• 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.

Tinto Talks #1 - February 28th 2024

Hello everyone and welcome to .. yeah, what is this really?

Is this a game called “Tinto Talks?” No.. not really.

First of all Tinto stands for “Paradox Tinto”, the studio which we founded in Sitges in 2020, with a few people moving down with me from PDS to Spain. We have now grown to be almost 30 people. Now, that is out of the way, what about the “Talks” part? Well…

j122b5kkSHre8fzThR98htcNObjdyIE_I7he5798iZFOOuPo_DwYgAodHjharr02DsYlnhUftqOgbEfAZoW_iY-pzeZJIPWn70nunrf_RxJCBOfzxMtk09O2bSLzbozxYV1pjagvDQcOdtwcRjfweW0


A long time ago, we started talking about a game as soon as we started working on it. Back in the long almost forgotten past we used to make games in about 8-9 months. I remember us announcing Vicky2 with just 2 mockup screenshots, and half a page of ideas.

This changed a bit over time, with first the rule of not announcing a game until it passed its alpha milestone, in case it would be canceled… as happened with Runemaster. And then when projects started going from an 18 month development cycle with games like EU4 to many years like our more recent games, the time from announcement to release became much closer to the release of the game.

Why does this matter?

Well, from a development perspective communicating with the players is extremely beneficial, as it provides us with feedback. But if it's so late in the development process that you can not adapt to the feedback, then a development diary is “just” a marketing tool. I think games like Imperator might have looked different if we had involved the community earlier and listened to the feedback.

If we look back at HoI4, this was from the first time we talked about Air Warfare, about 10 years ago, and it has not much in common with the release version..
u5Rmtyxo4wjnPOCck8qMkfdl0b3DNXg5mz-Hbf1J3ZnUctAnPqF8iGoRWjIQL_YlA_fXgwzZXAkH4urtPNzf3q1PxteO6p00HPyhNKLK4RBdp6CGq2bbsycQ-wSxMCf9poeXA8s7349vakEkGIFD9_A



However, talking about a game for a long long time is not great for building hype either, and to be able to make proper huge announcements is an important part as well.

So what is this then? Well, we call this sub-forum “Tinto Talks”. We will be talking about design aspects of the game we are working on. We will not tell you which game it is, nor be able to tell you when it will be announced, nor when it will be released.

We will be talking with you here, almost every week, because we need your input to be able to shape this game into a masterpiece.

Without you, and your input, that will not be possible.

So what about Project Caesar then?

Project Caesar? Yeah.. At PDS, which Tinto is a "child" of, we tend to use roman emperor/leader names for our games. Augustus was Stellaris, Titus was CK3, Sulla was Imperator, Nero was Runemaster, Caligula was V3 etc.. We even named our internal "empty project for clausewitz & jomini", that we base every new game on Marius.

In Q2 2020, I started writing code on a new game, prototyping new systems that I wanted to try out. Adapting the lessons learned from what had worked well, and what had not worked well. Plus, recruiting for a completely new studio in Paradox Tinto, training people on how to make these types of games, while also making some expansions for EU4.

Today though, even though we are a fair bit away from announcing our new game, we want to start talking weekly about the things we have worked on, to get your feedback on it, and adapt some of it to become even better.

However, we’ll start with the vision, which is not really something you do change at this stage.

Believable World

You should be able to play the game and feel like you are in a world that makes sense, and feels rich and realistic. While not making the gaming less accessible, features should be believable and plausible, and avoid abstraction unless necessary.

Setting Immersion

Our games thrive on player imagination and “what if” scenarios. We ensure both a high degree of faithfulness to the setting which will give a “special feel” to the game. We will strive to give this game the most in-depth feeling of flavor possible.

Replayability

There should be many ways to play different starts and reasons to replay them. Different mechanics in different parts of the world create a unique experience depending on what you choose to play. With a deep and complex game, there should be so many choices and paths that the player should feel they can always come back to get a new story with the same start.

Yeah, sounds ambitious right?

Which games do YOU think represent these pillars well?

75Gat6Ca0JARLF-eHpc0xp2z3YF0TVk52GfaumAeqLZ6P7oo6xgKIwUNNX9X39fYPtxhQEml5DbEwZNFnEb2S66M9BusrOI4iViiKiE8UzOx_TFSFyA4g2oWc2BC7bADhEKV1NPPQcwiFSchIt2z2mk


Cheers, and next week, we’ll talk about the most important things in the world.. Besides family, beer, friends, and the Great Lord of the Dark… MAPS!
 
  • 176Love
  • 136Like
  • 9
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
well thats the thing its a difficult question, ive been doing a couple of almost mega campaigns from ck3-eu4-vic2/3 which i guess is part of why i brought up some of the mechanics of those games, assuming this is eu5 this is a very long time period in which tribal, monarchistic and republican governments exist, taking ideas from both ck3 and vic3 to bring a large amount of depth to those different government types through more detailed characters and their stories as well as voting mechanics would be the simplest and maybe easiest option considering how those mechanics have been well fleshed out in other paradox games tho idk how much the different pdx studios can share the mechanics or whatever of their game.

but yeah i was a stellaris player and i wanna see cool shiny assets and buildings and the big modifiers, i saw some stuff about the wonder construction mechanics in imperator rome and bringing some of that customisability and modularity to the wonders and maybe the standard buildings could be interesting

its a big question and if its something the devs try to persue then i hope they encorage a lot of discussion and debates about it
actually since the whole in depth character stuff with the 3D models and all is looking to be a standard feature of new paradox games in general i wanna add a couple mentions about repetitive events and event spam. i think this is most prevelant in ck3 especially with the activities but every paradox game has these issues. the new menu thats being added to a couple of the games is the ability to control which events are shown and pause and whatever and thats good but can be quite difficult to approach due to the huge number of events in these games.

obviously this is a very difficult issue to approach to but i feel like some "gamification" and just general randomness/proceduralness to keep them interesting and more engaging could go some distance to this.

I'm sure a lot of testing and qa has already gone into experiments on this topic across all the studios but its not a solved issue and more community engagement and discussion into ideas and solutions would be welcomed, moving forward it may become more prevelant if not addressed.

different games are going to have a different amount of focus on the characters and its up to you to evaluate what a character should be able to do and how relevant characters are to the features of the game but however much focus they have the events shouldnt be an annoyance. if this is EU5 an example could be the UK with both a monarch and a parliment, representing both the monarch and each minister as a character and having the ability to bribe and influence your MPs as the king would be fun but you dont want to do that and then have 20 of the exact same event pop up at the same time and the player then have to shove all those out of the way to keep playing the game. (on this specific example idk if the player should be playing as the king or the parliment this might be something that should be influenced by how VIC3 handles this with the player influencing both parties but not having full control over either)
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Given how poorly Vicky3 was received by some fans, and that the devs ended up adapting a lot of the critiques made by people before the game came out, talking about the game with early might be a way for them to try and mitigate so of those issues.
TBF, the problem was not that they did not get feedback early enough; it was that until a few months after release, they had the "we know better than you peon" attitude. They ignored their core audience, designing their game for a public that only existed in their mind. It took a while before they realized what the forum was saying were the same critics they were getting on steam. You sprinkled a bit of bad PR from the lead designer, and it was a rough release. Vic3 is still very meh to this day.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd like for religion to play a little more important role in running your country in the next game. As it stands in EU4, religion is quite flat, it mainly provides modifiers, and that's all. In Vic3 is doesn't really do... well, anything, which is unfortunate, considering it's a simulation of people. I think if EU5 had something akin to CK3s religions it would be cool. Not full on custom ones, just have religions actively impact things such as policies, laws, the way POPs go about stuff etc instead of just providing modifiers, because religion had a significant importance in the lives of people and the state back in the early modern period, until nationalism came around. (paraphrased quote from MEIOU lol) :)
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I read some of the pages and I really wanted to throw a challenge out there: making decline and slow progression also fun, its somewhat feasible in some games of Ck and Vic, but in all of the other titles you go big or go home ( and after you go big you inevitably remain big ), this has very poor dialogue with The Golden age feature of EU4 and things of that sort.

I don't know if this is at all feasible or possible, since decline goes pretty much against a lot of the reward mechanisms in the games, but it would still be kinda important in my view in order to make the world "Believable".
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
TBF, the problem was not that they did not get feedback early enough; it was that until a few months after release, they had the "we know better than you peon" attitude. They ignored their core audience, designing their game for a public that only existed in their mind. It took a while before they realized what the forum was saying were the same critics they were getting on steam. You sprinkled a bit of bad PR from the lead designer, and it was a rough release. Vic3 is still very meh to this day.

I mean, sort of? The community was calling for a straight up return to manual divisions, at that point they were past the point of no return for that. At the same time, that probably should have been a clue that indirect warfare management requires a lot of options that are under the player's control to make it enjoyable. Instead they tried to just de-emphasize warfare, which they could have seen would be a problem based on feedback. Even people like me that were more comfortable trying it were not looking for warfare to be de emphasized as much as looking for how indirect control could lead to a smoother experience if well implemented.

I also got the distinct impression that plenty of people were posing as "core audience" that were in fact HOI4 and Stellaris players, as opposed to vic 2 players.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
@1_Nico I think slow progression can be made fun if it’s meaningful and you feel like you accomplished something.

But decline, I don’t know. There is always a loss. Maybe losing something, but not everything, due to a situation outside your control, can feel good, but it goes with expectations and what you think you can accomplish. Just slowly dying isn’t rewarding.

I think some players hacked in a « save country » idea by switching countries from time to time, or skipping years during which their country was under AI control.

I don’t think I’d like a mechanic that would directly push me towards failure.

But actually, having monarchs being less powerful (having less monarch points) might be the only mechanic, after mandatory disasters, which gives a feel of decline in EUIV. Maybe there is a way to improve on that while keeping a sense of control. With more factions, instability could be greater. The trick is for the challenge to not appear unfair.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
As far as making decline more enjoyable, I think it really comes down to having a sense of purpose and power in regards to what that decline looks like. Let's say you are playing the USSR in the 80s in a new cold war game. Simply sitting back and watching everything fall apart with nothing you can do about it wouldn't be fun. However, having a choice between setting up a nuclear first strike and just ending it all right there, brutally making examples of the dissidents you can, reforming the USSR as happened in real life, or even warming relations with the west to the point that you are effectively on the same team against, say, terrorists in SA or Africa could be fun. You might not be able to salvage your country, and you may well know that you won't be able to. Still being able to craft a narrative around what that collapse looks like and have a huge impact on other countries as you collapse could still be very enjoyable.

Not saying that it would be a good idea to make a game where they USSR must collapse by late 80s/early 90s, but supposing it worked out at about the historical time.
 
I think the games that best fit the points you mentioned are the Elder Scrolls series games, even though I doubt that the game you're going to make will be an open-world RPG. It seems like the kind of game that aligns most with this vision.

Otherwise, I'd say I feel like this vision aligns with Victoria 3 and CK3. Or rather, these are the games where I feel this aspect stands out the most and is understood. In fact, I feel like previously, games tried to focus more on competitiveness at the expense of the "roleplay" aspect, which seems to align most with your vision. We see this in EU4 where some mechanics remain abstract but offer significant control over our country (and it's somewhat similar for mission trees).

That's why I'd say CK3 and Victoria 3 are the games that most closely align with your vision among all Paradox games. As for the different aspects one by one:

**Believable world:**
I'd say all the roleplay aspects of CK3. Being able to wander around baronies, attend a feast organized by one's liege lord, etc. It makes the world feel alive and keeps us interested in it. I'd like to highlight a mechanic I love in CK3: stress. It forces us to play roleplay by giving us penalties if we go against our character's traits while still leaving us some flexibility. It's the kind of mechanic that's extremely well thought out and integrates perfectly into the game. I hope the person who came up with this idea got a promotion because they're a genius. In Victoria 3, the fact that money circulates in the economy with the functioning of companies, salaries paid to employees, taxes directly affecting the population, etc. It's a huge effort that succeeds in making us believe in the country's economic situation.

**Setting Immersion:**
This is where I feel like in Paradox games, there's an advantage for older games with lots of DLC. You focus on mechanics in the base game, and DLCs bring flavor and a bit more immersion (notably with mission trees or others). However, everything happening in Iberia with the DLC in CK3 and in Brazil with the DLC in Victoria 3 generally goes in the right direction. I also find that the journal system in Victoria 3 with multiple possible solutions for resolving situations is more immersive than mission trees. Journal entries corresponding to what would happen with a mission tree seem more immersive to me (but maybe that's just a purely personal opinion). Moreover, these mechanics manage to show troubles occurring in the country, leading us to seek a solution to them, whereas mission trees sound more like "I need to get the best bonus."

**Replayability:**
Everything I mentioned in the "Setting Immersion" part fits here. With perhaps the different mission trees in HOI4. However, I think these mission trees are not dynamic enough. We're just following what a developer has planned. However, on this point, the "RP" side is interesting. We can think of games like Crusader Kings where we can set ourselves an objective starting from a certain character (a dynasty of assassins, diplomats, scholars, or try to conquer the other side of the world through successive conquests, etc.). Or the sets of laws in Victoria 3 that will encourage us to try to play authoritarian or liberal, try to establish a council republic, or go down the path of fascism. However, I think we should have gameplay changes and "rewards" if we choose one path or another. These rewards shouldn't necessarily be bonuses but rather things that happen as a result of what we do (events, new mechanics, new journal entries, etc.).

These are just my opinions, of course. I realize that some people may have understood your vision for the game differently.
 
Which games do YOU think represent these pillars well?
Just wanted to answer this question. Specifically strategy games: EU4, CK2, Battle Brothers, FTL, Dominions series, Impressions Games, Rimworld, and the Banner Saga. Some notable non-strategy games that hit all 3 pillars for me are Vintage Story, and Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Caveat that the story of Banner Saga and Kingdom Come do hurt the replayability a little.
 
Last edited:
csi.png
 
Last edited:
  • 5Haha
Reactions:
Monster Hunter has an "unbelievable world" full of semi-magical wyverns and dragons and extraordinary heroes who contend against them. Yet the mechanics of play, the designs of the setting, and even the very thin narrative beats "immerse me into the setting" of that fantastical world. What is unbelievable becomes a "believable world". I find that games of that series have high replayablility due to strong mechanical play (the titular monster hunts), game play cycles, and game progression. As I write this seems to me to be the game which I have played most which best embodies your guiding principles.

Valkyria Chronicles has a "believable world" which it forms by taking the familiar setting of the Second World War and presenting to us an exaggerated facsimile or caricreature thereof featuring light fantastic elements (titularly, the valkyria). However, certain choices in the story, designs, and mechanics "remove me from immersion" in spite of the stronger ties to reality than Monster Hunter. It is disconcerting when the logistics for specific campaigns, soldiers' behaviors, and AI behavior seem "less immersive" to me, the player, than the shining valkyria with her magical lance and shield that cleave through my infantry and tanks alike. The series does not embody "replayability" very well, although I personally have enjoyed replaying the entries I own.

Europa Universalis IV is my favorite Paradox game of the few I have played. Europa has "exceedingly high replayability", as I like to build empires according to the game systems of Europa in particular. Europa has research which informs the initial game state and much of the flavor of the game, but I do not think Europa more than partially embodies a "believable world," which may seem strange given my above examples. The behavior of AI actors is, much like in Civilization V, the behavior of fellow players of a board game rather than that of actors which dwell within the world as imagined by Europa. Further, the not all the tools which I possess as a player are "immersive" to early-modern statehood in spite of strong flavor. Like Valkyria Chronicles, certain aspects firmly remind me that I am playing a video game; unlike Valkyria Chronicles, Monster Hunter, and Civilization V, Europa's stated desire to embody history draws my attention to deviations in a more critical manner.

I speculate, generally, that:
  • Good design can make many things, which are fantastical, to seem believable and immersive if desired.
  • When one adds the appearance of historicity, the shortcomings which are present will draw additional attention in a form of the "uncanny valley" effect.
  • Replayablility may not be related to either believable worlds or to setting immersion.
All of which must hardly be news to you. ;)


I hope you give us a more fleshed out statement of vision in the future.
 
If this is Ideas for EUV then I have some suggestions:
1. Population system
2. Less reliance on Mana
3. A simply Dynasty system where you can actually see how many children you have and who will be heir, and also marrying off your children to other nations as “Royal marriage” instead of it being just a button with a modifier
4. Logistics and Supply lines so if a players goes too far from friendly territory they can’t supply their armies, or if the enemy cuts the supply route. This way you can’t just blitz through a nations, you’ll have to strategically conquer
4. Ability to buy province (if the provinces is not accepted and wrong religion for them but not for you)
5. More Dynamic trade and production
 
You old tease. 14:53 is the time of the post. rofl
 
got to be very corageous to talk about a game very early in development, but this is the safest way towards a successful launch. especially so if the game in question is a big and important IP, such as EU and HOI. it could be devastating if the launch of the successor of these big IPs aren't of high quality
i hope everything goes well, both the players and devs will gain from this