A small note from a guy who didn't vote for this project

[alvaro]

The criticism was not about the pop system as a whole, but about the interaction with the pops: A player just clicks "promote pop to X" and pays a few resources, and in an instant a whole group of people miraculously go from farmer to capitalists. That is highly unrealistic, as it implies that such class change was a matter of state intervention.

A more historical model would keep the pop system but detach the player from direct interaction. You might set up the incentives, but the actual societal change should happen on its own (under the right circumstances).

so said i must agree.
i felt ofended being programmer myself

 

[RELee]

The criticism was not about the pop system as a whole, but about the interaction with the pops: A player just clicks "promote pop to X" and pays a few resources, and in an instant a whole group of people miraculously go from farmer to capitalists. That is highly unrealistic, as it implies that such class change was a matter of state intervention.

A more historical model would keep the pop system but detach the player from direct interaction. You might set up the incentives, but the actual societal change should happen on its own (under the right circumstances).

While I will not argue regarding your models, I will say that if you take away the fun from the micro-managing nitwits (uh, that would include me), then said nitwits who kept this game alive for 6 long frustrating years may opt out of buying version 2.

Not saying that it would happen, but it is in the distinct range of possibility.

 

[Raptor1]

The criticism was not about the pop system as a whole, but about the interaction with the pops: A player just clicks "promote pop to X" and pays a few resources, and in an instant a whole group of people miraculously go from farmer to capitalists. That is highly unrealistic, as it implies that such class change was a matter of state intervention.

A more historical model would keep the pop system but detach the player from direct interaction. You might set up the incentives, but the actual societal change should happen on its own (under the right circumstances).

I'd say (said already) the game should have varying levels of player management over the POPs, like over the industry. A democratic laissez-faire economy will not have direct control over it's POPs, while a communist dictatorship would be able to tell it's citizens where to work and what to do.

 

[alvaro]

I'd say (said already) the game should have varying levels of player management over the POPs, like over the industry.

if i must choose i prefer to micromanage tones of slider policies of all flavours as the government rather than reducing my fun to split 10 pops a month.

 

[jdrou]

Just polish the game, no more nightmare releases like all past titles..

EU3's release was certainly no nightmare. It was probably Paradox's best release so far. I don't think there were any major problems with the game at all.

 

[Pal]

EU3's release was certainly no nightmare. It was probably Paradox's best release so far. I don't think there were any major problems with the game at all.

... Sorry, but: :rofl:

EU3 was the first paradox game I have ever witnessed being called a "flop" shortly after release. And it had serious issues, most notably the colonization of half the new world in 1430 - by Navarra, Lübeck and Brittany!

The first enjoyable version of EU3 was IN 3.0, although some say NA wasn't too bad either. Still, the hype about PÄdox releasing crappy games and polish them later was kicked in a higher gear with the release of EU3...

Still, I haven't found a single game of P'dox (except for diplomacy, which I have never tried) that didn't become a great addiction within a few patches, so I will happily buy whatever they release and then just wait for the patches / expansions.

 

[jamhaw]

Good for you that you never bought Diplomacy. That game is one of the worst games I have had the misfortune to buy.

 

[Ionus]

even though the rail system was not fitting _all_ the game needs, vicky had many interesting features that made it worth buying.

the pop system gives you a level of detail about ideologies, wealth, militancy, culture,... that no other game has ever made available to the players. and still it's historically accurate in an era when the main ideologies that ruled over the XXth century and nationalisms appeared.
i don't know if it was a programmers choice but it is historical. it's the pearl of vicky, it just need to be tweeked to improve playability. me thinks.

I agree it tried a lot of new ideas and was revolutionary. Perhaps I am being a typical critic, it is easier to knock someone else's effort then to build something yourself. But as soon as I played it I knew it could have been done better. Most of the great concepts were poorly implemented. I think that is why it didnt sell well. My first impression of it was "This is fantastic!" then I changed to "Some of these concepts seem half-finished".

I now look at it as full of unfulfilled potential wich is why I wont rush out and buy Vicky 2. I would dearly love Vicky 2 to be what I wish in a game, but I dont expect it.

 

[Ionus]

The criticism was not about the pop system as a whole, but about the interaction with the pops: A player just clicks "promote pop to X" and pays a few resources, and in an instant a whole group of people miraculously go from farmer to capitalists. That is highly unrealistic, as it implies that such class change was a matter of state intervention.

A more historical model would keep the pop system but detach the player from direct interaction. You might set up the incentives, but the actual societal change should happen on its own (under the right circumstances).

Exactly! A man after my own heart ! Lucky you are in Germany or I would give you a big kiss !

 

[Pal]

Exactly! A man after my own heart ! Lucky you are in Germany or I would give you a big kiss !

:rofl:

 

[Kodos666]

Good for you that you never bought Diplomacy. That game is one of the worst games I have had the misfortune to buy.

I don't know the Paradox-version, but the boardgame was always good for some evenings of friendship-destroying treachery and backstabbing and as far as i know from the paradox-game they managed to catch the game quite good and added an online-part.

 

[safferli]

I don't know the Paradox-version, but the boardgame was always good for some evenings of friendship-destroying treachery and backstabbing and as far as i know from the paradox-game they managed to catch the game quite good and added an online-part.

The paradox version is good if you use it as a "board". It good if you use it to play against friends online. As a game on it's own? Terrible. The AI was... sorely lacking.

 

[Poach]

People of the forums, it is now our divine duty to ensure Victoria 2 is a profitable venture for Paradox.

 

[jdrou]

EU3 was the first paradox game I have ever witnessed being called a "flop" shortly after release. And it had serious issues, most notably the colonization of half the new world in 1430 - by Navarra, Lübeck and Brittany!

That's a problem with expectations, not with the game. EU3 was a fun game with very few serious bugs at release. The major 'issues' were with people expecting it to be more like EU2 and people who didn't meet the minimum system requirements.

 

[Johan]

That's a problem with expectations, not with the game. EU3 was a fun game with very few serious bugs at release. The major 'issues' were with people expecting it to be more like EU2 and people who didn't meet the minimum system requirements.

Its kind of ironic to call our most polished release which did insanely good as a "flop".

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Its kind of ironic to call our most polished release which did insanely good as a "flop".

It wasn't a flop, but it's ten times the game now that it was on release. All the basis was there on release but the polish came later, IMO. Nice to see you on these forums BTW!

 

[SirGrotius]

Its kind of ironic to call our most polished release which did insanely good as a "flop".

I'd also chime in to agree that EU3 is far from a flop. Granted, the expansions did a lot for the game, but if one checks out the EU3 forums they'll be impressed by the activity. Great, great community.

I have high expectations for Victoria 2. My feeling is that it can utilize all the new advanced features Paradox has been incorporating into its games, but can also capture that historical geekiness we all love.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

It wasn't a flop, but it's ten times the game now that it was on release. All the basis was there on release but the polish came later, IMO. Nice to see you on these forums BTW!

Ten times the game?

Well, optimism is always nice to see, but I'd evaluate EU3+...+IN as something like 115%-120% of the enjoyment value of EU3 on release (for me), and the majority of that won via core gameengine optimization.

 

[ashandresash]

Ten times the game?

Well, optimism is always nice to see, but I'd evaluate EU3+...+IN as something like 115%-120% of the enjoyment value of EU3 on release (for me), and the majority of that won via core gameengine optimization.

If I were an utilitarist I would say that NA and IN improved EUIII at least a 100%, because that's what most of us paid for the expansions respect vanilla price... :rofl:

In the other hand, taking in account what has become EUIII, and the awesome (till pending of some improvements yet) HoI3... With those precedents I cannot think how great Vicky2 is going to be!

 

[unmerged(166782)]

HOI3 has brought a lot of good things, such as theater AI into the game. The game is still unplayably buggy, and supply is a mess, but it looks like a step in the right direction.

Paradox games have always had the problem of being buggy unfinished messes(they still are). And far too much micromanagement.

If you make a good game, get modders started before launch on making mods, fix all the game breaking bugs, you'll get lots of sales.

People will always buy quality games, you have basically invented an entire genre, the only real thing keeping people away is the low quality of your games.
I don't want to call it polish, but noone wants to buy a game then wait 6 months for patches and mods to make it playable.