The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

Nothing is being milked here though. They're releasing $5, $10, $15 DLCs that add significant things and also releasing free patches so people don't even need to participate in the DLCs if they don't want to. Do you understand that difference? CoD is releasing a new game every year, $60, and it's largely the same thing as the previous games. That's actual milking the fanbase, the 'casuals', as you call them. Maybe you're saying that Paradox is heading in that direction, but by what logic? They're making the games easier to choose what content you want, and I wouldn't consider their prices to be over the top. I don't pay for a lot of the unit packs and music packs because I don't want them. They give me that option. Instead of packaging all the DLCs into one thing and charging me $40, I can get what I want for around $10 or $15 if it's a lot of content.

Johan himself said a few posts above that they are making the games like they always have. He just only recently said what that focus was on. Like I said, they know what they are doing. They're just being more transparent with it right now.

As for Paradox, sure it's not milking its fan base now but one they get that yearly "fanboy" (that doesn't complain like COD,Halo etc.) base they will milk it to death. Just look at COD, MW2 was it's peak and after that its released a good then bad then worse game, that's how milked franchises work and I feel that casualization MP perpetuates that even more. I think HOI4 will be the the first step to such process. These game series first cliam to be about quality but once they sell out ,your opinion wont matter in anything.

 

[frankatank109]

I for one think It's clear that paradox is heading to its own demise with its emphases on MP casual players.

That makes no sense. There are far more casual gamers than hardcore, and if Paradox appeals to the casual demographic then they're obviously going to get more players. There's also hard evidence that proves you wrong, Paradox is at it's most successful right now, it has many more players than it ever had before, and the number is probably still growing. Some players may leave, but they are a relative minority.

 

[Hamalcar Barca]

To vanukar:

Regarding monarch points: Monarch points are largely controllable with advisers and other mechanics. Obviously your monarch has a lot to do with it, but it's not nearly as luck based as people make it seem. The advantage of the idea system in EU4 over the sliders in EU3 is that you have more options. The sliders almost always had a set point you wanted to get to, dependent on the country. Having it be ruler based makes more sense to me than EU3's system. In EU3 you could centralize every decade or so, no matter who you had in charge of the country. In EU4, if you want military reforms, then you need a strong leader focused in that area. That makes more sense to me. I understand why people don't like the system, but I think it's dismissed too quickly.

What watered-down games? I'm a fan of both games, V2 and EU4, and EU4 isn't watered down in comparison. Neither is CK2. They're simpler games in the sense that they're easier to understand. And maybe HoI4 will be simpler in that way too. That doesn't make them watered-down. They're not overly simplified and they're not taking away any of the core gameplay elements that make the games what they are. Paradox has a much larger audience now that when they first released EU3, or even when they first released CK2. I think they're doing a great job of keeping the game as complex as they need to be, but making them far easier to understand. What important mechanics are being sacrificed?

There's a way to give constructive criticism, and there's a way to just outright complain. More of what I see on this forum is the latter. My point isn't that Paradox shouldn't listen. It's just the way people go about being vocal. There are tons of comments in irrelevant locations about how the game is broken. That's all I mean. I don't mean this thread. I mean the forums in general. Paradox knows what they're doing. They're active on these forums and they see what people want. They know. Repeating yourself gets you nowhere, except in the appropriate place at the appropriate time. I don't mean that no one should complain. I just trust Paradox to make a good game without the forums looking like trash all the time.

I mean spam in the sense that it's annoying and all over the place.

 

[NCreepy]

That makes no sense. There are far more casual gamers than hardcore, and if Paradox appeals to the casual demographic then they're obviously going to get more players. There's also hard evidence that proves you wrong, Paradox is at it's most successful right now, it has many more players than it ever had before, and the number is probably still growing. Some players may leave, but they are a relative minority.

There is a graveyard of developers in the wake of Electronic arts that had the same idea as yours.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

I acknowledge the fact!

It's not that big loss really, because EUII does everything better than EUI. Interesting fact is that the differences between EUI and EUII are smaller than the differences between EUIII and Divine Wind.

Transition from EUI to EUII is actually the only time when I have been 100% happy about all the "improvements" which the new game introduced. But while I wasn't happy about all the new stuff (and removing of old stuff) which the EUIII and EUIV did, I think that overall playing experience is better with every new installment of the series. I couldn't imagine going back to EUII now. I tried it some time ago and while I loved the historical stuff, it felt rather limited compared to EUIV.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

That makes no sense. There are far more casual gamers than hardcore, and if Paradox appeals to the casual demographic then they're obviously going to get more players. There's also hard evidence that proves you wrong, Paradox is at it's most successful right now, it has many more players than it ever had before, and the number is probably still growing. Some players may leave, but they are a relative minority.

Yes Paradox is gaining popularity and player growth but at the expense of quality in their games. In order to appeal they have wash down(dumb down) what made Paradox successful in the first place, maybe not now but somewhere along the line maybe EU5,EU6,Vick3 because Paradox is fostering players that don't care for the complexity of EU3 or such.

 

[Red John]

To vanukar:

Regarding monarch points: Monarch points are largely controllable with advisers and other mechanics. Obviously your monarch has a lot to do with it, but it's not nearly as luck based as people make it seem.

For the first [Enter as many patches as it took before national focus was added] patches it was entirely luck based. (Except for lucky nations.)

I personally loathe the mechanic. At least the magistrates in EU3 were 'neutral'. I could build a building without something stupid like a military magistrate.

But in EU4? Nope. You've got to get 10 special points before you can build that armory, even if you have 30,000 ducats.

I hope they add something like that to HOI4. Can't wait to be forced to stay at war for entire months at a time because I 'don't have enough diplomatic power'.

There is a graveyard of developers in the wake of Electronic arts that had the same idea as yours.

B-but muh casual gameplay... (That said, there's nothing wrong with streamlining mechanics that makes it easier for people to understand. One of the big turnoffs for many people in the HOI games is it's complexity.)
((I also think it lacked a decent tutorial? Something like that iirc.))

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes Paradox is gaining popularity and player growth but at the expense of quality in their games. In order to appeal they have wash down(dumb down) what made Paradox successful in the first place, maybe not now but somewhere along the line maybe EU5,EU6,Vick3 because Paradox is fostering players that don't care for the complexity of EU3 or such.

I'm new here, so tell me. What made the games successful in the first place? I've heard the previous titles were pretty shoddy in UI and features on release also. What differentiated them from the current iterations?

I am curious, but the answer will also lend some insight as to what you feel makes a quality title.

 

[Hamalcar Barca]

To Sgt.Pepper1947: I really don't see your point. You're saying nothing is necessarily wrong with the games now, but you think they will go in that direction in the future because of how the developers are focused? There's a huge difference between a CoD's development and post-release process and Paradox's. The developers post here and generally care what you say. These games aren't being rushed and churned out. Paradox has done the opposite of that in recent years. The games are huge and bugs are expected, but no one can say the games are buggier now than a few years ago when some big name titles were first released. It seems like they take their time now more than ever, and that's a good thing.

 

[vanukar]

What mechanics are sacrificed? I don't have Vicky 2, what's going on there that is too "hard" to be implemented here? Is that actually the case, or is the game's functionality regarding it not intuitive?

Well, it's going to be difficult to explain to someone who hasn't played the game, but I'll give it a shot anyway. To start, Vicky 2 uses POPs and RGOs which add an important degree of complexity to the game, separating it from the abstractions of EU's "Get gold, build stuff" philosophy (or, in IV's case, "get mana, build stuff"). POPs have religions, political ideologies, cultures, and occupations. They have militancy ratings that rise for a various amount of reasons. Your POPs are essentially the driving force of the game, since they dictate what you can and can't do. For example, the size of your army is dependent on how much of your population is actually enlisted in the army; there is no abstract "force limit," instead you need to encourage enlistment through a number of ways. Furthermore, cultures can't be changed with the click of a button as they can in EUIV. Oftentimes you will only get a small percentage of the native population assimilating to your culture, meaning that it's essentially impossible to blob outside of realistic borders. The game makes up for this in a number of ways, namely with spheres of influence, global crises, colonization races between nations, and so on.

RGO's make up an important component as well. Rather than merely netting cash through trade, resources actually make up the backbone of your economy. You need certain resources to build certain factories, you need basic items like canned food, small arms, and artillery to build armies, etc. The Hearts of Iron uses a similar system.

Are POPs and RGOs a difficult thing to incorporate into the game? Of course. But if we're not paying Paradox to produce quality games, then we're paying for nothing. It's a fact that the EU series could benefit immensely by incorporating Victoria's mechanics and anyone can see this easily by comparing the two games.

To PI's credit, they don't go down the path of "banning dissent", even somewhat harsh dissent.

I'm not claiming that Paradox bans dissent on the forums. I was addressing his claim that a company shouldn't be obliged to listen to its consumers.

 

[grommile]

I hope they add something like that to HOI4. Can't wait to be forced to stay at war for entire months at a time because I 'don't have enough diplomatic power'.

Y'know, "need to wait longer than desired to send peace treaty" is not unique to EU4; it's there in EU3 and Vic2, too.

 

[raw]

Well, it's going to be difficult to explain to someone who hasn't played the game, but I'll give it a shot anyway. To start, Vicky 2 uses POPs and RGOs which add an important degree of complexity to the game, separating it from the abstractions of EU's "Get gold, build stuff" philosophy (or, in IV's case, "get mana, build stuff"). POPs have religions, political ideologies, cultures, and occupations. They have militancy ratings that rise for a various amount of reasons. Your POPs are essentially the driving force of the game, since they dictate what you can and can't do. For example, the size of your army is dependent on how much of your population is actually enlisted in the army; there is no abstract "force limit," instead you need to encourage enlistment through a number of ways. Furthermore, cultures can't be changed with the click of a button as they can in EUIV. Oftentimes you will only get a small percentage of the native population assimilating to your culture, meaning that it's essentially impossible to blob outside of realistic borders. The game makes up for this in a number of ways, namely with spheres of influence, global crises, colonization races between nations, and so on.

RGO's make up an important component as well. Rather than merely netting cash through trade, resources actually make up the backbone of your economy. You need certain resources to build certain factories, you need basic items like canned food, small arms, and artillery to build armies, etc. The Hearts of Iron uses a similar system.

Are POPs and RGOs a difficult thing to incorporate into the game? Of course. But if we're not paying Paradox to produce quality games, then we're paying for nothing. It's a fact that the EU series could benefit immensely by incorporating Victoria's mechanics and anyone can see this easily by comparing the two games.

Yes, Vicky is undoubtably the better game but it still has not received a Steam patch. :M

 

[NCreepy]

For the first [Enter as many patches as it took before national focus was added] patches it was entirely luck based. (Except for lucky nations.)

I personally loathe the mechanic. At least the magistrates in EU3 were 'neutral'. I could build a building without something stupid like a military magistrate.

But in EU4? Nope. You've got to get 10 special points before you can build that armory, even if you have 30,000 ducats.

I hope they add something like that to HOI4. Can't wait to be forced to stay at war for entire months at a time because I 'don't have enough diplomatic power'.



B-but muh casual gameplay... (That said, there's nothing wrong with streamlining mechanics that makes it easier for people to understand. One of the big turnoffs for many people in the HOI games is it's complexity.)
((I also think it lacked a decent tutorial? Something like that iirc.))

It doesn't take to much effort to learn if you're interested in it though And when you do you feel good for it compared to streamlined games where the game seem to think for you instead. MOO 3 for example, with it's shit eco system that were 100% automated.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

I'm new here, so tell me. What made the games successful in the first place? I've heard the previous titles were pretty shoddy in UI and features on release also. What differentiated them from the current iterations?

I am curious, but the answer will also lend some insight as to what you feel makes a quality title.

I would say somewhere along the lines of EU4 and EU3 and expand on those since the UI was a major problem in EU3, basically have the complexity with accessibility. As for HOI I think that overall HOI4 should be better do to reduced micro but I do think it was a far reach for a bigger base. Vicky and CK I think are fine in its level of complexity just devote some time to learn, of course these are huge generalizations of where it should be and opinions will differ. I think any further in Paradox's current direction will result in a to watered down game for the casual MP thus losing quality. I think complexity,realism(to a certain degree)and originality is what made Paradox(EU,CK,HOI,VIC)successful.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, it's going to be difficult to explain to someone who hasn't played the game, but I'll give it a shot anyway. To start, Vicky 2 uses POPs and RGOs which add an important degree of complexity to the game, separating it from the abstractions of EU's "Get gold, build stuff" philosophy (or, in IV's case, "get mana, build stuff"). POPs have religions, political ideologies, cultures, and occupations. They have militancy ratings that rise for a various amount of reasons. Your POPs are essentially the driving force of the game, since they dictate what you can and can't do. For example, the size of your army is dependent on how much of your population is actually enlisted in the army; there is no abstract "force limit," instead you need to encourage enlistment through a number of ways. Furthermore, cultures can't be changed with the click of a button as they can in EUIV. Oftentimes you will only get a small percentage of the native population assimilating to your culture, meaning that it's essentially impossible to blob outside of realistic borders. The game makes up for this in a number of ways, namely with spheres of influence, global crises, colonization races between nations, and so on.

None of that sounds too complicated from a player perspective though, but you're right that as I've not played it I am probably missing nuances and I'm not exactly a typical "new player" (my first choice in EU IV was Chimu, chosen because my friend told me it was the worst start). Still, usually when games struggle with this stuff it's not because of inherent depth, but rather because information/usage of the mechanics even at the basic levels is unintuitive to new players, such that you need to get pretty far down a learning curve just to enjoy the game and not fail horribly. You don't have to dumb a game down greatly though, it's possible to have sound UI tooltips, an intuitive layout, and some baseline functional behavior to someone just learning it to ease them in.

 

[NCreepy]

Seems serveral people have forgotten to add the game to their tags btw.

 

[Sgt.Pepper1947]

To Sgt.Pepper1947: I really don't see your point. You're saying nothing is necessarily wrong with the games now, but you think they will go in that direction in the future because of how the developers are focused? There's a huge difference between a CoD's development and post-release process and Paradox's. The developers post here and generally care what you say. These games aren't being rushed and churned out. Paradox has done the opposite of that in recent years. The games are huge and bugs are expected, but no one can say the games are buggier now than a few years ago when some big name titles were first released. It seems like they take their time now more than ever, and that's a good thing.

I think you get my general point, basically expand on whats good now UI, complexity maybe graphics. The thing is many game franchises go through a peak(which we might be at) and expand their base then like COD start churning half-games to their "fanboy" base that require you to buy the rest of the game.In the end the game loses what one made it great.

 

[vanukar]

To vanukar:

Regarding monarch points: Monarch points are largely controllable with advisers and other mechanics. Obviously your monarch has a lot to do with it, but it's not nearly as luck based as people make it seem. The advantage of the idea system in EU4 over the sliders in EU3 is that you have more options. The sliders almost always had a set point you wanted to get to, dependent on the country. Having it be ruler based makes more sense to me than EU3's system. In EU3 you could centralize every decade or so, no matter who you had in charge of the country. In EU4, if you want military reforms, then you need a strong leader focused in that area. That makes more sense to me. I understand why people don't like the system, but I think it's dismissed too quickly.

EU3's slider system isn't perfect or even optimal, but it's not disputable that it allowed for a far greater degree of control than EU4's mana system. Yes, you can appoint advisors, but that was possible in EU3 as well. The problem in IV is that it's the only way to definitively direct your nation.

What watered-down games? I'm a fan of both games, V2 and EU4, and EU4 isn't watered down in comparison. Neither is CK2. They're simpler games in the sense that they're easier to understand. And maybe HoI4 will be simpler in that way too. That doesn't make them watered-down. They're not overly simplified and they're not taking away any of the core gameplay elements that make the games what they are. Paradox has a much larger audience now that when they first released EU3, or even when they first released CK2. I think they're doing a great job of keeping the game as complex as they need to be, but making them far easier to understand. What important mechanics are being sacrificed?

Read my reply to TheMeInTeam.

There's a way to give constructive criticism, and there's a way to just outright complain. More of what I see on this forum is the latter. My point isn't that Paradox shouldn't listen. It's just the way people go about being vocal. There are tons of comments in irrelevant locations about how the game is broken. That's all I mean. I don't mean this thread. I mean the forums in general. Paradox knows what they're doing. They're active on these forums and they see what people want. They know. Repeating yourself gets you nowhere, except in the appropriate place at the appropriate time. I don't mean that no one should complain. I just trust Paradox to make a good game without the forums looking like trash all the time.

Indeed, but it's the internet and people don't think twice before using angry tones. That doesn't change the fact that the complaints exist and are valid. If a lot of people are angry about the direction a game is going in, then there's a good chance that something is indeed flawed with the game as it stands.

 

[Red John]

It doesn't take to much effort to learn if you're interested in it though And when you do you feel good for it compared to streamlined games where the game seem to think for you instead. MOO 3 for example, with it's shit eco system that were 100% automated.

Sometimes it's hard to get interested when you have no clue what's going on.

Y'know, "need to wait longer than desired to send peace treaty" is not unique to EU4; it's there in EU3 and Vic2, too.

I'd have mentioned Vic 2, but you can peace out far faster in that game. I believe EU3 was also much faster than EU4, but correct me if I'm wrong.

EU4 takes the waiting to a new level.

I wish you didn't have to wait at all, but oh well.

 

[Strager]

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.

If this was CK2 I'd say you are absolutely right - however in EUIV, outside of expanding, there really is nothing else to do in the game.