Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

CK3 should have at least the same amount of content CK2 has

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 20852 Console 351 Suggestions 6289 Bug Report 4912 Tech Support 2635 User Mods 1964 Multiplayer 170 AARs (After Action Reports) MP Open Beta Feedback 27
wielkicien

wielkicien

I'm against censorship
3 Badges
Jul 6, 2010
213
32
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
The biggest flaw of Imperator was that it felt boring, shallow and empty compared to other PDS games. Regarding Crusader Kings - we had several years of great development, many additions, expansions, free overhauls. I cannot imagine that CK3 will not have the same (or upgraded) features as CK2 had. I'm speaking about council, societies, all religions playable from start (looking at you, Islam...). I don't think that CK3 should have India or China in vanilla game - Imperator proved that making too large map means that every region lacks it's own depth. If you, devs, were to release CK3 as CK2+, on upgraded engine, with map similar to Imperator (great amount of cities) - then I'll be thrilled. Main focus should be, IMO: polishing Europe, Middle East, Christianity and Islam - please, don't try to create a huge game from start. The experiance proves that it's better to include regions like India and (to some extent) China with DLC's/patches than to direct money and manpower resources to it from beginning.
So I would like CK3 to have great amount of content for... well... crusader kings with deep immersive, RPGish system.

EDIT: Quote from Henrik: I should emphasize that we will not be bringing along everything that is currently in Crusader Kings II. The most highly praised or useful features from Crusader Kings II and its expansions will certainly join us in CK3, but obviously not everything could make the cut. This is in no way a return to the seemingly bare bones days of 2012: Crusader Kings III lets us keep what we love, change what we do not and bring new interesting features to the table. To learn more about the specifics, check in on our regular developer diaries on the official forums and our video updates on YouTube. Source: https://www.crusaderkings.com/news/hello-world
I hope that it's not about depth features but about map.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, if CK3 does not have all the QoL mechanics from CK2, all of the religions playable from the start, and all of the mechanics from CK2 ported over (if the devs are too lazy to think up new ways to make the crusades fun, which they definitely should, by making crusader troops spawn near the holy land and be fixed in amount) then it should (and will, I hope) be widely regarded as bad.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
They'll bring over the mechanics that are necessary. Obviously we don't know what the base mechanic changes are all going to be yet. Expecting every mechanic from every DLC is silly. CK3 shouldn't just be CK2 re skinned.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I mean, from a realistic standpoint, if CK3 doesn't have the same amount of content as CK2 what's the point of buying it. CK2 is stable and features rich, and as Stellaris/HoI4/Imperator have shown us new PDX releases are as stable as the average Balkan government in the late 1900. It's really not worth the expense on day one.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/rock-paper-shotgun-article.1261157/

"According to the designers I spoke to, CK3 already “far surpasses” the range of features CK2 had on day one, and already covers content from many of its predecessor’s DLC (for example, the 867AD start date from Old Gods). Still, expect “depth rather than breadth” – I get the feeling Paradox want to make a statement with the level of polish at launch, rather than recreating seven years of CK2 expansions."
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I will happily switch to CK3 if pagans are playable from the start and the earlier start date are still available, which I suppose are as the Rock Paper Shotgun article said explicitly so, and the game rules feature will be present.
Crossing my finger for "Hellenism reborn" of Holy Fury, but who knows.
I've never played nomads and merchants republic much, so I suppose I can wait for a better dlcs in the future.
 
Giob said:
I mean, from a realistic standpoint, if CK3 doesn't have the same amount of content as CK2 what's the point of buying it. CK2 is stable and features rich, and as Stellaris/HoI4/Imperator have shown us new PDX releases are as stable as the average Balkan government in the late 1900. It's really not worth the expense on day one.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you have a good point. It will be very difficult, because this time the game will have to surpass a fresh predecessor. I think it is a very risk move, because if we thinking imperator is a sequence to an old an relatively abandon game by the developers, while CK2 is at full speedy until now. So unless it is marginally better, it will not work. Personally, I think they could have prioritized other forgotten title with few DLC's ;)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Giob said:
I mean, from a realistic standpoint, if CK3 doesn't have the same amount of content as CK2 what's the point of buying it. CK2 is stable and features rich, and as Stellaris/HoI4/Imperator have shown us new PDX releases are as stable as the average Balkan government in the late 1900. It's really not worth the expense on day one.
Click to expand...

From realistic standpoint, you can't include all the features into the new game unless you spend enormous amounts of resources and time that no marketing department will ever green-light. And that's only if we discuss engine, and not the overhaul of core game features (which will be there because that's the primary purpose of sequels).

This will be worse than Imperator. Not due to Paradox's fault as much as due to players having stupid expectations.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Giob said:
I mean, from a realistic standpoint, if CK3 doesn't have the same amount of content as CK2 what's the point of buying it. CK2 is stable and features rich, and as Stellaris/HoI4/Imperator have shown us new PDX releases are as stable as the average Balkan government in the late 1900. It's really not worth the expense on day one.
Click to expand...
yeah i mean what would be the point of buying when ck2 is now going to free. I would have thought they would either need to port a lot of features from ck2 over at the beggining to get people from ck2 (the main audience) to jump over to ck3. the knights system for battle might be cool and have dedicated generals would be cool as well. the mpa screams imperator rome so i like that a lot, the map is the best feature of IR. i think one aspect of the game that will truely be different is the causes belli system. if they reinvent the system i think it would drastically change the game, maybe not for the better or worse, but it certainly would make the game different enough to warrant a look.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well the model pdx is following with dlcs doesn't really help in this aspect. Supporting a game for a long time means that new releases will be missing some of the features.

Can't say I'm too excited about the game anyways, but hopefully they doesn't repeat the mistakes of imperator
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Whether people realize this or not, this has more to do with the business model rather than anything else. And if Paradox's sales and marketing teams are doing a half-decent job at the very least, it is based on cold, factual data rather than what people think they want. It either works and they have the figures to back it up. And if so, there's not much the devs and designers can do about it. Or it doesn't work that well and they are trying to adapt.

I'm also considering the possibility that they've looked at the success of CK2 and they simply try to replicate that process until they're forced to make other changes.And that model might mean that it's ok to release wil less content, iterate and add content depending on how much people like the title and how willing they are to spend more on continued support. Of course, it could be a double edged sword if many people realise this, they might be inclined to wait more before buying a new title showing them that it's not worth investing too much in supporting that new release. You may think that it makes sense for CK3 to have more content at launch, but they look at the business model that CK2 helped reinforced and it clearly shows that people were willing to support a title that had the content being added gradually over time. What can they do about it? Ignore the data and risk the wellbeing of the company or rinse and repeat a formula that already worked while slowly adapting to changes in people spending behaviour (if any)?

The point is that as a consumer I have to deal with this. It would be absurd for me to ask them to change a business model without knowing what they know, having access to their data. This is what I have to deal with and for me, it's a much wiser move to wait several years after a release before jumping in. It's even better from the perspective of how much I spend in total as I can get a lot of content on deals. And I do this because I also feel the same way about their newer releases, that they need more content period for me as a returning customer and at the same I recognise that I can't do much anything else about it provided what I wrote above.

You should also consider this from the perspective of the average gamer. It's much more easier to jump in when the game has less content, because you have less things to worry about and learn, you also get more value out of each new release as you gradually get adjusted with the complexity of the game. The reverse of this is that it's much more difficult for the average gamer to jump on board a mature game with all the content. It's harder to even guide them where to start, let alone for them to adjust to all the dynamic components that impact theyir gameplay. The veterans also get what they want, eventually and if all works well.
 
ASPGolan said:
The point is that as a consumer I have to deal with this. It would be absurd for me to ask them to change a business model without knowing what they know, having access to their data. This is what I have to deal with and for me, it's a much wiser move to wait several years after a release before jumping in. It's even better from the perspective of how much I spend in total as I can get a lot of content on deals. And I do this because I also feel the same way about their newer releases, that they need more content period for me as a returning customer and at the same I recognise that I can't do much anything else about it provided what I wrote above.
Click to expand...
The absurdity is the modern consumer not recognising that they have the power to demand whatever they like, because that's how capitalism works. Consumers are king.
ASPGolan said:
You should also consider this from the perspective of the average gamer. It's much more easier to jump in when the game has less content, because you have less things to worry about and learn, you also get more value out of each new release as you gradually get adjusted with the complexity of the game. The reverse of this is that it's much more difficult for the average gamer to jump on board a mature game with all the content. It's harder to even guide them where to start, let alone for them to adjust to all the dynamic components that impact theyir gameplay. The veterans also get what they want, eventually and if all works well.
Click to expand...

Nobody has ever complained that a glut of content makes a game too hard to get into. You sound like a shill. The least user friendly game I've ever played (that wasn't just a terrible game) is Dwarf Fortress. Nobody is ever going to say that the lack of a functioning click-button interface in Fortress Mode is working in the games favour, but equally importantly, nobody is literally donating money to the Rimworld devs to keep making quality content (I just looked it up: 50 AUD!)

As a consumer I am exercising my right to say: I'm not going to put up with the same treatment I got in Stellaris and Imperator.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
MrNewVegas said:
The absurdity is the modern consumer not recognising that they have the power to demand whatever they like, because that's how capitalism works. Consumers are king.
Click to expand...

You got everything backwards, there's no easy way of saying this. That's not capitalism, that's democracy and your rights and liberties end where others' begin. You have no right of demanding to a private entity what to do with its own private property. They get to make that determination for themselves and the consumer votes with their wallet, if consumers don't like the choice made, their option is to NOT BUY. You can scream as much as you want about it - that's indeed your right, but they have no obligation to do anything about it if they don't think it's in their best interest. Of course, if they want to stay in business, they'll listen and make the choice which keeps the most customers happy. And that's where the capitalism part starts. As I've already written, if you had the patience to read, Paradox does that if their sales/marketing teams rely on the hard data that is provided by their customers that "vote with their wallets". It means that they have to look at what people actually do rather than say if they want to stay in business (especially when it comes to demands from vocal minorities). That's the reality of capitalism, the silent majority of the consumers is king indeed. If the business model might seem inflexible at times it's because it is forced to deal this reality which also has implications for the veterans/fans unfortunately. Again, if you don't like it for whatever reason, I encourage you to vote with your wallet, that's the only effective way to change this, once enough people do it. Or you can rage all you want, but emotional reactions instead of a smart approach is always the bad choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back