I'll keep paying for CK2 contents. I'll pay a lot for it. If they can modernize even further with 8K graphics, that's even better. But doing a CK3 would be really bad. CK2 is a perfect platform to expand on. Starting from scratch would be horrible.
Crusader kings 3
- Thread starter pezao39
- 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.
There are things which would basically impossible to do in CK2 (because it would requiere them to change the whole base code and basic mechanics of the game) that a CK3 would be requiered for them. It's about more than graphics. For exemple a ruler with different lieges per title. Or adding China (which is impossible without rising the PC requierements). Some things are just impossible without making CK3.
What I hope for the eventual CK3 is for it to be little more diverse in government types and a population system. CK2 is a great game but playing in India shouldn't feel like playing in Europe with less features. Since CK2 is so old for a computer game I really don't see any of the features the DLCs introduce changing the game dramatically and making the game to much different. My biggest problem with CK2 is how repetitive each game can get. After 300-500 years everything feels the same. Despite playing over 1200 hours I have only managed to play two games to the end date.
I love CK2 and it is still a fun game to play but it is far from perfect. While CK3 does not need to be an priority right now I think two more DLCs is the most this game should get.
I love CK2 and it is still a fun game to play but it is far from perfect. While CK3 does not need to be an priority right now I think two more DLCs is the most this game should get.
.png){kind=avatar}
- Jan 22, 2018
- 1.326
- 4.785
Incorrect. There is a lot of things that is getting increasingly difficult to do with CK2. It has expanded in ways the original game could never predict, and thus never prepared for, making it a lot more work than absolutely necessary.
CK3 will encompass all of continential Eurasia but only Buddhists will be playable. The game goes at 1 day per minute at the highest speed. You have to play with mods to get achievements and AI will actually be people selected from a random online pool.
Heh, since Legacy of Rome at least. I started playing CK2 and joined the forums a few days after LoR came out, and I definitely remember people talking and wishlisting about CK3 back then.
The game is not expensive at all. It is only expensive it you want all the DLCs right away, which is not advisable. I, and I suspect most other players as well, built up their collection over time. No reason a new player could not do the same. It is not like the base game isn't enjoyable by itself, and the vast majority of DLC features is not something a new player needs anyway.
Anyways, to the OP, Crusader Kings 3 still seems very far away. I don't think it has entered development yet, and when it does, it will still be years before it is finished. If you wait for CK3, you will probably find yourself waiting a long time.
Not the poster you're responding to, but the response is still accurate: I don't anymore, since I paid good money for them, but I played CK2 before SoI came out, so for quite a while.
CK2 without DLCs is a perfectly fine game, and if I were encouraging a new player to try it out, that is what I would suggest (if only so they can drop it if they don't like it without spending too much money). If they like it, they can slowly pick up DLCs of interest to them (and I'd only really put a few as "major" if they are content playing Christian feudals, which is plenty of gameplay in its own right).
That said, the CK2 engine is definitely starting to show its age, and I'd be shocked if there wasn't at least some discussion going on somewhere in Paradox as to when to start working on CK3 (and there will certainly be a CK3 at some point; CK2 was massively successful and is now a valuable brand in its own right, so someday Paradox will decide to go for a new generation). It's certainly years away though.
- i thought we talk about released games. HOI lacks alot in comparison with its predecessors.
They'll start going serious on CK3 in 2 or 3 years, I think. CK2 can hold probably 2 major DLCs before going down
I somewhat agree with OP. I don't want a CK3. Not now at least. Would prefer a "reset" of CK2!
The biggest problem with CK2 is same as it´s biggest pro - DLC policy! After dozens of DLCs, its very hard to keep the independency of the DLCs(Where you can include and exclude active DLCs at will, buy the ones you want only etc). I mean, somthing delevloped in DLC1 can't be changed as users buying the dlc should be able to use the features without owning DLC1 and users owning DLC1 should not get new features for free. 15-20 DLCs later, its hard to find core functionality not touched by any DLC to do updates on, hence we are getting compleatly new stuff each time.
What I want for CK3, is a brand new baseline including all current DLCs and a new grand "DLC"(or rather "expansion") that focus on improving any exisiting functionality. Which in many cases would be quite easy when no independence has to be considered! I am also sure that this would improve perfomance without cutting corners, allowing for the mapexpansions many players wants. Could they do something simelar to what they did to EU3 Divine Winds with the graphic, I would gladly pay for this and call it Crusader Kings 3!
The biggest problem with CK2 is same as it´s biggest pro - DLC policy! After dozens of DLCs, its very hard to keep the independency of the DLCs(Where you can include and exclude active DLCs at will, buy the ones you want only etc). I mean, somthing delevloped in DLC1 can't be changed as users buying the dlc should be able to use the features without owning DLC1 and users owning DLC1 should not get new features for free. 15-20 DLCs later, its hard to find core functionality not touched by any DLC to do updates on, hence we are getting compleatly new stuff each time.
What I want for CK3, is a brand new baseline including all current DLCs and a new grand "DLC"(or rather "expansion") that focus on improving any exisiting functionality. Which in many cases would be quite easy when no independence has to be considered! I am also sure that this would improve perfomance without cutting corners, allowing for the mapexpansions many players wants. Could they do something simelar to what they did to EU3 Divine Winds with the graphic, I would gladly pay for this and call it Crusader Kings 3!
Did you ever bought iphone or know someone that bought iphone? If not I highly recommend checking how much apple is loosing money for it's products.
Well they atleast lost my sale, and no I have never bought n iphone I'm not a moron who buy overpriced stuff because of "prestige" reasons. Also an iphone is essentially a luxuary product the people who buy them are allowing a high price tag to justify their high pricetag.
But pretty sure there isn't any people who are saying "Well this game is expensive so it has to be better than the alternatives". Though now that i think of it it absolutely sounds like something my brother would say and he's one of those people who defend the iphone's price tag in a similar fashion.
But essentially false equivalence games and phones are very different things.
Yeah that's my point, they are better of starting over to some extent and doing a tight game than allow themselves to be held back by so much legacy code inherited from the last game. Yes it means there will be stuff that won't make it into the next generation but it also means that there is much less mechanics bloat.
Also I was under the impression that HoI3 was a terrible game that only a select few elitists enjoyed? And quite frankly if you are one of those people, just go play HoI3, it's not like it stopped working when they released HoI4.
Last edited:
I kind of feel like they should open up to the idea of sequel DLC - DLC that requires one (or potentially two) existing DLC to use. Sell it as a bundle as well as separately.
Do they realize they can get it on sale for $5-8 and play it with you for all the expansion packs you have?
And they could change the pricing model, consolidate what they already have. Build off that.
There's a lot of risk for them if Paradox makes a new CK game. Weigh the risks against the fact that the IP is a very niche roleplaying PC board game with high fan expectations, in a larger highly competitive market. Maybe, creatively, they'd rather move on to other things. There's the money involved with making a new game, probably a new engine. Remember that these are the people who nickel-and-dime out art, and we're talking about making tons of brand new art, sounds, assets, etc, at a fraction of the price.
We're in a different age from when CK2 launched, which includes random results and reactions to marketing practices. They'd have to juggle new people coming in due to their brand and a very niche fan base. Do they appeal to the fan base or to the new people; which one will lead to the most downvotes on Steam and harsher public criticism? If changing the price in Russia by forty-nine cents creates a public outcry around the world, imagine what having an inaccessible interface might do for the general public, or making [insert favorite religion] unplayable at launch might do to the fan base...
Last edited:
The fact that it's affordable roughly 2-3 times a year is kind of part of my problem.
Nobody's even saying change the pricing model, just that it's perhaps time for a reset to consolidate everything they have into a new base game and start fresh from there.
I think after 6 years, it's a no-brainer to pack most of the early DLC together. You're right, the affordability is a problem. Making a brand new game won't change that. If anything, it'll probably compound the problem for some time. You have the fleshed out version of the game costing $200 in complete set form, and the new game will most likely be a poor imitation for a while (unless it's somehow a miracle of mechanical excellence that exceeds the game before it).
Ask yourself, if you have CK2 with all the DLC, why are you going to play CK3? Because it looks a little better? What could they possibly do differently that would make you buy a new iteration of the game (which you've already spent $200 on) for $40-60 and play that instead?
Why would the full game cost $200. That's not how sequels work.