Disappointed in the amount of DLC.. Day 1 DLC in particular is always a massive turn off. I'll probably pick it up on sale.
Are you disappointed?
- Thread starter RiseOrDie
- 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.
Im complete opposite of dissapointed, this is exactly what I wanted EU3 to be. The new mechanics are wonderful, new trade is very interesting, they effectively ended snowballing which is a huge problem with grand strategy games, maybe some of the minor stuff needs to be balanced out a bit, I dont know, Ive only played the demo, extensively, but the core of the game is just excellent. Huge huge improvement on EU3 and all the problems with it.
Look under covert actions I believe, you can still support rebels and spy, you just no longer have the spy agent doing it.
Look under covert actions I believe, you can still support rebels and spy, you just no longer have the spy agent doing it.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: demo indicates the game is in better shape than any three of its predecessors on release. I am happy.
Loved EU3 (post expansions), Loved HOI3 (post expansions), Loved Victoria 2, Loved CK2, etc etc.
I've played about 6 hours worth of the demo, and yeah, I am damn excited for this game.
I've played about 6 hours worth of the demo, and yeah, I am damn excited for this game.
I need to stop preordering games really. Amongst the last games I preordered were dragon age 2, sim city and now this. Although this seems to be less disappointing than the former 2.
You mean the fact that there is the equivalent of a Collector's Edition with some fluff DLC - much the same as many other game companies make? Or is there some other really important DLC I am unaware of?
I'm not disappointed to the least, but I would make the game more difficult than it appears now. AI is aggressive enough for my taste but everything feels too quick, like colonization, culture flipping, core crafting and such.
Making the game more painful but not overly painful would add to its longevity and rewarding-ness.
Making the game more painful but not overly painful would add to its longevity and rewarding-ness.
Seconded. Why in the world would I be disappointed with a game that I haven't gotten to play for more than 28 game years? If you keep telling yourself the game will suck, then the game will probably suck for you.
HOI III- now that was a disappointing release day. Buggy as all hell, long freezes at autosaving, glacial game speeds...
Everything I've seen from the EU IV demo is telling me that PI learned from their past mistakes are are committed to having a polished, exciting game on day one. They've committed to rocking the boat and trying out new concepts like the monarch points; that is a good thing. Preserving too much of the old system would lead to a stale experience. So yeah, I'm excited for a good game on day one and I'm also pumped to watch it only get better over time.
Everything I've seen from the EU IV demo is telling me that PI learned from their past mistakes are are committed to having a polished, exciting game on day one. They've committed to rocking the boat and trying out new concepts like the monarch points; that is a good thing. Preserving too much of the old system would lead to a stale experience. So yeah, I'm excited for a good game on day one and I'm also pumped to watch it only get better over time.
The most annoying thing about the forums hasn't been the people complaining, but the elitist players who can't accept that other people may have different opinions. People aren't just complaining to "rain on your parade", they complain because they actually care about the game, and they want it to be the best it possibly can be.
I am personally looking forward to the game, I am not disappointed, and I found the demo very enjoyable. I am glad that I bought it, and I know it will be fun and interesting to play in the coming weeks. I think there are a lot of improvements that have been made over the previous game, but I don't really see the point in endlessly posting about how something is great. Instead I feel it more constructive to focus, as I have, on what areas the game could be better. Enthusiasm is for when you are telling someone new about the game. This is the forum where we actually discuss the game, it isn't meant to be a competition to show how much we love Paradox.
I like the idea of monarch points, I think it is a good system for making trade-offs between different aspects of your nation. But my issue is with the way that the system is set up. There is no way to focus and specialise in one of the three. You can specialise in subsections within them, for instance using your MMP to buy Quality and Offensive ideas rather than Defensive and Quantity. But there is no way to improve your military tech at the cost of administrative tech, or to focus on trade rather than land army strength. Your nation's balance of Administration, Diplomacy, and Military is almost entirely up to your monarch. Yes, advisors can help steer a little bit in another direction, and there are some events that offer such inter-MP trade-offs, but it is still an annoying mechanic where if you want to focus on trade, you will have to do it at the cost of your navy, rather than at the cost of your army.
This is not a balance issue, it is one of game design. Nonetheless I will still play the game, still enjoy it, and still recommend it. I just think that it could be better, and no doubt tweaking will occur over the coming years. I mean, I was someone who enjoyed EUR, despite its flaws. I can ignore bugs and issues, and just get down to the business of creating an empire in my own image.
I am personally looking forward to the game, I am not disappointed, and I found the demo very enjoyable. I am glad that I bought it, and I know it will be fun and interesting to play in the coming weeks. I think there are a lot of improvements that have been made over the previous game, but I don't really see the point in endlessly posting about how something is great. Instead I feel it more constructive to focus, as I have, on what areas the game could be better. Enthusiasm is for when you are telling someone new about the game. This is the forum where we actually discuss the game, it isn't meant to be a competition to show how much we love Paradox.
I like the idea of monarch points, I think it is a good system for making trade-offs between different aspects of your nation. But my issue is with the way that the system is set up. There is no way to focus and specialise in one of the three. You can specialise in subsections within them, for instance using your MMP to buy Quality and Offensive ideas rather than Defensive and Quantity. But there is no way to improve your military tech at the cost of administrative tech, or to focus on trade rather than land army strength. Your nation's balance of Administration, Diplomacy, and Military is almost entirely up to your monarch. Yes, advisors can help steer a little bit in another direction, and there are some events that offer such inter-MP trade-offs, but it is still an annoying mechanic where if you want to focus on trade, you will have to do it at the cost of your navy, rather than at the cost of your army.
This is not a balance issue, it is one of game design. Nonetheless I will still play the game, still enjoy it, and still recommend it. I just think that it could be better, and no doubt tweaking will occur over the coming years. I mean, I was someone who enjoyed EUR, despite its flaws. I can ignore bugs and issues, and just get down to the business of creating an empire in my own image.
I so far totally agree with you on this point. Perhaps my feelings on the lack of control with MMP production will change after a full game, but I somehow doubt it. I saw that somebody came up with a good idea on another thread which proposed that a matrix could be created to divide your base MMP. So, instead of having 3/3/3 as a base, you could slowly shift your focus over time to other configurations- say 5/2/2 or 4/4/1. Putting in a ten or so odd year delay between shifting a point to a different category could prevent people from gaming the system and suddenly shifting their countries' focus overnight as well.
Buuut sometimes people suggest the most idiotic things that will ruin all the magic I just read in the DDs.
Naturally Ill fight hard for something that gives me as much joy as Pdox games, I am one of those weird people who loves vanilla in all of the Pdox games I own
You could've gotten ALL DLC by either pre-ordering or doing events.
I for one am happy they allow us to get it anyway, and not say "Ok, you didn't do the CtA so you're screwed"
Overall, I am quite satisfied. I cannot name a single element which I would name as disappointing. There are some minor things that might need some tuning, but those are more matter of preference and how I feel things should work and not disfunctional concepts. And I doubt I will ever be truly happy with western Balkan provinces unless I do them myself, but that hardly qualifies as game feature or is worth complaining about.
The thing I am most satisfied with, even though its the same engine, same database, same history files, same topic, this is an entirely new game. The difference in EU4 and its predecessors is bigger than in any other Paradox title compared to its predecessors. It gives completely new objectives and strategies, and what was a no brainer before, now takes a lot of consideration, what was pure gain before, might not be worth effort anymore. And it goes even further, it makes historical play and development the logical choice and through which you see how it affects your nation and what you gain. I had expected a polished EU3 brought up to par with CK2, instead this game is much more. Looking forward to release tommorow. And Thursday, beloved Thursday and beloved Virgin Mary. Assumption of Virgin Mary, national holiday and no work. Grill, beer and EU4. Add some wenches of low moral fiber and it will be heaven.
The thing I am most satisfied with, even though its the same engine, same database, same history files, same topic, this is an entirely new game. The difference in EU4 and its predecessors is bigger than in any other Paradox title compared to its predecessors. It gives completely new objectives and strategies, and what was a no brainer before, now takes a lot of consideration, what was pure gain before, might not be worth effort anymore. And it goes even further, it makes historical play and development the logical choice and through which you see how it affects your nation and what you gain. I had expected a polished EU3 brought up to par with CK2, instead this game is much more. Looking forward to release tommorow. And Thursday, beloved Thursday and beloved Virgin Mary. Assumption of Virgin Mary, national holiday and no work. Grill, beer and EU4. Add some wenches of low moral fiber and it will be heaven.
Wasn't above my expectations but was equal to them and it's worth mentioning that they were high but with the forums I am.
The game could use some small teeks, but overall the demo seemed good to me. Given that this version is a significant departure from the past EUs, it would be best if we all show some patience when the eventual bugs do pop up. Looking forward to this iteration. 
I'm only disappointed with no IQ test before registering on forum. Everyone with IQ under room temperature is not allowed to join.
The game is awesome. At least according to demo.
The game is awesome. At least according to demo.
I was disappointed in the Demo, but I hated CK2's demo as well and jumped into the proper release fine.
But the map just looks so tiny in scale compared to CK2, which I assume is fixed once you explore beyond Europe.
But the map just looks so tiny in scale compared to CK2, which I assume is fixed once you explore beyond Europe.