Your 5+ year old laptop is probably in bad shape just from wear and tear anyway. Computers deteriorate with age. My computer that from back in 2005 is basically unusable now because it takes something like 5 minutes to even start up.
-
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.
I am saddened it won't have a complete 3d globe
+1 to that.
It doesn't even have to be the whole globe being playable; just everything between 75N and 60S would be fine too.
I always liked Victoria 1s map and overall feel. I always thought the Clausewitz engine took away the boardgame feel and atmosphere from every game but EU3.
I haven't gotten 'into' a clausewitz paradox game besides EU3. Atmosphere is a big reason why.
I haven't gotten 'into' a clausewitz paradox game besides EU3. Atmosphere is a big reason why.
Why are a lot of replies on this thread so negative? I understand that my laptop is old and shitty and I should get a new one (I'm getting an new one when I have enough money), but that's not the only reason I don't like the new 3D Map. Did everyone just ignore the aesthetics vs graphics point?
Ok, perfectly honest here.
I find even SCREENSHOTS of the old maps difficult to look at. The maps have only improved from then. Yes, they look more like maps. But they're also really freaking ugly and an eyesore. Call me a young whippersnapper who can't play games without good graphics (and even then, I adore many old games with pretty crappy games), but I honestly don't think I could play any of the non-3D games anymore.
I find even SCREENSHOTS of the old maps difficult to look at. The maps have only improved from then. Yes, they look more like maps. But they're also really freaking ugly and an eyesore. Call me a young whippersnapper who can't play games without good graphics (and even then, I adore many old games with pretty crappy games), but I honestly don't think I could play any of the non-3D games anymore.
I think the first 3D maps were an eyesore compared to the 2D ones but they've definately been honing their craft since then to the point where I definately would not prefer them to revert back. While it's not really important that a game utilise the latest bling mapping and super shaded arbitrarily numbered pixels, a game that looks nice is definately much easier to enjoy. One thing I would like however is if the height maps were a little less 'drastic'.
Side note;
Yes. Yes, it would. To my mind atleast almost everything about Oblivion went from at best generic to at it's worst an abomination(for example, every single NPC). The only definitive improvement was some of the natural scenes like the forests and tall grass plains, but they were so poorly optimised that even my modern computer of today has a lot of trouble in those areas at high settings, making the improvement kind of moot. Oblivion may have technically had the better graphics but I found the look(aesthetic?) of Morrowind a damn sight more attractive and engaging. Pretty much like I guess the latest 2D maps(Darkest Hour) compared to the earliest 3D maps(EU3 release)
Side note;
Yes. Yes, it would. To my mind atleast almost everything about Oblivion went from at best generic to at it's worst an abomination(for example, every single NPC). The only definitive improvement was some of the natural scenes like the forests and tall grass plains, but they were so poorly optimised that even my modern computer of today has a lot of trouble in those areas at high settings, making the improvement kind of moot. Oblivion may have technically had the better graphics but I found the look(aesthetic?) of Morrowind a damn sight more attractive and engaging. Pretty much like I guess the latest 2D maps(Darkest Hour) compared to the earliest 3D maps(EU3 release)
Last edited:
I think the 3d maps that Paradox uses now are probably more versatile, and more easily modified, both ingame (through different mapmodes/layers) and by modding. The initial EU3 map was fairly ugly, but after V2 the map looked great, and with C2 and EU4 it now looks positively beautiful.
My GF plays CKII on her notebook and it seems to work just fine! And it's definatly not high end by any means. I bought it for her almost 2 years ago for around 5000 swedish kronor (500€).
If things doesn't change dramatically from CKII I suppose it will do just fine for EUIV aswell
If things doesn't change dramatically from CKII I suppose it will do just fine for EUIV aswell
CKII map is so beautiful. The most beautiful world I have ever seen except maybe Civ IV. And the game is really good too.
I'm sure EUIV will be as well. I think when it's time to move on in technology, it's just time to move on.
I'm sure EUIV will be as well. I think when it's time to move on in technology, it's just time to move on.
Well, I feel that I must take back the things I have said about EUIV's 3D world now that I've seen more of it. At first glance I thought "Oh, it just looks like Crusader Kings II now" but EUIV does look quite a bit better than CKII, I have also now seen the trade route map and I just think it looks awesome. So yeah, case closed, the 3D world looks awesome; I was wrong. It's rather nice how my opinion has changed.
Aesthetics and Graphics tend to go hand in hand. The more aesthetic you want the game to be, usually more graphics are needed.
Thank you, there is quite a bit of difference. Nice of you to notice.
I agree, but I have a huge map fetish. While the geographical map mode was improved in CK2, everything else (especially political) looked bad. And let's be honest here, who actually plays the game in geographical map mode? (This makes me think that it's really weird that Pdox always shows geographical in trailers and sneak peaks).
But yes, a map is preferable for the feel that it gives, and it just looks better. Sometimes a simplistic thing can look so much better than an advanced thing, this is one of those times. I personally think that the Victoria II map is by far the best one Paradox has done to date, and from what I've seen, I don't think EuIV will live up to it.
But maybe I'm the minority.
Edit: I just hope Paradox gets rid of the horrible borders of CK2, I'm seeing them in the sneak peaks, but since it's still early alpha I can always hope.
Because it looks good and trailers are about visuals. Showing someone scrutinizing the ledger doesn't really have the same zing to it. Just because players in the past haven't played in the terrain map mode is not a reason to not try to improve it. We aim to make the terrain map mode carry more vital information so that you actually want to play that way.
Yes, of course I understand that visuals is important in trailers. But I honestly think that, and I'm really only speaking for myself here, I'm too used to playing in political to switch, no matter how good terrain is. You can't learn an old dog new tricks is the saying?
I'd just like a few seconds of political, but maybe you're not really finished with that.
So make the other map modes overlays with configurable transparency, with more than one being able to be displayed at once.
It does look better than CKII but I must ask have the mountain ranges been reduced in height? I hope so as I don’t like the way they loom out of the map in the CKII demo.
As regards game maps in general I think whatever is appropriate for the game, a 2D map can be just as attractive and because it will almost certainly have its own unique appearance it will stand out from the crowd. Of course that could be bad for sales if people want to see flying sea gulls and believe a realistic looking world is an advance or an improvement because that is not necessarily true.
Paradox is playing it safe (cant blame them for that) and its maps are beginning to look like every other strategy game map but I also think that 3D has limits that a 2D map does not, 2D is closer to being a true Map which by its nature allows for greater detail which depending on the game may be what you need to have better game play.
As regards game maps in general I think whatever is appropriate for the game, a 2D map can be just as attractive and because it will almost certainly have its own unique appearance it will stand out from the crowd. Of course that could be bad for sales if people want to see flying sea gulls and believe a realistic looking world is an advance or an improvement because that is not necessarily true.
Paradox is playing it safe (cant blame them for that) and its maps are beginning to look like every other strategy game map but I also think that 3D has limits that a 2D map does not, 2D is closer to being a true Map which by its nature allows for greater detail which depending on the game may be what you need to have better game play.
You should check some classes in cartography because you've got that exactly backwards.
Hint: nearly every map produced in this or last century started as a "3D map" (with the coordinate system of longitude, latitude, height) and only got projected down to 2D for print or (more recently) display. And the reason for it is not because cartographers hate good-looking maps.
Me.
It just looks better than all the bright, blocky colours of political mode. I might switch to political to check my borders or the size of a rival nation, but for gameplay I'm almost always in terrain map mode.
I think it's also more realistic for the EU3 period. Flat, 2D political maps of the sort we're used to simply didn't exist in the EU3 period until the very end (18th century). Instead, Renaissance mapmakers drew 3D maps - little drawings of hills and mountains to show mountain ranges, lots of painstakingly drawn small trees to show a forest, and cities depicted as small clusters of buildings, often with the most prominent landmark (the cathedral tower or whatever) drawn accurately for each city. And yes, they decorated the map with little drawings of animals grazing and flying birds, and ships and sea-monsters in the oceans.
In other words, the newer-style 3D Paradox maps are more historically accurate than the old EU2 2D style, from a roleplaying perspective.