Why I quit Victoria (and computer games all together)

[Arado]

Here we are: a year after Victoria was released. And what do we have? An excellent game. One of the best I ever played. However, it remains badly flawed on many levels. Many of the players are still unhappy, and some of the patches seem to not have fixed even the most obvious problems. Yes, I am talking about AI exploits, bugs etc... and I've been waiting for nearly a year to have these problems fixed, and they still haven't. So I've had it. I love this game, but seriously, I don't give a crap anymore.

Same goes for Rome Total War: great game. Graphically, it's a blockbuster. But try to manage anything larger than a 10 province empire and you want to shoot yourself in the face. That game is a micromanager's nightmare.

Am I going to buy HoI2? No way. Should I purchase it so I can start this ridiculous cycle of waiting for stupid patches that don't fix the most important problems even a year after the game's been out?

Maybe games today have become so complex that they need not 1 or 2 years to develop, but 5 or 6. I don't think it's fair to turn the players that paid good money for these games into frustrated Beta testers (remember 1.02? HoI 1.05??). So I quit. Sorry, guys, I love the games, I just hate what happened to the philosophy. This release early, patch later business is not my cup of tea. Maybe I'm to anal retentive and too much of a perfectionist, but I can't play a game unless I know or feel that what I have in front of me is the absolute best.

With all respect,
Arado

 

[Jon Shafer]

Problem is that others don't agree with your philosophy. They want their games sooner, even if they're not as good.

Another problem is simple economics. When a company tries to fill a niche market (like Paradox) they're not going to be raking in the big bucks. Sometimes corners have to be cut to make the games at all.

 

[oxmonsta]

Well when one reviewer described the original release of Victoria as being "buggier than a swamp" and another described the game manual as "like handing out a pamphlet for a particle accelerator" it can't have helped sales of the game.

Both those faults have now been rectified, but it is too late. The window of opportunity to build sales momentum has closed.

There is a difficult trade off to be made between getting a game out early and cheaply, and getting it out in a form that won't turn customers away. I don't envy Paradox in having to make that decision.

 

[Yaiko]

Wow, someone is spoiled. When I order a pizza and it doesn't turn out how I want it, if they offer me a new one, or in this instance patch it for free, I won't complain. Really, games are like any other products, most things frankly won't turn out perfect, and when a product has to be made to appeal towards millions, of course all the demands won't be fixed.

maybe some, -can't- be fixed. Some people are just spoiled.

 

[thorpemark]

Really, he's not spoiled, he'd like to be spoiled. And he is not really a perfectionist. He's simply insane and has lot touch with reality.

Oh my.. you know that exploit? If they'd only patch the game to prevent me from using it, then I wouldn't use it.

You got a whole community putting out mods for this game and this guy wants something that's "perfect".

No such thing, buddy.

Wait a minute. Tic-Tac-Toe.. all you need is a pencil and a paper and an opponent. There are even free games out there that do tic-tac-toe PERFECTLY.

 

[unmerged(24320)]

Well when one reviewer described the original release of Victoria as being "buggier than a swamp" and another described the game manual as "like handing out a pamphlet for a particle accelerator" it can't have helped sales of the game.

Both those faults have now been rectified, but it is too late. The window of opportunity to build sales momentum has closed.

There is a difficult trade off to be made between getting a game out early and cheaply, and getting it out in a form that won't turn customers away. I don't envy Paradox in having to make that decision.

interesting. i am at the other end of the spectrum from Arado. i just bought Victoria a week ago by mail order. it arrived last Friday, Nov. 19.

like Rensslaer said, "glad to hear you've decided to take up Vicky! It's worth the effort, and soon becomes more fun than effort," it takes effort to master the game. {see post # 495, ->here<- }. i am willing to make some effort because i am interested in the era that the game covers.

that said, to each his own.

also interesting that the same thing regarding bugs is what was said about Hearts of Iron when it came out. the copy of the manual i have with my Victoria game is a waste of paper. i guess i got an early copy of it. that does not bother me because i have access to the forum. in fact, i have already obtained some good information from the forums, and i expect to obtain much more.

regarding the window of opportunity, i agree. however, we have another opportunity to see if that window opens again with the release of Hearts of Iron II. so far, HOI II really looks good.

agreed. i don't envy Paradox in the decisions they have to make. the Paradox decisions, like decisions of any other business, are made from experience. i only hope that they survive long enough to make games as long as they want to.

 

[oxmonsta]

Excellent post GhostWriter.

I bought Vicky about 6 months ago and really love the game (IMHO it's one of the very best ever, and I have been playing computer games since 1986). But I can also see some of Arado's point of view: if only Vicky had been originally released in the state it is in now and with all of the information now at the VickyWiki website available to the player it might have been a sales success rather than dissapointment for Paradox.

I really wish Paradox every success, and hope they get the opportunity to make Vicky 2 and have learnt enough from Vicky 1 to make Vicky 2 a runaway success.

BTW, it was Memnon rather than Paradox which solved the problem of the manual by writing a new one - you can find it (and heaps of other essential information) on VickyWiki.

 

[Aragos]

Fellows,
I think that part of the issue is gaming in general, and computer games specifically.

I've been playing games for 25 years, and PC games since the early 80's. Games we first played on PCs were simplistic but fun. The old Colonial Conquest on Commodore 64 was a blast, but it was nothing more than building troops and ships and stomping your neighbors. Empire was another great game. Then came Civilization, and it changed everything.

Why? Because it was so damn good and so damn addictive. It raised the level of expectations to a new level. Now all games had to be just as addictive and just as good to 'beat' Civ. So we get more complex games; and the more complex they are, the more chance of bugs, crashes, AI exploits, etc.

I think it is fairly impossible to make a perfect game. But look at it this way, the game is just a REPRESENTATION of running a country--we really don't run every single part (how much fun would it be to have to deal with public sewage in London? or develop a specific public education program for Prussia?). So there is a level of abstraction that is added to make a game playable. For most, this is good enough. For others, they want 'depth' --meaning complexity--to the utmost.

I think Victoria strikes a good balance--especially in the really innovative part of the game, the POPs. While we all have our Sacred Cows and our Pet Peeves in Victoria, I think most of us agree that it is a good game and a fine effort by Paradox. No other game company even talks about addressing the era, much less produce a game of this quality.

Maybe it is just me--I really don't expect perfection from a game, especially a complex one like Victoria. Now if you want a simple game without errors, perfect out of the box, I concur. Tic-Tac-Toe is a fine strategy game with a long, long history of bug-freeness.

 

[Arado]

Really, he's not spoiled, he'd like to be spoiled. And he is not really a perfectionist. He's simply insane and has lot touch with reality.

Oh my.. you know that exploit? If they'd only patch the game to prevent me from using it, then I wouldn't use it.

You got a whole community putting out mods for this game and this guy wants something that's "perfect".

No such thing, buddy.

Wait a minute. Tic-Tac-Toe.. all you need is a pencil and a paper and an opponent. There are even free games out there that do tic-tac-toe PERFECTLY.

Master of Orion can be considered to be Tic-Tac-Toe to many gamers that came of age in the late 90's. But to me, it's one of the best games ever made (along with Civ). It is bug free, plays fast, not too complex, and the replay value is outstanding. The same thing cannot be said about MoO2 or MoO3. The new MoO's just kept getting worse and worse. MoO3 is an abomination. On the surface it is an excellent game, awesome combat model, but try playing an empire larger than 30 planets or so, and the whole thing just falls appart.

I guess computing power is a double edged sword. It allows developers to make games as complicated as they want, but this is dangerous. It's taken a year to fix the major problems with Victoria. And folks, trust me, its gonna be the same thing for HoI2. Used to be that we would have anxiety and expectation build up for the release of the game, now many players (including myself) suffer from this anxiety and expectation for every damn patch. It's too much. I love this stuff. I just don't want to live with the prospect of expecting one patch and then another.

I guess the replier misread what I said. I don't expect anything to be perfect, just the best. Vict 1.01 was not the best.

Regards,
Ar

 

[Arado]

Problem is that others don't agree with your philosophy. They want their games sooner, even if they're not as good.

Another problem is simple economics. When a company tries to fill a niche market (like Paradox) they're not going to be raking in the big bucks. Sometimes corners have to be cut to make the games at all.

I know.... this is unfortunate, and picky fans like me suffer. If it takes 5 years for you to put out a game, I wish you could take them all.

 

[unmerged(3921)]

I don't think Arado is spoiled. It's HIS money, he has the right to refrain from spending that money for whatever reason he chooses. The flip side of that equation is that Paradox as a business can choose to release its games in whatever state of completion or lack thereof it chooses to. If the game is considered incomplete and poor, buyers will avoid future purchases. If the game is considered complete and excellent, then buyers will tend to buy future games from the company. And in the vast middle ground you will find buyers with some of both reactions. This is the great give and take between suppliers and buyers that occurs with almost every product. Thou shalt not tamper with the market mechanism and the great wisdom it displays.

Macroeconomics has spoken on the economics that drives this issue. That is all.

 

[Quarto]

There is a difficult trade off to be made between getting a game out early and cheaply, and getting it out in a form that won't turn customers away. I don't envy Paradox in having to make that decision.

Paradox simply bit off more than they could chew. The problem isn't just that Victoria was an extremely complex game. The problem is also related to the fact that they were developing, almost simultaneously, Vic and CK (and during the earliest stages of their development, HOI as well). This, it seeems, was simply too much for them (Paradox is not EA, after all).

It will be interesting to see how HOI2 goes. For most of its development (it seems) HOI2 was the only game they were working on (and a lot of it was simply recycled from HOI - I'm sure all those events that appeared in HOI were ported straight over to HOI2), so it should in theory be a much better, more polished game.

...But excuse me if I don't hold my breath . After Vic and CK, I have very little faith in Paradox' ability to produce a new game that doesn't require several patches before it begins to feel playable.

 

[unmerged(15826)]

I must put my comment in here as I agree with both sides but yet have another point to make. One of my favourite things about Paradox games is the fact that they patch them and that there is a very active group of fans there to back them up. Consider this:

How many games have you bought that were rubbish and that no patch in the world could save even if the company was prepared to do it? My guess is a lot of games fit that bill.

If there were no need to patch the games - and I think some of the patching issues are pretty minor- then would there be a need or desire for such an active forum?

I understand that the HOi rulebook was rubbish but then I was given another online so problem solved. I still thought HOI 1.00 was better than any other game on the market for my niche interests - oh yes they are - and I really played the ass off EU2 1.00. I have now been playing these games pretty solidly for years and how many other games can you say that about.

I understand that it is frustrating when a game does not conform to your particular worldview of how it should happen but that does not always mean that it is bugged it's just that you do not like it.

This is not a rah rah for Paradox - I think CK looks crap - but think about it as there is nobody else out there making games like them as good as them.

 

[Powerslave]

How many games by other companies are making grand strategical games like Paradox? Very few I will tell you and those that do, does a very bad job. So if you are interested in this niche genre, Paradox is the only company to turn to. That is why they have such an extremely loyal fan base. That is also why I will continue to be one of their most loyal fans. I have been here for 4 years and I check this forum almost daily and I still learn stuff from time to time.

I agree... Paradox doesn't release games in a perfect state and I think that is a pitty, not at all for me but for those impatiant people that visit this site and most at all for those that does not visit Paradox forum at all. Actually for me I don't mind at all that they release these games in the condition as they are, Paradox is one of the best companies I have enqountered in regards to patching and most of all listening to their fan base. For me that is more important than releasing bugfree games without exploits (which is almost impossible with there budget anyway).

Paradox is a company that makes games to earn money... developing games for 5-6 years in a niche genre like this would be suicide. They would never earn a profit that way.

 

[unmerged(25013)]

Hey, I am now very much a fan of Paradox.

I bought EUII when I saw it in the bargain bin and decided to give it a try, and have been hooked ever since...

I agree with what others have said about games like MoO and Civ, they started out awesome games but as each succesive release has given into "eye candy" and other catchy features, they have gone downhill.

Civ III (the last one and not Test of Time) was an interesting game but unless your using a CRAY computer becomes unplayable very fast.

MoO III was just a plain disappointment, I liked the knock-off of MoO II, Birth of the Federation better, hehehe

Paradox does fill a niche that was definately missing since Sid Maier went "hollywood".

(now to date myself)

They remind me of what SSI (Strategic Simulations Inc) was to the C-64.

They probably need some work on marketing and could save money by nixing the manual (put it on-line or abbrviated to a card) and reducing the box-size.

Like I said, I found EUII on the bin, and after playing a bit realized it's what I have been looking for in a game.

I think there is probably a great many others like me, that haven't had a chance but would be hooked.

Maybe throw a demo out there, something to give people a taste!!

 

[cwhomer]

Am I going to buy HoI2? No way. Should I purchase it so I can start this ridiculous cycle of waiting for stupid patches that don't fix the most important problems even a year after the game's been out?

Maybe games today have become so complex that they need not 1 or 2 years to develop, but 5 or 6. I don't think it's fair to turn the players that paid good money for these games into frustrated Beta testers (remember 1.02? HoI 1.05??). So I quit. Sorry, guys, I love the games, I just hate what happened to the philosophy. This release early, patch later business is not my cup of tea. Maybe I'm to anal retentive and too much of a perfectionist, but I can't play a game unless I know or feel that what I have in front of me is the absolute best.

With all respect,
Arado

Personally I like that fact we gamers get to implement a huge amount of changes in Paradox games. Whether it was EU, HOI, Vicky, or CK I would play and say "Gee, I'd love to see this and this" only to have those wishs fufilled. Its fun to watch these games "grow" if you will.

Is it frustating knowing that the games could be better? You bet. But its satisfying to know that the games WILL get better, unlike the much maligned Pax Romana.

I look at this way, each a new patch comes out, I get a brand new game. But I can understand why some people lose patience.

 

[unmerged(24449)]

Chris1959

I think Vicky is my favourite Paradox game, but it is not perfect. No Paradox game is near perfect, their handling of naval transportation is abysmal.
But overall the games do what they are supposed too. In fact the patches keep pulling me back every time.
One side effect has been an extremely fat bank balance. I bought EU1 when I saw a review since than I've only bought 3 other games EUII, Vicky and CK, I used to buy 1or2 games a month.
Thank you Johan I owe you big time!

 

[unmerged(21482)]

I guess computing power is a double edged sword. It allows developers to make games as complicated as they want, but this is dangerous. It's taken a year to fix the major problems with Victoria. And folks, trust me, its gonna be the same thing for HoI2. Used to be that we would have anxiety and expectation build up for the release of the game, now many players (including myself) suffer from this anxiety and expectation for every damn patch. It's too much. I love this stuff. I just don't want to live with the prospect of expecting one patch and then another.

Yes, I agree with you.
Microsoft is the largest software company, but look their products.
There are so many games that only recycled from other games.
Same game play, same story, and (almost) same graphic.
If you wanna save your money, just wait and see until a game (or software) is really stable.
For example : until now I haven't upgrade my Windows XP to SP 2.

 

[unmerged(22442)]

I want to start by saying I love playing Vicky. It is a more complex game than I have ever played and they are hard to find. Most games that are this complex aren't playable because they lose focus of the fact that they are a game.

With that said, when HoI 2 comes out, I won't rush out to get it. I feel that the manual won't be enough and the VickyWiki version for it won't be out for a bit after it's release. This alone won't keep me from getting it right away though. When the aspect of the game changes with each patch, I want to buy something that will be reasonably close to what the final product will be.

I will still buy it though. I just want to wait until some of the major bugs are worked out. Unfortunately from what I understand, Paradox only makes top dollar when the game is first released to stores, after that the profit/game decreases.

I know I could still buy from Paradox themselves, but when I am going through the forum and see that there is an excellent patch that fixes most things, I don't want to order it and then wait for it to arrive, I would rather hop in my car and get it right away (sorry guys). If I was assured to have an 90% complete game when I pre-order from Paradox, I would do so.

I mean no disrespect towards Paradox though. These games ARE complex, and need long hours of testing to see where the bugs are. This is expensive and I understand why they need to release a game the way it is sometimes.

What I would like to see is Paradox amaze me and release HoI 2 95% complete. Not for my own sake, but for the reviewers who get the game and have no trouble understanding it as well as finding very few bugs with it. This would help sales for the game (too bad about Vicky) and help Paradox's image as well.

Zed

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

Master of Orion can be considered to be Tic-Tac-Toe to many gamers that came of age in the late 90's. But to me, it's one of the best games ever made (along with Civ). It is bug free, plays fast, not too complex, and the replay value is outstanding. The same thing cannot be said about MoO2 or MoO3. The new MoO's just kept getting worse and worse. MoO3 is an abomination. On the surface it is an excellent game, awesome combat model, but try playing an empire larger than 30 planets or so, and the whole thing just falls appart.

I think I am halfway in your generation and halfway out of it. I had my misgivings about Civ 2 when it came out, but I got used to it and I still play it. Of course, I'm disinclined to risk looking at Civ 3. It might upset me. The game I play the most in TOAW, first released in 1998.

It's true that the more complex something is, the more things there are to go wrong. Victoria is unsatisfactory in a lot of ways. Not a bad game- but it's not a classic either, at least not in my view.