Divine Wind - Developer Diary #4

[unmerged(128725)]

Hm. This is really the first time I read or hear anyone mentioning Internet Explorer of all things in the context of the privacy debate. [...]

Anyway, unreasonable and unwanted are two not very accurate words. [...] what exactly is your argument AGAINST it?

Explorer, or the Explorer bits in Windows, are necessary AFAIK for registering, and used for a smattering of other things. I would not mind being able to use Firefox.

Back on topic, you are right in observing that "uwanted and unreasonable" are inherently personal opinions. If many players share them tough, they (should) gain some broader significance.

In detail, I like EUIII because it is an open ended game, where self imposed rules and objectives stimulate creativity. Add a great community, AARs and modding and you really get a stimulating experience.

I am afraid that achievements go in the direction of run-of-the-mill games, aimed at a broader audience eager to succeed fast and think later. Furthermore, refining asian nations would really help with the burgeoning gaming market of the East. Achievements finally can be seamlessly integrated into social networking, which is a kind of trend for almost any kind of software industry now. Nothing wrong with this from a business perspective, Shams is perfectly right in explaining that Paradox must make money and marketing and expansion are important. As he says, more money to them also means more money to the game developers.
Nevertheless I fear that, like for Civilization, the moment has come where the company start looking continuously for new easygoing players, while the old "core" players entrench themselves within MODs.

 

[Junuxx]

steveh11 and Phelan: Paradox is not drifting away or abandoning the old fan base! We promise! Liken it to remodeling the house and adding new rooms. Sure the house will look different when you walk in, but you're room is still there, and it'll look (and smell) the same. You'll still find your games, toys and weird stuff under your bed. You still have your safe haven, it's just in a bigger house with other people's safe havens.

/s

Gotta love this metaphor Thanks for keeping the weird stuff under my bed!

 

[Blastaz]

Why is there so much hate for achievments? If all they are is a silly badge that twelve year olds argue about why are you so upset that the twelve year olds have it and you do not? I have a pretty addictive personality so when I really get into a game I generally make the effort to get most of the achievments, but that is just me. As a result I like them pretty much and was upset that they left them out of the PC version of Gothic 4 while having them on the Xbox for example.

Paradox games have, since EU3, been pretty much a sandbox rather than historically driven. As a result sometimes you almost get the feeling that there are not enough goals set by the game and instead have to drive the gameplay yourself. To counter this feeling IN brought in missions and HT3 brought in dedicated war goals. If used correctly achievments could be the same. Thus the "Sweden not OP" achievment could mean you take a game as Sweden and specifically go out to conquer the baltic states for example. There could be another achievment to make Austria a colonial power, unify India as a Hindu, reform the ERE, disolve the HRE, survive as a Pagan to 1600 etc. etc. etc. If each achievment makes you play a game in a certain way, they could give people ideas to try a game as a county, or with a strategy they wouldn't otherwise. What is wrong with that?

For example the English mission Conquer Paris can entirely change your starting strategy as England, whether you retreat to the isles or become a continental power. In the same way you could have a "Make Edward III proud" achievment where you have to own Paris and France must not exist before 1460 as England. To get this you just have to play a short warlike game, beating the BBB. If you like the set up you could then carry on with a continental England, not something everyone has tried. I fail to see why that sort of idea, creating scenarios if you like, should garner so much ill will.

If on the other hand they are more simplistic, "earn 100,000 ducats", well they don't really hurt anyone do they?

 

[unmerged(229158)]

Explorer, or the Explorer bits in Windows, are necessary AFAIK for registering, and used for a smattering of other things. I would not mind being able to use Firefox.

Back on topic, you are right in observing that "uwanted and unreasonable" are inherently personal opinions. If many players share them tough, they (should) gain some broader significance.

In detail, I like EUIII because it is an open ended game, where self imposed rules and objectives stimulate creativity. Add a great community, AARs and modding and you really get a stimulating experience.

I am afraid that achievements go in the direction of run-of-the-mill games, aimed at a broader audience eager to succeed fast and think later. Furthermore, refining asian nations would really help with the burgeoning gaming market of the East. Achievements finally can be seamlessly integrated into social networking, which is a kind of trend for almost any kind of software industry now. Nothing wrong with this from a business perspective, Shams is perfectly right in explaining that Paradox must make money and marketing and expansion are important. As he says, more money to them also means more money to the game developers.
Nevertheless I fear that, like for Civilization, the moment has come where the company start looking continuously for new easygoing players, while the old "core" players entrench themselves within MODs.

You get a Forum Megatastic Gold Star Achievement for that! Good boy!

I especially agree with the Civ comparison. The "newschool" Civilization player (those who are now playing Civ on their XBoxes, of all things!) certainly do enjoy the game's Achievement system. I think that's basically because they lack a level of self-determination in general and need the game to tell them exactly when they are "doing well". They need goals as they do not understand the concept of an open-ended sandbox game. Understandable for the majority of people, I guess.

But, I think, most EU players are different. I came to EU recently after playing Civ for many years, nowadays I play EU exclusively - haven't loaded up Civ since being hooked by EU and will not be purchasing Civ5.

I doubt it, but if Paradox's intention is to attract the Civilization crowd by becoming more "Civ-like" (even just slightly) then I think it's a very bad "marketing decision". Right now, with EU & Vic, Paradox has a reputation for creating mature strategy games. Many people flock from Civ after becoming bored of its diluted/dumbed-down mechanics and when they first play EU they're absolutely delighted to experience a none patronizing game that treats the player as a mature and seasoned grand strategy player.

I mean, why risk alienating your core market with silly gimmicks and a half hearted attempt to compete with the very game many of your customers have dumped because they prefer what you are doing. Doesn't make sense.

 

[unmerged(97077)]

there seems to be a lot of FUD in this thread (and some of the good old sense of entitlement that when taken to extremes surely doesn't help anyone). personally, I like these changes, and I believe there are many others like me, who don't finish their games, or can't find enough motivation in "setting their own goals". I don't see any reason to doubt Paradox words that they won't change their ways (I'm talking about the complexity of the games here), especially considering that Victoria 2 wasn't even supposed to be out

 

[unmerged(47360)]

What does FUD mean? Ooh, and well you're at it, what does IIRC stand for?

 

[EUROO7]

What does FUD mean? Ooh, and well you're at it, what does IIRC stand for?

Fear, uncertainty and doubt, if I remember correctly.

 

[unmerged(229158)]

there seems to be a lot of FUD in this thread (and some of the good old sense of entitlement that when taken to extremes surely doesn't help anyone).

Personally, the only sense of entitlement I have is to air my opinion in a thread created to generate opinion. I don't think people who hold negative opinions on the Acheivement system are being "extreme". Next you will be labelling us "terrorists" for daring to question the almighty authority of Paradox marketing department?

You may not appreciate exactly why people dislike the idea of achievements being added, but for many (who have experienced similar additions in other games) it is a worrying omen. Shams has more-or-less admitted that the inclusion of these achievements is a marketing ploy. That admission is not a bad reflection on Paradox because they are a business, so it is perfectly understandable. But it does naturally lead to the question of what effect this new marketing agenda will have on the future of the EU series. Although these achievements may appear, at first glance, to be harmless and novel - just an "added bonus cookie" which you can take or leave - the fact is they are incompatible with the essence of EU gameplay (ie: a freeform non-deterministic sandbox, basically). I'm sure Paradox themselves are aware of this but they hope that the achievements will attract players - a certain "kind" of player - that otherwise would not play EU.

So while you're attracting these players who, generally, would not like to play a "real" game of EU, you will also have to focus more on changing the game as a whole to accommodate this new popularist/casual gamer market. Who knows, if EU4 is ever made perhaps the intention is to make it primarily a goal/achievement orientated game (more like Civilization) - with the sandbox idea a secondary option - a game quite different to what we have come to love in EU.

So yes, there is FUD/fear when you see these changes as who knows exactly where they will lead. I think our concerns are justified - whether the Yes men find our objection palatable or not.

 

[RHKINC]

Several things: First, I always have and will always continue to consider myself a noob. Second, I can endorse the abandoning of the Civ series after my truly awesome experience with Paradox games. On to achievements!

Could it be possible to have the general achievements (conquer x # of provinces, maintain +5000 monthly treasury for x years) in one listing, then a tab click to nation specific achievements (which could really be built by player suggestions and then basically "approved and patched in" which could create A) challenging game play and B) encourage playing non-blobbing and obscure nations with a sense of purpose thus maintaining the steering to new game play in more than just our approach to victory, but also our nation to victory (since lets face it, France has been done to death, and Zombified and done to death again by most players if the AARs are anything to guage).

One thing I'm hoping is the achievement system becomes an "in game personal victory, possible forum/outside game reward system" instead of a role playing "victory unlocks feature system" since with games of this depth, we pay for the full depth and not piecemeal dependent on our success. Some of my best games have been failing to survive that random revolt in 1832...I'd rather fail with the full experience rather than miss out because of a reward system that gives better play somehow (using XBOX rewards of better guns, health, w/e as an example).

I do supremely hope Paradox Connect will be the Paradox/Ageod/Battlegoat alternative to Steam. I truly was thrilled to see my favorite strategy companies "uniting" in a sense after I became a noob fan stalker of their products. Yes, this might just place me at NERD.