Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Honestly, we don't need EU5

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 82017 EUIV: Bug Reports 633 EUIV: Suggestions 19190 EUIV: Technical Support 6744 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Show only dev responses
eanske said:
The problem would be re-playability due to lack of tag-specific mechanisms and events. Unless the game mechanisms are so perfect there is no need for them anymore, a bare EU5 would most likely be feel like a replay after a handfuls of games. I honestly liked CK3, but because there is no significant difference between a Frisian or Tuscan Duke I had no desire to play again after two games.
In EU4 the difference between a Japanese Daimyo, an HRE minor, Austria, Hordes, Trading Republics, Pirates, Congo, a Persian or ME Tag and even between Castile, Portugal and Aragon is so big that the game stays enjoyable.

I only play EU4 since 2017, so I might be wrong about 'bare' EU, but if EU5 is a game with everything I want (no mana, pops, improved trading, etc), but has not enough content, I'll probably drop it after 60 hours like I did with CK3 and Vic3. And probably won't come back to EU4 either, since that station has passed by then.
Click to expand...

Both EU4 and CK2 had plenty of replayability in the vanilla version. CK3 is much worse in that regard because there is no real strategic challenge - but I remember playing CK2 a lot when it came out. In EU4 you had Portugal and Spain, HRE, Poland and Russia, Ottomans, they all played differently because of where they were on the map. In CK2 many subsystems needed time to be mastered. In CK3... I haven't struggled even in my first game.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Testerian2 said:
Both EU4 and CK2 had plenty of replayability in the vanilla version. CK3 is much worse in that regard because there is no real strategic challenge - but I remember playing CK2 a lot when it came out. In EU4 you had Portugal and Spain, HRE, Poland and Russia, Ottomans, they all played differently because of where they were on the map. In CK2 many subsystems needed time to be mastered. In CK3... I haven't struggled even in my first game.
Click to expand...
That says a lot, considering you somehow managed to squeeze fun out of majors in EU4.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I agree. The game has grown beyond the Eurocentric approach of past entries. The next game in the series needs a name that reflects its global scope. Not Europa Universalis, but an EUV by another name.

I propose Empire Universalis as a new name, which is shortened to EU... Hang on
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Testerian2 said:
It is funny You have nothing to say about the game but somehow a lot about me.
Click to expand...
What makes you think I wasn't talking about the game?

EU4 majors are comically easy and, IMO, impossible to have fun with, and you think playing as even a minor in CK3 is too easy for you to have fun, but CAN have fun with majors in EU4. That means CK3 must be way, way too easy.
 
Pellucid said:
That means CK3 must be way, way too easy.
Click to expand...
It is. Very easy to make massive progressin CK3 very quickly. Play a game of CK2 and you'll see the huge difference. It's obviously done to make sure players don't get bored, but it does mean the game gets pretty snowbally very very quickly. Easier than EU4 imo.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
grommile said:
The secret formula isn't secret, it's just basic capitalist economics: does spending money on improving this do more for the company's position (mostly tangible profit, but also intangible factors) than spending the same money on creating or improving something else?
Click to expand...
except its not capitalist economics. You have a game you hear what the fans say they want of said game you say we know better you put out game and it fails you abandon game and have nothing to show for it. I think their star trek game shows this better then anything. If the old paradox way of painting the map and crazy things that could happen plus the new paradox way of trillions of exp cant make money and turn profit on that then they need to revaluate what their doing. I don't know how well the trek game sold but if they added more open ended galaxy conquering stuff like EU CK and HOI they would sell expansions and roll in the cash.

The problem is now you have loyal customers not willing to try anything new do to fear of it being buried in the backyard somewhere 3 months after launch like some dam free to play phone game.
For me going forward I am not buying anything new until I know it is going to be around.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
jfinley12 said:
except its not capitalist economics. You have a game you hear what the fans say they want of said game you say we know better you put out game and it fails you abandon game and have nothing to show for it. I think their star trek game shows this better then anything. If the old paradox way of painting the map and crazy things that could happen plus the new paradox way of trillions of exp cant make money and turn profit on that then they need to revaluate what their doing. I don't know how well the trek game sold but if they added more open ended galaxy conquering stuff like EU CK and HOI they would sell expansions and roll in the cash.

The problem is now you have loyal customers not willing to try anything new do to fear of it being buried in the backyard somewhere 3 months after launch like some dam free to play phone game.
For me going forward I am not buying anything new until I know it is going to be around.
Click to expand...

I fear that the next EU will abandon the strategy genre as CK3 did. For me - games are about choices, and if choices are obvious or nonexistent, there is no incentive to play. I don't "roleplay" with computer games.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Testerian2 said:
Games are more like art or movies and less like nails and potatoes. "capitalist practice" works differently here.
Click to expand...
If a movie tanks, the sequel usually doesn't get written.
 
grommile said:
If a movie tanks, the sequel usually doesn't get written.
Click to expand...
Like Punisher? But then Netflix took it and remade it.

If the franchise is solid, someone will bring it back. On the other hand, too much meddling and even Star Wars will tank... they just announced Byzantium for CK3. I wonder if this is a sign they are doing great or just being desperate...
 
Testerian2 said:
Like Punisher? But then Netflix took it and remade it.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more the way Star Trek Nemesis resulted in the scrapping of the planned final TNG movie and a seven year gap to the next Star Trek cinematic release (which was a TOS-based franchise reboot).
 
grommile said:
I was thinking more the way Star Trek Nemesis resulted in the scrapping of the planned final TNG movie and a seven year gap to the next Star Trek cinematic release (which was a TOS-based franchise reboot).
Click to expand...
Sure a corpo can kill any franchise for a while. I suppose this is what PDX did with Vic3.

My point is that you cannot sell games like potatoes: you need to acknowledge what the game means for the core fans because they can kill even a good game with bad reviews and refusal to play.
 
Testerian2 said:
Sure a corpo can kill any franchise for a while. I suppose this is what PDX did with Vic3.
Click to expand...
Imperator tanked, and they pulled the plug.

Vic3 is currently doing well enough to merit continued investment.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back