View Single Post

Default 

August 1st, 2013, 19:09
I've played most Paradox titles (sans the HOI series that doesnt interest me) since EU1, and the team has come a long way in terms of polish.

EU3 and HOI3 (in particular) were the last games with issues on release. EU: Rome, Victoria 2, and Crusader Kings 2 were all reasonably low on bugs upon release.

Games from the same engine generation are similar, but the different series certainly feel different enough. Crusader Kings (with man management) and Victoria (with economy and politics) certainly feel different enough to warrant different franchises. I get the same vibes from my old favourites MPS labs in the early 90s.

Their DLC strategy is a worse issue. CK2 was fine without DLC, but EU3 was not according to reports I trust (by the time I got the game it had two expansions and was very good)…

Originally Posted by Roq View Post
On the contrary, I think they fully intend a level of abstraction, In fact that's the whole point of grand strategy games - you aren't concerned with the details of what every member of your population is doing.
Exactly, criticising this (and comparing the game to Civ or Total War) misses the point of those franchises. Paradox has found a niche without competition (simulation of a world with a few hundred independent actors, as opposed to the 5 or so "nations" fighting for world domination in Civ) and moving in those directions would put give them competition from teams with vastly superior resources, while risking the old fanbase.

Being the only player in their niche means that they do ok even if the games dont really have mass market appeal.
Zaleukos is offline

Zaleukos

Zaleukos's Avatar
Bum

#34

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,869