Print

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

[Retropunch]

I'd say things like building megastructures should have been in the base game. Someone added them into a mod pretty much immediately, and it was always something that seemed like it should be there and wasn't. Without those, there's not much possibility of building vertically. This isn't just fluff - it's meaningful gameplay additions.

Mostly though, the issue is that the game itself *needs* so many improvements and changes after launch. They're basically putting out a full price game, then hoping it does well enough that the DLC sales carry it on enough to become a decent game. CK2 managed, Stellaris probably will, HOI...maybe. It's just the whole model of 'buy it and hope we fix it, and you'll need to buy our DLC for the full experience' which I detest. I believe DLC should be for completely extra and content, not gameplay mechanics.

I only played this game on release, is it worth going back to in its current state?

Scroll back a few pages and there was a discussion about that. It's definitely different from the v1 and has been improved, but still not amazing. It's enough to dive back into though.

[Cruxador]

It's true that it's released pretty basic, but the core gameplay upgrades tend to come for free with the updates. Like, what Stellaris DLC content do you think should be part of the core game? Or even CK2, which has been out and accruing DLC for ages?

Idk about stellaris, but for CK2 the ability to play different types of rulers, even if their rules are the same or slightly reflavored versions of the base rulers if you don't have their dlc, is an obvious one.

What? CK2 is a game called Crusader Kings, in which you can play every Christian king (or Duke or Count or even Emperor) in the base game. Playing as Muslims, Pagan chieftains, republican patricians, Mongols, or Indians are not part of the base game by design. If you look at the original Crusader Kings, none of those features were part of it even with the expansion, because it wasn't about those things and wasn't supposed to be.

I only played this game on release, is it worth going back to in its current state?

Nah, if you're on the fence I'd wait a big longer. The biggest problems were patched in the early round of patches, and the latest update added better government and faction politics, but the game could still use a fair bit more. Probably two or three major patches before it's an exemplary game. So like a year. If you get a wild hare up your ass and want to play before then, go for it, but there's no sense in going out of your way to get hyped up otherwise.

I only played this game on release, is it worth going back to in its current state?

Mods help it a lot. Mostly the same, but much more finely tuned than vanilla with some added flavor.

The modding community is another thing that's not really very well developed yet.

I'd say things like building megastructures should have been in the base game. Someone added them into a mod pretty much immediately, and it was always something that seemed like it should be there and wasn't. Without those, there's not much possibility of building vertically.

To be honest, the megastructures suck anyway. If the "one at a time" thing was removed and they were fleshed out a bit, it could be nice. But they're pretty boring and worthless. And there's plenty of science fiction without them, so although they could add a lot conceptually if they were better implemented, I wouldn't call them necessary either.

This isn't just fluff - it's meaningful gameplay additions.

That's not really germane. A meaningful gameplay addition isn't the same as something that's fundamental to the core gameplay, and is thus necessary for the game to be finished.

[Rolan7]

It's true that it's released pretty basic, but the core gameplay upgrades tend to come for free with the updates. Like, what Stellaris DLC content do you think should be part of the core game? Or even CK2, which has been out and accruing DLC for ages?

Idk about stellaris, but for CK2 the ability to play different types of rulers, even if their rules are the same or slightly reflavored versions of the base rulers if you don't have their dlc, is an obvious one.

That's a great example, though.  Paradox upgraded the mechanics for those other types of rulers (mostly non-crusaders, *cough*) for *everyone*, for free.  Those upgraded mechanics can be significant even in vanilla, what with vassal republics, decadence...  India...

Buying DLC just lets us experience the new content first-hand rather than second-hand, and funds the development of more content.

There's no way CK2 could have been released in its current state, with all DLC included, as a $60 game.  It's only possible because of continued funding.  Whether it's cost-effective is a personal decision...   Even buying during sales, I've spent a bit more than $60 over a couple years.  But not that much more, and personally I'm very satisfied.  That's the bottom line, really, and up to the individual.

Can't speak to Stellaris, but it sounds like it's getting better over time.  Implementing suggestions from the fanbase is a major factor too...  In-house playtesting only goes so far, compared to hundreds of thousands of fresh eyes.

[Criptfeind]

No, I get it, I don't hate DLC, you don't need to sing the praises to me about how dlc can be good. Fleshing out mechanics is all well and good and fine for dlc, the free parts of the updates are also fine when taken in a vacuum. But the original locking of these rulers behind the plan to later on release them as paid content is well, exactly the sort of thing that should have been part of the core game.

[Persus13]

But the vast majority of the rulers made playable by DLC weren't around on release.

Most Pagan rulers weren't in the base game. They either got added by the 867 and 769 starts or were off the map initially. And the stuff that made them interesting to play as comes from the DLC or patches. Merchant Republics didn't exist before their DLC. The Indian subcontinent only was added to the map with the India DLC. Jewish rulers didn't exist until Sons of Abraham happened.

The only rulers "locked behind" DLC were Muslims, and the stuff that makes them interesting and unique to play as from Christian rulers was added by their DLC/patch four months after the game came out.

[Teneb]

IIRC, the original plan for CK2 was to release it as it was in 1.0 and then that's it. No expansions, no nothing. But it ended up being way more popular than expected (probably because it was incredibly bug-free) and they started planning DLCs. Muslims, for example, weren't originally intended to be playable.

[Criptfeind]

IIRC, the original plan for CK2 was to release it as it was in 1.0 and then that's it. No expansions, no nothing. But it ended up being way more popular than expected (probably because it was incredibly bug-free) and they started planning DLCs. Muslims, for example, weren't originally intended to be playable.

I'd buy this explanation, and then charitably say that the muslim ruler dlc is simply them having you pay for a bad decision they made instead of dlc whoring then. That's at least a bit better.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I only played this game on release, is it worth going back to in its current state?

Mods help it a lot. Mostly the same, but much more finely tuned than vanilla with some added flavor.

The modding community is another thing that's not really very well developed yet.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?But there are tons of great mods that add features and/or expand functionality to the game? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Mmm, there's plenty of game changing mods out there and the modding community is doing a wonderful job, the mods simply just aren't as collated as they've become in CKII. Give them some time.

[Greenbane]

Compare it to the mods in EUIV or CKII.

The mods in game presently tend to just hack at present code and include fairly minor changes, or just one or two big ones. There's nothing like CKII+ or MEIOU&T.

Just like comparisons with Distant Worlds, let's compare a 1-year-old game with those 4 or 5 years old with massive amounts of expansions, patching and mods under their belt.

[Cruxador]

No, I get it, I don't hate DLC, you don't need to sing the praises to me about how dlc can be good. Fleshing out mechanics is all well and good and fine for dlc, the free parts of the updates are also fine when taken in a vacuum. But the original locking of these rulers behind the plan to later on release them as paid content is well, exactly the sort of thing that should have been part of the core game.

The leaders were locked originally because they weren't part of the plan. That's why you could never play as them in the original Crusader Kings.

IIRC, the original plan for CK2 was to release it as it was in 1.0 and then that's it. No expansions, no nothing. But it ended up being way more popular than expected (probably because it was incredibly bug-free) and they started planning DLCs. Muslims, for example, weren't originally intended to be playable.

I don't know about that. Look at the older games. They probably intended to have one or two expansions if it did reasonably well. Certainly nothing like what we ended up getting, of course, but playable muslims might have happened even if CK2 hadn't taken off like it did.

I only played this game on release, is it worth going back to in its current state?

Mods help it a lot. Mostly the same, but much more finely tuned than vanilla with some added flavor.

The modding community is another thing that's not really very well developed yet.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?But there are tons of great mods that add features and/or expand functionality to the game? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Compare it to Paradox games that have been out for a while, though. Like, there are some good mods, sure. But the big stuff, the star wars and star trek overhauls, a comprehensive balance and gameplay extension mod, that stuff is still just dreams. Right now you've got a couple races, generally not even compiled into a pack, some basic gameplay modifications, and people who just throw tons of content at the game in the assumption that quantity begets quality. There are nice little gems, sure, but they remain little gems.

Just like comparisons with Distant Worlds, let's compare a 1-year-old game with those 4 or 5 years old with massive amounts of expansions, patching and mods under their belt.

I notice that you clipped out the quotestack, but if you hadn't done that, or if you'd read it before doing that, you'd notice that this disparity was the point to begin with.

[Criptfeind]

The leaders were locked originally because they weren't part of the plan. That's why you could never play as them in the original Crusader Kings.

Well, like I said, that was a bad plan that was later turned into a bad dlc policy. Honestly either way this still totally ends up in the category of things that are "DLC content that I think should be part of the core game" so it doesn't really mater what their original plan is.

[Cruxador]

The leaders were locked originally because they weren't part of the plan. That's why you could never play as them in the original Crusader Kings.

Well, like I said, that was a bad plan that was later turned into a bad dlc policy. Honestly either way this still totally ends up in the category of things that are "DLC content that I think should be part of the core game" so it doesn't really mater what their original plan is.

Are you one of those people that think they should add fucking China next? The game is called Crusader Kings. It's about Catholics kings who crusade. Everything else is extra.

[Criptfeind]

I actually thought you were joking the first time you brought up the name. But now it really seems like you're not? So how upset are you that there are dukes and emperors? On a scale of 1-10? 11? 4546? You seem pretty mad, but dude I'm here to give you the good news, the name actually isn't that important.

[Descan]

Paradox devs are actually chafing a little with the Crusader Kings title but they were stuck with it. They wanted to make a medieval Grand Strat/simulator game, and well, Crusades are a part of that time. That, and they already had the IP, so might as well, eh?

That said, when CK2 came out, they hadn't fleshed out the DLC plan just yet. Not to say they weren't heading that way, and that the writing was on the wall, but it's a stretch to imagine they knowingly didn't put in any mechanics for non Christian kings because of it.

Vanilla CK2 came with only Christians because Crusader Kings 1 had only christians playable; They broadened and built on the original blueprints they were given, but didn't add on entirely new pieces of blue paper, to stretch the metaphor.