Why is Paradox so hesistant to make difficult games?

[Ixal]

A lot of Paradox games seem complex and difficult to understand, but once you do many games, especially newer ones like Stellaris or CK3, are very easy and you discover that they only appear complex but are in fact rather shallow.

Why is that? Do the players really want easy games where they can faceroll the AI? This is often critizised on the forum, especially in the form about boring late games when you snowballed so hard that nothing is a challenge, (but on the other hand you also have many mappainter who whine if something gets more difficult). But when you look at the player numbers the easier games have the most players.

The main question is, is it intended that the games are so easy because according to player numbers thats what players want, or because Paradox can't figure out how to make challenging games?

 

[Mav12]

Easier game = larger potential player base in the form of causal players = more $$$

 

[Waverunner]

There was a time, a long time ago, where Paradox didn't care that their games were too difficult such as EU3, CK2, Victoria for example.

 

[General Von Trapp]

I would not say newer games are more shallow or less complex because they are hesitant to make complex ones. I cannot vouch for Stellaris but coming from working my way through CK3 at launch I think it comes down to a number of factors.

1. The current generation of games are purposely targeted towards bringing in newer players. Therefore appearing less complex and "shallow" as a by-product.

2. Targeting newer players results in systems that appear to make the game less complex. Take CK3 and its tooltips system as an example. It's now easier to know more about the game and how it works. It appears less complex but really it's just easier to understand now how to play the game now (An achievement in itself!).

3. Each Paradox game becomes easier to play. Many of the game systems are inherently alike and therefore playing more Paradox games makes the next Paradox game easier to understand. There are obvious differences but the general base i.e modifier systems have the same feel to them.

4. Coming from a previous franchise iteration comes across bare bones. If you have played CK2... then CK3 is going to appear less complex because... there is not enough content that matches up against its predecessor. It would be impossible and rather silly to remake everything from the previous game on launch day for the next. That would be boring but also scandalous! In effect charging customers for the same content with a shinier look. One of the challenges of their DLC system as time goes on. Also gives development freedom to try new things.

5. Complexity can be added back in on future expansions. The DLC the new player base will buy therefore bringing in more revenue. CK4 for example will "hopefully" take new CK3 players, which in turn will target newer players again. Therefore increasing the player base and awareness of Paradox games in general.

6. Making complex games would decrease player base. Here's an example... Let's take Hearts of Iron 4 (Wonderful game by the way) and Gary Grisby War In The East 2. Both WW2 games, both released last year. GGWITE2 focuses on the eastern front and Paradox released NSB last November focusing on the eastern front. In just checking the steam charts alone HOI4 currently has 39,848 users playing as of 20 minutes ago. GGWITE2 has 71 players. GGWITE2 is a whoppingly complex game. A great game but hard to get into... not shallow. Which would you choose? I also believe HOI4 to be a complex game.

 

[Tullaris]

Its not the games, it is you who got so familiar with all the game systems, that it is no longer a challenge.

 

[rangerjs001]

More people will get and play easier games so they can sell more dlc and make more money. I wish it was harder but this is just the case.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

I've been pretty silent on stuff like this, but admittedly I think that there's no one "reason", though certainly "wanting to appeal to a wider audience" is likely the lion's share.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned, though, is the community is much more sophisticated and with the new games tending to give more control to the player (especially compared to the ancient games like EU I and EU II) it allows for a much more sophisticated meta to arise and spread into the community. I have no problem with min/maxing as a style of play, I actually find it fascinating and interesting to learn about even if in the end it doesn't mesh with my style of play, personally, and this might be subjective, I feel like the tools and discussion around optimizing your play style have grown considerably more in-depth and I think the developers (please remember - moderators often have no more access to the developers than you all) have shied away from constraining min/maxing and forcing or incentivising a more "realistic" form of play.

Back in EU I and EU II cores and cultures were permanent and unchanging except by events, which were all historically motivated with maybe a few considerations given for "significant" divergence points. The Reformation was an event that suddenly turned a bunch of Europe Protestant. It was crude and the player was sort of railroaded in a way that isn't really the case any more. The meta, thus, was much more simple and min/maxing often meant "play historical and reap the benefits of an event". Today the game offers decisions and tools that make the game more fun, more unique to each play through, but when treated purely as game mechanics and not as potential tools in a role playing simulator, they can quickly amount to a "win" button, or a "gain stability" button.

Given this freedom, the community is much more able to create a robust meta. The tools of doing so are much more powerful. The community itself is much larger and thus has more heads to knock together. The internet itself is much more connected. The tools for sharing one's work, for responding to it quickly and thoroughly are much more mature. When I started playing Paradox games in 2003, I was just going into highschool. Nearly twenty years later I have a degree in rocket science and ten years of experience as an engineer. And I'm not the only one. Many pillars of the community have undergone similar growth.

The games aren't just easier because they're for new players - they're easier because the old players are much, much smarter.