- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.817
- 243.896
-
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.
Good interview. Besuchov is a good speaker.
The only issue I have with this video is that it seems to follow the annoying trend that most developers have of releasing "new" interviews that consist entirely of recycled information previously released in past interviews. We already know the basic idea behind monarch power and trade routes. Do we really need to hear about it over and over again from 10 different sites? Sure, there's a fair argument that marketing is trying to get this info out to as many people as possible, so you guys basically conduct the same interview over and over again. But this interview seemed to be very oritented toward people who already had played EU3. Is it not likely that EU3 gamers are following the marketing of EU4 and thus don't need the same points recycled over and over again in multiple interviews? Just something to consider.
The only issue I have with this video is that it seems to follow the annoying trend that most developers have of releasing "new" interviews that consist entirely of recycled information previously released in past interviews. We already know the basic idea behind monarch power and trade routes. Do we really need to hear about it over and over again from 10 different sites? Sure, there's a fair argument that marketing is trying to get this info out to as many people as possible, so you guys basically conduct the same interview over and over again. But this interview seemed to be very oritented toward people who already had played EU3. Is it not likely that EU3 gamers are following the marketing of EU4 and thus don't need the same points recycled over and over again in multiple interviews? Just something to consider.
Answer to opening question (why make EUIV since EUIII feels like a complete game) is quite disappointing, to be honest. Making interface more user friendly and shifting some of the minor features is fine, but is it enough to develop new game? We'll have to wait till developer diaries, but so far EUIV makes impression of facelifted EUIII with very few innovations.
That's just the way these interviews work. You have a big event like Gamescom where you reveal the next big title. Every news site interviews you about the game and asks the same basic questions, and since the event lasts a few days, nothing big is happening in the game development so you don't have any big reveals for each different interview. And besides, which model is better (1) You give a small bit of information to each news site and the people interested have to scour each one of them to get the complete info or (2) You give the entire package to everyone, and all the customers can just go to their favorite site and get all the info they need from there.
Back on topic, it was a nice interview.
i'm not at all worried there will be enough new stuff in there to satisfay the multitudes. One thing Paradox has never lacked is the ability to put new stuff in its games! Sometimes too much to do properly. . . .
That's why I stated that we'll have to wait for dev diaries. Still, only major change so far that devs revealed is new trade system. If Besuchov told interviewer that 'EUIII was great, but with EUIV we'll introduce many new mechanics that will take series to the another level' prospect of EUIV would look a lot more impressive. It might be PR thing to keep 'surprises' for later 'big reveal' - fingers crossed.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.817
- 243.896
I just finalised the preliminary plans for development diaries for EuIV, and we have over 40 presently in the plans... Of course its PR thing for surprises
I just finalised the preliminary plans for development diaries for EuIV, and we have over 40 presently in the plans... Of course its PR thing for surprises
40 DD's? Sounds like there's a lot 'meat' in EU4 then.
I just finalised the preliminary plans for development diaries for EuIV, and we have over 40 presently in the plans... Of course its PR thing for surprises
When might we see the beginning of these Dev Diaries?
I'm pumped!
To be honest, trade is the only major change they have explained. There are tons of new features that were only hinted at, but will be almost surely as game-changing as the trade system. Monarch power above all.
Releasing another module like Divine Wind = $9.95 per sale, small publicity
Releasing EU4 (if only EU3 with a facelift) = $39.95 or whatever it is per sale and lots of publicity
I don't buy this "just wait to see what features they'll announce". If it's going to be done well, they should know NOW what features they plan to make. Crusader Kings 2 had a list of features up for eons before the game was released -- and the final product didn't even include them all! (I'm not complaining about CK2 - it's a good game and a worthy upgrade) But the point is that the final release of a Paradox game is going to have FEWER features than they announce, not more. Besides, they've already specifically ruled out a lot of the stuff that would make this a genuine upgrade, like a pop system or being able to explore the individual dynasties more.
So yes it's theoretically possible that Paradox is sitting on a few killer features for EU4 that have been planned and will be part of the final product but decided for their own reasons not to mention them, hint at them, or to do anything to imply that a new trading system (pffft) isn't the center of the changes from EU3. It's definitely possible - but it's not particularly logical or anything I've ever see Paradox do. Generally Paradox's model is Promise High, Deliver Medium, then Patch, and most of us have come to accept it. I haven't seen a lot of Promise Vague Hype, Deliver Even Higher. But maybe EU4 will be the product that changes all of this.
That wouldn't be a genuine upgrade, that would be turning the game into CK II:the sequel or Victoria: the prequel or both.
And, frankly, what's the point for Paradox in doing that? They don't want to diluate the attention their other titles get by offering the same gameplay features in different eras - they want to have each of their title appeal on its own, in its own way, with its own set of strong features. Not the same old features rebranded for multiple eras.
By that logic, EU4 shouldn't have a combat system since combat is possible in Vicky. And shouldn't have ruler stats, because CK2 has them. Or religion, because it exists in other games. Paradox routinely ports innovations in one game to other games.
And again, it's a straw man you're attacking. I said FOR EXAMPLE. The point I'm making is they've ruled out a lot of stuff and the stuff they have been talking about it pretty small beer. It could be that there are stunning new features that they're not talking about, am I'm sure wishful thinking will take people in that direction, but like I said, Paradox titles on release have FEWER features than announced not MORE. That's all.
They don't want to promise things they can't deliver. If they can't get something working properly or done in time, they don't want to promise anything major. And probably, since CKII had such a wide appeal, the majority, or at least a big part of the buyers and reviewers hadn't read the features list from way back when. Unlike this game, where everyone will be following it from the beginning.
No its not at all. They dynasties and character interactions are the most important in CKII, and weren't nearly as important in the EU period. While, combat is something that was equally important in all periods. So, they shouldn't be something the Devs should focus on for EU4. Trade, Colonization, and Empire building are the main features of the EU time period, and games. Improving military, trade, colonization, map/graphics are all things they are doing. I don't think its necessary to introduce a bunch of new things and systems to a game that already has plenty unique ones, while the new stuff won't work well and balanced until the second expansion.
Last edited:
I never once said that no game should share elements at all. Obviously, some basics will be shared across all the game.
But the in-depth socio-political simulation will be in Vicky (pops and world market), the in-depth combat (10K+ province, detailed unit management, orders of battle) will be in HOI, and the in-depth dynasties will be in CK, because those are the core features of these three games. It's what they're all about. Put these in EU, and Vicky/HOI/CK become "EU with less features".
What features would you have the developers announce beside these? Sure, you say they were examples - but they were the only examples you gave. And they were bad examples, that have no business in EU.