EU III gets 5 out of 10 (funny review)

[unmerged(13833)]

Moraelin, could not have said is as well as you but I agree with all your points.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Starting out by establishing as frame of reference "EU3 vs Company of Heroes?" did make me check the calendar again, I have to admit, but 'twasn't April 1 yet. As well do a "Grand Theft Auto vs. Colin McRae Rally" -

"While GTA brings much unwanted compexity to the racing genre, one immediately notices the lack of support for fundamental game modes popular to the genre. Building a career is poorly implemented and involves subplots that are not conductive to the actual racing experience - it seems that the developers chose to focus attention on free-style minigames detrimental to overall game play rather than on presenting the best racing experience possible. Where are the winning ceremonies? Where the attention to terrain that makes control realistic? As for the graphics, the less said the better - a worse layout for a racing game has seldom been seen. As such, GTA certainly isn't for everybody - the hardcore guntoting crowd with a penchant for slaughter will no doubt love it, but it is hard to recommend to the average gamer. Gameplay 5/10, Graphics 5/10, Sound 7/10"

 

[smn_]

Quite frankly for example, I've never liked the continuous time mechanic, I mean, is it really necessary to simulate every single day of history for 350 years? In a way, it seems like lazy programming to me - it makes their job easier, but it doesn't make actually playing the game more fun.

I mean, if we must have a continuous time mode, why couldn't it be on a weekly instead of daily basis? For a game with this sort of timespan, it would surely make a lot more sense. I mean, here is a game with a timespan of 350 years which has the same unit of time as HOI2 which has a timespan of about 10.

I completely disagree. I can't think about any other game mechanic than the continuous time with daily increments that would enable the grand strategy scope, while at the same time enabling reasonably enjoyable multi-player with simultaneous 'turns'.

Even as it is now, the combats take way too long real life time. With bigger time increments, they would either have to be reduced to 'bang, you won/lost' or take years to execute.

More so, controlling a big empire at times of war (pick France or GB in the war of Spanish succession for a quick reference) would be utterly impossible if the time increment was faster, unless of course resorting to going fully turn-based. Now going fully turn-based on the other hand would make the game impossible in multi-player because of the huge scope it represents.

I'm sure there are more good arguments out there, but I think it's conclusive already that the current time increment model is the only way to make this sort of game viable.

Disclaimer: I fully know multi-player is not properly functional at the time being, but I feel competent on commenting it based on my extensive experience on Eu2 MP and the SP experience I've had with EU3 so far. When EU3 MP stops crashing, it will be the best thing ever.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Basically, no, I don't think it's horrible, but there _are_ valid complaints about it. I can see how it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea.

I doubt many on these boards would disagree with you. There certainly are valid complaints about EU3 and your points are good - they are, however, with the exception of "not being everyone's cup of tea", neither the complaints nor points made by the reviewer, and "not being everyone's cup of tea" is hardly a useful measure when determining the quality of gameplay.

As an example, you aren't happy with the different increments of the time settings - the reviewer seemed oblivious to their existence.

 

[unmerged(45037)]

http://aftonbladet.se/vss/noje/story/0,2789,984087,00.html

http://aftonbladet.se/vss/noje/story/0,2789,984013,00.html

How can you give EU3 1/5 if you gave 4/5 to Yoshi Island....

 

[Calanor]

I always love a good laugh, and that review offered several ones! That someone from the Pro-G staff would actually go out and say that the reviewer had a "background" in strategy was quite amusing as well! I can't help to wonder what kind of strategy game he might have had in mind, as for instance building an army before, rather than after, going to war is a crucial strategic skill in most such games

Moraelin, while some in this thread might have been a little harsh and yeah, everyone's entitled to their opinion, I think the issue here is rather why you'd let someone unsuitable for a job do it. It's like letting someone who's completely clueless about a music genre write a review of an album from that genre. It makes no sense and is of no help to anyone.

However, at least the guy appears to have tried to get into it - not so when dealing with the reviewer working for the major Swedish newspaper "Aftonbladet", who gave it 1 out of 5 after writing a few sentences complaining about its enormous complexity and that it was "murderously boring". The average reader rating on the paper's site is 4.8/5 at the time of writing.

[Edit] You beat me to it, Trampatask - I guess that's what happens when you start writing a post while on the phone

 

[ComradeOm]

Excellent comment/review Peter. Really had me laughing away

I think the fundamental problem here was that EUIII was taken by the company to be an RTS game. Now this is technically true but I suspect that, without looking at the game itself, the review copy was handed to the reviewer who most enjoyed C&C or CoH. Obviously he was completely out of his depth.

Edit: Apparently EUIII is now the most popular game on the Pro-G site

 

[contecorti]

He's not altogether wrong though. IMO, the Paradox paradigm does tend to lose the wood for the trees. There's really a lot more complexity built into these games than there needs to be, which just makes for a lot of unnecessary tedium.

Quite frankly for example, I've never liked the continuous time mechanic, I mean, is it really necessary to simulate every single day of history for 350 years? In a way, it seems like lazy programming to me - it makes their job easier, but it doesn't make actually playing the game more fun.

I mean, if we must have a continuous time mode, why couldn't it be on a weekly instead of daily basis? For a game with this sort of timespan, it would surely make a lot more sense. I mean, here is a game with a timespan of 350 years which has the same unit of time as HOI2 which has a timespan of about 10.

At the moment I'm playing as the Creek, and after one has spent the first couple of years conquering one's neighbours, there is virtually nothing to do for decade after decade but wait for some money to accumulate so you can buy the next colonist. And on my PC, each decade takes about 25 minutes. Currently I'm in about 1490 or so and the next significant thing I'm looking forward to is government tech 1 which will give me a national idea slot. That's three decades, or 75 minutes away. Is this fun? No it isn't. It's just plain boring.

Couldn't Paradox have at least given us the option of playing at a faster clip during the dull periods? But of course, that would have meant some extra work tweaking up their standard game engine to simulate, say, weekly instead of daily events. Much easier to just leave the engine as it is, after all, hasn't the customer base already shown itself prepared to tolerate such shortcomings?

IMO the main problem isn't in the fact that EUIII pace is simply too slow because the game has to be an epic feel, the main problem is in the fact that the game is only focused on warfare.
If we compare EUIII to CIV4 you see that CIV4 has a faster pace, but CIV4 has also a lot of buildings, has victory conditions which can be achieved through peaceful means, you have control over the growth of your cities in other word peace periods can be very funny in this game.
In EUIII you have a bunch of province improvements, economy is just a merchant clickfest, you have a minimum control over growth of your provinces.
What this game really shines (now it's bugged but has a lot of potential) is diplomacy, and its historic settings.If you compare for example National Ideas with civics in CIV4 you understand how a lot of National Civics are just about warfare while in civ4 civics can improve non warfare features.
BTW i'm not doing a comparison between EUIII and CIV4 which have different gameplay mechanics, it's just to show that a game to be enjoyable in pacetime should have feature which make game funny in this periods.

 

[knul]

If you compare for example National Ideas with civics in CIV4 you understand how a lot of National Civics are just about warfare while in civ4 civics can improve non warfare features.

Out of 30 National Ideas, 12 are warfare improvements (and these include +prestige improvements which has economic and diplomatic factors). The other 18 are diplomatic, economic or otherwise. So with Ideas you can also improve non-warfare issues. Besides their are goverment types and Domestic Policies, which cover similar things like the Civics do. Therefore, it's not altogether clear that Civ4's civics are that much more elaborate than EU3's options to shape your government and economy.

But I agree that the economic side of EU3 isn't particulary strong. The focus is more on diplomacy and warfare, as you said.

 

[unmerged(12990)]

It's just that reality doesn't always make for a good game. Unfortunately, combat with two armies is just as boring; when you and an enemy enter the same province, a battle between your two forces will automatically occur, and you can then sit and watch as the numbers go down, and the enemy team trounce yours. You can't arrange your squads, and you have no command over the battle at all. Where's the fun in that?

LOL, I can't imagine what his comments would be, had he reviewed Vicky or EU2. :rofl:

 

[Underhand]

Can't figure out why he declared war, then started building units and then complained because England was smaller than France and was building fewer units than the enemy in the same amount of time.

Maybe he should've tried not declaring war, building up his navy and economic strength. You know, things that work when playing England. :rofl:

This review was clearly written by the Europa Universalis AI, which does strongly believe that it is better to declare war and then build your armies than vice versa

 

[maartos]

IMO the main problem isn't in the fact that EUIII pace is simply too slow because the game has to be an epic feel, the main problem is in the fact that the game is only focused on warfare.
If we compare EUIII to CIV4 you see that CIV4 has a faster pace, but CIV4 has also a lot of buildings, has victory conditions which can be achieved through peaceful means, you have control over the growth of your cities in other word peace periods can be very funny in this game.
In EUIII you have a bunch of province improvements, economy is just a merchant clickfest, you have a minimum control over growth of your provinces.
What this game really shines (now it's bugged but has a lot of potential) is diplomacy, and its historic settings.If you compare for example National Ideas with civics in CIV4 you understand how a lot of National Civics are just about warfare while in civ4 civics can improve non warfare features.
BTW i'm not doing a comparison between EUIII and CIV4 which have different gameplay mechanics, it's just to show that a game to be enjoyable in pacetime should have feature which make game funny in this periods.

EU3 is a HUGE improvement over EU2 in this respect, IMO.

 

[unmerged(36855)]

He's probably some ADHD jackass, who cant concentrate on anything for more than 5 minutes.

 

[CarcassDK]

OMG hes getting flamed for this review. Serves him well, the lack of objectivety really makes him look like an ignorant fool! :rofl:

Great job....not!

 

[unmerged(21621)]

lol he just posted a rebuttal on the comments section...he's trying to salvage his reputation

 

[unmerged(6105)]

He's not altogether wrong though. IMO, the Paradox paradigm does tend to lose the wood for the trees. There's really a lot more complexity built into these games than there needs to be, which just makes for a lot of unnecessary tedium.

I hate there are people of your opinion. People of that opinion dumb down games to boring streamlined experiences without need for my input. Can't you get other games instead of wanting my "love" changed into all the other boring games out there?

ps. this is not personally against you, just that I like complexity.

 

[unmerged(21069)]

this guy sounds like he just never found the "game speed: extremely fast" button

 

[Sparhafoc]

Even his rebuttal continues to underline his inability to draw analogies between this game and others.

Notice how he didn't answer the hard questions like "Just why are you declaring war before you have an army prepared?"

 

[hito1]

Come on, people, when you know something good that others don't realize, try to show them!

Spread the joy!

 

[AdmiralNelson]

In his rebuttal, he does bring up my biggest mystery about Paradox games:

and while I'm at it, why should you have to move your navy into the middle of the sea to be able to load units onto them? Why can't this be done in a port?

Never understood that, but I'm used to it now, since I got EUI back in the time when I read the manuals and did exactly what they told me and didn't wonder otherwise.

There are also some very intelligent comments from Otacu and Peter, there.