Why is this game losing clout?

[Hive]

I'm not saying that I agreed with the premise of the review. I just find it a bit uncomforting that people succeeded to make the reviewer change his review.

A review is supposed to be something subjective and honest by the author, not something created to appease the majority of the masses or producers of the product you are reviewing.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I'm not saying that I agreed with the premise of the review. I just find it a bit uncomforting that people succeeded to make the reviewer change his review.

It only succeeded because the reviewer clearly showed he hadn't done his job properly, not because his taste didn't correlate that with the masses of paradox.

 

[unmerged(64768)]

You are talking about the review that compared EU3 to Company of Heroes and other state-of-the-art RTSs, I believe, which took offense at the game sort of requiring the player to build an army (which could take 70 days to build!) before he declared war, as well as many other things to make the reader joke and giggle, which made some of us go bananas* and engage in semi-creative feedback to the review site, since, if you were going to give a game 5/10, you could at least show you understood the genre you were reviewing.

The writer substantially rewrote (or as the editor noted, "slightly altered") some portions to make clear that he understood the game (more or less) and removed some of the weirder comparisons. A second reviewer on the site wrote his own (overly?) positive review (page 2 of the link below), and the site ended up with a 7/10 evaluation as the average of the two reviews (so presumably their reviewer #2 wanted to give it around 9/10).

Here's the revised review

Reading the amended review above, you'll immediately recognize that the major faults in the game the reviewer complains about exist in every single Paradox strategy game except, possibly, Diplomacy.


* I was one of them, since the original review made as much sense as reviewing Grand Theft Auto and reaching the verdict that it was a bad game due to its lack of similarity to Colin McRae Rally and other racing games.

While we might not agree with the reviewer, being Paradox fans, one should take into consideration that fans of other genres will have a hard time getting into EU3; after all the author's main complaint is inaccessibility. I didnt see a heavy handed treatment for poor graphics, just that the game was difficult to learn with lots of pop-up windows.

Even compared to EU2, which has its share of interface issues, the EU3 interface IS clunky and gets in the way. Click on a province and you lose a substantial portion of your screen to see the information on the province; unlike in EU2 where most everything was shown in the sidebar.

I think a lot of the author's points are pretty valid in the revised version of the review; I havent seen the original.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I have no idea how much AGCEEP is downloaded nowadays and it might be very well true the mod still has sparkles of life in it, but I don't think you and a few others posting a lot in the AGCEEP forum proves anything.

I don't want to prove anything. We just released three versions of the mod since the release of EU3 and a fourth is on its way, just with the same rythm as before EU3, i.e. this is not exactly dying shortly. Anyway, we don't do it for the number of downloads but for those who enjoy it. This is what only matters.
Just take a look at AARs and threads on EU2 forum (EDIT: this one for example), you will find some clues.

 

[unmerged(514)]

No, the answer is you simply can't. Otherwise I could have done it myself, and much more, of course, since EU3 script engine is far more "superior". Btw, be aware AGCEEP is not only about events, we use 23 variables you don't have.

You can within the two constraints I mentioned (no precise day and month). Otherwise you can.

The only problem with EU3 is those 23 variables, of course. And yes, EU2 AI is far more interesting from a single player perspective than EU3.

And Magna Mundi doesn't include parts of AGCEEP, even if reworked... are you really sure?[...]

We included Zma's events yes (ported from AGC-EEP), but to tell the truth, they are far from being central to the mod. Their sole strength was their number. It was nice to have more than +500 events to add flavour to the game, even if from time to time we have to deal with some headaches because of their determinism.

For Gold 2 Zma is working on far more interesting stuff.

More limited on many aspects but more rich for some... that are the most important to me.

Of couse, it all boils down to a matter of taste.

There is room for another "type" of modders in EU3 but something valuable will maybe never be added to this game, and not because we don't want to.

It is good to know EU3 modders are a bunch of losers who can't add anything valuable to it. I would never said the same of EU2 modders and their work, most specially the talented crew who were able to builf the AGC-EEP project.

Differences of style, perhaps.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

We included Zma's events yes (ported from AGC-EEP), but to tell the truth, they are far from being central to the mod. Their sole strength was their number. It was nice to have more than +500 events to add flavour to the game, even if from time to time we have to deal with some headaches because of their determinism.

A matter of trigger?

It is good to know EU3 modders are a bunch of losers who can't add anything valuable to it. I would never said the same of EU2 modders and their work, most specially the talented crew who were able to builf the AGC-EEP project.

You misunderstand me. Where did I say EU3 modders were not good modders?
I just said EU3 will (can) not benefit from AGCEEP as a whole but other modders with different ideas ("type") have a room. That's all.

 

[unmerged(514)]

A matter of trigger?

A matter of lack of contextuality. Giving an example, I am coding a system to make it a risky proposition he changing of National ideas. I already coded twenty events doing that. I could have done it with three, but in this way we can make it feel moore organic while the EU2 evens are much more static.

Now an example regarding Zma events: Genoa finances Portuguese exploration voyages... hummm... why? what effects in game lead to that? The important thing to implement was an event pool where trader countries without immediate exploration capbilities should be given the option of financing countries with that capability. In turn, exotic CoTs should be revealed to them...

You misunderstand me. Where did I say EU3 modders were not good modders?
I just said EU3 will (can) not benefit from AGCEEP as a whole but other modders with different ideas ("type") have a room. That's all.

Ok.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

A matter of lack of contextuality. Giving an example, I am coding a system to make it a risky proposition he changing of National ideas. I already coded twenty events doing that. I could have done it with three, but in this way we can make it feel moore organic while the EU2 evens are much more static.

Now an example regarding Zma events: Genoa finances Portuguese exploration voyages... hummm... why? what effects in game lead to that? The important thing to implement was an event pool where trader countries without immediate exploration capbilities should be given the option of financing countries with that capability. In turn, exotic CoTs should be revealed to them...

Always the same old story.
My point of view is just because it happened for a country at a time and under some conditions doesn't mean it should happen for any country under same conditions at any (same) time. This is theorization of history.

OTOH, if conditions are not fulfilled for the country at the right time, I don't know what could have happened at this time of after. We can of course make some suppositions but there is no model.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I think a lot of the author's points are pretty valid in the revised version of the review; I havent seen the original.

Let's just say that the editor's statement that "slight" changes had been performed to the original is an understatement. The revised version wouldn't (and didn't) have had the Paradox games' fans up in arms in the way the original did.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

And since when are fans able to have a clear judgment?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

And since when are fans able to have a clear judgment?

Since hell froze over two and a half aeons ago!

NEXT!

 

[unmerged(71032)]

Let's just say that the editor's statement that "slight" changes had been performed to the original is an understatement. The revised version wouldn't (and didn't) have had the Paradox games' fans up in arms in the way the original did.

Heh, I have a feeling that even in 2nd version of review this guy never learned about pause option.

Let's talk more about pause/non-pause gameplay, shall we?

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Let's talk more about pause/non-pause gameplay, shall we?

No comment!

 

[unmerged(514)]

Always the same old story.
My point of view is just because it happened for a country at a time and under some conditions doesn't mean it should happen for any country under same conditions at any (same) time. This is theorization of history.

OTOH, if conditions are not fulfilled for the country at the right time, I don't know what could have happened at this time of after. We can of course make some suppositions but there is no model.

The model is the one from international relations, that in turn is based on human relations: On the most basic of terms, If I have something that interests you, you are going to be tempted to aquire it from me. I also applies to any other two entities.

What feels out of place is to have predetermined Genoa as the sole country who could offer to finance Portuguese exploration voyages. And why Portugal? Even if I agree that Portugal should have a considerable head start in colonizing compared to any other nation by 1453, why would not Danzig fund the Castilian discoveries (or Portuguese, or whatever). Otherwise, we just want to force history down the thoat of a game that by its very nature will take its own course...

 

[unmerged(514)]

And since when are fans able to have a clear judgment?

That review was an insult. Both to the site that posted it and to the subject addressed.

Speculating a bit, it also points to the way of thinking of many impulse mainstream buyers who got it after reading the gamespot preview/review.

Finally, it underscores the poor level of quality of mainstream review sites. It is all about money and the market share, not about a game's quality.

 

[Sute]{h]

The model is the one from international relations, that in turn is based on human relations: On the most basic of terms, If I have something that interests you, you are going to be tempted to aquire it from me. I also applies to any other two entities.

What feels out of place is to have predetermined Genoa as the sole country who could offer to finance Portuguese exploration voyages. And why Portugal? Even if I agree that Portugal should have a considerable head start in colonizing compared to any other nation by 1453, why would not Danzig fund the Castilian discoveries (or Portuguese, or whatever). Otherwise, we just want to force history down the thoat of a game that by its very nature will take its own course...

If we are going by international relations theories and not by historical development, then we certainly need to be consistent in our approach. We need to decide which theory of international relations is the "right" one, and thus judge all modifications according to the principels of that theory. I'm not saying this wouldn't be an interesting approach, but I doubt modders would be willing to limit themselves in this way. The strenght of the AGCEEP approach is that it is consistently based on history. You can with a reasonable degree of certainty confirm if the event did indeed take place the way the mod suggests. An equally consistant approach would be to base an EU3 mod on for example neo-realism international relations theory. The problem I see is that most EU3 mods (or EU3 vanilla for that matter) isn't completely consistant. Is this a game about history or is it an international relations simulator? I'm not saying history doesn't have a place in the latter, but history would be to be told within the theory or a different theory should be picked.

 

[Hive]

[QUOTE='Sute]An equally consistant approach would be to base an EU3 mod on for example neo-realism international relations theory.[/QUOTE]

Isn't the vanilla AI of EU3 pretty neo-realistic as is? At least I'd definately say it's the theory most applicable to EU3 AI behaviour.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

Not to mention such approach (MMG that is) assumes rationality of the sides and minimal effect of strong personalities/wild random elements, which have their place in the history of the world. I don't say it's wrong approach, in fact if you add random element to it that simulates such "wild cards" as happened in history it makes quite interesting "paralel history creator" with multitude of outcomes that depend on many random and semi-random factors. Thing is, I don't think all people calling for historical outcomes want 100 alternative probable Europas, but more like 10 or so that differ because 4-5 critical decisions made by player.

Hehe, I feel like discussing Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series.

 

[unmerged(514)]

If we are going by international relations theories and not by historical development, then we certainly need to be consistent in our approach. We need to decide which theory of international relations is the "right" on, and thus judge all modifications according to the principels of that theory.

It is not about following any international relations theory to improve the game.

It is just to illustrate the diferences between a model that, however imperfectly, tries to capture the dynamics of history and the context of situations and another that has all situations predefined.

What is the point of having Genoa supporting Portuguese explorations when Bremen cannot do the same? What is the point of Genoa *not* being able to support Castilian explorations?

I prefer to have an event pool that checks for certain flags and generates countries funding others efforts for exploration... as long as it all makes sense.

An equally consistant approach would be to base an EU3 mod on for example neo-realism international relations theory. The problem I see is that most EU3 mods (or EU3 vanilla for that matter) isn't completely consistant.

Of course not. The engine is far from perfect and modders are not perfect also. From the development standpoint, it would be relatively easy to make a consistant platform, however.

On the other hand one can hardly claim the EU2 experience to have any consistency, unless a player simply follows the historical script.

Is this a game about history or is it an international relations simulator? I'm not saying history doesn't have a place in the latter, but history would be to be told within the theory or a different theory should be picked.

This is an open ended game that starts with Historical conditions and from then on, supposedly, should provide credible results to the dynamics generated. Certainly not a game that strives to have a certain script applied.

 

[Sute]{h]

Isn't the vanilla AI of EU3 pretty neo-realistic as is? At least I'd definately say it's the theory most applicable to EU3 AI behaviour.

Not at all. The AI doesn't have a grasp of the balance of power concept at all. A proper neo-realistic AI would measure the powerlevel of the other countries and actively seek to undermine the most powerful entity. This could be by war, expansion, espionage or building alliances to counter the leading dog. I've never seen anything along those lines in EU3 (or EU2).

Rather the most significant determinant of AI behavior in EU3 (and EU2 for that matter) seems to be badboy points. A concept which most neo-realistic approaches wouldn't agree with at all. Countries doesn't in a neo-realistic approach balance against the most aggressive country they balance against the most powerful country. These can of course coincide. The only neo-realist that includes aggresiveness AFAIK is Walt (not Waltz) in his balance of threat approach. However he doesn't equate threat simply to being a badboy. It is only one of four determinants with state offensive capabilities and the ability to project them relatively to the judging country still being the most important.