Sticking with EU2

[kbromer]

Since I KNOW how much Paradox cares about my personal opinion on this matter, I thought I might toss my two cents in

______________________________________________________________
<my two cents>

The problem isn't the 3D map, it's what that 3D map does, which is make the game inaccessible to many of the hardcore strategy-gamers out there who never had to nor wanted to deal with fancy-graphics and all of the related issues.

At the same time, for all of the Civ4/TW/etc. fanboys out there, the graphics may well be considered quite behind the times, relatively speaking.

The end result, IMHO, is a game too visually distracting to satisfy hardcore strategy gamers, and not distracting enough for those who like to push the concievable limit of pixelation.

This is not to say that it won't eventually be modified to better fit the Paradox "way of doing things", but rather that I definitely won't buy it out of the box, as it soon becomes a $200 purchase for me (~$50 for the game and $150 for a cheap graphics card)

BTW, for an interesting look at some non-Paradox fanboy reactions, check out some of the comments at the gamespot.com site, quite a few people already issuing the standard "yeah, but it doesn't look as good as the TW series" Which, I agree is BS, but seems to be a common reaction nonetheless.

All that being said, still love Paradox, still love what they do, just not sure EU3 is the right game for me.

</my two cents>

 

[unmerged(46678)]

YEAH.
I don't like the 3D idea too. It's a strategy game. So... focusing on the 'strategy' part is enough.

After playing the demo, I'm really displeased with the new graphical interface and I thought Paradox should know. If anyone feels the same, please speak up.

I play HOI2, Victoria, and EU2, and I like the nice, simple, flat maps that those games have. Victoria's map is best, I think. It's smooth, easy to see, and it doesn't require a good graphics card. EU3, however, has choppy scrolling, an obnoxious camera tilt when I try to zoom in, slower gameplay due to rendering, and it's just ugly. When I click on a province the bottom half of my screen disappears into a huge and unnecessary panel with a bad 3D rendering of a town. A bunch of different things pop up in different places rather than staying in one nice predictable sidebar.

I'm not just trying to insult you. You guys put your effort into gameplay, depth, and historical research. That's exactly where all the effort should go. There is absolutely no reason to put it in 3D when a nice flat map works just fine. People who play Paradox games are not the kind of gamers who demand fancy graphics.

I won't be buying EU3 for this reason. I find the new interface intolerable. I hope enough people agree that you'll consider returning to simple graphics in your next game.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

The old 2D maps are better. It's a fact. But it has nothing to do with what people prefer or what the map looks like. The fact of the matter is that the 2D maps are easier on the eyes. If you need to scroll and click quickly or you like to because your brain just works fast, the 2D maps make this possible. You can think, then scroll, then click faster on them.

RTS games are a good example of this. Starcraft and AOE2 have yet to beaten and they are so old. They were well designed by being 2D with thick black outlines around everything that needs to be clicked. The EU2 map has those thick black outlines around the provinces.

3D maps cause more eyestrain. Paradox didn't need to make a new map. EU2 used the old EU1 map. It just had some more provinces. That's all they needed to do and EU3 would have been a great success.

 

[OHgamer]

The sad truth of the matter is that in the video/computer game industry if you are going to get any shelf space in the major retailers, you really have to be 3D - otherwise the purchase managers who decide what stores stock and where they will be displayed will not stock the game. why should they stock even a couple copies of a new 2D game designed for a few niche grognards when that space can be given to Civ4 which is at least keeping up with the technology.

Especially in the USA, where the shelf space for PC games is already reduced to the back corner of the store, with maybe 10% of all shelfspace in the store vs the flood of console titles, unless the developers keep up with the direction of the industry (which is towards 3D) they will simply be relegated to complete "niche" status and not stocked at all - and players will be told if they want the game, order it online from a "specialty dealer who handles niche titles", since very often stores will decide not only to not stock titles in brick & mortar, but also not list 'low volume" titles if they have an online retail presence, since they would likely not have stocks on hand to fill such orders.

In the end, going to 3D is a question of economic reality. Stay with 2D, and be seen in the industry as uninventive, conservative (nay, reactionary), and struggle to find new customers who have become so used to the adoption of the new 3D technology they can't imagine playing anything so "old school" in look and feel.

Paradox, like any business, has to continually grow its customer base if it is going to be able to move forward in terms of the development of new titles. And given the direction game development is going today, that means 3D has to be incorporated. It comes down to capitalism 101, if you fail to respond to changes in market preferences, your growth slows, then atrophies as the original customer base moves on with no new customers to take their place.

For those of us who have been loyal fans for years, that can be a tough pill to swallow, especially if we do not like the direction that the industry itself is evolving towards. but in the end, while Paradox I'm sure values us as customers, over time our numbers will decrease and if they do not replace us with new customers who have different expectations of what a computer game needs to contain to be considered "contemporary" then you end up as a business owner stuck in a "niche" with a stagnant customer base slowly shrinking over time.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

The sad truth of the matter is that in the video/computer game industry if you are going to get any shelf space in the major retailers, you really have to be 3D - otherwise the purchase managers who decide what stores stock and where they will be displayed will not stock the game. why should they stock even a couple copies of a new 2D game designed for a few niche grognards when that space can be given to Civ4 which is at least keeping up with the technology.

Especially in the USA, where the shelf space for PC games is already reduced to the back corner of the store, with maybe 10% of all shelfspace in the store vs the flood of console titles, unless the developers keep up with the direction of the industry (which is towards 3D) they will simply be relegated to complete "niche" status and not stocked at all - and players will be told if they want the game, order it online from a "specialty dealer who handles niche titles", since very often stores will decide not only to not stock titles in brick & mortar, but also not list 'low volume" titles if they have an online retail presence, since they would likely not have stocks on hand to fill such orders.

In the end, going to 3D is a question of economic reality. Stay with 2D, and be seen in the industry as uninventive, conservative (nay, reactionary), and struggle to find new customers who have become so used to the adoption of the new 3D technology they can't imagine playing anything so "old school" in look and feel.

Paradox, like any business, has to continually grow its customer base if it is going to be able to move forward in terms of the development of new titles. And given the direction game development is going today, that means 3D has to be incorporated. It comes down to capitalism 101, if you fail to respond to changes in market preferences, your growth slows, then atrophies as the original customer base moves on with no new customers to take their place.

For those of us who have been loyal fans for years, that can be a tough pill to swallow, especially if we do not like the direction that the industry itself is evolving towards. but in the end, while Paradox I'm sure values us as customers, over time our numbers will decrease and if they do not replace us with new customers who have different expectations of what a computer game needs to contain to be considered "contemporary" then you end up as a business owner stuck in a "niche" with a stagnant customer base slowly shrinking over time.

I think that stores would still stock EU3. They'll do it because they sold EU2 and often still do. Maybe stores with smaller selections won't. And I don't think that the new 3D graphics are going to get alot of people to be into Paradox games. I don't doubt, however, that it will increase the initial sales of EU3. But after that I don't think it really offers an advantage. Most people who like these campaign-type strategy games don't care about the graphics. It's the teenagers that care about that stuff.

 

[kbromer]

OHgamer, as usual you bring up an interesting point. The question you raise to my mind is: "Is Paradox a mainstream development studio, or is it a software company focused on a niche market?"

What's interesting to me is that Paradox seemingly wants both, developing niche games (which, strategy games really are, at least those at the Paradox level of detail...) with some type of crossover appeal. And this, I believe, is why EU3 is the way it is, and unfortunately the reason I probably won't buy it right away (well, that and needing to install new hardware to run it...)

I guess it just surprises me, because niche companies do survive and thrive precisely because they do one thing very well. (Hell, any Thomas Friedman drones out there will probably point out that this is the wave of the future...) So it was a bit confusing to see Paradox move away from what they do best, and dabble in something which, albeit is more commercially viable from a "brick & mortar" perspective, probably isn't in tune with what the vast majority of their purchasing public desires.

OTOH, I haven't exactly seen Paradox's marketing research, so I'm willing to acknowledge they know something I don't

<sigh> Well... I'll just keep my fingers crossed for that 1.3 DD patch, non-3D CK2, and that Roman-Era strategy game engine from Paradox with original MTW tactical graphics for battles that I've been missing for all of these years

 

[unmerged(3931)]

Why not have have both a 2D mode and a 3D mode? I know, it is extra programming and time to market. However, it could have been designed with a patch in mind for a 2D mode. I said it before that this 3D is not a good thing. I hate to say I told you so.

 

[EUnderhill]

Why would a big-box store sell a 2D game when they can sell a 3D game that makes 5% or so of the customers buy a new graphics card as well?

 

[unmerged(12990)]

OHgamer, as usual you bring up an interesting point. The question you raise to my mind is: "Is Paradox a mainstream development studio, or is it a software company focused on a niche market?"

What's interesting to me is that Paradox seemingly wants both, developing niche games (which, strategy games really are, at least those at the Paradox level of detail...) with some type of crossover appeal. And this, I believe, is why EU3 is the way it is, and unfortunately the reason I probably won't buy it right away (well, that and needing to install new hardware to run it...)

I guess it just surprises me, because niche companies do survive and thrive precisely because they do one thing very well. (Hell, any Thomas Friedman drones out there will probably point out that this is the wave of the future...) So it was a bit confusing to see Paradox move away from what they do best, and dabble in something which, albeit is more commercially viable from a "brick & mortar" perspective, probably isn't in tune with what the vast majority of their purchasing public desires.

OTOH, I haven't exactly seen Paradox's marketing research, so I'm willing to acknowledge they know something I don't

<sigh> Well... I'll just keep my fingers crossed for that 1.3 DD patch, non-3D CK2, and that Roman-Era strategy game engine from Paradox with original MTW tactical graphics for battles that I've been missing for all of these years

I couldn't agree with you more. Sure, vey detailed, hard-to-learn strategy games are a niche thing. But such niche games almost always get a loyal fanbase, who buys and plays them, and is grateful for each and every new title, because there is such a huge lack of good titles out there at the moment.

But trying to appeal to a broader mass of people, while understandable from the developer's viewpoint, is IMHO not a good thing. A lot of the fans might not support the developer anymore, because the games become too mainstream for them, but without flashy graphics, and with still a lot of details and a steep learning curve, they won't get many new "mainstream" fans as well.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

 

[EUnderhill]

I couldn't agree with you more. Sure, vey detailed, hard-to-learn strategy games are a niche thing. But such niche games almost always get a loyal fanbase, who buys and plays them, and is grateful for each and every new title, because there is such a huge lack of good titles out there at the moment.

But trying to appeal to a broader mass of people, while understandable from the developer's viewpoint, is IMHO not a good thing. A lot of the fans might not support the developer anymore, because the games become too mainstream for them, but without flashy graphics, and with still a lot of details and a steep learning curve, they won't get many new "mainstream" fans as well.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

Given that the software market is one with little recourse for buyer's regret from the standpoint of the seller, appeal to a broader market much of which will say "tHiS suxXx lol" allows the uninformed purchaser to subsidize the game for the few of us that appreciate the niche title.

 

[Havard]

Why not have have both a 2D mode and a 3D mode?

Hm... I wonder why not...

I know, it is extra programming and time to market.

Oh, yes. There it is!

 

[phoranix]

the argument: one has to do a 3D map is not an argument here, since the 3D map is ugly, since scrolling and zooming isnt going fluently.

2D looked better, was less annoying, faster.

i still cant believe paradox did let this to happen..... it so amateurish .....

(and: its not only about fancy graphs, the 3D map influences gameplay in a negative way, not just for the looks but for scrolling and zooming and moving around).

its so sad, because the gameplay/engine looks very promising.....

 

[AlenlorDRot]

I'm sticking with EU2 also for the time being. I'm not going to upgrade my graphics hardware for this game. I do look forward to buying it cheaper, full of patches, and with many mods when I do get around to upgrading.

I think EU2 will be better for some things anyway. The extensive modding like AGCEEP won't be available for EU3 for a long time, if ever.

 

[CatKnight]

Have you taken a poll or do you issue fiat from your verbal orifice?

It occurs to me that Ordo has the same right to an opinion that you or I do. No one's required to agree with anyone, you know.


I have mixed feelings. A lot of people don't like the blockiness of the map - the provinces look like someone drew them on a piece of hexagon-gridded paper like a boardgame.... I like that. It gives me a sense of nostalgia.

Now, the near top-down view on the units, ships, flags...not so much. I hope that's changed at some point. The pastels on the map don't please me either.

Still, I don't buy Paradox games for the graphics. I like my maps to make some sense (so yes, I prefer Vicky's to EU2's) and be easily readable (ditto). Other than that I'm willing to give some leeway.

I think I'm in the majority here, which is why I disagree that poor graphics will scare off many of Paradox's core constituents. People who were going to buy the game anyway...will.

Now the problem I think is that a good number - possibly even the majority - have computers that can't meet or barely match EU3's specs. If that's true, not only does it damage the integrity of the core constituency (thus sales), it may have a detrimental effect on those n00bs who would've joined us with EU3, but can't.

I don't know. As OHGamer says, it's a tough call. 2D/3D games like Starcraft, Diablo etc. are still played and well beloved...but their days are numbered. It's true that Paradox has always been a niche company, but you know..niches need to be maintained. People move on. If more people don't move in to fill the gaps, the niche dies. Paradox dies. They have to take steps to keep their visibility up so the next group of political/wargame enthusiasts can find them.

I wish they stayed with a 2D map too....but I remember a time when I thought moving away from a square grid for computer RPG combat was a stupid idea too.

I'd say if you're not going to play EU3...fair enough. I'll need to see more before I commit, myself. However, you've said it yourself: Paradox games aren't supposed to be pretty, they're supposed to be filling. Don't not play because you think it's ugly. Tell me the dynamic events don't work for you. Tell me national ideas are annoying. Tell me you colonized South America as Serbia by 1480 and you can't live with that. Gameplay issues - that's a reason not to play. Not this.

 

[Havard]

I'd say if you're not going to play EU3...fair enough. I'll need to see more before I commit, myself. However, you've said it yourself: Paradox games aren't supposed to be pretty, they're supposed to be filling. Don't not play because you think it's ugly. Tell me the dynamic events don't work for you. Tell me national ideas are annoying. Tell me you colonized South America as Serbia by 1480 and you can't live with that. Gameplay issues - that's a reason not to play. Not this.

Yeah. That's how I feel about it too

And yes, I will get EU3. If I'm lucky my CE will arrive today. And after betatesting this for some months now, I know what I am going to...

 

[Judge]

I did download the EUIII demo to check the files. Looks very easy to mod but it is still the old trade system. Compared to AGCEEP with a new map (downloaded the WATK map yesterday) with tons of new provinces EU III is not such a giant step forward as I thought it would be. If EU III would have a much more detailed map and a new trading system, well then I might be more inclined to look for a new graphic card but now it is not worth all that trouble.

 

[Quift]

Yeah, can't play it either on my 6 months old work lap top. And I wont buy a completely new computer only for this (when I can do everything else on this one).

Eagerly waiting for the 2D-mod which should be out within a month.

 

[Vricklund]

I did download the EUIII demo to check the files. Looks very easy to mod but it is still the old trade system. Compared to AGCEEP with a new map (downloaded the WATK map yesterday) with tons of new provinces EU III is not such a giant step forward as I thought it would be. If EU III would have a much more detailed map and a new trading system, well then I might be more inclined to look for a new graphic card but now it is not worth all that trouble.

Sheesh. I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Judge.

I really liked the national ideas, the dynamic events, mil/naval tradition but all the weak parts of eu2 are still in there - trade, colonisation, game balance. Paradox focused on the wrong aspects and the result is a game that leaves me totally unimpressed.

 

[pingu]

A couple of rebuttals...

I just wanted to add my two cents to this discussion (I have posted other, more reconciliatory words elsewhere at the EU3 forum)

I too agree that the transition to a 3D map was a step back for the series. I do not object to 3D on principle; I think 3D graphics can serve some purpose even on strategy games if done thoughtfully.

However, when the end result is like the one in EU3 I do not find much merit in the transition. The graphics are not as clear as before and do not convey as much info (for instance, can you tell which resource each province produces just by looking at the map? Can you easily tell where a CoT is?). The argument that 3D enables eye candy (which I see popping up all over the place) is a pointless one since the game (EU3) does not look as good as previous Paradox games (Vicky, CK). The second argument that has been going around about the new engine is that it "improves on mod-ability". Of course it does, but it has nothing to do with the 3D graphics employed - I think this has been fairly well established in the EU forums. Finally, I am a bit disappointed to hear people say: "They have opted to go 3D and even though it doesn't look good now, it will look better for the next batch of games utilising the 3D map". That kind of reasoning is reasonable for managers but not for gamers - in short, EU3, judged on its own merit, is now not as good as it could have been because of the map.

All in all though, I think the decision to go 3D was the wrong one but it is (I believe) irreversible for two reasons:
(a) I think the devs will opt to improve the existing code rather than start from scratch on something else. This is the right decision, in my view, as Paradox has other franchises to work on as well (Vicky, CK) and improving on the existing engine will allow them to deliver the goods within a reasonable time frame. The map will be considerably tweaked in order to make it work faster/look better, so that in the end a mediocre (bearable) result will be achieved (maybe not for EU3 but certainly for later games).
(b) Game sales will not disappoint. Although the game's looks took a step back, its scope is grander than before, the scenarios much richer (more open to diverse possibilities), and the new considerations (papacy, holly roman empire, royal family ties and so on) make the game a very compelling proposition. Overall, let's face it, the verdict is a win and with Paradox's inequivalent support with patches and enhancements as well as a vibrant mod community, there is going to be a lot of excellent work done on this game in the next few months. Naturally, word of mouth will win out and sales will be ok.

Shame about the map though -- and the increased graphics card requirements

 

[tey216]

I dont think I will buy this game for a while maybe when it comes down in price and is patched up...

I agree with most of you...

I play paradox games for the simplicity of the game which lets me focus on the strategy blended with the historical aspect of it. I understand that paradox is trying to "get with the times" but if its not broke then dont fix it...

I also read somewhere were dice were put into the battle seen to help decide battles...Is this true...? If that is so then I really dont think I will buy this game...