- 13
TOO HARD - Rant: I cannot believe that Paradox left "casual" gamers completely behind for no reason
- Thread starter Mygreatlord
- Start date
-
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.
What if the customer told you he couldn't drive without crashing? That would be a better analogy.
- 8
It's more like someone is starting out a hobby of jogging and wants to start by jogging 20 miles uphill.
- 5
Yeah, since a customer complaining about bad driving abilities, damage to car due to this and demand compensation or a better car, while not having a drivers license or just simply bad at driving. It´s not all faults that can be summed down to, "customers are always right". Buying a large car that are difficult to park easily, would beg the question... Then why don´t you buy a smaller car instead?
- 3
I remember when I just started (meaning also that games just came out fresh) playing Crusader Kings II and Europe Universals IV I thought of 2 things. (never played anything like this before)
1 - Games unbalanced in way of military
2 - It's too difficult too play in general
Over Time they have fixed my issue number one. Especially with patch 1.12 I finally was able to play a balanced Europe Universalis game. Yes that so hated "Common sense" that truly was the moment they finally balanced things out in military strategic sense especially with building system and forts - for me personally. For CK II it was just constant patching that made things work proper.
So once the balance appeared in these too games I pretty much over short time learned to play. Major thing I see lacking is that people who coming first time into this games they dont understand what the games are all about or rather how things work - completely ignoring political-strategic aspect of the game and tutorial doesn't teach about it.
There was even a point when I wanted to give up EU4 for it turned out to be more difficult for me than CK2. However once I figured out whats the game about and whats the world rules - its getting quite simple.
Don't give up is my point. It will take time, mistakes, foolish decisions. This might sound funny but start with a small country not big one as your instinct might suggest for you will be bale to track where the money coming from and how your provinces work, it tends to be too heavy when you learning to play with big country as novice. Also, watch how other people playing and what they are focusing on - helped me a lot as well to understand deeper mechanics of the game and one of them is PLOTING ahead of time, looking for opportunities and so on, is a very huge part of the game.
As of today they have revisited diplomacy making things even more interesting and easy to predict and work with AI.
Good luck with the learning and yes fun is there you just need to uncover it.
1 - Games unbalanced in way of military
2 - It's too difficult too play in general
Over Time they have fixed my issue number one. Especially with patch 1.12 I finally was able to play a balanced Europe Universalis game. Yes that so hated "Common sense" that truly was the moment they finally balanced things out in military strategic sense especially with building system and forts - for me personally. For CK II it was just constant patching that made things work proper.
So once the balance appeared in these too games I pretty much over short time learned to play. Major thing I see lacking is that people who coming first time into this games they dont understand what the games are all about or rather how things work - completely ignoring political-strategic aspect of the game and tutorial doesn't teach about it.
There was even a point when I wanted to give up EU4 for it turned out to be more difficult for me than CK2. However once I figured out whats the game about and whats the world rules - its getting quite simple.
Don't give up is my point. It will take time, mistakes, foolish decisions. This might sound funny but start with a small country not big one as your instinct might suggest for you will be bale to track where the money coming from and how your provinces work, it tends to be too heavy when you learning to play with big country as novice. Also, watch how other people playing and what they are focusing on - helped me a lot as well to understand deeper mechanics of the game and one of them is PLOTING ahead of time, looking for opportunities and so on, is a very huge part of the game.
As of today they have revisited diplomacy making things even more interesting and easy to predict and work with AI.
Good luck with the learning and yes fun is there you just need to uncover it.
Last edited:
- 2
Opening post is certainly off base, but this is going too far in favor of the game. The game absolutely does make things needlessly opaque/hide rules/have the UI lie, and in addition to opaque/hidden rules it'll change them patch to patch, sometimes a lot.
The analogy to jogging is just as disingenuous as the post getting downvotes...which has a point given the inaccurate assertion wrt Novgorod and telling the player he isn't experienced enough to play a start.
- 1
As this thread slowly degenerates, I just have to add here that I have been confused since the title. PDS as a company has repeated stated that they feel that their games are for a "niche" market, just the opposite of a game for casual gamers in my mind. When did this change and PDS games (CK, EU, HOI, and Vicky) become casual games?
It's an honest and sincere question, is it not?
It's an honest and sincere question, is it not?
One thing that's worth keeping in mind when selecting countries to play is that it's all about context. Novgorod may look reasonably strong development-wise but being next to a hostile Muscovy does not bode well. A Japanese minor with two provinces can become a world power within a century because of the geography, neighbors and expansion mechanics.
EU4 is by far the most transparent, clearly explained Paradox game I've played. CK2 on the other hand, even after hundreds of hours I still get caught off-guard by minor unintuitive rules that mess up everything. Not to mention the obtuse combat mechanics which you'll never understand how to influence, without a guide.
When I played Korea I was eventually rival'd by Ming. I don't think it's happened to AI Korea in the rest of my games, but it's a possibility when you get strong enough and Ming is intact. Which makes no damn sense when you're their only ally and same religion.
EU4 is by far the most transparent, clearly explained Paradox game I've played. CK2 on the other hand, even after hundreds of hours I still get caught off-guard by minor unintuitive rules that mess up everything. Not to mention the obtuse combat mechanics which you'll never understand how to influence, without a guide.
When I played Korea I was eventually rival'd by Ming. I don't think it's happened to AI Korea in the rest of my games, but it's a possibility when you get strong enough and Ming is intact. Which makes no damn sense when you're their only ally and same religion.
Last edited:
It depends on how you sum up the term "casual gamer", since my term and many else refer to it as not being restricted to "casual game", but used to describe a player who uses the game for less time, like a few hours in the evening a couple of days and then some hours in the weekend.
While the other refer to it as a gamer who solely plays casual games that are easy to get into and easy to get out from.
To me, it´s saddening to hear that even though I´m and many others who doesn´t have the time to play for hours on hours due to other obligations, must simply accept that this is not a casual game. No it´s not a casual game, but doesn´t mean that one can play it casually. And given that most people have work and a life that needs them and we cannot all get our bills paid by playing game, it´s only natural that games will refer to "casual gamers".
To me, it´s not really the issue since I´ve been playing this even before EU4 and have played other titles, and I enjoy the complexity since I need some stimulation when I kick off into the chair for some me-time. Playing angry-bird just doesn´t do that for me, and many game genres I don´t really care for, since they have been influenced by players who loudly disagrees and want easier access and faster gameplay.
While I don´t want EU4 to go this way, since my love for this is that they at least try to stick with both their vision but also realism and balance, meaning that at times they simply say... "you might disagree, that rebel spawning are ridicilous, but perhaps you should play it another way since it´s working as designed"...
That said, their are some inconsistencies to both UI and tooltips, and the game could do better at explaining itself without dumbing it down.
That's an understatement. If there's one area that would make the game unambiguously better, it's making it less opaque. Even if you don't change a single rule, a better display of the rules + UI would make the game much, much better.
- What is your combat width at present tech, while at peace?
- What factors go into how effectively units assault?
- When are you supposed to be able to core an inland province, and when is it a bug that you can't do so?
- What general kinds of events might one expect while selecting this idea group?
- When can you *really* take provinces versus core them?
- What in-game actions contribute to trust and how much?
- How do mechanics like coalitions, mutual allies, and guarantees interact with name a nation co-belligerent...IE "what happens if I declare war with this"
- What factors go into dynasty spread and PUs vs just dynasty transfer vs inherit outright?
- Which religions can switch to other religions via rebels, and when can you trust the UI as to the outcome?
- When are alliances automatically broken and why?
- What conditions allow a stability hit offer?
Small sampling, I could go on. I know the answer to most of these offhand (other than fort assaults), but have encountered all of them within the past 2 games. A casual player who picks up the game for the first time since 2-3 patches ago has no reliable way to check against which mechanics have been altered (patch notes are an invalid answer until they showcase a track record of being at least plausibly comprehensive and accurate) or check how they presently work in game through its UI. Even today, way too much of the gameplay is trial and error.
Knowing how any of the above works via in-game UI wouldn't change how the game plays one iota, except to remove fake difficulty. But onward we march. If you want to make a case that PI has abandoned the casual playerbase, it's the opaque nature of the game rules serving as a barrier to entry that's the least controversial way to make that case.
- 5
casual players isn't always 'bad' player.
Niche market game can also be played by casual players... It all depends on the dedication of the player to get to know the game mechanics (which is eu4 case is best done OUTSIDE of game, which is bad...)
I do agree that the game patches would confuse the heck out of these players though.
Niche market game can also be played by casual players... It all depends on the dedication of the player to get to know the game mechanics (which is eu4 case is best done OUTSIDE of game, which is bad...)
I do agree that the game patches would confuse the heck out of these players though.
A game does not need to be a casual game for casual gamers to be able to play it.
In EU4, nations will eventually come to be your rival if they border you. This phenomenon is often criticised, but it is historical in many cases and needs limits and exceptions. In the case of the Ming dynasty and Korea, the friction between them was often caused by their location (including a Korean desire to conquer Liaodong and lower Manchuria). Religion was not a major factor in the region and one of the reasons Korea made itself Confucian was likely so they would be seen as a legitimate rival to Ming. Historically, Korea and the Qing dynasty worked together against the Japanese when they became a threat, but the Qing and their Ming predecessors were rivals for a long period of time.
- 1
I wouldn't know about the whole abandonment thing... when I look at HoI3 and Vic2 I get seriously put off by complications, while EU4 seems comparably transparent in the most often used and useful aspects of the game. Quite frankly, before CK2 and EU4 I probably wouldn't have approached PDX games at all.
In at least one aspect the newer games are similar to WOW's design philosophy - easy to learn, (more or less) difficult to master - and it likely made these games more popular than anything before in Paradox history. And it's a good thing.
all I saw was "to hard" in the title.
my first thought
That's what she said
*puts on sunglasses*
oh yeeeeeeeeeeah
my first thought
That's what she said
*puts on sunglasses*
oh yeeeeeeeeeeah
I must say though, I have played this game on Hard AI, which I did on non ironman for so long that I kind of didn't think about it when I started playing ironman. Since then I've gone back to normal, and...I don't know there's much difference. If the difficulty levels actually did something, perhaps more significant, then that could help the situation.
I don't know. Seems like when they do they rant about things getting too hard.
You say "them" as he represent all casual players in EU4, which I hugely dislike since I find the game too easy at many points, and are a casual playe, and likely the majority of casual players gets by fine
Shouldn´t put too much into one mans rant and say that he only speaks for the group