Will EU2MP players come to EU3 once Napoleon's Ambition is out?

[unmerged(18425)]

I don't get the point.

Well, look at the popularity of EU3 and perhaps you will get the point.

As for the 3D engine which diplomacy had as well, that's almost a prerequisite if you want to have game stores accepting your game nowadays. I am confident that it will be improved with each following game.

See also this thread:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=317755

Funny that some of you like both EU2 with it's determinism and CK with it's non-determinism, but not EU3. Truly tastes can vary a lot.

 

[Lurken]

Funny that some of you like both EU2 with it's determinism and CK with it's non-determinism, but not EU3. Truly tastes can vary a lot.

Indeed it can. It is not about determinism or non-determininism, it is about the "geist" of a game. CK had a good geist, so did EU2 and so on...EU3 might very well have the geist, but I'vn't found it yet...

 

[Tonioz]

Truly tastes can vary a lot.

But they are strangely similar here. Which leads to the conclusion about the reason behind instead of just different tastes.

 

[HolisticGod]

FAL,

I'm not sure where you get the idea that "determinism" is what we object to in EU III, rather than its vast array of other problems. Ugly map, ugly interface, poor presentation, lack of historical flavor, etc., these are blemishes, but all of them and more would be worth putting up with if the game had the realism and intricacy of past Paradox products. EU, CK, HOI and Victoria were very different games, and as you say CK left the mold within a few years of game start. Nonetheless, even that, which one can easily say was a failure (although one not the fault of Paradox itself), was still a genuine attempt at creating an historically themed game with an historical atmosphere and engine if not an historical timeline a la EU.

Perhaps EU III was a genuine attempt as well, but if so they failed miserably. And I strongly suspect they weren't trying for what they'd been trying for in their previous games at all. Just look at the culture groups. That they work the way they do suggests a failure to grasp the historical realities of the period. That Turkish is in the same group as Uzbek suggests they don't care about the historical realities of the period.

 

[Lurken]

...

Very well said. This is exactly how I feel.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that "determinism" is what we object to in EU III, rather than its vast array of other problems.

I get it from Skarions posts here and here.

And you will note that I replied to Skarion.

Perhaps EU III was a genuine attempt as well, but if so they failed miserably.

I disagree completely.

And yes, culture groups are a gameplay tool, not an attempt to realism. It's however a tool to provide for realistic expansions.

 

[Tonioz]

FAL, would we be non-civilized WOWers, and not cultured EU2ers, we`d crucify you :rofl:

 

[unmerged(18425)]

FAL, would we be non-civilized WOWers, and not cultured EU2ers, we`d crucify you :rofl:

Yeah

I shall stop preaching in the wrong church

 

[Skarion]

Well, look at the popularity of EU3 and perhaps you will get the point.

As for the 3D engine which diplomacy had as well, that's almost a prerequisite if you want to have game stores accepting your game nowadays. I am confident that it will be improved with each following game.

See also this thread:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=317755

Funny that some of you like both EU2 with it's determinism and CK with it's non-determinism, but not EU3. Truly tastes can vary a lot.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7385197&postcount=89

 

[Skarion]

I get it from Skarions posts here and here.

And you will note that I replied to Skarion.

Determinism per say was just a part of everything.

Just read the first post you quoted by me.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Determinism per say was just a part of everything.

You got it in your signature even.

 

[unmerged(57311)]

As HolisticGod said before EU3 is much more like an arcade game compared to EU2. Its like the difference between Gary Grisby's WaW:AWD and HOI2D Arma for example (if you know that title from Matrix Games).
And I liked EU for not being arcade-like, now why not chose to play CIV4 with its expansions over EU3, when it has the same approach, the same lvl of realism (or almost) and better AI, better moddability.
Hope you get my point,
Jadam

 

[Skarion]

You got it in your signature even.

Yes, I didn't buy CE or NA as of the lack of determinism, but I bought EU3 anyway (look below my avatar) as to try the game, I thought it may still be fun.

Heck, I wasted about 5000 SEK to get a new graphiccard just to be able to play EU3 (if not for EU3 my old graphiccard, which I played HL2 on, would still function fine for most games released). If that don't show that I thought it would be fun and that I wanted to support PI I don't know what would.

The reasons why I think that EU3 wasn't a good game are plenty, but I am generally disapointed about the lack of deterministic events, yes.

That half of features of EU3 were scrapped on release make me quite sad too.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

The reasons why I think that EU3 wasn't a good game are plenty, but I am generally disapointed about the lack of deterministic events, yes.

So, that's why I responded to the determinism stuff. And then HoG made a post about his own ideas about why EU3 is a bad game and I responded that I responded to you, not to him, then you responded determinism wasn't the only thing you disliked etcetera etcetera. In this way we can keep talking forever.

I like to discuss a lot, but since everyone here does not like EU3 and I am the only one who does (apparently), I have to reply to various viewpoints to discuss them and also have to keep up with various users posting. It becomes a bit too much. Plus the confusion that I answer to a specific person, to which another person comes up with his own ideas (again).

I believe nothing new can be coughed up by now.

So I propose to end the discussion here.

Perhaps this thread is worth reading for you and others here:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=317780

 

[Tonioz]

because it`s much more populated, you`ll be spammed by arcaders there
nah, we use real EU forum here :rofl:

 

[Skarion]

So, that's why I responded to the determinism stuff. And then HoG made a post about his own ideas about why EU3 is a bad game and I responded that I responded to you, not to him then you responded determinism wasn't the only thing you disliked etcetera. In this way we can keep talking forever.

I like to discuss a lot, but since everyone here does not like EU3 and I am the only one who does (apparently), I have to reply to various viewpoints to discuss them and also have to keep up with various users posting. It becomes a bit too much. Plus the confusion that I answer to a specific person, to which another person comes up with his own ideas (again).

So I propose to end the discussion here.

Perhaps this thread is worth reading for you and others here:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=317780

I already have read that thread, but as it is filled with CK/EU3 fanboys it would be the same way as it is for you to discuss here.

I gave up what you are trying here while trying to discuss the vital in trying to keep their schism when expanding into EU3 during the development with Duuk, Peter Ebbesen, Veld and the others.

 

[admiral drake]

eu3 is a pretty good game in general but it sucks that people need to use forumname to play mp trough that metaserver

i'd actually try mp again if you can change that name to your personal preference

and ofcourse it has its advantages and disadvantages, i for 1 won't quit eu2 to play eu3 but i would play both

 

[Hive]

As for the 3D engine which diplomacy had as well, that's almost a prerequisite if you want to have game stores accepting your game nowadays.

I disagree. HoI2 was a pretty big success from what I understand, and that was released in a time with pretty 3D games like MTW.

And honestly, EU3s 3D can't compete in any way with other 3D games of it's time. It's quite frankly ugly. And I bet that most people either would prefer a pretty 2D to crappy 3D, or even don't care at all - as the EU series never really was about the graphics, but gameplay. With emphasis on, sadly, "was".

I am confident that it will be improved with each following game.

Well that's all jolly good for the future of Paradox perhaps, but what good does it do EU3?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I disagree. HoI2 was a pretty big success from what I understand, and that was released in a time with pretty 3D games like MTW.

I don't know how it was in Denmark, but EU3 is the first paradox game I have seen in every game store over here in the Netherlands (and MTW as well).

I had a very rough time to find HoI.

 

[Hive]

I don't know how it was in Denmark, but EU3 is the first paradox game I have seen in every game store over here in the Netherlands (and MTW as well).

Yeah, so they have improved their distribution. What does that have to do with the game EU3? HoI2 was a success, so I imagine that interest in Paradox games have been boosted. Add to that the fact that Paradox seems to be in constant world-wide expansion in regards to cooperation.

I had a very rough time to find HoI.

I was talking about HoI2 though.