Print

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

[Lidku]

Just look at how almost all modern Paradox games require significant DLC to even be playable. Just try and parse playing EU4 with no DLC, or Stellaris with no DLC, and so on.

They make barebone games at launch, then stuff it with DLC that basically become mandated to buy for a halfway decent game. So basically you get a game shallow game that's 360~ dollars. Even on a sale you'd have to fork up a bunch of cash for all the DLC.

Paradox could somewhat get away with this in the past, because their past baseline games were at least somewhat good mechanic-wise. Now all the modern Paradox games just have good "graphics" and so-called "better" UI (when the UI to me just looks mobile-tier..).

I'm fully Victoria 3 will go down this route, especially as a means to build up MORE hype to save their current review status.

[Persus13]

I've played both those games without DLC. They're certainly different games now than they were at launch, with all the free updates adding more provinces and reworking systems, but I definitely wouldn't describe them as unplayable. Quite the opposite. So to each their own.

[Shooer]

Also, the DLC is optional content released over years of support for their games.  It is expanding the life and content of a single game.  They could be on CK 8, or EU 13, instead we get several $15-$20 optional DLC that you can buy if you want.

I've played "modern" Paradox grand strategies with and without DLCs.  I prefer the DLCs because it's MORE, never been dissatisfied playing without though. 

Also not forced to buy the DLCs, ever.  I get some when ever I decided to pick a game up again.  Just adds more replay to a game I like already.

The only reason to call any Paradox DLC mandatory is if there is a mechanic in the DLC that you want to play with, which is a you/me problem.  Not a problem with the base game.

[EuchreJack]

I was overall fine with the DLC scheme of Crusader Kings 2, but not as happy with it on Stellaris, and was able to completely ignore it on Imperator.

Yeah, gonna stick with my original analysis and give this game another year to cook.

[Grim Portent]

I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a bit more meat to a bit of the game, but it works fine. Not encountered any game breaking bugs, though the UI was really obtuse at first. No less playable than CK3 was at launch, though it is shorter to do a full run I feel because you can basically leave the game running at full speed all the time.


Been bashing my head against the wall as the Sikh Empire, trying to build up a little hegemony that can actually fight the EIC without getting crushed. Expanding West just pisses off the Great Powers and gets me invaded by someone who takes offense to me taking Afghanistan and Persia or whatever, India is British so that's a no go, Qing and Russia to the North so that's also a no.

Guess I'm going to need to slowly expand West and get some African colonies while I'm at it. Doesn't help that I start with a budget deficit.

[Inarius]

I was overall fine with the DLC scheme of Crusader Kings 2, but not as happy with it on Stellaris, and was able to completely ignore it on Imperator.

Yeah, gonna stick with my original analysis and give this game another year to cook.

Same for me. I loved Victoria 2, but well, i have been waiting for this game for soooo long, so why should i play it NOW, when it's unoptimised, whereas i can play to a much better game in one year ?

[Duuvian]

If not for the DLCs I'd probably play HoI4 again or more regularly. It's not that they are bad, it's just I keep failing to purchase the DLC that allows customizing the aircraft and tank to some degree. I accidently bought Battle for the Bosporus the last time there was a sale on DLC, a DLC I was going to skip, when I was trying to get the DLC has that content. That's my bad but having a game mechanic like that in a DLC I am not pleased by. There seems to be some competition arising in the genre from smaller studios so maybe it's time to switch, though I do like these Paradox games I can't afford a crapton of DLC. TBH I'll probably just cut back even more rather than abandon them completely though; it's not a huge enough deal to make me swear off Paradox games but it made me stop playing HoI4. I reinstalled it a few times but not having that feature due to my mistake picking the wrong DLC for Steamcart kills my desire to continue pretty quick and I uninstall.

[MorleyDev]

(Really, fine with the CK2 model? Say what you will about them putting more gameplay mechanics into DLCs but I remember people ripping into them for mostly selling model assets as DLCs without any new content and begging them *to* add more content).

The way I see it, older Paradox games are better sandboxes than games, whilst newer paradox games are built to be games first and sandboxes second.

So I think they have focused on the core gameplay loop and stripped out a lot of the extra stuff that produced random interesting fun games like had CK2 at the cost of being less of a mechanically sound game. Lots of random events became controllable mechanics, like CK3s stress system. Stellaris's development is a pretty good example of that transition happening in real time to the same product, things like the hyperlane rework being an example of them deliberately and consciously reducing the sandbox to make the gameplay better.

Imperator was them first experimenting with that transition in a whole new game and they fucked it up big time, but CK3 managed to avoid that and achieve their goal of being a mechanically and technically better game than CK2 at the cost of being a worse sandbox.

A bunch of Dwarf Fortress fans probably aren't the main market for a product sold on being a worse sandbox than it's predecessor, considering "terrible game, amazing sandbox" could be said to be an apt description of DF in the first place...

[Lidku]

The way I see it, older Paradox games are better sandboxes than games, whilst newer paradox games are built to be games first and sandboxes second.

I don't understand why you divorce the sandbox genre into not being "game(s)". They are, and it's really weird to motion them as being mutually exclusive. If modern Paradox games aren't sandbox games, what exactly are they?

On your example of CK2 vs CK3:

CK3 in the state it is now, is nowhere near as being good as CK2. And to be fair, you can chalk it up to CK2 being heavily pegged upward by the DLC it has, and CK3 barely having any... but in the same amount of years of CK3 being released have passed, CK2 had more DLCs out by now. And almost all the DLCs for CK2 within that aforementioned timespan, are leagues better than the DLC currently released for CK3.

I'll give CK3 a little bone; baseline CK3 definitely incorporated of minutiae things (and emphasis on minutiae here) from CK2+DLC to stuff it up on release.. but CK3 misses core gameplay mechanics that make it subpar compared to CK2.

- No playable Merchant Republics

- No dynamic Nomad system for Central Asia

- No unique government structure and mechanics for the Eastern Roman Empire

- No College of Cardinal system

- No joinable Warrior Lodges for pagan characters

- No Canonization of deceased characters of high virtue by the Papacy

- No coronations

- Complete lack of Secret and Public Societies characters can join

- No trade routes

- The basic inability to serve as a commander in your Liege's armies

- All the army unit models being the same Infantry model, instead of changing dynamically based on the amount of units you have in it (so for instance you had more heavy cavalry than all other types in your current army; it'd show a nicely made and detailed graphic unit of a heavy cavalry sprite on the map. Try the same with CK3 and you'll get the same basic footman unit sprite everytime)

..and many, many more things. So your claim that Paradox is making games with better "gameplay" in mind.. is truly bizarre.

To be honest, all the above of what I said should've probably been put in the CK3 or CK2 thread, but really it just serves as a case-example of Paradox as a whole.

Paradox does not care about gameplay. They care more about making gradually oversimplified games, in which they get picked up by YouTubers to farm easy content off of and make bank from the people who'll buy their games for the meme value, then stop playing it a few days later after being bored. Victoria 3 proves this readily as more and more people are beginning to drop it, and the Steam reception reviews for it only going up by 1% from 63% to 64% in the weeks it has been out already.

That's the real transition of Paradox game design, not them making better "gameplay" in their games.

[MorleyDev]

I'll use Stellaris as an example, comparing the old movement system vs the new one.

Old Stellaris allowing different means of galaxy travel meant it had to use a zone of control system for ownership of systems. Ownership of systems could transfer based on whose starbase had the greater radius/force of control. This leads to interesting emergant properties, but they happen without player input based on background numbers. The possibility for emergent scenarios makes it viable sandbox design, but frustrating for players who set out a specific goal to conquer an area. It lacks player agency.

New Sterllaris uses direct hyperlanes, where the player has to click and choose to build a starbase on every system. That starbase can only be lost in conflict or traded away. There is no emergent behaviour in who controls that starbase. It is placed in the realm of player agency. This is better from a game design theory pov, but doing so reduces the number emergant scenarios that can occur.

That's the distinction between Game Design and Sandbox Design as I'm using them: Emergent behaviour vs player agency. When you break it down, CK3s design has clearly placed a higher emphasis on player agency that CK2s did. Stellarises systems have moved over time towards increasing player agency. The Stress and Lifestyle Systems in CK3 and Hyperlanes rework in Stellaris are my go-to examples of that difference.

tbh the things you mentioned are all not what I'd call core gameplay features. Core gameplay of CK3 is playing as a Western King trying to expand their domain, or Lord scheming to become King to then try and expand their domain. That's the core gameplay loop it was all bult around. The others are there to support that core and provide extra variety. I never even noticed pretty much all of their absences except Secret Societies (which were a recent DLC addition to CK2 and one that many complained about, especially the secret socieites, as being too magical seeming. The lack of demon worshippers running around is the main way you notice their absence).

[Lidku]

By limiting emergent gameplay, especially in a company that is supposed to be specializing in making dynamic sandbox games based on alternate history, all the things you mentioned that "limited" player agency is the reverse. Making things streamlined where only one particular factor is the same throughout in all "new" save games is what is lowering the quality of new Paradox games now.

Emergent gameplay, in conjunction with strong mechanics, is way better than the streamline mechanic paradigm you allude to by a long shot. This is what the core (now formerly core, considering the course Paradox is going on now) of the Paradox fanbase wants from their games.

If I wanted linear non-sandbox games, I'd playing action games like Call of Duty or RPG games like those in the Final Fantasy series.

The gameplay "loop" in CK3 is really weak due to its predictability and everything feeling almost exactly the same. This problem doubly extends to Victoria 3 in its release current state.

Paradox can continuously get away with alienating their former audience and releasing unfinished poor-quality games because they have a monopoly on map-based Grand Strategy games. Until new competitors arise, Paradox just won't shape up.

[MorleyDev]

Problem is, Paradox are a publicly traded company. They need to demonstrate constant financial growth in order to continue existing as a business. Paradox's previous niche of Grand Sandboxes simply does not have enough people in it to support that. They literally can't continue to produce games that satisfy it and still exist. They need try and find ways to bring in a larger audience, like the streamlining. If they don't do things like that which can bring in new players, then their share holders leave, share prices plummet, and Paradox stops existing. Capitalism ho -_-

There's a reason nobody big is competing in traditional Grand Strategy: it doesn't sell well enough to be worth it.

[EuchreJack]

So long Microprose Paradox, it was nice while it lasted.

[Chiefwaffles]

Counterpoint:
I find Stellaris, CK3, and Victorai 3 are fun to play.

[axiomsofdominion]

Counterpoint:
I find Stellaris, CK3, and Victorai 3 are fun to play.

By the numbers even New Paradox games are not fun. The market has spoken.

No one is arguing that no person in the world enjoys new Paradox. They are saying that they take away from the OG Paradox brand.

You are like someone replying to a thread about the old school historical Total Wars saying magic wizard fantasy Total War with a heavily streamlined Building system is fun. Or someone defending League as fun when people are talking about MOBAs crippling the RTS genre. What is your point?