Gating certain decisions from the AI is hardly "super gamey". Even the Crusader Kings series has rules restricting certain things from the AI.
- 5
I'd Call The Game Farcical but I'm Not Sure that Quite Captures the Essence of the Problem
- Thread starter InsidiousMage
- 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.
I feel like a large problem when we talk about this is that the conversation always comes back to CK2. Either the person complaining about CK3 brings it up, or the person defending CK3 brings it up, and it derails the whole conversation. IMO, we should be talking about CK3 on its own behalf. Is it an improvement on CK2? Perhaps in some areas, but does that make it a good game on its own? I feel like CK2 is the ghost we need to let go, if we really want to have a good discussion on the potential flaws of CK3.
- 11
- 5
I think one reason it gets brought up so often is that it's quite useful to have concrete examples of what you're talking about. Another reason is that it's good support for an argument that something can be done and integrated into the game.
Of course, it happens far too often that people just use CK2 as a tool to bash CK3, and I agree that that needs to stop post haste.
- 9
I only say that because I feel like people often resort to the idea that if you don’t like CK3 it’s because you loved CK2, which isn’t always the case. I just dislike relying on CK2 to defend or attack CK3, and I feel like whenever it gets brought up conversations can get pretty toxic.
- 6
- 2
So it is a game with random game-over. Pretty bad game design, is it.
- 9
- 4
They removed systems for 'improved' ones (I use quotes because they're a mixed bag, some stuff is great) but those improved ones are extremely underutilized. They've swapped out a whole house for the frame, you can't expect someone to live in that unless there's some foundation.
- 7
- 2
- 1
I don't really mind it either way, didn't meant to give it a negative connotation necessarily. Some people consider it gamey, whatever, it's a game, some things are going to be "gamey". In a lot of cases the AI following different rules than the player helps to improve performance and I approve 100%.
- 3
that's a fair call, but on the other hand, what else can 3 be compared to?
- 5
- 2
Fair point, but I feel like people are using that comparison as the crux of their analysis of CK3. If they like CK3, the fact that it is an improvement on CK2 excuses it’s flaws. If they dislike CK3, the fact that it’s not an improvement on CK3 is the reason for all its flaws. While we can debate how logical these arguments are, it seems to create an atmosphere where the pro-CK3 crowd will often rely on the game being an improvement on CK2 and then accuse the anti crowd of wearing rose tinted goggles and being too demanding, while the anti CK3 crowd will rely on the game not being an improvement over CK2 and call the pro crowd PDX fanboys who defend the devs no matter what. Although I tend toward the anti side, I recognize that neither arguments above hold much weight. It seems that there’s a negative relationship with CK2 in the forum, where people either believe that others are being too harsh or too positive. Overall, I just wish we would focus more on the merits and downfalls of CK3 without bringing CK2 into it.
- 3
- 3
- 1
Not really. The main problem of CK3 is that this game is not deep enough and from what I read on the forum - it is by design. It is targeted at a wide audience and it is meant to be played just a few times, not thousands of hours like some previous PDX games. And as a game that is only played a few times - it works pretty well.
Last edited:
- 7
- 4
Well that would be reasonable if CK3 offered improvements over CK2. Except it does not at all so ...
CK3 is a sequel to a previous game. It is naturally compared to its predecessor. The fact it is only a step backward from it does say all you need to know about the value of CK3 on its own.
- 6
- 5
Please do not present opinion as fact.
There are people who have played both and find CK3, although flawed, a step forward in significant regards.
- 9
- 5
- 1
Yes. And somehow they are never capable to explain in details what it improved significantly and how.
- 7
- 5
It surely improved graphics and DNA-based portraits. It improved popups and some UI elements.
Map? Gameplay? Strategy? depth? Not so much.
- 13
- 2
I wouldn't go that far, but it's definitely a step up from CK2.
- 2
- 1
So, starter for ten, we can create our own heresies instead of being locked into only the exact heresies that existed. (Yes, people do memey nonsense with this, but any system you can't do memey nonsense with probably isn't flexible enough to do quite a few perfectly reasonable, well-grounded things.)
With RC, we can also hybridize and diverge our cultures rather than being constrained to only those hybrid or divergent cultures that actually existed (which might well be nonsense if things unfold differently).
Combat itself is much less aggravating to engage with (I don't find CK2's "fronts" and "tactics" systems particularly interesting and the latter, in particular, has a bunch of bizarre and counterintuitive effects that can lead to e.g. your army performing drastically worse when you cross a certain percentage threshold for a certain troop type); most of the problems with warfare are in other aspects of the design.
CK3's tech system feels more interesting than CK2's (in particular, the fact that it actually interacts with the culture system).
Hooks and Secrets are a really neat system (with, as usual for really neat systems in Paradox games, some assorted jankiness).
CK3 doesn't have the literal Epic +2 Axe, and doesn't let you grow back your severed manparts by sacrificing people to Satan.
Oh, and the new tooltip UI is fantastic.
- 8
- 2
- 2
- 1