Here's the thing - you're not wrong, but you're not entirely right either. Yes, the portraits aren't the worst thing in the world, and yes the lack of variety in EU4 portraits did not make the game better. However, that one EU4 portrait took, what, a few hours of an artist's time and a meeting to approve it, maybe a second round if the reception on the first draft didn't go well? Nobody complains about the philosopher portrait because it's very clear how little we're meant to stare at those faces.
People are upset because for a system that clearly took lots of time, it seems to add little to the game of playing out the ambitions of an Early Modern state.
I generally agree, but it does feel like at some point a business decision was made that 3D portraits were required for all Paradox games.
Not "game is for casuals," but rather a combination of "we have the fancy face toy, we must use it" and "I have never played an hour of a Paradox game in my life but I think I know what the fans want," despite the pushback on major investment in 3D faces (and even fancy 3D models on the map - there's a cohort of vocal Paradox fans who would be happier if the game were played entirely in spreadsheets). However, we're not privy to the private conversations that got PC its 3D models, so I could well be very wrong.
- 9
- 3
- 3
.png){kind=avatar}
