Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings III 21050 Console 365 Suggestions 6368 Bug Report 5024 Tech Support 2659 User Mods 1982 Multiplayer 171 AARs (After Action Reports) MP Open Beta Feedback 27
Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

CK3 - Dev Diary #0 - The Vision

titus_gamevision.png


Greetings friends!

It’s my pleasure to finally be able to talk about what I’ve been working on ever since Stellaris came out (and before) - Crusader Kings III, of course! CK3 draws on the wisdom gained over CK2’s seven long years of expansions and patches - all the things we simply could not do in that game - and represents the natural evolution of Crusader Kings. Yes, CK3 is an evolution, not a revolution; it’s better across the board and does not alter the core CK experience. That said, we did not carry over everything from every expansion and update to CK2. Rather than trying to do full justice to the less appreciated systems, we decided to go deep rather than wide.

The main design goals with Crusader Kings III were:
  • Character Focus: Crusader Kings is clearly and unequivocally about individual characters, unlike our other games. This makes CK most suited for memorable emergent stories, and we wanted to bring characters into all important gameplay mechanics (where possible.)
  • Player Freedom and Progression: We want to cater to all player fantasies we can reasonably accommodate, allowing players to shape their ruler, heirs, dynasty and even religion to their liking - though there should of course be appropriate challenges to overcome.
  • Player Stories: All events and scripted content should feel relevant, impactful and immersive in relation to the underlying simulation. That way, players will perceive and remember stories - their own stories, not the developers’ stories.
  • Approachability: Crusader Kings III should be user friendly without compromising its general level of complexity and historical flavor. It’s nice if it’s easier to get into, but more than that, it should be clear what everything in the game is, what you might want to be doing, and how to go about it.
Now, you might say: “Cool, but I took the time to master CK2, bought all the expansions, and now it provides me an enormous breadth of options. Why should I buy CK3?”

That’s a fair question! As I mentioned earlier, we decided not to carry over all features from CK2, so if you play CK2 primarily for, say, the nomads or the merchant republics (the only faction types that were playable in CK2 but not in CK3), you might be disappointed. There are likely other features and content that will be missed by some players, but, in return, we believe that everyone will find the core gameplay far more fun and rewarding! To be clear, CK3 is a vastly bigger game than CK2 was on release.

I know this dev diary was short on details, but don’t despair - they will be revealed over the coming months!
 
  • 13Like
  • 5Love
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
I'm fully in support of a CK3, but the whole "Rather than trying to do full justice to the less appreciated systems, we decided to go deep rather than wide." and "To be clear, CK3 is a vastly bigger game than CK2 was on release." makes me really skeptical...
Imperator feelings... We shouldn't be comparing new games to 7 year old games...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Commandante said:
I really like this. As a long-time Paradox gamer, I've never understood the *thing* with CK (1&2). I have probably a total of 10 hours of gameplay in both CK titles as compared to a couple of thousand hours dug into PDS' other grand strategy games. But since I have enjoyed watching the stories other people make with CK2, I have tried my best to play it. But it's just not that intuitive. I'm hoping that CK3 will be better at doing this.
Click to expand...

With respect, i'd argue that the complexity of the stories you enjoy to watch is directly tied to the multiple developed mechanics in CK2 that result in a steep learning curve. If you actually enjoy the stories, i'd say that you should persevere in learning the game, because you're bound to like it. 10 hours is absolutely nothing, specially if you are just picking it up every now and then to see if it clicks and not actively trying to learn the game.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Shebaloso said:
With respect, i'd argue that the complexity of the stories you enjoy to watch is directly tied to the multiple developed mechanics in CK2 that result in a steep learning curve. If you actually enjoy the stories, i'd say that you should persevere in learning the game, because you're bound to like it. 10 hours is absolutely nothing, specially if you are just picking it up every now and then to see if it clicks and not actively trying to learn the game.
Click to expand...
This man speaks the truth!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Metz77 said:
They're unnecessary because Crusader Kings 2 is a game about feudal rulership. They're a nice addition, but they're not core gameplay by any means.
Click to expand...

CK1 was about feudal rulership. CK2 stopped being feudal-centrist a long time ago. It has Iqta, tribal, imperial, nomad and republican government types...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Shebaloso said:
With respect, i'd argue that the complexity of the stories you enjoy to watch is directly tied to the multiple developed mechanics in CK2 that result in a steep learning curve. If you actually enjoy the stories, i'd say that you should persevere in learning the game, because you're bound to like it. 10 hours is absolutely nothing, specially if you are just picking it up every now and then to see if it clicks and not actively trying to learn the game.
Click to expand...
The learning curve has nothing to do with the complex mechanics and everything to do with the fact that the game is incredibly opaque and offers ery very little guidance on what you should be doing or paying attention to.

Maphibo said:
CK1 was about feudal rulership. CK2 stopped being feudal-centrist a long time ago. It has Iqta, tribal, imperial, nomad and republican government types...
Click to expand...
But those are not core gameplay.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
LeandroB said:
I'm fully in support of a CK3, but the whole "Rather than trying to do full justice to the less appreciated systems, we decided to go deep rather than wide." and "To be clear, CK3 is a vastly bigger game than CK2 was on release." makes me really skeptical...
Imperator feelings... We shouldn't be comparing new games to 7 year old games...
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that comparing the base game to CK II at launch is not much of a boast.

The benchmark should be CK II now, not CK II in 2012.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Pied-Noir said:
Yes, I agree that comparing the base game to CK II at launch is not much of a boast.

The benchmark should be CK II now, not CK II in 2012.
Click to expand...
I think what they're trying to emphasize is that it's not going to be a barebones experience, just like CK2 wasn't, but a fully featured game, even if it doesn't include all the features people want right now.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Metz77 said:
The learning curve has nothing to do with the complex mechanics and everything to do with the fact that the game is incredibly opaque and offers ery very little guidance on what you should be doing or paying attention to.


But those are not core gameplay.
Click to expand...

What you need is a tutorial or a manual, then, not a dumbed down game
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Metz77 said:
But those are not core gameplay.
Click to expand...

Any form of dynastic (or semi-dynastic) government that existed in many places on a consistent basis during the time period and geographic locations covered in the game should be part of its "core gameplay".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Metz77 said:
Well, yes, exactly. The way they're making it more accessible isn't by dumbing down the mechanics, but adding more guidance as to what's important within the game.
Click to expand...

That I can agree with.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
BurnBird said:
Dude, Ck2 was in development for 7 years, so if you want a game that is even larger, it would take a decade to develop and would have to release at an insane price to get its money back. Sure, I don't want Ck3 to be a boring, empty husk, like Imperator on launch, but you also have to be realistic. Hopefully, Ck3 will have a foundation that is better to build upon that Ck2 currently is.
Click to expand...

How come it will take decade to develop if features are already developed? It is not the point to take every single little detail in the new game, sure, but I really dislike statements like: yeah, we cut feature here and there, but still this game will be bigger then previous installment that we released seven year ago... That to me doesn't make any sense...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Maphibo said:
Any form of dynastic (or semi-dynastic) government that existed in many places on a consistent basis during the time period and geographic locations covered in the game should be part of its "core gameplay".
Click to expand...
We're going to have to differ here. I think that's entirely too broad a focus for an initial release. I'm glad they're not limiting it just to Christian monarchies, but I think it's best that for the initial release they stick to the things closest to it so they can focus on depth instead of packing in a bunch of shallow features.
 
Nobody987 said:
How come it will take decade to develop if features are already developed? It is not the point to take every single little detail in the new game, sure, but I really dislike statements like: yeah, we cut feature here and there, but still this game will be bigger then previous installment that we released seven year ago... That to me doesn't make any sense...
Click to expand...
The features aren't developed though. They were developed for a different game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
BurnBird said:
Dude, Ck2 was in development for 7 years, so if you want a game that is even larger, it would take a decade to develop and would have to release at an insane price to get its money back. Sure, I don't want Ck3 to be a boring, empty husk, like Imperator on launch, but you also have to be realistic. Hopefully, Ck3 will have a foundation that is better to build upon that Ck2 currently is.
Click to expand...

It's DLC policy looks even worse with that fact in mind tbh.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Metz77 said:
We're going to have to differ here. I think that's entirely too broad a focus for an initial release. I'm glad they're not limiting it just to Christian monarchies, but I think it's best that for the initial release they stick to the things closest to it so they can focus on depth instead of packing in a bunch of shallow features.
Click to expand...

This is a big issue, and one of the worst mistakes of IR. If they simply had limited gameplay at release to a few cultures and nations instead of worrying about creating something that could function simultaneously for a pict tribe and for the ptolemaic kingdom, they could have built very unique systems and governments. Now we have the ubiquitous "there is no flavour" and "every nation plays the same".

It took time to have so many different government types in CK2, not even the muslism were playable at release. I fear for the uniqueness of each culture and government otherwise.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back