That implies you are somehow qualified to identify what is and is not cultlike. Feel free to share your qualifications, looking up Nietzsche quotes on quotes.com doesn't count, I'm afraid.
-
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.
- Status
I think there would be a lot less hate on this thread if the op hadn't demanded exactly what should be in the game a less than a week after the announcement. And saying that if his demands weren't met then it's going to he inferior to CK2.
If the op buys the game or not nobody cares. If you buy the game or not nobody cares. Hell nobody cares of I buy the game or not.
(I apologise if this comes across as antagonistic just a limitation of the dispassionate written format)
And the gods yo honest truth is that on launch CK3 WILL be INFERIOR too CK2. It never was going to measure up and any one who thinks otherwise..... (I can't think of anything that wouldn't sound offensive when I don't mean it to)
CK2 had a full development cycle plus 7 YEARS worth of constant support, updates free and paid content expansions.
How, I ask in all seriousness is CK3 supposed to compete with that on a single development cycle.
So they are doing the only thing they can. Create a really solid foundation with deep character focused gameplay and making that the best ot can be. Put in the government forms they have time and resources too while scrapping what didn't work before.
I honestly feel a little sorry for the development staff on this one because it's a fight that cand and never could have been won.
And for thos decrying that they are only holding back features to sell later I believe @Lambert2191 among others got an interview stating that there is no intention to sell gameplay mechanics. While it's not been stated what their plans are post launch it's been implied to be cosmetic and flavor packs
Faceless, people disagreeing with you has nothing to do with cults. They just think you're wrong.
So....
Paradox have taken a look at this "certain other game", and decided that they're going to be unable to launch the game at the quality they want, on the date they want.
Given that, which do you want?
An on time, unplayable, buggy mess?
A late, but playable game?
If you've spent 4000 hours in CKII and spent $500, that means you've had around 8 hours of fun per dollar - not a bad rate, and certainly better than most forms of entertainment. I honestly don't see where the complaint is here.
People disagreeing with the meat of your post are not "cultists" - they simply disagree.
And the icing on the cake that cause me to "respectfully disagree" with you, was the "Woekader Kings 3" crack. It's not funny, and not even necessary - and you don't give any reasons why you think of it as being "woke" - whatever you mean by that in this context.
That's right but a game with very little game mechanics of high quality could be a large downgrade compared to ck2, because it could feel unfinishied, which was my problem with the realese version of Imperator Rome.
I only played like 10% of my CK2 games as republics or nomads. I don't really miss their omission because I had fun that 90% of the time too. (actually even more fun because of the better mechanics)
I get it, variety is important, but variety can stem from depth of content just as well as from breadth. And I'd very much sooner have the devs focus on things that will make 100% of my games more fun than spend time tinkering something that only matters 10% of the time.
I get it, variety is important, but variety can stem from depth of content just as well as from breadth. And I'd very much sooner have the devs focus on things that will make 100% of my games more fun than spend time tinkering something that only matters 10% of the time.
.png){kind=avatar}
As far as I know the mechanics will be mostly an evolution from CK2 and they already came up with the brilliant concept of "Stress". I don't understand why people are so worried about the game mechanics of CK3 when it is being designed by the same guy and builds on the legacy of CK2...
I:R was designed by a different person - with his own personality and design philosophy - and was built over the weakest of Paradox titles. Besides, he was very honest, reading the Dev Diaries was enough to understand it would be a flop that only catered for territorial growth, the most the fastest.
I think they did a good trade off between what was cut and what was included, as long as what is included is detailed and provides variety in the experience of play.
This being said I am a big fan of Republics and really hope they make a comeback one day...
i downvoted because you nonironically used the phrase wokeader kings which made me physically cringe not because im offended but because it was just incredibly cringy
Agreed, on both counts, although I think people should honestly wait for more information before getting arbitrarily judgmental about the horrors of cut content. (I don't think the republic implementation was that great to be honest, but I'm hoping for a proper revival eventually, too)
- Status