They all seem the same. Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron,...etc...
-
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.
They aren't all the same though. They are strategy games it's true but the mechanics are different. It's easier to say all First Person Shooters are the same even though there are a lot more of them out there. Ofcourse all FPS games aren't the same and to say so wouldn't be correct either but I think I could argue that FPS games have more incommon with each other than Paradox grand strategy games. It's true they (most PDS games) share an underlining core experience, historical grand strategy but they offer very different experiences. More different than other strategy titles from some different developers, like the different total war games or the different AGEOD games.
They use the same engine with many of their games though but again, there still offer vastly different experiences. They've been successful with their grand strategy games and people want more of them, more of the same and more different takes on one. For example I think there have been more people asking for Victoria 3, EU Rome 2, a paradox take on WWI or the cold war than there have been people asking for something completely different. So even though their games aren't all the same, the similarities that do exist are well received and in good demand. It would be silly for them to ignore that demand.
Finally they are also trying something very different from their older games with Runemaster, which is an RPG.
They use the same engine with many of their games though but again, there still offer vastly different experiences. They've been successful with their grand strategy games and people want more of them, more of the same and more different takes on one. For example I think there have been more people asking for Victoria 3, EU Rome 2, a paradox take on WWI or the cold war than there have been people asking for something completely different. So even though their games aren't all the same, the similarities that do exist are well received and in good demand. It would be silly for them to ignore that demand.
Finally they are also trying something very different from their older games with Runemaster, which is an RPG.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pardon my doubts, but have you tried playing any of them? The mechanics are vastly different. While EU4 and CK2 do share certain similarities, dynasty-level and country-level gameplay differs like day and night.
Oh, and don't even get me started on HoI. I don't see how anyone could call it a copy-paste job; it's NOTHING like EU/CK. I'm having a hard time thinking of any features that the three share...
Oh, I know! Cores! Countries have cores!
...wait, does CK even have cores? I think it only has claims, but don't quote me on that. Been a while since I last fired it up.
Sorry, but until you elaborate and provide solid arguments, heck, at least prove that you even OWN THE GAMES you're talking about, I'm writing you off as a troll.
Good day, folks.
In the old days users like OP would be subjected to some serious witch-huntings...
Why are most flamebaiters newly registered 1-post user without any registered games ?
To be fair, most of the games copy and paste events from previous versions, plus other flavor text. I don't think he meant EU4 is a copy and paste job of CK2, but that most of the text in EU4 is copy and pasted from EU3. In fact it's pretty obvious this is true because often tooltips say things that aren't true or relate to previous editions of the game.
I think your seeing what you want to see. He says "they all seem the same." Than he goes on to list what he considers the same "Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron". To be fair, considering he didn't mention any reason why he considers them the same or say anything other than what I quoted him saying you could speculate a lot about what he meant. I tried to take him seriously but I think the safest bet here would be that he is baiting. One post and he joined this month to make this?
You might as well read everything in the best possible light first. If you automatically construe statements against themselves, you are really just avoiding critical thinking as much as possible.
So fine, let's say, yes, he's wrong that EU4 is a cut-and-paste from CK2. See, that was easy? What, now you think we can just end the topic?
Now let's engage with the other possible interpretation: to what extent is EU4 a copy and paste job from EU3? Now we at least have something to talk about, don't we?
on the surface they may look a bit similar because they are all map games, but otherwise its like saying that Deus Ex and call of duty are copies of each other
If you read the thread you can see that I already engaged him in regards to what he most likely meant. I didn't flame him, I took him seriously even though he probably is baiting. I don't regret not assuming he meant something which he in no way said and I certainly wouldn't consider it "critical thinking" if I had. I read it for what it is. Two vague sentences, the latter poorly attempting to justify the broad statement of the former. I think that is the logical interpretation of his choice of words. If he meant something else than he should have wrote something else. It's silly to put words into his mouth to attempt to justify it, just because he was so vague. If you've got opinions that are related than fine, start a thread about it, I don't see why you or anyone would need the pretense of mystically understanding and consequently extrapolating "the real meaning" from two brief and two unsupported sentences.
So yes we should let the thread die, atleast unless the OP has more to say or unless someone addresses him for what he actually said instead of what he may of meant to say. If you wanted to talk about something which may or may not be related you could start another one. It's not as if when this thread ends than we can not discuss other things. Infact those other things would probably benefit from not being associated with this thread, for clarities sake in the least.
Last edited by a moderator:
The OT (original troll) has 1 post, no games registered and has not bothered to reply to his own thread...
This thread is a spam thread.
This thread is a spam thread.
Why change a working model? Most of the time when a sequel is found to be disappointing it's because the developers changed too many things and more often than not those were the stuff that made the first game great... Paradox found a good base and there is no reason to scarp it only for the sake of variety.
I'm very glad that Paradox games are alike, just with the key differences to make them fit to their respective settings.
I'm very glad that Paradox games are alike, just with the key differences to make them fit to their respective settings.
