To all the harsh critics

[unmerged(67880)]

Neither myself nor anyone else i've read has come in here out of the blue putting forth the argument that Paradox was in anyway misleading in their advertising. All such statements were in response to defender arguments that Paradox's blurb on their front page somehow 'put us on notice' that this game would be different. Which is clearly not the case. The wording is vague and ambiguous at best, and given their past titles, there was very little reason to believe (just from a reading of that page and knowledge of their games) this one would lack historical events. In that context, the responses I made were entirely appropriate.

I don't see a Paradox EU 3 description saying, "Historically accurate throughout the entire simulation!"

Ummm, that would be outright lying. Simply 'misleading' has a much lesser standard. One is stating a fact one knows not to be true. The other is simply stating something in a fashion that may lead to mistaken asumptions. A lie is always intentional. Misleading can be intentional or unintentional. And even when intentional, it may or may not have malicious motives. I don't believe Paradox was trying to be intentionally misleading. I do believe that given the context of their past games, that the statement on that page was somewhat misleading nonetheless.

And at the very least, it absolutely was not sufficient on its own to put anyone 'on notice' that this game would lack historical events, as many here seem to suggest.

Should I go to EA's site and incessantly spam the fact that their new game sucks because it was not made to my exact tastes?

Offering constructive criticism, even if a bit repetitive, is suddenly spam? Wouldn't that make these rampant mischaracterizations of the critics' arguments and kneejerk dismissal of them as whiners equally spam as well? Or do adoring or defending posts get past the spam filter?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I think it would be better to compare EU3 with Galactic Civilisations. In GalCiv, the AI is very complex and interacts heavily with the player. However, there is no "scripted" element to it (other than race bonuses making certain races lean towards certain research, etc.). That's great, because it's set in a fictional world (or, at least, the future).

GalCiv is very much non-deterministic, like EU3. However, EU3 is set in a historical setting. We know what happened, why it happened and what factors would have to change to make it happen differently. EU3 does not model this very well, and is therefore not representing a realistic view of history, which is what I expected.

Am I the only one who's ever wondered what would it be like if Stardock wrote the AI for the EU sequels?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Okay...the serious criticisms are: lack of plausibility (ok, people are working on that), lack of EUII- & AGCEEP (which is not a Paradox product)-style historical events (design decision, live with it), bad diplomatic decisions by the AI (chronic issue in all Paradox games, live with it 'til it's fixed, if ever).

Did I miss anything?

Many people who have laptops can't play the game due to Intel Chipsets. Yes, that's mostly Intel's fault, but why did no one at Paradox bother to play-test the game on different computers?

 

[AdmiralNelson]

Many people who have laptops can't play the game due to Intel Chipsets. Yes, that's mostly Intel's fault, but why did no one at Paradox bother to play-test the game on different computers?

That's a legitimate complaint, but they may not have the resources to buy a new laptop just to test the video card.

I have a feeling that Paradox is a smaller, less powerful corporation than most believe. And using $1,000+ USD for a new laptop that serves only one purpose isn't really the best use of money for any corporation. They could've asked the beta testers to try the game with an Intel chipset. Maybe there's some red tape and an NDA involved in that, I don't know. Just throwing out ideas.

 

[Palle]

The wording is vague and ambiguous at best, and given their past titles, there was very little reason to believe (just from a reading of that page and knowledge of their games) this one would lack historical events. In that context, the responses I made were entirely appropriate.
...
I don't believe Paradox was trying to be intentionally misleading. I do believe that given the context of their past games, that the statement on that page was somewhat misleading nonetheless.

Come on, that's called marketing. Every company in the world tries to make their products look as good as possible. EU3 is the most historic game in the market today, therefore they can market it as "very historical". If your problem is that you excepted this to be same as EU2, then I can understand. Dev diaries did give indication about the lack of historical events, but I must admit that I wasn't sure whether they are included before the game was released.

What bugs me the most is that people claim that EU2 run more historically than EU3, which according to them is completely random. I bet that if I run hundred hands-off games with EU2 and EU3 and check the world map at the end, the results would never be historical. Actually I think no one could tell which games were played with EU2 and EU3.

The most important point is that EU3 is much more logical no that events are gone.

 

[unmerged(2619)]

I have a fundamental disagreement with what some folks seem to be using as a definition of "historical'. History is not a chain of inevitable events, it is not even, despite a lot of popular history that is written, the results of a few noteworthy folks "leaving its mark" on history. It is rather the result of underlying social, political and economic trends that manifest themselves over time. Certainly powerful leaders can influence those, but a game that in which events are dependent on what social, economic and political choices the player makes is far more of a historical simulation than one that just triggers the same events every time you play it.

I totally agree with ur point of view about history and her deep causes, sure not driven by singles great men". But, as I wrote before, the problem here is not the history process (as I told I agree with ur history's philosophy). The problem is a game that call itsself historical and how players enjoy with a PC game. I think me and many other core former EU2 fans, to enjoy an historical game need to find in the game, the history as we know. And this history is only 1, so we like to find in the game that history and the atmosphere of that history (even we know history itself could have followed totally different paths and teoretically could be totally different).


PPL here still repeating same arguments over time and time where I think there is nothing to discuss because it's an issue of tasting and feeling. Paradox already made his choice and it was deliberately ambiguous on her site to catch the older fanbase (at least for the first title of the new course). There are few thing to discuss and sincerly (without any resentment) I don't understand why the defensores Paradoxis and the cruzaders of EU3 are so angry if we don't find this game fun and they are still trying to persuade us of the contrary. Every ones enjoy in different way so why are u so angry if we don't like ur way? (Jasmo here I'm speaking generally, ur post was very kind and not angry)

Anyway this discussion is compulsive

 

[Palle]

There are few thing to discuss and sincerly (without any resentment) I don't understand why the defensores Paradoxis and the cruzaders of EU3 are so angry if we don't find this game fun and they are still trying to persuade us of the contrary. Every ones enjoy in different way so why are u so angry if we don't like ur way? (Jasmo here I'm speaking generally, ur post was very kind and not angry)

I find that it's the EU2 historical event lovers who are angry and bitter, trying to persuade others to the wonders or determinism One thing that annoys me is that these people identify themselves as "true Paradox fans" and the people who like EU3's free flow are called "new fanbase" or "people who don't know history". I like EU3 a lot, but I've also been Paradox fan since EU1 and do enjoy and know history. I'm sure there are plenty of other members like me here too.

I'm not referring to you, Depez, or anybody else specifically, this is just the impression I get from the posts.

 

[unmerged(2619)]

I find that it's the EU2 historical event lovers who are angry and bitter, trying to persuade others to the wonders or determinism One thing that annoys me is that these people identify themselves as "true Paradox fans" and the people who like EU3's free flow are called "new fanbase" or "people who don't know history". I like EU3 a lot, but I've also been Paradox fan since EU1 and do enjoy and know history. I'm sure there are plenty of other members like me here too.

I'm not referring to you, Depez, or anybody else specifically, this is just the impression I get from the posts.

The concept of new fan base is stricly linked with the Paradox marketing policy they changed way right to expand their customer base (and in this policy there are also some choices like to put Washington while the game load... and where the reason of that Washington, in a game called EUROPA in a range year 1453-1789, is only a marginal charcater but sure it was inserted to faltter the big USA market).
About "people who don't know history" I agree with u is not an argument beacuse also history teachers can enjoy playing sciencefiction games

 

[unmerged(56602)]

That's a legitimate complaint, but they may not have the resources to buy a new laptop just to test the video card.

I have a feeling that Paradox is a smaller, less powerful corporation than most believe. And using $1,000+ USD for a new laptop that serves only one purpose isn't really the best use of money for any corporation. They could've asked the beta testers to try the game with an Intel chipset. Maybe there's some red tape and an NDA involved in that, I don't know. Just throwing out ideas.

Heh, that's how I felt about Paradox until I started seeing the marketing dollars they were putting behind EUIII. Whoever decided to put George Washington on the cover of a game in which he doesn't exist is an evil genius, and when describing a marketer, that's a complement.

Also, Paradox, my good friends... next time drop some ducats on some market research too, it'll do wonders. Ask Electronic Arts. (Oops, I mentioned They Who Shall Not Be Named In A Positive Light, please don't flame me. Seriously.)

Regarding the weird pixelshader 2.0 requirement they made for EUIII... Paradox had to know that they were creating a game that would not run on many, many computers. As demonstrated by this article , there is a reason my laptop can run Half Life 2 (although not in it's full glory) but not Europa Fraking Universalis III. Not that big of an issue in the grand scheme of things, but odd nonetheless.

 

[unmerged(67880)]

The most important point is that EU3 is much more logical no that events are gone.

As has been covered ad nauseum, one of the major problems is that occurances in the game (EU3) are everything but logical. You may have scripted EU2 style events that in the context of a particular game would be unlikely to happen, (non-colonizing Portugal still getting Malacaa or something of the sort) but that doesn't make the EU3 system anymore logical. Russia being able to consistantly colonize the east coast of the Americas is not logical. Portugal inheriting Sweden under any set of circumstances is not logical. The inevitability of HRE area blobbing is not logical. The lack of internal decay or civil strife crumbling larger empires is not terribly logical. (how many times have we seen such empires carve themselves up after a particularly strong leader dies? It was never assured, but it was more likely than EU3 ever allows it to be) The end game Europe, and world for that matter, that you see in EU3 is much less logical than any EU2 outcomes I've noted.

I find that it's the EU2 historical event lovers who are angry and bitter, trying to persuade others to the wonders or determinism One thing that annoys me is that these people identify themselves as "true Paradox fans" and the people who like EU3's free flow are called "new fanbase" or "people who don't know history". I like EU3 a lot, but I've also been Paradox fan since EU1 and do enjoy and know history. I'm sure there are plenty of other members like me here too.

Where to start... I've been through this entire thread more than once. I've read other threads on similar topics. And I can't seem to recall once myself or any other critics claiming that we were the 'true fans' and that the 'free flow' lovers are a new breed that Paradox is trying to attract. I don't recall myself or any others claiming that those who like the current game either don't know or don't appreciate history.

I do recall MANY times the game critics being described as 'angry, bitter' and 'whiners'. I do recall our positions often being mischaracterized and/or oversimplified as a demand for absolute, inflexible, scripted determinism, no matter how many times we've corrected people on that. And honestly, the only people I've seen making claims about 'old guard/true fans vs. new breed', or 'niche vs. expanded market' are the defenders of the game in the current form. To say your post is mistaken would be a gross understatement.

 

[MacGregor]

That's a legitimate complaint, but they may not have the resources to buy a new laptop just to test the video card.

They usually take care of that by asking potential betas what kind of computers they have and selecting betas based on platform diversity. That's the way they did it when I was a beta (on two occasions). I find it highly unlikely they didnt know about potential problems with intel chips and laptops.

That being said, there may have been good reasons for going ahead with the release anyway. Anyway, since I travel a lot and do the majority of my game playing in my hotel room at night on my laptop, I won't be buying EUIII unless that issue is addressed. I can stand to part with $50 to support Paradox by buying a game that is not to my liking, but buying a game that I can't even run is a whole different matter altogether.

 

[MacGregor]

I find that it's the EU2 historical event lovers who are angry and bitter, trying to persuade others to the wonders or determinism

I'd love it just once if you people who hate us "old guys" (yes I saw your start date) would at least try and understand the arguments (which you obviously haven't) or would learn the meaning of the word "determinism", which you apparently have no clue. If you can be tired of me, I can be tired of you.

 

[Palle]

I'd love it just once if you people who hate us "old guys" (yes I saw your start date) would at least try and understand the arguments (which you obviously haven't) or would learn the meaning of the word "determinism", which you apparently have no clue. If you can be tired of me, I can be tired of you.

What about my start date? I've played Paradox games since EU1, like I said. And I don't hate you guys. I understand very well what determinism means and I understand your arguments, I hope you understand also my arguments. But obviously we both have our own well-reasoned opinions, and very likely neither of us will change our opinions.

 

[Palle]

As has been covered ad nauseum, one of the major problems is that occurances in the game (EU3) are everything but logical. You may have scripted EU2 style events that in the context of a particular game would be unlikely to happen, (non-colonizing Portugal still getting Malacaa or something of the sort) but that doesn't make the EU3 system anymore logical. Russia being able to consistantly colonize the east coast of the Americas is not logical. Portugal inheriting Sweden under any set of circumstances is not logical. The inevitability of HRE area blobbing is not logical. The lack of internal decay or civil strife crumbling larger empires is not terribly logical. (how many times have we seen such empires carve themselves up after a particularly strong leader dies? It was never assured, but it was more likely than EU3 ever allows it to be) The end game Europe, and world for that matter, that you see in EU3 is much less logical than any EU2 outcomes I've noted.

About Russia's east coast colonies I agree with you. Probably those wouldn't have happened. But I saw Russian American colonies in EU2 too. I don't see why Portugal can't inherit Sweden if the circumstances are right, such as a lucky royal marriage? I don't like HRE blobbing either and would like to see that changed in future patches. The same with civil strife in large empires.

If we compare two cases, A being Portugal inheriting Sweden in EU3 and B being non-colonizing Portugal getting Malacca in EU2, which one do you find less logical? For me it's B, no doubt. If Portugal doesn't concentrate on trade and colonies they should never get Malacca. On the other hand if Portugal has played it's cards right and managed to get a good royal marriage with Sweden, why shouldn't they inherit it?

Where to start... I've been through this entire thread more than once. I've read other threads on similar topics. And I can't seem to recall once myself or any other critics claiming that we were the 'true fans' and that the 'free flow' lovers are a new breed that Paradox is trying to attract. I don't recall myself or any others claiming that those who like the current game either don't know or don't appreciate history.

I do recall MANY times the game critics being described as 'angry, bitter' and 'whiners'. I do recall our positions often being mischaracterized and/or oversimplified as a demand for absolute, inflexible, scripted determinism, no matter how many times we've corrected people on that. And honestly, the only people I've seen making claims about 'old guard/true fans vs. new breed', or 'niche vs. expanded market' are the defenders of the game in the current form. To say your post is mistaken would be a gross understatement.

Like I wrote, that's just the impression I got from all the posts. If my impression is wrong, then I'm just glad that people who like EU3 are not underestimated by EU2 fans

 

[kullenius]

Pelle and others, why do you like to take up a few of the really bad scripts from EU2 to justify faults in EU3? Who of us who non free-formers have ever said that EU2 with AGCEEP was perfect and had no flows?

I, once again, think that a few things would have changed my feelings:

1. Have the possibility for AI-scripting, and historical monarchs and leaders. This would shut up a lot of us I think, since then we knew it could be moded to even our liking. I think this is the major bitch-point. Hopefully some clever person will work it out.
2. By naming it the same as the great series of EU, one would have thought it would be an EU-game more like the EU-games have been. With another name, and no forfeit ideas about what the game should be, a lot of us would probably have said it was a good new engine, but not our cup of tea for the play. With same name one and the marketing as is, one would actually think this game would follow the EU-series.
3. Pixel / Intel. Argh, I read up on the game before, stated that my Intel fulfilled all that was required before i pre-ordered, and I at least couldn't find any information before hand that there would be a problem with Intel. Well, we all know how the game works on Intel.

 

[Palle]

Pelle and others, why do you like to take up a few of the really bad scripts from EU2 to justify faults in EU3? Who of us who non free-formers have ever said that EU2 with AGCEEP was perfect and had no flows?

I take those bad events as an example to make my point about the flaws of EU2 event system. People also comment EU3 based on only bad things. I haven't heard them praise how nice it's when you don't know what's going to happen, such as "I just got this awesome monarch called Louis XVI, he has great diplo and military stats, now it's best to go for conquests!".

1. Have the possibility for AI-scripting, and historical monarchs and leaders. This would shut up a lot of us I think, since then we knew it could be moded to even our liking. I think this is the major bitch-point. Hopefully some clever person will work it out.

It's really a pity that historical monarchs can't be included easily. I don't mind playing with random monarchs, but since many people like historicals, it would be nice if they could be modded easily.

 

[Grosshaus]

Same goes, I think, for EU3 (though BTW, I don't actually have a gripe with the description - I just understand were others are coming from). If, perhaps, the description read, "Start in any number of deeply rendered historical settings, and from there set off to change the course of history," people might not be as bothered. *shrugs* Just a thought.

How many of the people complaining here at the forums bought EU3 based on the description of the game in the box? Vast majority of active whiners have played at least EU2 already and know fully well what to expect from a Paradox title.

 

[AdmiralNelson]

Where to start... I've been through this entire thread more than once. I've read other threads on similar topics. And I can't seem to recall once myself or any other critics claiming that we were the 'true fans' and that the 'free flow' lovers are a new breed that Paradox is trying to attract.

In the interest of fairness:

I think me and many other core former EU2 fans, to enjoy an historical game need to find in the game, the history as we know.

...

The concept of new fan base is stricly linked with the Paradox marketing policy they changed way right to expand their customer base (and in this policy there are also some choices like to put Washington while the game load... and where the reason of that Washington, in a game called EUROPA in a range year 1453-1789, is only a marginal charcater but sure it was inserted to faltter the big USA market).

...

Paradox already made his choice and it was deliberately ambiguous on her site to catch the older fanbase.

(That's amalgamated from three (two? I didn't count) different posts.)

That last one still gets me. As if Paradox was really trying to steal your money. They're a company and they need money to survive, yes, but they are not malicious.

 

[Grosshaus]

Many people who have laptops can't play the game due to Intel Chipsets. Yes, that's mostly Intel's fault, but why did no one at Paradox bother to play-test the game on different computers?

There were lots of betas who had lots of different computers. Unfortunately there are always betas who can't load the game at first try and then just give up, although their input on why the game does not launch would be extremely valuable.

Another aspect worth taking into account is the high motivation of the active betas to invest in order to play the game. Myself included IIRC about a dozen betas bought a new graphics card.

 

[SirGrotius]

I take those bad events as an example to make my point about the flaws of EU2 event system. People also comment EU3 based on only bad things. I haven't heard them praise how nice it's when you don't know what's going to happen, such as "I just got this awesome monarch called Louis XVI, he has great diplo and military stats, now it's best to go for conquests!".


It's really a pity that historical monarchs can't be included easily. I don't mind playing with random monarchs, but since many people like historicals, it would be nice if they could be modded easily.

I think you mean Louis XIV.

In all seriousness, I'm playing a game as France now and have grown attached to my latest Monarch, Louis XV, who is "a gift from God."