CK3: Is it *really* a complete failure, though?

[RynGM]

Huummm... And contrary to all the logic, the OP started this thread 7 days after those hate messages have been deleted instead of immediately answering or create then this new thread?

For me this thread is nothing more than a ruse that should be called for what it is. Psychologic and theatrical tricks to further one's own agenda, nothing more. I've been very present in the forums and to me their gist reflect the "Mixed" score the DLC is getting on Steam, not some kind of rebellion about a failed DLC.

Hey, OP here! As Flockingbird deduced, I read many posts along the lines mentioned. Rather than respond to each one individually about what I was seeing as a wider trend - which wouldn't be very on topic - I figured it would be better to just make a dedicated post.

Mostly, I felt like I was taking crazy pills as a newcomer, and it felt personally cathartic to post about it somewhere.

It felt like there was all this noise, and I just wanted to say "Hey, you know, I'm having fun though--?"

That's pretty much my "agenda" if you can call it that. Some people resonated with the post, which made me happy. Others disagreed but shared their thoughts, which was also great. Many felt the same as you - they didn't see the negativity and felt any critique was measured and not an absolute teardown of the game.

But hell, you can read the thread for all of that. All in all, I think the thread actually stayed relatively civil-ish. It didn't get locked, at any rate. TBH, I didn't expect so much discussion about CK2 vs CK3, but in hindsight with how I wrote the original post, seems really obvious it'd go there.

Anyway, I deliberately didn't link to examples in my post at the time because this felt like a really antagonistic move towards those posters. They'd probably flock to the post, defend themselves, and it'd turn into a cesspool of nastiness. Now apparently those posts are gone - I didn't go back and check, since that seems like a good way to burn hours of my life for no good reason, then if I did find them, it'd probably become an audit of old forum posts. That sounds as fun as having teeth pulled.

Anyway, my point is that the original post wasn't some malicious act, but a genuine thought-share. A bit clumsy, probably.

But there you go, defending my honour as a nameless mook on the internet.

 

[Torredebelem]

But there you go, defending my honour as a nameless mook on the internet.

View attachment 811194

Your honor has been defended through a crafty title and two very well written posts with art from the game masterfully placed embelishing your text - one would say you have a promising career in the marketing or the communication sector! - as the honor of CK3 has also been defended without the hint of a single critique, in the end meaning agenda or no agenda, you are completely entitled to write what you deem apropriate and everyone else can take his/her own conclusions.

I noted that since you registered in the forum, 23 days ago, you spent more than an entire day in the forum, which is a great sign for the interest the game is generating on the new players!

 

[Torredebelem]

I always get a chuckle out of people putting any kind of importance to the reviews when a game first comes out of the gate. If you really want an accurate reaction to the game you have to wait a few weeks before reading the reviews. Haters gotta hate and when an expansion comes out that they didn't ask for specifically they just toss that dislike out there like it's nothing. 9 times out of 10 they then go and PLAY the game and realize it's not all that bad, and sometimes "go figure" it's good. To those who end up enjoying the game, you usually don't see their reviews until they are through having fun with it... *sigh* a very simple concept but some people are just to dense and want to toss out the "Look at the horrible reviews" post EVERY SINGLE TIME.... it gets tiring.

As promised, here I am 15 days later to debunk your theory so assertively and arrogantly stated and to remember you the Royal Court DLC continues to have "Mixed" reviews with 52% of the reviewers downvoting it. Exactly like 15 days ago. So much for your bravado.... *sigh*

 

[PenitusVox]

I have way more hours in CK2 than CK3 currently (not that that's too surprising since CK3 is pretty young). As things are right now, I simply don't see a reason to return to CK2. Almost everything I wanted to see return (including a ton of DLC features) from CK2 was brought into the base, vanilla game. The UX is way, way better, even though the UI has less flavor for different governments and such. Graphics are the least important thing but, indeed, they are better.

That said, I think a lot of the problems here are the disappointing nature of Royal Court and how long it took to produce. CK3 came out in a very solid state but there's a lot of love that it should get that it doesn't really seem to be getting.

For instance, the game is basically supposed to be an emergent story generator but that isn't really the case. Scripted events get old quickly and are often really silly. Interactions between characters is very limited and there's so many things that happen out of your own control even when concerning the character you're controlling. Your cousin splitting off to form his own house should be a big deal and involve tons of roleplaying activities. Except it doesn't, you're likely to not even notice it happened until you end up playing as someone in that house because of an election or something.

Royal Court in general is just kind of confusing. I loved the idea of it when I first saw it but it seems like such a distraction. Having it be the first major DLC is very odd. I can kind of understand why they might want to do it first, so that they can build on it as time goes on, but that doesn't really work when it's a premium DLC feature.
This happened in EUIV development. Tailoring your governmental system over time was a feature introduced in a DLC and the devs tried to build on it over time but they were hamstrung by the fact that only a certain % of players even had access to it. It didn't make sense to devote resources to building on it and they had to add things for the ones that didn't have the DLC, doubling the work load.

So, I think a lot this comes down to the fact that while the game itself is good, it could use some work in important areas, but instead we got something that is ultimately just a bit of fluff. Fluff that'll likely make future development harder as well.

 

[x4077]

I have way more hours in CK2 than CK3 currently (not that that's too surprising since CK3 is pretty young). As things are right now, I simply don't see a reason to return to CK2. Almost everything I wanted to see return (including a ton of DLC features) from CK2 was brought into the base, vanilla game. The UX is way, way better, even though the UI has less flavor for different governments and such. Graphics are the least important thing but, indeed, they are better.

I still am amazed that so many people prefer the UX in CK3 better when it takes so many more steps to get anything done through the UI than it did in CK2. Granted that mods can make up for some of it, but on the whole I still find the UX in CK3 frustrating due to unclear indications of war borders ( not a problem with CK2 diplomacy map mode ) and lack of proper notifications and settings.

 

[Semigall]

Less gameplay features = fail = I won't buy.

 

[hajutze]

Take that as you will but thinking about playing CK3 is actually a lot more fun than playing CK3.

Lately I've ended up just starting the game, going to the character selection screen ... sitting there like an idiot for a minute or two and then just closing the game.

 

[Testeria]

I have way more hours in CK2 than CK3 currently (not that that's too surprising since CK3 is pretty young). As things are right now, I simply don't see a reason to return to CK2. Almost everything I wanted to see return (including a ton of DLC features) from CK2 was brought into the base, vanilla game. The UX is way, way better, even though the UI has less flavor for different governments and such. Graphics are the least important thing but, indeed, they are better.

No, it is not.

Few examples:
1. main panels are now on the edge of the screen - it is very hard to click them without scrolling the map;
2. VERY few map modes;
3. we are FORCED to one most useless "terrain" map mode when on close-up, it is VERY bad for people with bad sight and color recognition like me;
4. no clear indication of what to siege when moving troops; it is so annoying to move units to one place, scroll the map and later realize they are not sieging anything because the thing to siege is on the other barony.

This four alone make me not want to go back to the game anymore. And there are also things like moving the rally flag which is an abomination from UX perspective...

 

[Grim Madder]

I like CK3 but I always end up playing CK2. CK2 just sucks me into the world. The GoT mod is fantastic, but even without GoT Mod, CK2 is just a more interesting game for me to play. It's hard for me to identify exactly what it is about CK3 that puts it behind CK2, but I guess that CK3 feels simple and automatic to me and it's not as engaging.

EDIT: I thought I should add that I only play at speed 1 and therefore enjoy getting close to my character and family. CK2 is set up better for this than CK3, so that may be the biggest reason I have a preference for CK2.

 

[FightingFirst]

I love both. CK2 has better overall content at the moment (it has been out longer and has a lot more dlc so it is a no brainer that it would come out on top in this regard). However, CK3 has a lot more promise for me than CK2 ever did. I just hope PDX continue to nurture this game and listen to the community. I feel when hopefully CK4 comes out (a long time from now) CK3 will have surpassed CK2 by a long shot and will be the premiere CK title.