I guess I have a concern (Victoria 2 's release)

[Gaute65]

There are several things we are doing. We always try to listen to what this community wants for games.

Eu3 and Rome was bugfree and polished out of the box, but people were complaining they were shallow and not deep enough, so we kind of went over the top with HoI3, in making it "more more more" of everything.

For Victoria 2, we have done several things to avoid another Hoi3-style release.

#1) Better scheduling, with much longer time to just tweak the game.
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.

Thanks for reopening the thread Johan

I think it’s a good idea to have more time just for tweaking the game.

The idea with an external QA studio for betastesting, is an interesting solution.

I still think my idea about beta testers paying for testing, is a good idea. Maybe let the first 1000 who is preordering, get an early access to the game? Then you will have dedicated beta testers, and people who really want the game to be perfect on release.

 

[Rich Oliver]

There are several things we are doing. We always try to listen to what this community wants for games.

Eu3 and Rome was bugfree and polished out of the box, but people were complaining they were shallow and not deep enough, so we kind of went over the top with HoI3, in making it "more more more" of everything.

I kind of felt, this is what happened.

I haven't bought HO3, because I need to buy a new computer to play it, by the time I've got a new monitor and windows 7 display that's over £500 on top of the £20 -£30 for the game itself. In fact I think you can get it for less from Amazon. What I'm trying to get at is the cost of the game is not that expensive. In my computer life cycle I pay more for the hardware than I do for games.

Many of the fan bases expectations are way to high. If you are not happy with what Paradox do, go to one of their competitors. Oh there aren't any competitors! The reason of course is their is barely enough money in this niche to support Paradox.

The way to go is less new content for each release but more expansions and iterations. EU3 - In Nomine is a great game, but it was created through EU1, EU2, EU3 vanilla and Napoleon's Ambition. You just can't expect a game like EU3 In Nomine to be created from scratch. Hopefully if Paradox do Vicky2 right and bring out some nice expansions, we won't have people complaining that "this is what the vanilla game should have been in the first place" and "why did I have to pay three times?".

Another problem that Paradox has had is that they have tried to move away from rigidly scripted event sequences. Its easier to create a sort of crude historical feel though events than through other elements of game play. In the long term i think this is a very good thing, but in the short term it can mean games seem to lose something.

 

[Seelmeister]

I have to agree with several other, I feel comparing a PC game launch to a console launch is not fair. Although there are multi platform games that are released simultaneously, you are still looking at only three different platforms, and so it is possible to develop 3 versions of the game, optimised for each platform. However, with PC games you have to release one version of the code that has to run of a massive number of different configurations.

Then, you have the fact that as Grand Strategy titles, there are so many different actions a player can perform, the number of possible bugs or 'strange behaviours' is simply massive, and so for game balance issues I'm not surprised it takes a large market of consumers a while to identify them.

I bought HoI 3 at release, and I'm not going to lie and say I was happy with it, but I still had a few entertaining games. I'm now playing with version 1.3 and really enjoying it, and I have more updates to look forward to as well.

With Victoria 2, I don't expect it to be perfect out of the box. However, I know it will still be worth buying, and I plan to pre-order. If, after your experience of playing HoI 3, you don't want to take a 'risk' and buy at launch, then don't, no one is forcing you to. Rest assured there will be an incredibly playable game without any major faults or imbalances within a few weeks of the release.

 

[ashandresash]

There are several things we are doing. We always try to listen to what this community wants for games.

(...)
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.

Thanks, Johan!

I agree with #2 and #3. Though I've made some crazy suggestions (I took it somewhat like a brainstorming), I enjoyed a lot Vicky (still my Paradox fav), so things that work are improved, not changed from scratch. About #3, I think you're going by the right way. Other thing is testing patches (1.3 HoI3 patch process seems to have worked fine IMO).

 

[Nikolai]

Does this mean no beta testing for V2, or just that beta testers are not alone in reporting bugs?

 

[Bullfrog]

There are several things we are doing. We always try to listen to what this community wants for games.

Eu3 and Rome [were] bugfree and polished out of the box, but people were complaining they were shallow and not deep enough, so we kind of went over the top with HoI3, in making it "more more more" of everything.

For Victoria 2, we have done several things to avoid another Hoi3-style release.

#1) Better scheduling, with much longer time to just tweak the game.
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.

Since HoI3's biggest weakness is the AI (or lack of it), how will V2 be made better without lagging it out? You need a programming language change apparently.
edit: I resent #3

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Since HoI3's biggest weakness is the AI (or lack of it), how will V2 be made better without lagging it out? You need a programming language change apparently.
edit: I resent #3

HoI3's AI is set to work that game, and as even Johan has conceeded, HoI3 is too complex. Its not a quesiton of PI needing a new AI, its a questions of Vicky2's AI working on that game.

For example, EU3's AI is very good and can be quite crafty.

 

[RELee]

One of the things that I regretted most about coming into the Victoria fold late was missing all the evolution from the buggy version 1 release to the stable and imminently playable 1.03c version, which is where I came in.

But I can tell you all this with assurance, if offered the option, I will pre-order Vicky II. Now, I never pre-order games as a rule, but I have gotten so much fun and satisfaction out of Victoria since 1.03c days right on through Revolutions and the current release of VIP, that I feel like I owe PI a bit more, no, a lot more than the heavily discounted price that I paid for Victoria originally from a third-party distributor no less. This time around, after working out the bugs from my CK-DV purchase fiasco from GamersGate several months back, which was resolved, finally, to my satisfaction, just so no one will think I'm belly-aching here, I'm going to do it right and Support My Local Gunfighter, I mean, support the game company who creates my favorite games of all time. (Sorry about the convoluted sentence structure)

This time around, I want to be included on the ground floor and if there are any problems with the initial release, I want to feel like I'm a part of the solution.

If the rest of you want to sing the Consumer Victim's Blues, then go right ahead. You have my permission. If you're lucky, I won't ramble my way through my old man's driveling tales of yore about how lucky and spoiled you grunts have it these days and how in the old days we had no chance of getting patches and updates to our games because there weren't no internet and the cat would destroy our game of Battle of the Ardennes only one week into the game by scattering our counters all over the kitchen. Nope. Won't hear it from me, by God!

Now...lessee now...what was it I was a gonna say...oh yeah!

Get off my lawn you dirty, rotten kids!

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

There are several things we are doing. We always try to listen to what this community wants for games.

Eu3 and Rome was bugfree and polished out of the box, but people were complaining they were shallow and not deep enough, so we kind of went over the top with HoI3, in making it "more more more" of everything.

For Victoria 2, we have done several things to avoid another Hoi3-style release.

#1) Better scheduling, with much longer time to just tweak the game.
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.

All very wise decisions

 

[Arilou]

Eu3 and Rome was bugfree and polished out of the box,

Err... Not really. There were, as I recall, several rather nasty memory leaks for EU3, and a bunch of missing gameplay elements that were added in patches to Rome.

EDIT: Which is not to say that these games were in an atrocious state or anything: But the difference between "bug free and polished" and "in condition to be shipped" is rather large.

 

[Bullfrog]

HoI3's AI is set to work that game, and as even Johan has conceeded, HoI3 is too complex. Its not a quesiton of PI needing a new AI, its a questions of Vicky2's AI working on that game.

For example, EU3's AI is very good and can be quite crafty.

So what you're saying is that Vicky 2 will be simpler, allowing the AI to handle its affairs properly? You know I am loathe to pretend that this will be acceptable. The "one for all and all for one" AI is pitiful. Sorry but the Clausewitz engine has not impressed me yet. Making EU3's limited scope and AI agility apply to Roman times, WW2 and the long 19th century is not a winning formula IMO.

 

[Johan]

a bunch of missing gameplay elements that were added in patches to Rome.

Sometimes I don't get people. We add features for free in patches, and people say that its BAD.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

So what you're saying is that Vicky 2 will be simpler, allowing the AI to handle its affairs properly? You know I am loathe to pretend that this will be acceptable. The "one for all and all for one" AI is pitiful. Sorry but the Clausewitz engine has not impressed me yet. Making EU3's limited scope and AI agility apply to Roman times, WW2 and the long 19th century is not a winning formula IMO.

No, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is the performance of the HoI3 AI is likely attributable to the complexity of the game, so you cant draw the conclusion that Vicky2's AI will perform the same.

To put it more simply, AI performance from one game to the other isn't going to be the same.

Have you played the most recent EU3 editions? The AI is very good IMO

 

[Bullfrog]

No, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is the performance of the HoI3 AI is likely attributable to the complexity of the game, so you cant draw the conclusion that Vicky2's AI will perform the same.

To put it more simply, AI performance from one game to the other isn't going to be the same.

Have you played the most recent EU3 editions? The AI is very good IMO

I'm sure it will be better, but at what cost? How much less will we get compared to HoI3 in the name of a working AI?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I'm sure it will be better, but at what cost? How much less will we get compared to HoI3 in the name of a working AI?

I have no idea and am not jumping to any conclusions, and you shouldn't either! All jokes aside, I think people criticising HoI3 is fair but some of the 'pre-emptive' criticism of Vicky2 here really bugs me.

And remember more complexity=/=better gameplay. Even if V2 is less complex than HoI3 that's no reason to think it won't be a better game.

 

[OHgamer]

I'm sure it will be better, but at what cost? How much less will we get compared to HoI3 in the name of a working AI?

The AI will need to be doing a lot of different things in V2 compared to HoI3 so you really can't say if it will be "more" or "less". Domestic management in Victoria is much much much more important in Victoria, so the AI will need to be competent in that area if it is going to then be able to put up challenges to human players in the overseas arena.

So really can't say, the nature of Victoria vs Hearts of Iron as games are really quite different, and much (perhaps more) beneficial will be learning from what the developers have learned from AI work in EU3, I think.

 

[Bullfrog]

I have no idea and am not jumping to any conclusions, and you shouldn't either! All jokes aside, I think people criticising HoI3 is fair but some of the 'pre-emptive' criticism of Vicky2 here really bugs me.

And remember more complexity=/=better gameplay. Even if V2 is less complex than HoI3 that's no reason to think it won't be a better game.

I am not jumping to any conclusions not based on past experience and knowledge of the game mechanics...and what has been said of Vicky 2. The map will be based on HoI3's, the AI automation will be in, the economy will be vastly more complicated than HoI3, etc. There are trade-offs of complexity.

 

[Grosshaus]

There are several things we are doing. We always try to listen to what this community wants for games.

Eu3 and Rome was bugfree and polished out of the box, but people were complaining they were shallow and not deep enough, so we kind of went over the top with HoI3, in making it "more more more" of everything.

For Victoria 2, we have done several things to avoid another Hoi3-style release.

#1) Better scheduling, with much longer time to just tweak the game.
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.

Proper QA studios do make perfect sense to ensure features work as designed. But volunteer betatesters should be used in addition to ensure the design works, i.e. the game is fun to play.

 

[RELee]

Proper QA studios do make perfect sense to ensure features work as designed. But volunteer betatesters should be used in addition to ensure the design works, i.e. the game is fun to play.

While I agree with you 100%, I'm afraid that with all the complaints both here and over on the HOI3 forums, that we have pretty much "screwed the pooch", if I may borrow from Tom Wolfe, on that option.

I could be wrong. That's obviously a PI decision on how play testing will be handled. But I remember folks frothing at the mouth because PI did not use "real" beta-testing but relied on "unreliable" free beta-testers.

I swear, if it were all really worth it, I would cry.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

The AI will need to be doing a lot of different things in V2 compared to HoI3 so you really can't say if it will be "more" or "less". Domestic management in Victoria is much much much more important in Victoria, so the AI will need to be competent in that area if it is going to then be able to put up challenges to human players in the overseas arena.

So really can't say, the nature of Victoria vs Hearts of Iron as games are really quite different, and much (perhaps more) beneficial will be learning from what the developers have learned from AI work in EU3, I think.

I really don't expect vicky2 to be a whole lot mroe complicated than HoI3, even form an AI POV. Conducting war requires some rapidly shifting goals and objective, flexible strategy etc. Vicyk2 is more complex economically but the goals for the player and AI are more straightforward.

I am not jumping to any conclusions not based on past experience and knowledge of the game mechanics...and what has been said of Vicky 2. The map will be based on HoI3's, the AI automation will be in, the economy will be vastly more complicated than HoI3, etc. There are trade-offs of complexity.

Like I said though, its still a very different game, with more straighforward objectives. Conducting war is much more nuanced than industrialising your country IMO.