New Game Confirmed

[Vohen]

Okay after some research. I gathered that currently Paradox is working on 3 new games (at the minimum).

Firstly (likely) a life-sim Sims-esque game managed by Rod Humble at Paradox Tectonic in the USA(everything I gathered about Rod Humble and what they are hiring there suggests a simulation game of some sort), I guess the game is still far from completion since the studio has been a thing only since 2019, also the game to be announced is to be a GSG so I doubt its this one they're announcing.

Secondly, EUV is definitely in the works as Paradox Tinto in Spain has been announced as the studio to take the Europa Universalis franchise and brand further. EUIV is old and is definitely ready for a sequel. But the studio there has been founded only in 2020(though I guess the development of EUV could've been started earlier by a different Paradox studio/organisation), but the main thing that makes me discount this option is that the announcement of a new EUIV DLC at the next PDXcon leads me to believe EUV is still too early in production or unlikely to be announced this PDXCON.

Thirdly, the third game they are working at PDS main studio in Stockholm is an 'unnanounced non-historical grand strategy game' (according to the hiring info). I am pretty sure they are going to announce this one at PDXCON, due to EUV clashing with a EUIV dlc announcement (possibly hurting DLC sales in the process) making EUV announcement unlikely. The only thing that makes this less likely is that they are hiring concept artists, almost implying they are early-in production. Maybe too early for an announcement.

I guess the third option is most likely, probably a fantasy equivalent of Stellaris, it being handled by the main studio implies its going to be a flagship title.

My heart makes me want to hope there is a fourth option however its probably less likely than EUV or the ahistorical GSG... I am convinced the games I wrote about above are being developed but there is no reason to think PDX isn't making a 4th game. I've read about PDX buying up Victoria 2/3 related trademarks a while back, so perhaps its time for Victoria? I hope.

Well, we know already it'll be from PDS, so only the third option here fits the bill.

I'm not 100% convinced that Tinto will be doing EU5 though, their statement was (likely purposefully) quite ambiguous imo, at the time of the announcement, people were really split if that meant they'd be working on EU4 only, EU5 only, or both.
In time the second option proved false, but the other two didn't so far.
I dunno, I guess I'm one of those traditionalists finding odd if PDX hands over one of its (and arguably the) flagship titles to a subsidiary, though I guess Johan himself being there could be the key point here.
Another aspect would be how the team has just been assembled, and taking CK3's development as reference, that'd mean no EU5 until 2026, which would be... concerning, to say the least.
I agree that it's possible EU5 was already in development and will only continue under Tinto, but I imagine this is not a light change to make, it's a big disruption and would certainly cause big delays, it's not something you'd see on smooth development cycles.
Maybe Johan himself was already working on EU5, then it might make sense for it to go with him and a chunk of his team, but then again, he was working on Imperator until recently, so not the most likely scenario either if you ask me.

Regarding the fantasy GSG thought, PDX announced job positions for an "unannounced non-historical GSG", and I figure releasing several of those in a short time would be unlikely, so I'd say chances have decreased there.

 

[Austregisel]

They started to hiring people right now for this non-historical GSG, no way will be this one this year, most probably this is some Victorian Age game, a better Napoelon Era maybe, or some Age that no one GSG covered yet, like a Proper Medieval China(assuming this is not to be a thing in CK3), Imperial Rome/Migrational Age is not covered yet, Cold War is not covered yet, Bronze Age is not covered yet, the only Age that is already covered and have room to a new game is the Victorian Age.

 

[Uhtred Ragnarso]

I agree with alot of posts here, and can see 3 alternatives:

1) A new historical ip (And I guess some Bronze Age game could even be "semi-historical", with myths and legends).
2) A new non-historical/fantasy IP (and I agree that it need some heavy established lore. Maybe a GSC using the already owned Majesty Lore?? Would love a Majesty 3 too xD)
3) Victoria 3 (hesitant about that)

 

[Ezumiyr]

A new non-historical/fantasy IP (and I agree that it need some heavy established lore

I don't think it does.
A lot of people are mentioning a "fantasy Stellaris" - IMO that would mean taking the same approach as they did with Stellaris. That is, making a game out of tropes. Fantasy is full of tropes that can be translated in a fun way in a strategy game, with ideas like:
- Initial world building phase where you pick the gods that create the world and decide which ones are good or evil
- "Race" and empire generation are based on environment - "sand elves that mount giant worms and worship the evil goddess of the night" (instead of civics and ethics like in Stellaris)
- Fantasy worlds are cyclical. So each game is divided in "ages". You start anew every time, but on the same map, and the remnants of the previous ages become the ruins and dungeons of the new one etc

Now of course Paradox could also work with an established lore, but they don't need one to make a good fantasy world. Paradox' expertise is to create games with emergent story-telling and non-branching alt-history. That is, the game mechanics are what create opportunities, and empire building in a goal in itself. Established lore would have the tendency to force the world in a certain way or another - either one side wins or the other, and empire building is just a tool for domination.

I think there's a lot of settings Paradox could transform into games and it's a bit foolish to try to imagine what Paradox could or couldn't do. Even for historical settings - it's not just about "eras", it's also about geography and actors. Paradox could make a new Sengoku. They could make a game where you don't play as countries or dynasts, but rather as cult gurus or Silicon Valley CEOs. It's also a matter of gameplay - we could play a game set in the victorian era, not as countries, but as "ideologies" trying to influence countries, establishing support in various countries and taking control of certain populations as the game progresses. Our actions would shake the course of history and emulate the political and social transformations of the industrial ages. Our goals would be stuff like restoring monarchy, promoting imperialism, create "springs of nations" or wars between countries of opposite ideologies, that kind of thing.

Modern Paradox games show that they have game designers with original ideas who won't hesitate to go beyond the game designs we see in older Paradox games. They fully realize that they are games and no matter the setting, we are dealing with fiction, not with historical simulations.
I have no idea what the next game will be, but I'm fairly certain that it won't be a generic GSG and it will have at least one original idea/gimmick at the core of its gameplay. Something like "a GSG but we don't play as nations" or "a GSG but without linear progression".

 

[Libertine Angel]

To me, the difference between Stellaris and a hypothetical trope-reliant fantasy GSG is that mashing all the fantasy tropes together is a lot more common in media than mashing all the sci-fi tropes together. Stellaris is interesting because of the wide variety of combinations of species, ethics, goals etc. you can meet that don't have an established situational equivalent - sure, the authoritarian spiritualist devouring swarm might be comparable to something from other sci-fi on its own, as might the technocratic robot nation, but it's the myriad unique combinations that provide an interesting setting.

Fantasy, however, has a lot less room for that simply because the genre as it's commonly understood is derived from far fewer sources - stick the trope of mountain-dwelling stoic dwarves alongside the trope of serene woodland elves and you haven't got an interesting product of multiple disparate tropes, you've got something we've already seen a million times.
The sci-fi tropes that make up Stellaris' diversity can be drawn from every piece of sci-fi work from Asimov to Star Wars, whereas the bulk of modern fantasy is derived pretty much entirely from Tolkien, and there's only so much you can do to distance yourself from that and avoid feeling generic.

 

[Crosswire]

I'd disagree that the bulk of modern fantasy is derived from Tolkien nowadays. High Fantasy used to be, sure, but that has changed. It has become a lot more diverse. Heck, my two favourite fantasy settings, Morrowind and Dark Sun, have been around for ages and owe almost nothing to Tolkien.

And Heroic Fantasy wasn't inspired by Tolkien either - the poster child for that, Conan, predates Tolkien.

 

[Libertine Angel]

I'd disagree that the bulk of modern fantasy is derived from Tolkien nowadays. High Fantasy used to be, sure, but that has changed. It has become a lot more diverse. Heck, my two favourite fantasy settings, Morrowind and Dark Sun, have been around for ages and owe almost nothing to Tolkien.

And Heroic Fantasy wasn't inspired by Tolkien either - the poster child for that, Conan, predates Tolkien.

I think Morrowind's main quest revolving around preventing the return of a sinister ancient dark lord who resides in a volcanic wasteland by venturing into the heart of said volcano and destroying an ancient magical artifact from which his power is drawn owes more than a little to Tolkien, plus the High Elves are very much like his.

I'm not saying that all modern fantasy is directly based off his work, just that his influence (which is indeed drawn from various Norse, Germanic etc. myths and legends) is felt notably more strongly on the genre as a whole than any single work has impacted sci-fi.

 

[LWE]

Fantasy, however, has a lot less room for that simply because the genre as it's commonly understood is derived from far fewer sources - stick the trope of mountain-dwelling stoic dwarves alongside the trope of serene woodland elves and you haven't got an interesting product of multiple disparate tropes, you've got something we've already seen a million times.

I guess you can have mountain-dwelling stoic elves alongside serene woodland dwarves... maybe even industrial, polluting halflings alongside graceful orcs who live in shining cities of glass...

 

[Libertine Angel]

I guess you can have mountain-dwelling stoic elves alongside serene woodland dwarves... maybe even industrial, polluting halflings alongside graceful orcs who live in shining cities of glass...

You could do, and if they did make such a game I'd imagine this is what we'd get, and I'm sure it'd be decent enough but I get the sense that it'd still feel kinda derivative in a way Stellaris doesn't because at the end of the day it's still those same old races with the same old traits swapped about, while Stellaris just has a bigger pool of options and fewer such cliché pairings (off the top of my head the only species category with any stereotypes attached is Necroids, and that was deliberate) which leads to a far greater potential for unusual, interesting combinations as opposed to simply either subverting their associated tropes or conforming to them with no room for true departure from all convention.

I'm sounding very negative here, none of this is to say I'd be unhappy with a fantasy GSG and I'm sure I'd have fun with one, this is just an issue I don't really see much way around if they do decide to make one.

 

[Gwydden]

Fantasy, however, has a lot less room for that simply because the genre as it's commonly understood is derived from far fewer sources - stick the trope of mountain-dwelling stoic dwarves alongside the trope of serene woodland elves and you haven't got an interesting product of multiple disparate tropes, you've got something we've already seen a million times.

I would agree... except that everyone who likes to GM for D&D is excitedly trying to sell me the umpteenth Forgotten Realms remix as a tour de force in worldbuilding and I see an awful lot of people who are alright with that. In fact, it seems to me like the appeal of D&D type fantasy, for those who are into it, is precisely that it's cozy and familiar. And yes, Tolkien's influence on the genre is often overrated and almost always misidentified—he didn't come up with elves and dwarves, not even in the context of 20th century fantasy novels, and the current stereotypes of those races have little to do with his work; one can more rightly blame him for modern fantasy's (and sci fi's!) unhealthy obsession with worldbuilding.

Personally, I care less about the general concept of what they announce and more about the specific execution. While in theory I'd be more likely to enjoy a fantasy GSG, I wouldn't be terribly excited about a World of Darkness game (Changeling is the only WoD line that I somewhat care about), but if they announced Victoria 3 I'd at least follow the dev diaries to see if that's a cup of tea I'd be willing to invade China for.

 

[Simon B]

vicky 3 PLEEEEEEEASE

 

[EU3NOOB]

3) Victoria 3 (hesitant about that)

Why's that?

Vicky 3 would be a great idea and it's reasonably likely!

 

[Atreides]

The most likely game to be announced is Chris King's project that he started in 2016. That project is either nearly finished, or it has been canceled.
It is unlikely that said project would still be going on with a projected release window beyond 2021.

 

[LightningFarm]

Paradox does own a fantasy IP. Back when they bought white-wolf, they also got Exalted. Which could fix a lot of issues of doing a fantasy setting

 

[EU3NOOB]

Paradox does own a fantasy IP. Back when they bought white-wolf, they also got Exalted. Which could fix a lot of issues of doing a fantasy setting

They're obviously not announcing a fantasy GSG this year.

 

[Rhaegar1]

They're obviously not announcing a fantasy GSG this year.

I think you are right but it's beyond me what is 'obviously' about that. The fact that they are recruiting a few content designers is not saying me that much, for all we know that is just ramping up the team for the final year of development or for the post release DLC and update works, or just regular replacement of leaving personel.

 

[LightningFarm]

I don't think that we can rule fantasy gsg out based on the hirering. They might just be doing the same as they did with CK3, where they started to expand the team, after they finished the game.

 

[Akazury]

In the Games Industry there's only two moments where you need Concept artists, at the start of a project when you're doing preproduction figuring out the style and preparing pitch documentation and when you start developing DLC content. Considering that they're looking for two Concept Artists, one being a senior position, it's likely that the Non-Historical GSG is only just getting started. A project that is far enough to start developing DLC Content has an established style and wouldn't require a senior member as such.

 

[PatrykCXXVIII]

The most likely game to be announced is Chris King's project that he started in 2016. That project is either nearly finished, or it has been canceled.
It is unlikely that said project would still be going on with a projected release window beyond 2021.

Sorry to break it to you mate, but Chris King left Paradox in 2019...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186013868700643328

 

[Atreides]

Sorry to break it to you mate, but Chris King left Paradox in 2019...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186013868700643328

Oh we have known that for quite some time. There is another comment from Johan that King had basically finished whatever design task Paradox had given him in 2016. Around the same time that we learned King left, Wiz left Stellaris to take over Game Director for an unannounced project - presumably King's project - but we have no confirmation of that.