To all the harsh critics

[iBaLkiD]

This was originally a response in one of the many, "This game blows" threads but i honestly feel that this should be its own post. Maybe it will help some people put things in perspective, or maybe it will piss people off further. I hope that the latter is not the case....



""Anyone know any thing about consumer responsibility? Like not rushing out to buy whatever it is you desire without first doing a little research? Heck the EUIII forum was up and running with direct input from the devs before the game was released. Massive amounts of threads of gamers early experience with the game should give even the most dense of people a good idea of how the game plays.

Anyone ever think to ask some question on the forums about the game BEFORE you rush out and buy it? You know get some feedback from people who have the game so that you can make an informed purchase? No? This sounds strange to some of the whiners?(Dont get me wrong i find plenty of things that need change with the game, but i knew that before i bought both copies)

Im sorry to go off like this but it is so frustrating. Its like going to see a movie that has gotten only negative reviews, and then asking for your money back after the movie because you thought it was horrible.

*Me no like game, me no like because game not made how i would like. Game stoopid because not how i like*

Man can a game or product for that metter ever please everyone? Maybe something as simple as a shovel. A shovel digs a hole. Period. Any other added uses are just a bonus. But something as complex as a Grand Strat game?

I am not dissing people who come across bugs and small/large game stoppers. Just those who disparage the way EUIII was made game mechanics wise. No historic event chains! the game blows because of this! How retarded! You know that this has been a known fact since before the game was disto'd. Again its something you could have informed youself of before you purchased the game. Very minimal effort required. The devs made the choices they did, developed the game and put it on the market period. Some things may change to your liking, some may never change. End of story. Stop playing or start modding.

If not and you just have to voice your opinions, how about doing it in a well mannered fashion? Something, *ghasp* constructive.

IMO you deserve your frustrations if you made no effort what so ever to find out about the game before you bought it. Serves you right IMO. No offense intended honestly, more of a logical observation."""

 

[unmerged(23957)]

I'm curious, was there this much criticism of the previous Paradox games when they came out?

 

[Arilou]

Anyone know any thing about consumer responsibility? Like not rushing out to buy whatever it is you desire without first doing a little research? Heck the EUIII forum was up and running with direct input from the devs before the game was released. Massive amounts of threads of gamers early experience with the game should give even the most dense of people a good idea of how the game plays.

No, it does not.
Seriously. EU3 hasn't really had either better or worse forum-activity than most other games.

Simply put, bitching happens to EVERY game, no matter how good, and mindless fanboyism to every game, no matter how bad. You really can't make any decision until you've played it for yourself.

What annoys me the most is the attitude that "If the game is so bad, why did you buy it?" Especially as these are the same people who, if you do NOT buy the game go "If you haven't played it, how can you complain?"

Just those who disparage the way EUIII was made game mechanics wise. No historic event chains! the game blows because of this! How retarded! You know that this has been a known fact since before the game was disto'd.

Johan also said the game would have a similar level of historical immersion even without historical events.

This has not happened.

 

[unmerged(50629)]

I'm curious, was there this much criticism of the previous Paradox games when they came out?

No, which suggests that

1. They have developed a pretty strong fan base.
2. Clearly, there were 2 camps on the dynamic system, and both feel pretty strongly one way or the other.
3. People like to complain.

 

[JScott991]

Many, if not most, of the criticisms leveled at this game are valid. If you find them repetitive, that is fine, but usually the only way to get a point across is to repeat it, especially when a certain faction goes out of their way to trumpet their side at every opportunity.

That being said, historical gamers have two choices: 1. They can boycott the game and hope Paradox re-evaluates their design decisions or 2. They can buy the game and hope to influence future design decisions by posting on the forums.

I see nothing wrong with either choice (though #2 is completely futile; you'd have a better chance of success preaching the virtues of indulgences to Lutherans) and being told its not right to complain or criticize is getting tiresome. I've just spent the last half hour watching three 1 province nations declare war on Spain and get annexed while Russia annexes two Native American nations. I'm sorry, I'm going to complain about things like that.

 

[Arilou]

I'm curious, was there this much criticism of the previous Paradox games when they came out?

CK did catch a lot of flak, but never this much, probably because It was a new title. Which meant less sales and also less disappontment.

Not sure what happened to Diplomacy (didn't get the game)

 

[Mork]

Diplomacy never got sold in any real numbers, so there were never enough people to complain .

Vicky also caught a lot of flak, but that was due to it's complexity, which a lot of people had a hard time swallowing.

 

[unmerged(66460)]

mmmm...i agree with all of the above, and would like to add that the paradox- forums are THE best i've ever read. Insightful, constructive and creative posters all round; If your wondering if this game is worth buying; dont read reviewes written by overworked and unqualified magazine "journalists" that fanzies first-person shooters. They usually dont know what they're talking about, and often base their ratings on just a few hours playtime.
Look around on the forums instead, and don't get turned away by critique. The game is not perfect (what is perfect anyway?), but the fact that so many people are fascinated by the game, and use a lot of time here discussing it, has to be a good sign; no?
Paradox- games usually only gets really good after the sixth or seventh patch anyway, but by then they're not just good, they're the BEST!
I'd advise buying it just for supporting a rare, user-friendly company; getting the best historical strategy- games is just a bonus.


(I feel i'm balancing on the brink of a**kissing here, but y'know...if you're gonna kiss one, kiss the best, eh?)

 

[robw963]

I get the impression that most of the really negative feelings are coming from 2 main camps:

1) The hardcore EU1 and EU2 players who loved their game, their mods, their surefire, expected ways of winning.

and

2) The newbie CIV/Total War converts who are who are frustrated with the graphical clumsiness of (all) Paradox games...the complexity...the unpredictibability of a yet to be perfected AI.

I like EU3 a lot. I can really see the development effort behind it and while there are things I'd like to see improved, I'm confident they will happen, because they always have in all the previous Paradox games I've played. I broke my own rule and bought the game before the 3rd or 4th patch came out so I figure I'll just be patient and wait for the wrinkles to get ironed out.

While I can appreciate the frustration in your post about "people whining", I think it's basically all good from the perspective of Paradox. They need to hear what people want and don't want, like and hate. I think they're smart enough to respond in the ways that make sense and to be able to see the difference between genuine, constructive criticism and purely negative game bashing.

 

[Ming]

I'm curious, was there this much criticism of the previous Paradox games when they came out?

People don't seem to remember Hearts of Iron 1's release. That one then was a lot like EUIII now. Fanboys and folks who didn't care too much about WWII loved it. History buffs and people who had never played EU series complained. A lot.

 

[JScott991]

I don't think "winning" has anything to do with criticism of the game based on ahistorical implausibility. If you play EU3 (or 2 or 1) as a major power, you will have a tough time losing, regardless of what you do.

I get the impression that most of the really negative feelings are coming from 2 main camps:

1) The hardcore EU1 and EU2 players who loved their game, their mods, their surefire, expected ways of winning.

 

[Palle]

Johan also said the game would have a similar level of historical immersion even without historical events.

This has not happened.

It has definitely happened for me. Game feels even more historic than EU2.

 

[unmerged(67849)]

I agree with the OP - especially that part about the shovel.

 

[robw963]

I don't think "winning" has anything to do with criticism of the game based on ahistorical implausibility. If you play EU3 (or 2 or 1) as a major power, you will have a tough time losing, regardless of what you do.

I think this is the part I may not be fully understanding. If by "ahistorical implausibility" you mean you no longer know when Austria is going to annex Hungary because EU3 did away with the national events REGARDLESS of the context within the game, I reject that whole heartedly. I always felt I was being seriously gamey playing as Poland in EU2 KNOWING that the union with Lithuania events were coming. Now if I want that to happen I need to make it happen, not wait for it to happen. If I wanted to relive history the way it happened, I'd watch a movie or read a book, not play an interative simulation.

But perhaps your version of ahistorical implausibility is something else?

 

[Merrivale]

People don't seem to remember Hearts of Iron 1's release. That one then was a lot like EUIII now. Fanboys and folks who didn't care too much about WWII loved it. History buffs and people who had never played EU series complained. A lot.

I would say people are forgetting HOI2's release. The situation was almost identical to this one: hardcore HOI1 fans were extremely upset by the new tech tree and there were multiple flame war threads resulting in quite a few bans (more than I've noticed occuring here). Also, the doom and gloom of the naysayers was just about identical. Predictions of the end of Paradox as a serious strategy game maker and the loss of their fan base were just as prevelant. And it appears from the early returns on EUIII saleswise, that the predictions of doom are just as wrong now as they were then.

 

[AlenlorDRot]

I agree with the HOI2 analogy. I liked the old tech system in HOI1 and I still play HOI1 from time to time. I also liked HOI2 and play it from time to time.

EU3 hasn't taken away the EU2 AGCEEP I like to play, so I suspect when I get a system that will support it I will enjoy both.

 

[Ming]

I would say people are forgetting HOI2's release. The situation was almost identical to this one: hardcore HOI1 fans were extremely upset by the new tech tree and there were multiple flame war threads resulting in quite a few bans (more than I've noticed occuring here). Also, the doom and gloom of the naysayers was just about identical. Predictions of the end of Paradox as a serious strategy game maker and the loss of their fan base were just as prevelant. And it appears from the early returns on EUIII saleswise, that the predictions of doom are just as wrong now as they were then.

You're right. I'd forgotten b/c I didn't buy HOI2 at release. (Because of the experience with HOI 1.) The issue with HOI1 was bugs, bugs, bugs, missing features, and an AI that didn't know WWII was happening and couldn't have done anything about it if it did. Hoi 2 had much less problems with bugs, but you're right there were lots of people who hated the new research model vehemently. Just goes to show.

 

[Arilou]

I think this is the part I may not be fully understanding. If by "ahistorical implausibility" you mean you no longer know when Austria is going to annex Hungary because EU3 did away with the national events REGARDLESS of the context within the game, I reject that whole heartedly. I always felt I was being seriously gamey playing as Poland in EU2 KNOWING that the union with Lithuania events were coming. Now if I want that to happen I need to make it happen, not wait for it to happen. If I wanted to relive history the way it happened, I'd watch a movie or read a book, not play an interative simulation.

But perhaps your version of ahistorical implausibility is something else?

Yeah, and this what was Johan said he'd get rid off.

Fair enough.

But the fact that now we have Aztecs inheriting Iroquis, or Bohemia colonizing America, or the Middle-east remaining static for 500 years, or the Timurids never falling apart, that's a different thing altogether.

Contextualizing the events? I have no problem with that. (Especially for some events) but completely stripping the game of what made it different from the tohers is something completely different.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it will sell them loads of games, and it's not even as if EU3 is *bad*, not really. It's fully on the level of most grand-strategy games out there.

It's just not a worthy sequel to EU2, because it removed a core part of the series.

Had it beeen called "Early Modern Empires" or "From Constantinpole to Boston" or whatever I probably would have loved the game, because it would not have had a reputation to live up to (or in this case, fail to live up to)

EDIT: Also, Johan never said he would completely remove historical events: He said that "There will be no events where the sole trigger is a tag and a date". From that to removing historical events completely was a rather large step.

 

[JScott991]

Lack of Hard-coded events that occur on an exact date isn't quite my version of implausible. My version of implausibility focuses mainly on the things that happen in EU3 that simply would not have happened historically (examples: Russia on the American east coast, Spain/France/Russia failing to unify, constant blob formation and dissolution in the HRE because the dynamic AI is too aggressive and stupid, no dynastic rivalries because the AI files don't exist anymore and major powers seldom go to war with each other directly, etc.). The hard-coded events helped create historical situations and prevent ridiculous ones, but they weren't perfect as you suggest and in fact I miss the AI files much more than the events (which you can re-create). I don't have any problem with random leaders (I prefer that in fact) or fewer events, but the AI can't seem to handle it. Plus a completely freeform game (where anyone can colonize, be Emperor, etc.) is too Civ-like for my tastes. EU3 from 1453 is way too free-form for me, but even from 1520 or so, it produces some very silly results that kind of ruins the experience.

Edit: Arilou wrote a much better reply to Rob above.

 

[Montague68]

Historical implausibility, hmph.

Perhaps Johan should install a "Mother May I?" button for the AI.

Milan would like to choose Quest For The New World as a government idea. Do you wish to allow this?

"Yes, let them have their fun"
"No, that's historically implausible"

But seriously, can someone define historically plausible actions abstractly for the AI? In a previous example, there were the one province minors declaring war on Spain. Okay fine, we'll program the AI to never have a one province minor declare war on a major power. Now, define a major power. Is it 10 provinces? 20? 30? Should the minors be allowed to honor alliances against said power? Should the major power AI be allowed to "know" that minors will never declare war against them and plan accordingly? Are minors allowed to declare war against player-controlled major powers? If not, then the player won't take advantage of that knowledge right?

If someone can come up with a "historically plausible" algorithm I'm sure Johan would love to see it.