Where is Paradox going? (or if you prefer, the Paradox paradox)

[Alexander Altdorf]

With the recent release of Imperator, I start to wonder what are the next steps that Paradox is going to take regarding the new versions of its "core" brands, namely CK and EU. The problem, as I see it, is that the (very effective and very welcome) policy of updating the games to make them reach their full potential had the unforeseen consequence of leaving little space for successful sequels. In a sense, Paradox is a victim of its own success. What changes can be justified to having a truly innovative title that mantains the things that we all love, so intuitive that has a good appeal to new players yet so complex that could still be loved by veterans?

After Imperator, I think that maybe a merging of the two brand can be tempted. I consider Imperator as a sort of general rehearsal of this concept. Of course, it's going to be controversial for many, and for much time the title may be rather shallow compared to the depth of systems that have been polished for almost a decade. Do you think that that is a potencial route, or would that be a setback for the company?

(note: this is NOT yet another rant on how Imperator is the end of the world for paradox, and the sky is going to fall over them and the community. I have read comment of people that think that the brand may lose its appeal in favor of Total War. Total war, guys. Cmon, it's like this is the first time you are witnessing a Paradox 1.0 release)

 

[Rupmalya.K]

EU:Rome series I believe is hard to pull as it is focusing on so many different aspects of this genre.With that bring fans from from different GSG games like CK2,EU4,Stelarris and even Vic2 and they all have different expectations for the game. I for instance want a LOT more developed character part of the game with RPG elements as I am coming from CK2.EU:Rome lack the unique mechanics IMO to be happy with other shallow mechanics borrowed from other franchise.

Not saying the game is close to perfect even without considering this but I think it acted as a catalyst for so much hate towards it.

If next game is a sequel to Victoria 2, it wouldn't suffer from that problem like Imperator did as Victoria series has it's unique focus and developers can provide us with more in depth population,economics and other unique mechanics for it whilst providing us with dumbed down mechanics from other franchise as needed.

 

[AndrewT]

Appears to be about PDS games only, so over there we go.

 

[Alexander Altdorf]

If next game is a sequel to Victoria 2, it wouldn't suffer from that problem like Imperator did as Victoria series has it's unique focus and developers can provide us with more in depth population,economics and other unique mechanics for it whilst providing us with dumbed down mechanics from other franchise as needed.

Aside from the meme value, I think that vic3 may simply be too complex and boring for the kind of audience that paradox is targeting. Which is perfectly understandable, considering that they must sell, not just make the perfect game. Therefore chances to see it are pale, in my opinion.

A hidden benefit of a merged title would be the opportunity to abandon the classical titles, that have become a burden. I am sure that it has been officially said by the devs that they regret that crusader kings has to keep the name crusader kings, and I am sure as well that the decision of not calling the new title "eu rome 2" comes from the same perspective

Appears to be about PDS games only, so over there we go.

Thanks mate

 

[Oliver Twopence]

Do you think that that is a potencial route, or would that be a setback for the company?

I think that for Paradox, being a developer of games in a somewhat specific genre, and churning them out fairly regularly, there is an inherent risk in making the games even more like each other than they already are. Especially since each franchise seems to have its own particular adherents. A game that is a merger between CK and EU will not necessarily please either of the two camps (although it is always possible that it will find a new audience).

As a rule I think Paradox should approach each period on its own terms, and tailor game mechanics to fit whatever period they are trying to cover as best they can. Exactly where one draws the line for what fits and what doesn't, is of course up for debate - and of course there is alway going to be some overlap - but generally I believe that this approach is best suited to create games for specific periods.

Now, if Paradox were to create some sort of new fantasy IP, they would be in a better position to think game mechanics first. I think this is a better option for "a truly innovative title". Not sure if people want "truly innovative" for CK3. That's AAA executive speak.

 

[Shebaloso]

With the recent release of Imperator, I start to wonder what are the next steps that Paradox is going to take regarding the new versions of its "core" brands, namely CK and EU. The problem, as I see it, is that the (very effective and very welcome) policy of updating the games to make them reach their full potential had the unforeseen consequence of leaving little space for successful sequels. In a sense, Paradox is a victim of its own success. What changes can be justified to having a truly innovative title that mantains the things that we all love, so intuitive that has a good appeal to new players yet so complex that could still be loved by veterans?

After Imperator, I think that maybe a merging of the two brand can be tempted. I consider Imperator as a sort of general rehearsal of this concept. Of course, it's going to be controversial for many, and for much time the title may be rather shallow compared to the depth of systems that have been polished for almost a decade. Do you think that that is a potencial route, or would that be a setback for the company?

(note: this is NOT yet another rant on how Imperator is the end of the world for paradox, and the sky is going to fall over them and the community. I have read comment of people that think that the brand may lose its appeal in favor of Total War. Total war, guys. Cmon, it's like this is the first time you are witnessing a Paradox 1.0 release)

That's a really good question. And I think that Johan's take on I:R was very wrong right from the start. He has said in the last dev diary that I:R, like EUIV and HOI2, his two previous best games, was literally the same code from EU:R with some modifications. I don't think this is the way to go at all, lest Paradox turn their games into something like FIFA but with greater life cycles.

To me, Paradox has to treat every game as its own thing, with their own particularities which make them stand out amongst PDX other titles in unique ways. I, for instance, am a huge fan of CK2. But, frankly, if their take on CK3 would be simply to update graphics and do a few stuff here and there, i'd much rather they just keep updating CK2. CK2 has now reached 7 years of age. I don't think ANYONE actually wants CK3 to be an updated version of CK2 with the same life cycle and development directions.

I think a good example of what i think they should do is HOI3>HOI4. Despite all the negative reaction from those who used to play HOI3 (like me, for example), HOI4 has been very successful, and the reason i'm mentioning it here is because, for better or worse, it's not simply HOI3 reskinned. It has its gameplay structured around an entirely different core: Production. And as such it genuinely stands out as a very different experience from its predecessor. That is what i would want from CK3. A different take on feudalism (and perhaps character interactions), a different take on combat, a different take on religion etc. That is what i would want from Vic3. Different experiences, different core gameplay. (

It has to be said here that a core is non-negotiable. And by core i roughly mean an internal mechanism around which it is centered inasmuch as your decisions can affect it in multiple ways and problems that arise from it can also be solved in multiple ways. Something like production, economy and character interaction in HOI4, Vic2 and CK2 respectively

 

[Ralpakin]

I think Imperator was an attempt to please both hard-core GS gamers and newcomers. All the pop system and trade are there for GS gamers, but insignificant and simple enough to not bother newcomers. I would say that Paradox is trying to expand its customer base, and I:R was a step to achieve it.