The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?

[NCreepy]

I guess nobody could point out flaws in my argument. I mean it isn't that hard to know that in a couple of years Paradox won't be the same, as they want to water down their games to simplistic casual MP games for the sake of profit but at the expense of people who enjoyed Victoria 2, EU3 and Crusader kings 2.

EU3 is my least played EU game, not because it is supposed to be complex and hard or whatever, but i was unhappy about some of the changes from 2 -> 3. Historical event part mainly. It became to random but i got over it in EU4, sort of. Sometimes it's to much Yatzy with the events and so on.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

Ultimately if making the game easier, casualising it and reducing depth results in a larger player base spending more money then that is the way things will go. What company would intentionally harm their revenue by appealing to the wishes of an opposed minority of its customers?

I'm mean as a player/customer you would be losing out in a great experience that was Paradox, I mean they could still focus on quality games but to bad they feel need to expand were complexity isn't fostered anymore.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Nobody at Paradox has ever argued that the AI isn't important. Johan said he didn't care about AI for *one specific issue*, which has then been taken out of context to mean that he doesn't care about the AI at all. As the person he hired specifically because he cared about improving AI, that one is always good for a laugh for me.

Indeed, but the role of the AI as either a competitor or as a simple in-game mechanic piece is an important distinction. I hope I've been correct to infer that EU strives for the former, especially as it does factor prominently even in MP games. The AI is not a thinking human being with long-range planning, but it is still important to choose whether its play attempts to fill the role of a human best it can or if it's meant as an obstacle or mechanic indistinct from say manpower recovery rate or war score.

I was less bothered by that statement than I was about the reasoning for the long truce time, but I know not everyone sees it the same way .

I guess nobody could point out flaws in my argument. I mean it isn't that hard to know that in a couple of years Paradox won't be the same, as they want to water down their games to simplistic casual MP games for the sake of profit but at the expense of people who enjoyed Victoria 2, EU3 and Crusader kings 2. That being said i fully enjoy all their current title and i hope they won't move in the disastrous idea of the casualization of Paradox.

You need a stream of new players, or your hardcore base shrinks. I don't see any evidence of this game going particularly casual and player accounts of how it relates to earlier iterations are conflicting, but pulling in casual players and making the game accessible to them is useful to everyone. The question is whether this has a material impact on the impact of skill at high levels of play.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

Yours isn't really an argument. You're just saying something bad will happen to Paradox games because that's what you think. Making broad and sweeping generalizations about a bunch of different games and how they compare to Paradox doesn't warrant your prediction.

These "predictions" aren't based out of this air, the trend today for a game franchise is to build "fan-boy" base that is complacent in its every move and then milk the series to death, there are examples everywhere in the gaming industry.I've seen this before many times in others gaming series and i can tell Paradox is moving in that general direction albeit slowly. I think the "predictions" are justified considering it happens independently to other gaming series, it's almost like natural evolution to sell out as a gaming company these days.

 

[Arilou]

Surely it's a design flaw if the content is so lacking that the players resort to 'messing about'?

Design flaw? It's a sandbox game. Messing about IS the content.

 

[Hamalcar Barca]

These "predictions" aren't based out of this air, the trend today for a game franchise is to build "fan-boy" base that is complacent in its every move and then milk the series to death, there are examples everywhere in the gaming industry.

So you just think Paradox games will end up like that because other games are like that? Why? Because they're 'casual'? They're easier to understand. They have different mechanics than the old games, but there's just as much gameplay there. But you think they'll keep getting more and more 'casual'? I understand what you're saying but you have no stated reason to think it other than it being your opinion. Paradox is run differently than other game companies. You can see that clearly. You post on these forums. Obviously they'll go towards profit, but that's not a detriment. It means they can have more money to develop more and better games.

 

[Red John]

Design flaw? It's a sandbox game. Messing about IS the content.

Really?

I'd always thought of it was a grand strategy game.

Guess we should edit the wikipedia page and change that, huh?

 

[lordelenath]

These "predictions" aren't based out of this air, the trend today for a game franchise is to build "fan-boy" base that is complacent in its every move and then milk the series to death, there are examples everywhere in the gaming industry.I've seen this before many times in others gaming series and i can tell Paradox is moving in that general direction albeit slowly.

That's what you call "cash cows" in economics and it's happens to pretty much all products sooner or later in their cycle - provided they even make it that far. Milking a franchise might be something you, or I, or other fans don't appreciate. But you should not assume it's necessarily a bad decision from a strategic point of view. There's a difference between "I (or: the old fan base) don't like these changes!" and "These changes will not pay off." And a lot of franchises show that it can be perfectly sensible to 'casualize' a game to increase the target audience. It's not like AAA-Games aren't making money any more and you'd probably call most of these 'casualized'.

 

[Hamalcar Barca]

Design flaw? It's a sandbox game. Messing about IS the content.

I agree with this. There is no end goal. You make your own objectives. There are missions to guide you along, historically or otherwise just to give you something to shoot for, but there's no end mission where the credits roll. Paradox games have everything but a lack of content. You can be any nation you want in any part of the world, and it's a unique experience every time. Plus, they continue to add more content.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

So you just think Paradox games will end up like that because other games are like that? Why? Because they're 'casual'? They're easier to understand. They have different mechanics than the old games, but there's just as much gameplay there. But you think they'll keep getting more and more 'casual'? I understand what you're saying but you have no stated reason to think it other than it being your opinion. Paradox is run differently than other game companies. You can see that clearly. You post on these forums. Obviously they'll go towards profit, but that's not a detriment. It means they can have more money to develop more and better games.

Not necessarily, I mean I'm sure many of the new players will enjoy the casual game play and for some it's even a positive. I think it affects more people who like a semi-realistic complex world were they could be immersed for hours, which i think is what the actual base of Paradox is.

 

[NCreepy]

Only the future will show what Paradox games will be like. Predicting how they will be is going to be impossible. It would all be assumptions based on apparent changes in their current games. Assuming the worst is bad for you and makes one seem to be negative. It's better to wait and see, and if the games they make in the future is bad there will simply be a no buy policy for me personally.

 

[Hamalcar Barca]

Really?

I'd always thought of it was a grand strategy game.

Guess we should edit the wikipedia page and change that, huh?

Can't it be both? It's an open ended grand strategy game.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

Only the future will show what Paradox games will be like. Predicting how they will be is going to be impossible. It would all be assumptions based on apparent changes in their current games. Assuming the worst is bad for you and makes one seem to be negative. It's better to wait and see, and if the games they make in the future is bad there will simply be a no buy policy for me personally.

I agree with you but when you see great game franchise turning into bland,generic and boring games its quite alarming.

 

[lordelenath]

Not necessarily, I mean I'm sure many of the new players will enjoy the casual game play and for some it's even a positive. I think it affects more people who like a semi-realistic complex world were they could be immersed for hours, which i think is what the actual base of Paradox is.

Well, the numbers indicate that you simply might be wrong. The player base for Paradox' games seems to be pretty happy with the general direction of the game - after all, sales and revenues are increasing. Personally I think you're making generalizations because you don't like something - which is perfectly fine, I agree with some points in this threads. But there's simply no implication whatsoever that the majority has the same problems with the game as you.

 

[NCreepy]

I agree with you but when you see great game franchise turning into bland,generic and boring games its quite alarming.

It would be sad yes. I've been playing games since the late 80s and seen quite a few developer shrivel and die over the years.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Nobody at Paradox has ever argued that the AI isn't important. Johan said he didn't care about AI for *one specific issue*, which has then been taken out of context to mean that he doesn't care about the AI at all. As the person he hired specifically because he cared about improving AI, that one is always good for a laugh for me.

Yeah, and I understand this Wiz, and I also admire what you have done to the AI so far. The AI of EU4 is far superior to anything I see in any other strategy game. Galactic Civilizations II is the only game up there.

My response was more to those who claimed earlier in this thread that Paradoxian multiplayer focus is taking away from the focus on the AI. They seem to think AI isn't important for multiplayer in this game, and by that logic they seem to think Paradox choose to neglect it.

 

[Red John]

Yeah, and I understand this Wiz, and I also admire what you have done to the AI so far. My response was more to those who might claim that Paradoxian multiplayer focus is taking away from the the focus on the AI. They seem to think AI isn't important for multiplayer in this game

It... Isn't.

In multiplayer, the AI is decimated. There is no stopping it. The AE is spread out enough that hilariously wonky AI coalitions seen in SP never occur.

The only time the AI is relevant is the 1st and 2nd sessions. After that, not so much.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

Well, the numbers indicate that you simply might be wrong. The player base for Paradox' games seems to be pretty happy with the general direction of the game - after all, sales and revenues are increasing. Personally I think you're making generalizations because you don't like something - which is perfectly fine, I agree with some points in this threads. But there's simply no implication whatsoever that the majority has the same problems with the game as you.

I don't see it as a problem in the immediate now but probably in a couple of years, Because they'll probably diminish and diminish even more in the coming years considering such titles as HOI4 and EU4.

 

[Hamalcar Barca]

I agree with you but when you see great game franchise turning into bland,generic and boring games its quite alarming.

I really don't understand. Are you still talking about future Paradox games (that don't exist yet) that will eventually reach the climax of bad and casual, or are you talking about their games now? I, and many others, like their games right now. Neither you or I can predict what future games will look like.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

I really don't understand. Are you still talking about future Paradox games (that don't exist yet) that will eventually reach the climax of bad and casual, or are you talking about their games now? I, and many others, like their games right now. Neither you or I can predict what future games will look like.

I meant franchises of other great games have turned horrible in the recent years and that it's quite alarming to see Paradox moving anywhere near that direction.