Derek Pullem said:
Well - the problem with Paradox games is that they gave to meet three criteria.
1. Be as bug free as possible
2. Be fun to play
3. Be historically accurate
It's the third one that is killing the games IMHO.
Now before you flame me, consider this. When a new game or patch comes out there are literally hundreds of posts about how this feature or that feature is crazy because it does not follow history to the letter (or the posters interpretation of history). There are very few on how good or bad the gameplay is. So, although we are all trying to be constructive by assisting Paradox in improving the game, the impression given by the boards is that Victoria is full of bugs and flaws and must be patched "because it is unplayable". That impression, that Paradox games are buggy, gets back to reviewers and the public. So the - "I won't buy it until they patch it" mentality rules and Paradox's income is badly hit.
The "best" game that Paradox have released is probably also the least "historical" in its gameplay. EU2 is a true classic, not because its historically accurate (its not) but because its fast, fun and has a veneer of history on top. And most players wouldn't really know much about renaissance history anyway to argue.
HoI and Vicky on the other hand are castigated by historical pedants on release instead of judging it by the gameplay. Victoria patch 1.01 is a beautiful example of this. Loads of players enjoyed the easy game with thousands of units and world conquest a real possibility. But it wasn't historical and there were loads of complaint. Then 1.02 is developed to bring the game back more in line with the historical roots and everyone complains that it is too difficult (oh, and also not historical - "nude empires" etc.).
So - before we say it was released too early perhaps we ought to ask ourselves what we were expecting.
A fast moving, empire building game with a historical flavour a la EU2
Or a simulation of 19th century social development, economics and technological advancement.
Cos you don't get both.
On one hand, it's heartbreaking for me to hear that Johan has decided that simpler games are the thing to focus on. On the other hand, if the current approach doesn't equate with survivability, something has to change.
There are certain factors, however, that need to be taken into account in thinking about future approaches:
A product that requires patches does not by itself alienate every customer. But there is a growing trend toward a general belief that software should be like appliances -- which generally don't need multiple recalls to work right. So it is true that in the current climate (and in all likely future ones, as well) a game that needs repeated patches will be perceived as unfinished and faulty. (At the very least, it will be hard in some cases to deny that there was less than enough time alloted before release, because otherwise why would there be a need for patches which address things like wooden navies that routinely defeat ironclads?)
Beyond that, in America at least, there will never be more than a niche market for games like Victoria. I often conclude that Europeans have no accurate conception of how truly awful the public education system is in the U.S. -- the mass majority of potential U.S. customers wouldn't even be able to tell you who Queen Victoria was or when WWI took place. (This is not hyperbole.) For these people, historical accuracy is meaningless, because they wouldn't know it if they saw it. (Frankly, these people are out buying things like deer hunting simulations, anyway. Does Paradox want to start producing those?)
The mass majority of Americans will not play any game that requires any reading in order to learn. So in fact the quality of manuals is not particularly important in America, because the majority of game customers do not ever read them anyway, and indeed feel that the game has failed them if reading the manual proves necessary at all.
The mass majority of Americans play games for one of three reasons only -- either they want mindless diversion, or they want intense sensory stimulation, or they want to feel a dominance rush. Those seeking mindless diversion will not be interested in games like Victoria, because such games require thought. Those seeking intense sensory stimulation won't find it because games like Victoria aren't fast-paced enough. Those seeking a dominance rush will not be satisfied with Victoria, because it's not the type of game where the player is going to feel like Superman every second.
This is the dilemma confronting Paradox. The games they are currently producing do not appeal to a mass market. Risk has mass appeal. Age of Empires has mass appeal. So do deer hunting simulations, golf games, and the like. But no game that takes a more detailed approach to history will ever have mass appeal, at least not in America. Because there is no educated mass for them to appeal to. (If you ask why America is important, then I ask you why was Victoria released there before so many other places?)
I would submit that if Paradox chooses to pursue the mass appeal route, they will find themselves turning out versions of Risk or Age of Empires and nothing more. Because there's no mass market for anything more. And while that may appear a recipe for success, it's not. (In my years of experience in advising businesses as an attorney, I've found it's a common mistake to think that money will role in if one just imitates what appears to be successful and then tries to do it a little better. The money doesn't roll in. Because by following that path you become just an imitator, and no one pays good money for that.)
On the flipside, there were some issues that hurt Victoria's appeal to the niche market where Paradox can actually expect to be successful. While I think that Victoria is a masterpiece of game system design, there were obvious, gaping holes in the history presented in the game. Some of this was apparently due to unfortunate choices. (The lack of any mechanism to simulate Guadalupe Hidalgo was, by itself, enough to alienate many American customers. The fact that event schemes were included for the formation of Italy and Germany and Belgium, but not for Guadalupe Hidalgo, can only be linked to a Eurocentric focus, which is a mistake when trying to appeal to an American audience. Especially when the game is being released in America before many other places. What were you all thinking? Did you really think that American customers would like a game in which the U.S. can't be formed in the way it was historically? And don't try to make it sound like it was a game balance issue. Those issues are a factor in the German and Italian events as well, but those events exist. And it also wasn't an issue about Guadalupe Hidalgo not being able to be simulated fairly, because in VIP we wrote an event that allows Mexico to refuse the treaty and continue the war, which eliminates unfairness concerns. It has to be conceded that decisions like leaving out Guadalupe Hidalgo were just ill-considered.)
Beyond that, though, there are many historical gaps that cannot be explained other than by research failures, lack of time or resouces, or just a fundamental lack of care or attention. (How do you leave out the Colorado gold rush, as if it never happened? Such an event is not a minor regional occurrence. And anyone with access to the Internet can find out that it happened with just a few minutes' research into American gold strikes, because it was one of the ones that left sayings and songs embedded in American history that cause it to be remembered. Even most of my ignorant countrymen have heard of Pike's Peak. It rings a little hollow to hear Johan say that the game was percieved as complete when it was released. The game may have been WAD, but it was not complete. And this is mainly why there was an outcry on the boards. Sure, there were complaints about game systems that still need perfecting. But keep in mind also how very many of the complaints dealt with simple research issues -- inaccurate populations, missing historical occurrences, and the like. I have a degree in history, and I know how time-consuming research can be, but when it's a selling point of your product you can't neglect it at all. And if you have to decide to focus on some things and not others, you then need to considered where you'll be trying to sell the product, and how it will be perceived there locally.)
The problem with such gaps and decisions is that Paradox has built a reputation for games that don't have such gaps and decisions in them. By releasing Victoria with these oversights, Paradox alienated segments of it's core audience, while at the same time pushing a product that wouldn't appeal to anyone else.
What folks at Paradox need to consider, however, before concluding that they should turn to producing "a fast moving, empire building game with a historical flavour" is that this road leads to producing variations on Risk. It would be a mistake to think that anything as complex as EUII will ever have mass appeal. It won't. What they will find themselves shooting for will be something more like War -- Age of Imperialism, and even that proved too complex to sell all that well.
This is the point behind the bad reviews -- it's not that most of the reviewers would actually have liked Victoria any better if it had been different in some respects. The only way they would have liked Victoria any better would have been if it was so simple it didn't need written instructions, and so fast-paced that a player was left gasping for air. This has to be clearly grasped before any change of course is decided upon. Producing versions of Victoria that allow any country to conquer the world will not result in better profits, because the masses do not want anything that requires even that much thought. Catering to the masses will inevitably lead to catering to the lowest common denominator -- and since that denominator is mainly swayed by fads and little else, such a path is like playing craps at best. At the same time, pursuing such a denominator will definitely destroy Paradox's existing customer base. Paradox will then likely find themselves alone in a cold, windy place.
It is understandable that the Paradox folks are downhearted at the moment. Criticism can be hard to bear. But anyone who works in any occupation involving publishing of a creative product has to inure themselves to that. Additionally, successful business decisions never result from a foundation of negative emotional reactions to criticism. If you're feeling stung it may be time to take a brief holiday, but it's never time to start making business decisions. (I've seen far to many people go under that way.)
(As a closing point, I'm going to be crass to make a point. I would submit that it might be a good thing for Johan and Co. to consider that the product they've produced is so magnificant that I'm willing to devote most of my free hours to it at the moment, either playing or writing events for VIP. I could be billing $150 an hour for each of those hours if I chose to work during that time instead, so anything that's excellent enough to hold my attention the way Victoria does is a super product. Then they should also take into account that the reason I can successfully charge that much per hour is that I have different qualities and capabilities from the mass majority, who where I live are out driving their SUVs and pickups, and who's preferred level of complexity in regard to anything stops at the level of Pacman.)
