Paradox should really pay attention to this review

[unmerged(177078)]

usually, when people start laughing its a sign of weakness. so you've pretty much shot yourself there in the foot.

says who? you? Laughing at you is hardly weakness, my friend.

to answer your questions

1. the intent was not to sound 'all clever and deep and meaningful', the intent was to put a logical point(s) into the argument and make my case as you clearly were against the point being made.

That's good.

2. thats the point. as ridiculous as it sounds to you, whether it is plausible to you or not, identifying where the line is drawn is mutually objective, to a certain point. each person's line, each soceity's line is subjective. however, it does not mean that implausible situations, as ridiculous as it sounds to you, are not plausible. otherwise you limit your alternatives and limit yourself to what is plausible or not. only hindsight gives a person authority on what is plausible or not. whether its technically achievable or not, is another case. however, if you put your mind to it and if the will and neccissity is there, the implausable becomes an alternative. in response to your moon idea with mussolini; i have one better for you, fdr+truman et al= atom bomb, who during ww2 would have that that was plausible in developing such a destructive weapon before the end of the war? (rhetorical, dont answer) certainly not einstein. if you didnt understand that from my post, then that is your problem. and regarding the moon idea, it wasnt too long after ww2 that kennedy made the decision to send someone to the moon from the same ww2 generation. so your implausiblity, allowed the americans to send a man to the moon first.

You live in a dream world. How about mars? how about pluto? Obviously there are a bunch of stupid examples I could use. According to you, nothing is impossible within the ww2 timeline... "oh Mars landings started 50ish years after WW2, that's within 1 person's lifetime, so it's plausible".

I want to play a game based upon reality, not fantasy. Most others on this forum feel the same way. Finland should not be able to invade islands in the Pacific because of unlimited naval range. If the Finland AI can somehow find it beneficial to risk forces in the capture of a remote island in the Pacific while SU is knocking on it's door, then I guess I could just pretend that the AI is simulating a really bad or mentally unstable commander. But giving the AI the ability to load the army on to some transports and sail it around the world without stopping, while the country that happens to be played by the human can not, is hardly realistic. And it's implausible.

3. from my own experience, teachers, in most cases, are limited in scope and awareness and are generally dumb. it all depends on the individual being taught and the teacher. if the individual is genuinely interested in learning and the teacher is genuinely interested in teaching, then it is the teacher's responsiblity to identify the pupil and enhance the pupil's knowledge, whether in military warfare or math, science etc. whether the teacher is able to enhance this ability or not is evident in our world today. generally, a world full of mediocrity is not classified as teachers succeeding in their jobs. unfortunately, today, teachers are expected to accomplish miracles with a generation of obsolute imbeciles who in most cases, do not go to school to learn, rather it is a compulsory duty. hence to answer your question, its subjective and it all depends on the teacher and pupil. sure, they're adults, in age.

You are big at generalisations by claiming that teachers are dumb... classy. If you blame the state of the world on teachers failing at their jobs, it's probably partly your fault by recognizing this but not doing enough to either support or improve them.

this is probably the last i'll post in your way as you clearly wasted my time in replying with my point. my reason of posting was to drive the message 'home' to you. that you sir, are retarded. "arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded". unfortunately for me, i'm classified with you in this as i have allowed myself to reply back to your obvious neglect of understanding what i've written in the context of the point being made in the original post. whether you understand it, interpret it wrongly, that would be your problem.

It doesn't take much to understand you. Nonetheless it appears that I am retarded because I like to keep a ww2 game based upon reality while you like to say that anything is possible? Awesome. You are true class.

 

[AlanC9]

Well, along the lines of this post.

I refused to watch Transformers because of my horrible experience with Michael Bay and Pearl Harbor. That movie was dreadful.

It's not unthinkable that the same could happen with future Paradox releases because of the clearly unsatisfactory previous releases.

"The same could happen"? You mean, go on to gigantic financial success despite the crappiness of the product? Yeah, I'm sure Paadox is shivering with fear at that prospect.

 

[Rithral]

mutually objective, to a certain point. each person's line, each soceity's line is subjective. however, it does not mean that implausible situations, as ridiculous as it sounds to you, are not plausible. otherwise you limit your alternatives and limit yourself to what is plausible or not. only hindsight gives a person authority on what is plausible or not. whether its technically achievable or not, is another case. however, if you put your mind to it and if the will and neccissity is there, the implausable becomes an alternative.

My english friends on the other side of the pond have a good word for the above post. Drivel

This is what happens when some one takes philosophy 101 and gets wrapped up in discussions of objectivity that involve both metaphysics and epistemology. AKA the philosophical discussions of "reality". They concern themselves about the ways in which reality is (or isn't), in some way dependent upon mental and cultural factors such as beliefs, perceptions, cultural artifacts and other mental states. Oh and lets not forget religions / political world views.

Look something is either a plausible outcome or it is not. Yes rational people can disagree about the degree of plausibility. Rational people can also agree what is not plausible.

This is where the pseudo intellectual mind armed with philosophy 101 says,

"AH but who gets to decide who are the rational people? Isn't rationality determined by cultural factors, beliefs and perceptions? Identifying where the line is drawn is mutually objective, to a certain point. each person's line, each society’s line is subjective.”

This is a historical war game the is based on reality. Not on objective reality. Not reality as experienced through a cultural prism. Plan old hard, cold, unfair, brutal reality.

 

[unmerged(10370)]

from my own experience, teachers, in most cases, are limited in scope and awareness and are generally dumb.

Associate Professor in Cryptology here. Your arguments are conveyed like an insecure 17 year old. Youre wrong about everything you posted on this thread.

 

[unmerged(177078)]

My english friends on the other side of the pond have a good word for the above post. Drivel

This is what happens when some one takes philosophy 101 and gets wrapped up in discussions of objectivity that involve both metaphysics and epistemology.

Yup. I met a guy who was just about to finish philosophy 101 at a party just as we were about to pull out the dessert. He tried to get all philosophical about the cake. I just ate it.

Associate Professor in Cryptology here. Your arguments are conveyed like an insecure 17 year old. Youre wrong about everything you posted on this thread.

Excellent.

Cryptology must be interesting.

 

[Fortium]

"The same could happen"? You mean, go on to gigantic financial success despite the crappiness of the product? Yeah, I'm sure Paadox is shivering with fear at that prospect.

Doubtful... they'd have to start making the computer gaming equivalent of Transformers... when they struggle so hard with the computer gaming equivalent of Pearl Harbor... literally and figuratively! Hehe.

 

[unmerged(154518)]

I bought the game right after release knowing it would be buggy (it's Paradox, after all), but playable. Boy, was I wrong; so many things didn't work it wasn't worth the time or effort. Eventually I gave up on it and decided I'd give it another shot when patch 1.3 came out. There were plenty of other games out that work just fine right out of the box (e.g., Dragon's Age, Dead Space) so why bother? Let Paradox fix this colossal mess and I'd get back to them once the game came out of beta.

Patch 1.3 was released and still no joy; the game was still clearly not up to par. I only got to mess around with it a little bit before my Windows IDE drive utterly died, requiring a Newegg order and a fresh install, but even that small amount of time was enough to determine that patch 1.3 wasn't nearly enough.

Today I finally got around to finishing the install (lagged a bit; I have a Linux dual boot and only use Windows for games), so I reinstalled HOI3 and patched it with the intent of seeing if I couldn't mod it some more to gloss over the real game-breakers. Just this evening, in fact.

I started going over my modded files and moving them into the main game directory...and then I wondered what the hell I was doing, and why. Y'see, unlike the previous HOI games, or the previous EU games, I realized as I was doing this that I just didn't give two shits about the game. About 15 minutes ago, in fact, while searching this forum for a previous post.

That's new, for me; caring so little about a Paradox game that I'd rather be doing just about anything else than playing it. But there you have it; HOI3 is so unimpressive and so annoying, even at patch 1.3, that I don't want to spend any more time on it at all.

So I'm going to uninstall it and shelve it. Unless I see somewhere that the game is radically improved over the crappy state it's in right now, I don't intend to ever install it again. As for future Paradox games? Fool me once, and all that. Any future purchases, if there are any, will be at least a year after the game is released, when it's in the $10 bin at my local computer game store, and then only if people are raving about it.

I doubt anyone at Paradox will care about the loss of a single customer, but at least I'll be content in the knowledge that this particular company won't be bending me over and ramming it home in the future.

 

[Mooncabbage]

OK so I just wanted to say my piece.

First of all, who the hell thinks philosophy is relevant outside of philosophy? It is NOT science. It's a largely useless arts degree. A bit like history but less awesome.

That asside, I want to say that I discovered the Paradox games only a few years ago, being a big TW fan before that. Many people were frustrated with the experience there and suggested I try EU3. Which I did, and I thought the original game was brilliant. Ofcourse now having played all the expansions I can't go back, but it was certainly very enjoyable. Since that time, and prior to the release of HOI3, i bought HOI2 from a bargain bin (with the expansions) and gave that a go. Boy was that a struggle. I'm sure it's a brilliant game in there somewhere, but I could NOT get past the learning curve. Not so with HOI3. I will happily admit that my first few incomplete games were disasterous but I did manage to pick it up AND CONTINUE PLAYING despite numerous CTDs. Yes you do get some very unrealistic things happening, but this seems somewhat mitigated by a later start, with most things already on track towards a historical(ish) ending.

There are ofcourse many things that can and probably will be improved, in the expansion packs. For one, the interface certainly needs a lot of work. Managing your armies is a total nightmare. Some kind of branching tree structure really needs to be implimented. I also think that the medium and minor factions need balancing, and research needs a redesign, probably to seperate it from officers/spies/diplomacy, which could perhaps be drawn from a seperate "government" pool or something.

I know many of you aren't happy with HOI3, having come from a very complete HOI2. I personally think the number of actual BUGS, esp. CTDs are basically unforgiveable, except for the fact that SOMETHING made me reload every time. That's not something that normally happens. And maybe it's just me, but I have so far got more play time out of my HOI3 purchase than I have from any other game in a long time, excepting EU3 and Empire: Total War and that's only because I was modding it.

So perhaps HOI3 is total crap in relation to the awesomeness of the other, more complete PI games, but in relation to the rest of the industry? How many hours of gameplay are in Modern Warfare 2? And speaking as an Total War fanboy, atleast you know PI will fix the issues eventually, rather than releasing what's basically an expansion pack as a whole new game, a year after a largely broken, unfinished, unfixed and unsupported release which will shortly be forgotten aobut. (I'm looking at you CA.)

 

[vota dc]

The reviewer doesn't paid enough attention on the flaws that can't be fixed with modding.I mean things like the minister screen when you click on other nations and other features quite "useless" but that add a lot of flavour and are decisive to convert who is not already a fan of Hearts of Iron.

I bought the game right after release knowing it would be buggy (it's Paradox, after all), but playable. Boy, was I wrong; so many things didn't work it wasn't worth the time or effort. Eventually I gave up on it and decided I'd give it another shot when patch 1.3 came out. There were plenty of other games out that work just fine right out of the box (e.g., Dragon's Age, Dead Space) so why bother? Let Paradox fix this colossal mess and I'd get back to them once the game came out of beta.

But that is not true for grand strategy games or RTS that are always bugged on release...at least the more recent titles.

 

[unmerged(139259)]

Why not have an option for historical game and ahistorical anything goes?That would satisfy both sides,those that want historical and those that want fantasy/ahistorical.

Hmm, I think that rather an arbitrary option for historical or unhistorical game, simply better AI would be right thing. All it needs to do is to behave more or less historically and react to the player's possible unhistorical actions (but still within historical conditions).

That would be far better solution for the game and also for both the groups. But now it seems that the game can sadly satisfy only those who have bought a WW2 game and didn't want to see much from WW2 actually... If such a fantasy interpretation of WW2 is Paradox's policy for HOI3 and won't be changed by the future patches, then I surely would rather wait for HOI4.