The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?

[k_merse]

My main problem is the DLC system. DLCs are nothing more than bad excuses for not including something into the game what was supposed to be there from the beginning and instead demand money for it. Personally I'm outraged that many development studios release half completed games and then they demand extra money for the other half of the game in the form of DLCs. That's why I always download them from alternative sources. And if any developer has a problem with that, then cry me a river! You were supposed to finish the game by the release date. I'd rather pay 5 Euros more for a finished game on a two months laer release date than paying 5 Euros for a separate DLC. It's your choice

 

[CrabHelmet]

I for one welcome the "casualization" of CK2 (my first Paradox game) and EU4, as if the games were as complex as, say, HoI3 or Vicky 2, I wouldn't have played them, going instead to Civ V and my many RPGs (btw, Risen 3 is pretty cool! I'd kill for a Gothic I remake). I have enough digging for systemic gimmicks and running into hidden mechanisms at work.

With all its faults, EU4 is by now my most played Steam game, and in my lifetime top 5 anyway. It's engaging, rewarding and can be frustrating, and the most important thing to me was being able to play as underdogs like Mutapa or Dai Viet, while Total War games (I absolutely loved Medieval 1 & 2 and Rome 1) only offered the big guns to play...

I'm sorry the more hardcore of you folks are having a bad time with this - believe me when I say I know and understand the feeling. This time however I'm on the other side of the divide (even if I'd rather there was no divide and we were a big, cuddly family!) and that's how I see it.

I don't think CK2 was 'casualized'. It's actually a relatively complex game, and I think more complex than its predecessor, CK. It's just that complexity conveys itself in an intuitive way, through the form of character interactions, whereas, say, the only people who will find Victoria 2 immediately intuitive are people with some basic understanding of economics, because we don't think about real life 'POPs' the same way we do about social interaction.

EU4 is definitely worse than EU3, though.

 

[Cossack_PL]

Back in EU3/HoI3 the game was barely playable without the DLC, now these are just some extra features which aren't mandatory, you can enjoy the game without any DLCs if you prefer not to spend money at all. Personally, unless the DLC has some features I really want (like I was anticipating Res Publica mechanics for Poland and Netherlands), I only buy them on Steam sales when they are dirt cheap anyway.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

My main problem is the DLC system. DLCs are nothing more than bad excuses for not including something into the game what was supposed to be there from the beginning and instead demand money for it. Personally I'm outraged that many development studios release half completed games and then they demand extra money for the other half of the game in the form of DLCs. That's why I always download them from alternative sources. And if any developer has a problem with that, then cry me a river! You were supposed to finish the game by the release date. I'd rather pay 5 Euros more for a finished game on a two months laer release date than paying 5 Euros for a separate DLC. It's your choice

Pirating DLCs is really lame. I don't have anything against the DLC system, because Paradox has used it as a way to continue developing their games for years (CKII is over 2 years old and still gets major expansions and regular patches) and they also offer free patches to those who don't want to pay for extra content.

However I think that CKII has had more impressive DLCs than EUIV (for example The Old Gods and Rajas of India added whole lot of new content to the game, including new start date and map expansion). From EUIV expansions Conquest of Paradise has been my favourite DLC as it added completely new kind of playable states into EUIV (Native American tribal states and colonial states). So far most EUIV expansions have offered general improvements to gameplay mechanics, but (with the exception of Conquest of Paradise) they lack similar selling points as The Old Gods or Rajas of India, which would make them more attractive to average gamers.

I don't think CK2 was 'casualized'. It's actually a relatively complex game, and I think more complex than its predecessor, CK. It's just that complexity conveys itself in an intuitive way, through the form of character interactions, whereas, say, the only people who will find Victoria 2 immediately intuitive are people with some basic understanding of economics, because we don't think about real life 'POPs' the same way we do about social interaction.

EU4 is definitely worse than EU3, though.

Back in the day when I did my master's degree, I did courses about 19th century and early 20th century economic history and I feel that Vicky's market system isn't immediately intuitive.

 

[WeissRaben]

I miss Victoria 2's level of cure in every aspect of the game - which means, it was not Mariana's Trench deep out of its niche, but there was stuff to do in every possible occasion, for every possible playstyle.

In EU4, either you blob or you face decades and decades of speed 5 turbo-skipping. When an entire part of the "base material" (which is, the Modern Era) is completely missing, that's a game failed in its intended design ("incredible depth and historical accuracy"). Yes, even if it is successful.

 

[Miguel_k]

I don't play total war games any more because of lack of quality, huge amount of bugs, DLC with stuff that should had been in the game from the start, ect. IMO the base game should have a minimum of stuff included. Making a game were you only can play a few nations is stupid. Also all nations pretty much have the same units is also bad. The last realy good total war game made was MTW2, with was the last game without DLC. ETW was okay, but did not have the same quality. I have only played Shogun 2 - total war for about 10 hours, R2TW about 40 hours. When you compair that with EU3 (over 1000 hours), Crusader kings 2 (850 hours), EU4 (800 hours). Paradox games have until EU4 had a high standard with high support. EU4 is a good game, but could had been much better. They should stop making any more DLC untill they have fixed the bugs in EU4. I find it silly that the Byzantine missions still dont work correctly and this was one of the first DLC's. They should stop changing the single player game, in order to get a better multiplayer game. If there is a problem with multiplayer, then give it its own setup. I find it stupid that they had to make a 5-15 year truce system because some multiplayers suck at this game. EU3 gave the a lot of freedom, but sadly EU4 is more restictive.

 

[Trunting]

Well, back to the topic, the focus on multiplayer brings with it a few negative impacts on SP. While in multiplayer, you have fun due to the reactions of your fellow players, which are dynamic enough to entertain you over an entire game, in SP the AI is your only companion. The rest of this post I'm not gonna write, cause it can be concluded from its first sentence.

 

[Mendeth]

Sounds to me like the 'users' quoted by the OP want Vicky 2 in the EU timeline. Not going to happen I'm afraid. The EU series has, to my knowledge, always been primarily concerned with external relations rather than internal ones. Each paradox IP has it's own character. CK is character development and more an RPG-style grand strategy, EU is external relations during a specific time period, Vicky 2 is internal politics and industrialisation (although the crisis system is interesting the external relations in Vicky 2 aren't that interesting to me), HOI is the second world war. Each series does it's own thing and I can't see PDS crossing over between them, both for practical reasons and simple marketing/business (more individual games/series means more money).

I'm guessing few people here played EUIII? Although there were no monarch points in there, abstractions were still present. Welcome to gaming.

 

[WeissRaben]

Sounds to me like the 'users' quoted by the OP want Vicky 2 in the EU timeline. Not going to happen I'm afraid. The EU series has, to my knowledge, always been primarily concerned with external relations rather than internal ones. Each paradox IP has it's own character. CK is character development and more an RPG-style grand strategy, EU is external relations during a specific time period, Vicky 2 is internal politics and industrialisation (although the crisis system is interesting the external relations in Vicky 2 aren't that interesting to me), HOI is the second world war. Each series does it's own thing and I can't see PDS crossing over between them, both for practical reasons and simple marketing/business (more individual games/series means more money).

I'm guessing few people here played EUIII? Although there were no monarch points in there, abstractions were still present. Welcome to gaming.

EU3 had, at the very least, sliders. And no fictional UNIs, which is just as important. It was not much, but it was something. And then, they decided that the answer to "it's just something you do every ten years" wasn't "let's make it more engaging", but "let's axe it". Same with spy missions, same with provincial decisions.

 

[TheDecider]

I'm guessing few people here played EUIII? Although there were no monarch points in there, abstractions were still present. Welcome to gaming.

Using Seterra and EUIII I learned so much geography I didn't really need to learn much in school I remember that you could setup your own center of trade and I used a schema over different governments to figure out how I could get the maximum amount of magistrates, it was all about the magistrates.

 

[Sorellis]

DLCs are wonderful. I don't get why people don't like them. I love EU4 and love that I have the option of buying more content to make the game even more fun than it already is. The idea that it's "unfair" for companies to release DLC instead of including the content in the initial release is ridiculous.

 

[Dr. B]

Comparing EUIV with EUIII is like comparing a modern car to a donkey cart.

 

[Mendeth]

EU3 had, at the very least, sliders. And no fictional UNIs, which is just as important. It was not much, but it was something. And then, they decided that the answer to "it's just something you do every ten years" wasn't "let's make it more engaging", but "let's axe it". Same with spy missions, same with provincial decisions.

The sliders themselves weren't particularly great and with all the complaints about abstraction I fail to see how clicking a button every ten years and hoping not to get a rebel stack is any better than the current system. I'm not sure how a slider system could really be made much more engaging to be honest. In my opinion the same applies to spy missions and provincial decisions. Without a much more detailed breakdown of provincial populations (something which from the off PDS stated would not be happening) there's not really much more that could have been done to provincial decisions. They weren't really that great from what I remember and generally involved clicking a button every few years as the next decision (might as well have been a building) became available. I used to spend the most of my time in the ledger clicking endlessly on green arrows to build buildings or accept decisions.

EDIT:

Using Seterra and EUIII I learned so much geography I didn't really need to learn much in school I remember that you could setup your own center of trade and I used a schema over different governments to figure out how I could get the maximum amount of magistrates, it was all about the magistrates.

I certainly learnt a lot of geography from EUIII (ashamedly I was already at uni when it came out). New centres of trade were quite useful. I personally prefer the new trade system to that of EUIII, even though it's not perfect, and it's also worth pointing out for those decrying DLC/expansions that magistrates were a later addition (and an abstraction).

 

[WeissRaben]

Comparing EUIV with EUIII is like comparing a modern car to a donkey cart.

I would rather say it is like comparing a horrible car to a wonderful carriage. The latter is obviously obsolete, compared to the former, but the contest on which one is more beautiful is non-existent.

 

[blackchoas]

My main problem is the DLC system. DLCs are nothing more than bad excuses for not including something into the game what was supposed to be there from the beginning and instead demand money for it. Personally I'm outraged that many development studios release half completed games and then they demand extra money for the other half of the game in the form of DLCs. That's why I always download them from alternative sources. And if any developer has a problem with that, then cry me a river! You were supposed to finish the game by the release date. I'd rather pay 5 Euros more for a finished game on a two months laer release date than paying 5 Euros for a separate DLC. It's your choice

I'm sorry but do you feel the game that came out a year ago was not completed? I remember playing it, I didn't think it was some half finished piece of crap where I would have to buy the DLCs to actually play it. Thats right because it wasn't. Oh yeah and you don't actually have to buy the DLCs most of the stuff they add are actually free features. Oh and don't forget that the way multiplayer works is just the player who is hosting the game needs to own the DLC and then everyone in the game can use the DLC.

Frankly Paradox is so lax about DLC and probably goes farther than anyone in allowing you to work around/play just fine without buying DLC. I agree they are doing a bit of a nickel and dime charge business strategy but its a very common business model now and its effective and it allows them to dedicate serious long term support to a game instead of having maybe a few guys running on the back burning to make sure no serious bugs happen

 

[TheAtreides84]

I really don't see how EUIV is simpler than EUIII, or CKII simpler than CK. They have better UIs, some automatization, some abstractions, but they in no way they were dumbed down.

 

[zodium]

My main problem is the DLC system. DLCs are nothing more than bad excuses for not including something into the game what was supposed to be there from the beginning and instead demand money for it. Personally I'm outraged that many development studios release half completed games and then they demand extra money for the other half of the game in the form of DLCs. That's why I always download them from alternative sources. And if any developer has a problem with that, then cry me a river! You were supposed to finish the game by the release date. I'd rather pay 5 Euros more for a finished game on a two months laer release date than paying 5 Euros for a separate DLC. It's your choice

So at this point, you would rather they had delayed the game for over 12 months, then charged about $80 for the game? Good thing you don't make the decisions at Paradox, I guess.

 

[Alblaka]

I'm sorry but do you feel the game that came out a year ago was not completed? I remember playing it, I didn't think it was some half finished piece of crap where I would have to buy the DLCs to actually play it. Thats right because it wasn't. Oh yeah and you don't actually have to buy the DLCs most of the stuff they add are actually free features. Oh and don't forget that the way multiplayer works is just the player who is hosting the game needs to own the DLC and then everyone in the game can use the DLC.

Frankly Paradox is so lax about DLC and probably goes farther than anyone in allowing you to work around/play just fine without buying DLC. I agree they are doing a bit of a nickel and dime charge business strategy but its a very common business model now and its effective and it allows them to dedicate serious long term support to a game instead of having maybe a few guys running on the back burning to make sure no serious bugs happen

I'll just requote this, because, whilst Paradox is giving me quite a few headaches, DLCs are definitily not a problem.

 

[laijka]

So at this point, you would rather they had delayed the game for over 12 months, then charged about $80 for the game? Good thing you don't make the decisions at Paradox, I guess.

Worse, we would still not be able to play Crusader Kings II.

 

[Obik]

I would rather say it is like comparing a horrible car to a wonderful carriage. The latter is obviously obsolete, compared to the former, but the contest on which one is more beautiful is non-existent.

When we compare EUIII to EUIV od day 1 release the difference is more visible. I only hope that after few big DLC's EU IV will be as good as EUIII after Divine Wind