Who else here loves CK2 more then CK3

[Anemetius]

Nothing against CK3—I think it's an okay game—but CK2, in my opinion, has a better atmosphere. I prefer its graphic style. I don't like the 3D characters in CK3, and the UI feels bad, like something out of a cartoon game. CK2 has also better content tho some aspects are outdated or limited when compared to CK3 - like religions or cultures.

 

[Chac1]

Is this the argument for CK4?

Still love CK2 and enjoy playing it.

Very much dislike when game developers decide to go cartoon-style with graphics. That ruined the Civ series for me. Given the serious nature of CK I personally prefer a more serious tone for the graphics. However, some folks feel games need to appeal to very young demographics, so they move in the cartoon direction, I suppose.

 

[StrategyGameEnthusiast]

Also prefer the CK2 graphics, also prefer some of the game rule options they haven't brought over to CK3 (such as turning off demesne and vassal limits, at least I couldn't find that option last time I played CK3). I like the idea of customising cultures like you can with pagan religions in CK2 (and creating custom ones) but whenever I play CK3 I always end up using the same tenets for religion and cultural traditions.

Both are missing things imo though, seeing as CK3 allows you to play past 1453 via a game rule (and you can do the same with CK2 via mods), I'd like for CK3 in particular to have at least some content available to justify playing past 1453.

If I could wave a magic wand and put anything in CK4, not taking into account things like whether or not it would be possible to code it, I'd have a full world map but use the feature from the EU series that makes it impossible to see anything your country hasn't discovered yet. I'd allow CK3's ability to turn off the end-date which would be the main use of this feature, but early exploration could be made possible by a powerful ruler willing to finance it. I'd also allow it to be much easier to customise things, such as choosing if you want a more sandbox experience or a more railroaded one (i.e. if exploration should be driven by the same historical cultures and countries or more randomly per playthrough). I'd also bring back shattered and random worlds from Holy Fury (as I play on shattered worlds by default). Finally, one thing that annoys me is factions. I'd make a game rule that allows you to keep factions, turn them into peaceful clubs, or disable them altogether.

 

[jonjowett]

I have never played or bought CK3.

Initially, this was because the release version of CK3 was obviously significantly inferior to CK2 - why spend €50 (or whatever) for a worse game? CK3 probably a lot better now, even though it's still missing some features - but it doesn't seem like a worthwhile purchase to me, because CK2 is a very good game which I still enjoy playing.

(And I'm also influenced by the fact that a thread like this pops up once or twice a year - whereas we never see someone post, "hey CK2 guys, you should really move to CK3 because X".)

 

[Fediuld76]

I have never played or bought CK3.

Initially, this was because the release version of CK3 was obviously significantly inferior to CK2 - why spend €50 (or whatever) for a worse game? CK3 probably a lot better now, even though it's still missing some features - but it doesn't seem like a worthwhile purchase to me, because CK2 is a very good game which I still enjoy playing.

(And I'm also influenced by the fact that a thread like this pops up once or twice a year - whereas we never see someone post, "hey CK2 guys, you should really move to CK3 because X".)

Because the author of such thread knows that will be rounded up and burned on the stick as a witch.

 

[Buttons12345]

I find CK3 to be a mess last I played

• Traits were rigidly enforced via the stress system to the point of absurdity "Oh no I didn't make fun of my five year old son after beating him in a game of chess I'm losing my mind!" or situations where stress was inevitable "If I don't gloat it gives me stress because pride but if I do gloat it gives me stress because kind. I'm losing my mind!"
• Levies being all generic trash troops could be fine if vassals could be called into wars and thus you could use their retinues, as it stands the king of France is only differentiated militarily from the Duke of Saxony by having a ton more garbage peasants with pitchforks and a few more gendarmes
• Knights have way too much effect on combat, it's like the Illiad with the effect that individuals have in battle as knights. I honestly dislike the whole concept of knights, knights are your heavy cavalry levies and retinues, a king doesn't have just a dozen knights like some King Arthur stuff

It's a shame because I like the more customizable cultures and religions, and the idea of playing a non-landed character, but none of that is worth the stupidity of ck3.

 

[jonjowett]

It's a shame because I like ... the idea of playing a non-landed character

FWIW, I think there are mods which allow you to play as an unlanded adventurer in CK2.

 

[ThatGuyCalledJesse]

I've only played CK2 now for 2 months and I tried CK3 at a friend, but to me it feels like a different series instead of a different game in the same series.