Whats the point in 3d?

[berhaven]

I think the discussion is actually toouching two completely different topics:

1st (original thread): is 3d a good choice?
Personally and at a first glance I thought "gosh, no, it's ugly!", but taking into considerations simplified work on map change (not only modding, also use of the same engine for the furure games), and getting used to the way it looks, I got to understand the rationale of the choice, and I have to admit that it was not a bad idea, from the "technical" point of view.

2nd (apparently not linked): what about Paradox strategies? Will they continue to cuddle us poor old grognards, still dreaming of a PC-solo SPI, or are they going to try to actually rtun a profitable business downgrading their games to follow the "ignorant crowd"?
And this is a worry, a big worry. Personally I have no problems in saying that I began to play Paradox games(EU1.3 IIRC) after I bought CIV3, and after being deeply disappointed with the game compared to CIV2, which was an excellent base for attempts of historical strategic modding. I just hope not to have to start looking for some other niche game producer.
But I have a kind of confidence in the passion of Johann.

 

[Red Ant]

Have you not read the thread at all? 3D has added to the game, most notably by making map-mods easier and freeing up the CPU for AI routines and calculations. New artwork is also much easier to make in a 3D engine.

Bullshit. 3D hasn't done a thing for the game at all. The maps we got now are

A) butt-ugly and
B) convey LESS information to the player than the 2D maps of EUII did.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Sigh. Compare apples to apples, we all know that Paradox games get infinitely better as they are patched (which is a whole different discussion). Everyone complaining about the AI is comparing to DD, which is basically HOI2 patch 1.5 (or is 1.6 now?) or EU2 patch 1.9. Please compare to HOI2 patch 1.1 or EU2 patch 1.1. If you still think there is a vast difference in AI capabilities, then fine, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Problem with this is experience included in last releases of Paradox games is not taken in account.
Comparing EU3 1.1 with EU2 1.1 is non-sense. Same goes for DD.

Anyway , can we compare EU2 and EU3?

As for 3D, choice was obvious. Only the result can be critizised. IMHO, TOT is far batter looking but ToT only changes textures, effects and colors (same for other graphics mods). But what about "ugly" squarred borders, for example?

EDIT: and other informations that were in EU2 on the map and not present in EU3 (point B in Red Ant's post)

 

[L'Afrique]

Bullshit. 3D hasn't done a thing for the game at all. The maps we got now are

A) butt-ugly and
B) convey LESS information to the player than the 2D maps of EUII did.

Er... What does this have to do with 3D? I personally think the EU3 map is one of the better ones. It's on par with the Vicky map for looks, and the only ones above them are the user-made EU2 maps. As EU3 gets older, I have no doubt maps on par with WATK and MyMap will be produced. As for B: That's design oversite. The 3D map could easily show all of the EU2 information if Paradox had implemented it, and there's nothing preventing them from reimplementing additional information in future patches.

How can you claim "3D hasn't done anything for the game" when we've pointed out in the thread over and over again what it adds. Make a valid statement, or don't waste Paradox bandwidth on "LA LA LA, I CAN"T HEAR YOU" posts.

 

[unmerged(6310)]

That EUIII has more shelf-space worldwide, doesn't mean it can be found in every store, in every town in the world

Of course not. No game is.

But I can't think of another game that I could go to over a dozen stores, all selling games, all selling games that have been released in time frames older than EU3 (i.e. in the last two months since being released), and not find a single copy of EU3, used or otherwise. Not a single one.

Over a month after release - and still not a single copy on the shelves?

 

[6354201]

You can't argue that 3D is a bad choice just based on looks because it is so subjective. Personally I like the map, especially the terrain mode as I pointed out in an earlier post.

Even if you believe the 3D engine does not look great in its present form, the potential is there. A 3D engine is much more adaptable to different resolutions and is easier to mod and improve. The sprites are now 3D models instead of the flip book style sprites of other Paradox games.

Also, don't forget the other advantages people have mentioned, such as offloading CPU work to the GPU.

Moving to 3D doesn't mean that the game will become Age of Empires in the future. There is no basis for this argument. Paradox didn't pick 3D to get your average RTS gamer to get onboard. Most gamers would laugh at the graphics in EU3. While the map is nicely implemented, the polygon count on the sprites is nothing more than passable, and the graphics overall would not attract someone who has just got done playing a game like AoE III. So while 3D may attract a few converts, it would not inspire any sort of mass difference. Since there would no drastic change in the audience for the game simply because of graphics, there is no reason for Paradox to 'dumb down' the game.

In summary, 3D makes A LOT of sense!

 

[NikkTheTrick]

Bullshit. 3D hasn't done a thing for the game at all.

1. It frees CPU cycles.
2. It allows easier modding.

Next time, I suggest you read posts in the thread before replying to it.

A) butt-ugly

1. It is in the eye of the beholder. I actually fing 3D maps nice.
2. That is moddable.

B) convey LESS information to the player than the 2D maps of EUII did.

That is not fault of 3D engine, but rather mapmodes selectable. Therefore, that point is completely non-applicable to the thread: we are talking 3D vs. 2D.

 

[Black_Shade]

You can't argue that 3D is a bad choice just based on looks because it is so subjective. Personally I like the map, especially the terrain mode as I pointed out in an earlier post.

Even if you believe the 3D engine does not look great in its present form, the potential is there. A 3D engine is much more adaptable to different resolutions and is easier to mod and improve. The sprites are now 3D models instead of the flip book style sprites of other Paradox games.

Also, don't forget the other advantages people have mentioned, such as offloading CPU work to the GPU.

Moving to 3D doesn't mean that the game will become Age of Empires in the future. There is no basis for this argument. Paradox didn't pick 3D to get your average RTS gamer to get onboard. Most gamers would laugh at the graphics in EU3. While the map is nicely implemented, the polygon count on the sprites is nothing more than passable, and the graphics overall would not attract someone who has just got done playing a game like AoE III. So while 3D may attract a few converts, it would not inspire any sort of mass difference. Since there would no drastic change in the audience for the game simply because of graphics, there is no reason for Paradox to 'dumb down' the game.

In summary, 3D makes A LOT of sense!

I agree with your first point: the switch to 3-d was logical. It wouldn't bother me if the map wasn't so fugly. As for the second point, I'd say there is a VERY strong basis for this arguement.

Just look at EU3: its clear that paradox spent most of their time developing the new engine and very little on the actual game, and the game is "dumbed down" quite a bit. Even on the hardest difficulties the game is ridiculously easy, and the lack of seperate AI files means your opponenets will all do the same thing based on their size. Also, the AI never builds ships, no matter what its situation, so fighting colonial wars or landing behind enemy super-stacks is a sure fire victory.

EU3 has almost no replay value compared to previous paradox games (hell, I still play even AoE3 atm, and I can't say the same for EU3- once I got 4-5 games past 1700 under my belt that was enough for me). Every single game, no matter your location/strength/etc plays out the same, and it just gets boring. The game is basically an empty shell because (seemingly) so much time was spent on updating the engine and very little on the actual game. By and large, the people who are complaining about the 3-d aren't mad that paradox moved in that direction (unless their computer couldn't run it, of course), but they are mad that it moved in that direction at the EXPENSE of what actually matters: the gameplay.

 

[6354201]

I havent played either of the previos EU games, but I have played HoI2 extensively. EU3 doesn't feel overly simplistic or lacking in some area. Sure certain aspects could be improved, but this is true with nearly every game. EU3 has large amount of replay value. You can take any nation in the world and set different goals each time. Whether or not this loses its appeal after a period of time is a different matter IMHO.

 

[unmerged(56602)]

Of course not. No game is.

But I can't think of another game that I could go to over a dozen stores, all selling games, all selling games that have been released in time frames older than EU3 (i.e. in the last two months since being released), and not find a single copy of EU3, used or otherwise. Not a single one.

Over a month after release - and still not a single copy on the shelves?

While there is no doubt that EUIII has been a hit compared to EUII, there is a lot of doubt it's a hit in any other context. My local Target has CEs just sitting on the shelf, my local EB has sold one (that's right, one) copy since it came out according to the salesguy, and it's getting it's butt kicked by games that have been out forever like Medieval II, Civ 4, and AoE III. Not to mention crap like Deal or No Deal: The Video Game.

But this is all part of the growing process. I never saw EUII in stores... previous to this the only games by Paradox that seemed to be available in Seattle stores were Hearts of Iron II, Hearts of Iron II: Doomsday, and (a single lonely copy of) Victoria. EUIII is much more widely available than any previous Paradox product. And that make it a bit odd that you can't find a copy. (Maybe Paradox should add yet another person to the "To Be Fired" list?)

 

[DPS]

Because you don't have to draw massive bitmap maps. In EUII every bit of coastline was unique and had been drawn by hand. In EUIII you are essentially using stock parts to assemble the same pre-made building blocks to create a new product.

If you're modding the map, don't you want to do it by hand?

 

[L'Afrique]

No. Of all Paradox's 2D games released, EU2 has two playable maps. Vicky has one map that will be started as soon as the map-making tool is completed. The other games have nothing. It takes far too long to mod the 2D maps.

 

[unmerged(12921)]

EU3 has almost no replay value compared to previous paradox games (hell, I still play even AoE3 atm, and I can't say the same for EU3- once I got 4-5 games past 1700 under my belt that was enough for me). Every single game, no matter your location/strength/etc plays out the same, and it just gets boring. The game is basically an empty shell because (seemingly) so much time was spent on updating the engine and very little on the actual game. By and large, the people who are complaining about the 3-d aren't mad that paradox moved in that direction (unless their computer couldn't run it, of course), but they are mad that it moved in that direction at the EXPENSE of what actually matters: the gameplay.

EXACTLY! Please give us a "game" to go with all the pretty toys...

 

[unmerged(6310)]

While there is no doubt that EUIII has been a hit compared to EUII, there is a lot of doubt it's a hit in any other context. My local Target has CEs just sitting on the shelf, my local EB has sold one (that's right, one) copy since it came out according to the salesguy, and it's getting it's butt kicked by games that have been out forever like Medieval II, Civ 4, and AoE III. Not to mention crap like Deal or No Deal: The Video Game.

You mean they actually carried it anyway? The EBs I went to said they weren't going to get it at all unless there were pre-orders. I usually hate pre-ordering games, confident that I can find one SOMEWHERE on release day, but my gut told to me do it this one. Thank goodness I did, it's the only reason I'm playing it now. I went back to check and one EBGames had another copy, but it was a preorder waiting to get picked up. The rest - nope. Gamestop - nope there too. Best Buy, WalMart, CompUSA. Nope.

The Targets around here have nothing of EU3 and the employees look at me like I came from Mars when I ask about it (never mind I usually have to spell it while they type it...gah - between niche games and anime, I get a lot of practice spelling things...).

Yeah, now M:TW2 - that's what I call shelf presence, imo. I could trip and fall on a M:TW2 box on release day Likewise for Civ4 and AoE3. Even for a niche game, EU3 had no presence here and I'm not in a tiny town

But this is all part of the growing process. I never saw EUII in stores... previous to this the only games by Paradox that seemed to be available in Seattle stores were Hearts of Iron II, Hearts of Iron II: Doomsday, and (a single lonely copy of) Victoria. EUIII is much more widely available than any previous Paradox product. And that make it a bit odd that you can't find a copy. (Maybe Paradox should add yet another person to the "To Be Fired" list?)

I found a single copy of a bundle of EU1/2 (new no less) and picked it up immediately some years back. It was like $19 or something - had never played an EU game until then, figured it can't hurt at that price. Took a long while for me to get into (and used to) it, but at least the name was in my head and when I heard of EU3 - I wanted to try a "modern" game in the series (since EU2 was "old" at the time).

Hearts of Iron 1/2, Doomsday, Victoria - never once seen them. Heck I never HEARD of them until coming to this board and seeing other people talk about them. (I really want to try Victoria, I've read it's hard - I like hard games ).
Lucked up on a copy of Crusader Kings and bought that a year or so ago too.

Hopefully, you're right, it's still a growing process. Hopefully, their next game will be more available (and heard of so I don't have have spell it sales staff )

 

[unmerged(25947)]

Paradox have always made absolutely horrible looking graphics (with Victoria as an exception, one of the most beautiful games IMO), and haven't took the best use gameplay wise you could get from it. The truth is, terrible 3d graphics are ten times uglier and heavier than terrible 2d graphics. It is easier to make simple, colourful 2d graphics which will perform better than average 3d "video card" graphics.
Personally I will welcome 3d if someone can actually make it work on grand scale boardgameish strategy games.

But there is more serious issues behind all this. These "gimmicks", 3d's, simplifying, mainstreaming, cutting mature themes, whatever, sums up and bring unwanted new fans to replace the older ones. And I'm not just talking about EU3, but in games overall. That game which you originally loved is most likely going to get raped at some point of the series lifespan, going as far as changing genre.
X-Com, Fallout, Civilization, Rainbow Six, Hitman, Tomb Raider (even it's been shitty since the beginning), Thief, Settlers, Worms, HoMM, generic RTS/FPS, you name it. That's just few examples.
Average Joe who plays because it is fashion nowadays and can be fast & easy is happy with the changes. Nolife hardcore players who actually have game experience from the last decade(s) get shafted on this one.

I feel sorry for the people who think 2d as an step backwards (notice the focus on negative opinion about 2d and not positive about 3d) and accepting marketing department's policies to expand the target audience. Ultimately that attitude will destroy true PC gaming industry.
EU4 will be casual already-chewed-for-ya console port with 5 new units, economic aspect removed by fans request and possibility to start as USA in 1400 scenario with cartoon George Patton dressed in bikini uniform as their builder unit. Of course you can get to decorate his house in the expansion and unlock new characters if you manage to conquer the world in under 30 minutes.

Focusing on smaller audience isn't such a bad business especially with these Gamersgate, Steam and such around today. That is, if the motive behind doing these games besides living is still "by gamers from gamers" (RIP IP). You really expect to bring some serious cash with historical simulation games?

This rant was totally on topic.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

It is easier to make simple, colourful 2d graphics which will perform better than average 3d "video card" graphics.

It is been told by a lot of people who have a lot knowledge about this (I haven't myself so I take their word for ti), that 3d graphics/maps are easier to make and change, then 2d graphics/maps.

Focusing on smaller audience isn't such a bad business especially with these Gamersgate, Steam and such around today. That is, if the motive behind doing these games besides living is still "by gamers from gamers" (RIP IP). You really expect to bring some serious cash with historical simulation games?

Somehow I get the impression that some players believe that Paradox only reason to exist is to make a game that just a small audience like/can play. For Paradox making games is not a hobby, but their means of existance, the people at Paradox need to earn a living by making a game, it isn't their hobby.

 

[unmerged(14180)]

Somehow I get the impression that some players believe that Paradox only reason to exist is to make a game that just a small audience like/can play. For Paradox making games is not a hobby, but their means of existance, the people at Paradox need to earn a living by making a game, it isn't their hobby.

Indeed. Then why would they make Strategy games? Why not make FPS?

If their passion is making larger profits with each game, then it must be said they are tilting at the wrong audience. And I daresay they got into this whole thing by enjoying strategy games...at least I would hope so.

If they wish to start making simplified Strat games, then they start to merge into the Age of Empires/Total war market, and they need a LOT better graphics, battles, etc to get anywhere there. If they wish to keep creating successful, more complicated, grognardy type strategy games then they need to focus on the substance, with glitz coming up second. Otherwise they piss off the majority of the old fan base.

Also, I haven't heard of any financial difficulties on their part.

In any case, If they stop making games that I enjoy, I will simply stop buying them. Too easy. Then they can start making games for all the 'Lets put Dragons in the Terra Incognita guys! Wouldn't it be Coolz!!1!!!!' people....

3D is here. It added nothing to my game experience with EU3, but its here, i accept that. But the gameplay needs to come first, and this one needs more work imho.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Indeed. Then why would they make Strategy games? Why not make FPS?

They make strategy games because that is where they are good at

Check out the awards and recognitations that EUIII has won, here

Too easy. Then they can start making games for all the 'Lets put Dragons in the Terra Incognita guys! Wouldn't it be Coolz!!1!!!!' people....

Why go from one extreme to the other ? there is always something in the middle.

Otherwise they piss off the majority of the old fan base.

I am pretty sure they won't piss of the majority of the old fans, who ever they might be.

 

[unmerged(14180)]

Perhaps you can point out to me the middle ground games?

As for the awards....Well, Oblivion is apparently the greatest RPG ever, yet strangely, many RPG players think it stinks. Go figure. It certainly did appeal to the FPS crowd though.

As for the old fans, I am one of them. I have seen plenty of others who think in similar terms.

 

[unmerged(25273)]

It had to be 3D to get any attention from pc game magazines

I guess it had to be 3D to get any attention from game magazines. I am under the impression that these so called journalists just go by the first glance or maybe first half hour game experience. Priceless jewels like EU hardly got any attention before and while EU3 does but still gets a test rating that is ridiculously low.
I can only speak of Germany though and I have to admit that I stopped reading them regularly when 3 of the most widely available magazines failed to have at least a bit of info on EU1 which I had found in a shop by pure luck.

Anyway it looks nicer to me and if 3D frees up memory in the pc I can well understand and welcome Paradox's decision even though I had to get a new graphics card.