Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Who to be first...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
I don't want to list everyone of them (this is still CK forum), but there are some that will surely have effect on the sales of Snowball's product....

1. too boring
2. too impersonal
3. too general
4. too soft (because of historical reasons, Paradox tried to satisfy most of us, unfortunately the ones left behind had, in general, the big mouth)
5. too forum-dependent

I'm not saying that I agree with them (EU2 will be my favourite game for a veryyy long time) but I couldn't persuade any of my close friends to try this game. After two-hour sessions, they would all have come with the reasons already listed. Dissapointed, of course, but I know that EU2 is a pretty hard game for a newbie (not gamie-hard, just does different things you would expect from a normal piece of software) and I understood some of their complaints. I hope that EU3 will be the game of the century (if some of the things on the EU3 wishlist will be used).

CK promises to be very interesting, but, in the same time, drifts from the original EU trend. As I see it now, the rulers will look more like those in MTW which is a good thing (the vices and virtues will loook great, from a RPG-player point of view), but in the same time, they will be getting that "who is this guy on the throne...no matter, he has a nice vice" feeling. No, frankly, I would have enjoyed Louis the Saint, and not Abramburel XV. But I learned, during my gaming years, to understand the point of the developers and CK can not support my opinion for obvious reasons. But what about the others? Will they get it? Or pass this game in favor of a flashy-strategy?
 
Originally posted by Alexandru H.
.......... But what about the others? Will they get it? Or pass this game in favor of a flashy-strategy?
Click to expand...

CK should appeal to the less hard-core historians who enjoy EU2. Reason being that it will not follow history - you know the folks who complained that there was no 30 Years War or French revolution - they won't like it as much as people like me who understand what the game is supposed to be.

IMHO it will appeal to more RPG people than EU2 because it will be more of an RPG type game with the characters having personality and operating in a semi-real medieval setting (i.e. no t a fantasy world).

Ao I think the fanbase will be approx. the same in total - fewer historians (already the French historians on the forum do not like it) but more RPGers.

My guess would be that it would also appeal to the folks who write AARs. Reason being it would be an alternate history with new things to write about each game.

Only time will tell.:)
 
Originally posted by Alexandru H.
I don't want to list everyone of them (this is still CK forum), but there are some that will surely have effect on the sales of Snowball's product....

1. too boring
2. too impersonal
3. too general
4. too soft (because of historical reasons, Paradox tried to satisfy most of us, unfortunately the ones left behind had, in general, the big mouth)
5. too forum-dependent

I'm not saying that I agree with them (EU2 will be my favourite game for a veryyy long time) but I couldn't persuade any of my close friends to try this game. After two-hour sessions, they would all have come with the reasons already listed. Dissapointed, of course, but I know that EU2 is a pretty hard game for a newbie (not gamie-hard, just does different things you would expect from a normal piece of software) and I understood some of their complaints. I hope that EU3 will be the game of the century (if some of the things on the EU3 wishlist will be used).

CK promises to be very interesting, but, in the same time, drifts from the original EU trend. As I see it now, the rulers will look more like those in MTW which is a good thing (the vices and virtues will loook great, from a RPG-player point of view), but in the same time, they will be getting that "who is this guy on the throne...no matter, he has a nice vice" feeling. No, frankly, I would have enjoyed Louis the Saint, and not Abramburel XV. But I learned, during my gaming years, to understand the point of the developers and CK can not support my opinion for obvious reasons. But what about the others? Will they get it? Or pass this game in favor of a flashy-strategy?
Click to expand...

Well Alexandru your points are very well made and valid. I cant argue with them at all, only to say I think Sonny's reply is the alternative answer to your points. CK does have the potential for an RPG element that EUII didnt have.

Your follow up post certainly made your point I cant say I agree with item 1 as thats really, really subjective, your 2nd "to impersonal" hits the mark. I dont think CK will have that flavor, but this point is very well made, as that impersonal historical sim does exclude alot of people who arent intrested in the period.
 
Well, about the first point...When I first saw EU2, I jumped high. It seemed to be the game of my life. It had everything I had wished for (maps, history, real leaders and monarchs). But many more felt that there is less action than in a normal strategy and passed it. With HoI, it was the same thing. Nobody around me can stand the 1936-1939 preperation period.

I agree, Ck should provide for RPGers many interesting hours of playing. I surely hope I'll play it too. But I must say, it will be hard for them too. RPGers usually follow the more magical-action packed games (like Morrowind). I don't know if Ck, with its unique historical-fantasy setting, will be extremly popular with them. Still, most of the players will be EU2-fans, and most importantly, the best will be the AAR-writers.

Plus, there will be the problem of war. If this procedure will involve so many things (CB, claims etc.), I don't expect wars to be so often. And with the necessity of waiting for your vassals army (composed by unknown soldiers), many gamers will pass. Because few will understand the motives of Snowball.
 
First Game

I intend to play as the most swashbuckling dynasty of the era... the de Hauteville family, starting with the cunning Robert Guiscard. I will use Apulia, not Tuscana, to unite Italy. The de Hautevilles also to control of a Pope or two in their time. Robert's son was also a major crusader and his nephew the King of Sicily.
 
Re: First Game

Originally posted by Coleman
I intend to play as the most swashbuckling dynasty of the era... the de Hauteville family, starting with the cunning Robert Guiscard. I will use Apulia, not Tuscana, to unite Italy. The de Hautevilles also to control of a Pope or two in their time. Robert's son was also a major crusader and his nephew the King of Sicily.
Click to expand...

Probably my first choice also.:) (I keep going back and forth trying to decide.)
 
I'll play one of the Irish dynastys. Not sure which one yet, though.

Unfortunately, the Ui Dunlaings were already long out of power :( , but it'll still be fun to play in Ireland. (I sure as heck am not going to call Strongbow in!)
 
León undoubtely.
 
Originally posted by Dunlaing
I'll play one of the Irish dynastys. Not sure which one yet, though.

Unfortunately, the Ui Dunlaings were already long out of power :( , but it'll still be fun to play in Ireland. (I sure as heck am not going to call Strongbow in!)
Click to expand...

Never can tell who you might need for some help.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back