It's not CK2 v. CK3.

[Greenfish]

A major argument I've seen is how CK3 compares to CK2. Some think it's better now then CK2 was at its end (which it's not, but that's besides the point). No, the issue is not that it's CK2 vs CK3. The issue is how much CK3 has improved since launch in comparison to how much CK2 had improved.

When CK3 launched, it had some features from all the games, but some. It was okay but that was to be expected. Then, in 2021, we got our first DLC, Northern Lords. Northern Lords was a slightly reworked part of the Old Gods CK2 DLC, and is probably the only CK3 DLC I've heard only praise for. Now, Vikings actually did Viking things and the 867 start became a lot more fun. By 2022, we get Royal Court, which introduced the court that gave you some new (but repeating) popups and let you ask your liege for favors. Sometimes, regardless of whether you knew the court language or not, you'd stumble upon your words while paying homage and lose 25 prestige. Chilling. Other than that, every single court felt the exact same other that aesthetics. Plus, cultures got reworked. Then, we got Fate of Iberia, where we first saw this really cool Struggle mechanic, and the Dev Team moved right along without extending that anywhere else or intending to use it anywhere else (the Holy Land?!?! For the Crusade game?!?!?); but hey, maybe a mod will do that for them. I'm not even gonna touch on Friends and Foes, which is $5 worth of popup events. Or Tours and Tournements, which isn't even out yet.

Meanwhile, CK2 was only Western Christendom upon release and by the end of its first year introduced Muslims and Byzantines. "But the Dev team wants to make an even better Imperial play in CK3." Well, they haven't done it yet, so this is currently the standard, and they couldn't even reach it. They also made Sunset Invasion in 2012, so two major DLCs and one weird one within the first year. By the end of 2013, they introduced Republics, gave Pagans a lot of love, and added more depth to the Abrahamic religions. CK2 by early 2014 was a much better game than it had started. By March that year they even touched on India.

Meanwhile, CK3 feels the same as it did since launch, other than Vikings in one start, Spain having a cool, if strugglesome feature tied only to that region, and a generic court and generic events you need to deal with. When comparing the progress from base launch to 2-3 years later, CK2 was the better maintained game.

 

[Greenfish]

We've had this discussion many times. Too many even. Everything that can be said has been said.

My take on the matter is that I will never understand people who want CK3 to be like CK2. Having actually been there since the 2012 release, CK2 has been one of the most disjointed and messy games I have ever played. I loved it, but as soon as I played CK3 and knew the core was still there, I could not look back at that hack UI.

People who want CK3 to be more like CK2 do not appear to appreciate innovative content. CK3 is trying to make something unique and has consistently been worth the 2000+ hours I already have in this game.

CK3 can become better, but never ever will we get there by going backwards.

Mechanics are coming with every release. More will come in the future. Be patient or move on, if it's not worth it for you.

No, it's not. And if you cared to read the post, you'd realize I'm not even saying it should be. CK3 has dragged its feet for years. I'd love to know what these mechanics are. Is waiting 3 years not patient?

My issue is I've been patient. We finally got word last week that something is on the horizon only for it to be some glorified event pack that's not even out. So, when will we build upon the Byzantines? Or the Muslims? The Eastern Steppe? Oh, wait, are we not supposed to do that because CK2 already did that? If you don't like the Middle Ages, maybe play the Sims 4?

 

[Nicthurne]

Do you think that CK3 is a better game than CK2?

There is a simple solution for people who think that CK2 is better: they absolutely can still play CK2. No one is judging them for doing that, because it is a different game and people go back to older video games all the time. People still re-watch the first Ice Age movie and think that the franchise went bad with the first sequel. That's absolutely fine.

On the other hand, if you prefer CK3 but are frustrated by the update curve, then I think it's reasonable to simply try not to compare them. The team working on these games is completely different. The work put into releases is different (most noticeable: 3D art). The current philosophy of Pdx as a company is different. And we can criticize that. But I simply dont think that the way Pdx worked back then is coming back.

 

[NarcomancerPL]

We've had this discussion many times. Too many even. Everything that can be said has been said.

My take on the matter is that I will never understand people who want CK3 to be like CK2. Having actually been there since the 2012 release, CK2 has been one of the most disjointed and messy games I have ever played. I loved it, but as soon as I played CK3 and knew the core was still there, I could not look back at that hack UI and spaghetti code.

People who want CK3 to be more like CK2 do not appear to appreciate innovative content. CK3 is trying to make something unique and has consistently been worth the 2000+ hours I already have in this game.

CK3 can become better, but never ever will we get there by going backwards.

Mechanics are coming with every release. More will come in the future. Be patient or move on, if it's not worth it for you.

You clearly have not read his comment. His point is not about what CK game is better. It's about which game had more content after the same amount of time since release

 

[NarcomancerPL]

Do you think that CK3 is a better game than CK2?

There is a simple solution for people who think that CK2 is better: they absolutely can still play CK2. No one is judging them for doing that, because it is a different game and people go back to older video games all the time. People still re-watch the first Ice Age movie and think that the franchise went bad with the first sequel. That's absolutely fine.

On the other hand, if you prefer CK3 but are frustrated by the update curve, then I think it's reasonable to simply try not to compare them. The team working on these games is completely different. The work put into releases is different (most noticeable: 3D art). The current philosophy of Pdx as a company is different. And we can criticize that. But I simply dont think that the way Pdx worked back then is coming back.

It's not unreasonable to expect from sequel to keep the spirit of the original game, or in this case previous iteration, wanting for the game to move forward and improve at the same time

 

[Greenfish]

CK2 DLC are not that deep. That's why they could churn it out like it was some children's cartoon. Almost everything core in CK2 is in CK3 in some form. The excess that wasn't that engaging, to begin with, was removed.

Neither is CK3 DLC. Royal Court gives us a courtroom with the same interactions no matter where you go. It’s not that deep and took significantly longer to churn out. In fact, it’s less deep. At least CK2 DLC gives some degree more in the focused region

 

[NarcomancerPL]

It's mechanically deeper. CK2 could never do royal court. It was still trying to figure out 2D art instead of just being a modifier spreadsheet.

So what if it's "mechanically deeper", which wasn't even the topic of that, but sure, if it's not used well? Moreover not even used by modders unless you count cosmetic stuff

 

[Greenfish]

It's mechanically deeper. CK2 could never do royal court. It was still trying to figure out 2D art instead of just being a modifier spreadsheet.

It’s not. It’s a series of repeating events. You get the same event over and over again. It’s not that deep. Correction, it’s not deep

https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/11kwnlb

This is a post mocking the new DLC based on expectations from RC, and I think it captures how deep RC is pretty well

 

[klopkr]

Do you think that CK3 is a better game than CK2?

Stopping you right there.

This isn't a "is x tottaly better than y" scenario. CK3 is a sequel to CK2. Of course we're dissapointed when CK3 is lacking some of the best things about CK2.

CK3 is strictly better, why? Because its new features.

You know what game all these people wish they could play? CK2 with the CK3 DLC and 3D stuff at the end.

I love CK2 and I play it all the time. But I recognize it'll NEVER have the great stuff from CK3 that we've all come to take for granted. 3D characters that grow and spread DNA, Courts, Religions, Cultures, more game map stuff.

But there's a chance and desire for CK3 to have most of the great stuff from CK2. We just want it sooner rather than later because we already know we like that stuff and miss it rather than the new stuff CK3 is bolting on.

We want CK3 to finish being a sequel to CK2 before it breaks it own ice but instead it's CK3 making its own path with the promise of those CK2 features "some day" and it turns out "some day" isn't within the first 4 years of development so we're making ourselves heard and tunning out until we finally get the basics we want.

That's why people bring it up so much.

If you honestly think CK3 can finish its entire DLC roster without retouching the things in CK2 everyone misses then you're not even on the same wave length as the devs much less the community. The devs and community know CK3 inevitably needs to have things CK2 has again some day just look at the floor plan. Nomads, Byzantines, cardinals, plagues, Republics, HRE stuff. It's all missing and planned in the future. But basically none of the CK3 DLC has retouched these missing features. Of course people are annoyed at the direction.

The problem isn't that CK3 isn't CK2. It's that they don't plan to retread the CK2 stuff until years of DLC.

Your enitre comment misses the entire point of this post, and the entire point of the discussion.

 

[Cyhort]

Maybe, just maybe, there are some pretty obvious reasons why a three year old game takes longer to update than a game that came out eleven years ago.

Also, I find it funny that you mention Sword of Islam as a positive addition, since when CK2 launched the fact that you couldn't play Muslim rulers was a pretty big sore spot. Literally half the Crusades in Crusader Kings was locked behind a paywall. More than half the DLC available for CK2 are $5 music packs and troop skins. At least with CK3 they only charge for things that actually effect gameplay in some way. There are a lot of rose tinted glasses being used when people look back at CK2. It was a good game, and yeah I do wish there were some mechanics in 3 that were added to 2, but it wasn't some perfect game and CK3 isn't some broken, shallow mess.

 

[Greenfish]

Maybe, just maybe, there are some pretty obvious reasons why a three year old game takes longer to update than a game that came out eleven years ago. Here I thought I made it pretty clear I was only looking at the same time frame of release to three years later ‍

Also, I find it funny that you mention Sword of Islam as a positive addition, since when CK2 launched the fact that you couldn't play Muslim rulers was a pretty big sore spot. Literally half the Crusades in Crusader Kings was locked behind a paywall. More than half the DLC available for CK2 are $5 music packs and troop skins. At least with CK3 they only charge for things that actually effect gameplay in some way. There are a lot of rose tinted glasses being used when people look back at CK2. It was a good game, and yeah I do wish there were some mechanics in 3 that were added to 2, but it wasn't some perfect game and CK3 isn't some broken, shallow mess.

I mean, maybe, just maybe you read the post? CK2 in 2014-2015 (the period I looked) at was…. Three years old.

I am aware you couldn’t play Muslims at time of release. Hence why the DLC where you could was good.

 

[NarcomancerPL]

Ok now I'm convinced some people are just haters xd What is here to "respectfully disagree" with?
I literally just described what the author of the comment was talking about. There is no personal opinion here

 

[FishieFan]

We've had this discussion many times. Too many even. Everything that can be said has been said.

My take on the matter is that I will never understand people who want CK3 to be like CK2. Having actually been there since the 2012 release, CK2 has been one of the most disjointed and messy games I have ever played. I loved it, but as soon as I played CK3 and knew the core was still there, I could not look back at that hack UI and spaghetti code.

People who want CK3 to be more like CK2 do not appear to appreciate innovative content. CK3 is trying to make something unique and has consistently been worth the 2000+ hours I already have in this game.

CK3 can become better, but never ever will we get there by going backwards.

Mechanics are coming with every release. More will come in the future. Be patient or move on, if it's not worth it for you.

Was 20 quid worth royal court in your view?

 

[Cyhort]

I mean, maybe, just maybe you read the post? CK2 in 2014-2015 (the period I looked) at was…. Three years old.

I am aware you couldn’t play Muslims at time of release. Hence why the DLC where you could was good.

Maybe you could read my post? Because I read yours. You seem to think that the DLC development time of a 3 year old game should be the same, or faster, than the DLC development time of a game that came out in 2012. CK3 is a bigger game now than CK2 was at the end of it's cycle even with the "cut" content. It has more mechanics, and those mechanics interact with any new mechanics the game wants to add, so it takes longer to make new systems work. The game also has 3D models, which adds a whole new layer to any DLC pack that's going to be adding anything to the character models. Even something like a new outfit takes time that CK2 never needed to worry about because of it's simple graphical style. It's completely unrealistic to expect CK3 to get DLC as fast as CK2 did.

No, the DLC was not good. The game launched with half the map unplayable. They made you pay to play as the literal other half of the title conflict. It was a terrible choice and that kind of nickle and diming never really went away through the entire lifecycle of CK2.

 

[Greenfish]

Maybe you could read my post? Because I read yours. You seem to think that the DLC development time of a 3 year old game should be the same, or faster, than the DLC development time of a game that came out in 2012. CK3 is a bigger game now than CK2 was at the end of it's cycle even with the "cut" content. It has more mechanics, and those mechanics interact with any new mechanics the game wants to add, so it takes longer to make new systems work. The game also has 3D models, which adds a whole new layer to any DLC pack that's going to be adding anything to the character models. Even something like a new outfit takes time that CK2 never needed to worry about because of it's simple graphical style. It's completely unrealistic to expect CK3 to get DLC as fast as CK2 did.

No, the DLC was not good. The game launched with half the map unplayable. They made you pay to play as the literal other half of the title conflict. It was a terrible choice and that kind of nickle and diming never really went away through the entire lifecycle of CK2.

I mean, you evidently did not read mine, because you have now repeatedly misconstrued my most basic argument. I think the DLC development between now and 2020 should be similar to the development of DLC between 2012 and 2015. You know, a three year difference. You can stop trying to say I’m comparing a three year old game to a game developed in 2012. I’m not. I’ve been quite clear about that, so please kindly stop making stuff up, Kay?

Man, I hate when that pesky gameplay gets in the way of 3D character design. But you are right. The DLCs have been awful. Or DLC. Because CK3 has released one. And it’s bad. You get to have the same exact throne interactions where ever you go with no variety. It’s so bad, the game takes it upon itself you remind you to use this function.

 

[Kimlin1004]

Maybe, just maybe, there are some pretty obvious reasons why a three year old game takes longer to update than a game that came out eleven years ago.

Also, I find it funny that you mention Sword of Islam as a positive addition, since when CK2 launched the fact that you couldn't play Muslim rulers was a pretty big sore spot. Literally half the Crusades in Crusader Kings was locked behind a paywall. More than half the DLC available for CK2 are $5 music packs and troop skins. At least with CK3 they only charge for things that actually effect gameplay in some way. There are a lot of rose tinted glasses being used when people look back at CK2. It was a good game, and yeah I do wish there were some mechanics in 3 that were added to 2, but it wasn't some perfect game and CK3 isn't some broken, shallow mess.

My spouse got the adulterous and incest trait because she cheated on me with…herself and told On herself about it. Not broken? Not a mess?

 

[selteur]

No, the DLC was not good. The game launched with half the map unplayable. They made you pay to play as the literal other half of the title conflict.

That's absurd considering that in the very first OG CK game you couldn't play with muslim so no one was expecting the muslims to be playable at launch lol.

 

[Germanicus_Caesar]

It’s not. It’s a series of repeating events. You get the same event over and over again. It’s not that deep. Correction, it’s not deep

https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/11kwnlb

This is a post mocking the new DLC based on expectations from RC, and I think it captures how deep RC is pretty well

Even I, with my overly optimistic and supportive heart, must admit that was funny and made me laugh.

 

[grommile]

That's absurd considering that in the very first OG CK game you couldn't play with muslim so no one was expecting the muslims to be playable at launch lol.

Playable Muslims were cut content.

They were supposed to be in the base release, but the game would have missed its adjusted release date.

 

[NarcomancerPL]

Playable Muslims were cut content.

They were supposed to be in the base release, but the game would have missed its adjusted release date.

Cut content from CK2? Doesn't matter. Cause the author was talking about CK(1) where only playable religions were Catholic and Orthodox (2/4 religions were playable the other 2 were "Islam" and "Pagan"), so not having Muslims or Pagans playable at the launch of CK2 wasn't a surprise for CK fanbase