The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?

[BarrosRodrigues]

EU4 is hardly micro intensive and overall I think the UI is much better

The UI is undoubtedly better but let me tell you EU IV right now is much more micro intensive than HOI III thanks to Nationalism and the incredibly plausible rebellions. I am sincerely hoping that the new expansion fixes these issues or else I will be forced to shelve EU IV because I can´t stand that 2/3 of my actions in-game after expanding are to deal with rebels/accept demands, it is just a dumb, boring, annoying, click fest.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

I'm surprised at the amount of people who don't think Paradox is selling out to casual gamers, I mean in the long run this will end up ruining franchises like EU,CK and HOI because of Paradox's focus on large profits by broadening (dumb down) the games. EU4 and HOI4 are perfect example were these franchises are clearly head, down the milked unoriginal game path.

I don't want to underscore my admiration to Paradox games though, I think HOI3, Vicky2, CK2 and EU4 have almost replaced all previous favorite games.

 

[zodium]

Micromanagement is not a desirable game quality in a strategy game.

 

[Obik]

The UI is undoubtedly better but let me tell you EU IV right now is much more micro intensive than HOI III thanks to Nationalism and the incredibly plausible rebellions. I am sincerely hoping that the new expansion fixes these issues or else I will be forced to shelve EU IV because I can´t stand that 2/3 of my actions in-game after expanding are to deal with rebels/accept demands, it is just a dumb, boring, annoying, click fest.

I played both games and I can tell you that HOIIII is more micro intensive for me, maybe because I'm nor expanding rapidly in EUIV so there are no much rebels. It is a matter of playstyle.

 

[TacticalRetreat]

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.

This is simply not true. Do you REALLY think they were planning to have India playable when they were first designing Crusader Kings II? No, it's obviously a decision that was made much later. DLC are expansions. There have been a few DLCs (mostly by EA) that were created to be sold along with the initial game. Paradox had the National Monuments thing, but the big and more expensive ones like Wealth of Nations were most definitely not in the original game plan.

 

[RobRoy3]

Care to share URL?

The ~20 page thread here was deleted. Might still be something about it on Reddit.

 

[blackchoas]

I'm surprised at the amount of people who don't think Paradox is selling out to casual gamers, I mean in the long run this will end up ruining franchises like EU,CK and HOI because of Paradox's focus on large profits by broadening (dumb down) the games. EU4 and HOI4 are perfect example were these franchises are clearly head, down the milked unoriginal game path.

You claim they are dumbing down there game yet still the majority of people would have no clue what they were doing/suppose to do in this game without watching a guide first and most people still wouldn't have a clue even after that. Frankly there is a degree of over complexity that is a bad thing even with the kinda fan base paradox has, I think they are trying to stay well away from that. Also I feel "complexity" can often be boiled down and exploited once the code is cracked and the system can be gamed, you will ended up choosing and doing things that have nothing to do with your nation or the state of the world but you do them purely because it maximizes exploitation of the game.

 

[WeissRaben]

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

This was obvious at game release, but at this point I'm not certain that's the direction EU4 is moving to.

 

[1alexey]

I think the problem is more that there are some neophytes here and in other places that didn`t see all the moaning and bitching of the old EU2 fanbase when EU3 came out.
And the same for HOI2 fanbase and HOI3.

I think only CK2 was a game that avoided the "schism" of oldfags and newfargs.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

I played both games and I can tell you that HOIIII is more micro intensive for me, maybe because I'm nor expanding rapidly in EUIV so there are no much rebels. It is a matter of playstyle.

Yes micromanagement in HOI III/EU IV is dependent of playing style; having said that HOI III regardless of playing style has a lot of tools to reduce micro to the bare minimum if the player wishes to do so while EU IV has no such thing, if you expand fast enough the game turns into a micromanagement hell, a dumb click fest to accept demands that makes me wish I was dealing with the old curia management method instead.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

You claim they are dumbing down there game yet still the majority of people would have no clue what they were doing/suppose to do in this game without watching a guide first and most people still wouldn't have a clue even after that. Frankly there is a degree of over complexity that is a bad thing even with the kinda fan base paradox has, I think they are trying to stay well away from that. Also I feel "complexity" can often be boiled down and exploited once the code is cracked and the system can be gamed, you will ended up choosing and doing things that have nothing to do with your nation or the state of the world but you do them purely because it maximizes exploitation of the game.

Like I said in some previous post, I think that EU4 and HOI4(hopefully) were great, however if paradox keeps going down this path they'll end up like RISK and be a incredibly simplistic and dumbed down game solely for a profit at the expense of the original fan base. This also coming from a person who found HOI3 difficult to get use to due to micro managing.

 

[balmung60]

Nah, I've seen a few people pining for CK1 over CK2. Not many, mind you, and usually over something particularly nitpicky, like Salic vs Semi-Salic succession, but a few of them.

II will admit that I never played EU3 (it's Windows-only (or Windows and Mac, not sure and it doesn't matter in this case) and I'm on Linux and don't feel like setting up WINE to run a much older game when I own the sequel), but from what I've seen of it, I'm not really seeing why it would be any better or how it's any deeper.

 

[Arilou]

I think the problem is more that there are some neophytes here and in other places that didn`t see all the moaning and bitching of the old EU2 fanbase when EU3 came out.
And the same for HOI2 fanbase and HOI3.

I think only CK2 was a game that avoided the "schism" of oldfags and newfargs.

That's largely because CK1 was a complete mess, and CK2 largely kept true to the spirit of the thing. HOI2-3 and EU2-3-4 are all rather substantially different.

EDIT: Not really judging, although it did take me a LONG time to forgive Paradox for EU3, and I kept playing Eu2 more until Divine Wind)

 

[Arilou]

if you expand fast enough

So what you're saying is "If you expand too fast you get to deal with a bunch of stuff that comes from expansion?"

The solution is: Don't expand.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

So what you're saying is "If you expand too fast you get to deal with a bunch of stuff that comes from expansion?"

The solution is: Don't expand.

That was supposed to be funny? Try again

 

[VolitionNewlove]

People complain about casualization and multiplayer focus, but AFAIK, all multiplayer players are hardocre gamers, and the casual gamers I know only play SP, and if they play MP, it's only a copperative game with a friend, not a "competitve" multiplayer with 10~20 players. So I consider multiplayer to be "hardcore", or at least, not casual

This only heightens the point, however, that only a negligible portion of players actually play multiplayer. Not only is this multiplayer focus hurting the gameplay (as well as historical plausibility,) but it isn't even pandering to the mass-market. March of the Eagles had already been a flop, more or less.

Not to mention, co-operative multiplayer between one or two other players, and hardcore competitive multiplayer are two horses of very different colours when deciding upon balancing the game and designing entire mechanics upon.

 

[Arilou]

This only heightens the point, however, that only a negligible portion of players actually play multiplayer. Not only is this multiplayer focus hurting the gameplay (as well as historical plausibility,) but it isn't even pandering to the mass-market.

I do think the multiplayer focus is often useful when it comes to figuring out what players do, it's less useful in balancing the AI though.

 

[Arilou]

That was supposed to be funny? Try again

Not really? I'd consider a "successful" game to be when you reach the historical borders of your nation. Anything above that is gravy.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

That was supposed to be funny? Try again

I don't understand how EU4 is more micro intensive. I think what you mean is it's much more in depth than HOI3 on AI control. HOI3 on AI control ruins the already limited aspects of the game thus it is a limited in depth game, but off AI control it is easily as bad with all the micromanagement.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

This only heightens the point, however, that only a negligible portion of players actually play multiplayer. Not only is this multiplayer focus hurting the gameplay (as well as historical plausibility,) but it isn't even pandering to the mass-market. March of the Eagles had already been a flop, more or less.

Not to mention, co-operative multiplayer between one or two other players, and hardcore competitive multiplayer are two horses of very different colours when deciding upon balancing the game and designing entire mechanics upon.

This is very much true.