Just like Rome goes ancient - id like to see the next game go modern...

[Strager]

So, you expect one game to model the set-piece battles of the Civil War, the trench warfare of WW1, the blitzkrieg of WW2, and the brushfire wars of the Cold War.

Would you like it to make you coffee and banana-flavored ice cream too?

Thats called "Creativity" - its more than feesabile - its incredible that it hasn't been done before. The only reason games aren't advancing past their current levels is because the developers know we can accept the current level of quality. In the future we will look back at this time period as the "Dark Ages" of gaming.

I'm not saying paradox is doing anything "wrong" per-say - its the general attitude in the gaming industry right now. There are of course exceptions, but developers only put out whats "acceptable" instead of trying to heavily raise the bar with every title. That wasn't always the way things were, and once technology reaches a point where graphics etc. can't go any further (without major changes in the way we look at games) games will start to improve again. Still we have another 10-20 years at least before that happens.

EDIT: To summarize: Game developers need to learn to take risks and try new things like this.

 

[alvaro]

obviously a modern day game is not for playing wars. you'd rather play to keep them globally under control.

 

[unmerged(84988)]

I'd like to play a game with a modern setting, with the ability to play from 2000 to 2050 or something like that. We can have events like some kind of Chinese civil war or a formation of a Middle Eastern Coalition.

 

[Strager]

Could have an extra emphisis on politics and intrigue - wars would be faught less for conquoring, and more for making puppet regimes (like we do, and the british do, etc.)

 

[Slasher]

Next game should be CK 2

Next game should be the gap where Rome and its expansions eventually leave, be it dark ages or Imperial Rome.

 

[unmerged(52731)]

Next game should be the gap where Rome and its expansions eventually leave, be it dark ages or Imperial Rome.

thats also a GREAT idea. Dark ages would be amazing, imagine founding a kingdom solely by the sword? Creating a dynasty, then porting it to CK.

 

[unmerged(76802)]

Thats called "Creativity" - its more than feesabile - its incredible that it hasn't been done before.

It hasn't been done before because it can't be done and still make a profit. You'll wind up with a game that either does one part really well but is bad at other parts (HoI2) or a game that stretches itself too thin and sucks at everything it tries to do (Civilization).

 

[Mrdie]

I do know one thing: playing minor nations would probably be even more boring than HOI2. (by "minor" I mean El Salvador, Liberia, etc)

Can anyone suggest how to make said minor nations fun for a modern (1965-2010) game? Especially if the UN and such are in. (Expect to see UN peacekeepers and universal condemnation for your actions, including unified invasions against your nation if it gets too far, which invading a nation clearly would)

Because if minor nations aren't at all fun, I doubt they'd make a modern game. (unless it was Cold War with US vs. USSR and maybe some powers like UK, France, China, etc which would be surprisingly limiting)

 

[Surgünoglu]

Mrdie, you seem to have grasped what advocates for a modern strategy do not.

A unipolar political structure is very dull for a strategy game. That's why most modern-era games have focused on the tactical or individual level. The states of the 21st century tend to be very, very stasist. It's nowhere near as dynamic as Rome, or the Renaissance, or the Middle Ages, or even the Concert of Europe. There's no comparison, and really no question as to why modern strategy is so lacking.

 

[Zelvik]

What makes the modern era interesting are the economical, political and cultural relations between the varying regions and states. The interaction of various regional and global entities with the single states like the formation of the EU or the growing power of entities like the WTO. Add to that the restricting forces of nuclear deterrence for the big players and possible UN or major power interventions for small countries it makes a very rich environment for strategical decissions. The problem is, that to portray all those restrictions in a quasi realistic way and still let the player have enough things to do to not get bored is quite problematic. Victoria partly acchieved that if you played it out well on a peacful avenue but didnt have to cope with some of the changes in the post 1945 world.

I for once think that if done right it would be a realy great strategy game. But I doubt that it realy can be pulled off in a way to apeal to a larger share of an already small market.

 

[Surgünoglu]

About as interesting as a boxing game where you have to wear a straitjacket.

Sure, Paradox could do it, if anyone could do it. Your comparisons with Victoria are apt, and I think CK proves it too, that they can handle the sub-state nuance. I just think that the modern age's dynamics have yet to be understood. Historians first have to understand our era (and they can't just yet) and then the gamers can. Paradox spends their time well.

 

[unmerged(52731)]

I still think the game wouldn't work, not like your hoping for it. There are pretty much 2 options.

1: Its realistic and you almost solely manage the countries domestic issues. Yawn.
2: You can wage WW3 without serious repercussions. Fun, but not what any of us are probably looking for.

 

[unmerged(86787)]

I'd like to see a post-apocalyptic game, where you try to reassert your countries former influence, say set in the 1990s after the Cuban Missile Crisis starts a nuclear war. Nukes wouldn't be as numerous, facilities for making them few, and an enormous taboo on ever using them after what happened. Brazil, Argentina, Sweden, Australia and China being the major players. Possibly Japan too, provided they weren't hit hard.

Edit; a Game set immediately after the fall of Rome is fine too.

 

[unmerged(76167)]

I have to admit that everytime Paradox announces they are working on a new game I hope that the setting is cold war/modern day, only to my dreams dashed.
That being said, I can understand why it would be incredibly hard to make. I can only think of two major attempts for a grand strategy game in this period, with one (Shadow President) being incredibly limited and the other (Superpower 1&2) just being terrible.

 

[unmerged(7415)]

I am personally given to the idea of the next title being named Charlemagne and seeing it cover (some of) the period between 476 and 1066.

A Warsaw Pact vs. NATO scenario set in the 1960 to 1990 time frame is more easily handled as an expansion to HOI2, much like Doomsday... only set later with additional tech and unit additions.

 

[shasla6]

A Warsaw Pact vs. NATO scenario set in the 1960 to 1990 time frame is more easily handled as an expansion to HOI2, much like Doomsday... only set later with additional tech and unit additions.

Meh... I'd rather they make an entirely new game; HOI is really too shallow to do the period justice.

 

[l3illyl3ob]

A Warsaw Pact vs. NATO scenario set in the 1960 to 1990 time frame is more easily handled as an expansion to HOI2, much like Doomsday... only set later with additional tech and unit additions.

This is where I disagree. See my previous points in the thread. Hearts of Iron 2 is about a time frame where war was all there was. It was made with an intense focus on one of the most terrible and bloodiest 10 years in human history. Everything you researched was about war, everything you built was related to war, every diplomatic action you could make was about war. There is no way that a Cold War scenario could properly fit into Hearts of Iron 2 in any context. It's just too different of a time period from anything Paradox has ever done to just cut and paste it into an existing game.

 

[SA_Avenger]

I don't like modern eras past WW2.
Don't like victoria/Eu3 eras much either but I liked the game still.

I want historical (past) games and there are tons of era that havent been made in details (1870, WW1, china's empires, ...)

 

[Mr. G]

Nukes=Shit game.

HoI 1/2 and Civ shit games?

 

[-MoRiDin-]

I am personally given to the idea of the next title being named Charlemagne and seeing it cover (some of) the period between 476 and 1066.

That would complete the set...

Rome, Charlemange,crusader kings, eu, viki, HOI.....