To all the harsh critics

[unmerged(67880)]

Enlightenmenthk-

I sincerely apologize to you and your family. In the mail I am sending you a bottle of Pepto-Bismol to hopefully cure your sickness that I have caused you...

gonna assume that the second attempt at mockery in as many posts means that you know you lost the argument and concede to my overwhelming brilliance.

 

[Darth Tracid]

this is the only warning this thread gets....another inappropriate or borderline insulting post and it´s closed.

 

[unmerged(62842)]

Just to explain my point of view:

I’m a frequent reader of this forum since years, but never wanted to register.

If played EU I + II, Vicky, CK, HoI I + II, Vicky Revol. ... And I quite loved the games, though my favorite was always EU II.

I got EU III from the start, played it 2 two days and didn’t touch it since then, and to be honest (unless some player made mods come out) I won’t play it.

Why:

EU III lost all the spirit and feeling that made the EU series so special.

It’s not a question of determinism or being a-historical, it’s a question of complexity and plausibility.

I don’t care for events or a streamline deterministic game, but I do care for having at least the feeling, that things are shown in an appropriate way. at this point u start at 1453 and have more or less a first glance correct view of the situation back then, but actually everything is just equalized.

If u take a look at any game in the mid 1500ds (or even earlier) u`ll find huge empires any where which just wouldn’t have happened, why?

Well ... let’s say that in this period u had a bunch of bloody wars in Italy for example and neither France nor Spain managed to conquer all of Italy, why? Because there was a thin and important spider web of diplomacy and all your power could and would crumble within a short period of time if u didn’t obey the rules of this web.

So ... if I talk about missing a historical approach, then I don’t mean a deterministic-austria-will-always-annex-hungary way, I talk about a realistic, political simulation. Which honestly EU II wasn’t, but I hoped EU III would be an improvement.

As for now EU III is a game similar to Knights of Honor an other usual strategy games. It has a more or less a correct map and correct rulers at starting point and that’s it.

Everything after this point is pure fiction (and again fiction in a political and historical and social impossible way)...
Things won’t change and EUIII will be what it is now. Maybe it was a commercially good idea and paradox might succeed, best wishes from me...

And to the gamers ... have fun playing it, but don’t attack people who are disappointed by the way paradox went.

I am one of them, and I won’t play the game.
And here for me the story ends.

 

[unmerged(56602)]

If paradox made a game called HOI3, and marketed it as being a strategy game that takes place during ww2, would you expect ww2? How would you feel if you loaded up the game but ww2 never happened? Infact in "HOI3" France joined an alliance with Germany, and they beat the hell outta Italy, while the USA joined up with Japan and split south america between them, all the while Russia slept for 50 years, and England inherited Spain.

Okay, now you're scaring me.

I think that Dspencer has really boiled down many of the old guard's arguments very well here... that many long time Paradox players seem to be unhappy with the whole "history, schmistory" attitude of EUIII.

And in regards to the whole "it's your fault for buying a game you don't like" argument...

A) I think that Paradox has somewhat unfairly marketed EUIII as being far more historic than it actually is.

B) Some people seemed to have pre-ordered the game only to play the demo (while still waiting for their pre-order) and find it wasn't what they were hoping.

C) Most people buy a game before either playing a demo or even really knowing that much about the game in question. What's most important is the reputation of the game, whether it's created by advertising, word of mouth, or experience.

 

[shaldon]

I think Paradox has tried to create a historical game - one that models the reasons why certain events happened and recreates them without resorting to scripted events. This is a great concept. However, it still needs refinement and this will happen with patches and future versions. As will improvements to the graphics which again are fresh ground for Paradox.

It's a bold move away from scripted events and one which should be applauded. It's currently far from perfect but the last thing anyone should be requesting is a return to scripted events. Better improve the in-game modelling of why these events occurred.

 

[unmerged(11700)]

Okay, now you're scaring me.

I think that Dspencer has really boiled down many of the old guard's arguments very well here... that many long time Paradox players seem to be unhappy with the whole "history, schmistory" attitude of EUIII.

And in regards to the whole "it's your fault for buying a game you don't like" argument...

A) I think that Paradox has somewhat unfairly marketed EUIII as being far more historic than it actually is.

B) Some people seemed to have pre-ordered the game only to play the demo (while still waiting for their pre-order) and find it wasn't what they were hoping.

C) Most people buy a game before either playing a demo or even really knowing that much about the game in question. What's most important is the reputation of the game, whether it's created by advertising, word of mouth, or experience.

EU3 is most unhistorical game i have ever played! I even enjoyed Civilisation more!
I tried to play EU3 several times and all experiences were awful!

Everything historical stops after just few seconds of playing but I still played hundreds of years in order to see what will happened, and it was very COMIC!
Why they didn't make random map, as everything other is random...

I am sure that i won't play this game anymore unless some good historical mod is made, and it will be very hard for paradox to convince me to splash my money again for some new title.

I can't believe that this crap was made by the same company who had made EU2, HOI2 and other great games...

 

[kullenius]

I think a HoI3 with EU3 engine would say it all. A Germany that has no past, have not had a WWI with a bitter peace, have no political topics. Why would Hitler go for another war? And, since it is to historical deterministic to have Hitler being Hitler, he could probably become a pacifist who turns Germany into a Jewish state. WWII would most certainly never happen in any but an extremely few games just depending on how nations acts. Would it be fun? But at least it wouldn't be "deterministic". But why play a game of historical times if you don't want it to be historical in any parts more then in names and world shape? Wouldn't a sci-fi game be the same?

I agree with a lot here. Had they not called it EU3 I don't think so many would have complained. Had they at least given the possibility to mod AI-files, monarchs and leaders people would be more hopeful about future mods.

 

[Palle]

I think a HoI3 with EU3 engine would say it all. A Germany that has no past, have not had a WWI with a bitter peace, have no political topics. Why would Hitler go for another war? And, since it is to historical deterministic to have Hitler being Hitler, he could probably become a pacifist who turns Germany into a Jewish state. WWII would most certainly never happen in any but an extremely few games just depending on how nations acts. Would it be fun? But at least it wouldn't be "deterministic". But why play a game of historical times if you don't want it to be historical in any parts more then in names and world shape? Wouldn't a sci-fi game be the same?

I agree with a lot here. Had they not called it EU3 I don't think so many would have complained. Had they at least given the possibility to mod AI-files, monarchs and leaders people would be more hopeful about future mods.

Difference with EU and HOI is that HOI concentrates only on WW2, while EU spans a much longer time. In HOI there must be WW2, but in EU there are no events that necessarily have to happen. If Thirty Years War doesn't happen it 's not such a big deal for example, while having major unhistorical wars would completely ruin HOI game.

I don't really get why people say that EU2 was very realistic and everything happened the way it did in history. If you start EU2 in 1419 and play two hundred years the world will look nothing like real life. Russia usually doesn't form, Austria and France are huge, England is a weakling etc. I don't know how this is more realistic than EU3 except that monarchs have historical names?

 

[unmerged(2619)]

it is some days that I didn't come to read the forum and I'm happy to see that the protest for EU3 is still growing up. First I wish to remove the argument about the information before buying the game. We must not read the forum before buying. It should be enough read the paradox site but there the announcement is totally misleading when they speak about a game "characterized by immense depth and historical content".
I wish too remove other arguments (pro or against) related to historicity, plausibility, alternate history, philosophy of history and so on. This argument, IMO, are not pertinent so using the Occam's razor I don't consider them. Yes because I know perfectly that history could be completly different and the path of humanity could be different and everyones can think differently about the dynamics of history and the causes of his evolution. But this not change anything in this discussion. We know only 1 history, because we have only 1 past. So to feel immerged in an historical game experience I need to find in broad terms that real history (i underline in broad terms because variations are welcomed because if not every game would be the same). I don't care to discuss if it would possible find in history some situations that happen in Eu3. If they didn't happen in real history (even if they could happened with plausibility) I'm not so much interested because to our targets of historical players an alternate history is comparable with science fiction. It simply a problem of feelings.

PS it never happened to me a situation like EU3. I mean a game that I was waiting since months left in the drawer after only a week-end of playing. Too much boring to me!!!!!!!!!!!!! maybe it's a problem of exepectations and mines were totally betrayed.

 

[kullenius]

In HOI there must be WW2, but in EU there are no events that necessarily have to happen. If Thirty Years War doesn't happen it 's not such a big deal for example, while having major unhistorical wars would completely ruin HOI game.

I think that we disagree. Why do you want to play a WWII game? To fight out WWII! Why do you want to play a game of the EU-time frame? To play out early colonization and the Renaissance. An EU-game with no historical flavour at all (as in part 3) is to a lot of us like a HoI-game with no WWII. Maybe it's because most people know about WWII, and therefore want a specific chain of events, while EU-time frame for most is blur, and therefore don't matter as much. But what do I know?

And please don't read me out wrong, it doesn't have to happen exactly as real history did. But it should be plausible, and thereby feel believable. Just like you in a WWII game shouldn't have to move your troops just like they did in real life, I don't think any of us "historical game niche players" says that about EU either, even though some of the "free-form" players seems to say that that is what we want.

 

[Kanitatlan]

I think all the complaints about lack of historical content are missing one vital point about this game. Previous Paradox titles have attracted a massive modding community creating many layers of additional historical authenticity on top of Paradox's basic contribution. What has happened with EU3 is that Paradox have decided to thin down their contribution in this area to a considerable extent to leave a more open game. This allows those gamers that like to play in this environment with a perfectly satisfactory game but others who want the historical content are, at this time, disatisfied.

However, the key issue here is the technical nature of what is or isn't in the game. All the game engine stuff has been provided by Paradox but all the stuff that otehrs can do has not. More resources have been spent on the engine giving a signifcant increase in capability including scripting capability.

If you want the historical content then, in time, that version of the game will appear in the same way that the elaborate Mods appeared for previous games. The important thing is that you can have what you are after without relying on Paradox to create it themselves.

 

[Johan]

I think that we disagree. Why do you want to play a WWII game? To fight out WWII! Why do you want to play a game of the EU-time frame? To play out early colonization and the Renaissance. An EU-game with no historical flavour at all (as in part 3) is to a lot of us like a HoI-game with no WWII. Maybe it's because most people know about WWII, and therefore want a specific chain of events, while EU-time frame for most is blur, and therefore don't matter as much. But what do I know?

Thats borderline slander. Eu3 has alot more historical flavor and plausible outcomes than EU1 and more logical outcomes than eu2.

 

[unmerged(16773)]

As far as I can see this game is getting virtually no serious critism (barring the historical event issue, which is very valid even if I am not particuarily upset about it). Just try to find the usual 'this sucks', 'class action lawsuit' and 'I will never buy another game from this company' threads you normally associated with serious customer disatisfaction.

 

[kullenius]

Thats borderline slander.

No, it's apparently a disagreement. You think it has more, I think it has almost none.

 

[robw963]

The moddability aspect is exactly what I believe a lot of people are overlooking as well. One poster claimed that Paradox simply rushed out the game half baked and expected the players to finish it themselves. That's obviously a subjective opinion, since what one might consider complete another might find incomplete. If you're really hell bent on historic determinism, trust me...the mods will emerge.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

Thats borderline slander. Eu3 has alot more historical flavor and plausible outcomes than EU1 and more logical outcomes than eu2.

It does. I just think people would like a few more events if anything. That's just the impression that I get. What makes European history so rich is all the specifics, not just the over reaching issues like exploration, colonization, war.

Just for an example, the English civil war. Boy that's an amazing part of history. Cromwell and all that. It doesn't happen in EU3 IF you start the game before that date. There should at least be a chance something like that could happen.

 

[unmerged(2619)]

If you want the historical content then, in time, that version of the game will appear in the same way that the elaborate Mods appeared for previous games. The important thing is that you can have what you are after without relying on Paradox to create it themselves.

And this exaclty what we can't do. Sure most events can be re-created but the missing of specific AI-files for each nation ties the hands to all modders that wish to channel the game in a real history direction

 

[kullenius]

The moddability aspect is exactly what I believe a lot of people are overlooking as well.

But AI-files are gone from modding, monarchs and leaders are gone as well. If they fixed that I think a lot more would be happy knowing that modding could fix there favourite xyz again.

 

[robw963]

And this exaclty what we can't do. Sure most events can be re-created but the missing of specific AI-files for each nation ties the hands to all modders that wish to channel the game in a real history direction

So I'm looking in the country specific text files, and I believe what you're saying is true. The best you can do is influence a country by determining which ideas it pursues. But you can still create country specific events...a lot of scripting involved to be sure, particularly when you consider how many countries you may want to fate...but then aren't we right back to KNOWING when something is going to happen? Where's the challenge in that?

 

[Palle]

I think that we disagree. Why do you want to play a WWII game? To fight out WWII! Why do you want to play a game of the EU-time frame? To play out early colonization and the Renaissance. An EU-game with no historical flavour at all (as in part 3) is to a lot of us like a HoI-game with no WWII. Maybe it's because most people know about WWII, and therefore want a specific chain of events, while EU-time frame for most is blur, and therefore don't matter as much. But what do I know?

And please don't read me out wrong, it doesn't have to happen exactly as real history did. But it should be plausible, and thereby feel believable. Just like you in a WWII game shouldn't have to move your troops just like they did in real life, I don't think any of us "historical game niche players" says that about EU either, even though some of the "free-form" players seems to say that that is what we want.

OK I see your point. Trouble with those historical events is that even though you have them, game doesn't run very historically. Another problem is that usually the events fire out of context and illogically, a situation which IMO is impossible to fix with triggers. Yet another problem is that player's are clearvoyant, knowing what will happen and who will rule when.

Btw, there were not too many events in HOI2. Most of them were about escalating tentions and preparation for war. Once the war started in 1.9.1939 there were very few events. An exception is HOI2D which had some events about the Cold War and releasing European puppets.