Why is this game losing clout?

[berto]

Berto,

I only know AGEOD Napoleonic stuff. Very, very good, but I for my Napoleon's fix I still prefer Crown of Glory. Not the same scope, but *FANTASTIC*.


Try it.

Yeah, Ubik (I bow down before you), I know about Crown of Glory and Forge of Freedom (the ACW title). But I've looked into those, too, and my sense is that the designers of those games haven't focused on just the right mix of game and historical elements to please my personal preferences. From what I know, they tend to cater more toward (a) World Conquest type gamers, (b) gamers who really must have tactical battles in their otherwise strategic level games. For what it's worth, I think that COG and FOF lack "soul" and are games-by-template by people who don't truly understand their subject matter. I think that AGEOD hits their targets far better, and it's amazing to me, and ironic, that non-Americans understand the heart and gist of the American Civil War and American Revolutionary War so well.

Let me add that, Johan & co. understand their subject matter very well indeed, but their task--modeling dozens and even hundreds of states across the centuries--is far more difficult than what AGEOD has undertaken. Johan & co, your jobs are difficult in the extreme! Whatever you do, open up the game engine and code and release more modding options so that the many talented EU modders can fix whatever their hearts desire!

 

[unmerged(514)]

Yeah, Ubik (I bow down before you),

Meh... I am not an Emperor nor a King... I am just lord of my destiny once in every three days: The other two are splitted between washing dishes for my wife and praying God does not roll the wrong dice for me...

I know about Crown of Glory and Forge of Freedom (the ACW title). But I've looked into those, too, and my sense is that the designers of those games haven't focused on just the right mix of game and historical elements to please my personal preferences. From what I know, they tend to cater more toward (a) World Conquest type gamers, (b) gamers who really must have tactical battles in their otherwise strategic level games.

Crown of Glory is not suited at all to world conquest. If anything, balance of power is very well implemented there. I only play the tactical battles where the the leader of my country is involved.

I cannot talk for Forge of Freedom.


Anyway, to each its own.

Let me add that, Johan & co. understand their subject matter very well indeed, but their task--modeling dozens and even hundreds of states across the centuries--is far more difficult than what AGEOD has undertaken.

Precisely for this motive I think EU3 could very well got rid of all american tribes. The engine cannot grasp their feeling in any way.


Oh well, but I don't want to hijack the thread...

 

[berto]

Crown of Glory is not suited at all to world conquest.

What I mean to say is that, I understand that in COG it is possible to take Sweden, for example, and build it into becoming the predominant Europen power, whether or not the Swedes actually had the will or means to achieve that. So the game is balanced, for sure, but in a competitive, game-playing sense, not in any historical sense. No?

Anyway, to each its own.

Indeed, having choices is always good. That's why modding is so vital.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Thats not the numbers we see in sales statistics though. If we ignored the active forum comments, we could think assume NA 2.1 is the most succesfull release ever.

Sales statistics are not always the best way to measure how good a game is; I've certainly bought no shortage of games that I ultimately concluded were not worth the money. Just because EU III got much better marketing than previous Paradox games does not mean it is superior, or even equal, to previous releases in terms of the value of the overall play experience.

Personally, after the disappointments of EU III and HoI2's Armageddon expansion I've abandoned my previous position of buying anything made by Paradox as soon as it comes out. EU II, Victoria, and HoI 2 gave me hours upon hours of play, and I still go back and play them. EU III ... I try it out whenever a new patch comes out in the hopes that it has finally become the game I expected, and after I few hours of play I am once again disappointed. Maybe that doesn't fit well on a nice little spreadsheet showing EU III's sales figures, but to me the fact that I just plain don't enjoy the game is a lot more important than how well it sold.

 

[unmerged(514)]

What I mean to say is that, I understand that in COG it is possible to take Sweden, for example, and build it into becoming the predominant Europen power, whether or not the Swedes actually had the will or means to achieve that. So the game is balanced, for sure, but in a competitive, game-playing sense, not in any historical sense. No?

Sweden was one of the major powers of the era. You can never have a Sweden with the strength of Frane for instance. There are lots of rules to prevent that. Also, the AI is effective in detecting overperformers.

But with Sweden, you need far less prestige points to win the game than with France.


It is similar to that beautiful board game, Empires in Arms.

 

[unmerged(64768)]

you bought it after 2.1 was released?

I bought EU3 via the Paradox shop on the first day it was available for purchase based purely on my absolute love of EU2.

Funny story. I had the game shipped to my work address. But I quit my job three days later. So I was checking the work mail every day during my last 2 weeks on the job (I gave 2 week notice), but no EU3!?! I was really worried. So on the LAST DAY of employment, I checked the company mailbox before I went inside. EU3! Hallejuah! I ran over and stashed it in my car. Then spent my last day on the job thinking about how I couldnt wait to get home and play EU3.

I was dedicated, man. That is why I am so upset that I dont like EU3.

 

[Hive]

I was dedicated, man. That is why I am so upset that I dont like EU3.

Same here. I really want to love it, but can't.

 

[unmerged(69922)]

Same here. I really want to love it, but can't.

I WOULD love it, just my frickin computer is still too slow to handle it.

 

[unmerged(88150)]

I WOULD love it, just my frickin computer is still too slow to handle it.

how old is your computer? mine is 2 years old and wasn't even good when I bought it, but it can play the game quite well.

 

[unmerged(32292)]

Sweden was one of the major powers of the era. You can never have a Sweden with the strength of Frane for instance. There are lots of rules to prevent that. Also, the AI is effective in detecting overperformers.

But with Sweden, you need far less prestige points to win the game than with France.


It is similar to that beautiful board game, Empires in Arms.

Ah, Empires in Arms. Never has a game been so magnificent in so many ways, and yet so unplayable by human beings.

 

[unmerged(32292)]

Sales statistics are not always the best way to measure how good a game is; I've certainly bought no shortage of games that I ultimately concluded were not worth the money. Just because EU III got much better marketing than previous Paradox games does not mean it is superior, or even equal, to previous releases in terms of the value of the overall play experience.

Personally, after the disappointments of EU III and HoI2's Armageddon expansion I've abandoned my previous position of buying anything made by Paradox as soon as it comes out. EU II, Victoria, and HoI 2 gave me hours upon hours of play, and I still go back and play them. EU III ... I try it out whenever a new patch comes out in the hopes that it has finally become the game I expected, and after I few hours of play I am once again disappointed. Maybe that doesn't fit well on a nice little spreadsheet showing EU III's sales figures, but to me the fact that I just plain don't enjoy the game is a lot more important than how well it sold.

Typically, sales of one unit in a series tell as much about satisfaction and word of mouth regarding the previous unit as they do about the current. I bought my current car because I owned the same make and model previously and was blown away. My current car is a redesigned (later model year)version of the car I loved so much, and unfortunately lacks most of the qualities of the previous car. As such, when this car goes to the scrapyard some day, it will certainly not be replaced with a future model year of the same car, but with an entirely different make and model.

I find EU3 to be a very good game, but I was never able to track down EUII, and having not played it, have no reference for comparison. Assuming the AI issues with NA get straightened out, I'd be highly inclined to purchase EU 4 someday, but it sounds like many might not.

Armageddon, on the other hand, is complete shite, and I feel ripped off just for the 5 dollars I spent. I'd be highly disinclined to purchase HOI3, even though HOI2 and Doomsday were both fantastic.

 

[unmerged(514)]

Ah, Empires in Arms. Never has a game been so magnificent in so many ways, and yet so unplayable by human beings.

We usually started in October and ended in June/July. I played in 4 "seasons". Scored a 3rd, two second places won once, as Turkey! Believe me, after 9 months of playing once almost every week it trully felt like a SEASON!

 

[unmerged(64768)]

Here is a sad commentary, fellows. I just reinstalled EU3 after going to the game store and spending 20 minutes looking at a bunch of crap I cannot justify spending money on purchasing. I WANTED TO BUY A GAME TODAY! But I couldnt because it all looked terrible.

What has the industry come to where I am playing a game that I acknowledge is sub-par because it is better than the totally crappy market that exists right now.

ONE WOULD THINK that leading into the Christmas season the market would not be awash in a high tide of crap. But one would be.... wrong.

 

[KAding]

Here is a sad commentary, fellows. I just reinstalled EU3 after going to the game store and spending 20 minutes looking at a bunch of crap I cannot justify spending money on purchasing. I WANTED TO BUY A GAME TODAY! But I couldnt because it all looked terrible.

What has the industry come to where I am playing a game that I acknowledge is sub-par because it is better than the totally crappy market that exists right now.

ONE WOULD THINK that leading into the Christmas season the market would not be awash in a high tide of crap. But one would be.... wrong.

You know, I have similar experiences. It's simply harder to find games that keep me interested. But I've come to the conclusion that I'm simply changing, that I have become more demanding.

So perhaps it is you that is to blame and not the game industry?

 

[unmerged(64768)]

No. I dont think I have become too demanding.

So long as games are designed Halo-style for the average moron to be able to complete without getting stumped, I will be disatisfied. If asking for a challenge is too demanding, what has the industry become?

 

[Mr. Domino]

One could say EU3 was designed by a gang of multiplayers while single player was added as an afterthought. The problem is the userbase plays 95% single player...

I played EU2 on lan. It was the best multiplayer game I've ever played. Before every game there would often be a loooong argument over who got to play which country, since each country's strategies and gamestyle was so different. I really appreciated single player alot more after those games, because their dynamics actually created both an interesting SP game and gamebalance. Spain could get 3-4x other nations income, but got 1/2 the manpower of France and bankruptcy events. The Ottomans were early game powers but then got nerfed with revolt of the beyes. Point is I don't think there has to be a trade off, and I am curious what you meant by that.

Just take a look at the forums. We have posts here spanning 4 different days on the front page. That is not good, it means that very few people are actively posting. It used to be that the first couple pages of threads would all be from the same date, but the forum is dying fairly rapidly (compared to what it once was), given how recent the NA release was.

I do think Victoria, Hoi2, and CK have a much smaller but hardcore group of fans. The history/strategy geeks. I've seen tons Hoi2 threads about which tank/ship/plane was better or what build order saves the most IC days, CK threads asking where random counts were or how advanced French military tactics were, Vicky discussions on whether anarcho-liberal was a real ideology in the 19th Century. You get the idea. People who know alot of historic details and expect alot of details from their game. Of course, when Hoi2 or Vicky came out there were a lot of people complaining about the interface, micromanaging, and whatnot. Hell, I still don't like to be bothered with all the nuances of Hoi2 combat engine.

EU3 is just fundamentally more accessible than those games, but not as deep. Take a look at the "Ottoman Empire in Eu3" thread a few pages back. It was posted before EU3 came out, but was recently resurrected, and the poster wanted ALOT of historic detail. Special leaders, different events, even different rules for a caliphate. Not too crazy to ask for from a standard paradox game

Of course 95% of that is impossible to get with EU3's design philosophy and engine. So no wonky history discussions. The combat engine is pretty intuitive but not too deep, so no moaning about the interface and no posters breaking out calculators to determine which army composition or strategy is the most effective.

 

[Alexspeed]

Here is a sad commentary, fellows. I just reinstalled EU3 after going to the game store and spending 20 minutes looking at a bunch of crap I cannot justify spending money on purchasing. I WANTED TO BUY A GAME TODAY! But I couldnt because it all looked terrible.

What has the industry come to where I am playing a game that I acknowledge is sub-par because it is better than the totally crappy market that exists right now.

ONE WOULD THINK that leading into the Christmas season the market would not be awash in a high tide of crap. But one would be.... wrong.

Oh my ... i know exactly how you feel

i had the same experince some days ago when i was shopping... i wanted to get a new game for in between... i ended up wandering the shelves for an hour or so... all they sell is mindless crap, thats just not worth the time installing it... not to talk of playing it...
Can you think they had 3 damn shelves with Sims 2 and all its expansions? who on earth is willing to play that? its ridicolous...

i finally ended up with buying "Death to Spies" that i found in the cheap buy section (a shame, it was just out i thought)... at least i have read that its challenging... well see...

games today are a waste of time for 95% or more... I come to think they reflect the human society in general... that would mean 95% of pepole are a dumb mindless mob, and i am close to thinking that may be true everyday when i check news.

[IRONIC comment deleted, becouse some pepole dont understand irony... ]

 

[Elmokki]

Same here. I really want to love it, but can't.

Me three.

Someone said EU3 was made for multiplayer, but atleast for the first patch EU2 felt a lot more balanced and fun in multiplayer.

 

[unmerged(57311)]

I think a computer game developer company must decide to go for the mainstream market or for the market niche of wargames/deep historical games. Paradox became known (at least for me) as the latter, but now tends towards the mainstream sector. With EU3 they are between the two ends, somewhere in the middle. The question is if their customers (acquired by their former titles) like it or not. I personally dont. And as this thread and many other indicates im not alone. I'd be much more willing to buy deep, grognard, hardcore wargames/strategy games then to pay for those popular titles out there with a lot of action, gfx but no depth, no need of thinking.
And as it is clear now that paradox has decided to move to that direction, I'm more and more disappointed.
I agree that they do not get money from improving their old games, but since they still have a lot of active players they should pay much more attention to them. I'm speaking about HoI2DD:Arm and Victoria:rev. HoI has some serious bugs and a lot of minor flaws that can be corrected without rewriting the entire game. Victoria has some (small) bugs as well, but no patch since the release of 2.01.
And I've read many times the well known argument about the 3D of EU3, that in order to have place on the shelves, it must be in 3d. This means that EU3 is made for the mainstream sector. Since a good wargame never has to be in 3D to have people buying it, never. Of course the 12-13 year old kids most likely wont ask it for christmas, but at least the company can keep their original fanbase, their most loyal customers.

 

[unmerged(49112)]

Thats not the numbers we see in sales statistics though. If we ignored the active forum comments, we could think assume NA 2.1 is the most succesfull release ever.
.

That is the kind of thinking that got Atari in some pretty nice trouble during the 80's. And it is not just Paradox that is heading towards that same path, but must of the gaming industry as more and more mindless junk is thrown into the market. In the short term, it might bring great revenues, but people get tired, customers stop spending on things they have had bad experiences with. The industry is forgetting that without us, the customers, the ones that put $ in their pockets, they are simply a worthless names.