"The Sims" syndrome

[TheAtreides84]

If you ever played The Sims, you know how it works: every iteration of the series removes all or almost all of the features added through expansions to the previous title, and then starts adding them back, remixing them slightly. So you basically buy the same things over and over again. Do you think CKIII will have The Sims syndrome?

 

[Giob]

If you ever played The Sims, you know how it works: every iteration of the series removes all or almost all of the features added through expansions to the previous title, and then starts adding them back, remixing them slightly. So you basically buy the same things over and over again. Do you think CKIII will have The Sims syndrome?

Of course. It's a Paradox game.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Of course. It's a Paradox game.

It's the first sequel to a game using the DLC system. Previous ones had traditional expansions.

 

[Zylathas]

Yeah we might get dlc's that are a reïteration of a previous DLC. But I also expect a lot of new things to stay or to be reworked.

As they said, keep the highlights. Remove the bad.. and eventually add some of the 'forgotten highlights' back into the game.

 

[Cassilda]

I hope not, the "Sims problem" it's the reason I stopped following the Sims. It may have sense from the business side, but as a player it's outright frustrating that a game it's replaced with its bareboned version when its content is various and interesting only to receive a graphical polishing.

 

[Eelectrica]

The idea of the new game is to not read old ground all the time.
I'd expect unique expansion packs that they were unable to do in CK 2.

 

[J.B.]

If you ever played The Sims, you know how it works: every iteration of the series removes all or almost all of the features added through expansions to the previous title, and then starts adding them back, remixing them slightly. So you basically buy the same things over and over again. Do you think CKIII will have The Sims syndrome?

I think an acceptable, maybe correct way for Paradox Interactive to work is to deliver most or all of what was made available through all Crusader Kings II expansion packs from 2012 up through 2016, at least. I think that before around 2016, the game felt quite a bit too different from its current version, fairly far removed. I am OK with them repeating some expansions, such as Jade Dragon, for instance, as I think that there is still room to go about it differently, or even containing everything that was in CK2's, and to deliver even more on those subjects, if they wish to reintroduce elements of the Far East into Crusader Kings III. That is just one example.

 

[WomboCombo]

If you ever played The Sims, you know how it works: every iteration of the series removes all or almost all of the features added through expansions to the previous title, and then starts adding them back, remixing them slightly. So you basically buy the same things over and over again. Do you think CKIII will have The Sims syndrome?

I'm certainly not buying this one on day one. I got burned on Imperator, and I'm wary about no nomads and no playable republics.

The idea of the new game is to not read old ground all the time.
I'd expect unique expansion packs that they were unable to do in CK 2.

In my day, sequels included all the stuff the old game had plus more (maybe a new engine or revamped graphics and performance improvements). Maybe some redesigns or balance stuff because the internet wasn't a thing so they couldn't do a patch.

 

[CMDR_HERNE]

We've been here before somewhat but it will be a more noticeable issue now since the move from old mode of expansions and updates compared to the current newer model.

EU3 to EU4
HOI3 to HOI4
EU:Rome to Imperator Rome

 

[BeyondExpectation]

The Sims syndrome comes off as awkward due to both words starting with the same two sounds, then having a very similar third sound. I would like to rebrand it "the simsdrome".

 

[TheAtreides84]

The Sims syndrome comes off as awkward due to both words starting with the same two sounds, then having a very similar third sound. I would like to rebrand it "the simsdrome".

Feel free, I guess.

 

[Avernite]

I think the method is sensible, in some ways; a DLC allows more leeway in development than the base game, and it needs a unique selling point.

But sometimes, those unique points end up being imperfect. Scrapping those seems reasonable.

On the other hand, removing things like retinues entirely and then adding them back in in a DLC would be sad. And we know at least the Way-of-Life improvements aren't scrapped.

Something like Merchant Republics falls a bit inbetween - in my mind, they never worked perfectly, so not putting them in fully fledged might be possible and leave a cleaner base to build them up properly in a DLC or expansion... but on the other hand not having them at all would feel like a step back, so implementing them imperfectly could be better than nothing.

(and remember, despite no DLCs, CK2 did narrow down content from CK, thereby allowing the base game being improved).

 

[Denkt]

They are not going to cut it back to what CK2 was at launch. Some stuff will be cut but new stuff that don't exist in CK2 will be added.

 

[Liquid Ghost]

HoI4 picked and chose what they would bring over from HoI3 and its expansions. I'd expect the same would apply for CKIII.

 

[ernst_earnest]

I wouldn't mind to buy some "old" dlc's but not exactly the same. A new version of sword of islam should have way more content than the ck2 version had. Also I hope they have a more thought-out plan as the ck2 from 2014 was a very different game than it is today and I actually preferred this "early game" days.

 

[Holy.Death]

Of course. It's a Paradox game.

So soon after Imperator: Rome fiasco? Surely they aren't this suicidal? On the other hand, after hearing about Deus Vult, I can't really rule out that possibility. Now, instead of being happy about CK3 coming out of the blue, I am worried about its future...

 

[Pyoro]

I'm fine with it if old stuff is just not applicable anymore.

With Sims, a lot of time it felt like exactly the same DLC for exactly the same game. It didn't feel justified. Now if CK3 has notably different mechanics and so can have highly different DLC mechanics, even if it's about the same "theme", it's fair to me. After all you need to put in the same development time again, so it doesn't seem unjustified.

I'd also add that CK3 will presumably run on the "updated DLC policy", namely that core features (like retinues?) won't be behind a pay-wall anymore so they can keep being adapted. That alone will probably help smooth out stuff a lot.

And for all those who feel that the changes aren't worth paying a second time for ... just stick with CK2? It's no crime, you know ^^;

 

[Siegfriedfr]

If you ever played The Sims, you know how it works: every iteration of the series removes all or almost all of the features added through expansions to the previous title, and then starts adding them back, remixing them slightly. So you basically buy the same things over and over again. Do you think CKIII will have The Sims syndrome?

I think Hoi4, Stellaris and Imperator set a solid trend with the Paradox economic model : relatively short development time with "basic" features, overly enthusiastic pre-release PR, which leaves us with a barebone, functional but boring game with the intent on monetizing upgrades trough DLCs.

If you expect anything else with CK3, you will be disappointed.

Which leaves us with a Paradox : if you buy the game on release, you're scammed. if the game doesn't sell well because it's a barebone version of its predecessor, there is a chance it will be abandoned.

 

[Serenity84]

They are removing some things. But some DLC features will also be in the base game. Like focuses from Way of Life. Or the religion customization from Holy Fury

Nomads not being in isn't that great. But other things can be safely cut. Like the college of cardinals maybe. Hardly anybody used that

 

[cristofolmc]

I dont think they'd be so stupid as to do that after the I:R release. This is PDX not EA.