Maybe its a good game but...

[ed84]

I'm considering to buy EU4, in large part because of the great critic reviews, and frankly good reviews from people who bought and reviewed the game on sites like gamergate, but after reading many threads on here, I don't get that same impression at all. Tons of threads criticizing many parts of the game. What gives?

 

[sffrrrom]

A lot of criticism falls into one of three categories.

1. Long-time veterans of the game who are really familiar with the mechanics of the series and consequently have sufficient knowledge to really abuse the boundaries of where the game mechanics can be pushed. Their criticisms focus on addressing these areas.

2. People who want the franchise to go in x,y,z direction. I.e. EU 2 was much more focused on historical events - you got descriptions with lots of historical depth and huge game-altering events like the Spanish-Austrian union forming, but they didn't always make sense and could be very arbitrary if your "history" had gone in a different direction. EU 3 went 100% the opposite direction, improving general gameplay mechanics but stripping out most of the history and leaving a game with solid gameplay but a lot less flavor. EU 4 has basically split the difference, with varying degrees of success. You will see criticism or debate from people who think the game should be pushed in one way or another.

3. People who find the game to concentrate too much on war or expansion. This is probably the most legitimate criticism, as EU 4 tends to focus heavily on war and military expansion of one sort or another. That said, I can't think of a game that does a better job of simulating all the other parts, esp. diplomacy/.

I may have missed a primary area of criticism. All that aside, I've been around since EU II and I think EU 4 is fantastic. I'd personally like more history, but I think EU 4 strikes at least a much better balance than 3, I think most of the mechanics are innovative, fun, and generally decently designed, the patch support has been fantastic to date, and there's a lot to like. My understanding is that multiplayer is even pretty tenable fairly easily, which is amazing on top. So I'd whole-heartedly recommend the game; Steam says I've played 226 hours of it, and I work full time and travel many weekends, so that should say something.

 

[unmerged(798670)]

Long story short the developers have drastically changed many of the features of the game since it was reviewed, and the playerbase is largely divided in what they want out of this game, a game of conquest, or a game where conquest is functionally impossible on any large scale, currently the game heavily punishes large scale conquest while advertising exactly the opposite. If you are not interested in conquering you will probably enjoy this game.

 

[unmerged(809069)]

Id say u should buy it, i fu played other paradox strategy games (and u liked them), if u didnt, then u should probably go watch some youtube before u spend money on it

 

[ed84]

I've played Victoria 2 and I love it. My fav game.

I think the political/economic parts of Vic 2 excite me the most however, less so the military/diplomacy aspects.

 

[Solo4114]

Long story short the developers have drastically changed many of the features of the game since it was reviewed, and the playerbase is largely divided in what they want out of this game, a game of conquest, or a game where conquest is functionally impossible on any large scale, currently the game heavily punishes large scale conquest while advertising exactly the opposite. If you are not interested in conquering you will probably enjoy this game.

Actually, I'd dispute that. If you aren't interested in conquering, there isn't a ton to do. It's been acknowledged by the developers that peacetime is meant to be fairly "hands-off" and to not require a ton of management, while you wait for the next war.

In a way, this explains the complaints of two of the most vocal camps of people who have issues with the game. The game -- in its current state, at least -- is most functionally supportive of conquest and expansion...but punishes it to varying degrees. In peacetime, there isn't a ton to do and the game is fairly dull.


Don't get me wrong. It's not a bad game, and if you can accept that you won't necessarily paint the entire world your country's color, you can still have fun. But peacetime leaves a lot to be desired (but also has a ton of potential, and modders are taking advantage of a lot of that), and warfare is currently kind of restrained past a certain point.

 

[sffrrrom]

Actually, I'd dispute that. If you aren't interested in conquering, there isn't a ton to do. It's been acknowledged by the developers that peacetime is meant to be fairly "hands-off" and to not require a ton of management, while you wait for the next war.

In a way, this explains the complaints of two of the most vocal camps of people who have issues with the game. The game -- in its current state, at least -- is most functionally supportive of conquest and expansion...but punishes it to varying degrees. In peacetime, there isn't a ton to do and the game is fairly dull.


Don't get me wrong. It's not a bad game, and if you can accept that you won't necessarily paint the entire world your country's color, you can still have fun. But peacetime leaves a lot to be desired (but also has a ton of potential, and modders are taking advantage of a lot of that), and warfare is currently kind of restrained past a certain point.

This. This says it perfectly. There's an inherent tension right now with this, that I'm guessing will be altered via DLC down the road, though the current one doesn't seem like it will later peace time TOO much.

 

[Sequitor]

I bought it 2 weeks ago during the Humble sale ($9.99). I was also reluctant based on forum comments, but I needed a new game to play over the holiday and a figured that that price was worth the risk. Well, I've played about 35 hours already, and I'm loving it. I especially like the fact that success requires a careful balance of admin, diplomacy, and military ideas. I highly recommend it.

 

[Victor_Yuzo]

Much of the criticism on the forums comes from people who get on to gripe about some issue that arose in their games. There are frequently posts with baseless attacks on the game because some feature obstructed a player's plans and instead of just reloading/cheating/adapting they hop on the forums to whine about how terribly broken the game is because they can't accomplish whatever objective.

EU4 is a great game but there's a bit of a learning curve.

 

[Golladan]

Keep in mind that people are more vocal when they don't like something than when they do.

 

[Solo4114]

This. This says it perfectly. There's an inherent tension right now with this, that I'm guessing will be altered via DLC down the road, though the current one doesn't seem like it will later peace time TOO much.

The upcoming 1.4 patch may alleviate some of the limitations on warfare, too, so those who like conquest may have a less hassle-filled time of it moving forward. But for the "peaceful builders" out there, the game is still kinda slow. I'd hope that future patches will do things like improve the events, add new event chains, and maybe add things like more ideas and decisions that can be undertaken (Which in turn lead to other event chains) to keep peace time (and war time!) more interesting in terms of internal realm management.

It may be that after the devs solve the issues with aggressive expansion in 1.4, they'll decide to implement more internal realm management as the limiting factor on world-spanning empires. We can hope, anyway.

Keep in mind that people are more vocal when they don't like something than when they do.

Can't argue with that. Although there's plenty here who are happy, too. Plenty who post strategies and AARs and such. They still see room for improvement, but it's important to distinguish between an out-and-out "I HATE THIS GAME AND I'M HERE TO RANT ABOUT IT" post and a "This is fun, but what's up with XYZ game mechanic? That doesn't make sense, and should be fixed" post.

I think you find more of the latter here.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

I'm sorry to hear the forum threads have put you off trying the game. As a sometimes vocal voice about flaws in the game design, I wish that wasn't the case. Buy it and try it.

EU4 is a very good game. It's one of the better strategy games ever developed. I've put more hours into it than I care to admit, and I don't regret that at all. All Paradox games are very good -- and they are unique. Nobody else makes anything like them. I cheer on their every success because I want them to continue to build such unique game experiences, and I love to see them get rewarded for it. If they stopped making these games, no one else right now would likely pick up the banner.

The constructive criticism you see around here is mostly from longtime fans who recognize what a unique company Paradox and love their games. So they also recognize their flaws. In certain ways, EU4 is a step back from CK2 and a lot of fans want to make sure the devs understand why people feel that way so they push the game to make it what it could be. It's more of an internal conversation in the community about how to make things better, and to get everyone on the same page. EU4 is still an excellent game. It's just not as excellent as it could be, and there are some rising design philosophies that seems to be getting in the way of getting the most out of it.

But a flawed EU4 is still a tons better game than almost anything else you can buy. Folks should realize that. Personally, when I raise issues in threads I try to always also include that perspective because I think it's important folks understand that (although I can probably do a better job). EU4 is great -- it's just not as great as it can be yet.

 

[TheBloke]

Keep in mind that people are more vocal when they don't like something than when they do.

Absolutely this, ignore everything else.

It is completely standard that forums such as this one give an overly negative impression. Far fewer people post when they're happy than when they're not. It's commonplace for people to sign-up/delurk to post about some problem, or question, or complaint; far less frequent that they do so to post about how awesome stuff is. Though the latter does happen in this forum, and that's a good indication of how good the game is.

If you want some counter-balance to that, here's mine: EU4 is the best, most engaging, engrossing, complex and enjoyable game I've played in at least 20 years, and maybe ever. I now have more Steam hours (700) on it than any other game ever, nearly doubling the second highest. And that's over a period of under three months. I've made nearly 2000 posts about this game on this forum since October 13th. It has become my hobby, and indeed my passion (luckily I found it while on a sabbatical from work.)

Of course there are hundreds of things that could be improved in it. If anything, that's a testament to how good it is; there aren't many ways to improve poor products.

But regardless of that, the decision with EU4 is simple: Do you like strategy games? If so, it's almost guaranteed that you will be able to find 100 hours of fun gameplay from this game.

So the question is, is 100 hours worth the asking price? If you answer 'no' then, wow.. you have insanely high expectations. If, like any normal person, you answer 'yes', then there you go: buy the game.

Yes there may be things you dislike. Yes there may be features you think are crap; or major features you feel are missing. But the chances of that spoiling, or even hugely impacting your gameplay before 100 hours is pretty small.

It's a shame you didn't just buy EU4 a couple of days ago when it was $10, because then it was the no-brainer of all no-brainers. But at full price it is still almost guaranteed to be at the top end of return on investment for any strategy game fan, amongst all computer games you can buy today.

Although you missed all the Christmas/New Year sales, and the Humble deal, it'll probably be on sale again soon enough. The Conquest of Paradise expansion DLC is out and they're bound to discount it again before, during or after that time to encourage sales of the expansion.

But don't wait too long and forego the enjoyment. At $35 it's still vastly worth it.

 

[Rain Envy]

1,367 In-Game | Call of Duty Ghosts

4,953 Crusader Kings 2

6,329 In-Game Europa Universalis IV


That's as of now. You be missing out if you don't buy this game bro.

 

[TheBloke]

1,367 In-Game | Call of Duty Ghosts

4,953 Crusader Kings 2

6,329 In-Game Europa Universalis IV


That's as of now. You be missing out if you don't buy this game bro.

What are those numbers? Total people playing now?

 

[Golladan]

Steam also has a free Demo you can try. Though I think it's not much compared to the full game.

 

[LeKaiser]

I'm considering to buy EU4, in large part because of the great critic reviews, and frankly good reviews from people who bought and reviewed the game on sites like gamergate, but after reading many threads on here, I don't get that same impression at all. Tons of threads criticizing many parts of the game. What gives?

This is fundamentally true of most game forums you'll see. The people who are 100% happy with the game post here less often (though we still do sometimes!). This isn't to say that people here are bad or chronically unhappy or are just here to complain or anything like that, but just that "this game is so awesome" can only generate a certain amount of discussion. Someone who wants to see a change in the game is much more likely to post than someone who thinks it's fine the way it is.

 

[IndoEsia45]

Also note that people who play PI are generally more critical and judgmental than your usual gamers considering the highly complicated nature of the game. I'm sure that they all want the game to be improved, but it's rather easy to get the impression that the game is more negative than it actually is reading the posts here and there, though certainly that is not the case.

 

[CavScout]

I'm considering to buy EU4, in large part because of the great critic reviews, and frankly good reviews from people who bought and reviewed the game on sites like gamergate, but after reading many threads on here, I don't get that same impression at all. Tons of threads criticizing many parts of the game. What gives?

Welcome to every game forum, ever.

 

[TolHydra]

Cheese all the glorious cheese!

Seriously buy the game regardless; i'm currently waiting until it gets a Ck2 post-old gods level of polish which will take a good amount of time

reviews do the game justice for what it is but none of the reviewers have half the knowledge some of the eu veterans these forums have