My dad plays CIV5 and often has a game going for months at a time, he is very much a casual gamer. How long it takes to finish a game has little to do with a game being casual friendly.
Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 8 - With God on Your Side?
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The difference between a hard-core and a casual gamer is not whether he is interested in shoot-em-up or paradox-games, the difference lies in the amount of time he has to spare. I'm certainly a casual gamer, so casual I have bought Pdox games which I haven't even managed to start yet. You think the taste in games changes when you suddenly only have an hour or two per week?
Oh, you get to define words as well as the standard Paradox has to meet, now?
A casual player of Grand Strategy is exactly what I defined. He's someone who just want to sit back and enjoy a few hours playing the game when he can; and whose taste in game happens to run toward grand strategy. You may imagine that such people don't exist: that's a delusion you're having. They do exist, and most grand strategy games rely on them for much of their sales volume.
I was clear, more than once, that I wasn't talking about (all) casual gamers (and explicitly said I wasn't talking about COD players), which is what you are thinking. YOU are misuing the term by associating all casual players with this.
A casual player is simply a player with more limited time to invest in gaming, and playing a bit for personal enjoyment in their free time, once in a while. Casual may, on average, have taste that run more in one direction or another; but your notion that casual players necessarily play short game is laughable.
I was not defining accessible, because "Accessible players" is a nonsensical term.
------------
I have not said this should be a casual game. A casual GAME is a very different thing from a casual player. Casual players play non-casual games all the time.
Bluntly put, casual is an adjective, and it means rather different things depending on what name you use it with. Casual gamers don't necessarily play casual game, or do hardcore gamer necessarily play hardcore games. There's crossover both ways. "Casual" and "Hardcore" relate to HOW they play the game, not WHICH game they play.
There are hardcore CoD (and probably even hardcore solitaire and Angry Birds players) players players. There are casual Magic: The Gathering players who play on the kitchen counter, and hardcore ones who make a living out of the game. None of which impact whether the games themselves are hardcore or casual (solitaire and angry birds are definitely casual; COD less so, and Magic even less so, although it's far from the most hardcore card game).
Last edited:
Personally I believe an expansion about religion would be great if we can't have too much detail in the base game. If the Paradox Team does something like that they will have the advantage of great skills and the possibility to work on every part of the code. DG was forced to stretch the limits of modding capabilities to achieve what it did and we can all see that it's quite difficult for other people to modify it.
Also, chain of events as Reformation, Religious Wars and 30 Years War (which was in SRI) are in the spirit of EU4 more than EU3, if I understand it correctly.
Actually while I am writing I am becoming sure we will have a great base game AND a great expansion about religion ^^
Also, chain of events as Reformation, Religious Wars and 30 Years War (which was in SRI) are in the spirit of EU4 more than EU3, if I understand it correctly.
Actually while I am writing I am becoming sure we will have a great base game AND a great expansion about religion ^^
The question is, will those players who are not interested in EUIII be encouraged to buy EUIV because of the fact that it isn't more complex (but not simpler either) than EUIII?
I'm down with accessibility and high complexity. I think this is what the Paradox Interactive games have been all about. I keep reading all over the internet that the HOI series is very complicated and difficult to understand. For me its simple, but then everyone is different.
No; the question is whether you can attract more of the same sort of players.
Not every player out there who MIGHT be interested in Europa has encountered it. Far from. That's the players Paradox want to draw in. Those who might be interested, but don't know much of EU yet. The people who already looked at EU and found it uninteresting aren't a target audience. It,s the plentiful people who have not yet looked at EU that Paradox want to convince to play. And they need to keep the game 1)Not excessively complex and 2)As accessible as possible to that end.
By making the game more complex, Paradox reduces the number of these potential customers who will actually be interested in the game.
Players like Dankysh (to whom you responded "Exactly."), who looked at EU and found it uninteresting, and then, after some years he found it interesting? Why he hadn't found it interesting at the first try, and later he changed his mind? Did the game became less complex with time? He is not a target audience because he had no idea how to play it, or is he a target audience because he found it interesting after he saw a video of somebody playing EUIII, and later it became his favorite game and he even tried mods to make the game more challenging?
Focusing on complexity is not the key to drawing new players.
A player who is new to that kind of game, who wants to check it out, doesn't play it for hours trying to learn it, and then he decides "this game is a bit too complex for my taste; if it was just somewhat less complex then I would buy it". No. He starts the game, tries to do something, has no idea what he is doing, has no idea how to play this game, decides that it is a waste of time and quits (what Dankysh wrote in his post is an example of this). He doesn't know and he doesn't care if the "complexity level" of this game is 70%, 75% or whatever. All he knows is that he has no idea what to do in this game so it's not fun for him.
If you want to change this first impression of "I don't know what to do" by tweaking the game's complexity, then you would have to simplify the game so much, that it wouldn't be a grand strategy game anymore. If you are making a grand strategy game, then even if you try to make it not too complex then it STILL will be too complex for a new player to figure it out before he gets bored. So I don't think that focusing on complexity is a good way to introduce your game to potential players. It's not the complexity that is the main factor that discourages a potential EU or any other grand strategy game player. It's the learning curve.
What you should do is to TEACH THE PLAYER HOW TO PLAY THE GAME. Don't leave the player alone when he starts the game. Create better, more extensive tutorials. Introduce extensive in-game help. Post videos on youtube where you explain various aspect of the game to the potential new players, and show them how to approach it (Dankysh was not encouraged to give EUIII a second try because it somehow became less complex after those years, but because he had seen a video of someone's playing EUIII). Create a small "getting started" pdf explaining the first steps the player should take in the game. You can even show a popup at the start of the game encouraging the player to play through tutorials and even show a link to youtube tutorial videos. In general, lead the player through the various aspects of the game so he realizes that it offers many interesting things to do, until he is able to find his way around the game without constantly stumbling, until he gets hooked, and then he can complete the learning by himself (with the help of manual, strategy guide, forums...). And if he doesn't get hooked? Then it means that either you've done a bad job explaining the game, or grand strategy games are not for him and he is not your target audience.
In other words.
10 meter rock with completely vertical faces is impossible to climb up by anyone who doesn't know how to climb and doesn't have the necessary equipment. 1000 meter hill with a gentle slope could be climbed up by anyone with functioning legs. Don't be afraid to make the hill higher, just make the slope gentler.
BelisariuS: Don't forget, that game can be complex and STILL be easy to learn. Thats the intuitive gameplay, when you can predict what game reaction could be. Such as if you would click on "start war" it wouldn't make circus.
There seems to be nothing about a nation having no state religion. While I'm aware that nations without any state religion at all didn't happen until like early 1800s when states in the U.S. disestablished its state religion shortly after 1st amendment was ratified, I don't think it's a stretch to think it could happen in Europe before 1780s in alternative history made in those games as long as sufficient liberal climate exists. I think it's plausible it could happen there before the end of EUIV game.
Oh, good point. I thought it was weird that Catholicism was the official state religion of Revolutionary France in EU3. There should be a religion in the Christian group called "Anti-Clericalism" or something like that to represent Christian countries with anti-Christian governments. You honestly don't want to have no state religion at all, because that makes everyone into heathens, meaning no royal marriages and all of your provinces would spawn zealots.
Oh, good point. I thought it was weird that Catholicism was the official state religion of Revolutionary France in EU3. There should be a religion in the Christian group called "Anti-Clericalism" or something like that to represent Christian countries with anti-Christian governments. You honestly don't want to have no state religion at all, because that makes everyone into heathens, meaning no royal marriages and all of your provinces would spawn zealots.
That's true that no state religion would not work for the monarchy (I'm not aware of any monarchies today or past that has no state religion, though most of them now has tolerance for the non-state religion, i.e. Catholic Church is now back in the England today) but it worked for the constitutional republic like the U.S. and frankly lack of state religion would've made religious zealot rebellions almost impossible because no preference is given to any religion by the state. As for everyone being heathen, I think the lack of state religion would impose a special modifier that eliminates penalty of having heathen in your country. However, despite the benefits of lack of state religion, it can't be invoked until after certain tech and specific date is achieved. It shouldn't be available until maybe 1780's or even 1770's and no nations with monarchy can invoke it, perhaps restricted to the constitutional republic government type only.
You must have missed the part about the early US being extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish
I didn't say discrimination didn't existed back then in there. I know about their prejudices against Catholics, especially with rise of Know-Nothings. But, really, how worse is it there in early 19th century compared to Europe in late 17th century? In other word, it's less pronounced there vs. Europe. Perhaps instead of eliminating religious zealot risks completely, it could be reduced under the secular state. Alternatively, it would've been a different type of religious rebel that revolts against discrimination but doesn't impose their own religion in another province they occupied which has different religion. I dunno. But let's be honest, it seems to be odd to see U.S. having its own state religion near the end of EU3 era, at least in 1810s, after state church was already disestablished in all states that had one there at that time.
You mean like New Hampshire requiring officeholders to be Protestant until 1877? Delaware banning blasphemy in the 19th century? Vast majority of states requiring you to be Christian or Protestant to hold office even after 1800?
Religion represents more than going to Church, a Secular USA is still protestant, owning to a protestant culture, ethnicity etc, and an Atheistic or Cult of Reason, Anti-Clerical Revolutionary France is still catholic for the same reasons. As what it represents in game and in a nation for that matter, but lets stick with in game, is more than how they spend their sundays.
A nation having a religion isnt a nation having a state religion, a state religion would in EU3 terms be a collection of Ideas and slider posistions combined with a religion not just a religion= definition which is the religion which defines the nation, not the church tied to the government which most asian 'nations' would never have had anyway.
The most secular or atheistic country imaginable would still have a religion= as devotion or faith have nothing to do with what the mechanic represents in game.
A nation having a religion isnt a nation having a state religion, a state religion would in EU3 terms be a collection of Ideas and slider posistions combined with a religion not just a religion= definition which is the religion which defines the nation, not the church tied to the government which most asian 'nations' would never have had anyway.
The most secular or atheistic country imaginable would still have a religion= as devotion or faith have nothing to do with what the mechanic represents in game.
Last edited:
Wasn't aware of those requirements. I thought No Religious Test clause in the U.S. Constitution prohibited them but I guess it wasn't extended to the state governments until the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment to extend the No Religious Test clause to the states so that's basically after 1860's.
But we're veering off-course here by arguing about history. The point was that it's not implausible to think religious tests could be eliminated in a particular constitutional republic established in alternative history of EUIV when it becomes secular without a state religion. With alternative history, anything goes. I think it's kind of ridiculous to think any constitutional republics MUST have state religion near the end of EUIV era. It should be able to and can establish a secular state without a preference for a particular religion.
I know I'm way late to the party here, but I was wondering if you were going to make it possible for countries with different religions to form alliances (putting aside their differences for practical reasons). This did happen sometimes such as when France forged an alliance with the Ottomans during the reign of Louis XIV. It seemed to me that this was impossible in EU3 (or diplomatic relations with peoples of a different faith were pretty limited).
This sort of scenario already exists in EU 3 if you take the appropriate ideas/decisions so that your non-state tolerance is equivalent to state tolerance which is the key factor affected by religions in a republic. How exactly would a no state religion republic differ (beyond being worse due to all the zealots, lack of missionary capability to convert, etc)? You could quite easily argue that the U.S.A. is a Protestant nation with high tolerance for heretics and slightly lower tolerance for heathens (in EU 3 terms) even today. You still have things like "In god we trust", "One nation under god", etc. pointing to the national heritage as a christian nation. As has been mentioned, a secular monarchy is not something that exists/existed although again, you can minimize the effect of religion by decreasing your level of intolerance. Personally, I don't see any reason to go beyond the existing state of the game to cater to the modernist anti-religion lobby in a historical game set in a time period where that philosophy, for all intents and purposes, didn't exist.
Actually the US historically didn't have that high a tolerance towards Catholics.