What about this? I personally think this is b*s*t, compare vic2 with eu4 or imperator, and the new clean look of CKIII for most games would be a good thing, but here it worries me.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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.
Having a less cluttered, less confusing UI and better aesthetics doesn't mean a game is dumbed-down.
If you take the original CK as the yardstick for 'proper' Paradox games then I suppose I'm the wrong target audience, because although I loved the premise of the game I found it endlessly confusing and literally impossible to learn how to play.
If you take the original CK as the yardstick for 'proper' Paradox games then I suppose I'm the wrong target audience, because although I loved the premise of the game I found it endlessly confusing and literally impossible to learn how to play.
I suppose that you're right, sometimes I feel like a bit of an overprotective mother over my game.
If you want a dumbed-down sequel, try HoI IV. It absolutely has things going for it, and in many respects is much more 'playable' and intuitive than its predecessor, but it is definitely dumbed-down in all kinds of ways - although I'd argue that may be a good thing with a game as overbearing as HoI III.I suppose that you're right, sometimes I feel like a bit of an overprotective mother over my game.
I also don't think it's fair to compare CK to EU and Vicky. They are completely different games. EU and Vicky are in depth pop, trade and stability simulators. CK is and always has had its main focus on characters and intrigue.I suppose that you're right, sometimes I feel like a bit of an overprotective mother over my game.
Nearly every aspect of the game revolves around characters and their schemes and the gameplay exists to facilitate this.
Whereas the other two characters are almost an afterthought and barely a thing. They have been built around completely different mechanics and gameplay pillars.
These games are incomparable as they are totally different games from totally different eras in Paradox's history. And while I love Vic2 to death, it was hardly a game I'd hold up as better than EUIV. Its UI was a horrid mess and the late game broke down terribly, whereas EUIV, while not perfect, had a far superior UI and overall design.
Imperator's problems don't stem from the fact the game was "dumbed down", but because it tried to be a more polished version of EU: Rome and that game was a incomplete shell of a game.
Is Imperator dumbed down in comparison to EU: Rome? I'm genuinely curious, never played the old one.
I'm not sure but I believe that the original is not much complex as it is a steaming mess, it's like calling a colourful pile of trash complex.
I wouldn't say dumbed down.
It was pretty much the exact same game running on a modern engine with a more user friendly interace. Its problems was all its comparisons to CK2 and EUIV that people were expecting a hybrid of the two. (Which it was to an extent) but ultimately it failed to garner praise from either side.
While I enjoy HoI4 a lot more than HoI3 due to being able to do a lot of alt history stuff and it feeling like the game is built with that in mind... forming new nations, focus trees etc.
I kind of also hate how shallow it is especially the army system. I really liked HoI3 with its HQs and everything. That was really awesome. It felt like a wargame, felt like an actual war than just videos of army movements on TV. I wish they just made the game more intuitive and expanded on the features than dumbed it down. As while I found HoI3 unplayable, I found what I got the hang of really fun. While HoI4 has many good ideas, like production and improving on designs, a lot was dumbed down.
It's why the whole paradox will never dumb down their games isn't... factually true? I'm sure they weren't thinking of HoI3 at the time though.
I would say that moddability is the aspect that helped the most to hoi IV replayability. If it had the same modding possibilities as III it wouldn't be as popular as it is today.
I mean yeah, non of us want to ever go back to the days of Vae Victis levels of ui. I'm reasonably confident they will Medievalise the ui a little closer to release.
Vic2 was mostly harder because it had a poorly designed UI and economic mechanics that simply did not work as intended in the vanilla version before the expansions (and even then...), not to mention a rebellion system that was only difficult because of how brokenly unrealistic it was.
I mean, obviously its economy system is way more complicated than other games, but the game would not have been as daunting if it had been cleaned up tbh.
(But whhyyyyyy don't we have Victoria 3 yet...?)
I mean, obviously its economy system is way more complicated than other games, but the game would not have been as daunting if it had been cleaned up tbh.
(But whhyyyyyy don't we have Victoria 3 yet...?)
I agree with HOI4, but not Imperator. It was barebones on release but has been cleaned up and expanded and is a lot better now. As I said in the beginning, it's a game that is ripe for additional content, and will become great with time.
There are *elements* of CK2 that I expect may be dumbed down for CK3 (especially regarding some DLC features not scheduled into the release build), but that appears to be made up for by increasing the depth in other areas, like focuses and religion, and adding a few new things like cadet branches.
Henrik is likely correct in regards to CK3, though I doubt what he meant was "CK2 and ALL its DLC". He can probably say truthfully that vanilla release CK3 will not be a dumbed down version of current vanilla CK2 without DLC. (In fact it looks like you could include Old Gods, Way of Life, Rajas, Islam, elements of Sons of Abraham, and maybe Holy Fury along with the base game and it would still be a fair statement).
Henrik is likely correct in regards to CK3, though I doubt what he meant was "CK2 and ALL its DLC". He can probably say truthfully that vanilla release CK3 will not be a dumbed down version of current vanilla CK2 without DLC. (In fact it looks like you could include Old Gods, Way of Life, Rajas, Islam, elements of Sons of Abraham, and maybe Holy Fury along with the base game and it would still be a fair statement).
Maybe he meant "again". Comparing Vic2 to games in other lines doesn't make sense though. Instead compare EU3 to EU4 (especially at launch) or HoI2 to HoI3 to HoI4.
I agree that THE CK3 UI is aesthetically much worse than the CK2 UI, but it's just aesthetics. There are other things that I'm way more concerned about.