What is a "broken" game?

[rjohansen]

So I wonder, I see the word "broken" thrown around quite a lot, not just regarding this game, but also in other games. I (think) I used "broken" and not broken by the way. Broken can, in my opinion, mean a lot of things, like: not functioning properly, incomplete, not finished and much more. I have never experienced a crash with this game, so it is clearly not broken if you use the strict definition of the word. But do the AI work as intended? I personally don't think so, I think the AI is somewhat poor to be honest and I also believed that it was desired to be a bit better, that the developers had higher expectations on the performance. I have never programmed a game (sic) so I will only assume it's very hard work creating a decent AI. An AI that will react to human behavior, often looking for exploits and tricking the a computer is what many finds fun. However I don't worry too much about the AI, it will probably be better with time. I was glad to see the divisional shuffling was being fixed for the next patch for instance.

But the ability to do world conquest with any country in the world, the ability to turn any nation to the ideology you want - in my honest opinion, that is a "broken" game. It is clearly intended, so it might no be broken for many or the developers themselves, the game is also probably made very easy for a reason. But I can't figure out why it is made so easy.

Also, the word broken is perhaps an easy word to use. Many of the forum-users are not English speaking (like me) and will lack the vocabulary to use perhaps better words to describe our feelings/thoughts. Therefore I might also sound annoyed/rash/overly-critical to some, and it is not intended. HOI series is one of my favorite games of all times, and I also enjoy other Paradox games like EU and CK - and buy almost every game and also give away 1-3 paradox games a year through presents. I still have hope for HOI4 for instance and have not given up yet.

What do others think? Is the game broken? And what defines a "broken" game, is it only if it is not functioning properly?

In my book this is what makes the game "broken" but not broken:

• 1) weak AI
  • Will probably be better in time. Not very worried, a few more patches and DLC's down the road, I am sure it will be better.
• 2) easy game (somewhat extreme)
  • The new sliders do a bit, but not enough. I mean, should it even be possible to do world conquest with a minor? In my opinion, this is the most "broken" thing about the game, it has to be a LOT harder, the game needs to be much much more difficult in my honest opinion.
  • The sliders I also feel, is mostly for the AI vs AI - ie. for helping Germany for instance.
• 3) the game is clearly marketed as a WW2 game - but I have never even once (in hundreds of hours) experienced nothing resembling the real WW2 at all.
  • In my opinion, this is also a "broken" part of the game, however intended it was. But why even have a historical focus option in the game if it is just supposed to be a random game? I have seen many says it is a sandbox game set in the "era of the 30s and 40s and that it is inteded to give a plausible simulation of what-ifs of that time-period" - but why market it then as a WW2 game? Also, how plausible is Svea Rike conquering UK and Soviet?

I have lots of other issues with the game as well, not the place here, but these three points above, are the only things that I personally will define as "broken". The Weak AI I bet will be better, but will the game ever be harder, will it ever be able to represent WW2? And I also notice there are some people asking for advice and finding the game hard, like it's almost like I don't believe it is true, but yeah, I guess if people have never played similar games, it might not be as easy.

And many says play MP - I have not the slightest interest in MP. I wan't to play calm and easy, do an hour here, do some other stuff, play another two hours there etc. In my own tempo. But of course a human brain/player will work better and using house rules I am sure the three points above will not be an issue.

This was getting a lot longer than intended and not meant as a rant, meant as a genuin question on how people look at the word broken and if they think the game is broken.

 

[Dalwin]

Your problem is one of semantics. "Broken" is a poor word choice and if interpreted literally one would have to say that you are incorrect. The game is not broken in the literal sense of crashing etc.

You need to instead use words like inadequate or unsatisfactory when making such points.

So to your question: No it is not broken if I answer literally. It is however, very unsatisfying for an experienced player in SP mode, leaving only MP. Fortunately for me I am having a lot of fun with my current MP group.

 

[rjohansen]

Yeah, that is why I wrote "broken" and not broken. But also because I and probably many others are not English speaking, there will be a lack of vocabulary. At least for me. But I see your words and they are better I agree.

 

[Dalwin]

To be fair, I know a great number of native English speakers who are simply lazy with their vocabulary and whose word choice is no more precise. You have a good excuse. They do not.

 

[Surimi]

Hyperbole is one thing, but declaring things to be "broken" because they don't meet your expectations (particularly if your expectations are impossible) or were not designed from the ground up in the way that you want them to be is completely different.

Sword of the Stars 2, on release, was broken. It was broken because it physically could not be played. Many people could not boot the game at all, or could not get past the main menu, and those who did would encounter game breaking bugs within the first few minutes.

Sword of the Stars 2: Enhanced Edition was a rushed and unfinished game which still, on a simple scale of achieving its own design goals, wasn't very good, but it was not "broken" because it still, on a basic level, worked. That defies the meaning of broken. A thing that is broken does not work. It can not meet your expectations, it can even be bad or flawed on a basic design level, but to be broken it has to fundamentally not work, to not be a complete and working whole, because that's the definition of broken.

If you've been involved in the gaming community in the past few years (and especially as a non-native speaker) it might seem normal to engage in this kind of extreme hyperbole, but it shouldn't be.

The other thing that needs to go away into a bin forever is the "Dark Souls is not really hard" argument. The vast, vast majority of people out there would find any Paradox game incomprehensible, and HOI4 is probably the least accessible of this generation of games so far. This constant flexing about not being able to believe that people could possibly find it difficult and how you did a WC as Luxembourg and it was easy, and also you beat Ornstein and Smough without using Estus or even plugging in the controller needs to go away. Seriously guys, dark souls isn't hard. Only casuals think dark souls is hard.

If you've spent hundreds of hours learning how to play a game, then that game isn't easy because it's "broken", it's easy because you got gud, and that's okay. Enjoy having the ability to pull off those insane world conquests and ridiculous achievement runs. You are part of a small elite group and you should feel proud, but by virtue of being part of that group you are no longer the typical gamer or necessarily the target audience.

 

[Number 7]

Throwing everything else out, the one single thing that makes HOI IV a broken game is the fact that the AI is pathetic a year post release. Paradox is selling an early access beta without the label.

No amount of excuses about "HOI 3 was broken on release too" matters because A) HOI3 was when paradox was a much smaller company before it had its big successes and B) just because something else was broken doesn't justify someone else selling a broken product later.

 

[Dalwin]

To be fair, I know a great number of native English speakers who are simply lazy with their vocabulary and whose word choice is no more precise. You have a good excuse. They do not.

Ha, I say a great many things that are wide open for disagreement, but I am a bit puzzled by this one. Is the disagreement with saying that a Norwegian has a good excuse for having a smaller English vocabulary? Or is it instead disagreeing with my assertion that there are many native English speakers (not only Americans) who are quite lazy in the use of their vocabulary?

If whoever disagreed did so on the basis that he thought I was picking on his own lazy word choice, then perhaps not actually defending yourself with a post was wise.

Throwing everything else out, the one single thing that makes HOI IV a broken game is the fact that the AI is pathetic a year post release. Paradox is selling an early access beta without the label.

No amount of excuses about "HOI 3 was broken on release too" matters because A) HOI3 was when paradox was a much smaller company before it had its big successes and B) just because something else was broken doesn't justify someone else selling a broken product later.

But HOI3 was literally broken on release. A high percentage of users could not even run it (though they met the system specs) let alone get it past 1939. It took at least 6 months just to get from being literally broken up to a comparable stage of being simply unsatisfactory as HOI4 is to some.

 

[Number 7]

But HOI3 was literally broken on release. A high percentage of users could not even run it (though they met the system specs) let alone get it past 1939. It took at least 6 months just to get from being literally broken up to a comparable stage of being simply unsatisfactory as HOI4 is to some.

Absolutely irrelevant. It was wrong to release a broken game then, its wrong to release a broken game now.

Paradox at the time of HOI3 was a much smaller company and at least you can say they just didn't have the experience or budget and needed to launch it and work on it over time. Paradox as of right now has multiple very well selling series but still thinks they can release broken games and not fix them for over a year.

HOI3's state of release has an entirely different context, it is not a shield to defend HOI4's awful state of release, and terrible AI problems still 1 year on.

 

[RELee]

But HOI3 was literally broken on release.

Agree to disagree.

No doubt it was broken for some, but I played the initial release a lot and had a system that did not suffer terribly from the issues that broke the game for others. I was lucky, or blessed depending on your world view.

 

[Broletariat90]

Broken means if the game literally crashes on launch or crashes repeatedly during playing then yeah it does not function. If it doesn't match your expectations then I guess its not your cup of tea and you can see if it turns out to be something you like or you can go find something else that is more your preference. For all the faults this game has, and I still do like it, it's not broken. It just needs some major surgery. Which will take a while but I'm sure will happen. So if it bugs you play another game for now. Try "Order of Battle WW2". I'm enjoying that a lot right now.

 

[Broletariat90]

Throwing everything else out, the one single thing that makes HOI IV a broken game is the fact that the AI is pathetic a year post release. Paradox is selling an early access beta without the label.

No amount of excuses about "HOI 3 was broken on release too" matters because A) HOI3 was when paradox was a much smaller company before it had its big successes and B) just because something else was broken doesn't justify someone else selling a broken product later.

Like I said , least it launches.... The AI is in a bad spot and hopefully they fix it. If not, it was only idk 40 bucks, but it looks like you don't own it. So no skin off your back?

 

[grandad1982]

First of all a few things not about 'broken'.

@rjohansen whilst I don't tend to agree with some of your ideas for how hoi4 should be, I think you present your arguments in a very clear and well structured way, in fact significantly better than I do as a native English speaker. Your style of reasoned criticism is one I support even if I don't always agree with your arguments.

Anyway, the problem is that broken is such a loaded word. It will instantly put some people on edge and in a game that isn't literally broken, such as hoi4, will create a very polarised conversation where both sides tend to become more antagonistic.

As has already been said better words would be, substandard, inadequate, disappointing, weak and I'm sure more besides. So for example, instead of saying the game is broken because Italy sends its troops to die in the Channel, you might say that it's very stupid or disappointing, which is true whilst saying it is broken isn't true but is more antagonistic.

 

[frolix42]

If someone feels that HoI4 is "broken", that's their subjective opinion and they are not incorrect to use that term. If someone else asserts that HoI4 cannot be "broken" because it is playable in some form, I think this is quibbling over semantics.

HoI4 is technically playable but plenty of things in it are broken. I've had multiple enjoyable campaigns suddenly and unexpectedly ruined by broken features of the game. The question of if these unfortunate flaws make the entire game broken is up to the individual playing the game.

 

[Meglok]

Can't resist the cheese>>>>>

HOI4 is not broken. Broken implies will not function. It crashes, sub-sections won't work, the graphics lock up the game, the keys don't work, the orders don't work, it won't download form Steam. None of those apply to HOI4.

There are currently "game-breaking" aspects in HOI4. Game breaking being defined as the ai doing x, y, and/or z completely breaks the dynamics and challenge of game play. Examples being the ai shuffling units and abandoning fronts while at war, or the ai sending units via naval transport into sea zone controlled by the enemy navy resulting in mass death, like if German divisions are removed from an active Russian Front and sent to a meaningless front like Africa or far away lands like Pacific islands controlled by allies. The ai taking troops and effectively flushing them down a toilet resulting in a uncontested game. Things that breaks the game play experience.

Does that make sense?

 

[Number 7]

Like I said , least it launches.... The AI is in a bad spot and hopefully they fix it. If not, it was only idk 40 bucks, but it looks like you don't own it. So no skin off your back?

i own the field marshal edition, so a lot of skin off my back. The game launching means nothing when there is zero challenge in an AI that is braindead. the game might as well not launch. Arguing that the game isn't broken just because it physically launches is a meaningless deflection.

 

[Dalwin]

i own the field marshal edition, so a lot of skin off my back. The game launching means nothing when there is zero challenge in an AI that is braindead. the game might as well not launch. Arguing that the game isn't broken just because it physically launches is a meaningless deflection.

Try the Ragnarok 1939 mod. It is more challenging than most scenarios. You don't even need to crank up the sliders or set yourself to veteran. It is an absurd scenario but in its own way sometimes feels more like WWII than the vanilla WWII scenario does.

 

[Sanny]

No it's not broken, because it not unplayable.
It's just very underwhelming and overall failed to hit the mark due to design flaws.

 

[wildbillhdmax01]

Are we really having a debate on the word broken?
Definition of broken "Not working properly"
People this is basic English. This is the second time on this forum where I've seen people try to redefine the word "broken".

So as long as it launches and doesn't CTD it isn't broken???? The idea that as long as it doesn't CTD it's fine is incredibly low bar.

I've played games that did not CTD, and launched, but once in the game nothing work. So that's also considered fine and working product also?

I can not believe how many people think as long as it launches and doesn't CTD it's fine... Rome 2 launch and played for a lot of people, but once in the game, a lot of it didn't work. So was Rome 2 not broken on launch people? What about Sid Meier's Beyond Earth? That game launched fine for me, but once in the game a lot didn't work. Fallout New Vegas was god awful, I was able to launch and play it, but most of the game didn't work. So It wasn't broken? Dayz launched for me, but once I got into the game nothing really worked for me, hell after backing out of sever, the menu would stop working. But that's not broken right? I mean technically it still played.

At this point you could probably somehow argue that HOI3 wasn't broken either. I'm sure someone can find a way with the arguments being made here.

So instead of being lazy, I'll be more elegant in my wording for now on.

The game is of defective quality, and henceforth does not work in a proper, and an intended manner I do say!

I really do think it's time for me to have a stroke.

 

[REDDQ]

On technical terms game is not broken. It works nicely, so far so good.

Content wise it could be considered broken, AI can be broken while game itself works fine. I would say it sometimes works to unsatisfactory degree but that is besides the point. Bottom line, game can be broken while working.

 

[Redz28]

Throwing everything else out, the one single thing that makes HOI IV a broken game is the fact that the AI is pathetic a year post release. Paradox is selling an early access beta without the label.



No amount of excuses about "HOI 3 was broken on release too" matters because A) HOI3 was when paradox was a much smaller company before it had its big successes and B) just because something else was broken doesn't justify someone else selling a broken product later.

This. Agree 1000x.

Just because the game's mechanics were technically functional at release doesn't mean it wasn't and still is broken. Anyone remember fortress Copenhagen that would tie up 80% of the German army for years in the first release? That's but one example.

Until the AI is competent, the game will remain broken. Some players might enjoy watching Italy sail it's army to its doom right in the middle of the Royal Navy. I dont, and that's just one example of the AI currently failing in what should be a basic role. Bugs like that are a game breaking event.

Until the AI is fixed, the game is little more than smoke and mirrors with pretty graphics.