What are old CK2 veterans' opinion of CK3?

[b333]

People keep parroting this argument and I'm just flabbergasted by it. That would only be relevant if CK3 was competing with CK2 when it first came out, unfortunately for CK3 it isn't and should be compared to CK2 as you can play it today.

Yeah if CK3 was released at the same time as CK2 back in 2012 I'd agree that CK3 was overall the greater game but that is such a ridiculous hypothetical. Most games would seem amazing if they are compared to games as they were 9 years ago! We shouldn't applaud CK3 for having real assassination plots just because launch CK2 only had the assassinate button.

And you keep parroting your own argument and ignoring others.

You own CK2 with all its DLC. CK2 with all its DLC is not "CK2 as you can play it today", and that you continue to present it as such is what's truly flabbergasting, and borderline dishonest. CK2 with practically no DLC is the base CK2 game you can play today, if I'm Joe looking to get into the franchise I have to pay upwards of 100$ to get the game you're fawning over.

You're looking at it entirely from your own, extremely narrow perspective. This is not the way to objectively judge a game on its merits, nor is it an apples to apples comparison between the games. You might not feel there's any reason for you to move onto CK3 personally, but that's meaningless for the comparison between the two games.

 

[LFA]

After you've had to set the same filters in the character finder for the hundredth time you might not feel that the CK3 UI is quite so streamlined. Or had your umpteenth Ironman session ruined because the game didn't save the settings you chose from game to game and you aren't playing in Ironman mode after all.

Yep, and let's not even mention trying to browse the map while having serveral windows open.
Actually let's, in CK2 it was smooth, easy and convenient (even if admittedly the texts were kind of small) in CK3, not at all and it's actually a major problem in my opinion. Very cluncky.

While we're at it, pretty sure I've already said that somewhere on another topic, but ck2 often had convienent sheets grouping all the information together, while Ck3 rely mostly on mouse hovering, and you'll sometimes have to hover over text in several different window for information, in CK 2 you could have all the information visible at a glimpse at one time.

Finally maybe someone can help me here but I still haven't found any way to look at foreign realm full succession line past the 3 first candidates

 

[nielsgjvk]

in my opinion CKIII is 1 or 2 major DLC's behind CKII.

 

[Torredebelem]

This is ridiculous and makes me think you haven't even played the game. The base CKIII includes: Base CKII, The Old Gods, Legacies of Rome, Rajas of India, Way of Life, and aspects of various other DLC as well like borrowing money from the Pope (instead of Jews in Conclave), etc. So yeah, it's fine by me.

If you'd rather they put out the base game and then NOTHING for the next 5-7 years while they work on a sequel, that's your opinion, but it certainly isn't the opinion of most people on here.

Well, CK3 doesn't include the content of all those DLCs, by a very loooong mile. What you mean is basically the map is included plus the raiding option and elephants units. CK3 comes very short in depth when compared to the 7 years of continuous development CK2 had, which is understandable.

 

[Kainser]

And you keep parroting your own argument and ignoring others.

You own CK2 with all its DLC. CK2 with all its DLC is not "CK2 as you can play it today", and that you continue to present it as such is what's truly flabbergasting, and borderline dishonest. CK2 with practically no DLC is the base CK2 game you can play today, if I'm Joe looking to get into the franchise I have to pay upwards of 100$ to get the game you're fawning over.

You're looking at it entirely from your own, extremely narrow perspective. This is not the way to objectively judge a game on its merits, nor is it an apples to apples comparison between the games. You might not feel there's any reason for you to move onto CK3 personally, but that's meaningless for the comparison between the two games.

Did you know that Paradox added a subscription service for CK2? It costs a bit less than 100$, you could try it out!

If we are arguing in absolute content per dollar then I am fairly certain I can end up with "more content" by buying a bunch of CK2 DLC in addition to the f2p core game than what I get by just buying CK3 but at that point the comparison is getting really esoteric.

e; how many dollars of content are message settings worth

 

[WJS]

Random People do not compare actual CK3 with CK2 Base from 2012

Random People compare actual CK2 with actual CK3

You spent how much on CK2? You spent how much on CK3?

Let's compare the two games at similar spend points.

 

[Garbon]

You spent how much on CK2? You spent how much on CK3?

Let's compare the two games at similar spend points.

Right now it appears if one was to buy CK3 now you could spend £47.18 on Steam to get both base game and the Northern Lords expansion. CK2 all in (not look for specific deals on any specific DLC) you could spend £121.89 for all the major expansions.

Not sure what argument that supports but there is some current math.

 

[WJS]

Right now it appears if one was to buy CK3 now you could spend £47.18 on Steam to get both base game and the Northern Lords expansion. CK2 all in (not look for specific deals on any specific DLC) you could spend £121.89 for all the major expansions.

Not sure what argument that supports but there is some current math.

Yes, thank you! That means we're being asked to compare a £50 game to a £120 game. Is that remotely fair?

NO.

 

[Kazanov]

Right now it appears if one was to buy CK3 now you could spend £47.18 on Steam to get both base game and the Northern Lords expansion. CK2 all in (not look for specific deals on any specific DLC) you could spend £121.89 for all the major expansions.

Not sure what argument that supports but there is some current math.

I already have full CK2 and deluxe CK3, so i will spend money on CK3 maybe in 2 more years. Im playing for "free" right now (as i already bought everything)

 

[Cronus865]

Yes, thank you! That means we're being asked to compare a £50 game to a £120 game. Is that remotely fair?

NO.

I just found CK2 royal edition which includes all major gameplay DLC for $60.89 on NewEgg. It usually goes as low as $40-50 once a month on other sites according to it's price history on ITAD.

Crusader Kings II: Royal Collection [Online Game Code] - Newegg.com

Buy Crusader Kings II: Royal Collection [Online Game Code] with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

Does that mean we can compare them "fairly" now? Or maybe comparing price points is ridiculous and the whole point of the thread is which you prefer from a gameplay perspective.

 

[WJS]

I just found CK2 royal edition which includes all major gameplay DLC for $60.89 on NewEgg. It usually goes as low as $40-50 once a month on other sites according to it's price history on ITAD.

Crusader Kings II: Royal Collection [Online Game Code] - Newegg.com

Buy Crusader Kings II: Royal Collection [Online Game Code] with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

Does that mean we can compare them "fairly" now? Or maybe comparing price points is ridiculous and the whole point of the thread is which you prefer from a gameplay perspective.

The problem is when the "CK2 > CK3" argument, which can be valid, gets conflated with the "CK3 must be as good as fully loaded CK2 to be reasonable" argument, which is NOT valid.

Do you prefer a game with ten years of development and lots of DLC behind it? Sure, go ahead. Can one reasonably expect it to be comparable to a game released in the past year, without the same amount of DLC behind it? Only if you refuse to consider the reality of the complexity of these projects.

There are people who just want a game that has all the bells and whistles of CK2, without the cost of those bells and whistles. I also want a unicorn, but we can't always get what we can dream of.

 

[zackovs]

I've played CK2 throughout most of its lifetime and own all the DLCs. I played it an enormous amount.

CK3 is superior and it's packaged with much of the content of CK2 in a better way. It has far more potential than the base CK2. CK2 had some rough years in the beginning. I remember patches that broke AI in critical ways.
(such as the patch that made the AI unable to disband their troops after the war so they never declared war... letting the world rot in stagnation forever).

It took years for CK2 to stop stumbling and get up and running. CK3 hit the ground running.

 

[x4077]

CK3 is superior and it's packaged with much of the content of CK2 in a better way. It has far more potential than the base CK2. CK2 had some rough years in the beginning. I remember patches that broke AI in critical ways.
(such as the patch that made the AI unable to disband their troops after the war so they never declared war... letting the world rot in stagnation forever).

It took years for CK2 to stop stumbling and get up and running. CK3 hit the ground running.

So what? Raw wheat has a lot more potential than finished cereal as well. If I'm hungry though, I don't want raw wheat, I want the cereal.

The problem is when the "CK2 > CK3" argument, which can be valid, gets conflated with the "CK3 must be as good as fully loaded CK2 to be reasonable" argument, which is NOT valid.

Do you prefer a game with ten years of development and lots of DLC behind it? Sure, go ahead. Can one reasonably expect it to be comparable to a game released in the past year, without the same amount of DLC behind it? Only if you refuse to consider the reality of the complexity of these projects.

There are people who just want a game that has all the bells and whistles of CK2, without the cost of those bells and whistles. I also want a unicorn, but we can't always get what we can dream of.

What about those of us that like myself that are comparing features in the base CK2 game without the DLCS vs the lack of those same features in CK3? Go buy the base CK2 now without DLCs and you'll get a character finder that can save filters, diplomacy map mode, savable game rules, and a notification system with user customizable settings. Where are those things in CK3?

It's not the lack of content that makes me frustrated and disappointed with CK3, it's the having to setup the same damn filter settings in the character finder for the thousandth time, even though Paradox knew from experience with CK2 that the feature of savable filters was desirable and needed.

 

[WJS]

What about those of us that like myself that are comparing features in the base CK2 game without the DLCS vs the lack of those same features in CK3? Go buy the base CK2 now without DLCs and you'll get a character finder that can save filters, diplomacy map mode, savable game rules, and a notification system with user customizable settings. Where are those things in CK3?

It's not the lack of content that makes me frustrated and disappointed with CK3, it's the having to setup the same damn filter settings in the character finder for the thousandth time, even though Paradox knew from experience with CK2 that the feature of savable filters was desirable and needed.

That's a valid concern, sure.

 

[Torredebelem]

What about those of us that like myself that are comparing features in the base CK2 game without the DLCS vs the lack of those same features in CK3? Go buy the base CK2 now without DLCs and you'll get a character finder that can save filters, diplomacy map mode, savable game rules, and a notification system with user customizable settings. Where are those things in CK3?

It's not the lack of content that makes me frustrated and disappointed with CK3, it's the having to setup the same damn filter settings in the character finder for the thousandth time, even though Paradox knew from experience with CK2 that the feature of savable filters was desirable and needed.

You do have a point about the poor GUI, yes. It was supposed to be at least on par but expected to be better than CK2. It turned out far worse in all aspects, even the aesthetic one...

 

[NexusSix]

I once compared CK3 to a bike you get at Christmas as a kid.

You get the bike for Christmas but it has no wheels, handle bars or breaks.

Next Christmas you get the wheels

Next Easter the breaks

Next Christmas the handle bars and for Easter your promised some cool lights...

By the time the lights arrive your bike has been sat in the garage for a 18 months as you bought a skateboard instead.

 

[TheSeraphim]

Bought the deluxe edition like a chump at launch and can't even will myself to try the DLC or even break the 100 hour mark despite 3k CK2 hours. I have played more CK2 in the last month then I have played CK3 since release.

 

[NexusSix]

See i suffer from the "gud graphics curse" cant go back to CK2 as CK3 looks so pretty.

 

[Deliberus]

I'm not exactly a veteran myself. I started out with Paradox's easiest titles first (Hoi 4) and gradually went backwards (Hoi 4 -> EU4 -> Vic 2 -> Hoi 3)

After learning and finishing a campaign of Hoi 3 I just couldn't stand anymore of the clunky old UI. I was planning to play CK2 but heard that CK3 was being announced and decided to try it first.

Safe to say I was unimpressed to say the least. The game had its charm but holy hell it was Hoi 4 levels of easy once you worked out what to do and 30 hours in I was bored of CK3 and decided to try CK2 to see if it was the same story.

And I was surprised by how difficult CK2 was to learn. Most annoying was the RNG but I eventually learnt to get that under control. Though what surprised me was not the depth of the game but the shear variety. Now, I'm more of a nation building guy and it genuinely surprised me just how interesting things get in CK2.

Working with the devil, fighting against factions to prevent a collapse of building a strong nation for a hundred years, backstabbing young children to cause various states to splinter off making conquest easier, marrying the right targets and to prevent myself from being a kinslayer, centralizing government to prepare for an EU4 game transfer or going all out for vassal play and decentralizing government.

It's genuinely a fascinating experience and unlike any other GSG or strategy game on the market. Shame that instead of creating a better tutorial and learning process for new players they either dumbed down or removed certain elements of the game (either to make the game easier for new players or to resell later in DLCs).

 

[Iwanabaengineer]

Well.... what the title says.

Took a decade or so to perfect CK2, but it paid off: it is now one of the most complex and interesting games ever. It was a long process though. Buy every year or so a new fantastic improvement would come. It was a real joy to follow it.

When CK3 was announced I thought "well, as long as they keep and build upon what already exists, instead of just doing a makeover of the vanilla features and start ALL OVER AGAIN with vikings one year, judaism the next year, india the next year... " It seems that it is happening just like that though, so that put me off. I bought it, fiddled a bit but could not reaaly force myself to go past the sueface. My plan is (or was) to wait for a few years' dlcs to let it grow more, otherwise it feels it does not compete with fully developed ck2.

But maybe I am being too hard? I was about to start another run with CK2 and decided to first stop by and ask: ARE YE FELLOW OLDTIMERS OF CK2 ENJOYNG CK3?

CK3 is great. CK2 was really fun but by the time I joined in (around 2017-2018) most of the DLC had been made so it's not fair to compare a mostly finished game to a new game. Besides, even if they finished it and left it in its current form it's still better than CK2 with all DLC for the most part (*Cough Cough Primogeniture succession is kinda cursed for Byzantines, and where is my China Cough Cough*). Also to be clear here I don't say this as a "veteran" with like 100 hours, no no no, I have over 1k hours in CK2 and have done stuff such as reclaiming the Roman Empire as Frisia in the Charlamagine start date, so it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about.