Mostly negative Steam reviews - does Paradox care?

[Anthedon]

I doubt anyone seriously thinks Paradox is happy with the Steam review page. But fixing issues, especially the AI, will take a lot of time. The AI still has some glaring problems in other Paradox games. And those have been out for a (way) longer time.

 

[Axe99]

I have to disagree with you here, (unless, you only count the older games after first expansion). If you count the older games as they are this very moment, they are way better AI wise. Definitely not great AI in them, but they don't empty active fronts, suicide transport all the time, or otherwise shoot themselves in the leg nearly so often as HOI IV.

In HOI IV's defense though, HOI IV is ultimately much more complex than previous iterations, so has more opportunities to fail, and more room to grow.

I'm talking the games in their final state. Last time I played HoI3, it abandoned fronts (the Western front vs an allied invasion, when the Russians joined the war). Last time I played Darkest Hour, Germany tried to march straight over the Maginot and only had a chance because it had been buffed to high heaven (it had 200-300% its historic resources, and needed it, to achieve historic results). I can't recall my last game of HoI1 as I didn't try that last year (and haven't for many years), but I assure you that HoI1s AI was orders of magnitude worse than HoI4s!

HoI2 didn't frequently suicide-invade because it struggled to invade at all (when it did invade, it was generally just as suicidal). Neither HoI2 nor HoI3 could manage large invasions, something HoI4 does a lot better.

I'm not suggesting there's not plenty of work to be done with HoI4's AI, but rating HoI3's AI (tfh, 4.02) higher than HoI4's (1.3.2) requires rose-tinted glasses, blinkers fit for a draught horse or both. I don't mean this in a nasty way (sorry if I sound blunt, am a bit crook, takes my diplomatic edge off - your post was perfectly reasonable and am attempting to make this reply likewise ), am happy to go through AI and examples blow-by-blow - AI is the key feature in games for me, so I pay a fair bit of attention to it. Whether HoI4 is better than HoI3 is less clear, but to argue it's clearly worse is a 'brave' debating position to take.

 

[Gyrvendal]

I absolutely love this game honestly despite all its flaws, so when I saw this thread, I rushed to steam to add my own positive review

 

[krogoth21]

I'm not suggesting there's plenty of work to be done with HoI4's AI, but rating HoI3's AI (tfh, 4.02) higher than HoI4's (1.3.2) requires rose-tinted glasses, blinkers fit for a draught horse or both. I don't mean this in a nasty way (sorry if I sound blunt, am a bit crook, takes my diplomatic edge off - you're post was perfectly reasonable and am attempting to make this reply likewise ), am happy to go through AI and examples blow-by-blow - AI is the key feature in games for me, so I pay a fair bit of attention to it. Whether HoI4 is better than HoI3 is less clear, but to argue it's clearly worse is a 'brave' debating position to take.

I completely agree with this, and I will add two specific examples of reliable screwing up of the AI in HOI3 :

- If you park two HARM divisions on the other side of a strait, the ennemy AI will pile up an ENORMOUS amount of it's army there, leaving the rest of their territory largely undefended, and their army very, very vulnerable to air attack bot tactical and strategic. They will also try to attack those HARM divisions which they can't hope to ever be able to beat, bleeding tons of manpower.
- If you spawn some partisans with the "resistance cells" that you have placed everywhere in France, the German AI will massively overreact and abandon whatever they were doing to send their whole panzer army deal with those partisans.

I for one think HOI4 AI is better than HOI3 AI at this point in time, as abandoning fronts has been massively reduced.

 

[elitesix]

I've noticed that most of the people who complain have hundreds of hours logged and end up buying the DLC anyway. That's probably the biggest reason why things haven't changed.

I fall into this category, but here's how I view it: This is because Paradox basically has a monopoly on grand strategy games. As soon as this changes and you see more devs put out games in this area, you'll see us grand strategy gamers put their money where their mouth is.

 

[Axe99]

I fall into this category, but here's how I view it: This is because Paradox basically has a monopoly on grand strategy games. As soon as this changes and you see more devs put out games in this area, you'll see us grand strategy gamers put their money where their mouth is.

There are plenty of strategy games out there that would qualify as 'grand strategy' under all but the most narrow definitions, including a couple of WW2 games (and I'm not counting World in Flames, as it doesn't have any AI at all). There are far fewer WW2 strategy games that cover the whole of the conflict though, and the only ones I've been aware of being released in recent years (Supreme Ruler 1936 and Making History: The Calm & The Storm) weren't much chop at all - in a review of Supreme Rule 1936 it mentioned the game didn't have submarines or model commerce warfare!

It's a very different story for space GSGs, but space GSGs are a good deal easier to make.

 

[podcat]

Of course we care, but there isnt much you can really do about reviews than what we already are: Keep improving the game.

I'll probably end up talking about it a little at some point, but at least I feel we should have been a lot clearer on what was included for one and promoted all the content equally as I felt a lot of people missed the cosmetic stuff. Comparing prices with what cosmetic/music etc DLC for EU4 usually sell for there would have been something like 7-8€. We probably also should have been clearer about the size as well although we did say it was going to be a smaller expansion rather than a large one, but a lot of people who bought HOI4 are used to the old HOI3 expansion model where we would release stuff in a very different way.

When it comes to evaluation we look at a lot of stuff. Steam reviews is one, but of course you need some filtering to interpret the data. My most important point of data is how many players play every day and every month. Its the kind of data thats easy to interpret. More players = good. Stuff like metacritic, reviews and forums are important to understand "why" and what to focus on. I see a lot more people playing after they buy the expansion which to me says a lot more than steam review %:ages.

although I am still never going to understand people with 1000+ hours giving a negative review. Luckily my brain translates them to positive reviews when I read them because I refuse to believe someone would spend so much time on something they don't like

 

[Uniform764]

although I am still never going to understand people with 1000+ hours giving a negative review. Luckily my brain translates them to positive reviews when I read them because I refuse to believe someone would spend so much time on something they don't like

I don't think it's that they dislike the product, more that they're disappointed in it, or that it let's them down or fails to enthrall them like previous titles have.

I can only speak for my personal experience, which is about 100hrs or so. The Paradox GSG games and the HoI series in particular is a very specific itch to scratch and there's no a lot of competition in the field.

With HoI 4 I regularly start it up, especially after a patch, excited to build up to the war, fight campaigns on multiple fronts, balance the need to open another front with the number of divisions I can support etc. Then the war starts...and I just don't care, within about six months. I've rarely persevered past about 1940, 1941 at the latest. That's not something I've ever encountered in Vicky 2, EU3, EU4, Hoi3 or Darkest Hour. There's just nothing compelling me to keep going. I can't put my finger on what it is the game lacks. I just don't feel engaged or challenged and give up.

 

[xMer]

Quite large amount of terrible things in Hearts or Iron IV is quite well hidden and unnoticeable for a new players.
Also at release a lot of veteran players gave their notes in advance that some things will be fixed and improved to advertised level and quite a lot of players consider Hearts of Iron IV to be still in beta phase.
Air combat is working very strangely with quite bunch of strange behaviours mostly in fighter vs fighter combat
like:
- lower coverage can improve your fighting capabilities
- fighter company sometime decrease fighter capabilities against fighters
- it's impossible for player to guess how is air combat really working... but one is for sure... it's not working as it's described in hoi4wiki.


Not mentioning that more than half of people outraged that Spearhead(basic feature advertised(pre-release) as part of battle planner, workaround for broken battle planner) is PAID feature had Marshall Edition so they already brought that DLC and next 2. It just was strongly against players sense of fairness.
When shit-storm raised quite a lot of players hoped that Paradox would reconsider and won't add fixes/basic features/Quality of Life improvements to paid content, but unfortunately it didn't change marketing department mind.

TfV seems to be incomplete and incoherent with rest of game. (like National focuses)
For bunch of players(including me) cosmetic improvements have quite to none value(never brought ones unless with very good price and boxed with other things I want). And once you strip stuff that have no value and won't be brought if sold separately then TfV is extremely overpriced.

 

[VampiRos]

1. i am sad for people, that spend 500+ hours on a game they don't even like
2. Steam reviews are... 10% maybe are "real" reviews. This Forum is the real Input for the Devs
3. This DLC policy is the same as in CK II, EU, Stellaris... it's the new policy... who doesn't likes it gets the super duper bundle on sale with all DLCs for 9€. When you buy it, thank us for sticking and trying to improve the Game with input in the Forums!
4. There is and will be always Shit-storm when something new happens. HoI 3 lost some HoI 2 players, HoI IV some HoI 3 players...

Conclusion: You don't agree with something, don't buy/play it.

 

[masteriw]

Complex games usually get a lot of negative reviews over time if they're popular, like HoI4 or Civ6.
Indie platform games and old-school RPGs often get 95-98% positive reviews.
Something along the way is going to get into the player's nerves and he will feel like he HAS to tell the whole world about it, and he usually does so in the form of a negative review.
Platform games, however, tend to get lots of positive reviews if they're pretty and fun to play. If I went solely by Steam Reviews I'd almost never play any strategy game, and it is my favourite kind of game.

 

[xMer]

There are different expectations from Strategy/Grand Strategy game than from Indie platform or old-school RPG or Hidden Object Puzzle Adventure.
And such expectations are much harder to fulfil.
While some of them are very hard to accomplish like decent overall AI that analyse player/other AI actions.
Recently released strategy game fail even on much simpler things like:
- non-interactive economy build-up AI.
If AI is unable to match player that is following same schema every time then something is really really wrong.
In Hoi4 AI for minor country with 5 factories prefer land doctrine research rather than picking extra factory focuses.

- complexity without extensive complication.
whenever I read Italy focuses for plane research with every model listed my eyes bleed. and my brain twist. and if I'm not Italy it's doubled as i can't see what does every listed model is.
It should be replaced with simple 1 bonus for planes research. or 1 bonus for light planes or whatever is needed but such things should be kept simple.otherwise they increase complication of game without adding anything of value.

- advertised features not working at all or working badly.
Here is quite long list for Hoi4:
air war - as noted before how it really works is unknown. but for sure it's not working as described.
naval air war - here things are even worse... as it doesn't even matter if you have fighters or naval bombers they die 1:1 anyway.

battle planner(with planning bonus that force players to set it at all) - 'could be' great thing to reduce micromanagement, but if you start offensive often it's better to delete plan rather to let it screw your front-line and kill troops with attrition or widen up itself and start strategically redeploying your front-line troops causing chaos and often allow other player to exploit low org troops moving around to breakthrough.
battle planner(spearhead) - feature available in Hoi3. Advertised for Hoi4 pre-release. was made paid feature in TfV.

invasions - it's not even possible to set up proper invasion with battle planner because you simply end up with 5-6 offensive lines that cover same frontline each of them with too few troops to cover frontline.

 

[AlanC9]

I don't think it's that they dislike the product, more that they're disappointed in it, or that it let's them down or fails to enthrall them like previous titles have.

You're raising an interesting question here. When we say a review is "negative," or "positive," what do we actually mean by that? Sounds to me like people are using reviews differently.

My approach is that positivity = how much value I get from playing the game, or perhaps a little broader than that since analysis and modding time would also count despite not being playing time per se. To the extent I find these things worth doing, the game is delivering value to me.

 

[AlanC9]

I'll probably end up talking about it a little at some point, but at least I feel we should have been a lot clearer on what was included for one and promoted all the content equally as I felt a lot of people missed the cosmetic stuff. Comparing prices with what cosmetic/music etc DLC for EU4 usually sell for there would have been something like 7-8€.

That would have been clearer. Don't forget that some of us find cosmetic stuff to be worthless, so promoting the cosmetic aspects wouldn't make the value of the DLC look better for everybody.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

I'm talking the games in their final state. Last time I played HoI3, it abandoned fronts (the Western front vs an allied invasion, when the Russians joined the war). Last time I played Darkest Hour, Germany tried to march straight over the Maginot and only had a chance because it had been buffed to high heaven (it had 200-300% its historic resources, and needed it, to achieve historic results). I can't recall my last game of HoI1 as I didn't try that last year (and haven't for many years), but I assure you that HoI1s AI was orders of magnitude worse than HoI4s!

HoI2 didn't frequently suicide-invade because it struggled to invade at all (when it did invade, it was generally just as suicidal). Neither HoI2 nor HoI3 could manage large invasions, something HoI4 does a lot better.

I'm not suggesting there's not plenty of work to be done with HoI4's AI, but rating HoI3's AI (tfh, 4.02) higher than HoI4's (1.3.2) requires rose-tinted glasses, blinkers fit for a draught horse or both. I don't mean this in a nasty way (sorry if I sound blunt, am a bit crook, takes my diplomatic edge off - your post was perfectly reasonable and am attempting to make this reply likewise ), am happy to go through AI and examples blow-by-blow - AI is the key feature in games for me, so I pay a fair bit of attention to it. Whether HoI4 is better than HoI3 is less clear, but to argue it's clearly worse is a 'brave' debating position to take.

Hmm I haven't played HOI III for a few years now, but I have been playing a lot of Darkest Hour(with TRP) lately, and while your points are all true, you/me didn't mention the most crippling flaw of HOI IV, the division spam. Until this issue is resolved, single player will never! be challanging, no matter how much you buff the AI countries.

As for my original point, it's not that I think HOI IV AI is worse than the older games per say, it's just that it has many more potential areas to fail. Hell, the HOI II derived games are much more difficult tactically, because of the much larger provinces compared to HOI III, and IV. Fancy pincer attacks are much tougher when te provinces are large, and it takes a long time to travel between them.

 

[Had a dad]

I am still never going to understand people with 1000+ hours giving a negative review. Luckily my brain translates them to positive reviews when I read them because I refuse to believe someone would spend so much time on something they don't like

now it all makes sense why my criticism goes unheard

(above is a joke people)

 

[Axe99]

Hmm I haven't played HOI III for a few years now, but I have been playing a lot of Darkest Hour(with TRP) lately, and while your points are all true, you/me didn't mention the most crippling flaw of HOI IV, the division spam. Until this issue is resolved, single player will never! be challanging, no matter how much you buff the AI countries.

Aye, the AI running itself out of equipment (and using one long battleplan for the whole of the Eastern front) are issues which definitely hobble it and are hopefully high up Steelvolt's 'to do' list, no question about that . That said, HoI3's single player was hardly challenging either!

 

[DominusNovus]

although I am still never going to understand people with 1000+ hours giving a negative review. Luckily my brain translates them to positive reviews when I read them because I refuse to believe someone would spend so much time on something they don't like

Think of them as 'constructive criticism from emotionally invested players.'

 

[Krafty]

Call me crazy but hocking cosmetic stuff means nothing to most people, and is negative to a vocal minority. Theres no reason to do it.

If the industry lately is any indicative (go figure), people care more about mechanics than they do about flash. Flash is nice if its there, but no one misses it if it isnt. We care about core mechanics. Thats why we're playing games.

Selling 'value' either falls on deaf ears (people who already want, or absolutely dont want your product) or it plays negatively with that slim minority of undecideds. We see someone hocking cosmetics and we assume its all spray tan and no personality.

The game got remade and then released within a 2 year span. Dont be so hard on yourselves. You dont have to start selling people vanity plates. Just fix the car.

And if you want to know why people invest huge portions of time into something they negatively review, its because its a form of protest.

They know it effects you personally, effects your sales, effects your distribution, reach, and word of mouth, and theyre "voting" best they know how. They want better from you. They are satisfied but want more and place the blame on you for not delivering. Right or wrong, thats the best way they can make their wishes known within a free exchange of ideas.

Its the easiest avenue of discontent. If you're not happy with the direction of a product, but enjoy the base product, your only two recourse, are the forums, and leaving a bad review which contributes to lost sales.

Its "a second vote" with your dollar. And I think its a fantastic part of the industry.

 

[bitmode]

although I am still never going to understand people with 1000+ hours giving a negative review

I have 840 hours and easily half of that is investigating/documenting/re-validating bugs of my own and of others. I'm a software developer so I probably have a higher tolerance for doing those things. The biggest impetus for me to give a negative review is not so much individual flaws that may or may not get fixed eventually, but (my perception of) the development process as a whole:

• compared to the team size the game's initial scope was massively oversized imho; for a new player it may take dozens or maybe hundreds of hours (*) to realize that many parts that seem interesting from the outside are just design prototypes of what they were supposed to or will be. (air combat, trade opinion/embargo, front manager, getting claims on states, political influencing, non-historical mode, major country system etc.)
• in the same vein the (non-public) bug report forum encourages any kind of error report (even duplicates) without having the corresponding manpower to organize/acknowledge, much less fix even half of the valid reports. Just skim through the pages and count the number of Paradox responses (excluding "remove swastikas", "maybe add savegame") . Or count the number of bugs marked fixed in changelogs versus new ones reported per week
• the DLC model means the scope creep will continue, with new expectation, new bugs, repeating the two points above

N.B. I'm not saying the game is fundamentally unfun to play or the devs aren't doing what they can to improve the game. Just that due to above points if a friend wanted to get the game I would make sure to seriously curb their enthusiasm first.

(*): so no, I didn't feel miserable for 840hrs