Paradox Game Popularity on Steam

[Rommel 459]

You can define what kills characters naturally before you start a game, there's a drop down menu for just about every expansion feature so people can pick and choose what they like. Failing that you can even just disable Reapers Due in the launcher but you'll miss a lot of the cool disease epidemic related mechanics, buildings and events.

I know, i play for achievements though, and that disables them (as far as i recall). i am fairly certain i read a patch note since playing about them fixing a bug where cancer was capable of being one of the outbreaks or some such, so that's probably what was going on with me, I am waiting for the next dlc drop to go back in and play though.

edit: didn't mean to sound like i'm down on the game in my first post either, i've still got about 400 hours into CK2.

but i've also got 600 hours into HoI4 in a much shorter time, everything's relative

 

[zorkman]

a lot of ck2 players dont like the semi historical stuff of the charly start, not to mention there are balance issues, like 9/10 times having the fledgling hre collapse allowing the ummayyeds to take southern france. old gods is praised not jusr for the start but for the content, tribal and pagans are fantastic with the start date being really fun for west europe. The reason eu players dont want an earlier start date is its basically as far back as it can go without adding pointless stuff to the tech line. and abunch of other things across the board

I think what the poster I was answering was saying, was that both the DLC's that put the start date back, were the two bringing in new players to the game, unlike the other DLC's.

I disagree about EU4. A far as I am concerned the game could easily go back to 1399 without any problems. The mods Meiou & Taxes, & Veritas et Fortituda go back even further, & are really well put together, without any issues that yourselves & others put forward. The biggest problem of the game is that it doesn't end around 1792 when Napoleon came on the scene, as the game is not really suited to that era.

 

[durbal]

CK2 just isn't a very good game anymore. The increased content came at the expense of core gameplay, and gimmicks and trinkets can only entertain for so long.

Here's to hoping CK3 goes back to its roots in history and as a strategy game rather than whatever it is now.

 

[Samman666]

My guesses on why CK2 is lagging behind:

1.) Like what many of you said, CK2 is growing long in the tooth. The graphics aren't as flashy as EUIV, HOI4, and certainly Stellaris. As well as being old, in comparison to its GSG brothers, it also looks old. This in turn has new strategy gamers looking at something more attractive.

2.) Being the first game in Paradox's now universal DLC policy, it has accumulated tons of DLC. I know there's a lot of debate about whether the DLC policy decreases the quality of Paradox games over time, (In fact, I wholeheartedly disagree, but that's a story for another day.) but when a possible new buyer of a grand strategy title goes to Steam and sees Stellaris with 3 pieces of DLC, and CK2 with a whopping 26 pieces of DLC (including Jade Dragon), it's not hard to see which title is less daunting.

3.) Paradox is significantly better at making games that are more intuitive to learn than they were in 2012. Pretty simple.

4.) This varies from person to person, but I know many people who are a fan of Paradox GSGs but can't get into CK2. If you're a CK2 veteran, it may seem a little perplexing, but someone who came from Total War, AoE, or even another Paradox game may be caught off guard by CK. This is due to the character-focus nature of the game. It requires a sort of paradigm shift for a strategy gamer who is used to playing as a nation, or entire faction. Like, Victoria 2 is an incredibly complex game, but at least you still play a nation.

Anyways, those are my stabs at why the CK2 situation is what it is. Moving forward, Paradox should keep doing what they have been doing with HOI4 and Stellaris: create intuitive games with a DLC policy that places emphasis on more meaningful, larger pieces of content, rather than DLCs like Mare Nostrum and Sons of Abraham.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Paradox should keep doing what they have been doing with HOI4 and Stellaris: create intuitive games with a DLC policy that places emphasis on more meaningful, larger pieces of content, rather than DLCs like Mare Nostrum and Sons of Abraham.

Well, I wouldn't call TfV or DoD exactly "large" or really "meaningful", tbh... And I'm not _that_ sure about the Stellaris DLC, either (which is why I didn't buy them).

I think the main reasons are your points 3 and 4. If you compare the ownership numbers you'll see that more people own CKII (1.6M) than any of the other games mentioned here (EU IV has 1.4M, HoI IV 0.8M and Stellaris 1.4M - all numbers according to steamspy.com).

 

[shiro the bushi]

Well, I wouldn't call TfV or DoD exactly "large" or really "meaningful", tbh... And I'm not _that_ sure about the Stellaris DLC, either (which is why I didn't buy them).

I think the main reasons are your points 3 and 4. If you compare the ownership numbers you'll see that more people own CKII (1.6M) than any of the other games mentioned here (EU IV has 1.4M, HoI IV 0.8M and Stellaris 1.4M - all numbers according to steamspy.com).

stellaris' policy is the best out of any game yet. you have 3 kinds of dlc, expansons, which is what would be on par with art of war or old gods, story, which is smaller gameplay, flavors with more lore and government sets, and Phenotype which is your cosmetics focused on one general type of alien, this is ships, several portraits, space stations and cities, along with large updates between each one of these

 

[Susanna]

#4 is interesting, because I know a decent number of simmers who can't get into Sims 4, who find CK2 the most approachable of Paradox's grand strategy games - in part, I think, because you are playing a character rather than a nation.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

Maybe because CK2 is old? The graphics are very dated. All the unit models look last gen and are noticeably inferior to EU4 models. They look like something you would find in a Nintendo DS game. EU4 has more models as well just in general as well, like almost every major or semi-major country has their own unique sprites. Meanwhile CK2 dev team struggles to give Chinese their own adviser models in the China expansion.

I also don't think expanding the CK2 map has damaged its popularity at all. In fact CK2 reached most of its peak popularity with major map and timeline expansions. CK2 only started getting REALLY popular with The Old Gods' introduction of pagans and vikings. It reached one of its peak player counts under Rajas of India, and again when Charlemagne introduced the 769 timeline. In EU4 and even HoI4 you can play as any country in the world while CK2 only covers 3/4ths of Eurasia. If anything CK2 isn't "wide" enough at all and is one of the main reasons why EU4 and even HoI4 have more general popularity as a whole.

Combat in CK2 is the least understandable of all the Paradox games and operates on an archaic tactic system that requires a spreadsheet to properly make use of. It also barely affects your game because most of the time your main concern will be how you fund your army or what allies you have. At least half the time whoever has more troops wins. It's very easy to become overpowered in CK2, rivaled only by HoI4. Once you blob out to a decent size your most pressing military threats will be off screen like Mongols, Aztecs, and now Chinese. There are a lot of weird mechanics in CK2 that can break the game immortality for you now, like immortality, demonic powers, or weird mechanics like farming gold off of old men.

 

[C.N.]

I don't think it's the graphics of CK2, it's mostly fine with the exception of some rulers being stuck with default western portraits and/or generic coat of arms.

I think that there are three major issues that have started to stand out a lot the more I have played CK2.
- The interface feels clunky with cluttered trait windows and a lot of jumping back and forth.
- The role-playing is often very reactive, especially with your family. It feels like seduction is the only pro-active thing you can do regarding personal relations.
- CK2 has the least difference between the different starting positions. Other than the religious differences and feudal vs tribal vs republic, you play mostly the same.

I sure hope that CK3 is one of the secret projects.

 

[withche.07]

Personally I love to try all Paradox grand strategy games except Victoria II (I think it is too outdated).
I think that Ck2 is too hard to jump into, I still cannot reach full mechanics, and interface makes it very hard. I am telling this as regular Eu4 player. Eu4 interface is somekinda complicated when you open other countries at first but you get used to it by time. Ck2 interface for people is so easy to get lost, you click person and you open same screen with very similar character faces etc.
Also borders of ck2 in political map still feels weird for me, it is too complicated to get everything and say "Ok I am gonna do this".
In eu4 you have 1 border. And that's it.

There must be somekinda easier interface options or complete hardcore tutorial for CK2.

By the way Hoi4 interface is good. Only military tactic settings need polish, it seems complicated.

 

[Mortheim]

Oh wow. This is some interesting stuff. Some points are pretty interesting:

Stellaris lives on spikes. And, as we see, people REALLY wanted it. But the state, in which it was released, surely made them feel bad about the game. Can't blame them, to be honest - game looked cool before i've played it. And it took me a month to get bored. And a lot of people leave with each DLC, cause they doesn't provide experience and enough changes. Still, they helped for some time. Maybe after another three or four DLCs... And, also, fixing lags.

CK2 is pretty stable. But, considering that it is (at least for me) one of the most fun games of PDX i can see why. And i can see why it hasn't those huge spikes as Stellaris or not as popular as EU4 or HoI4. But it is pretty stable, as expected.

I really like how popularity of HoI4 rises. And it is no surprise for me that it is as popular as EU4. Theme is loved by a lot of people, performance is good (EU4 and Stellaris should be embarassed), MP is good and pretty (compared to other titles) balanced. What not to love? It is best paradox gsg atm if we are looking without preferences. It has it downsides, but seeing that it is beating games with higher replayability (especially Stellaris when we see how popular it was at start) shows us - game is really good (much better than i would thought).

EU4 is...ugh. I have one big problem with it and why i don't want to talk about it: while i can run any AAA title on max setting without lag on my PC EU4 is constantly lagging on 4th-5th speed, takes a lot time to load and performs overall poorly. And it wants us to sink money into it. Thrusting DLCs with pretty big range of quality in our throats. But, with new expansion/patch, i noticed some good calls. Hope they won't sink.

 

[Lys91]

This is why I play or don't PDX game.

EU4 - still play, good game, interesting features (though EU5 would be welcome in a not too distant future, to address some initial design flaw);
CK2 - stopped playing, getting old, last bunch of expansion have been quite disappointing, at this point they should work on a CK3 and fix design flaw.
Stellaris - stopped playing, great idea, poor realisation, very excited about the new patch/DLC may get back to it once it is out.
HoI4 - stopped playing, I tried at release and with the first DLC (I bought the edition that gave me a bunch of future DLC) the game is too easy it was not fun (i.e. even not being super good at the game or understanding what I was doing still win as nation that should be loosing e.g. France, China) + unrealistic army spam (may have been fixed since).

 

[Seth94]

a lot of ck2 players dont like the semi historical stuff of the charly start, not to mention there are balance issues, like 9/10 times having the fledgling hre collapse allowing the ummayyeds to take southern france. old gods is praised not jusr for the start but for the content, tribal and pagans are fantastic with the start date being really fun for west europe. The reason eu players dont want an earlier start date is its basically as far back as it can go without adding pointless stuff to the tech line. and abunch of other things across the board

I agree about the whole 9/10 times, but honestly pushing EU4 back to say 1399 like it was in EU3 wouldn't have all the same problems of Charly, It would create the Timurid's as a reliable rival in the early game to the Ottomans. I believe Provence would still have Naples under a personal union, eliminating the whole Naples gets adsorbed by Spain 9/10 times. Poland would be a bit weaker in the early game. It wouldn't drastically change the game, but there would be new powers in the earlier start date. Really the only argument against it that is actually valid to me is that there are mods that already push the start date back, though I often debate some of there historical accuracy and even when its good it shuts off achievements.

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

1) CK 2 has an antiquated implementation of war. Battle implementation is fine, but waging war as a whole feels very basic when compared to EU 4. In CK 2 you have three options. Siege and kill everything and take your goal. Stall enough to get a white peace. Or lose 100%, get all of of your levy eradicated, everything sieged and looted and descend into a downward spiral due to that loss. With EU 4's peace deal system it doesn't have to be 100% loss or 100% defeat. Coming to play a campaign of CK 2 after playing EU 4 will leave a sour taste in mouth whenever there is war in CK 2.

2) There are no grand objectives to strive towards. In EU 4 for example there is at least the trade node system, which itself is a game long task to optimize. I can't think of anything which forces one to make strategic decisions over the course of the entire game in CK 2.

3) Once you have succeeded in whatever you set out to do, there is nothing to do anymore and nothing happens to change up the play field.

4) CK 2 is pretty old already. I have done almost everything in it already that can be done.

-----------------

Also, about Stellaris. I have played very little Stellaris. I got the impression that it was going to be a grand strategy in space. However, we received yet another Master of Orion with a twist iteration. I was expecting it to be kinda like EU 4 in space. Each intelligent species would start off with multiple nations of the same species from the beginning, just like the Europe didn't need to unite to colonize America, but instead started colonizing in order to not to be forcibly united with neighbors.

 

[brifbates]

CK 2 overall is dis-improving over time IMO. While the latest DLCs have had some nice changes/additions, overall the big issues of the game are not being addressed at all (blob stability being the biggest). It just keeps getting generally easier and easier which is boooooooooorrrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnngggggggggggggg, not fun. As it is the longest-lived of the 4 it has had the most time to decline. EU IV is definitely moving in the same direction. Stellaris could take a huge hit with their decision to drop 2/3 of the starting FTL types in the next update. HoI had issues when last I tried it, and Vic 2 has the god awful influence thing. I may well be in a position where I'm going weeks without playing any PDS titles for the first time since I bought EU 1 all those years ago.