As much as I was fascinated by the possibilities of diplomacy, economy, the internal dealing with estates, vassal states; and the use of diplomatic and burocratic and military points, I was also feeling that besides the Missions I get pretty lost. Not only because the mechanics can be very arcane and complex to understand even after many tutorials and guides. I basically don't "feel" I'm playing with something that I can weave objectives and goals, or even benchmarks. It might be just a visual thing (although I dont think it is) that I see all as just a souless spreadsheet, calculations and buttons. I don't get that brain spark when I do something and something then happens, I don't see reactions or changes, only numbers.
[this paragraph is a ramble mostly]
It might fall in that "not the game for me" or "this Pdx game is like that and so I shouldn't be looking for this here" but yet, I can't help but dream. The Modern Period is a truly awesome time to explore in a game, the renaissance, the baroque, the reform, the absolutism, the imperialistic/colonialist fighting, the cultural and proto-national fighting between countries and the rulers. It is all a fascinating time to explore, full of the tragedies, nastiness and hypocrisies of humankind. Even as eurocentric as it is, well the game doesn't hide that it is, I can only immerse in the material that it focus on, which is a great one to do so. Very few games and media explore this time, I suppose cuz all of the nasty bits, and to romanticize is easy only when you ignore completely the unpretty parts. But part of the fun in Pdx games is to knowingly delve in the storytelling set in that time, with those dynamics and aspects.
And I believe people in the forum that explored the Pdx games as much and much more than me, can tell that there are many ways to make this game true to its identity and ethos, but also make it more rich and fun to play. What I think would most benefit the game, in my own biased opinion, is to make a more character-centric game, which doesn't need to be as fundamental as CK3, but still, don't just make rulers and governors be a sheet of 3 numbers and a merit of flaw that has close to no personality. Rulers were still a very important part of countries, even if only for a characterization of a nation at a given time, so it wouldn't be distorted to bring their personalities and particularities to be core in the gameplay and nation interaction. The Great Man theory was almost a maxim at the time, with heroes, enemies of the state, respected figures and Enlighted characters. And characters are the base of any story, and to me at least, the Pdx games aren't about history as much as they are about story.
But that is me, taking the character focus of CK3, the interest groups and interactions of Vic3, would benefit EU5 a whole lot. Of course always bearing in mind the adaptation for an Europa Universalis game, and what the game as its own can create for itself, independent of other Pdx games.
So what you people think EU5 could learn or make better from other games, and from its predecessor?
[this paragraph is a ramble mostly]
It might fall in that "not the game for me" or "this Pdx game is like that and so I shouldn't be looking for this here" but yet, I can't help but dream. The Modern Period is a truly awesome time to explore in a game, the renaissance, the baroque, the reform, the absolutism, the imperialistic/colonialist fighting, the cultural and proto-national fighting between countries and the rulers. It is all a fascinating time to explore, full of the tragedies, nastiness and hypocrisies of humankind. Even as eurocentric as it is, well the game doesn't hide that it is, I can only immerse in the material that it focus on, which is a great one to do so. Very few games and media explore this time, I suppose cuz all of the nasty bits, and to romanticize is easy only when you ignore completely the unpretty parts. But part of the fun in Pdx games is to knowingly delve in the storytelling set in that time, with those dynamics and aspects.
And I believe people in the forum that explored the Pdx games as much and much more than me, can tell that there are many ways to make this game true to its identity and ethos, but also make it more rich and fun to play. What I think would most benefit the game, in my own biased opinion, is to make a more character-centric game, which doesn't need to be as fundamental as CK3, but still, don't just make rulers and governors be a sheet of 3 numbers and a merit of flaw that has close to no personality. Rulers were still a very important part of countries, even if only for a characterization of a nation at a given time, so it wouldn't be distorted to bring their personalities and particularities to be core in the gameplay and nation interaction. The Great Man theory was almost a maxim at the time, with heroes, enemies of the state, respected figures and Enlighted characters. And characters are the base of any story, and to me at least, the Pdx games aren't about history as much as they are about story.
But that is me, taking the character focus of CK3, the interest groups and interactions of Vic3, would benefit EU5 a whole lot. Of course always bearing in mind the adaptation for an Europa Universalis game, and what the game as its own can create for itself, independent of other Pdx games.
So what you people think EU5 could learn or make better from other games, and from its predecessor?
- 5
- 2
