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
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.
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 darthvaderHowever 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)
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).![]()
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).
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.![]()
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.![]()
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.
And where do you live that Paradox games aren't extremely buggy?
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.
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?