At least the candid honesty is refreshing, even if the message isn't always something people agree with/could be sent better. I frequently disagree in fact, but I'd still rather the honesty personally. I'd take it any day over EAspeak or any of that nonsense.
AngryJoe Interviews Paradox CEO
- Thread starter Fabiano79
- 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.
At least the candid honesty is refreshing, even if the message isn't always something people agree with/could be sent better. I frequently disagree in fact, but I'd still rather the honesty personally. I'd take it any day over EAspeak or any of that nonsense.
I would buy it, even just to support Paradox and say fu EA. If I had the pc to run it. And even though I know I would still continue to play mostly EU4.
It's not easily summarizable since there was little structure – on a few occasions I felt things were getting interesting when the interviewer (Joe, I guess) chimed in with some complete non sequitur and they switched tracks.
IMO some of the more interesting things were:
- All the titles/ideas they denied were currently in the works: Victoria 3, Rome 2, Game of Thrones, Majesty 3 at least. They promised to look at Game of Thrones even though they were clear that it probably wouldn't happen (now).
- Their comments on DLCs, like that the problem isn't DLCs themselves, but bad DLCs or DLCs done wrong. Their criteria were that the customer should be asked to pay for something they can get hyped about, rather than to unlock something they feel they've already paid for.
- Their product scheduling/canceling changes. They are trying to move to announcing things later, so that there's less chance of a project being canceled, but also canceling projects more if they feel it doesn't work. They are also planning for upsets, so there is flexibility in their schedule for when something goes wrong. Willing to admit and apologize when things don't work out.
- They want to keep making bets with unlikely and niche third party projects, rather than becoming a sequel factory.
- At least two (some hedging: 0-2) titles coming on PS4, apparently some kind of collaboration with Sony. Whatever that means.
- They want a tablet grand strategy, just don't have the vision/leader for it ATM.
- No interest on making typical short attention span mobile games.
(Paraphrasing after the fact. Sorry if I got something wrong.)
No it´s not
We all knew they wouldn´t announce it in 2015 or 16.
And f***mobile games. I´m tired of all the Warhammer 40k crap that is done. Paradox doesn´t need to lose its reputation too.
Just putting this out there on the off-chance a dev sees it - if you ever decide to do a game like this, the are only two logical start dates. Either start with the accession of Diocletian in 284/5 or the death of Theodosius I in 395. These are true watershed moments in history.
.png){kind=avatar}
Thats a lot of money to be earned with mobile games, they would be crazy to not, at least, think about it. Also, if they can manage to deliver a Grand Strategy game for mobile it will be the first of its kind and I will buy gladly.
About "the dark ages" sugestion, that would be sweet. But, I still tink that Rome and its families deserve to be the focus of a CK2 style game, it fits perfect..Julii, Pompeii, Claudii, Scipii, Caecilii...
The continued existence of console gaming never ceases to amaze me.
Anyhow, since I like longshots:
Greek city states grand strategy, Rome is pasee.
Egypt, Hatti, Assyria, Babylon game
Pathfinder rpg grand strategy game
Anyhow, since I like longshots:
Greek city states grand strategy, Rome is pasee.
Egypt, Hatti, Assyria, Babylon game
Pathfinder rpg grand strategy game
Crusader Kings: Rome actually makes a lot more sense in terms of mechanics than the EU:Rome game they made. A good Rome game really has to have complex politics *inside* the Roman Empire, or it's just a giant unstoppable blob. What has been overdone is Roman-era war games, but hopefully Paradox would come up with something better than that.
I personally thing something with CK2 mechanics but even more in-depth would be cool for the Italian Peninsular during the Renaissance, so you could be part of one of the city states, or the Papacy.
I'd just like a game where the tall versus wide empires become balanced. CK2 manages to do somewhat well in that, but still not well enough, often relying on just spamming the "tall" areas with tiny tiny provinces.
I'm pretty sure that the TK period has already been done to death by Koei. Trying to expand into that market would just be beating a dead horse.
...on a sidenote I just had insane vision of grand strategy game where each country on the world map is randomly assigned to human player connected to the server, if such human exits the game his country goes into state when it passively maintains itself and can't be invaded. Human returns to the game says 'whoa the world has changed during my absence' and continues game. But if he will be offline for some period - depending on the seeting of server - his country will went into 'interregnum' and be assigned to AI or another willing player.
The world map is updated in real time in big lobby where people can observe and discuss the ongoing game, look at statistics and join as currently 'empty' countries present on the map. Conventional savegames are of course possible. The key here is: as much players as countries are allowed. Up to 512.
This is of course technically and gamifically impossible but I am goddamn sure in future there will be things at least based on a similar concept.
The world map is updated in real time in big lobby where people can observe and discuss the ongoing game, look at statistics and join as currently 'empty' countries present on the map. Conventional savegames are of course possible. The key here is: as much players as countries are allowed. Up to 512.
This is of course technically and gamifically impossible but I am goddamn sure in future there will be things at least based on a similar concept.
There are strategy MMOs out there where each player controls a country and can attack neighbouring countries to gain territory. Most of them are rather shallow and poorly-designed from a gameplay perspective, though, especially when the company's greed for income from in-game purchases destroys any semblance of balance. Also, for understandable reasons, they're generally designed so that players only go online occasionally and perform a limited number of actions per day, rather than continuous, real-time play.
From a technical standpoint though, there's no reason you couldn't make a well-balanced, strategically deep historical grand strategy MMO. Even real-time could probably work (consider how much info per second the server would actually have to exchange with the client in EU4, compared to an MMORPG where every critter is performing several actions per second and anything above 250ms lag is considered unacceptable), and if real-time is too difficult, simultaneous turn-based play can be just as deep. It's more a question of making a solid business case for it.
I am actually surprised Johan admitted to shoving SoTS 2 out of the gate....here's hoping he never has to do that ever again.
I personally don't understand the aversion towards vicky 3/Rome 2. They are guaranteed cash cows. No seriously. They are part of the main paradox series (well, vicky is at any rate) and they already have a great base gameplay AND tons of loyal fans.
Pretty it up, add a few needed mechanics, change the interface so it doesn't resemble a 1998 flash game's and tadaaaaa, free money.
I personally don't understand the aversion towards vicky 3/Rome 2. They are guaranteed cash cows. No seriously. They are part of the main paradox series (well, vicky is at any rate) and they already have a great base gameplay AND tons of loyal fans.
Pretty it up, add a few needed mechanics, change the interface so it doesn't resemble a 1998 flash game's and tadaaaaa, free money.
From what it sounded like, it isn't that they don't realize this, but rather that there isn't anyone on the creative team who feels they have the passion and drive to successfully propel the project to completion.
Huge props to paradox, y'all were straight up and honest. I went through the comments and a lot of folks are now looking into your games just because of how honest the company is.
Everyone makes mistakes but y'all own up to em and admit them. Reason why when I see something some paradox I usually throw money at my screen until im playing it. Keep it up paradox.
Everyone makes mistakes but y'all own up to em and admit them. Reason why when I see something some paradox I usually throw money at my screen until im playing it. Keep it up paradox.
