Impressions from an Early beta-Preview

[Alerias]

I am currently asking people why it is still in the feature list when it was cut very early in development process.

Hopefully by "Cut" you mean "Pushed back to XP1"

Missions are a nice feature. For Clausewitz games especially. In fact, Id like to see an hybrid between EU3's missions and HoI3's Strategic Goals system, or maybe both systems at once. It would be neat to put that on the future-features list.

 

[unmerged(1823)]

Changed title to fit what he was checking.

 

[JaguarUSF]

This is a preview, not a review.

Actually, it's neither. My observations were not posted "officially" on my site, rather in message boards in two places. They are impressions based on access to a pre-release beta I obtained last week. Overall, my comments were very negative and not as "fair and balanced" as a full review would be, stemming from initial surprise/confusion/disappointment/whatever you'd like to call it. I did not mention how I like the high-quality population simulation, a lot of goods to trade, nice tutorials, diplomacy/war goals, multiplayer, etc.

I never like previews (and hardly do them) because they are positive by design: how can you critique something that will most likely be improved before release? I am fairly confident, though, that most of the basic game mechanics/automation will remain generally the same.

Anyway, I thought that some would like to know about my experiences with the game (in late beta). With the gold version coming at the end of the week, we'll see how it plays out overall, and in a fully detailed 2000-word (probably more) review.

 

[SIJoe]

Well, I could debate with you the merits or otherwise of 'previews' - although I happen to disagree with your views, because I've done negative previews - but this isn't the forum for it.

 

[Swordsman1219]

Overall, my comments were very negative and not as "fair and balanced" as a full review would be, stemming from initial surprise/confusion/disappointment/whatever you'd like to call it.

Hmm how about utter foolishness and plain stupidity?...I mean really dude, you were previewing a bloody beta for gods sake, not the full release not an expansion pack not anything special, just a bloody beta... you probably spent ten minutes staring at the game and then just gave up on it. Being a Beta it has many kinks to work out and quirks and bugs to changes and little nooks and crannies that have not been fully handled in one way or another... you put together a slapdash bunch of drabble and passed judgement on something that isnt even fully out for another 9 days and change.
.

 

[SIJoe]

In Jaguar's defence, if anything significant changes between the build we played and the release build, then I will be surprised. I actually read his impressions, and none of it mentioned bugs, just gameplay - seemed similar to my experiences with Great Britain actually.

It was kind of funny, because at the start most things in the British Empire are either automated or inaccessible to you, so the only thing you can do is dabble in diplomacy and make war - Ironic for a game not focusing on warfare.

It's not like Hearts of Iron though, where all you can do at the beginning is really sit back and let the clock tick by, with the odd adjustments. In Victoria, if you were so inclined, you can make things happen to a small extent, although there are always consquences. Doesn't stave off the odd patch of tedium though.

 

[unmerged(2005)]

I regret how some here have chosen to jump on James for him sharing his first casual impressions. I've only these past few days started to get again interested in computer gaming after years of sticking more to boardgames (I deem boardgames and boardgame conventions generally more to my taste when it comes to strategy games) and I turned to James's site to inform myself what computer games released in recent years I ought to give a chance. His reviews strike me as more penetrating and insightful than some of the reviews I've read on bigger sites. I'm interested in anything he has to say on the matter of Victoria 2 - even if shot from the hip. Such first impressions also are of interest and nobody ought to expect them to be as considered as a later review.

The question is whether you such early concerns strike a chord with oneself. And, having read the first AARs, I'm relieved to say that James's major concern (i.e. that there's not enough to do in peacetime) does not worry me. There seems more than enough for the player to do and I am very glad Victoria is more about macro- than micromanagement. The latter killed Victoria1 for me - and arguably for most customers (except the most hardcore of micromanagers).

So, as I want pretty much the opposite from Victoria 2 than what James does, I'm indeed relieved that his expectations haven't been met. I want to be Bismarck rather than some social-engineering control-freak. The latter makes for micromanagement hell and is inappropriate for a 19th century game. I want to observe more than having to busy myself. I want to make the big decisions and leave the rest to my AI underlings: Delegate as befits a head of government.

That's also why HOI2 didn't work for me either. Too much for me in RTS. But having read about HOI3's theatre automation, I am looking forward to buying that title and limiting myself to largely civilian decision-making and leaving the bulk of the operational detail to my competent generals. That's exactly what I want.

Voicing such concerns as James' has, allows us all to question whether we have the same concerns. Not every game can be everything to everybody.

Though for James' sake, I hope he shall not remain disappointed by a game he's been looking forward to. For my part, I'm glad that Victoria 2 seems to be right down my alley - unlike the earlier game.

 

[brisduv]

True. However, how much of a good idea is that, especially if your country is all conservative (as most are at the beginning of the game)? Basically, you'd have to wait for a revolution or change in political alignment to do so, yes? I could be wrong, as you know better than I.

**WARNING** BASED ON LATE BETA, SO MAY NOT BE STILL THE CASE
However, my bigger concern about production is the quality of the automated factories the capitalists build. Example time: in my game playing powerhouse Sardinia-Piedmont, I was allowed to construct one factory while the capitalists built four (Interventionism economic policy by the ruling conservative party). Here are the current daily incomes of the factories: +3.34, -9.07, -0.33, +0.70, 0.00. Guess which one I built. The factories from the capitalists don't take advantage of the goods produced in you country, so you have to import all of the goods for them. Now, this may be fixed in the release version, so I shall wait for the gold version of the game for further review. I think beginning players will have a tough initial go of it with not much to do if they don't pick an "active" country (the USA with all the Civil War events, or one with lots of rebels like Spain) from the start. Giving players the freedom to choose any country in the world comes with the requirement that some (at least the top 16) must be interesting to play.

This will be the last post by me until I can play the RTM/gold version of the game, so not to fuel the fire of speculation further.

Thanks for your impressions, they ARE appreciated by me and some here. I personally hated the factories that the capitalists built in Victoria Rev, but with some nations it is the best choice to have a LF government in order to attract immigrants (in the America's esp.). When I played Japan, their Constitutional Monarchy and State Capitalism were amazing in action once civilized, industries grew MUCH faster building your own and the 'right' type. Of course I had the ability to change POP's at will too, something that's changed. The new game will have its own new challenges, I prefer a grand campaign game (I am a geographer and planner by profession so setting the timer to very fast and building the empire is more fun to me than endless minor wars.

 

[UmOceano]

I'm a bit disappointed at the aggression shown here towards James. He may be one of the best reviewers out there and he loves EU3 so he is one of us.

Of all gaming communities I never thought the Paradox community would stoop to those levels.

 

[Baneslave]

I'm a bit disappointed at the aggression shown here towards James. He may be one of the best reviewers out there and he loves EU3 so he is one of us.

Of all gaming communities I never thought the Paradox community would stoop to those levels.

:rofl:

Compared to other dark places of Internet this isn't really aggression.

 

[UmOceano]

:rofl:

Compared to other dark places of Internet this isn't really aggression.

That's true but still I would have thought most Paradoxians would have a cool head.

 

[Colon]

It is pretty intolerant. I actually quite welcome his view amidst all the cheerleading here by people who have yet to play a millisecond of the game.

 

[Aleksei]

There has been cheering by the people who has played the game, the beta testers...

 

[Swordsman1219]

It is pretty intolerant. I actually quite welcome his view amidst all the cheerleading here by people who have yet to play a millisecond of the game.

Have you played any of the game yet Colon? Don't speak unless you have proof to back up what you say... prove to us that the game is less then what we expect.

 

[Beefpiston]

Actually, it's neither. My observations were not posted "officially" on my site, rather in message boards in two places. They are impressions based on access to a pre-release beta I obtained last week. Overall, my comments were very negative and not as "fair and balanced" as a full review would be, stemming from initial surprise/confusion/disappointment/whatever you'd like to call it. I did not mention how I like the high-quality population simulation, a lot of goods to trade, nice tutorials, diplomacy/war goals, multiplayer, etc.

I never like previews (and hardly do them) because they are positive by design: how can you critique something that will most likely be improved before release? I am fairly confident, though, that most of the basic game mechanics/automation will remain generally the same.

Anyway, I thought that some would like to know about my experiences with the game (in late beta). With the gold version coming at the end of the week, we'll see how it plays out overall, and in a fully detailed 2000-word (probably more) review.

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts, but "first impressions" of a grand strategy title are not very useful. My first impression of Civ4 would have been running around with a warrior going from hut to hut, but that's hardly representative of the gameplay.

Your opinion is your opinion and I think most wouldn't begrudge you it, but I think a first impression post on a game like this is pretty silly let alone accurate in any way, which is why I think some feathers were ruffled.

 

[unmerged(2005)]

I'm a bit disappointed at the aggression shown here towards James.

I think the Paradox forums are however generally pretty good in having a culture of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Obviously much of the credit for that goes to the moderators.

 

[Colon]

Have you played any of the game yet Colon? Don't speak unless you have proof to back up what you say... prove to us that the game is less then what we expect.

Wait? What? Prove? For saying I appreciate a contrary opinion?

There has been cheering by the people who has played the game, the beta testers...

I'm not talking about betatesters. They're being levelheaded as far as I can tell.

And spare me witty or sarcastic retorts for a change...

 

[unmerged(216003)]

i think the paradox forums are however generally pretty good in having a culture of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Obviously much of the credit for that goes to the moderators.

+1

 

[KAding]

Lets not forget that some people will simply find Victoria (1 or 2) a bit boring. That someone likes EU3 doesn't mean they'd immediately like the Victoria series. All the objections he mentions are pretty much just as relevant for Vic1:Rev, yet they never bothered me. So I'm not particularly worried personally.

But I do suspect that Vic2, like Vic1 many years ago, will get enough bad reviews. After all, as a game it will simply not have the same wide appeal that the HoI or even EU series has.

 

[unmerged(76495)]

I think the Paradox forums are however generally pretty good in having a culture of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Obviously much of the credit for that goes to the moderators.

+2

Relax people. It is just a game. If some people don't like it, then its not the end of the world. Really its not. Relax!