What are old CK2 veterans' opinion of CK3?

  • 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.
This is just reiterating that you think ck3 should be compared with the final version of ck2. Obviously I still disagree. It’s true no one forced paradox to release ten years of dlc. But again it seems we disagree, since I am very glad we got the terrific game ck2 turned into rather than the bland, Incomplete one it was on release. I hope they release ten years of equally good dlc for ck3.

edit: I would also observe that you seem to resent paradox for iterating on a game for ten years, and you seem to resent them equally for releasing a new game which has not been iterated on for ten years and therefore has fewer features.
No I resent Paradox for making you have to pay twice as much as the game itself in DLCs to have a full experience in CK2 and then releasing CK3 inferior to CK2+DLCs so they can do the same again. This is called anti-consumer practices and if Paradox didn't had a near monopoly on grand strategy games, due to lack of competition, this wouldn't fly.
 
  • 12
  • 10
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Stat creep? With the new Gods one can pick by decision in Northern Lords we can see Stat Creep already in action in the first DLC... Hopefully that is not repeated in next ones or we will have the same Stat Creep we had in CK2 pretty fast.

On release, the player character seems like a particularly talented lord. As more DLCs are added, the player character becomes a Dynasty Warriors character knocking down whole troop units with a single swipe.
 
  • 8
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
But if you expected ck3, on release, to be a deeper and more complete game than ck2, and were therefore disappointed, it’s because you were setting yourself up for disappointment with an unreasonable expectation.
I expected on CK3 release that I would be able to use the character finder without it disappearing when performed an interaction with one of the characters in the list. I expected that I would still be able to save filter settings. I expected the diplomacy map mode to return. I expected that I would be able to turn on and off notifications that I was and was not interested in. I expected to be able to change game settings and not have to do it again every single time I started a new game.

If those expectations are unreasonable, then Paradox's expectation that I am going to purchase future games of theirs based on their predecessor just became unreasonable as well.
 
  • 18
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Stat creep? With the new Gods one can pick by decision in Northern Lords we can see Stat Creep already in action in the first DLC... Hopefully that is not repeated in next ones or we will have the same Stat Creep we had in CK2 pretty fast.
Probably so but I'm still loving a fresh slate.
 
No I resent Paradox for making you have to pay twice as much as the game itself in DLCs to have a full experience in CK2 and then releasing CK3 inferior to CK2+DLCs so they can do the same again. This is called anti-consumer practices and if Paradox didn't had a near monopoly on grand strategy games, due to lack of competition, this wouldn't fly.
I've been playing PC games since 1989. This is called the gaming industry.

Sequels to games that are total rebuilds rarely have content from previous games expansions. Look at Total War or the Civilization series as current examples. The Civ series has a ton of competition. 4x is big now and it's still done.
 
  • 15
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
That's the only choice you can make.

CK2 without 10 years' worth of DLC still very much exists today, you can make a new Steam account right now and play it in all its "oh you can only play feudal catholics btw" glory. It's always amusing to me when people talk as if DLC is just baked into the game, as if CK2 improving is only a product of time passing rather than money invested. The game people in this thread are fawning over is not just one that's 10 years old, it's one with over 100$ worth of paid content which you have to, you know, pay for. Even today, were you a new player looking to get into the franchise.

This thread is about the perspective of the "veteran CK2 player" so by all means, we can discuss the merits of CK3 vs CK2 with all its bells and whistles. But why is it the "rational thing to do"? CK3 like any new game does not only seek to satisfy the hardcore fanbase of the previous game.


Why would anyone do that though? If I own ck2 with all the bells and whistles, why would I want to pay full price for ck3 which appears not to measure up.

It seems bizarre to defend ck3 by saying well of course on release it won't measure up to ck2. So I can spend a tidy amount of money to buy something that I can enjoy if I lower my expectations or I can continue to enjoy my previous purchase?
 
  • 13
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Why would anyone do that though? If I own ck2 with all the bells and whistles, why would I want to pay full price for ck3 which appears not to measure up.

Did you buy Civ 6 when you owned Civ 5?

It seems bizarre to defend ck3 by saying well of course on release it won't measure up to ck2. So I can spend a tidy amount of money to buy something that I can enjoy if I lower my expectations or I can continue to enjoy my previous purchase?

How is it bizarre? Every single game company does this and the new game sells. Even the people who complain buy the new game. Those that don't do not matter if the new game is selling well. You are no longer their customer and they are perfectly fine with that because rebuilding CK with all the features of CK3 would require probably a couple more years of testing and development if not longer. Plus they have no playerbase to determine if their changes to the gameplay are going to sell well or they accidently churn out another imperator. So why would they delay a game that long when each release is a roll of the dice?

There are a ton of reasons why game companies do this. Then you read forums and you see a bunch of poor kids mad that they have to spend $100. I have money. I don't care. They will get $500 from me if they allow it.

Like I spend $60 on games that I put not eve 30 hours into. Why would I care about what they charge for a game I put 1000 into? I put more into this than people put into World of Warcraft that they charge $15 a month for.
 
  • 12
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Why? To avoid setting yourself up for disappointment. Of course you can compare whatever you want, and it makes sense to compare the current products to decide which one to play today.

But if you expected ck3, on release, to be a deeper and more complete game than ck2, and were therefore disappointed, it’s because you were setting yourself up for disappointment with an unreasonable expectation. The eu3 comparison is relevant: eu3 had 4 expansions; ck2 had 15. Yet eu4 and ck3 likely had about the same amount of dev time before release to implement things.
I hope Paradox compensates you good for being such a blind defender of the poor Multi-million dollar corporation otherwise you are only making your wallet suffer from this defense.
 
  • 8Like
  • 6Haha
  • 4
Reactions:
Why would anyone do that though? If I own ck2 with all the bells and whistles, why would I want to pay full price for ck3 which appears not to measure up.

It seems bizarre to defend ck3 by saying well of course on release it won't measure up to ck2. So I can spend a tidy amount of money to buy something that I can enjoy if I lower my expectations or I can continue to enjoy my previous purchase?
Why would anyone do what? My post didn't suggest anyone do anything. Where did I tell you to buy CK3 and stop playing CK2? I'm saying the rational apples to apples comparison certainly is not CK3 in its infancy to CK2 with the entirety of its comically large catalogue of DLC.

By all means don't buy and don't play CK3 if you don't like it. Games always get better with age and I too purchase most of my games years after release as some discounted complete edition for exactly that reason. CK3 on launch was never going to have the same breadth of content, or feel as complete as CK2 at the end of its dev cycle, it is what it is. That's just video games, do as you will with that.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I hope Paradox compensates you good for being such a blind defender of the poor Multi-million dollar corporation otherwise you are only making your wallet suffer from this defense.
They compensate me with a game I put 1000+ hours into.

You complain about this when people pay $60 to play an 18 hour Gears of War campaign. All because you are counting pennies over a game you get well your value of entertainment from.
 
  • 10
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
They compensate me with a game I put 1000+ hours into.

You complain about this when people pay $60 to play an 18 hour Gears of War campaign. All because you are counting pennies over a game you get well your value of entertainment from.
You know statistically speaking the great majority of people that buy Paradox Grand strategy games plays only a few hours with it, right? It is only people that really love the genre that stick around to play the thousand of hours, no different then small group of people that play thousand of hours of Minecraft or Skyrim because they love the concept, except neither of those games have predatory DLCs practices
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I hope Paradox compensates you good for being such a blind defender of the poor Multi-million dollar corporation otherwise you are only making your wallet suffer from this defense.
They do, actually. They make most of my favorite games! And support and improve them for years! I would rather have a great game for $300 over 10 years than a decent one for $60 up front. If you're suggesting they should sell me the game for $60 and then support and improve it full time for 10 years for free, well...ok, I'm into that. But not holding my breath.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
You know statistically speaking the great majority of people that buy Paradox Grand strategy games plays only a few hours with it, right? It is only people that really love the genre that stick around to play the thousand of hours, no different then small group of people that play thousand of hours of Minecraft or Skyrim because they love the concept, except neither of those games have predatory DLCs practices
This is a great point and a terrific argument for Paradox's new subscription model, which people seem to hate for some reason.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
You know statistically speaking the great majority of people that buy Paradox Grand strategy games plays only a few hours with it, right?

Someone like that doesn't care if the game has less features than CK2 with all dlc. They bought the game for 30 hours of funzies and put it aside.

My friends who play games like this pay for Xbox gamepass on Windows. Which CK is in.

The only people who think you need ALL the DLC or the game is uNpLaYaBlE are the people who play this game like others do WoW.

Like IDK what even the argument is here. Those people who play the game like you said probably didn't own ANY dlc for CK2 unless it was a bundle. The people complaining here are the people who are more hardcore about the game than that.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Why would anyone do that though? If I own ck2 with all the bells and whistles, why would I want to pay full price for ck3 which appears not to measure up.

It seems bizarre to defend ck3 by saying well of course on release it won't measure up to ck2. So I can spend a tidy amount of money to buy something that I can enjoy if I lower my expectations or I can continue to enjoy my previous purchase?
I have to agree with that.
This feeds into the whole "you have rose tinted glass" vs "I want something for my money" duel. And I think both are valid points of view.
But I do sincerely think that Paradox's DLC policy is somewhat abusive, Crusader Kings 2 came out almost 10 years ago.
Now granted, Paradox has been busy at work improving the game over these ten years, but as a consumer and player, I don't want to purchase a sequel and realise it's not as complete as the previous game was, and I'll have to wait 3-4 more years and dish out some 100+ more bucks or more before the game is as great as the predecessor was. That is just something I refuse to get used to.

The other major, perhaps more important dilemma is "pleasing the fans" vs "attracting new customers"
In my opnion one of the key to solving this equation is pinpointing, (including but nor limited to core gamepplay elements) what made players specifically resonate with the game game and improve it. Adding features and gameplay appealing to new players/casual while not sacrificing challenge.
Even smaller things that might be looking cumbersome to the new player can actually turn into endearing gameplay mechanics leaving a void when they are removed. (Like gathering levies for exemple, kind of frightening at first, but in fact integral to the game in CK 2) or something as stupid as the color tone (CK 2's palet was smooth and calming while CK 3's kinda hurt my eyes)
Small details can make a strong difference and are very hard to pinpoint, when I first fired CK 2 I was absolutely stunned by the possibility of choosing ANY ruler from 1066 to 1453 and watch the borders and rulers change while I moved the slider (Learned a whole lot of History too)
Now admittedly I've almost exclusively played 867 and 1066 starting dates in my 1500 hours of CK2, but I believe giving more incentives to play these dates (achievements, weekly challenges, community driven objectives) is a much better path than removing them.
It's a complicated relation between the game maker and the player and when you are on the crafter side I can easily glimpse how hard it can be to pinpoint those specific things that made you hit gold at some point.
Players on the other hand will have the infamous rose tinted glasses and tend to disliked anything that deviates from those specific, hard to describe things that made them connect to the game, the gold strike fleeting details that make you remember perfectly the rainy or maybe sunny day you first conquered and settled into England with Willy the bastard after that family dinner and that massive blunt.
Was it the dim light of dawn/calming clapping of rain on a gray day, the wine, the scent of your hot cousin who looks intensely in your eyes for more than 6 seconds, the blunt or something else that makes you remember this day some 8 years later. You can't tell but surely there must be something about this game that struck you when you won that throne, the high point of the day you still remember some 8 years ago. (My bet is that the music did some of it)

Games have to change, but game devs if they want to truely keep striking the hearts of their players and new ones to come need to find these chords that make their game special and memorable and preserve them.
Accessibility in gameplay is nice for new players, and new features are also great. But in my opinion, if any game wants to evolve it needs to find some core, even if elusive, elements that makes it great and enhance them, not squander them.
In terms of gameplay, I think one of the things that defined a good CK2 experience was the random and tenuous experience of managing a realm.
You start as Phillip Capet in CK 2, your realm is powerful, but Aquitaine, Flanders, Burgundy, and even the HRE can and will be at your throat and a simple flue can make the difference between a succesful life or a cursed existance depending on whom it strikes.
In comparison, CK 3 is just smooth sailing all along.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
In comparison, CK 3 is just smooth sailing all along.
That's because the faction system in CK2 was terrible and it isn't as terrible in CK3.

I played CK2+ and HIP and they had a far better system than just VASSAL MAD!!! It's still like that in this game but the anti-fun gameplay there can be much more easily mitigated.

Just look at how ridiculous the Byzantines are in CK2 lol. They are too powerful in this but there just needs to be some minor tweaking. They are a DISASTER in CK2.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
The basic gist of it to me is CK3 doesn't have as much content but the systems that do exist are much better than CK2's. Biggest thing for me in CK3 is that wars feel a lot more fluid and less of a slog to fight.
 
  • 6
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
This is a great point and a terrific argument for Paradox's new subscription model, which people seem to hate for some reason.
I agree with you on that, the subscription system is a ok way to deal with the problem but i think to make it more fair they should give more discounts or other benefits for subscribers
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Someone like that doesn't care if the game has less features than CK2 with all dlc. They bought the game for 30 hours of funzies and put it aside.

My friends who play games like this pay for Xbox gamepass on Windows. Which CK is in.

The only people who think you need ALL the DLC or the game is uNpLaYaBlE are the people who play this game like others do WoW.

Like IDK what even the argument is here. Those people who play the game like you said probably didn't own ANY dlc for CK2 unless it was a bundle. The people complaining here are the people who are more hardcore about the game than that.
Have you seem the Paradox DLCs reviews on steam or Sseth review of the game? Casual or New players due buy DLCs however it is less than hardcore players because they do not invest so much money into the game so they end up pirateing it or just don't buy the game because of that.
That's because the faction system in CK2 was terrible and it isn't as terrible in CK3.

I played CK2+ and HIP and they had a far better system than just VASSAL MAD!!! It's still like that in this game but the anti-fun gameplay there can be much more easily mitigated.

Just look at how ridiculous the Byzantines are in CK2 lol. They are too powerful in this but there just needs to be some minor tweaking. They are a DISASTER in CK2.
I actually think the contrary i cannot stand HIP faction system, getting all members of a faction mad with you like a hivemind pisses me to no end. "Are you involved in a prolonged war? Well to bad the prosperity faction and every single atom in it now hates you"
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Not sure I understand why people expect CK3 to basically be exactly CK2 but also somehow a little newer. That's not to dismiss the issues with CK3, or things that really should have been in but didn't make it for whatever reason, or the bugs.

I will say, coming from Stellaris, that CK3 is just so much of a better experience, and that's comparing CK3 to Stellaris at launch and also Stellaris now (which is, honestly, a clusterfuck). Maybe that's why I feel less connected to the people who are angry here. You don't know how good you have it with CK3.
 
  • 7
  • 5Like
  • 3
Reactions: