-
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.
I am not worrying about "game for masses". HOI title is serious enough, it is not Rome, so there is no need to worry about game being "dumbening" out for mainstream consumer.
Rhion said:
In your opinion. For me and many others, vanilla EU3 wasn't any worse, or rather, was just as crappy, as EU2 or HoI or any other Paradox game.
I'm less fond of Rome.
I think the thing that needs to be regonised is that, in general, 'Grand Strategy' titles aren't really mainstream - they appeal to a specific type of player.
Although I suppose you can make moves to expand your market, things like nice graphics and so on, but if they start to compromise on the things that the typical 'Strategy Enthusiast' hold dear then we run into problems.
You can deviate somewhat from the two extremes of 'Hardore' and 'Mainstream', but if you end up trying to be everything to everybody then nobody will like it! It'll be too simple for the strategy fans and the broader audience will still see it as an obscure title that they won't enjoy.
Happily though I don't think *anybody* has gone down the silly route of trying to please everybody. Example - Civ Revolutions upset a lot of the old PC Civ crowd as it's squarley aimed at the casual console market. Another of Sid Miers games, Railroads!, was made in a similar way. Now if Sid had sat on the fence with both of these games it would have been a disaster in terms of sales I imagine.
This is why I think nobody on these forums will be upset with HOI3. I believe Paradox has easily enough common sense to recognise that a half-breed game will damage sales (for the reasons above), equally I think they recognise that a grand strategy title isn't likely to sell well to the larger casual gaming audience.
What I believe the statement about making things easier for the player refers to is more ergonomic stuff like (optional) AI assistance, interface or whatever - anything that lets you spend more time playing, figuring out strategies etc is a good thing. Nobody wants to battle with an unwieldy system. I don't think that it means they're going to compromise on the core 'Gameplay' - which at the end of the day is the most important thing.
So relax guys! It'll be fine!
Although I suppose you can make moves to expand your market, things like nice graphics and so on, but if they start to compromise on the things that the typical 'Strategy Enthusiast' hold dear then we run into problems.
You can deviate somewhat from the two extremes of 'Hardore' and 'Mainstream', but if you end up trying to be everything to everybody then nobody will like it! It'll be too simple for the strategy fans and the broader audience will still see it as an obscure title that they won't enjoy.
Happily though I don't think *anybody* has gone down the silly route of trying to please everybody. Example - Civ Revolutions upset a lot of the old PC Civ crowd as it's squarley aimed at the casual console market. Another of Sid Miers games, Railroads!, was made in a similar way. Now if Sid had sat on the fence with both of these games it would have been a disaster in terms of sales I imagine.
This is why I think nobody on these forums will be upset with HOI3. I believe Paradox has easily enough common sense to recognise that a half-breed game will damage sales (for the reasons above), equally I think they recognise that a grand strategy title isn't likely to sell well to the larger casual gaming audience.
What I believe the statement about making things easier for the player refers to is more ergonomic stuff like (optional) AI assistance, interface or whatever - anything that lets you spend more time playing, figuring out strategies etc is a good thing. Nobody wants to battle with an unwieldy system. I don't think that it means they're going to compromise on the core 'Gameplay' - which at the end of the day is the most important thing.
So relax guys! It'll be fine!
Hollandia said:
Comments like these makes me wonder if there is trolling going around or if the poster really meant what was written.
Observe, as for most games published, the hardcore fans are a vocal minority that sounds like a majority. If you only cater to the so called hardcore fans or self-imposed "elitists" you will not make budget.
I do not think that there have to be a divide between a deep and immersive experience and accessibility.
A layered approach with good subsystems for eg. telling your ai to keep a defensive posture at a specified front while your'e focused on the barbarossa campaign would do wonders for mp games.
/C
Vulture said:
EU3 looked dangerously underwhelming on its original release and also led to Pdox essentially charging people who wanted the full game experience from NA and IN. Not saying NA/IN weren't worth the combined $40 I paid for them, only that getting the full game for $80 isn't as good a value as designing it for the hardcore fan who can get the total package without having to buy two expansions.
Then again, I'm also someone who gladly paid eighty US dollars for a video game without complaining too loud about it, so Pdox has clearly figured out a way to stratify their audience and get more money from their biggest fans, which is of course the object of doing business. We're either devoted or fools, but since I quite enjoy EU3/NA/IN I'd put myself in the former category.
If the complexity of the game is made optional that will please more people, because if you're a newbie you can just start on low-level, any better than that you can start on regular and I suppose people who have played Paradox's games would just start on the highest setting.
Rhion said:
No, I'm not kidding.
*points to title* I'm here quite a while already
Just my personal opinion.
Vulture said:
Yes and no. EUIII was very bland initially but after patches and expansion I regard it one of their best works.
Rome still is very bland.
There are of course perfectly legit criticisms of both games but I would not regard either as being 'dumbed down' compared to EUIIEvilSanta said:
i was not a hardcore rts gamer, but since i bought hoi1 learned how to play the hard way, i enjoy the hoi series like no other, they can make it easer to learn by making somekind of learning campaign (other than the tutorials who realy are missing theri goal) with a chance to ask for information about a subject any time.
And how many expansions has Rome had? How many patches compared to EU3?EvilSanta said:
It may be a design decision of Pdox to make their games initially more generic because of the broader audience and the expansions give more depth because expansions sell only a fraction of the amount that an initial release does (unless your WoW).
Saying this as a CK / EU2 gamer:
I played the HoI2 demo and it was too dull. Just pushing counters over a map and boring as hell to the eye. I sure hope that this game will play more casually than HoI2, I would love to do grand strategy, moving army corps around, but this mishmash of divisions and brigades and assigning missions all the time is a nightmare to me.
I played the HoI2 demo and it was too dull. Just pushing counters over a map and boring as hell to the eye. I sure hope that this game will play more casually than HoI2, I would love to do grand strategy, moving army corps around, but this mishmash of divisions and brigades and assigning missions all the time is a nightmare to me.
I do agree: the diplomacy system that was the forte of Paradox line of games is useless in this instance.Leviathan07 said:
ComradeOm said:
We're not talking about 'bland' here. It's about 'dumbed down' or not. Rome and vanilla EU III have TONS of things going on under the hood and heaps of information at your disposal. Alot more than HOI II or EU II for example.
They are NOT dumbed down. Neither will HOI III be I think
Vulture said:We're not talking about 'bland' here. It's about 'dumbed down' or not. Rome and vanilla EU III have TONS of things going on under the hood and heaps of information at your disposal. Alot more than HOI II or EU II for example.
They are NOT dumbed down. Neither will HOI III be I think
The thing with Rome is, that there is too much under the hood and that it isn't fun anymore, especially in peacetime.
I see Rome as a very light version of Eu3 vanilla. It has most of the things Eu3 has, but it has less of it. There are less diplomacy options, less nations, a smaller map, less units,..., overall less posibilities and details. The only thing Rome has that Eu3 doesn't have is characters, but the character system in its current state doesn't add much fun (for me that is).
So for me Rome is a somewhat 'dumbed down' version of the EU series, and I can only hope that every new titel is not going to be a softened version of a previous one.
Nevertheless I will buy IN soon (because everyone keeps saying it is so good damned), and I will buy Vae Victis in a few months (because Rome has potential, and I am sure that at the end of the road of patches and expansions, it will be a good game), and in a year I will buy Hoi3 (because it is operation barbarossa is so incerdibly fun).
Personally I'm hoping for for HOI 2.5 more than anything with better UI that makes the game less cumbersome to play, new graphics I suppose, more interactive reserach where you can choose more than what tech team (how about the best?). I enjoy the level of detail in HOI2 and I want even more of it in HOI3, just make it easier to handle things through the UI.
Kippling said:
Quoted for agreement. I'm surprised that so many people are assuming that Paradox's statement implies a 'dumbed down' game as opposed to it meaning 'the game is now easier to play'.
It's perfectly possible to have a game that is both much more deep and complex than HoI2, yet easier to play. It is merely a matter of efficient design.
Leviathan07 said:
This is not a negative comment.
Have you tried the game Making History?
I think this game might be more appealing to you.
Corey
Different types of game appeal to different folks. HOI combines Grand strategy with the operational level of war, as many people, myself included, want something physical to do other than merely set the levers in play. I agree that the diplomacy could be improved. Have you tried the Superpower games? Those are much more pure grand strategy with very little operational stuff. As for pushing counters around the map, I actually LIKE that stuff. Understandable if you don't though, but please accept HOI for what it is.Leviathan07 said: