Who else wants a co-created game between these two companies? I know they are both focused on different types of strategy games, but, I think that if they both worked on something, it would be very entertaining, and succesful.
- 1
-
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.
While a game like this would be so great that it would top the charts of strategy gaming history for the next 20 years, it is simply not going to happen.
Paradox put some real effort in their games, and despite some awkward/lazy restrictions and problems their games turn out to be quite nice. Plus, DLCs are usually (not always, but still) optional aesthetic changes that don't change gameplay if you don't buy them.
CA on the other hand, used to put great effort in their games. After Shogun II, while their games have absolutely unmatchable voice acting and graphics like before, they have turned into DLC whores. They openly tell lies in PR videos before releasing games. They cut content intentionally, games are horribly bugged and unoptimized. They streamlined the games to please 12 year old arcade kids and failed there horribly as well. So many features were cut, that all their games have turned bland. And to play more freely, you have to buy expensive DLCs. Completely different from Paradox strategy.
SEGA has a history of ruining franchises too. And CA are one of their most unfortunate victims.
However Paradox would be better off making their own game about real time battles, combined with the deep campaigns of their standard games (maybe following the top-down style of Ultimate General Gettysburg).
Paradox put some real effort in their games, and despite some awkward/lazy restrictions and problems their games turn out to be quite nice. Plus, DLCs are usually (not always, but still) optional aesthetic changes that don't change gameplay if you don't buy them.
CA on the other hand, used to put great effort in their games. After Shogun II, while their games have absolutely unmatchable voice acting and graphics like before, they have turned into DLC whores. They openly tell lies in PR videos before releasing games. They cut content intentionally, games are horribly bugged and unoptimized. They streamlined the games to please 12 year old arcade kids and failed there horribly as well. So many features were cut, that all their games have turned bland. And to play more freely, you have to buy expensive DLCs. Completely different from Paradox strategy.
SEGA has a history of ruining franchises too. And CA are one of their most unfortunate victims.
However Paradox would be better off making their own game about real time battles, combined with the deep campaigns of their standard games (maybe following the top-down style of Ultimate General Gettysburg).
- 6
- 1
Eh I really think Sega is screwing CA over and telling them to release games before they are ready. CA makes good games Sega just messes them up by telling them to ship it too early.
- 1
Most of all I see the two companies business models and roadmap are totally incompatible.
- 1
it's sad that the total war games are so chronically screwed. i was orignally going to buy one some time ago until i saw just how FUBARed they could be.
It was fine before Rome II though, even though the DLC whoring had started very well by then. Shogun II turned out to be a masterpiece game, and after that they went downhill after disrespecting the community, trying to please arcade kids and cutting content.
Their endless barrage of lies on pre-release PR videos didn't help them much either.
But still, if you wanna buy a TW game, every single one of them is great except last two titles (and maybe Empire Total War if you don't mod the game).
I totally agree with that, I wish that paradox development studio will think of doing something like that, even if it is require to hire darthvader
and his friends to do the battle part, the thing is I am still waiting for something that succeed a great game called Knights of Honor.
Errr, I can't think of any of the TW DLCs that were anything besides factions packs or aesthetic stuff, while Paradox does a ton of DLCs for both CK2 and EU4 that change gameplay.While a game like this would be so great that it would top the charts of strategy gaming history for the next 20 years, it is simply not going to happen.
Paradox put some real effort in their games, and despite some awkward/lazy restrictions and problems their games turn out to be quite nice. Plus, DLCs are usually (not always, but still) optional aesthetic changes that don't change gameplay if you don't buy them.
CA on the other hand, used to put great effort in their games. After Shogun II, while their games have absolutely unmatchable voice acting and graphics like before, they have turned into DLC whores. They openly tell lies in PR videos before releasing games. They cut content intentionally, games are horribly bugged and unoptimized. They streamlined the games to please 12 year old arcade kids and failed there horribly as well. So many features were cut, that all their games have turned bland. And to play more freely, you have to buy expensive DLCs. Completely different from Paradox strategy.
SEGA has a history of ruining franchises too. And CA are one of their most unfortunate victims.
However Paradox would be better off making their own game about real time battles, combined with the deep campaigns of their standard games (maybe following the top-down style of Ultimate General Gettysburg).
And where are you getting streamlined from? RTW2's empire management was far more involved than RTW1's.
And where do you live that Paradox games aren't extremely buggy? Did you miss in CK2 the months of it being impossible to remove antipopes from power and even longer bug of bastard children of theocracies inheriting claims on their parent's title, and that these factors combined to render catholicism nigh unplayable?
And RTW2 has around half as many DLCs as EU4.
Shogun 2 is no masterpiece. It has the least amount of replayability of any Total War game. You win the game with one faction you pretty much won it with all of them. The market building chain was never fixed. The graphics everything is SUPER shiny. Agents were far too powerful, the ability to lock down an army turn after turn.
It was a good game don't get me wrong but it was no masterpiece. Rome II out does it in every way possible except maybe naval combat which has always been weak since its inception in Empire.
Errr, I can't think of any of the TW DLCs that were anything besides factions packs or aesthetic stuff, while Paradox does a ton of DLCs for both CK2 and EU4 that change gameplay.
And where are you getting streamlined from? RTW2's empire management was far more involved than RTW1's.
And where do you live that Paradox games aren't extremely buggy? Did you miss in CK2 the months of it being impossible to remove antipopes from power and even longer bug of bastard children of theocracies inheriting claims on their parent's title, and that these factors combined to render catholicism nigh unplayable?
And RTW2 has around half as many DLCs as EU4.
3 or 4 DLCs for Rome II added different Campaigns for Rome
Errr, I can't think of any of the TW DLCs that were anything besides factions packs or aesthetic stuff, while Paradox does a ton of DLCs for both CK2 and EU4 that change gameplay.
And where are you getting streamlined from? RTW2's empire management was far more involved than RTW1's.
And where do you live that Paradox games aren't extremely buggy? Did you miss in CK2 the months of it being impossible to remove antipopes from power and even longer bug of bastard children of theocracies inheriting claims on their parent's title, and that these factors combined to render catholicism nigh unplayable?
And RTW2 has around half as many DLCs as EU4.
That is not true at all. Most of TW DLCs add factions (which are already there and playable by mods, they are just demanding more money for the same thing). Or they add units. Both of which are fairly game changing if you ask me, especially since AI gets those DLC units too. Now tell me how changing the sprite of an army in a Paradox game compare to that. Sure, they release expansion DLCs too that change gameplay very much, but not every single one of them is required to make the game playable.
Rome II's empire management more involved than RTW? This is utter BS. Rome II's campaign was utterly boring. Now it is still slightly inferior to RTW's campaign (which wins because of family tree management and traits and retinues), and the old game is still ahead. And that's not rose tinted glasses either.
Before jumping at me, did you even try to compare the release state of CK2/EU4 and Rome II? Rome II was a pathetic joke that still fails to recover much despite all those patches. I still face glitched siege towers, ladders and units that get stuck at the walls, or an AI who knows nothing of defending settlements or conducting diplomacy. CK2 meanwhile has major bugs and poor/lazy development which results in restrictions, but still the rest of the gameplay is excellent compared to Rome II.
- 1
True, although for those interested in Japanese history or Japan itself like me, it is very replayable. That is my personal opinion of course, and it might be a short-term game for lots of players.
But again, Rome II never ever got close to the polish and amount of features it had, it never 'outdid' Shogun II. Especially the land battle AI, which is only second to the original Shogun 1/Medieval 1 battle AI, which was actually great although they never managed to remake it again.
Do you remember, that when Rome 2 came out it was TOTALLY unplayable? With such bugs, like siegieng army won't attack you? Or units can't deploy from ships? AI was so stupid, that even on hard level campain was like a walk i the park. And, some months before, there were statement, that AI in Rom 2 is superior to the Rome Total War AI. Ofc they lied.
Greek states (same for Nomads) was, like, 10 dollars? 10 dollars for what i got free in Rome Total War? Same about units - selling UNIT as DLC. Yeah, that is "good" DLC policy.
You guys should watch Angry Joe's Rome II review. Then we'll talk about how Rome II was less buggy than a PDS game.
It was pathetic, it is still pathetic despite patching although playable. Only the voice acting and unit graphics are awesome (and they are really, really awesome) in the game. CA and their reputation took a nosedive with it.
It was pathetic, it is still pathetic despite patching although playable. Only the voice acting and unit graphics are awesome (and they are really, really awesome) in the game. CA and their reputation took a nosedive with it.
- 1
You guys should watch Angry Joe's Rome II review. Then we'll talk about how Rome II was less buggy than a PDS game.
It was pathetic, it is still pathetic despite patching although playable. Only the voice acting and unit graphics are awesome (and they are really, really awesome) in the game. CA and their reputation took a nosedive with it.
Yeah that review sucked, angry joe sucks. Also every Total War game is released buggy, the "masterpiece" that was Shogun 2 was no different. The sole reason Rome II gets the flack is because everyone wanted Rome 1 with a new graphics engine even though no one would have been happy with that either. Rome II was a game that needed be made however given the hype around was going to get blasted no matter what.
The game sucked, not the review (review was excellent actually). I don't know where you got that from but that wasn't funny.
Although I and majority of consensus begs to differ - they changed so many of the fundamental features of TW series that game was bound to suck. It was meant for 12 year old arcade kids, and it works like that. They still haven't balanced the overly fast battles, or removed the pathetic 'horse-riding armies' in campaign because those arcade players are so impatient. It took them a lot of time to add back seasons. Sieges are god-horrible and don't have walls, because the AI is so piss-poor it cannot manage to do wall attacks. The sieges that work are horribly glitched, it was only yesterday that I got my whole campaign ruined because of one such siege.
Rome II mainly gets the flak not because it didn't live up to the expectations (although that is still a huge reason), but because it was such a bad game it sucked, it tried to mutilate the very concept of a TW game. Intentional removal of features, and excessive DLC whoring, only made a bad game worse.
As I said, it is playable, and maybe enjoyable to some, but not quite to the same level to the entire playerbase as other TW games might've been. Shogun II might've had a bad release too (but never comparable to the September 2013 disaster), but it is actually a masterpiece TW game in the current state with all that patching and polish (with DLC whoring problem as usual). Features expected from a TW game are all there, while the huge amount of polish makes it feel really 'Japanese' and alive. Soundtrack is awesome. Only the battles were unbalanced, and slightly still are, although mods rectified that (just like DeI and Radious balanced Rome II battles as much as it was possible).
And also, fanboyism isn't good for you or anyone, mate.
- 1
I encounter comments that seem to believe that Paradox working with Total War would be for the better, but - probably since I never played a Total War game - I don't really know, what is there in CA games that would add to Paradox Grand Strategies?
I always found Paradox classical series to be really insular. If there was anything to be improved, it would be more of the same (events, playable possibilities, mechanics-like-the-ones-that-are-already-in), or removal/redesign/simplification of some aspects (like the dreaded - at least by me - naval warfare, or some elements of combat). I don't really remember lusting for anything else. Okay, there was one or two things, but...
What exactly is there in Total War games that would enjoy in Paradox titles?
I always found Paradox classical series to be really insular. If there was anything to be improved, it would be more of the same (events, playable possibilities, mechanics-like-the-ones-that-are-already-in), or removal/redesign/simplification of some aspects (like the dreaded - at least by me - naval warfare, or some elements of combat). I don't really remember lusting for anything else. Okay, there was one or two things, but...
What exactly is there in Total War games that would enjoy in Paradox titles?
Real time battles that aren't dictated by RNG? Probably civil wars where your own generals can defect to the other side? Exchange-based diplomacy (doubtful, although it allows more freedom)?
Haha, I want a combined PDS grand-strat/TW game to be made, just so that it'll stop one of these threads popping up every week . However, a straight graft of a game wouldn't work well, with the biggest issue that you're combining two real-time layers. Make a turn-based strategic layer with PDS-like mechanics and a real-time battle layer and it'd go some way to making it feasible, but I'd still just play EU4/CK2 m'self.
. However, a straight graft of a game wouldn't work well, with the biggest issue that you're combining two real-time layers. Make a turn-based strategic layer with PDS-like mechanics and a real-time battle layer and it'd go some way to making it feasible, but I'd still just play EU4/CK2 m'self.