Crusader Kings II

[Spruce]

No it is Fredrik the CEO of Paradox Interactive.

I hope that Vicky2 becomes a success, since I think that would be good for the chances of CK2.

If Vicky2 doesn't make a profit or break-even, the changes that Paradox will make another remake of a game that didn't sell that well in its first version, are much smaller.

Please let's not link the fate of CKII to the performance of VictoriaII. Both the setting and potential for both games are different. And CK started out in a difficult way (snowball issues).

I'm sure CKII will be a big superselling hit - the main challenge for PI will be to put their creativity in the game and bring gameplay fun and not some of the superficial stuff we were seeing in some of the HOI2 expansions (yes the spying system f.e.). Also often I feel decisions and events are pushed into the game to keep the player occupied during peace time to avoid boredom. And by bringing this excess bagage, I don't think it helps the game. Well I think the whole thing should be relooked at. We don't need superficial stuff that fills all holes - we need something worthwile to play around with.

So common sense and a good team definately will bring a superiour game and CKII ought to be Paradox Interactive's best game ... ever.

 

[henkalv]

Please let's not link the fate of CKII to the performance of VictoriaII. Both the setting and potential for both games are different. And CK started out in a difficult way (snowball issues).

I'm sure CKII will be a big superselling hit - the main challenge for PI will be to put their creativity in the game and bring gameplay fun and not some of the superficial stuff we were seeing in some of the HOI2 expansions (yes the spying system f.e.). Also often I feel decisions and events are pushed into the game to keep the player occupied during peace time to avoid boredom. And by bringing this excess bagage, I don't think it helps the game. Well I think the whole thing should be relooked at. We don't need superficial stuff that fills all holes - we need something worthwile to play around with.

So common sense and a good team definately will bring a superiour game and CKII ought to be Paradox Interactive's best game ... ever.

I am not sure if you got the ppint, if victoria 2 sells badly then it is possible that Paradox ain't got the economy to make CK 2 in the nearest future

 

[Sam L]

Yeah but I'm not going to buy Vicky 2 just to support the finances of Paradox. What if I have no interest in 19th century?

Surely, there is enough support for CK to warrant a CKII.

Anyway, I'm planning to buy For the Glory and Heir to the Throne.

How about a reworking of CK like For the Glory was for EUII. It can use the same engine etc.. just improve features and rework the game.

The point is, we shouldn't be expected to support Vicky 2 and the possibility for further CK projects shouldn't depend on Vicky 2 in any way shape or form.

 

[Tecnócrata]

I am not sure if you got the ppint, if victoria 2 sells badly then it is possible that Paradox ain't got the economy to make CK 2 in the nearest future

It's not about the economy, but about not seeing any profit in making another sequel for a minor niche game. And yes, if Victoria 2 doesn't work, we cannot expect a CK2 for sure.

How about a reworking of CK like For the Glory was for EUII. It can use the same engine etc.. just improve features and rework the game.

That depends on a fan team, and no one there is for CK.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

And yes, if Victoria 2 doesn't work, we cannot expect a CK2 for sure.

You've got absolutely nothing upon which to base this.

Vicky and CK could not be more different. Sure they're both grand strategy, but that's all Paradox makes in-house anyway. Even if Viky 2 fails to performm, Paradox's next game will still be a grand strategy title, and Vicky 2's success or lack thereof should have no impact on whether that next game is CK 2.
They're about as different from each other as two historical grand strategy games could possibly be, and the failure or success of one gives no indication of the potential of the other.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

You've got absolutely nothing upon which to base this.

Vicky and CK could not be more different. Sure they're both grand strategy, but that's all Paradox makes in-house anyway. Even if Viky 2 fails to performm, Paradox's next game will still be a grand strategy title, and Vicky 2's success or lack thereof should have no impact on whether that next game is CK 2.
They're about as different from each other as two historical grand strategy games could possibly be, and the failure or success of one gives no indication of the potential of the other.

What Vicky and CK have in common is the fact that they both didn't sell very well in their first edition. Making a sequel of a game that didn't sell well the first time is a big risk, if that risk fails then the chances of a company for taking such a risk again are much smaller.

Paradox is a small company, and it uses the profit it makes to invest into its next title. So f.e. the profit Paradox made on EUIII allowed them to make Rome (which didn't sell well, but probably well enough to break-even) and allowed them to develop HoI3. HoI3 probably sold well enough to allow them to risk making a more risky game like Victoria. If that one doesn't sell well, they will not have much money to invest in another game, the development of which usually takes a year or more.

The fact that Vicky and CK attract different kind of players isn't that important in this case.

Of course this is just speculation, but it seems very logical to me.

 

[Juggernaut88]

What Paradox will need to do is open the game up to gamers who had never previously considered buying PI games. Unfortunately, these days you need to spend money to make money, on flashy advertisements for example. A good review score on gamespot or IGN could help bring in interest in the game, but this would require a pretty much bug free release. Actually being able to see the game on store shelves would inevitably raise interest a bit, increasing profits too. But i guess this all requires money that paradox simply dont have; however, unless they want to stay small time forever, one of these days they are going to have to really go for broke on a game to widen their horizons to mainstream gamers.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

What Vicky and CK have in common is the fact that they both didn't sell very well in their first edition. Making a sequel of a game that didn't sell well the first time is a big risk, if that risk fails then the chances of a company for taking such a risk again are much smaller.

Paradox is a small company, and it uses the profit it makes to invest into its next title. So f.e. the profit Paradox made on EUIII allowed them to make Rome (which didn't sell well, but probably well enough to break-even) and allowed them to develop HoI3. HoI3 probably sold well enough to allow them to risk making a more risky game like Victoria. If that one doesn't sell well, they will not have much money to invest in another game, the development of which usually takes a year or more.

The fact that Vicky and CK attract different kind of players isn't that important in this case.

Of course this is just speculation, but it seems very logical to me.

I think you're making a slightly different argument here though - that if Vicky 2 sells poorly Paradox might not want to risk another niche title straight away. I agree with that - if Vicky 2 sells poorly the next release might be EU4, for instance - but that doesn't mean the idea of CK2 would be abandoned, which is what Tecnócrata said.
Even if Vicky 2 sells poorly, and Paradox hedge their bets with a more mainstream release afterwards, the potential for CK2 in the future is still there. It might just take a little longer.

The idea of Paradox dropping CK2 permanently because of Vicky sales is nonsense in my opinion. They are different enough in their scope and appeal to be considered seperately.

 

[mrt23498]

Eu3

I have not go CK2, but I do have EU3 complete. EU3 is very good. I really like the medieval period and I don't know whether to buy CK1. This question is for those who have both. Are they similar? How good is CK1? Is there a CK2 coming out? Should I wai for it?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I have not go CK2, but I do have EU3 complete. EU3 is very good. I really like the medieval period and I don't know whether to buy CK1. This question is for those who have both. Are they similar? How good is CK1? Is there a CK2 coming out? Should I wai for it?

AFAIK there is no CK2 coming out with the next 1.5 years or so. So waiting for it might be to long.

There are similarities between CK and EUIII but there are also major differences.

1. The map of CK only covers Europe, Middle East and North Africa
2. You don't play a nation but a dynasty (only catholic and orthodox are selectable). Though those dynasty's rule nations.
3. The map is 2D
4. There is no trade, no naval warfare, no exploration
5. Your ruler and his advisors are 'real characters' with their own personal stats and traits.


The best thing to see the difference between CK and EUIII is to just read som CK AAR's. It will show you what the game is about and why so many people love it.

 

[Sam L]

Is anyone following the development of EUIII: Heir to the throne? It's early days but with the inclusion of heirs and dynasties, do you think that this is setting up for a CKII in the future or am I just been too hopeful?

I mean this is the biggest step of any EU game towards CK.

 

[Spruce]

I am not sure if you got the ppint, if victoria 2 sells badly then it is possible that Paradox ain't got the economy to make CK 2 in the nearest future

I'm not sure if you got my point.

Ck had to start from a very difficult starting point - do you actually know the Snowball story ?

Vitoria is a total different story - it's a game that was poorly conceived by Paradox themselves - IIRC it was plagued with lots of issues from starters. Also in my opinion, customers were cheated on a serious level. On my game box - I still have it to prove it - are features that were NOT in the game. I totally dislike such a behaviour and I wonder if they ever apologised for that officially.

I say that if Paradox - themselves - takes the CK concept from start - with their current experience (everybody grows and learns( HOI2 and EU3 to prove that)) - they have a big hit on their hands. Let's face it - even Johan likes CK very much (a poll prove that a few years ago).

So positivism and a good game design will make the difference in the end.

Fear is never a good counseler. If one gives into fear, any game could become a killer for Paradox's economy etc.

 

[Spruce]

I have not go CK2, but I do have EU3 complete. EU3 is very good. I really like the medieval period and I don't know whether to buy CK1. This question is for those who have both. Are they similar? How good is CK1? Is there a CK2 coming out? Should I wai for it?

Let's summarise CK in some phrases.

You are a deranged king, a tactical mastermind that helped you to win many wars. You are very eager on generating more male offspring to put into your kingdom at the key positions. But your wife seems unwilling to grant you more sons.

Also you are lurking to topple a regenade duchy between your kingdom and your rivals kingdom.

Then your realm goes into rebellion and everybody starts to hate you and life becomes really difficult if your madness has propelled you in a series of civil wars.

Eventually all you hope is that your good son will be strong enough to stand against your bad son that seems to have inherited some of your flaws.

In the end - blood goes either way.

That's a little about CK.

It's for sure the best Paradox game, just because it's so creative and fun to play. It's really an enigma why it's not a huge commercial succes. Perhaps that is also one of the mysteries behind it.

 

[pdubz]

It's easy to get the impression nobody bought CK from forum activity. But the only actual data I've seen was a quote from Johan saying it sold a lot better than Vicky.

Nick

I noticed this post on page 5, and while I haven't seen the quote, if it's true, the possibility of CK2 may not necessarily be dependent on Vicky 2's sales performance.

 

[timetogetaway]

They'll do it if they'll do it. Not much else we can do other than baseless speculation!

 

[unmerged(28030)]

I imagine a lot of people here would be willing to put money up front for a CK II. I don't know what percentage of people who buy Paradox games participate on this board, so I don't know if it's enough to make a difference financially.

 

[The Andy-Man]

Is anyone following the development of EUIII: Heir to the throne? It's early days but with the inclusion of heirs and dynasties, do you think that this is setting up for a CKII in the future or am I just been too hopeful?

I mean this is the biggest step of any EU game towards CK.

There was also EU:Rome + Vae Victus, which suggests to me the character system might be alive and well and still in some sort of development somewhere.

 

[unmerged(91610)]

I hope that EUIII's new expansion DOES feel more like CK. I love the medieval setting, but more than anything else it was those hordes of family members, advisors and hangers-on that brought CK to life.

 

[iain_a_wilson]

The best thing to see the difference between CK and EUIII is to just read som CK AAR's. It will show you what the game is about and why so many people love it.

Hear, hear! CK is a rich vein of inspiration for creative writing. For example, when writing my mega campaign I had reams and reams of inspiration when playing through CK and when I struck EUII the well suddenly ran dry as it all felt a bit less personal. Likewise with Victoria (hence me currently stuck in limbo).

 

[Jayavarman]

Paradox has placed CK below HoI1 and EU1 on the list of Game forums. :wacko: