Will this be another I:R situation?

[the_atm]

First off, I bought I:R at launch and sunk 12 hours into it then just stopped playing because I just wanted to move onto different games. I have started playing again and love it! From what I've seen from groups, the reddit ect. a lot of content was put on standby till they got the main game mechanics, like mana, figured out and the overall game fleshed out. The past year, again just from what I've heard, has been catch up and fixing up.

So I guess my question is, from what we've seen through dev diaries and game-play I may have missed and interviews, will CK3 have the same launch issues?

I don't mean this as a dig at PDX, I love everything they do I am just curious if there's been a statement about this general... idea.

 

[Slime99]

From what I've seen CK3 seems promising in core game mechanics so far. The problems of I:R were seen long before it was launched.

 

[Fallofthepurple]

As someone who deeply regrets buying I:R on release and has his fair share of criticism in regards to some of the decisions made for CKIII I would like to point out that CK IIIs core mechanics are very similar to or an improvement over CKII and that in itself probably is enough to make it fun to play, which I:R was not.

 

[the_atm]

As someone who deeply regrets buying I:R on release and has his fair share of criticism in regards to some of the decisions made for CKIII I would like to point out that CK IIIs core mechanics are very similar to or an improvement over CKII and that in itself probably is enough to make it fun to play, which I:R was not.

Okay! I figured that would be the case as I:R was more a mash up of their other games. I've done a bad job of following dev diaries and stuff so I wasn't too confident.

What decisions in CK3 do you have criticism for?

 

[Tschobo]

I knew what I was getting with Imperator. I wasn't as shocked as others and found it even somewhat decent. Not superb but not the worst. A solid 6 out of 10 not more, not less. Compared to some other games it was running smoothly but it was barren and some of the Mana was just massively annyoing.

In CK3 I have only little gripes for now. The feudal, tribal, clan issue is one. The laws are the other. What I have heard from the first videos, is that the playtesters said that the AI can act random from time to time. Something that was also an issue in CK2.

But for now I would say no. As they know were they are heading with CK3. That was not the case with Imperator.

 

[Zylathas]

From what I've seen the game looks absolutely spectacular

 

[cybrxkhan]

I didn't play the original EU:Rome though my brother did, and from what I recall I:R didn't change EU:Rome's mechanics significantly or get much - it was basically just a graphical upgrade with some mechanical adjustments, but not enough to provide variety. Whereas CK3 here appears to be taking the good stuff from CK2 and significantly improving it. Of course, we will only know once the game is released, but so far looks good.

 

[Dagda]

Whats baffling to me is they didn't really learn from vanilla EU: Rome's mistakes.

But no, it's not another I:R situation. CK3 was in development before Imperator was even conceived and is basically Doomdark's baby. It's going to be a spectacular success from everything I've seen thus far.

 

[Fallofthepurple]

What decisions in CK3 do you have criticism for?

I obviously want to preface this by saying that my impression is for one a.) completely subjective and b.) based only on all the footage and information released so far and that c.) I by no means claim that the devs are "lazy" or "bad" or w/e and that I want CK III to be the best it can be.

That being said from the top of my head here are some points I am concerned about:

1. While Religion as a mechanic has been reworked and the new foundation is fantastic and probably very easy to build upon I am disappointed to know that there wont be things like dynamic and historic councils in the game were certain aspects of a faith (i.e Catholicism) can be altered without immediately creating some sort of heresy.
2. To the same degree I also want to point out that "Religious Hostility" seems to be a VERY rigid form of relationship that can only be altered by changing religious doctrines (aka creating a new faith) and not by i.e events and decisions like for example burning down another faiths holy site etc.
3. I find it concerning that they did not bother finding a solution for faiths that have a mutual religious head i.e Insular & Catholic or the Sunni Schools. This is the type of stuff that I would genuinely expect in the base game from the get go..
4. I am NOT a fan of baronies being so strictly tied to counties and not being inheiretable outside of it, this really dampened some of my excitement in regards to the otherwise gorgeous map layout.

These are four of my personal, major and minor pain points that I could immediately come up with.. There is probably more but yeah.

I also want to end this by saying that there are also many great and awesome new things in CK III too.

 

[Denkt]

Two reasons to think it is not:

• The game have been in development before development of imperator: Rome started and is still in development right now.
• The price tag of the base game is 49.99$ which indicate more effort spent on the game and that paradox is willing to take a PR risk with the higher price tag as the bakslash of a poor release would probably hurt them more than it did with Imperator: Rome.

 

[sreckom92]

My concern was that it will be just CK2 with better graphics and no DLC content incorporated.
So far, I'm seeing quite a lot of CK2 DLC content in the game. Things like nomads and merchant republics aren't in the game, but they were admittedly not that great in CK2. They will probably be added later to the game and hopefully be better represented.
CK3 is playing to the strengths of CK2. Dynastic struggles, religions, character building and interactions, alternate history... All of those things are seemingly getting amazing upgrades. This is what sold me for the game.

 

[Denkt]

In CK3 I have only little gripes for now. The feudal, tribal, clan issue is one. The laws are the other. What I have heard from the first videos, is that the playtesters said that the AI can act random from time to time. Something that was also an issue in CK2.

Feudal contracts have a bit more to them than the DD indicate: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/coinage-right-feudal-contract.1390129/

 

[gekj]

First most of imperator buyers haven't played EU:Rome which was already a bad game.

Second johan was kinda stubborn during the developpement and refused to take into account the critics about mana before the release.

Third the game was obviously rushed to fill the gap before CK3.

 

[arlekiness]

Well, as CK3 looks now - it's CK2 in current state minus some plus some in brand new dress and with bright future. So, only two thing PDX can fuck up on start - is that CK3 will be buggy as hell or unbalanced in some aspects.

 

[Aqua817]

I:R got less and less exciting as time went on, and when it came out it had all the issues of EU4 with NONE of the fun.

CKIII, however, looks like it's getting more and more exciting.

 

[Volodio]

From what I've seen CK3 seems promising in core game mechanics so far. The problems of I:R were seen long before it was launched.

But not that long. The problems started to appear with the first gameplay videos. We only have one yet and it's six minutes long.

 

[Kazanov]

I was one of these people who were hyped by Imperator and then was utterly dissapointed by the state of that game at launch, these boring mana systems, all these bugs... (Imperator is "fine" now, but still, a year+ has passed)

I was one of these people who promised to never buy another PDX preorder because of "the Imperator situation".

But now we are talking about more or less the same team that gave us Holy Fury (aka the best PDX team right now) and worked hard to make CK2 the best PDX game, i think we can trust their work and believe that this will not be another "Imperator situation"...i cannot imagine them creating passive and boring mana systems and pushing for a game nobody asked for (seriously, i saw one thread asking for a sequel for EU:ROME in years).

We are talking about a sequel of CK2 made by more or less the same people who made that game great, these people know their craft.

My concern was that it will be just CK2 with better graphics and no DLC content incorporated.
So far, I'm seeing quite a lot of CK2 DLC content in the game. Things like nomads and merchant republics aren't in the game, but they were admittedly not that great in CK2. They will probably be added later to the game and hopefully be better represented.
CK3 is playing to the strengths of CK2. Dynastic struggles, religions, character building and interactions, alternate history... All of those things are seemingly getting amazing upgrades. This is what sold me for the game.

Same here, they improved a lot of things and systems and maybe we will get better nomadic/republic systems in the future.

But not that long. The problems started to appear with the first gameplay videos. We only have one yet and it's six minutes long.

Im still mad at all these youtubers that lied to us selling Imperator as the best game about Rome ever created, i learned to never trust someone who gets a free game to get more views on their channel

I hope they dont do the same this time.

 

[Legion141]

I don't think we have another I:R on our hands, the issues with that game were evident from the very beginning. Instead, I feel that perhaps (for me at least) this will be more like HoI 4, in that we'll get a solid game at release, but it will lack depth in a large number of areas at launch. So, naturally, we'll see missing mechanics from CK2 re-implemented and basic foundational stuff will also undergo numerous iterations before the game really reaches its potential. I suppose that's kind of the story of all Paradox games to an extent, but in this case (as in HoI 4's case for me) I'd hold off and see where the game goes after a year or two before diving in

 

[EU3NOOB]

Okay! I figured that would be the case as I:R was more a mash up of their other games. I've done a bad job of following dev diaries and stuff so I wasn't too confident.

What decisions in CK3 do you have criticism for?

While technically I:R is a mash-up of different games (Vicky, CK, and EU) that's because the original Rome, EU:Rome, was also a mash-up of those games.

Try playing EU:Rome and you'll definitely see I:R in a very, very, raw form. EU:Rome was, to not mince words, shit. But then again, that wasn't far out of the ordinary for Paradox back then. Paradox games would have potential but their launches would be terrible and it would take multiple expansion packs to bring them to a level of polish that was "good enough", which wouldn't be considered good enough today.

I can pretty much guarantee that if some of those who lambast I:R's launch played old PDS titles they wouldn't have complained nearly as much.

Not that their criticisms aren't valid. Personally I think Paradox should have done more with I:R during pre-launch development instead of making an evolved form of EU:Rome.

 

[collins3]

First off, I bought I:R at launch and sunk 12 hours into it then just stopped playing because I just wanted to move onto different games. I have started playing again and love it! From what I've seen from groups, the reddit ect. a lot of content was put on standby till they got the main game mechanics, like mana, figured out and the overall game fleshed out. The past year, again just from what I've heard, has been catch up and fixing up.

So I guess my question is, from what we've seen through dev diaries and game-play I may have missed and interviews, will CK3 have the same launch issues?

I don't mean this as a dig at PDX, I love everything they do I am just curious if there's been a statement about this general... idea.

My random worry stems from interviews where they point to the Sims as some sort of inspiration for the game. Oh 2am pandemic worries about my favorite game title that has ever existed.