Stop badmouthing the game.

[Stoner_Saint]

CK3 was released about 5 years ago now and is still growing and developing.
No video game is perfect if it were there would be nothing left to work towards.
The devs are clearly passionate about the game and an effort is made to improve upon it and listen to player feedback.
Maybe the Crusader Kings player base has become too spoiled.
Many of the features we have asked for we have gotten and those we are yet to such as trade are currently in development.

People complain about the difficulty and so 2 new difficulties are added following the same process as other Paradox games and buffing the AI, still this is not enough.
The only real limit to a game as full as CK3 is ones own imagination and creativity. Naturally if you are to just min-max everything and not read through the events properly just hovering over the decisions to see what benefits it might entail it may feel less immersive or full.

Many of the individuals who complain about the game often ignore what is there. Yes it isn't the most challenging game in the world though the devs have made it clear that that is not the intent behind it. Its a fun sandbox game if you don't like it that's fine but why do you feel the need to then make it known to everyone that you hate the game because you just aren't enjoying it?
I myself tried getting into other Paradox titles though I did not enjoy them at all, Stellaris for example though the game isn't perfect for the most part its that I just did not enjoy it.

Why must we critique many of ours favorite game so heavily.

 

[peteoj]

I have an obscene amount of hours in this game, mostly thanks to total conversion mods. Even though I don’t like the direction the developers are taking, I still enjoy the game because of the strength of the modding community.

That said, criticism is absolutely necessary. The game keeps heading in the wrong direction, ignoring depth, balance, and performance in favor of flashy but shallow features. There are ways to defend CK3, but the argument that players should just avoid min-maxing is one of the weakest. I say this as someone who roleplays heavily and constantly limits myself for immersion. Despite that, the game still fails to offer any meaningful challenge. When the mechanics can’t support emergent gameplay and the AI can’t handle basic tasks, it’s hard to stay immersed or invested in any story.

People can call it a sandbox with simulation elements, and that may be fair. But the developers and the publisher market it as a strategy game. Their motto is "strategy requires cunning," so it makes sense that players expect something with real strategic depth. It isn’t unreasonable to ask for that when it’s been promised.

Wanting the game you’ve supported with time and money to improve doesn’t make you entitled. It shows that you care about its potential and believe the developers are capable of more. This team is talented, but they need to be pushed to aim higher. Honest criticism is not toxic. It’s necessary if this game is ever going to reach the level it should already be at.

 

[Dayvit78]

The devs are clearly passionate about the game and an effort is made to improve upon it and listen to player feedback. -> Evidence please?

People complain about the difficulty and so 2 new difficulties are added following the same process as other Paradox games and buffing the AI, still this is not enough.
The only real limit to a game as full as CK3 is ones own imagination and creativity. Naturally if you are to just min-max everything and not read through the events properly just hovering over the decisions to see what benefits it might entail it may feel less immersive or full. -> This sounds like a strawman argument. As if you've heard that people are complaining but never actually read the threads of what the complaints are. What you mention has been addressed ad nauseum.

Why must we critique many of ours favorite game so heavily.

In sum, I'm not sure what the point of your post is. What new information or idea are you adding to the conversation?

 

[Stoner_Saint]

I have an obscene amount of hours in this game, mostly thanks to total conversion mods. Even though I don’t like the direction the developers are taking, I still enjoy the game because of the strength of the modding community.

That said, criticism is absolutely necessary. The game keeps heading in the wrong direction, ignoring depth, balance, and performance in favor of flashy but shallow features. There are ways to defend CK3, but the argument that players should just avoid min-maxing is one of the weakest. I say this as someone who roleplays heavily and constantly limits myself for immersion. Despite that, the game still fails to offer any meaningful challenge. When the mechanics can’t support emergent gameplay and the AI can’t handle basic tasks, it’s hard to stay immersed or invested in any story.

People can call it a sandbox with simulation elements, and that may be fair. But the developers and the publisher market it as a strategy game. Their motto is "strategy requires cunning," so it makes sense that players expect something with real strategic depth. It isn’t unreasonable to ask for that when it’s been promised.

Wanting the game you’ve supported with time and money to improve doesn’t make you entitled. It shows that you care about its potential and believe the developers are capable of more. This team is talented, but they need to be pushed to aim higher. Honest criticism is not toxic. It’s necessary if this game is ever going to reach the level it should already be at.

I am not saying that everyone is wrong for critiquing the game my "weak argument" is not intended as an argument but rather a reminder.
Critique is a valuable part of the games development and allows the developers to stay in touch with the community I am not arguing that critique itself is bad. I just feel that it is beyond unnecessary to insult the game to the extent at which it is done to a non-constructive degree.

I feel even your argument now only serves to further fuel my own. I have also played CK3 for a couple thousand hours the vast majority of which did not have mods.
How can you say even now that the game is not moving in the "right direction" when you yourself primarily use mods some of which I am sure an argument could be made for how they improve the game while others only serve to highlight parts of the game that are not as fleshed out.

CK3 is a strategy game. It may not be the most challenging of the genre sure though saying that it is either a sandbox or strategy as though it cannot be both is unrealistic.

I did not say the players are entitled I said that the player may be spoiled. If you pay for something you should by all rights get what you paid for. CK3 players are fortunate in the way that even following a purchase we get more still. With all under heaven for example the map expansion is effectively free the content associated with that area of the map is not.

It is natural as a human-being to always want more it is within our nature though we have what we pay for consistently. The player base is not being ripped off or lied to.

You said that they are ignoring depth. We got adventurers and a more accurate government type to properly portray the Byzantine Empire.

You said that the game lacks balance. The player? The player decides what happens. There will never be a patch so that you play differently and even if there was would you really want that? To be forced to play the game in one specific way. To me the openness of CK3 is a huge part of the appeal.

The performance can be an issue at times with that I will agree.

The hate aimed at CK3 is unnecessary and the fact that veteran player are generally the ones who are upset by the direction the game is taking is a shame as this is the audience it would seem Paradox is eager to pander to.

I just think that its a good game and that might be lost on some people. It is easy to fall into this spiral of highlighting a games flaws let us not forget how great this game is as well.

 

[EricMN93]

Whenever I write a review, I try to keep it respectful and constructive, but I understand a lot of people's criticism, especially in three areas:

1-Translation Errors:

All of us who play CK3 in another language (I play in Spanish) see how it's quite common for there to be translation errors in each DLC, and many are never fixed even if there is a bug report.

Example: In the adventurer camps, nomads the name in Spanish is always wrong, if your adventurer is called "los elegidos" it will always appear together as "loselegidos".

2-The game's own inconsistency:

I understand that people should be patient with the upcoming content, but there are some very illogical things that should be in the base game.
Example: A pagan or someone of another faith kills or kidnaps the Pope, nothing happens, there's no reaction...
I understand that this is very frustrating in a game that's supposed to be responsive and dynamic, and I'm not talking about adding new content here, but rather finishing things that are unfinished.

3- Bugs and Feedback

I think CK3 needs a "team of custodians" to fix bugs and update old content with new mechanics.
Example: Lords of the North needs an update; it feels very disconnected from all the content that's been released in CK3, and this gap will only get bigger.

Constructive criticism is always necessary, I do not agree with hate.

 

[Stoner_Saint]

Whenever I write a review, I try to keep it respectful and constructive, but I understand a lot of people's criticism, especially in three areas:

1-Translation Errors:

All of us who play CK3 in another language (I play in Spanish) see how it's quite common for there to be translation errors in each DLC, and many are never fixed even if there is a bug report.

Example: In the adventurer camps, nomads the name in Spanish is always wrong, if your adventurer is called "los elegidos" it will always appear together as "loselegidos".

2-The game's own inconsistency:

I understand that people should be patient with the upcoming content, but there are some very illogical things that should be in the base game.
Example: A pagan or someone of another faith kills or kidnaps the Pope, nothing happens, there's no reaction...
I understand that this is very frustrating in a game that's supposed to be responsive and dynamic, and I'm not talking about adding new content here, but rather finishing things that are unfinished.

3- Bugs and Feedback

I think CK3 needs a "team of custodians" to fix bugs and update old content with new mechanics.
Example: Lords of the North needs an update; it feels very disconnected from all the content that's been released in CK3, and this gap will only get bigger.

Constructive criticism is always necessary, I do not agree with hate.

And that is the way to do it. The game isn't perfect and critique is necessary I am referring more specifically to the people who bash the game to an extreme degree.

 

[Benismann]

Why must we critique many of ours favorite game so heavily.

Because we want it to be better? Paradox is NOT your mom.. or a person, really, it's a company, they wont hold a grudge or throw hands in the air and say "im tired of your endless complaining, shut up!", the worst thing they will do with negative feedback is ignoring it.
Also judging by a total of 5 QA related (not even straight up QA, QA-related) people listed in credits for some DLCs they really do need all the feedback we can give, they wont magically find and fix all the issues themselves.
And they will certainly not know if mechanics dont work or are not fun if WE wont tell them.

 

[Benismann]

You said that they are ignoring depth. We got adventurers and a more accurate government type to properly portray the Byzantine Empire.

While administrative might be counted as depth, it's still more of width, coz this is another mechanic in parallel with all the other ones, namely governments, and there's basically no interaction between them, they're mostly self-isolated.
Adventurers are most definitely width and not depth, you basically dont interact with them during normal gameplay loop, they sometimes act as an extremely cheap AI-controlled mercenaries but that's about the extend of their impact on your game. I think we can agree that doesnt bring much to the table. But hey, there're a fun little transitional state between game-start/somehow losing your lands to becoming landed again! Which is just width.

You said that the game lacks balance. The player? The player decides what happens. There will never be a patch so that you play differently and even if there was would you really want that? To be forced to play the game in one specific way. To me the openness of CK3 is a huge part of the appeal.

idk what you're trying to say here, but the balance pass is very much needed. And yes, i want to stop picking 2 stewardship perks and the entire whole of body lifestyle on every character, yes, i want to NOT be able to casually renegotiate my contract to pick title revocation protection/council rights/lower taxes immediately after jumping after a ruler that most definitely shouldn't accept me becoming their vassal on low obligations, yes, i want them to revamp countering so i maybe have to at least create diverse armies instead of stacking 1 unit type, yes, i would like them to nerf marriage acceptance so i maybe have to actually engage with diplomacy lifestyle to get strong alliances, and so on and so forth.
Sure, i wouldnt like to be "forced to play the game in ONE specific way" but the game i would like to be forced to engage with stuff outside of martial-stewardship-learning for once!
And maybe i dont like that 99% of my characters die to old age in their 80s, maybe that's unbalanced and immersion breaking to me.... And maybe, just maybe, im tired of playing a demigod and i would like to have some more grounded experience for once...

The hate aimed at CK3 is unnecessary and the fact that veteran player are generally the ones who are upset by the direction the game is taking is a shame as this is the audience it would seem Paradox is eager to pander to.

First of all, it's not "hate", it's disappointment and dissatisfaction. Also that last part.... really? Really now? It took "veterans" that the paradox is "eager to pander to" 5 YEARS and a big QnA fiasco on paradox part for "us" to get something as simple as a difficulty above normal, so who are they so eagerly pandering to?..

 

[Quuaddib]

And maybe i dont like that 99% of my characters die to old age in their 80s, maybe that's unbalanced and immersion breaking to me....

Genuine question: Do you play with mods or have tweaked your game settings? I'm, just curious because in my current run, I've already gone through ca. a dozen characters and only one of them made it barely into their 70s, most died in their 50s/60s. Two of them way sooner because of being murdered, one rather sudden because of harm event. Does this never happen to you?

 

[Benismann]

Genuine question: Do you play with mods or have tweaked your game settings? I'm, just curious because in my current run, I've already gone through ca. a dozen characters and only one of them made it barely into their 70s, most died in their 50s/60s. Two of them way sooner because of being murdered, one rather sudden because of harm event. Does this never happen to you?

I do play with mods, but they do the opposite. But back when i still played a lot of vanilla i kind of expected all my characters to make it to their 70-80s, you just swap to doing whole of body at 45-50ish years and it's all fine.

 

[peteoj]

I feel even your argument now only serves to further fuel my own. I have also played CK3 for a couple thousand hours the vast majority of which did not have mods.
How can you say even now that the game is not moving in the "right direction" when you yourself primarily use mods some of which I am sure an argument could be made for how they improve the game while others only serve to highlight parts of the game that are not as fleshed out.

If I were to break down my time spent with vanilla and modded CK3, I would say it is about 20 percent vanilla, mostly because I play newly released DLCs before any mods are updated, and 80 percent modded. I use mods because I find vanilla CK3 dull and uninteresting. Even when modded, many of the core issues from vanilla still affect my experience. The game is still mostly a cakewalk. The AI is incapable of doing anything meaningful or using logic. It constantly dies from stress, rarely launches wars, does nothing for years, and then randomly triggers tyranny revolts out of boredom.

The balance is still completely off when it comes to things like health, legacies, and modifiers. Playing vanilla CK3 feels like having your teeth pulled because you cannot even rely on the interesting custom mechanics made by modders. You are stuck with a bland historical map, which only makes the problems stand out more. It is one thing for Aegon Targaryen to sit on a throne for forty years doing nothing. It is another thing entirely for the Fatimid Caliph to sit there cluelessly, probably hosting his ninth feast and bankrupting himself further, while France somehow blobs into the Middle East. Meanwhile, the other Muslim nations do nothing and wait to be gobbled up next, as if the developers forgot that medieval geopolitics actually mattered.

Instead of meaningful improvements, we get our ninth event spam pack, an overpowered and broken government type, and a shiny throne room, as if those are more important than simulating basic medieval geopolitics.

 

[Stoner_Saint]

While administrative might be counted as depth, it's still more of width, coz this is another mechanic in parallel with all the other ones, namely governments, and there's basically no interaction between them, they're mostly self-isolated.
Adventurers are most definitely width and not depth, you basically dont interact with them during normal gameplay loop, they sometimes act as an extremely cheap AI-controlled mercenaries but that's about the extend of their impact on your game. I think we can agree that doesnt bring much to the table. But hey, there're a fun little transitional state between game-start/somehow losing your lands to becoming landed again! Which is just width.


idk what you're trying to say here, but the balance pass is very much needed. And yes, i want to stop picking 2 stewardship perks and the entire whole of body lifestyle on every character, yes, i want to NOT be able to casually renegotiate my contract to pick title revocation protection/council rights/lower taxes immediately after jumping after a ruler that most definitely shouldn't accept me becoming their vassal on low obligations, yes, i want them to revamp countering so i maybe have to at least create diverse armies instead of stacking 1 unit type, yes, i would like them to nerf marriage acceptance so i maybe have to actually engage with diplomacy lifestyle to get strong alliances, and so on and so forth.
Sure, i wouldnt like to be "forced to play the game in ONE specific way" but the game i would like to be forced to engage with stuff outside of martial-stewardship-learning for once!
And maybe i dont like that 99% of my characters die to old age in their 80s, maybe that's unbalanced and immersion breaking to me.... And maybe, just maybe, im tired of playing a demigod and i would like to have some more grounded experience for once...

First of all, it's not "hate", it's disappointment and dissatisfaction. Also that last part.... really? Really now? It took "veterans" that the paradox is "eager to pander to" 5 YEARS and a big QnA fiasco on paradox part for "us" to get something as simple as a difficulty above normal, so who are they so eagerly pandering to?..

Yes unsurprisingly kings and queens don't care all that much for lowborn mercenaries or adventurers they could do more with it sure but what are you even saying man apart from your poor grammar and reference to "width" you are complaining that the government type is not enough because it is isolated from other features? The government quite literally opens up several unique associated gameplay features such as estates, realm laws, unique succession types and more.

If you want marriage acceptance nerfed you should try the very hard difficulty its fun I just feel the fun of AI empires collapsing is lacking.

If you want to stop picking the most OP education traits regardless of your education type try roleplaying unsurprisingly the game is pretty easy when you are just min-maxing. If that's what you enjoy doing do it. If you don't then don't nobody is making you.

If you feel your character is overpowered or living too long then take risks if you feel it is unrealistic you should actually look it up while it is true that the average life expectancy at the time was significantly lower kings and emperors still lived surprisingly long lives. Again role-play the only constraint is your imagination.

What do you mean that last part? Am I mistaken? Is Paradox not doing what it can to be accommodating towards its audience? "Big QnA fiasco?" so what if Paradox does respond oh they made a big deal about it how terrible if they don't their evil you're right how dare they market the fact that they are keeping their ears open.

When I mentioned hate this is what I was referencing you are making baseless and unnecessary claims yes Paradox is a company and at the end of the day it is just about money though that is not true of the people behind that. It is not true of the devs who do everything they can to bring us such a fantastic game.

Crusader Kings like any game has its vices. You seem to have this fantasy in which you are addressing problems that you yourself are causing whilst blaming it on the game. If it is really that bad don't play it.

 

[Stoner_Saint]

If I were to break down my time spent with vanilla and modded CK3, I would say it is about 20 percent vanilla, mostly because I play newly released DLCs before any mods are updated, and 80 percent modded. I use mods because I find vanilla CK3 dull and uninteresting. Even when modded, many of the core issues from vanilla still affect my experience. The game is still mostly a cakewalk. The AI is incapable of doing anything meaningful or using logic. It constantly dies from stress, rarely launches wars, does nothing for years, and then randomly triggers tyranny revolts out of boredom.

The balance is still completely off when it comes to things like health, legacies, and modifiers. Playing vanilla CK3 feels like having your teeth pulled because you cannot even rely on the interesting custom mechanics made by modders. You are stuck with a bland historical map, which only makes the problems stand out more. It is one thing for Aegon Targaryen to sit on a throne for forty years doing nothing. It is another thing entirely for the Fatimid Caliph to sit there cluelessly, probably hosting his ninth feast and bankrupting himself further, while France somehow blobs into the Middle East. Meanwhile, the other Muslim nations do nothing and wait to be gobbled up next, as if the developers forgot that medieval geopolitics actually mattered.

Instead of meaningful improvements, we get our ninth event spam pack, an overpowered and broken government type, and a shiny throne room, as if those are more important than simulating basic medieval geopolitics.

What utter nonsense. I have had a tooth pulled let me tell you it is not even remotely comparable to CK3 which is nothing short of a good game.
This AI argument is valid until you start thinking about it. People of the time weren't exactly the brightest the downfall of the Mongols was that they just sat on their asses feasting and bankrupting themselves literally.
The messy borders used to bother me and then I started making a point of actually looking at historical maps that stuff is messy with little pieces of land in the middle of another nations territory and then oh France what are you doing on that side of the Mediterranean.

Again your complaints are non-issues this is an incredibly accurate simulation considering what it is.
Id go so far as to say that CK3 provides the best simulation of the medieval political landscape.

If these are still issues to you then go play mods and don't complain about the un-modded game.
If it is really so unenjoyable still then just put the game down.

 

[Benismann]

First of all thanks for the insults, i am now convinced that this is a "just shut up and be happy" kind of post and arguing here is pointless. However.

The government quite literally opens up several unique associated gameplay features such as estates, realm laws, unique succession types and more.

See, it's NEW features. They might add some depth, but all of that is isolated in the 2 NEW governments. the rest of the game is as deep as it was before, they have no impact on that.

If you want marriage acceptance nerfed you should try the very hard difficulty its fun I just feel the fun of AI empires collapsing is lacking.

It doesnt fix how you can ally someone 6 times stronger than you, it just makes it so you cant ally more than 1 of those, which is... meh, i never relied on them much anyways, and it's not like i cant just cheese it with betrothals.....

If you want to stop picking the most OP education traits regardless of your education type try roleplaying unsurprisingly the game is pretty easy when you are just min-maxing. If that's what you enjoy doing do it. If you don't then don't nobody is making you.

If i was minmaxxing i would go way more than 2 perks into stewardship. Im not minmaxxing, i just found a strat that works and it just keeps working, so much for the strategy part.... "Just roleplay" is also a bad excuse for the lack of balance in general... Wouldnt basically any character want more money rp wise? Even the generous ones could get more money to gift it away, so idk...

If you feel your character is overpowered or living too long then take risks

Why? There's no reason to do so, if my character is a bad commander there's no reason to lead armies (as if that is a risk lol, why press an option with a chance to die if it gives you 150 prestige instead of 50 from the one where you never die? That's not enough reward for a risk, and i wont just click. Its even worse if you consider RP, shouldn't you be invested in a character? Why would you click death rolls for the sake of clicking death rolls then?

"Big QnA fiasco?"

Yeah, yk the one where when asked about difficulty they said "oh you've solved the game". It totally didnt spark a massive "is paradox really telling us to quit the game" thread and paradox totally didnt have to come out and apologise for "poor choice of words" afterwards. That's what it took to get difficulty above normal in the game, from Trinexxes (community manager) own words on discord "but kicking that hornets nest gave me enough user feedback to push for new difficulty option" (he was answering to me pocking fun at him for the whole "solved the game" thing).
And everything else you said on that seems to be just a misunderstanding so i'll ignore it.

When I mentioned hate this is what I was referencing you are making baseless and unnecessary claims yes Paradox is a company and at the end of the day it is just about money though that is not true of the people behind that. It is not true of the devs who do everything they can to bring us such a fantastic game.

What i meant is companies dont have feelings. Sure, people behind the game do, but they are also paid for making it, in part by me buying the said game. And they employ people like Community managers for a reason, to filter unwanted, unhelpful and hostile feedback.

You seem to have this fantasy in which you are addressing problems that you yourself are causing whilst blaming it on the game.

Did i create the "Extort subjects" decisions and golden obligations perk? No. Did the devs create them and then put them as the first and (potentially second perk of a tree so they're easily accessible at all times while also making them extremely powerful for gaining money that's used to do half of the things in the game? Yes.
Is it really my fault for using game mechanics? Not even some bug, "feature" or unintended interaction kind of "game mechanics", this is WAD!

 

[sreckom92]

Ah, let's see...

The game is currently marketed as a grand strategy. It's main strength are dynasties, characters and interactions between them. Beyond that, there are side elements, such as warfare, religion, culture and economy.

So, what's the problem? (if you happen to ask me)
While there is a large quantity of characters, dynasties and interactions between them, we have a somewhat questionable quality. Characters don't act according to their traits. Events have a writing that is a mixed bag. There is an over-bloat of modifiers, making the game grossly unbalanced. Whoever plays the game for more than 2 centuries will see the cessation of much reason. With all the legacies, artifacts, legends, government bonuses and generational traits, you start seeing a wall of positive modifiers that kill all the challenge.
You are required to limit yourself, to roleplay, in order to have a sensible gaming experience. Is this not a strategy game?
Warfare is mediocre. Fine, you might say, as this is not the focus of the game. But we are talking about a downgrade from the previous game. Rally Point system is basically a cheat, and gives you a hefty advantage over the AI. And with the craziness of Men At Arms and their modifiers, you basically have a broken system.
Religion is somewhat above mediocre. It's fun to create a new faith, but it's pretty much something you do, when you want to create an edgy new religion. Church has no teeth, with barely no interactions. No College of Cardinals, no Autocephaly, not much uniqueness between religions. In some ways an improvement over the previous game, in other ways a downgrade.
Culture is fine.
Economy is lackluster. It was lackluster in the previous game, but somehow even more right now.
Lots of good things that came out of post launch updates, such as Travel system, Administrative government, etc.
But there's a plethora of features that were introduced, which were half-baked and left shallow. Throne room, Struggles, Epidemics, Legends, etc. All have great potential - all left unfinished and bland, while the dev team moved on.

So, we have core elements severely unbalanced, side gameplay downgraded from previous game and DLC features half-baked and left behind.
All while the DLC machine works uninterrupted. As of right now, the game is 5 years old, and together with every DLC (and the upcoming Chapter) is worth about 300 euros. Three hundred euros. For a 5 year old game that still lacks gameplay diversity of the previous game. For a 5 year old game that is grossly unbalanced and exploitative. For a 5 year old game full of unfinished features.
The game still offers an epic amount of content, so my overall thoughts are positive, but to ask me why am I criticizing it? Oh, there are plenty of reasons, and I do not have to dig deep. If I were a meticulous person, I would rain criticism all day long on this game. But I'm not, and I still find enjoyment with the game.

 

[Stoner_Saint]

First of all thanks for the insults, i am now convinced that this is a "just shut up and be happy" kind of post and arguing here is pointless. However.

See, it's NEW features. They might add some depth, but all of that is isolated in the 2 NEW governments. the rest of the game is as deep as it was before, they have no impact on that.

It doesnt fix how you can ally someone 6 times stronger than you, it just makes it so you cant ally more than 1 of those, which is... meh, i never relied on them much anyways, and it's not like i cant just cheese it with betrothals.....

If i was minmaxxing i would go way more than 2 perks into stewardship. Im not minmaxxing, i just found a strat that works and it just keeps working, so much for the strategy part.... "Just roleplay" is also a bad excuse for the lack of balance in general... Wouldnt basically any character want more money rp wise? Even the generous ones could get more money to gift it away, so idk...

Why? There's no reason to do so, if my character is a bad commander there's no reason to lead armies (as if that is a risk lol, why press an option with a chance to die if it gives you 150 prestige instead of 50 from the one where you never die? That's not enough reward for a risk, and i wont just click. Its even worse if you consider RP, shouldn't you be invested in a character? Why would you click death rolls for the sake of clicking death rolls then?

Yeah, yk the one where when asked about difficulty they said "oh you've solved the game". It totally didnt spark a massive "is paradox really telling us to quit the game" thread and paradox totally didnt have to come out and apologise for "poor choice of words" afterwards. That's what it took to get difficulty above normal in the game, from Trinexxes (community manager) own words on discord "but kicking that hornets nest gave me enough user feedback to push for new difficulty option" (he was answering to me pocking fun at him for the whole "solved the game" thing).
And everything else you said on that seems to be just a misunderstanding so i'll ignore it.

What i meant is companies dont have feelings. Sure, people behind the game do, but they are also paid for making it, in part by me buying the said game. And they employ people like Community managers for a reason, to filter unwanted, unhelpful and hostile feedback.

Did i create the "Extort subjects" decisions and golden obligations perk? No. Did the devs create them and then put them as the first and (potentially second perk of a tree so they're easily accessible at all times while also making them extremely powerful for gaining money that's used to do half of the things in the game? Yes.
Is it really my fault for using game mechanics? Not even some bug, "feature" or unintended interaction kind of "game mechanics", this is WAD!

1-No I did not insult you. That was not my intent.
2-You edited my post several times in your post to omit the parts where I mention roleplaying.
3-Yes you can cheese the game you are also complaining that it is not fun to cheese the game so how about not doing that?
4-I am not saying click death rolls for the sake of clicking death rolls I am saying just do what you feel would be appropriate of your character maybe the brave character would take a couple more risks when hunting.
5-I wasn't aware that was what you were referring to when you mentioned a fiasco my apologies though that does not invalidate my statement. Paradox is extremely accommodating in comparison to other companies which again you edited out in your quotes.
6-Yes Paradox is a company that is why I said that it is all about money at the end of the day I don't even know why you are arguing with me on that one when I am agreeing with you.
7-If you don't like the extort subjects decision or lifestyle perks don't use them. If you want to then use them. If you cant decide whether or not to use it role-play, a greedy character probably wont be the greatest liege.

8-At the end of the day it is just a game. It means a lot to spans of people myself included but it is not something worth getting upset over few things are.

 

[Stoner_Saint]

Ah, let's see...

The game is currently marketed as a grand strategy. It's main strength are dynasties, characters and interactions between them. Beyond that, there are side elements, such as warfare, religion, culture and economy.

So, what's the problem? (if you happen to ask me)
While there is a large quantity of characters, dynasties and interactions between them, we have a somewhat questionable quality. Characters don't act according to their traits. Events have a writing that is a mixed bag. There is an over-bloat of modifiers, making the game grossly unbalanced. Whoever plays the game for more than 2 centuries will see the cessation of much reason. With all the legacies, artifacts, legends, government bonuses and generational traits, you start seeing a wall of positive modifiers that kill all the challenge.
You are required to limit yourself, to roleplay, in order to have a sensible gaming experience. Is this not a strategy game?
Warfare is mediocre. Fine, you might say, as this is not the focus of the game. But we are talking about a downgrade from the previous game. Rally Point system is basically a cheat, and gives you a hefty advantage over the AI. And with the craziness of Men At Arms and their modifiers, you basically have a broken system.
Religion is somewhat above mediocre. It's fun to create a new faith, but it's pretty much something you do, when you want to create an edgy new religion. Church has no teeth, with barely no interactions. No College of Cardinals, no Autocephaly, not much uniqueness between religions. In some ways an improvement over the previous game, in other ways a downgrade.
Culture is fine.
Economy is lackluster. It was lackluster in the previous game, but somehow even more right now.
Lots of good things that came out of post launch updates, such as Travel system, Administrative government, etc.
But there's a plethora of features that were introduced, which were half-baked and left shallow. Throne room, Struggles, Epidemics, Legends, etc. All have great potential - all left unfinished and bland, while the dev team moved on.

So, we have core elements severely unbalanced, side gameplay downgraded from previous game and DLC features half-baked and left behind.
All while the DLC machine works uninterrupted. As of right now, the game is 5 years old, and together with every DLC (and the upcoming Chapter) is worth about 300 euros. Three hundred euros. For a 5 year old game that still lacks gameplay diversity of the previous game. For a 5 year old game that is grossly unbalanced and exploitative. For a 5 year old game full of unfinished features.
The game still offers an epic amount of content, so my overall thoughts are positive, but to ask me why am I criticizing it? Oh, there are plenty of reasons, and I do not have to dig deep. If I were a meticulous person, I would rain criticism all day long on this game. But I'm not, and I still find enjoyment with the game.

Yes yes and yes the game has its vices though it is still a good game.

There can always be more to it and we will always want more from it though the game itself is not finished yet.
I hope these problems can be corrected though I will always be happy to have what the game is now no matter how imperfect it is it is still brilliant.

 

[sreckom92]

3-Yes you can cheese the game you are also complaining that it is not fun to cheese the game so how about not doing that?

What do you consider as "cheesing the game"?

Is it perhaps selecting a rally point near the enemy border, then rapid deploying your troops to the enemy capital before they even arrive with their troops?
It sounds pretty cheesy, but it's a game feature, working as intended. It's not an exploit or cheat.

Is it cheesy to marry a German princess as a Byzantine vassal, then proceed to utilize tens of thousands of German troops to take over the Byzantine Empire?
Very cheesy, but there are no game restrictions to this. There isn't a loophole, a hidden strategy to achieve this. You click Find a Spouse, and select the one with the biggest military as dowry.

Is it cheesy to marry a beautiful and genius spouse, then send your prodigy child to university, choose positive education traits and then select great Lifestyles for them?
Extremely cheesy, as you are making generations of God-Emperors. But, is the game penalizing me for marrying a lowborn genius? Not very much. Is the game giving me a hard time providing a good education for my kids? Not at all. Is there any reason why I should not pick specific lifestyles? None whatsoever.

None of these things are loopholes. None of these things are funny quirks from behind the scene. It's something that is openly available, clearly visible and clearly suggested as optimal gameplay. It's a marriage game - of course I'm going to find the best spouse. As for why the game doesn't offer any challenge to that aspect - well that's the game problem, isn't it? I mean, if I used a hidden exploit, then sure, it's not how you should play the game. But even then, exploits should be fixed by developers. Don't ask me to limit myself, in order to have a proper game.

Imagine playing Stronghold: Crusader. And someone tells you to not use Wheat Farms, as they are much more efficient than other food sources. It's cheesy (wheaty? *ahem*). Don't use Engineer Shields together with archers - they make the game too easy. Don't use Catapults - use Laddermen.
Why?

A gamer can use whatever tools the game provides, in order to play and win the game.
If these tools are cheesy, broken or exploitative - that's the fault of the game, and it's developer. Not of the gamer. A gamer should not need to limit their abilities, just to have a sensible gaming experience.

 

[peteoj]

Again your complaints are non-issues this is an incredibly accurate simulation considering what it is.
Id go so far as to say that CK3 provides the best simulation of the medieval political landscape.

 

[SpiritRiven]

No, I will not stop criticising the game until I'm satisfied the devs take it into the proper direction.

I gave PDX lots of money for the privilege to do that