is sandbox approach possible in anyway in Sengoku?

[pirt]

I am a great fan of Paradox games and I downloaded and played the demo for this game. I found it unappealing. For me Paradox games have a great value for their sandbox approach. You know, you can take a potential country and try to conquer (some part of) the world, or take a moderate or smaller one and try to survive peacefully while working for giving the most possible to your subjects. And both would be equally challenging and pleasuring gameplay. In this one however, it looks unusually linear; you are supposed to conquer smt% of Japan, and that's the game. It says it's a character driven game, but they all seem to be means to that end: working on relations, designing plots (which again looks quite superficial for a Paradox game) so you can conquer more. It seemed to me merely a more sophisticated way for waiting for CBs (and boring).

Now I don't say all these to judge the quality of the game, I am convinced that this one has as good quality as any other Paradox title, deep and well designed. It's just a matter of taste. I just had the first impression that this is not my kind of game. What I am asking to the forum people who bought the game and played more than the demo provides is, is there any room for choosing any other objective than the historical one? Can I get busy in this game by not choosing to involve in a civil war and hope for smt surprising may happen? Can I, for example, choose to fight for a different political organization for Japan other than wanting all for myself? Is this one worth buying for people in that mind, or should I just wait for CK 2?

 

[Drakken]

Wait for CK2 if you aim for something of that aim.

This ain't a sandbox, or a daimyo simulator. You will die or submit eventually if you stay small. The stated aim of the game is to unite Japan before others do.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

Well, the goal of the game is to become Shogun.

But you can set yourself any goal you want. For example, you might want to try to not allow anyone to become Shogun. Or to hold one of Japan´s islands. Or to make all improvents in every province you have. Ot to play an entire game with only your original territory, nor gaining nor losing provinces.

The possibilities are endless, mostly if you consider how easy it is to mod an extended timeline.

 

[pirt]

@drakken: Isn't this the first time that a Paradox game has a "stated aim"? I think I find that frightening. (The industry is full of those kind of games. Paradox is my (our) island.)
@wilsonrtf: Yes, of course I can set my own goals, I can do that with any given strategy game. The real thing is does the game design reward me for achieving the goals that I set for myself?

 

[Wilsonrtf]

@wilsonrtf: Yes, of course I can set my own goals, I can do that with any given strategy game. The real thing is does the game design reward me for achieving the goals that I set for myself?

I am not sure I understand your question. Can you give an example of what you mean as game design reward?

 

[pirt]

OK, say, I set the goal for myself that I will not allow anyone to become the shogun. Won't the game declare me a 'loser' when the timeline ends, just because I still don't personally own the declared percentage. No matter how hard I fought for no one else also don't.
An alternative reward may have been; having a kind of political influence parameter other than conquering and owning land (influencing people or maybe the emperor may have been a character with that kind of function), and when you have influence on smt% of the japanese people the game may declare you as good a winner as someone else who actually conquered castles in regions where that kind of percentage live. I am not talking with any kind of historical information on the period. I am just searching for a possibility of a game that does not purely rely on conquest.

 

[NexusSix]

Just started a game and decided to make it a AAR as its going pretty well.

Lets just say my chance at Shogun is very very very VERY low

As stated, you set your own mental goals. Ok so Sengoku's goal is to become Shogun but that doesnt mean you have to do this !

 

[onebyone]

OK, say, I set the goal for myself that I will not allow anyone to become the shogun. Won't the game declare me a 'loser' when the timeline ends, just because I still don't personally own the declared percentage.

Most paradox games have a score based on prestige (or something similar). The game will declare you a loser at the end if you haven't got the highest score in the world. Personally I don't judge my games by my prestige at game end, and just ignore whether the game thinks I've won or lost. You can do the same here, just ignore what the game is saying.

 

[unperson]

OK, say, I set the goal for myself that I will not allow anyone to become the shogun. Won't the game declare me a 'loser' when the timeline ends, just because I still don't personally own the declared percentage. No matter how hard I fought for no one else also don't.

Yeah there will be a popup saying you lost, and the option to resign or contine. So you can just ignore it and continue playing anyway.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

OK, say, I set the goal for myself that I will not allow anyone to become the shogun. Won't the game declare me a 'loser' when the timeline ends, just because I still don't personally own the declared percentage. No matter how hard I fought for no one else also don't.
An alternative reward may have been; having a kind of political influence parameter other than conquering and owning land (influencing people or maybe the emperor may have been a character with that kind of function), and when you have influence on smt% of the japanese people the game may declare you as good a winner as someone else who actually conquered castles in regions where that kind of percentage live. I am not talking with any kind of historical information on the period. I am just searching for a possibility of a game that does not purely rely on conquest.

Well, no. But as far as I understand, no Paradox game does. I mean, to be declared winner by the game in EU series, or in Victoria, or in CK, you also have to "amass" something more than the AI (just as onebyone said). Yet, I feel the whole point of defining personal goals is to have your own will as a parameter.

 

[unmerged(193457)]

I'm not sure if the posters here have ever finished a game of Europa Universalis III or Europa Universalis: Rome. Rome even goes as far as to include in the tutorial that the only aim of the game is the goal you set for yourself. Most Paradox games I've played have followed the same philosophy. In Crusader Kings, you "win" based on prestige, but that was always a silly idea, and didn't tie in well to the game mechanics. I completely disregard it if only because it's more fun to play it as a sandbox game. I'm with you on this. The charm of Paradox games are their open nature, and I hope the victory condition was only put into place because it makes sense in this particular setting.

Paradox has found a good niche and a stable audience for those with our taste in games. I'd hate to see them lose that in an alienating attempt to appeal to a broader audience as so many other companies are doing. Sure, old Paradox games had a more historical and linear focus, but I don't want to kick up the hornet's nest that was that debate.

In any case, as others have suggested, you could go off the rails, but there aren't enough tools to play with to make it entertaining. Also, it is a war game, and the AI is -ruthless-. You've played the demo so you have the gist of what it has to offer. Personally, I enjoy it (for what it is), but if you can't reconcile the loss of sandbox elements, I can only suggest you wait for Crusader Kings 2. Hopefully we'll see it this January.

 

[Tiaexz]

I got a friend who dislikes Victoria 2 compared to EU3 since there are no "goals" like "Naval Race vs England". I am sat there going "Wha?.. I hardly even bother with them" and they are simply pulling faces at me going "WHAT DO I DO?" in Victoria 2 as they are not being hand-held.

Perhaps having more 'optional' goals would be an improvement in the game series. For example, I always loved the 'Missions' during the Total:War games such as Rome:Total War where the Senate instructed you to do things and you had to gain influence with them, etc. It was always a pain how once you got some big/powerful, they keep demanding your faction leader dies en-masse.