I am slowly regretting my purchase of the collection, don't get me wrong I love the games but when bugs (bugs I see on the forum that are not fixed and being years) like this happen it reminds me of the unfinished Spin Tires (oovee bug city publisher and developer). Please don't take this the wrong way but bugs ruin a game faster than the steam client crashing to put it. I am just trying to help.
Brought the Grand Strategy collection (Regretting)
- Thread starter Matrix30815
- 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.
Crusader Kings II doesn't have many bugs at this point as far as I can tell.
As nyah said, if you can mention specific bugs, we might be able to comment on them.
As nyah said, if you can mention specific bugs, we might be able to comment on them.
It can get a bit depressing sometimes reading the forums as it may seem the game is very bug ridden etc.. However, my experience is that most of the times forum discussions circles around the bugs (which not always are bugs) or potential issues and that's what you see, and not the enjoyment that players are really getting out of the game. Also often the most vocal people are the ones who have already spent hundreds of hours with the game, thus know the game inside out and may experience things you are not going to see in a while if ever.
So, my suggestion is just to play the game and don't bother too much about the discussions, unless you have a specific issue in mind, of course. If you have experienced something that makes the game unplayable, such as crashing to desktop, then please report so that the bug can be fixed as soon as possible.
So, my suggestion is just to play the game and don't bother too much about the discussions, unless you have a specific issue in mind, of course. If you have experienced something that makes the game unplayable, such as crashing to desktop, then please report so that the bug can be fixed as soon as possible.
Well, as someone who very rarely reads the forums but has played loads and loads of CK2, the only times I've ever noticed bugs have been, with very rare exception, the short period of time after a DLC release. Perhaps that means I don't play as "deeply" as some of the people around here, or that my standards are lower...but I've honestly never found myself saying "ugh, this game would be great if it weren't ruined by bugs." It is great!
The most current version is the most stable I've seen ever for ck2. The nagging most mentioned bugs are really not that big of a deal, they are only an issue because they've been on the fix it list very long is all. Their level of importance or effect on your average player is very minimal. I hate this, but the most fun/reliable game to be had out of ck2 requires all the major dlc's sadly. I really hate this model but I recently bought the last two against better judgement and discovered the game plays better due to the missing events now firing that were flagged for the dlc's. Its best to wait for the spring/fall sales for steam cause paradox titles go on sale dramatically and you can pickup the base game+all priority dlc's for the price of a normal fully patched non paradox game. (its sad that you have to wait for sales to buy paradox's overpriced product model)
I've said it before, i'll say it again. I don't have many bugs in my gameplay. Dynasty shields changing happens to me, but that's about all I come across.
There are however a lot of gameplay changes that people like or dislike as time goes on.
There are however a lot of gameplay changes that people like or dislike as time goes on.
Only by a few years. By *certain* standards, that's still early, mind you. It's not like catholic moral authority is important or anything.
The bugs that you're going to experience in CK2 are most likely not going to be technical glitches physically preventing you from playing. Exceptions do apply, there certainly exist people who can't play the game at all or play it stably in certain versions, but I think that's rare. And I've almost never experienced anything like that myself, far less often than with most games. I think as regards technical bugs that 'physically' crash your game or corrupt your save are rare. From my own personal experience, they are practically nonexistent and whatever little is left is not worth complaining about. (Especially considering that a CTD has a good chance of being caused by something in the system or drivers, not just the game you're playing.)
So if the above are bugs you worry about, then you can safely stop worrying about them. In my >2000 hours of playing CK2, I can recall maybe one instance (and that was actually 2.3.3, the supposedly very stable version) where I got my two most recent saves corrupted and had to go back to a slightly older one (yes, keep saving every couple of years, not just autosave, but this is a basic precaution with every game). Maybe a CTD or two in 2012-2013. I don't even remember. So don't worry.
On the other hand, the game is literally full of bugs (not always fulfilling everyone's definition of a bug) that disturb the proper functioning of certain mechanics. There are also quite multiple examples of questionable logic in the game's events and design/balancing decisions, of which the quality has been deteroriating over the last year or two. When a patch is released, there are almost invariably some new bugs and flaws introduced the game as a result. There is also typically frustration about some bugs and flaws not being fixed or only being fixed partially or being fixed in a band-aid kind of way (provisional fix that is not an elegant solution) or being fixed in a way that doesn't really fix them or causes some other issues. The speed with which such issues are then fixed varies, and there are complaints among fans that Paradox 1) is not reacting fast enough and 2) not seeming to take the problem seriously enough. I'm not inside anybody's mind, but judging by the results and some of the conversations/PR material, I definitely agree with #2 and mostly agree with #1 — there have been examples of fast response in the past, although not recently that I'm aware of. In any case, there is most definitely a serious problem with this king of bugs that isn't getting any better and isn't taken seriously enough. The game also contains a lot of issues that would normally be considered bugs or at least flaws, but there is — has been in the last year — a growing sentiment of defensiveness concerning them, with an attempt to redefine them out of existence. The situation used to be better in the past in this regard, so maybe it'll go back to closer to normal with time, eventually.
TL;DR: If you can't live with technical issues but can live with feature bugs and flaws, then you probably won't have a problem (as a seriously disappointed customer for other reasons, I confirm that the stability and compatibility of the game is most splendid and performance issues aren't that bad even on my aged Core 2 Duo PC). However, if you can live witch technical issues but can't tolerate too many feature bugs and flaws in a game that don't get much attention in terms of fixing, then you're going to be disappointed (I certainly am).
I don't mind the need to pay for DLCs but I greatly do mind the non-working features or missing/disturbed realism or immersion and the apparent lack of commitment to getting it right. But it depends where you are in your life, I guess. I've been over 30 for a while, with a job that tends to pay and no wife and children to support, so I'm more protective of my time and attention span than my wallet. Some ten years ago, I'd have had more time but a tight budget and not even a credit card to begin with, so that would have led to different perceptions perhaps. But in any case, I strongly suggest getting the DLCs earlier than later just to be done with it and not limiting your full enjoyment of the game. If money's a bit of an issue, maybe save on songs and unit models, as while they are great enhancements, their absence won't be felt. Maybe don't get The Republic if you aren't going to play as a republican character, don't get Rajas of India if you aren't planning on playing in India, don't get Sunset Invasion if you don't want Aztecs landing in Europe with an invasion, don't get Sword of Islam (one of the only three DLCs I don't have) if you aren't going to play as a Muslim.
And, budgeting-wise, you can always delay playing in India or a Muslim or as a Patrician. On the other hand, you want to get The Old Gods, Charlemagne, Sons of Abraham and (especially, due to retinues) Legacy of Rome due to the mechanics that affect your whole game. Maybe spend an hour researching Way of Life before purchasing.
But in any case, if you can just take 1-2 more hours at work rather than spending 1-2 hours of your (actually very precious) free time trying to decide whether you should purchase a DLC or not, then just take the overtime and spend the money on the DLC without the to-buy-or-not-to-buy kind of headache. I found this out the hard way.
So if the above are bugs you worry about, then you can safely stop worrying about them. In my >2000 hours of playing CK2, I can recall maybe one instance (and that was actually 2.3.3, the supposedly very stable version) where I got my two most recent saves corrupted and had to go back to a slightly older one (yes, keep saving every couple of years, not just autosave, but this is a basic precaution with every game). Maybe a CTD or two in 2012-2013. I don't even remember. So don't worry.
On the other hand, the game is literally full of bugs (not always fulfilling everyone's definition of a bug) that disturb the proper functioning of certain mechanics. There are also quite multiple examples of questionable logic in the game's events and design/balancing decisions, of which the quality has been deteroriating over the last year or two. When a patch is released, there are almost invariably some new bugs and flaws introduced the game as a result. There is also typically frustration about some bugs and flaws not being fixed or only being fixed partially or being fixed in a band-aid kind of way (provisional fix that is not an elegant solution) or being fixed in a way that doesn't really fix them or causes some other issues. The speed with which such issues are then fixed varies, and there are complaints among fans that Paradox 1) is not reacting fast enough and 2) not seeming to take the problem seriously enough. I'm not inside anybody's mind, but judging by the results and some of the conversations/PR material, I definitely agree with #2 and mostly agree with #1 — there have been examples of fast response in the past, although not recently that I'm aware of. In any case, there is most definitely a serious problem with this king of bugs that isn't getting any better and isn't taken seriously enough. The game also contains a lot of issues that would normally be considered bugs or at least flaws, but there is — has been in the last year — a growing sentiment of defensiveness concerning them, with an attempt to redefine them out of existence. The situation used to be better in the past in this regard, so maybe it'll go back to closer to normal with time, eventually.
TL;DR: If you can't live with technical issues but can live with feature bugs and flaws, then you probably won't have a problem (as a seriously disappointed customer for other reasons, I confirm that the stability and compatibility of the game is most splendid and performance issues aren't that bad even on my aged Core 2 Duo PC). However, if you can live witch technical issues but can't tolerate too many feature bugs and flaws in a game that don't get much attention in terms of fixing, then you're going to be disappointed (I certainly am).
I don't mind the need to pay for DLCs but I greatly do mind the non-working features or missing/disturbed realism or immersion and the apparent lack of commitment to getting it right. But it depends where you are in your life, I guess. I've been over 30 for a while, with a job that tends to pay and no wife and children to support, so I'm more protective of my time and attention span than my wallet. Some ten years ago, I'd have had more time but a tight budget and not even a credit card to begin with, so that would have led to different perceptions perhaps. But in any case, I strongly suggest getting the DLCs earlier than later just to be done with it and not limiting your full enjoyment of the game. If money's a bit of an issue, maybe save on songs and unit models, as while they are great enhancements, their absence won't be felt. Maybe don't get The Republic if you aren't going to play as a republican character, don't get Rajas of India if you aren't planning on playing in India, don't get Sunset Invasion if you don't want Aztecs landing in Europe with an invasion, don't get Sword of Islam (one of the only three DLCs I don't have) if you aren't going to play as a Muslim.
And, budgeting-wise, you can always delay playing in India or a Muslim or as a Patrician. On the other hand, you want to get The Old Gods, Charlemagne, Sons of Abraham and (especially, due to retinues) Legacy of Rome due to the mechanics that affect your whole game. Maybe spend an hour researching Way of Life before purchasing.
But in any case, if you can just take 1-2 more hours at work rather than spending 1-2 hours of your (actually very precious) free time trying to decide whether you should purchase a DLC or not, then just take the overtime and spend the money on the DLC without the to-buy-or-not-to-buy kind of headache. I found this out the hard way.
Last edited:
The only problem I have with the game is that it occasionally freezes (no big deal, auto-save every 6 months mostly addresses that). Other than that I don't notice any bugs. I do see posts from people in here who have obsessively made lists of every single problem they perceive with the game and then yell their heads off about it in post after post. I guess I'm too busy playing to have time for that. 
The idea that CK2 is somehow filled with bugs and unplayable because of that is beyond ridiculous.
The idea that CK2 is somehow filled with bugs and unplayable because of that is beyond ridiculous.The only problem I have with the game is that it occasionally freezes (no big deal, auto-save every 6 months mostly addresses that). Other than that I don't notice any bugs. I do see posts from people in here who have obsessively made lists of every single problem they perceive with the game and then yell their heads off about it in post after post. I guess I'm too busy playing to have time for that.
No, it's a difference in perception. For me, for example, technical issues aren't a problem. When I see artificats in my CK2 game and it starts stuttering, I know the problem is not CK2 but the fact that modern graphics cards tend to overheat a lot when cooled by air unless you have some great airflow in your PC case, which I don't have and which most people don't have either (it usually takes a designer rig to have the kind of flow to efficiently cool a power hog of a high-end GFX card). If the game acts up a little under very high load, I know that this might as well be due to my own PSU and not the game's problems. Many people don't realize that power supply units are the most underestimated part of a PC and a lot of hardware problems are probably related to insufficient juice under heavy load. PSUs are not all too efficient, and they age, and they certainly act different under heavy load than they do in idle mode. Then there is the issue of driver compatibility, system/runtime library compatibility etc., which makes it very unlikely for the fault to lie in the game or especially exclusively in the game. It's more like needing to find a common tongue with the system/drivers, make some optimizations to ensure compatibility with other people's product.
By contrast, I can't agree that the idea that CK2 is full of bugs and is beyond ridiculous. It may appear exaggerated depending on one's tolerance levels, personal preferences and priorities (or individual perceptives to a great extent, I guess), but it is objectively not close to ridiculous. And playable vs unplayable is not the end of it. The game has a way of being highly playable despite being full of issues, largely because of its marvellous stability and extremely engaging theme and inviting visuals, acoustics and user interface, and often nice writing too in event text. Problems start when you look under the mask/beyond the externals. It becomes quite depressing when you take inventory and realize how wide the problems span.
To disprove the 'ridiculous' description look at patch notes. The bugs that get fixed as per patch release notes are not 1-2 bugs per patch, ever. Rather, the list is always long instead. Regarding bugs that are on the waiting list or not even there, take a look at Bugs Forum, go some pages back. After that take a trip to the Suggestions forum and take a look at threads that deal with existing features or 'missing features' rather than requests for added stuff. (E.g. 'decadence' or 'regency' as opposed to 'naval combat' or 'migration period').
That is the problem right there. This is called "rumination" and it's what depressed and anxious people do. They think obsessively about problems, focus only on problems, and exaggerate the severity and scope of the problems. People who have a well-adjusted outlook on life are able to place these problems in proper proportion to everything else that is going on in their life. I would not be surprised if it turned out the list-makers also have issues with depression and anxiety IRL.
Here's an example of the sort of not-really-bug-but-not-right-either that you'll encounter in CK2: In my latest Ironman game (still 2.1.6, because pro tip never play that latest version of the game for a few months) I'm a Norse duke under a Christian Swedish king. As subject to a Christian monarch, I don't get to do any of my fun Norsiness: no lootin and a pillagin (boo!). Well on top of all that, the jerk tries to revoke one of my titles, provoking a defensive revolt during which I CAN do all my Norsey things (yay!) That's all good, but one of the things I can do now is Prepare an Invasion against my (current, except I'm revolting) liege. Which I do, naturally, and two years later after I've won my previous (defensive) revolt I launch an offensive revolt to take the crown with my "prepared" armies of adventurers. Except that doesn't count as an "invasion" it turns out, because now I'm back to being a duke under the same king. So they all get pissed off and go home, the ingrates. I won anyway, because I'm a genius.
Anyway, that's the sort of weirdness that persists in CK2 for years . If Paradox has fixed that in the subsequent patches, somebody please let me know and I will be very proud of them.
OP, it's still a really fun game and you shouldn't be discouraged by griping on the forums, just never ever allow your game to auto-update to the latest patch, because it will always be broken, and will stay that way for weeks to months. Especially if DLC are involved. And whatever you do, don't ask for anything to get done in Sweden during the Christmas holidays because nobody works then even if they're currently selling a broken product.
Anyway, that's the sort of weirdness that persists in CK2 for years . If Paradox has fixed that in the subsequent patches, somebody please let me know and I will be very proud of them.
OP, it's still a really fun game and you shouldn't be discouraged by griping on the forums, just never ever allow your game to auto-update to the latest patch, because it will always be broken, and will stay that way for weeks to months. Especially if DLC are involved. And whatever you do, don't ask for anything to get done in Sweden during the Christmas holidays because nobody works then even if they're currently selling a broken product.
I am not discouraged, just Develpoers should take pride in wha they develop, not put games that have so many bugs it ruins the game play. My case for this is Oovee: no customer support, moderators on their forums are dictators that no critisim is allowed at them, they don't care about customer complaints.
Some, maybe. But the fastest/surest way to find out what's the case is to analyse the list. If it's coherent and free of any sort of 'whine' or frustration, then you're dealing with a level-headed analyser (which of itself does not actually always guarantee unflawed results, as in when overanalysing). If you find a list that's okay logically if not perfect and the poster sounds frustrated, then that's a normal person who's done some thinking and is reacting like a human. If you find a list that doesn't make sense AND contains a lot of emo stuff, then you know it's probably affected by the player's general sad outlook. I also think debunking another person's ideas sometimes relates to something psychological — like show oneself as content or appreciative, get on someone's good side or... shoot down talk other bugs so that one's own favourite bugs could win or maintain more priority. Stuff like that's on both sides.
