While there are often things in (or not in) PDX games that disappoint player experience, I had come to rely on the communication from the developers as a barometer on whether a game will interest me. So for CK3, seeing the developers vision laid out in the initial Dev Diary, it was easy for me to understand why I didn't care for it in comparison to its predecessor, and adjust my expectations for the game.
If we look at the Vision laid out in Dev Dairy #0, have any of these actually been met in Vic3?
The four design pillars:
If we are feeling generous, perhaps this vision objective was met. The core gameplay loop in Vic3 is to put things in your building queue and weaken specific IGs. That may pass as "Building, shaping, tweaking and evolving your nation" but I think the latter sentence is a complete whiff (well, war not being enjoyable is true).
When do events outside of the player nation ever impact player gameplay? Perhaps a great power intervening in a diplomatic play? But I'm struggling to think of how the AI, or even events have ever made me pause and re-assess my strategy, especially as far as internal management of my nation goes. Which according to this first pillar, is the core focus of the game.
This is not implemented in its current state. The easiest way to see the failure of this vision is that you can achieve multiple objects via a war, yet diplomatic plays are singular. Demand provinces as the US against Mexico, they'll back down and you get one state. There are plenty of threads on diplomatic plays and shortcomings, but for me this was the most promising aspect of Vic3's vision, and to see it not implemented is disappointing.
I struggle to see how this was met.
Politics at launch included political parties (which the community had to pressure the devs to even include!) winning elections not tied to a government's legitamacy. Right now "politics" in Vic3 is merely moving IGs into government to help lower landowner power. There are no union fighting for better working conditions in your nation. There are no revolutions spreading in Europe. Serfs never rise up. I could go on, but none of the major political events of the mid-late 19th century or early 20th century are represent in this game.
There is nothing that makes the play care about politics besides IG support for laws. Passing of laws is an extremely narrow (and imo wrong) view of politics. Both today and during the time period supposedly represented.
Do major features tie back to IGs? Back to the first pillar, what are these major features? The construction queue, maybe diplomacy or waiting to pass a law?
How does construction tie to IGs? Potentially moving pops to new jobs, and empowering industrialists. How does diplomacy impact IGs? Do pops care about your diplomatic plays, successes or failures?
In my experience, no. These don't really tie back to pops or to IGs in a way that moves much of the needle for a nations political activity.
This feels like the one the is missed by the widest mark. There is no feeling of the change of this era. None of the social, political and technologically upheaval is represent. Its just click a button, new production method, now you need appropriate IGs for it. Click a button, new military method, spend some more but front interactions don't change, and being ahead/behind on methods mean little since it just impacts number of battalions in the field. There is nothing "Victorian" about a Vic3 playthrough besides the years we're told we are playing and mutton chops.
Some of this is no flavor, but some of this is a game that doesn't engage a player in ways that would show the representation of this era.
Outside the design pillars I'd like to pull a few more quotes from this diary.
Pop system deeper than Vic2? Internal Country Management as core mechanic? What happened to this?
Pops in Vic3 seem to tie to standard of living, Vic2's Pop attitude and pop migration are massively simplified, not deepened. In Vic3 pops migrate out of market if they experience turmoil, vs in Vic2, a host of factors go into emigration (not that Vic2 railroading of NA/SA migration was ideal, but Vic3 does not deepen this, itsimplifies, sorry makes accessible.
If we look at the Vision laid out in Dev Dairy #0, have any of these actually been met in Vic3?
The four design pillars:
If we are feeling generous, perhaps this vision objective was met. The core gameplay loop in Vic3 is to put things in your building queue and weaken specific IGs. That may pass as "Building, shaping, tweaking and evolving your nation" but I think the latter sentence is a complete whiff (well, war not being enjoyable is true).
When do events outside of the player nation ever impact player gameplay? Perhaps a great power intervening in a diplomatic play? But I'm struggling to think of how the AI, or even events have ever made me pause and re-assess my strategy, especially as far as internal management of my nation goes. Which according to this first pillar, is the core focus of the game.
This is not implemented in its current state. The easiest way to see the failure of this vision is that you can achieve multiple objects via a war, yet diplomatic plays are singular. Demand provinces as the US against Mexico, they'll back down and you get one state. There are plenty of threads on diplomatic plays and shortcomings, but for me this was the most promising aspect of Vic3's vision, and to see it not implemented is disappointing.
I struggle to see how this was met.
Politics at launch included political parties (which the community had to pressure the devs to even include!) winning elections not tied to a government's legitamacy. Right now "politics" in Vic3 is merely moving IGs into government to help lower landowner power. There are no union fighting for better working conditions in your nation. There are no revolutions spreading in Europe. Serfs never rise up. I could go on, but none of the major political events of the mid-late 19th century or early 20th century are represent in this game.
There is nothing that makes the play care about politics besides IG support for laws. Passing of laws is an extremely narrow (and imo wrong) view of politics. Both today and during the time period supposedly represented.
Do major features tie back to IGs? Back to the first pillar, what are these major features? The construction queue, maybe diplomacy or waiting to pass a law?
How does construction tie to IGs? Potentially moving pops to new jobs, and empowering industrialists. How does diplomacy impact IGs? Do pops care about your diplomatic plays, successes or failures?
In my experience, no. These don't really tie back to pops or to IGs in a way that moves much of the needle for a nations political activity.
This feels like the one the is missed by the widest mark. There is no feeling of the change of this era. None of the social, political and technologically upheaval is represent. Its just click a button, new production method, now you need appropriate IGs for it. Click a button, new military method, spend some more but front interactions don't change, and being ahead/behind on methods mean little since it just impacts number of battalions in the field. There is nothing "Victorian" about a Vic3 playthrough besides the years we're told we are playing and mutton chops.
Some of this is no flavor, but some of this is a game that doesn't engage a player in ways that would show the representation of this era.
Outside the design pillars I'd like to pull a few more quotes from this diary.
Pop system deeper than Vic2? Internal Country Management as core mechanic? What happened to this?
Pops in Vic3 seem to tie to standard of living, Vic2's Pop attitude and pop migration are massively simplified, not deepened. In Vic3 pops migrate out of market if they experience turmoil, vs in Vic2, a host of factors go into emigration (not that Vic2 railroading of NA/SA migration was ideal, but Vic3 does not deepen this, it
And yet construction is nation wide regardless of where construction buildings are built. Feels like mana to me.
- 141
- 29
- 13
- 7
- 4
