The Paradox Curse MIGHT KILL EU5 - Here's Why
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มี.ค. 2024
- Whether it's Crusader Kings 3, Imperator: Rome or Victoria 3, Paradox games are suffering from a curse that's hard to shake - the curse of expectation. Thing is, when you play Paradox games for years on end, and the devs continue to update and release paid DLC to enhance the experience, you kind of expect the next numbered entry in a series to follow up stronger and with even more content. But this is though in a world where EU4 has been out for 10 whole years, and where a possible EU5 is going to pick up the mantle and succeed it. In other words, is Paradox making it harder for themselves by keeping their games alive for as long as they are, only to release new titles that don't include all or the majority of innovations from past games?
Or do Paradox fans expect too much, or don't they care as long as the new game actually innovates enough to feel warranted? In short, what does it take for a new Paradox grand strategy game to succeed these days, when most of their successful games have a life span of 8-11 or so years? That's long for any game, and it's almost like some of these PDX games like EU4, HOI4 and Stellaris are reaching MMO territory. But is this a good or bad thing?
What do you want to see from EU5 or Project Caesar, and importantly - what do you expect from it? Please let me know in the comments, and if you enjoyed the video, make sure to leave a like and subscribe to the channel! :)
#eu5 #projectcaesar #eu4 #tintotalks #paradox - เกม
![ถ้าพี่วุ้นท้อง แป้งจะท้องไปด้วยกัน !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeyEnVMwitA/mqdefault.jpg)
The real curse of the paradox is the fact, that they don't have any real competition to worry about. So they don't have to make an effort.
Creative assembly suffers from this curse as well.. They are getting so hungry with dlc as well..
Their competition is their older but superior games though. Just gotta play the older titles
Wait until age of history 3 comes out
@@Tafrara-idirnah..age of history 3 Is Simple grand Strategy.paradoxs games Are Complex
NBA 2K syndrome
The paradox model has a serious problem where games become fleshed out and more beloved after years of dlc, then when a sequel comes out, it goes back to the barebones state of the release that doesnt compete with its built up predecessor at all. Every paradox sequel is doomed to be a disappointment.
It's the fucking Sims model. Every fucking game you have to pay 30$ to get a dog. God I hate these executives.
yes, this is an issue, one I hope they'll take very seriously for EU5
Exactly, it seems they learn nothing at all from previous games, and reinvent the wheel for every new game or sequel.
Indeed, this is the big hole Paradox have unwittingly dug for themselves with this business model of a game with a long lifecycle. Talk about unrealistic expectations from gamers all you want: but when I see the same title with a higher number behind it, I expect either an improvement on what came before or a follow up (like with films). This is what most people expect and this isn't some ridiculous entitled behaviour.
What paradox does is in fact rebooting their existing games (with better design and technology than the previous installment). And although "Europa Universalis: Reboot" doesn't sound very inspiring, that's what it is. But even with a reboot there's the perfectly reasonable assumption that it contains at least the same amount of content as its predecessor. My advice to paradox would be to include at least 80% of EUIV's content and mechanics in EUV at launch and then use DLC's only to flesh out the remaining 20% and to expand on the scope.
Imperator had a lot of innovative new concepts I think that will be imported to EU5 in particular the pops.
The real curse is releasing half finished/ broken games and then charging you extra for each feature. First impressions count. Victoria 3 Doesn’t have spheres of influence? What?! that is a core feature.
You have to pay for the new dlc…
@@Fonsecaj89 Well you don't have to pay for the DLC if you have Victoria 2, which is currently a better game than Victoria 3 with 2 mods installed. Doesn't even cost more than one Victoria 3 dlc if you buy from a third party site.
@@lolasdm6959 Victoria II is kinda ass without DLC. You can't even play mods without DLC so DLC is a must buy.
From what I remember, you can't justify wars, it's hard to distinguish which troops belong to what nation, westernizing doesn't exist, no crises and Prussia's yellow.
@@ppp-vz1mi Yeah and right now I can buy the entire Vic 2 plus all dlc for less than the price of a single Vic 3 dlc. So why would I play Vic 3 if I am not so worried about graphics?
@@lolasdm6959 It's nice that DLC used to be cheaper.
Victoria 3 is not Victoria II with just better graphics. It's a diffrent game with diffrent ambitions, goals and system. They do share things, but It's not enought to justify calling it the same game but with better graphics. It's not Victoria II "remastered" or "definitive edition". It's part of the same series... but It's not something revolutionary for sequels to differ from previous game. Victoria 3 had to create it's own identity for people to not call it Victoria II with better graphics... so many changes yet Paradox still failed at defining Vicky 3 identity :(
Personally my biggest problem with Paradox has been their abandonment of Imperator. I don't like how games are released full of bugs and unfinished mechanics and features but I can accept it, with the expectation that games will get better after a year or two.
Paradox completely broke my trust in them, not when they released the broken mess that was Imperator, but when they abandoned it after such a short period and when it was finally reaching a state where I actually found it enjoyable.
Imperator Rome has soooo many nice mechanics and enjoyable content, but rather minor problems just ruins it for me. The optional autonomous armies are amazing but the entire food mechanic is terrible, high tier forts basically has your armies starving themselves. You can be right next to your capital with 5k food in store and yet your army can't resupply without abandoning the siege or manually splitting your army to send part of it back for food.
You can't even split your army if they're loyal to the commander, they'd rather starve to death than move one province away for a month or two.
But personally I find the absolute worst part of it to be how you can't get food in allied territory. Any ally worth having is going to have a decent amount of territory and your armies will be halfway starved to death before they even make it to the enemy.
To be fair, the food issues only really start getting bad from the midgame and onwards, early game there'll be plenty of food because nations are smaller overall so you don't starve walking through allied territory and armies are smaller in general so they resupply faster.
They didn't end support until TWO YEARS after release. In what bizarro world can you call that a "short period"? Imagine any other company supporting an unprofitable game for two years. People are straight up unhinged when it comes to how much free work they expect Paradox to perform.
@@Saufs0ldatTwo years is short by paradox standards
@@ploober5696 That's my point. People got so spoiled by Paradox that even two years of free updates are considered "abandoned after a short period".
Many Paradox player don't play other games and start to think the PDX business model is somehow not insanely consumer friendly.
I'm gonna be realistic here. I'm not sure that Imperator was ever designed to be a main title. I went into Imperator with the idea of something like MotE or Sengoku, a title inbetween to generate some money and be able to test mechanics separate from a main title. Many elements of I:R have filtered through the cracks to the games after it.
@@Saufs0ldat that was not free work. they charged for atleast two DLC during that time
I've never played Vic2 and Vic3 was still a huge disappointment. The problem with that game is that there are no meaningful choices to be made, and war is simply a numbers game, the only choice you can make is to have the bigger numbers. You can't choose to have your army defend mountains and leave the plains alone, or do anything strategic in this grand strategy game. When it comes to building up your country, every single country is the same - again there are no choices there - except if you have an event or two specific to your nation. By removing control of armies they also downgraded the importance of geography, which, when you are staring at a map the entire time, ought to be important. And there is just so much tedious shit to do in that game. I remember in 1.0 when the entire game was just staring at the construction queue, and now that there is a private construction queue it feels like there is barely anything to do except stare at the map. The diplomacy is lacklustre due to the play system. While the play system has improved, it still isn't fun and is way too gamey. And of course because of it they completely removed the ability to attack by surprise or to break truces. Overall I still don't find Vic3 enjoyable even with all the updates, maybe once we get to 2.0 it will get fun lol.
Oh and I forgot to mention encirclements
Yes, Vic3 is just a bad game, it's not a matter of high expectations. I mean, it's poorly optimized, political system is a joke (just rush revolution to put intelligentsia and/or industrialists to power and start building thriving economy (staring on screen for 5 hours). Also modding community in this game is dead so probably even them won't fix this game.
And I just saw the price of new DLC! It's so EXPENSIVE, imagine wasting money on Vic3 📉📉
@@HatKiddy to me vicky 3 just feels like I'm baby sitting the economy and nothing stimulates me in that game, warfare is null, why conquer when you can import and avoid fighting with the stupid war system and micro managing another state that will probably rebel 50 times.
Having an intresting economic system is cool but killing the warfare, something that very easily retains a player, for the economy management means you must make it worth while, ignoring the fact that war is a major factor in these games.
It just doens't feel like it deserves the name "Victoria 3".
@@masau8672 economic system isn't really that great to be honest, it lacks many things and there is almost no QoL features. I realized it after few games.
imo the best thing they could do is a beta / early access phase for EU5, so they can collect some feedback on what works and what doesn't. Otherwise they run the risk of having to redesign large parts of the game like with Imperator and Vic3
Remove Johan from working on new games. Invalid EU4 and dead IR are an indicator of this. His ideas will lead the PC to bankruptcy or the sale of the studio. The real world is on the verge of an intercontinental war - create a game about modernity. Amen. Inshallah.
I think they did a good job with early access to game Millenium (Millenia? I dont remember the spelling). Got players interested by actually trying it out and also caught a lot of bugs/QoL ideas of improvement
Took them 3 years to put logistics back in Hoi... yeah they are not getting my money again
Bro, I promised myself not to buy this game when I saw the barter exchange of factories instead of the economy.
@Morskoy_Velican yeah, the lack of an economy isn't the best but the factory system is simple and easy to understand. Also that shouldn't put you off from buying the game it's really good, has one of the best war systems paradox has made, and it has lots of content without having to spend extra money.
@@Blossomy77 not even the best in it's series lol
@@Blossomy77 it has a lot of content after they made the first 3 dlc part of the game. before that, you couldnt even manage your subject countries. major allied powers didnt have content, like china. i love hoi4 and eu4 but the reality is that theyre shittily managed for paradox to make bank
I'll be honest, the problem with vic3 can be easaly summed up by this:
It is wide as an ocean, but shallow like a lake.
In vic2 pops are legitimetly meaningful. Treat them too harschly and they either die, revolt or leave the country.
Also they removed coalitions.
In vic3 it feels like you can gat away with anything.
edit:
I also forgot player agency.
One that was improved is that atleast playing a non European country is fun
@@themageofspace5516 Its not when playing the game in general isnt fun. Also who cares about playing shitholes like Sokoto.
@@ShiftySheriff2 I do, have you played Ethiopia it's fun.
@@themageofspace5516 it sucks ass
Oh no. I'm so sad that Paradox is having issues. It's almost as if their DLC policy is biting them in the backside.
I mean, they've grown substantially as a company since eu4's release so... not really
@@seanm241 Till now yes. But previously the game was new, the dlc were cheaper, they were less reliant on youtubers pushing sales.
The thing is they are trying to recreate the same "innovation" by pushing the same dlc that should be a part of the base game for a new entry, say eu5.
They can't recreate the money cow of 200 euros dlc or subscribe model because people will see that it's not worth it and will instead play an older title instead of new stuff.
Expectation to get a full game at release are not wrong expectation. You need to unlearn what PDX teached you those past 20 years and stop accepting them selling you half-baked product made to be able to add DLCs on it.
That's kinda how all games operate I think. It's nothing new nor company specific. For an example I will list 2002 game called Heroes of Might and Magic IV. The game promised a lot but it ended up being rushed, unfinished and unbalanced. It also got 2 dlc's but they didn't target the core problems the game has.
When project is ambiguous and expectations are high then the project tends to dissapoint when it's released.
Simple facts and let's stick to it
Perhaps, but EU5 seems to incorporate already available features in M&T3, which is an amazing mod. Estates. Levies. Pops. etc... M&T3 is basically a blueprint for EU5.
Yeah M&T was basically EU5 before EU5 was even announced lol
"Paradox actually maintains their games for years on end"- while showing a clip of Imperator. God, I love paradox games but that is crazy to me. Paradox has set the precedent for abandoning their games. The "curse" isn't people expecting too much, though that is true. It's the fear that even if I do enjoy the game, I won't know if paradox will fix the numerous launch issues before dropping the thing.
Imperator was the exception, not the standard. Many players and Paradox themselves know that players fear they may drop Victoria 3 or even future titles. That's exactly why I don't think they're going to abandon Victoria 3. One game already tarnished their reputation this much; I don't think they're going to make that mistake again. Not to mention, despite Victoria 3's issues, it still has way more players than Imperator ever had.
obviously this wasn't the case for Imperator, but even then, PDX actually stuck by that game for two years, probably doing so in a big financial loss. Obviously it's their fault the game wasn't ready for launch, but that's another matter. A lot of companies don't even bother to fix a broken product if it's not worth the investment. And as @brandonbeilbymcledo6546 suggests, Imperator is so far the exception that proves the rule.
PDX doesn't maintain title where they can't sell DLCs on it. PDX is clearly a bad company. They just want our money. Klei Entertainement continue to update their game years after launch without asking for a single dollar from you. Proving than PDX is greedy.
Think the problem is they made games catering to the fickle interests of content creators that like to hear buzz words but failing to actually make any gameplay loops before release. There is no excuse for what they put out day 1. And it's not that they can't match the content of current games because almost all of the launch day features always end up getting thrown out on 2.0 reinvention down the line. They never build a solid foundation for a growing game.
@@Sombre____ "Klei Entertainment continue to update their game years after launch without asking for a single dollar from you."
The simple fact that they have 48 DLC listed on their Steam dev page says otherwise. Yes, it is far less than Paradox (averaging 4 DLC per game, vs 8 for Paradox, although this also includes Expansion subscriptions and music packs, which are little more than ingame soundtracks), but to say they don't ask for a single dollar is very disingenuous.
These "accusations" as you so defensively put it are in fact true. Paradox themselves admitted to releasing unfinished games, KNOWINGLY, with Skylines 2.
They are not the devs of city skylines
They are just a publisher
@@Bleilock1 and publishers have no quality management or can exert pressure onto the developer ? like cmon stop it
@@felixmustermann790 bro have you seen the quality of their own games?
Yea i doubt they be checking what their other devs are doing
@@Bleilock1 Publishers who pushed CO to release CS2 because of falling shareholder profits.
@@antorseax9492 this is also true but not something im getting into
I think both are resposible
The expectation for Victoria 3 was to have a good game in the Victoria franchise. I don't think that is too high an expectation. Vic3 still fell short.
They fixed a lot of Vicky3 but the main problem is that it really shouldn’t be “Vicky3”, it’s just so far removed from what Victoria 2 was. I’d say the game is good now, not great, but good, I’m just not a fan because it doesn’t feel like a Victoria game.
Hopefully they’ll pull it back into line and make it more of a successor to V2. I’ve been with Paradox since the launch of Stellaris and that game was complete trash at launch compared to the gem it currently is, so I know they CAN do it- it’s just a matter of if they will
@@willhuman641 could be named anything they like, it would still be a fundamentally bad game.
@@Lord_LambertI disagree, the game is broken because of spaghetti code but the concept and core mechanics are appealing to me.
I dropped HOI4 (stayed on EU4 though) because i dont like its warfare system based on cheese on numbers (space marines light flametank support on infantry goes brrr and CAS spam and boom world conquest its too easy).
If it was named differently it wouldnt have received that much of a bad welcome. If it was released in the 1.5 version of it it would be considered a good game.
We all know that bad PR is harder to remove than bad gameplay. They cleaned the gameplay but the bad PR stays, you are the proof since you are not willing to give it a second thought.
@@simoncolin5939 Have you considered playing the game without cheesing it in singleplayer, or in multiplayer with rules?
Yeah that’s my problem with a lot of this video it’s a bit too favorable to the Vic3 release. If a different company released that game in that state we would not think well of it, it would most likely be panned as Vic 3 largely was. The game was released in a poor state bug wise and feature wise, so much so that they had to fundamentally change quite a few systems to get it in the current state.
9:30 "paradox listened to the players and improved the warfare system" considering players said that BEFORE the launch and paradox did nothing... well, not a good argument mate
Vic2 vets do not think that vic3 is more feature-rich because they aren't looking at the number of features, but if the features they got used to and like using, are there. Sphereing is one example, another is foreign investment. Both of which are getting added in later in Vic3, than they got added in Vic2, with a much smaller budget and crew.
As a person who plays paradox games almost exclusively for mega campaigns I'll wait 3 years when everyone shills EU5's "comeback" through dlc which will cost over 100 usd
in the last tinto talk, johan, in the comment section, said that he and his team plan to release definitely-not-EU5 with as much flavor and content as EU4 right now
Thats what companies do, talk about and promise how great their product will be but on release it will be just another half done early access level garbo
That's such a bad thing to say since it's probably impossible to achieve unless they copy-paste stuff. It's a great thing to promise if you plan to hype it up then grab the money and leave
@@krullet3560 the game is in production since 2020, they had the time to create the flavor for this game since the start
@@gandalf1675 They also had the time to make CK3, Vic 3, Hoi 4, and imperator into well seasoned games, instead of constant hollow shells. Those games plus EU IV as well as all titles paradox purchased has had for years now a total "mostly negative" for each DLC released. We all know with an infinite amount of time you can get a pretty good piece of literature out of a monkey, however all you can get out of a Paradox dev with infinite time is an even greater time spent manually back patching and disappointment. Paradox became Creative Assembly in all ways.
@@gandalf1675 This gives me a lot of hope. I assumed it was a 2year project maximum so 2 extra years is big
from the scraps of information the tinto talks gave us I'm optimistic, all the systems shown so far look like a straight up better version of what we have in eu4, sure some features might not make to game launch (like custom nations my beloved) and others might be discarded (my guess would be RNW), but at the same time they already started communicating with us before even game announcement, so I expect about 3-4 years before launch when they can shape the game with community feedback and, hopefully, have no UI problems or major bugs at launch. Also, even as a eu4 main with over thousands hours in this game I have to say... eu4 already is a dated game, sure it's fun and all but c'mon, just look at it.
if you would prefer to ignore the positives and be pessimistic about it, then take a look at the wastelands shown in tinto talks 2, that one really needs some changing in some areas alright.
I think the main thing people will be disappointed about will be the depth of country-specific content; it took a decade to work all these things into EU4, so it's not really fair to expect EU5 to be as deep out the gate, but we probably will. Oh, and they can take my Random New World when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers! ;D
i get optimistic but then i slap myself and remember its paradox, but then i slap myself again and remember johan is on it, then i slap myself a third time and idk anymore
Im not finished the video yet, but CK2 was an all time success as a Grand Strategy game. But CK3 is very worthy successor that made HUGE improvements to UI and gameplay. The major issue is that it's too easy. Way too easy.
The UI in CK3 is a huge step back. Even after all this time, it still isn't intuitive to me, meanwhile I can go back after not having played CK2 for a year or more and instantly pick the controls/UI back up. Gameplay is a mixed bag. The character related stuff is better, but war is substantially worse.
Honestly I miss the "simple" UI of CK2, especially for events where they feel like simple gameplay-moments and don't take up half of my screen with its 3D characters. I miss the drawn UI windows tbh
@@user-zc4br7yt4i
For UI/UX: The menu point and hold system was revolutionary. I thought everything except laws was quite clean and easy to navigate. Except Laws! Having to go through the specific title and change laws, sucks big time.
War: I think both have positives. The Knights and men at Arms system is awesome IMO. I just don't like how units suddenly muster at a location. There should be an auto muster, and a chance/modifiers in place to have them intercepted, if enemies are within your lands. The unit's should actually have to travel to the muster point on the map. I agree that made CK2 better in a way because I had to plan out my demense/domain better.
@@AndysParadox I do feel this way about CK2 portraits. I much prefer the stillness of the portrait. It's more timeless 🙏
There's so much content that still isn't in CK3. CK2 is a far superior game still.
Problem is that the PDX business model only works with either a new francise (stellaris) OR the first time you implement it with an existing franchise (CK2 and EUIV) CK2 and EUIV at launch were rouhgly on par with their predecessor content-wise. People are willing to pay for it, if only because of better looks and performance. And then the slow adding of new features for a price is ok. Yes it's expensive when you add it all up, but no more that buying FIFA every year fo 10 years straight (which is in essence a glorified database update). And because those features are new you can enjoy them while they come out....
But you can't pull that trick a second time........ CK3 and EU5 can NOT be on the level of CK1 and EU3 to start with:
1) people will sit on the fence until it is at least 80% of what it was before (no income for PDX)
2) But when it gets there, they see how much it wil cost them for the base game + DLC's JUST TO CONTINUE WHERE THEY LEFT OFF in terms of gameplay features. NO ONE is going to fork out €300 to play what is essentially, in terms of gameplay terms, a feature complete EUIV but with better graphics and maybe some redesigned mechanics.
PDX needs to rethink their business model, because THAT had reached end of life....
I bought EU4 and a few DLCs. Then I left the game for a while and was only playing it occasionally, not enough to justify spending 100€+ on DLCs to have the full experience. Now the most reasonable thing, it seems, is to pay for base game and then download a pirated DLC'ed version. That's what I did with EU4, yes I both have a legitimate and pirate versions lol.
I bought Victoria 3 a few weeks after its release. I knew about the issues with it, and while I like the game-I have over 700 hours in it-Victoria III has many problems. I primarily play the game in multiplayer, but Paradox doesn't seem to care about it. Almost every update breaks multiplayer, and some updates never fix it. For example, version 1.4 had multiplayer broken the entire time, and I can only hope that 1.6 fixes it, as it's currently broken.
The war system has definitely been improved; you can actually see your armies, and they're a bit easier to control. However, it's still an awful system. The entire game, including warfare, is built on you doing something, then waiting. There's nothing in between, and that comprises most of the game-waiting. I hope and really want Victoria 3 to be a good game, but I feel like it's always going to be flawed.
Now, for EU5, I think they're taking a much better approach. I don't think it's going to be like EU4, and I believe they're going to improve it and make it different where it counts. It doesn't have to come out with hundreds of mission trees or flavor. As long as the fundamentals are good, which is something I think Victoria 3 failed at, I think the game will be great.
Yeah, truly I think it will be a great game, I just hope we don't have another Imperator or honestly even CK3 on our hands where it takes 3-4 years for the game to finally assume its true shape in the form of "finally being worth it"
I've had the opposite experience, MP gets more stable as the game updates. If we do find issues, we find ignoring the De-Sync notification is fine.
why not just copy paste all eu4 content but with updated graphics and better UI?
Paradox should change the way they make their games. If they would launch them on a finished state, and the dlcs were fewer but richer in content (which could make them more expensive, as a benefit for the company), people would have less problems with them. But you can't launch a game 30% done and finish it with 40 dlcs in the span of a decade, like EU4.
Even with EU4, imagine telling someone that the game is good... You just need 5 or 6 $20 DLCs for some extra features and even more for flavor.
@@hyperion3145 That's the reason I don't play EU4 much, or at all. I've had it for over a year now, and I still rarely play it because I can't be bothered to spend 100 dollars on DLCs I need to even be able to play a vassal or a tribal state. The only paradox game I've actually gotten good at is HOI4, and I have every single dlc for it.
I have tried getting people into EU4 that is the biggest problem, literally no one wants to enter at that price and for a map game at that. At least with Total War Warhammer they can look at the pretty models.
@@lscreagle7022 You can still play it fully if you pirate it... it's not a big deal. I have the game on Steam though, but without most of the dlcs.
@@stirpsromanica I mean yeah, but you can say that for any game ever. Not everyone is gonna pirate it and that shouldn’t be the solution to this problem.
Why tf would you throw out all the mechanics and depths of a previous game? Like, how does that make any sense?
The light of hope I have for EU5 is that Johan and others are very active on the forum asking the community what they want. Imperator was made in 6 months which is why it released in that state- it was Johan's passion project with a very tight deadline. Now EU5 development starte in 2020 which Johan confirmed himself and it's still being worked on, so by the time of its release it'll be the longest running project Paradox worked on so far, combined with the input from the community, shaping it up to be the best game PDX made to date, and radically different than EU4.
From the start date being over a century earlier than EU4, no mana, pops system instead of development and estates, manpower, trade and so on being directly tied to the pop system, etc.
Johan's redemption arc
You're clueless, Victoria 2 only had 2 expansions, completely different to ck2 and the others.
so what? V2 was full of content from the start, it was times when release meant a game not a basic interface to be filled after 20th flc
TBH victoria 2 is almost unplayable without the dlcs
CK3 did not get criticized for being unfinished?? Vicky 3 literally was trash at launch and remains shit
As someone who plays vic3 I sadly agree with u
CK3 was in my opinion a good start for something but sadly they started to add content as dlcs as they do from a long time by now. Vicky 3 in my opinion was meant to come before the CK3 if you looking at the models and how ugly they are you can see which games have the more advanced tech. I did not checked the files itself when they were created but I strongly believe the Vicky 3 is unfinished and a lot of stuff will be added as hot fix, dlc or slightly larger expansion.
I still feel like CK3 feels more empty than CK2 did and especially on launch it felt like that.
@@calebmoe9077 Yeah, but it still had the entire, larger map working perfectly with it own, different systems from day 1.
Was it thin? Of course, but I feel like most people weren't super surprised or felt entitled to it being as complete as CK2
@@Dmitrisnikioff It at least solved some problems the original had. A lot of people forget that you couldn't always play Muslims and your leader could randomly convert to Islam, ending your game and also blocking a good chunk of the world from being playable. It's nice that you can play as the rest of the world but it sucks your people will threaten civil war against you if they are mildly annoyed.
Props on pronouncing Johan's name properly like the Swedes do.
But yes, the problem is, they have some sort of internal rule where before next iteration of a flagship game starts development, it needs to get a "champion" designer. Which means a person needs to come up with a core design for the next game and there is like a break down in %s of how much of the old game gets ported and how much is replaced by new stuff. This is why they dont simply port the entire old game and build a new one on top, but they appear to drop beloved features and add brand new ones that often dont feel like they belong in that game. And youre right, this is compltely of their own doing. So what you end up with depends greatly on who the base design turns out to be and what their preferences are. Sadly.
Thanks, man! As a Norwegian, pronouncing Johan comes natural ;)
@@AndysParadoxAh ok yeah makes sense haha. Most people (including myself) just call him like they would in German i guess; ive known him a for like a decade chatting with him before i realized its not Yohan but Yuan almost kek.
The paradox curse is not expectation its greed. Instead of updating the engine/visuals and adding new features, they instead try to sell u old features AGAIN
For CK3 at least all features that were in CK2 and its DLCs end up included in the free patch when added to the game. So it's not really true there at least.
i cant think of a single time when they added a feature from an old game back into a new game as dlc, they certainly havent with victoria 3 or ck3
no competetion= no motive
@@blitcut9712Me when I spread misinformation on the internet.
The real problem is that the base paradox game is mostly just a skeleton that they build out from using 1,000,000,000 DLC. To there credit for the most part, the DLC tend to be worth it, but it comes at the cost of whatever game drops it has 1/3 of the content of the last game in the series until the first 37 DLCs have dropped.
EU5 will be barebones and only contain probably like 10% of all the DLCs from EU4. Then PDX will sell all the missing features from EU4 as DLC for EU5. People will complain but at the end of the day, people will still buy EU5 and its DLCs because there are no other strategy games like Paradox's.
The only curse is paradox realising games that are just worse/unfinished. If the sequel only has like 2-3 new features, 20 features missing and is just worst product with better graphics overall then ye its a shity game. The expectations are not to high, they are far to low with every paradox game.
Yeah, it definitely needs to be a good balance between features lost vs gained. In my opinion, Victoria 3 actually succeeded here (despite its actual functional state), but CK3 was the one who failed on launch
@AndysParadox Victoria 3 at launch was a barely functional economy simulator. War, politics, and diplomacy were/are so barren it would have better if they didn't exist
It was a "wrongful expectation" to assume Star Trek Infinite would be supported for at least a year, was it?
The curse of Paradox is not the consumer's expectations it is that fact that they moved to a DLC model when they release unfisnihed games. EU1 and EU2 and the early HOI games were mostly decent, you had a few DLCs but it was not DLC heavy with features added in that the previous game already had a release nor did they do reworks of major game mechanics like with Stellaris and other recent games. Now they release beta versions and then 2-3 years after release you get a proper game.
Eu4 basically had almost all the features of the DLC's up Until divine wind, sans lack of colonies which was wild to fight spain back then.
It was the reason why I bought eu4. It was already a full experience, mostly.👀
So Most of the missions and decisions from previous games I do kinda expect,
The majority of bad reviews I saw for Imperator were with regards to the game feeling shallow despite that fact that it released with comparatively more content than CK2 and EU4 at launch, which was wild to me. I loved Imperator because of all the potential I saw in it
Same I liked imperator
More content than ck2 no way! Pretty sure I've made games with more launch content that Tetris but noone gives a fuck.
It is astonishing how many of you try to justify bad games by pointing out the launch of games released decades ago
@@michaelgoldsmith9359 Lmao I am so sorry for you
@@technobloode9709 The same reviews I'm referencing were comparing Imperator's "lack of content" to the abundance of content Ck2 and Eu4 had after 6 years of dlc and development. I'd agree these comparisons shouldn't even be made. The game met most of my expectations at least, aside from the initial bugs
I like that IR soundtrack was the background music here, because it absolutely slaps.
One of the best soundtracks ever produced by Paradox.
Tbh from what I see I have faith in Johan and the eu5, because it has been first being worked on 4 years ago in comparison to imperator Rome which was made from scratch to release in 6 months and I’m sure there wasn’t a lot of time for ck3 and Vicky 3, paradox likes to rush the game to release but Johan sees the aspect of a good launch and to minimise amount of DLCs, and UI has been constantly being worked on and will change before release , but maybe my hopes are too high and I love it’s literally a new game, new meta, and I love the Tinto talks as it allows the community to ask and support the team before launch
paradox games should release with comparable features to the previous game in the series. the releases are totally embarrassing lately.
Hey, are you interested in discussing the optimization challenges your channel is facing?
CK3 was a good restart worth from the start, though, IMO. It didn't restart that much from zero. Also when I changed from EU3 to EU4, I never looked back.
Tbh I found Stellaris and Imperator Rome boring in ANY later stage. Ok when you said you only now regard CK3 as acceptable, we have apparently WAY different views and expectations.
CK3 was pretty decent at the start but still a bit lacking. The real fumble there was their bizarre early DLC decisions which didn't address these holes until a few years later.
What is the point of a sequel if it is not at least matching predeccessor? They are also relying on their built playerbase so they willl not do much marketing outside of already built community and of course those players expect something that is more worth their time thna previous title.
I:R was mostly advertised towards EU4 and CK2 players so without bugs, it could have survived in its barebone state if they tried to get new playerbase.
Im not even going to look at Eu5 for the first 3 years of its release. Victoria 3 taught me well.
As someone who never had the dlcs for ck2 I must say that basegame ck3 is FAR better than basegame ck2.
This is probably true in many ways, but for the hardcore fans who usually sticks around for and buys the DLC, the difference was/no a certain extent now is clear
My real expectation for any new paradox game is atleast have as many functioning systems as the previous title in the series and also atleast all the major powers in each playable region are fleshed out like for example the fact that in Ck3 republics and hordes still lack content when they are major elements of the setting is absurd but in like Vic 3 or hoi4 I get like minor nations not getting flavor for a few years
The only reason why im excited for EU5 is that there is a chance for another humble bundle for EU4
I'm just waiting for the Grey Eminence. EU V if comes out, it will take at least 3 years of new dlcs to become enjoyable without mods.
Well CK isn’t the best baseline imo. Some serious mistakes have been made regarding the DLC pipeline, they spent way too much time and money on the Courtroom expansion and it didn’t really meet expectations. They have been fighting an uphill battle ever since. The game had great potential at launch, but it’s largely fallen flat in my own opinion. I think Vicky is moving in the right direction and I’m excited for Eu5.
IMHO one of the most important check-boxes for a Paradox game would be for it not to be too broken lmao
I’m a bit worried they’ll use a similar method to military mechanics as Vic3 and that’ll be a complete no go for me at the start
If they literally just took all the old mechanics, and just introduced new systems to account for that, everyone love it.
the problem is, even if theres new games, it should atleast have 3/4 content of the original game (full of updates), not 2x of the content of the original game (when released)
The way I see it, EU5 should not lack any features EU4 has unless its a better replacement feature. Rather, it should be a significant upgrade on the prior game. Paradox can put a lot more into their next title, and STILL add dlc content because they can ALWAYS come up with more dlc content.
Im personally happy whith pdx whith how they market the system and build games up over time, the problem is every purchase is made in the good faith that pdx will build upon the groundwork and move forwards with it
1.Reputation is key
2.imperitor is a recent blemish on that Reputation
3.sequals take more effort to compete whith there predecessors
Pdx needs to
1. Make clear what work it wants to do whith these titles
2.make promises on requirements like purchases required before getting peoples hopes up
3.maintain its good community response
i had some fun with imperator rome.
a mix between crusader kings and europa universalis but not as good
I'm not worried about the DLC hole. What I am worried about is the signs coming from Cities Skylines that appear as though PDX are trying to exert stronger control over mods.
This problem is like Sims Syndrome, the Sims series are always selling the same expansions/dlcs with each new game. There is a pets expansion for the all 4 of the Sims games, for example(not sure about 1🤔)
I can deal with minor bugs and issues no problem. What I struggle with the most is the complex gameplay and UI, which I can never get around to enjoying. I constantly come back looking to spark some interest in the game that I did not find before, but I am always disappointed. That being said, I am restarting Imperator Rome this evening. Maybe I can last longer than a few hours without getting overwhelmed and bored
Fundamentally agree with the idea that the paradox model is risky, but much more rewarding. Will the average audience have the patience to struggle through the early days of EU5, CK3, V3? I hope so but its not a given
Yeah like, I need at least a big revolutionary change for it to be worth it to be missing out on content I loved from the previous games. EU5 will have pops, and I love this change, so I hope that might be one such difference that makes it all worth it
When they release a new game it shoul include all the previous one's features at launch and then build uppon that. Dev time would be significatively longer but players would not be dissapointed
i mean as far as i understand features shouldn't be lost when we get a sequel.
I think Paradox biggest problem is trying to completely rework things, it sometimes works, sometimes does not but is generally positive for pre-existing games to keep it fresh, but when combined with a game being new on top of that and thus far less content fille it only makes it worse when something falls flat flares out on top of missing content people are used too.
In this regard I believe new releases (that arent a new series entirely like Stellaris) should focus more on maintaining as much existing content as possible before even thinking about any major and massive changes and any additions should build upon what already exist. For example alot Paradox games have resources a given province might make, something to add would be more resource variety, and depending on the game series build upon what can be done with resources both new and pre-existing.
After that we should see at least 1 or 2 years of 'restoration' efforts for anything that could not make it into the release either in free updates or DLC before facing any massive overhauls.
In case they want to take a game in a entirely new direction, DONT, just DONT, when people buy a strategy game that's not a entirely new game series they are expecting either the same thing but better, or the same thing but executed less well, if your gonna make a different game, give it a different bloody name, but Paradox might be a bit addicted to the idea that any game made in a specific timeframe of history has to be part of a specific game series, which fair that makes sense but just wont end up well if you suddenly decide to drive the train off the tracks seconds after leaving the station.
the biggest problem i have with it is half theyre dlc is the same cost as the base game if you dont catch eur on sale or on humble bundle its like 300 or 400 dollars its still better then the micro blackholes like ROK and state of survival and such but its the cost of like 4-5 major league games. its still the same game no matter the dlc stellaris being one of the worst about it they just partially change the game mechanics every year or so and hope people keep paying as there are no alternatives worth buying
if they went in more interesting new directions it might not be a gigantic issue when they dont have as much flavor as older games. ck3 and vic3 are both ok but they didnt make a big change to their series so they ended up as prettier and less developed versions of their prequels. i hope eu5s pop system distinguishes it and changes up the gameplay loop
It's not a curse, it's their own doing.
the problem is that they make the game on purpose and then sell us dlcs to fix up these problems.
I fully agree with the testing, UI and optimization, but I do think the games have been releasing without obvious features that should be at launch. Spheres of influence and foreign investment in Victoria for example, or a military system that works, or some flavor. Essential to the core of the game, unexcusable that its not vanilla.
EU4 has all those things, i mean you have t buy a DLC to upgrade or sell ships and do things that should be in the base game.
I wish they would improve the journal entries on Vic 3, it's so annoying that you can't see the consequences of finishing a journal entry and what it can lead to. The mission trees on EU4 are so much better and usee friendly.
euh thats just untrue.
i don't personally get why they expect all the features from their past game that took 10 years to make in a year of development
that creally cool but my headphone dont work can you write article
also in hungarian please ty love from magyar
what did he say
what
2:33 this doesnt count it was 8 10 years ago tech and skill has increased
Your takes are pretty hot if you look at most paradox forms. Vic 3 is still worse that Vic 2 and Ck3 felt pretty good at launch. Just my take, but Vic 3 is a trainwreck of a game, just missing so much flavor and mechanics, even still. I expect a pretty bare bones game with EU5 but just hope it was more like Ck3 which was a fairly good release to most.
Victoria 3 is just amazing for me and the evolution in 2 years was much greater then i anticipated!
Paradox games are for the long run boys
Makes me glad that my first paradox’s games were HOI4, EU4, and CK3. I’m not comparing these games to HOI3 or CK2. I just get to enjoy them. Even if EU5 is barebones at first, if it’s basically Vic 3 in EU4 time period but with micro warfare that would be cool.
tbh, CK3 has 6x current players CK2 has and a few thousand more than EUIV (at this exact point in time)
HOI IV was really good already on release, getting a lot of innovative mechanics after the years. It lacked a few ones that HOI3 had, but it was surely an improvement.
Victoria had and till the update has the problem with the replayability. I didnt spent that much time like the other paradox games (only 650h) in this one because every country still feels a bit like the other. But i think sphears of influence will fix that problem and also they need a balance of power mechanic. Then the game will be defently awesome :)
CK3 was exactly quiet good on Launch for me.
As Paradox falls, Hooded Horse rises.
Victoria 3 could have become a great game. I honestly don’t understand how you can protect the game so much. The only flavour that can be found is within the ottomans and USA until mid game. Most other flavour features consist of 1-2 events. One could argue that this may be the biggest detriment to the game since major powers like Austria, Prussia, UK and Russia do not have any flavour. In the end, the game is a massive spreadsheet sim as the war mechanics do not demand any real input. Compared to other Paradox games, you do not feel in control. In EU4, Hoi4, stellaris and other titles give you more or less total control over the economy, diplomacy and warfare. Those are crucial aspects of a strategy game.
The biggest point is that many features have been developed across the years. Victoria 2 had a decent warfare system, hoi4 has a good system now. Imagine hoi5 with NO features from hoi4, as if it never existed. Then it feels as if paradox is trying to milk their games. It does not support innovation as they already know what features are necessary etc. paradox has created a golden era of strategy games and instead of carrying on innovating, they would rather try and milk.
A case is CSL 2 which did start off with many features of CSL 1, BUT the game felt unfinished, especially as it was proven that the core mechanics of deep sim were fabricated (idk if one could actually sue them for that). The game felt as if it had little replay value, just like Vic 3. Why? No flavour. It’s all a cycle in the end
Everyone in the comment section is worried about how bare bones EUV will be but the bigger question is how much the content will actually just be from meiou and taxes. By everything we’ve seen it’s just an upgraded version of that mod. I’m hundred percent confident when I typed this out that the problems with that mod we’re going to see in EU5.
I think the development you refer to is a difference between PC and console game producers/community.
imparator rome did get a new official update, so maybe there is hope
The is true ,if you launch the game at least try to have some of the good features the previes game had,dont make it bland with nothing in it and then resell the same features as dlc again,dlc should be about new mechanics that are a breath of fresh air to the game. Great video thanks🫡
thank you for the comment! :)
Although I agree that paradox games are never what they should be on release, but its still very frustrating if yoy spent hundreds of dollars on a game like eu4, hoi4 or ck2 just for the next one to be "next gen" yet lack the most basic stuff. Imagine a hoi5, but with no equipment designers, navy designer, agency, vic3 combat, just for all of it to be behind a 20 dollar paywall for the smallest thing.
Does anyone still remember when CK2 got popular and everyone was frustrated that you were only allowed to play as Catholic Kings in Europe?
Nah, this is just the same like with civ 4 and civ 5 and civ 6, it's a normal thing, calling a curse is silly.
For me, the new instalment needs to have all the previous additions. Otherwise it is a remaster or remake. I’ll pay eu5 in a couple of years when it is more beefy in dlcs and cheaper
Kinda agree but also no. It worked for them in case of EU3 and EU4 where only after Common Sense DLC game started feeling like next succesor and not simplified rip-off with more provinces
the Paradox model is like advertising a Big Mac, then just selling you the patty amd having you pay extra for the bun and all the toppings, relying on people who just buy whatever PDX shovels out.
Unfortunately for PDX, the number of those people are rapidly shrinking
Out of anyone from Paradox, I will put all my trust in Johan. So regardless of what people say, I will be putting my money behind.
If he can't bring his vision to their possibly best flagship game, Paradox Interactive is going to lose lots of faith, & some major restructuring will need to take place.
In my eyes, the game will turn out just fine if it will be led for Johan till the very end, & have both a "Custodian Team", & a "Expansion Team" that Stellaris has.
I just pray at the very least, it won't turn out like release CK3... oof, did I felt like Ck2 was what I should be playing.
Feuture complete game does not mean you cant add to it. It jsut means it feels rounded in all aspects. Paradox needs to learn to have a narower focus at the start so the content that is there is actually fun. Eu4 launched with only europe. If you cant fill the entire world with content not having it is better and isntead having what is there he fun. Paradox seem to have lost that knolage.
Me waiting to play as venice in ck3 (it's 2089)
I think that Paradox got several problems. The most dangerous is that their audience is a niche, with very strong expectations plus rather heavily invested to games they are fans of (money + time I mean).
So it is impossible to make a next installment that changes main direction of specific series. Victoria is a prime example - fans wanted better version of Vic2 with QoL in place, better mods support, better graphics and long-term support. That game was pretty complex. PDX went for sth different - I believe with a task to have a wider audiance. So we got a game for no one - it is not interesting to new players (still from grand strategy niche but new to Vic series) and it is an abomination for most fans of Vic2. For me it is more like mobile phone "clicker".
I am afraid that with approach to games that PDX has - you launch game and you gradually improve it with DLCs and patches Eu5 would have a bumpy road ahead.
So what PDX can do to mitigate that risk? Make a different game based on same foundation - we have different time span for example, we may have different mechanics etc so this game will be very different experience from EU4. This is still a gamble as they did sth like that with Vic2 and Vic3 however Vic2 was rarely played and out dated, Eu4 is still alive.
On one hand the developers dont have alot of excuse for leaving out big systems that people have gotten used to in older releases of a series. On the other EU5 is not EU4, just like CK3 is not CK2. Youre playing a different game that is designed to appeal to different playstyles, allow for different stories and to be more accessible to people in different ways.
Paradox has relied too much on forcing you to buy the DLC to not be punished by the free updates in some ways. EU4 you can easily play without any dlc but dlc does give you alot more power.
yeah i’m not holding high hopes after consistent disasters like cities skylines 2
Wants old warfare system for vic 3
Agree fully with this. Yes games shouldn’t be unplayable on release, but people are delusional if they think PDX can afford to spend 10 years developing a game so that its ’content complete’ on release. They’d have to charge £300 for each game, and we’d have nothing to play while the game is being fully developed. I really like growing as the game does and getting to grips with each new mechanic as it’s released.