Eu sells very, very good
- Thread starter Mr. G
- 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.
krasny said:
Exactly my thoughts when I heard of that rumour first. I estimate the "heart" of Paradox and source of their success consists of 2-3 people. So there should be nothing to fear for Paradox fans, even if the owners decide to make bank now.
On the sales figures: That's really good news for us customers, cause it demonstrates that excellent support does pay in the long run. I bought EUIII the same day I heard of it's release - something I would never do with games from any other company - cause I knew they still kept improving EU2 years after it hit the bargain shelves.
Frankly, normally I don't purchase a game before I tried a pirated copy for a couple weeks, a lesson I learned a decade ago from all the crap games that never got fixed. I'm willing and able to pay for good games, but I'm fed up with the common rip-off practices of next to all other game manufacturers.
Needless to say, the games I decide not to buy after testing all have copy protection.
YAY!
And only fitting, considering I've been playing it nearly non-stop (well, as much as that's possible with a job...) since I've gotten it.
And only fitting, considering I've been playing it nearly non-stop (well, as much as that's possible with a job...) since I've gotten it.
Guinnessmonkey said:YAY!
And only fitting, considering I've been playing it nearly non-stop (well, as much as that's possible with a job...) since I've gotten it.
You have EU3 and you still have a job??
Some people have no shame ...
Hm. As I recall, HOI2 was Paradox's biggest hit. Could EU3 be on track to dethrone it?
Good to hear on the sales front. Actually, I don't think I've seen a well written review of EU3. (I think I've read all of 2 however). They give high marks, but rarely any real analysis. Gamespot in particular simply summarizes the game features, says its fun, slaps an 8 on there and calls it a day. The sort of lazy, incompetent style of review that infuriates me when they do it for films. (not least because their lazy 'summary' review tends to have spoilers)
That said, very few game review sites offer either well thought out or reliable reviews. (Gamespot is typically one of the better ones, which was the disappointing part about this one.) Most are simply too reliant upon the major game companies for their 'sneak peaks', access/insights, and advertising revenue. They will never bash a major release from a larger company. Some of the better sites will leave enough subtle criticism to allow you to read between the lines, but they'll always characterize that as a 'minor' issue and slap a high score on the game. They're no different than internet movie site shills.
And even the ones that try to don't really have the staff or time to fully play out enough of these games (tons to review) to give a fully informed review. Alot of times what you get, if honest, is merely a first impression. If the EU series didn't have a popular following a PI a really good reputation (aka, if this was the first game of the type and noone had previously heard of Paradox) I suspect you'd get alot more mediocre to negative reviews. Not because of any flaws in the game, but simply that it'd be too complex to get into on a cursory 'tryout' and there's no existing reputation to give the game the benefit of the doubt.
That said, very few game review sites offer either well thought out or reliable reviews. (Gamespot is typically one of the better ones, which was the disappointing part about this one.) Most are simply too reliant upon the major game companies for their 'sneak peaks', access/insights, and advertising revenue. They will never bash a major release from a larger company. Some of the better sites will leave enough subtle criticism to allow you to read between the lines, but they'll always characterize that as a 'minor' issue and slap a high score on the game. They're no different than internet movie site shills.
And even the ones that try to don't really have the staff or time to fully play out enough of these games (tons to review) to give a fully informed review. Alot of times what you get, if honest, is merely a first impression. If the EU series didn't have a popular following a PI a really good reputation (aka, if this was the first game of the type and noone had previously heard of Paradox) I suspect you'd get alot more mediocre to negative reviews. Not because of any flaws in the game, but simply that it'd be too complex to get into on a cursory 'tryout' and there's no existing reputation to give the game the benefit of the doubt.
Enlightenmenthk said:
I agree. While I generally agree with Gamespot reviews more than any other reviewer, I found the cursory overview of EU3 (the only flaw pointed out was that CB's were too easy to get??) disappointing. I suppose EU3, while judged a good game, isn't mainstream enough to warrant a review better than "deep, strategic, accessible and, not too shabby." And most review sites either did exactly the same, or they had a reviewer who isn't warm to the genre.
I don't really get why, but it seems of all Paradox games, reviewers simply have the less to say about Paradox. While Diplomacy was trashed by Gamespot, and the review was much shorter, it contained a lot more information, to be blunt.
Though I suppose that as fans of Paradox whose purchases of EU3 are inevitable, reviews aren't really targeted at us. They're more designed for the undecided consumer -- the very people PI is trying to reach out to.