Gamespot Review

[Spruce]

Originally posted by Redstars
How bout "Paradox do less buggy games, so they have bigger fanbase/customers, make a bigger income, which lead to better game in future"?

My gaming time isnt to test games and make bugs report.If Id want to, Id be a beta tester.

So many games, so little time to play, might as well buy and play what works.

Paradox must understand that not everyone is a "I play 12hrs straight, find some problem, here is my solution and mini-mod" kind of players.

While RTS grand strategy are one of my favorite genre, I still spend 2/3 of my gaming time on other genres.

Marketing wise tho the Paradox way of doing is tuff to sell.I know, I conviced some friends to buy HoI( you know i want to mp), and now they dont even want to hear about Victoria.

In conclusion, Victoria will prolly be an awesome game, once bugs and other prob are fixed.EU2 is, so no reason Victoria cant be.

well, like I earlier said what's the reference here? I think many of you guys are really not honest in your expectations. I've seen games developed by smaller companies then Paradox that had patches many years after the game was released. And that guy wasn't a flunk, because Matrix games bougth the rights of the studio.

WE ARE ALL HUMANS PART OF SOME HISTORY AND FUTURE, AND PARADOX TRIES TO MAKE GAMES AROUND THAT WITH FUN. THAT'S PRETTY DIFFICULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All our expectations and demands are that high! And we are also nagging like hell because we know Paradox will take it - the least - into consideration.

Perhaps MOO3 is a good reference, but they failed where Paradox made it work. Paradox works on patches. MOO3 patch support was terminated!

Less buggy??? Yes the game is FOR SURE less buggy. I've played for many hours and only have encountered 1 crash and I also have some issues with freezing game, but may be related to my CD drive. I still think it's a HUGE step forward compared to EU2 and HOI.

Victoria isn't perfect but I've played nearly to the end with joy and pleasure.

MOO3 games were a monster that was derailing after some hours of gameplay into a spider web...

Really some guys here need to change their scope ...

A few weeks ago I bought Railroad tycoon III and I hated the game. Well, it was because my "standards" had risen a lot due to playing to much Paradox games,

and that's saying = keep up the good work there in Sweden, and I'll give - as reviewer - Victoria an 8/10 with potential to score an 10/10 with small game tweaks,

 

[Damocles]

What copy of Victoria did this guy get? Its the most stable Paradox release EVER.

 

[unmerged(7748)]

ignore me!

ignore me!

 

[unmerged(13520)]

There's already a thread on this, IIRC....

 

[OriginalRafiki]

Originally posted by Scythe
There's already a thread on this, IIRC....

Yup, right here

Rafiki

 

[unmerged(7748)]

ha-hah, silly me. Uh, if only there was some way for me to delete.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Review magazines generally hate strategy games, esp. complicated ones. That's why the stores stock so many shooters and flight sims, because that's what the review magazines are telling them the buyers want....

My opinion, they're so far off base... but then, so are the stores that stock the XBox and PS2 stuff in the front and make us PC gamers stand in front of the stockroom door to see the little tiny rack we're allotted.

 

[Wolfe]

As Sheridan pointed out on another thread:

Review magazines generally hate strategy games, esp. complicated ones. That's why the stores stock so many shooters and flight sims, because that's what the review magazines are telling them the buyers want....

First person shooters, rpg's, and flight sims provide instant gratification of one sort or another--you blow away the bad guy, get your cut scene reward, and move on to the next level. There's nothing wrong with that--I like playing first person shooters such as No One Lives Forever, rpgs, and sims such as SimCity Rush Hour and The Sims when the mood hits me--as I'm sure several others here do. But, for the most part, I feel that strategy games (and here I'm most definitely lumping in SimCity Rush Hour) require more in the way of planning and patience on the part of the player than your average twitch and shoot. The gratification for Victoria and games like it is also very much a personal thing--it's not necessarily conquering the world--it's finding your nation's place in the sun or building your ideal city--whatever that may be.

Also, versions 1.00 and 1.01 do have their share of bugs--but that's also not uncommon in complex strategy games such as this. I'm sure we all remember that it took some time for Paradox to refine EU II, but when they did--it was well worth it. Paradox has an excellent reputation for supporting their products through patches, so I know that later iterations of the game will be better--again, patience is required.

So, I'm not at all surprised that a site that basically caters to a younger market more interested in twitch and shoots gave Vicky a 6.0.

 

[Spruce]

Originally posted by Raginhood
EU2 is though, much more fun than Victoria. But, then again I waited until EU2 was fully patched before buying it and yah can't go wrong for $7.99 for it.

you are a vulture

if we all would wait until the game is perfect enough to share your few dollars, paradox would be bankrupt for sure,

bah! Your comments are making me sick. At least have the manners to keep such comments for yourself,

I'm obliged to order it online for big money to even play it. And you are nagging it's not perfect and then wait on some second hand web site to grab the game for not much money after it has been played by other people - like me who are willing to support the company - and has been "perfected".

If you love Victoria, buy it, if you hate it don't say you'll try it out and then in the end will get it for a bargain ...

I'll have to pay over 60 dollars to even get the game here

 

[unmerged(10371)]

spruce, just because he doesnt like the game and cause he paid a little amount for eu2 he is a bad person. that is why i am upset with this forum sometimes. and i admit i have done it sometimes too. somebody complains that they dont like the game and the forum fanatics start ripping him apart and saying hes too stupid to understand a game that you like. what he did was smart, although there are drawbacks. i got eu2 for 15 bucks on ebay, am i a bad person?

 

[unmerged(13520)]

I wouldn't say a "bad" person, but if you're going to do it on a regular basis (ie: with all Paradox games), at the least you'd be a "non-/barely financially contributing costumer" or something to that effect....which is perfectly legal, but people don't have to like it.

 

[unmerged(22240)]

If you have to pay $60 dollars to get the game that is your problem. A smart person would wait until it was cheaper.

I got it real cheap. A guy I know was not happy with the lack of a tutorial and skinny manual. So I got it from him. He has a great interest in the period, but does not have the time to figure out everything the manual left out. Nor does he wish to travel through a forum looking for answers.

Nor should he have to.

I bought HOI for full price a year ago. It was not worth it. I just bought again for 1/2 price. Even using CORE, watching Germany take untill mid 1940 to over run Poland, or seeing the Pacific Fleet sit off the Japanese coast for days on end, and just sink merchants left and right.....

Yep, worth every penny

If he wants to wait untill it hits the bargin bin, more power to him. Why pay full price to be a beta tester?

Game is barely a month old, and talk of 1.2 before it was even released in the US.

 

[Varyar]

Originally written by Gamespot reviewer
Add to this some truly spectacular technical problems, and you've got a game that only diehards can appreciate.

Wee, I'm a diehard!

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Merged the two threads commenting on the Gamespot review.

 

[unmerged(11366)]

Didn't you guys click the READ READER REVIEWS button? The readers gave three written reviews (technically 2, since one only says AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA). And all were highly favorable.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Ironhand
Game is barely a month old, and talk of 1.2 before it was even released in the US.

It's a double-edged sword, and while I would encourage people to buy at full price, no one should blame anyone for waiting.

Paradox do invest heavily in post release support, and the trade-off is often a period where the game is unpolished.

However, unlike a lot of companies which bail out after a patch, Paradox will keep going. If that's not worthy of sucking it up and paying full price, then I don't know what is.

 

[unmerged(13259)]

I completely agree with the reviewer. There are so many problems with this game it isn't even funny. Why even have an "economic" model if its completely imaginary? I really think it has something to do with the fact that the Swedish live in a socialist country not far from the old soviet union, so they just don't have any natuaral understanding of real world economics.

Please hire a western economist (from the US if possible) to teach you guys ECON 101 when you try to make another game with an economy...

In real economies not everyone works for the government getting paid to dig a hole and fill it back in...

Victoria's "economy" is completely fubared, its like Paradox didn't even try to make a realistic model, they just threw cash to every country on the globe so people could afford 20 million man armies and social systems like 30 hour work weeks, universal cradle to the grave health care, and high minimum wages...

 

[unmerged(13520)]

Why pay full price to be a beta tester?

Even if you're relatively right, you should know that Paradox will continue to support & patch the game beyond what many other companies would do (at least under their current policies). With that knowledge in mind, I'd say that you pay full price to support the company, basically. If you don't think that's enough reason, then you're free to act otherwise.

 

[Varyar]

Originally posted by Giffen
I completely agree with the reviewer. There are so many problems with this game it isn't even funny. Why even have an "economic" model if its completely imaginary? I really think it has something to do with the fact that the Swedish live in a socialist country not far from the old soviet union, so they just don't have any natuaral understanding of real world economics.

Written by a man who just don't have any natuaral understanding of real world Sweden, apparently.

Victoria's "economy" is completely fubared, its like Paradox didn't even try to make a realistic model, they just threw cash to every country on the globe so people could afford 20 million man armies and social systems like 30 hour work weeks, universal cradle to the grave health care, and high minimum wages...

Forgive me for asking, but do you now a lot of strategy games that accurately simulates a world economy?

IMHO I think that the only reason why there should be a 100% accurate economic simulation is if it makes the game more fun. My guess is that a lot of smaller countries would become a lot less fun with such a system.

 

[unmerged(12885)]

fact that the Swedish live in a socialist country not far from the old soviet union, so they just don't have any natuaral understanding of real world economics.

thats gotta be one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen.

the game has no leaning towards socialist ideals. If it did, too much government spending would flow back into the economy and social spending would be free. As it is, social spending just dissapears which is probably the worst case for a socialist government.

But whatever, it looks like you have some serious over-aggression issues. Did a democrat steal your wife or some shit?