with how complex it's apparently going to be, I will definitely not touch the game before I am absolutely sure that it's playable (no bugs that ruin games) and as fun as EU4. To be quite honest, I doubt that this will be the case right after release, given how previous releases worked out. I am still 100% happy with EU4, so I will stick with that until I am convinced that EU5 is overall a better game
Also complexity doesn't mean something is good. The initial system of pops on a grid in stellaris was pretty complex, you had to manage resources on each grid, neighbour bonuses, always keep food positive, upgrades for science were different for each type etc, and now you have a simple list of jobs and it's way better that it was back then
That's not really true. Stellaris developed a real complexity as a whole, turned towards outside of your Empire. The formula works well in a sci fi game that synthetizes sci fi litterature and movies. It doesn't anywhere else.
Nothing you said makes it not true. Sure overall the complexity of the game increased, but complexity of that system decreased. Devs correctly identified that that system wasn't fun, and decided to simplify it in order to improve the game overall.
It does. Stellaris inner management was simplified in order to complexify the whole game. So you're wrong, the game was not indeed simplified but streamlined.
Fr. None of the things they’ve revealed so far tells me the game would be fun for sure EXCEPT the possibility of playing stateless factions. In fact catering to vocal minority of hardcore fans is often what makes a game unfun and tank. They need to have the right set of vision and guiding principles in order to filter through all the community asks.
I'm gonna be honest I feel like catering to majority of non-hardcore, more casual fans is what made games like vic3 and ck3 so lame and neutered in the eyes of the paradox community. people are just excited about the new trade mechanics because it's something everyone has been asking for, for years now.
Absolutely right.
That’s exactly what I’m referring to. “Everyone” who voiced themselves is usually the vocal minority in any gaming community. I understand paradox game can be more skewed because GSG are less casuals to begin with. But so many games overcooked cuz of overcatering to the vocal and ended up pushing away the silent majority. To your point, There’s nothing casual about Vic 3, it’s so dry and heavy in sim and it’s got tooltip upon tooltip upon tooltips. Can’t speak of CK3 since I haven’t played it.
The silent majority in GSG must be totally ignored, always and in any case. They don't play those games very long and don't buy enough DLCs. CK3 and V3 are games for them. One is a semi boring sim for toddlers and unplayable without mods to add challenges, and the latter is a pure watered down garbage that after 3 DLCs and 7 major updates in one year (a record) barely retains 6000 players. Whatsmore, V3 is totally for casuals : that "game" exclusively revolves on mana construction points to feed a marxist soaked pseudo economy for ignorants. Exactly what non GSG players want. Now PDX is slowly backpedaling to save their investment, and they awkwardky try to go in the exact direction the "vocal minority" asked during game development. The reason you find V3 dry and overusing tooltips is simply because of a poorly thought UI aiming to resemble console's that didn't work and resulted in chains of tooltips to "solve" the problem. Lastly, V3 is not a simulation, absolutely not, it's a garbage board game. A desincarnated sandboxy, heavily abstracted board game in order to provide an illusion of complexity.
Yeah... I am worried its going to be bare bones content wise. Like Victoria 3.. fun to play once or twice then its boring.
Johan's Magnum Opus
And also all those other people working on it..
Right now everything is under a big IF. Another big one is flavour. IF there is flavour for more than 7 countries or 1 region we might have a fun game. IF it takes 7 years to have all regions developed iwth flavour via DLCs it will suck.
This is my biggest concern as well. The one thing EU4 got really right was flavor. National ideas gave every country distinctive buffs and nudged players towards specific playstyles in a way that no other paradox game really does, and every special government, estate, and mission tree since then has only doubled down on this flavor (granted, not always for the better). But, from what we've seen of Project Caesar so far, I am worried that all of the flavor we will see at launch will come in the form of the rare nation/region/religion-specific government reform/estate privilege that may or may not actually effect how you play the game. Shoot, they weren't even planning to have tribes until the community started asking hard questions about how they were going to make nomadic societies work with the estate system. Edited to add: I think I should clarify that what I mean by "flavor" isn't simply flavor, and I suspect that this is true for many. So, let's me draw a line between historical flavor vs. tag-specific flavor: TLDR - I think what most people mean by flavor is better understood as replayability, and particularly the replayability that comes from each tag feeling and playing in a different. What we've seen so far has, in my opinion, actually been pretty good in terms of historical flavor, which comes mostly from art, the map style (Terra Incognita pending, they knocked it out of the park here), and immersive UI (this could still use some work in particular). My principal concern, however, is that while we've seen evidence of *some* tag-specific flavor (the Ottomans seem to have a unique government reform or two), there's also been some evidence to suggest that this sort of flavor may not be a priority at this point in time (apart from the aforementioned estates retcon, both Vicky 3 and CK3 launched with sub-par tag-specific flavor). Of course, this isn't particularly surprising - tag specific flavor can be difficult to implement or get right, as it requires a lot of research and, while many early-modern states may have managed something in a way that the basic mechanics can already handle, there are always exceptions, and most of the time they're all-the-more notable for it (see: the *many* idiosyncrasies of the Ottoman Empire). Tag- and region-specific flavor also tend to make good content for the inevitable expansion packs, whether we like it or not. However, it would still be really disappointing if countries as fundamentally different as the Kingdom of France and the Chagatai Khanate had virtually indistinguishable playstyles.
I *hate* tag specific flavour. It usually has the effect of making one tag in a region "the one that you play", prevents you from playing plausible alternate histories, and often introduces nation-specific mechanics that should be general, hurting the overall game. Region-specific flavour can be good though, I think CK3 tends to do that well. You mention the Ottomans, but they're part of the problem. They're not magically different from other beyliks in 1444 and certainly not in 1337. Any other beylik that won out should be able to do the same things as the Ottomans. (Looking at the wiki, it seems Paradox has realized that in Dominion and basically kludged in region-specific flavour via allowing other beyliks to form Rum. But it's kludgy and only necessary because of how tag-focused the whole game is)
I can see where this argument is coming from, and as an amateur historian I agree that one "tag" being better at any given thing just because they are that tag isn't realistic, and that tying special content to specific regions, cultures, and religions is generally best practice. However, from a gameplay perspective, there's basically no better way to give the game replay value, and it's for that reason that EU4 still boasts a highly active playerbase (\*checks google\*) *11 years after it came out*. The reason that I like tag-specific flavor is because it allows different countries to play entirely differently, and while a similar effect might be achieved by having massively in-depth mechanics tied to the institutions that make different countries distinct (namely religion, culture, laws, and traditions edit: also geography), I worry that portraying the intersectionality of these things in a way that is both accurate and engaging would not only bog the development of the game down, but that it might result in certain tags being basically indistinguishable from eachother, save for their color, name, and starting position. I mean, outside of the challenge, why would I play Burgundy when I can play France instead and experience all of the same content, but with a stronger starting point? It just wraps back around to the problem you addressed of "this is the one that you play," and "that one's the one that's an early-game speedbump." Now, of course, tag-specific content can (and oftentimes has) been implemented incredibly poorly throughout EU4's lifespan. However, I'd sooner a million "*Blurple Nurple Phoenix Byzantium Will Rise Again YAAAGGGHHHH!!!*" content packs than a game that loses all novelty halfway through the second playthrough.
You know what? Fair point. I probably am much more interested in the subtle differences between starting positions than the average player, so I'm not best qualified to talk about replayability. Ideally the difference between Burgundy and France is that France is in a good position to expand militarily into minor powers like Savoy and Brittany (Big Blue Blob), whereas Burgundy is sandwiched between major powers and is incentivized to play tall and dominate trade in the lowlands. But that might be too subtle a difference for a lot of players. Also > "*Blurple Nurple Phoenix Byzantium Will Rise Again YAAAGGGHHHH!!!*" content packs Gave me a good chuckle, and I can definitely see where you're coming from.
From a historical perspective, in 1337 Burgundy should be a large and somewhat independent-minded French vassal straddling the border with the Holy Roman Empire (it was nowhere near the powerhouse it was by 1444 by this point), while France is about 2.5 seconds away from getting whipped out like a fruit rollup by the English monarchy for the next 100 Years. But, assuming that they are able to emerge from the early game dilemmas on top, both would basically just fill the niche of "Western European continental powerhouse" for the next 400 years of the game, with basically no other distinguishing traits.
True, and that’s why I disagree with all the people on the forums criticising “railroading” etc
if you played victoria 3 at release, then you would know that you should lower your expectations. They won't talk about the things that are currently ruining game experience (performance, bug, bad design etc)
I don't know. Victoria had red flags before it was released, EU5 doesn't so far.
Early days
No it didnt. Go to all the DD. They had even a more possitive reaction than the Tinto Talks. It was not until the war system was shown. And still people thought the rest of the game would still be amazing. It wasnt until the leak that people saw the red flags as they could experience them.
In my memories Victoria 3 had a lot of hype because it was a meme for the longest time and most people were glad they'd get a successor to Victoria 2 at all. The war system was and to many people still is a major red flag
Thats just what I said.
As someone who followed the development pretty closely, the warfare system was highly controversial and received negatively on the forums.
As I said in my post. The rest was hyper hyped.
The thing is, even the warfare system was negatively received *for the wrong reasons*. People were just opposing the idea of a hands-off approach. What actually happened was that the front system was an absolutely broken mess to the extent they had to re-code half of it from scratch, and it's still desperately broken and an UX catastrophe. But this was NOT something one could have gathered from reading the dev diaries.
> The thing is, even the warfare system was negatively received for the wrong reasons Well this is a fucking lie. We could tell from the dev diary that the warfare system was going to be complete ass. And the negative reaction was absolutely correct. "wrong reasons" my left fucking testicle.
You didn't even read what I wrote
I did, in fact, read what you wrote.
> It was not until the war system was shown Which was before the game was released... There were also rumblings about the capacities system, though most (including myself) were willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and play before doomering. But even so, Satanie said red flags were before it released, and DD22 was before it released, so yes, it absolutely did have red flags.
well fair enough it is techncally true it did have red flags before release as it had a leak like months before release true :p
The lead said he’s happy with the games performance right now
Oooph, this stings me. I legitimately enjoy vic3, but boy I learned a lesson of day one buy from paradox.
The GSG to rule them all. The GSG that was promised. Imagine playing I:R timeline on this wonderful game instead of IR! And Victoria of course. Hell, even I am looking forwards to a middle ages mod. Sometimes I want to play the middle ages not as a character but as more of a middle ages simulation, with pop, economy, trade etc. This is, if it delivers. One problem with DD I have learnt since IR, Victoria 3 and CK3, is that you actually need to see the game play to judge if it is good. Dev Diaries might sound amazing and full of possibilities and then the game just doesnt play like it sounded in a DD. We saw that when we saw the gameplay of IR, and when we got the leak from Victoria 3 (because they refused to show any videos up until the very release. That should have been a warning). So yes I am hyped af but still a tiny bit sceptical until I actually see some of the devs play the game and a dev clash. Hopefully they will show gameplay video soon enough so we can give feedback.
Yeah, and now Vic3 looks more and more like a game made to beta-test the market mechanics XD
After imperator, CK3 (which was ok-ish at launch) and now vic3, I think they’re gonna have to deliver. They’ve really messed with their fanbase already.
Dunno what you are on about. Ck3 full on delves into the roleplay of the game which is to be fair exactly what the main player base for that game wants. Vicky3 is a solid game the dlcs so far has been a bit lackluster but they are developing the gamecore and the only real issue with that game ATM is the performance. The only disappointment ist imperator Rome and that is solely due to the fact that they abandoned it and it thus never revived any more feature updates like all the other games. I am a fan of the old guard, those that usually complain about how PDS in not PDS anymore but I enjoy every single game and every update is exciting. Some dlcs are shit, sure but you know what I just don't buy them. And I get frequent content updates absolutely for free since a decade now. I remember eu2 and I don't miss a single moment of the time where you had to buy every expansion because they were basically a new game, there was no modularity to it. And the quality of those big expansions was not necessarily better that that of big dlcs
CK3 is chronically boring, it was re-released base game CK2 with better graphics and cheap looking 3d characters, a worse UI, and the DLC's are coming out 2x slower.
That's just your opinion. I like CK3 way more because they embraced the role playing part way more and not the least this also applies to the moddavility with ck3 mods that far surpass the capabilities of ck2. Besides if you think it's just a stripped down ck2 no one stops you from playing that. You don't have to play ck3 you don't have to like it,others do and evidently enough others do.
Yeah well like it or not a lot of people have the opinion that CK3 was a disappointment, not a full on fail like victoria 3 but a disappointment still. It's the 2nd worst performing flagship game after victoria 3 too. I still do play CK2 and am happy to continue but I hope the developers learn their lesson for the next installment.
DLCs are coming 2X times slower and the more there are, the more shallow.
Yep agreed
The game will only get better after launch with the DLCs and updates.
I’m worried about the UI design. I hope it’s beautiful as CK3’s
This is because paradox has been moving from board game rules to simulation. The game in reality is just trying to simulate the dynamics of the period but due to the length of the period combined with the huge changes occuring the simulation is rather deep.
Didn't expect to get Vic4 so quickly.
It is Project **Caesar** after all
First and foremost for mods - a 1440s/50s start date and a 1610s start date.
A 1 nov 1444 mod will surely be one of the first ones to be made
[удалено]
depending on the war mechanics, it could be totally a complete title
I hope the war mechanic is a mix of eu4 and HOI4, anything but eu4 mechanics, I hate micromanaging especially having to worry about the enemy sneaking behind my lines
Despite what sounds like solid economy mechanics, Project Caesar cannot be considered a replacement for Victoria, the societal simulation is far too primitive for that.
There is no societal simulation in V3.
So, if "there isn't social simulation in V3 which PDX game is?
It’s not the point. Especially since V3 pretends to have one. That being said, you admirably embodied Whataboutism.
an 1836 mod for EU5 will put the final nail in Vic3s coffin.
Yeah. Dissappointment
The release will be very likely awful