Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Clausewitz games (EU-likes)

4 (80%)

Anything made by Paradox (also Legion, Diplomacy etc.)

0 (0%)

The two main universes (EU and Ardania)

0 (0%)

Anything Paradox ever touched (Svea Rike through Tyranny)

0 (0%)

It's that thing where that barber shaves people no one will shave, innit?

1 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Voting closed: February 10, 2017, 11:49:11 pm

[Culise]

It is true that their games are not of the same quality as they will eventually be after a few years of development pass, but this was true even when they were doing expansion packs rather than DLC except for a handful of exceptions (Sengoku, Diplomacy, Svea Rike).  They've been doing extensive post-release support since EU2 at least (it may be because I came to it late, but EU1 felt a bit more modest and short-lived), and paid development via expansion packs or DLC since Crusader Kings: Deus Vult (which had more...complex reasons for it at the time, but the principle was quickly taken up for their own 100% in-house developed games).  The consequence of their extended post-release development cycle instead of abandoning the game or immediately preparing for the next sequel is that the game in five years cannot help but have changed significantly from release.  If you're just referring to a tendency to have chaotic game launches surfeit in bugs, that's...also not changed, unfortunately.  QA is not their strong point, and I suspect it's only partially due to the highly complex nature of their games.

I agree, though, that if you weren't so interested in it that you were avidly following the prerelease, you probably won't be sacrificing anything by waiting a while to buy it.  It's all but certain there will be DLC, and even more certain there will be sales.  Both HOI4 and Stellaris had sales around 33-40% within a year of release.  This is also my plan; Rome does not interest me to jump in right away.

[Cruxador]

It is true that their games are not of the same quality as they will eventually be after a few years of development pass, but this was true even when they were doing expansion packs rather than DLC except for a handful of exceptions (Sengoku, Diplomacy, Svea Rike).

March of the Eagles also fits this bill.

They've been doing extensive post-release support since EU2 at least (it may be because I came to it late, but EU1 felt a bit more modest and short-lived), and paid development via expansion packs or DLC since Crusader Kings: Deus Vult (which had more...complex reasons for it at the time, but the principle was quickly taken up for their own 100% in-house developed games).  The consequence of their extended post-release development cycle instead of abandoning the game or immediately preparing for the next sequel is that the game in five years cannot help but have changed significantly from release.  If you're just referring to a tendency to have chaotic game launches surfeit in bugs, that's...also not changed, unfortunately.  QA is not their strong point, and I suspect it's only partially due to the highly complex nature of their games.

It's not just a matter of whether they'll get better. I found their older games to be fun on launch, far more so than recent ones. CK2 was an improvement over CK1 in nearly every way, even though CK1 was at the end of its life and CK2 at the beginning. EU4 was, to put it politely, rough on launch. They no longer have buggy launches like they used to, and the new UI is better, but they've traded one set of problems for another. I mean, EU4 has only been unambiguously more fun than it's predecessor for a few years now. HoI4 isn't there yet, and doesn't even clearly seem to be going that direction, and despite all the hours I've sunk in the search for the game that it could be, I still haven't found Stellaris to be fun at all. I don't think Imperator will have that problem, the dev diaries and stuff make it look like an excellent game, more so than anything Paradox has done in a while. But like EU4 rather than like CK2, I do expect it to be a bit tedious until some expansions fill out the gameplay.

[Glloyd]

But like EU4 rather than like CK2, I do expect it to be a bit tedious until some expansions fill out the gameplay.

Especially considering Imperator is a lot closer to EUIV than other Pdox games. Which isn't really a surprise considering it's Johan, but all the mana and the weakness of the character side of it has really turned me off trying this on release.

[Sartain]

I'll definitely buy it on release but then again, my least played Paradox game has 414 hours so I guess I'm a fan

[Tobel]

The early views from Quill and folks look good. A lot of combined pieces from EU, some CK2 aspects. A little more politicking and internal monitoring than I normally would like.

[Teneb]

My main disappointment with the game is that Johan outright confirmed it's being built as a Map Painter. Sure, it could be a very good Map Painter game, but I guess I don't want that.

[Radsoc]

I don't know. I'm not swayed. At least not yet. Especially by the thought of it being incomplete at release with 10+ DLC until full feature. Probably.

Don't get me wrong. I like Paradox games, and they are among my most played games, but it's just too much for my wallet, patience and time. I rather put that time into currently existing Paradox games.

[Culise]

I don't know. I'm not swayed. At least not yet. Especially by the thought of it being incomplete at release with 10+ DLC until full feature. Probably.

I'll admit that I've never quite understood the logic of this since I've also heard of it being brought up without the smilie by others who seem to take the notion more personally, but I'm not certain if it's a practical or perceptual thing.  Would the game become more complete if they simply released it the exact same way, released a couple two-three bugfix patches, then began working on Imperator 2: Augustinian Boogaloo instead of their present (wallet-hammering, barrier-to-entry-raising) DLC swarm?  My apologies since I know it's an acrimonious point to some, but I am curious and you seem to take it more lightly than most.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Neither of those options are what people want--I think most would rather have Paradox at least make an effort to include more mechanics and content in the initial release. After a certain point whether its more games or more DLC, it's just not enough bang for your buck.

[Karnewarrior]

At least with Paradox DLC, you get actual content. I've bought game DLC before that's done far less for just as much cash.

And while vanilla CKII and EUIV are terrible compared to the DLC filled versions, they're not bad games. They're actually quite adequate.

[Cruxador]

At least with Paradox DLC, you get actual content. I've bought game DLC before that's done far less for just as much cash.

Well, it varies.

And while vanilla CKII and EUIV are terrible compared to the DLC filled versions, they're not bad games. They're actually quite adequate.

That's true of the free portion of the game, but remember that this includes a lot of post launch content that was released along with DLC. It's not necessarily relevant to the current discussion.

My main disappointment with the game is that Johan outright confirmed it's being built as a Map Painter. Sure, it could be a very good Map Painter game, but I guess I don't want that.

Paradox has never not made a map painter.

[Culise]

Neither of those options are what people want--I think most would rather have Paradox at least make an effort to include more mechanics and content in the initial release. After a certain point whether its more games or more DLC, it's just not enough bang for your buck.

Ah, so it's the idea that they're relying on DLC as a crutch and thus not pushing development of the base game to the fullest limits given their available resources.  I'm not entirely sure I agree, but that does make sense. 

[Radsoc]

Well, the idea is that playing it at release, at full price is not preferable to waiting until discounts of the base game plus a couple of DLCs, if reviews are favorable. The game might surely be playable at 1.0, but to me their 1.0 is just the start of a feature incomplete early access. I've had some horrible 1.0 experiences, while I really enjoy their games with all DLCs (yes) years after release. However, new DLC cause me to postpone playing (e.g. CK2 games have been a few years in between), and their pricing is not that reasonable comparable to what you could get in terms of new feature complete games instead.

[scriver]

I played ck2 without DLC for years on end and there's absolutely nothing missing there. It's a full games worth on its own, and was from the start.

My main disappointment with the game is that Johan outright confirmed it's being built as a Map Painter. Sure, it could be a very good Map Painter game, but I guess I don't want that.

Paradox has never not made a map painter.

The tragedy is the loss of the ambition to be something more. A history simulator (original EUs and similar), an alternative history simulator (later EUs and similar), a character driven alternative history simulator (CK and the original EU:R). The ambition to go beyond "just a map painter" is what has put Paradox above other developers in the same scene, it's why I've become a Paradox fanboy, and I would say it is likely also why Paradox have eched out a niche while the entire rest of the Grand Strategy genre has withered and died.

That's why it's both sad and worrying to see a lead developer say "it's a map painter". It's something they've always said they want to be more than in the past.

[ZeroGravitas]

I played ck2 without DLC for years on end and there's absolutely nothing missing there. It's a full games worth on its own, and was from the start.

Mostly yes, though it was pretty rough around the edges. The ERE worked like a feudal realm; the Abbasid caliphate was depicted as controlling the Seljuqs, because Paradox hadn't worked out the religious titles yet; there was no accurate depiction of merchant republics; there were no practical limitations on things like "I'll just have all my vassals be archbishops".

So yeah, it was good on its own, but it was kind of a mess once you started picking at it.

My main disappointment with the game is that Johan outright confirmed it's being built as a Map Painter. Sure, it could be a very good Map Painter game, but I guess I don't want that.

Paradox has never not made a map painter.

The tragedy is the loss of the ambition to be something more. A history simulator (original EUs and similar), an alternative history simulator (later EUs and similar), a character driven alternative history simulator (CK and the original EU:R). The ambition to go beyond "just a map painter" is what has put Paradox above other developers in the same scene, it's why I've become a Paradox fanboy, and I would say it is likely also why Paradox have eched out a niche while the entire rest of the Grand Strategy genre has withered and died.

That's why it's both sad and worrying to see a lead developer say "it's a map painter". It's something they've always said they want to be more than in the past.

just the opposite. Johan has always thought of the EU series as "Risk on crack". what has put them above other developers of history-based games is attention to detail and immersion. not an accurate simulation or even a real attempt to accurately simulate anything. they are all map-painters, and they only vary based on whether the "Sandbox" or the "Railroad" faction within Paradox is winning the meta debate.

ironically, I would say that paradox most seriously screwed up when they tried to leave the history subgenre with Stellaris, but that's also where Creative Assembly finally got good again: Warhammer (and 2) is absurdly flavorful and good, while Stellaris is basically unfinished and Paradox has no idea what to do with it.