To the HOI4 Community, Podcat, and whomever
- Thread starter sunsterson
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would prefer a open beta in that case. Or HoI 3 mp group only for bug finding.
My worry is, that the experience HoI 3 mp players today like that game very much. I think Paradox has changed up the game quite abit to reduce the amount of micromanagment, or at least changed how its presented. This was probably done because of the experience and feedback from HoI 3. If thats the case, people that like the micromanagment aspects of HoI 3 might not be the best group to take in to test the game.
Just my thoughts
My worry is, that the experience HoI 3 mp players today like that game very much. I think Paradox has changed up the game quite abit to reduce the amount of micromanagment, or at least changed how its presented. This was probably done because of the experience and feedback from HoI 3. If thats the case, people that like the micromanagment aspects of HoI 3 might not be the best group to take in to test the game.
Just my thoughts
On release it was playable, Just I didn't want to play against every country v me in ww2, The faction joining was and absolute mess.
What makes anyone think that they're not doing a quiet beta already? It's not like they quietly worked with modders to create a major EUIV patch & DLC a few months ago without anyone really noticing.
In interviews, Podcat has said that one of the reasons for their major changes is that this conversation happens a little too often:
Fan- "I love your games, I play them all the time"
Dev- "Oh, how did you feel about Hearts of Iron?"
Fan- "Oh, um, except that game. I could never get into it"
In interviews, Podcat has said that one of the reasons for their major changes is that this conversation happens a little too often:
Fan- "I love your games, I play them all the time"
Dev- "Oh, how did you feel about Hearts of Iron?"
Fan- "Oh, um, except that game. I could never get into it"
Are there people who honestly think various paradox games aren't ever tested by betas in mp?
I get that mp is the hardest thing to get right in complicated games, but it sometimes sounds like people think the beta testers are all knuckle dragging morons who have never even seen the mp screen for starting an mp game. Or that the devs have never played an mp game throughout development.
I get that mp is the hardest thing to get right in complicated games, but it sometimes sounds like people think the beta testers are all knuckle dragging morons who have never even seen the mp screen for starting an mp game. Or that the devs have never played an mp game throughout development.
IMO, lots of people just feel that HoI3 wasnt tested enough (based on state of game after release and even after lots of patches) combined with desire to get (early) close look at HoI4.
Sure, but when people dont have insider info, they can base their opinions only on final product. HoI3 was great game in some aspects and pathetic in others (channel islands megastacks, broken air/naval warfare, nonfunctional unit stats etc.).
While "unplayable" is probably too strong a term -- the first version of HOI3 didn't automatically crash --- it clearly wasn't much of a WWII game or even a WWII era game -- more like a tactical combat variant of EU3. It was a very poor game compared to TFH and now the mod I play most DWI with VI. Plus there were a lot of real bugs as well. It was clearly worse the HOI2.
I am not sure 'experienced HoI3 Players' (which to me almost automatically also encapsuls a number of traits i do not want in a beta tester) should be the only or main group to beta test HoI4.
Less experienced players and newbies might be able to make even more valuable contributions since they much less likely to a) pine for some of the needlessly complicated (UI) choices of HoI3 and b) be less tolerant to micormanaging hell.
I agree. You need some fresh eyes to see interface issues.
I know some members if the community are on a crusade against perceived streamlining, but if newer players cannot grasp complicated and nuanced mechanics, you might as well just make a cheap rts.
Um I seriously hope you considering sticking to the line of hoi 3 release wasn't tested enough. Because if this is not the case and hoi 3 was beta tested thoroughly then God help us
Most modern games which are released are beta, whether called so or not.
Then, if there is enough copies bought, the devs fix the games to a playable state.
Case in point: too many to list, HOI3, Total War: Rome 2... basically any modern game released.
Fair enough being stung by a number of bad examples, but PDS' last two releases were anything but released in beta state, and games elsewhere are generally launching well. It's important to remember that the bad news stories dominate the press, while the games that release without being broken get very different coverage (that often doesn't attract as much attention, and definitely doesn't attract as much controversy).
Yeah, you will notice release-quality across the industry has dramatically droped, when a playable release gets all the press, making you feel like a german in brazil in the summer of 2014.
I'm not sure about this - I've been playing games on PC and console since the late 1980s, and I'd say the late 1990s was the darkest time in terms of the standard of PC games at release, with the latest consoles being the worst for console, but there are still plenty of games being released in a reliable state, and given that games are generally getting more complex as time goes by, this is a pretty solid performance. That said, I understand the buggy sentiments if all one does is play Bethesda games, or Ubisoft games on PC
.
Wow, I would love to play that RTS:
- "Mein Fuhrer, you must construct additional pylons!"
- "HEIL KANE . . . er . . I mean HITLER!"
- "Nuclear bomb in-bound, target: somewhere totally unimportant!"
I think we saw what happens when long-term P'dox players all try to get their favoured features implemented at the same time in an "unstreamlined" game earlier this year.
I'm not sure about this - I've been playing games on PC and console since the late 1980s, and I'd say the late 1990s was the darkest time in terms of the standard of PC games at release, with the latest consoles being the worst for console, but there are still plenty of games being released in a reliable state, and given that games are generally getting more complex as time goes by, this is a pretty solid performance. That said, I understand the buggy sentiments if all one does is play Bethesda games, or Ubisoft games on PC
Games released for the ZX Spectrum in the early 1980's required patching. You had to find the problem and patch them yourself, in BASIC. There was no golden era of perfect games.
Last edited:
Old games was useally released as buggy as games today are, the difference is that now we can expect developers to patch the games which was not allways the case of old games.
Quality of games have actually increased in all areas in my opinion.
Last edited: