Why I quit Victoria (and computer games all together)

[unmerged(31388)]

A game gets about 15 mins to convince a palyer that its worth a buy. Now, since Victoria takes waaaaaaaay longer then 15 minutes, we have no naked babes, your not allowed to run around shooting things, and you have to use your brain. The sollution:
Make a games where you run around shooting naked babes, with amazing graphics that makes you spend a bunch of $ on a new computer and that is like all the else big sellers.

 

[oxmonsta]

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.
.
.
.
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

I have just been looking at the previews for HOI2 on various sites such as gamespot etc (Paradox has given a beta copy to the reviewers so they can write previews - smart move). Reading these previews several things grabbed my attention:

1. All of the previews were very positive towards the game. They all said the game has significant depth but is manageable for the player.

2. They all noted that the game is significantly free from bugs, CTDs, and feels quite complete (not bad for a beta version).

3. A "player" (I assume they mean a beta tester), not Paradox, has written the manual, from a player's perspective. It is 120 pages long and quite adequately covers all aspects of the game.

4. The game will have a set of 6 in game tutorials to get the new player up and running (the beta version didn't, so the previews couldn't assess the tutorials themselves).

5. As well as 4 grand campaigns, the game will have about 15 shorter scenarios (eg Battle of the Bulge, Operation Husky, Finno-Russian Winter War of 1939 etc). These will no doubt also help to ease players into the game.

Before reading these previews I was far from convinced about HOI2 for many of the reasons stated by other posters in this thread. But it seems that Paradox have learned the big lessons from Vicky (ie initial release version buggy & unstable, game unbalanced with major exploits, poor manual, and extremely steep learning curve with little to help the player learn the game - all leading to too many poor reviews and consequently poor sales).

It's looking like they have it mostly sorted with HOI2. I sure hope so.... and that they then go on to make Vicky2 and it is a success!

 

[cwhomer]

I have just been looking at the previews for HOI2 on various sites such as gamespot etc (Paradox has given a beta copy to the reviewers so they can write previews - smart move). Reading these previews several things grabbed my attention:

1. All of the previews were very positive towards the game. They all said the game has significant depth but is manageable for the player.

2. They all noted that the game is significantly free from bugs, CTDs, and feels quite complete (not bad for a beta version).

3. A "player" (I assume they mean a beta tester), not Paradox, has written the manual, from a player's perspective. It is 120 pages long and quite adequately covers all aspects of the game.

4. The game will have a set of 6 in game tutorials to get the new player up and running (the beta version didn't, so the previews couldn't assess the tutorials themselves).

5. As well as 4 grand campaigns, the game will have about 15 shorter scenarios (eg Battle of the Bulge, Operation Husky, Finno-Russian Winter War of 1939 etc). These will no doubt also help to ease players into the game.

Before reading these previews I was far from convinced about HOI2 for many of the reasons stated by other posters in this thread. But it seems that Paradox have learned the big lessons from Vicky (ie initial release version buggy & unstable, game unbalanced with major exploits, poor manual, and extremely steep learning curve with little to help the player learn the game - all leading to too many poor reviews and consequently poor sales).

It's looking like they have it mostly sorted with HOI2. I sure hope so.... and that they then go on to make Vicky2 and it is a success!

As usual, sounds like P-dox has addressed a lot of the complaints Vicky generated. Still skeptical about being bug and CDT free though.

 

[unmerged(32585)]

I have just been looking at the previews for HOI2 on various sites such as gamespot etc (Paradox has given a beta copy to the reviewers so they can write previews - smart move). Reading these previews several things grabbed my attention:

1. All of the previews were very positive towards the game. They all said the game has significant depth but is manageable for the player.

2. They all noted that the game is significantly free from bugs, CTDs, and feels quite complete (not bad for a beta version).

3. A "player" (I assume they mean a beta tester), not Paradox, has written the manual, from a player's perspective. It is 120 pages long and quite adequately covers all aspects of the game.

4. The game will have a set of 6 in game tutorials to get the new player up and running (the beta version didn't, so the previews couldn't assess the tutorials themselves).

5. As well as 4 grand campaigns, the game will have about 15 shorter scenarios (eg Battle of the Bulge, Operation Husky, Finno-Russian Winter War of 1939 etc). These will no doubt also help to ease players into the game.

Before reading these previews I was far from convinced about HOI2 for many of the reasons stated by other posters in this thread. But it seems that Paradox have learned the big lessons from Vicky (ie initial release version buggy & unstable, game unbalanced with major exploits, poor manual, and extremely steep learning curve with little to help the player learn the game - all leading to too many poor reviews and consequently poor sales).

It's looking like they have it mostly sorted with HOI2. I sure hope so.... and that they then go on to make Vicky2 and it is a success!

I had decided to be sceptical about HOI2 and wait till the bugs were ironed out. Seeing this I've changed my mind (didn't really take much). Delaying the purchase of a Paradox game is as hard for a strategy gamer as for a kid to postpone christmas.

 

[Spruce]

aha, intresting thread,

my opinion on the matter = the reviews on Victoria where screwed. The game was very stable - especially compared with other Paradox games - and the manual was perhaps not perfect but it was a good guide line.

and I still refuse to say that Victoria is a difficult game to learn. It's not easy, but intuitive that's for sure - I had no problems with it. Reviewers have to be aware what the audience is - who and what does the customer expect. F.e. you can find errors in each game, but are they of importance for the funfactor ???

So I really think Victoria got trashed by the reviewers for the wrong reasons. And perhaps the community/game market was still not familiar with Paradox and their games. When I look back at the reviewers I think they did a VERY POOR job, this has to be affirmed. I never saw anybody notice that the capitalist couldn't save money (moneybug), the peace AI resulted in mozaic maps, migration models in the first patch was screwed like hell, crazy insurgents etc.

So my guess is that the community in general was not ready for such a game. They just were looking for an excuse to kill that game.

Victoria had some basic modeling faults that were resolved too late or never resolved. For us in the beginning, we were all thinking that would be resolved - sorry to say not all of my basic expectations were resolved.

Very annoying things that weren't resolved =

- crazy peace AI - it can drive me nuts to get a mozaic and cluttered map
- AI exploits, we all know the land a big army in a mountain and just wait for the enemy to squander his troops on your stronghold,
- economic model-industrial ranking. Just build and build - when there are a zillion of glass factories - just build and build. All ad to the industrial rating and economic recessions aren't in neither,
- blockading ??? We all had high hopes on the US secession war and how naval supremacy/blockading would affect the game,

All I want say is that I really hope that Victoria 2 will come out some day and that it will be GREAT game and that the community will receive it with more open arms.

And last is about the customers. First of all - what do your customers want and what are they waiting for. Nearly none of the reviews I saw on Victoria took this into account... It's like that endless list of "graphics are not state of the art" - remarks, that points it out...

I just think Victoria is a phase Paradox needed to grow through and make the community and market aware that there are customers for such games and that they should be treated fair and squair.

 

[cwhomer]

And last is about the customers. First of all - what do your customers want and what are they waiting for. Nearly none of the reviews I saw on Victoria took this into account... It's like that endless list of "graphics are not state of the art" - remarks, that points it out...

I just think Victoria is a phase Paradox needed to grow through and make the community and market aware that there are customers for such games and that they should be treated fair and squair.

All the Paradox games have been innovative and somewhat daring platforms in a universe of FPSs. When you're pushing the frontier of strategy gaming, disappointments from both side' perspectives are bound to happen.

 

[Quarto]

my opinion on the matter = the reviews on Victoria where screwed. The game was very stable - especially compared with other Paradox games - and the manual was perhaps not perfect but it was a good guide line.

and I still refuse to say that Victoria is a difficult game to learn. It's not easy, but intuitive that's for sure - I had no problems with it. Reviewers have to be aware what the audience is - who and what does the customer expect. F.e. you can find errors in each game, but are they of importance for the funfactor ???

Eh, let's have a sense of perspective about this. I'm sure that, prior to Victoria, you've played at least one of the EU games, and most likely HOI as well. When you start Victoria, you get an immediate sense of deja vu - because, after all, although each of these Paradox games differs in many ways to the rest of the series, the interface and gameplay remain similar enough to be immediately recognisable. Similarly, your requirements for the manual are much lower, because you don't need the manual to play the game (how many times have we seen people drop into this forum, asking questions that indicate they never even opened the manual, and yet understand most of the game anyway?). And finally, "more stable than other Paradox games" might mean a lot to you, but it does not - and should not - mean anything to a reviewer.

 

[Spruce]

Eh, let's have a sense of perspective about this. I'm sure that, prior to Victoria, you've played at least one of the EU games, and most likely HOI as well. When you start Victoria, you get an immediate sense of deja vu - because, after all, although each of these Paradox games differs in many ways to the rest of the series, the interface and gameplay remain similar enough to be immediately recognisable. Similarly, your requirements for the manual are much lower, because you don't need the manual to play the game (how many times have we seen people drop into this forum, asking questions that indicate they never even opened the manual, and yet understand most of the game anyway?). And finally, "more stable than other Paradox games" might mean a lot to you, but it does not - and should not - mean anything to a reviewer.

1) About your first point. A game with such deepness relies heavely on the feedback and interaction (AAR, info, screeny) given on the forum prior to its release. Also fanbase is pretty loyal etc. If the customer (we) want it that way - to have a challenging game. So be it. The game scope is defined by Paradox, not by us. We can only hope the user interface is quite intuitive. And for the rest = manuals are guidelines and end up in the closet after a few days.

2) I doubt that you where there when Victoria launched. Everybody said that the game was more stable - very few or no CTD's - promised by Patrick. Everybody (let's say 80%) of guys on this forum agreed that it was a huge improvement for Paradox games.

Still all reviewers where complaining about crashes and problems with stability and steep learning curves and al that stuff. In fact the game that was reviewed was not the game that we - the customer - played.

I might agree with you that Victoria was not the kind of game you want to make to expand heavely your customer base. Altough it still has some flaws I think it has very powerfull elements to make a bright future for a Victoria II.

 

[Quarto]

2) I doubt that you where there when Victoria launched. Everybody said that the game was more stable - very few or no CTD's - promised by Patrick. Everybody (let's say 80%) of guys on this forum agreed that it was a huge improvement for Paradox games.

As a matter of fact, I was there. Sure, it was more stable than other Paradox games, and to a significant degree - but that's like saying Poland's socialist government is a huge improvement over the communists. It's true, they are better... but to an outsider, it would be incomprehensible that we can see anything good in such a bunch of bloodsucking morons . And that's why I talk about perspective - what may be a huge improvement from your point of view may, in the eyes of the reviewer, be irrelevant. Most non-Paradox games don't crash at all - so, for a reviewer, even one crash is a notable problem.

Still all reviewers where complaining about crashes and problems with stability and steep learning curves and al that stuff. In fact the game that was reviewed was not the game that we - the customer - played.

Wrong again. I've already told you why you found the game easy to play and stable, while the reviewer did not.

Here's the thing. You are not the target audience of those reviews - you're gonna buy the game anyway. Who is it that cares about reviews? People who are not sure whether to buy a game or not. For example, somebody who walks into a store and sees Victoria, but has never even heard of Paradox. Such a person, quite naturally, will not give a shit about how much of an improvement Victoria is compared to other Paradox games. Instead, he'lll want to know that the game crashes occasionally (and no, he will not care that it crashes fifty million times less than EU), and that it's difficult to play unless you've played the other games in the series, and that the manual is only good enough if you've played the other games in the series. These are things that don't matter to you, but which matter to non-fans - and that's who's interested in the review.

Note another thing, as well. Reviews are one of the most important methods of feedback for developers - they're certainly much easier to get through than thousands of forum posts (although the developers do go through those, as well - pity them ). So it is important for reviewers to mention crashes, learning curve issues and other things. Instead of complaining about bad reviews, therefore, perhaps we should be debating about the possible connection between bad reviews and bad sales - and I don't mean a cause-and-effect connection, either, but rather the question of whether perhaps they both had the same cause, and whether perhaps those reviews explicitly stated exactly what the cause was.

 

[Spruce]

As a matter of fact, I was there. Sure, it was more stable than other Paradox games, and to a significant degree - but that's like saying Poland's socialist government is a huge improvement over the communists. It's true, they are better... but to an outsider, it would be incomprehensible that we can see anything good in such a bunch of bloodsucking morons . And that's why I talk about perspective - what may be a huge improvement from your point of view may, in the eyes of the reviewer, be irrelevant. Most non-Paradox games don't crash at all - so, for a reviewer, even one crash is a notable problem.


Wrong again. I've already told you why you found the game easy to play and stable, while the reviewer did not.

Here's the thing. You are not the target audience of those reviews - you're gonna buy the game anyway. Who is it that cares about reviews? People who are not sure whether to buy a game or not. For example, somebody who walks into a store and sees Victoria, but has never even heard of Paradox. Such a person, quite naturally, will not give a shit about how much of an improvement Victoria is compared to other Paradox games. Instead, he'lll want to know that the game crashes occasionally (and no, he will not care that it crashes fifty million times less than EU), and that it's difficult to play unless you've played the other games in the series, and that the manual is only good enough if you've played the other games in the series. These are things that don't matter to you, but which matter to non-fans - and that's who's interested in the review.

Note another thing, as well. Reviews are one of the most important methods of feedback for developers - they're certainly much easier to get through than thousands of forum posts (although the developers do go through those, as well - pity them ). So it is important for reviewers to mention crashes, learning curve issues and other things. Instead of complaining about bad reviews, therefore, perhaps we should be debating about the possible connection between bad reviews and bad sales - and I don't mean a cause-and-effect connection, either, but rather the question of whether perhaps they both had the same cause, and whether perhaps those reviews explicitly stated exactly what the cause was.

about your first remark = I got 2 CTD in 2 weeks of very intense (unhealthy) playing. This is far better then the other Paradox releases.

about your second remark = I politely disagree. A reviewer needs to be aware what the audience is expecting. The audience meaning the customer-base that are eager to play such games - not the general audience. I'm reading game magazines for many years and all reviews in this magazine take a benchmark of what the customer for this genre is expecting. Even more, the reviewer responsible for RTS will do all RTS games, same goes for shooters, racing games, etc. So benchmarking is very important. It seems there was none or virtually no benchmarking done for Victoria. I can give one hundred reasons why so ... for example why did none of the reviewers ever see that there's no such thing as explorers in Victoria - but it was mentioned on the box. Still they were all nagging about learning curve and crashes, which were not the case. Honestly, I read the manual 2 times and I begun playing.

bottomline is that I watched the Victoria-ingame trailer done by Patrick for nearly 10 times in a row. As I read my game review magazines they also checked trailers and stuff for all other games.

When Paradox wants to change their scope and draw in more mainstream customers - that's their call. Perhaps they are doing that now more with the HOI2 release because they have listened to previous critcs.

 

[Quarto]

about your first remark = I got 2 CTD in 2 weeks of very intense (unhealthy) playing. This is far better then the other Paradox releases.

Oh, I agree it was far better than other Paradox releases - but you'll agree that even one CTD is much worse than no CTD at all .

A reviewer needs to be aware what the audience is expecting. The audience meaning the customer-base that are eager to play such games - not the general audience.

Yes, of course, but are you sure that fans of complex strategy games are also fans of steep learning curves and flimsy manuals? If anything, they care more about such things than anyone else. I've certainly never heard any strategy fan complain about a manual being too thick .

(actually, the manual sometimes contributes to sales just by sheer weight - on more than a few occasions, I've been scared off from a potential purchase because of how light the box was; might sound crazy, but then again what could be a better indication of weak, simplistic gameplay than a thin manual?)

 

[McNaughton]

My theory is, if you buy a product that is unfinished, or broken, and the company that made it corrects the problem as soon as they can, and for free, there is no reason to complain. Sure, it would be great if they could get it to you without the flaw, but, the fact that they did everything for free means that the only thing you lost was time.

The problem with the game production community is that the demand for things NOW is too high. In the past 10 years we have come a long way to become an impatient society. Cell phones, e-mail, MSN, etc. have all made our lives immediate. We are supposed to expect everything to happen NOW, and when we hear the term 'delay' the concept is that the system is faulty. It is better to release a half-assed game, then to patch it to be barely playable (what most companies do), then to release it when it is truely done.

Paradox is different than most companies out there. They produce games that will not experience as many sales as say, Doom 3 or Half Life 2 (due to the genre) AND they not only patch games so they are barely playable, but patch them to be supurb programs!

Paradox should not be punished for providing games that are rare, as well as games that are patched, FREE OF COST, to make the games spectacular (not just playable like most companies).

The time of getting games playable in version 1.00 is gone. Get used to it, and latch on to a company that shows that they will have a game that they support long after their major sales have ended.

 

[TC Pilot]

I've never found a game unworkable at v. 1.00

 

[unmerged(14057)]

The bottom line to me is that NO game should need more than 2 or 3 patches. Unfortunately,nearly all Paradox games have more patches than that.

There is a point where a dev company needs to quit listening to their customers every whine and whim and just stop with the patches. I know this for a fact from spending 3 years beta testing the Starfleet Command series for Taldren.

Starfleet Command 2 and Starfleet Command:Orion Pirates never should have needed as many patches as were released for them. The devs listened too much to the forum denizens and would put out patches to fix things or add things that were really not necessary,but were things a few hardcore players wanted...and those patches would end up breaking things in the code requiring even more patching to fix it. SFC2 ended up having 6 or 8 official patches...and god knows how many revs we went through to get those patches.(The reason I'm not sure of the number of patches is because it's been a few years...and I quit playing that game the day the final patch was released...haven't touched it since.) The same with the 5 official SFCOP patches. What is really nuts is that now that Taldren is out of business,people want the full code to those games publicly released so people can make even more patches for those games. Fortunately,Taldren went under after releasing just 2 patches for Starfleet Command 3,so they weren't able to overpatch that sucker to death.

I see the same thing happening with EU2 and HOI. Those games have been over patched IMO. Doing patches to fix bugs is one thing,trying to add new features just seems to lead to even more bugs that need to be fixed. An example would be the supply rules in HOI. The new supply rules would be fine for a tactical game...but seem totally out of place for a game of grand strategy.

Paradox's problem is that potential customers read about how there are "x" amount of patches for game "y",and decide that it means that Paradox makes poor games that need alot of patches to work properly.

What that does is give Paradox a reputation for releasing overly buggy games...and not just with customers. Some of the retailers out here won't even carry Paradox games because they have a higher than average return rate.

That is part of the reason Taldren went under.(That and the fact that they totally screwed up while developing Black9...to the point that their contract was cancelled and the project taken away from them.). They got the rep for releasing rather buggy games,and each game that was released sold fewer copies then the one before it. Even Activision's marketing abilities couldn't save Starfleet Command 3 from bombing out.

Now before Johan has a stroke or something I do want to say that I have enjoyed EU2,HOI and Victoria and I really appreciate the time and effort he and his team have put into patching the games,but I do think they should just do bug fix patches instead of trying to add features in patches as well.(Unless those features were things left out due to release date time constraints.). The more features you try to add,the more patches you need to fix what those features broke.(Or to tweak those features.).

My hope is that HOI2 will be released in great shape,with few bugs...and that it will be a critical and a financial sucess for Paradox. I do think the poor reviews that Victoria recieved at Gamespot,Gamespy and IGN hurt Victoria alot. (Alot more people read their reviews than read the reviews at the more obscure sites that loved Victoria). My fear is that if HOI2 doesn't do well,it may be the last game in this genre that anyone tries making for a long time.

 

[iBaLkiD]

If you dont like it, dont buy it. Period. If it brings you grief, then find anotherr hobby, or similiar game that doesnt need patches. That will be a tall order tho.

Most every product, even outside of the software world is refined and made more eficient AFTER being made avaialable to the market place. Each new generation of the same model cars has its improvements as well as its problems(Bugs). The advantage of software is that you can readily fix or change things that would not be as easy to do with a car or washer and dryer. Ever heard of factory recalls? Remember the mass playstation 1 recall when the system first came out? How unstable many of the systems were for the first six months. How much of a better product people got who waited a year to buy the later generation of PS1's?

Shure some companies may release software before it should have been, and it does lend to an envirmoment of complacencey among some developers, but for the most part these software developers consider the same things that a manufacturer does...

Will this product sell in the market place in its current status/form/condidtion/whatever???

Well it did sell and YOU bought it, as did many others. Its your choice whether you buy again from said company in the future. I get tired of people treating software companies like some holy grail of businsess etiquette. Software dev's are in it for the money. Its their main motivator.


It seems to be the industry standard now, and its been this way for quite soome time. Either buy the games, or dont. Simple as that.

Dont get me wrong, i dont like it either, but i am a realist. I dont like the fact that every Paradox game has its problems at the point of purchase. What i do like is the fact that Paradox does support their games, many times taking heed of great advice from the community, actual input makes it into the games. SWEET! They listen to the players and support titles way past the point off economic viability, inregards to profit.


I personally get alot of enjoyment from gaming. Its a hobby that really helps me blow off the stress i accumulate through lifes day to day grind.
EU I+2 HOI and Vicky have brought me far more pleasure then consumer frustration. Maybe its just me but i got alot more worth out of these games then the measely 20-30 bucks that i spent on them, years worth actually.



Could they be better? Absolutley! Are they worth the money you spent on them? Absolutley. I know that some games arre just so bug ridden out of box that they are a waste of your cconsumer dollars. I dont think that this is the situattion with Paradox releases.

If these gamess frustrate you more then they entertain you then just stop. Its your perogative. Write a letter or an email though, an open cry to fellow fans and forumers will acomplish nothing. All that wil happen is some discussion over differing opinions.

One last thing. Some people need to learn about a little something called CONSUMER RESPONSABILITY. If you bought EU1, EU2, HOI, and then start complaining that Vicky is Dejavu, then you need to rethink your consumer tendencies. Why would you keep purchasing a product that does not meet your standards as a consumer? Okay it is disposable money, but you still should look into some feed back about the product, to see if anything has changed inregards to the developers M.O. If you dont do so, then you have no one to blame but yourself!

 

[unmerged(36529)]

I just got this game. I think it's great.

 

[unmerged(36529)]

I also have HoI and EUII, but I think I like this one the best. For some reason it took me till today to find this forum. Wish I had found it sooner!