Crusader Kings II - 'Way of Life' Role-Playing DLC Announced
 

Paradox Development Studio has announced Way of Life, the next DLC for Crusader Kings II. Crusader Kings II is a medieval grand strategy game where you play different members of a dynasty over time. Although it shares much in common with fellow Paradox developed grand strategy series Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, and Victoria, its period and individual-level focus gives it a bit more of a role-playing feel than its siblings. With this DLC specifically focusing on role-playing elements, I thought it may be of interest for the Watch.

Details:

More information.

Well that sounds neat. I was thinking about starting a new CK2 game, but I think I'll hold off until this gets released. CK2 is already incredible, but I'v always wished for more of these role-playing events - especially during those lulls when you aren't in the middle of an active political scheme or military conquest.

Thanks for posting this!

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Paradox Development Studio and Crusader Kings II. Most of their DLC has been about expanding the size of the game, but I'm more excited to see a focus on RP elements. I'm also interested in the Chronicle from the recent DLC.

Yeah, Paradox games are extremely unique and unlike anything else out there, that's for sure. I'm really glad they survived the early years when their games were a lot more rough around the edges. I truly feel that CK2 is a masterpiece, and I don't throw such a term around lightly.

The chronicle feature from Charlemagne sounds like a wonderful idea. I also look forward to being able to create my own kingdom (I think the requirements are something like being independent and holding three duchies).

I hope they make a CK3 at some point, but honestly, maybe continuously updating the wonderful foundation of CK2 will keep making it feel like enough of a new game to satisfy that need anyway.

One thing that helped them survive the early years is that Europa Universalis 2 was unambiguously fantastic, and HoI 1 and 2 had an audience. To my understanding, both sold fairly well. But those middle years had a lot of ho-hum releases: CK1, EU:Rome, EU3 (vanilla was mediocre, though it was pretty great by the time of the final expansions), Victoria 2, and I think HoI3 was pretty wonky at release as well. Really, only Victoria 1, IMO, was high level at release.

Then they released CK2 and revealed that they had leveled up as a studio. Then EU4. Even before these, EU3, Vicky 2, and HoI3 w/ expansions were pretty great. I hope they revisit EU:Rome with their current approach, as I think there are a lot of opportunities for CK2-esque role-playing. EU:Rome was somewhat of a hybrid of CK1 and EU3. Only rushed and never polished.

Actually no, this is not fair to expect people who already paid for one game to pay more and more for content when a game has already been out for practically 3 years. It's because of business strategies like this that it becomes tricky to ever buy games on release, because much like a Bic razor, the base game is inexpensive but its main use is to make you pay for blades over a very long period of time. A fairer way to treat Paradox's loyal consumers would be to make one or two meaty expansions and have them keep all their ideas for a sequel.

I love Paradox. I've been sold on them since HoI, but I despise this nonstop mini addition business model they've adopted. I'm simply not willing to buy their games unless it's a good sale because of of it.

I disagree. I actually think that the way Paradox continues to add to the game gives players more value, and is a fair trade in my eyes. For example, If I pay $15 for the Charlemagne expansion and all its new features, I will likely play a long campaign upwards of 30-50 hours, if not much more depending on how wrapped up I get in my dynasty's story. Without these expansions offering various changes to the core gameplay, I probably would have stopped playing. Instead, I am offered a good reason to continue playing.

Besides, this isn't like the companies that release feature incomplete/buggy games for full market price. I played CK2 on release, and the base game without any of the expansions was already excellent and incredibly fleshed out from day one.

Right Humanity, how dare Paradox offer more content for additional money to extend the lifespan of their games. That's just not fair! :rolleyes:

Well not everyone will have the same experience as you and not everyone is as dedicated a Paradox fan as you. I'm really not sure the average gamer who is interested in strategy games is very enchanted to see a 9th, yes a 9th gameplay expansion since release, and that is on top of countless more cosmetic pieces of DLC such as music and units, when only yesterday you could assume to pay $49 for a complete game crammed with value and that was it. We are dangerously getting close to the point where to get the full experience of a single player game you have to dedicate the kind of money you would if you played an MMO like World of Warcraft. It's not very fun to see your investment continuously become obsolete and I'm not convinced these constitute a healthy way of treating your fanbase. One has to wonder where the enhancements end, and where the nickel and diming begin.

For just a little more money than any of these content add-ons, Civilization V offered a full-fledged expansion two times and then the team moved on to another game. Civilization V has been one of the most profitable PC games of all time. At this point I doubt it is doing Paradox much good to begin with, with constant announcement you dilute the impact of any of these announcements and have more chances that the content you've been working on gets lost in the shuffle of countless new releases coming every week.

While this is a valid concern in general, again, that doesn't apply to CK2. The "full experience" of vanilla CK2 has so much content and playability that it is more than a good value in the single-player, "release-day" context.

Also, I am not a "dedicated paradox fan" who mindlessly seeks out and purchases any and all CK2 content. It is paradox that is enticing me to jump back in with new features and content that I find compelling enough to look into. Thus, the "fair value" assessment. I was more than happy with the state of CK2 without any of the expansions; the expansions have simply given me new reasons to re-play the game thanks to very meaty add-ons that compliment the base game, not complete it.

I also disagree. I actually prefer the way Paradox changes (sometimes radically) the game every few months, it's what keeps me playing and playing and playing. It's not that the original (vanilla) game is lacking anything really, I bought it at release and spent over a hundred hours playing it (and loved it!). Every expansion adds new mechanics, changes old ones, etc. and I play again to try the new mechanics. Next expansion, same thing. I like it that way, I really really do.

Well, one of the main reasons why people buy new releases is to partake in current culture. If what you thought was current suddenly is outdated and you have to pay more very regularly in order to remain current that's going to frustrate a lot of people.

That's an interesting approach. From what I understand that's basically what happened with EU 3. I personally don't sink that many hours into a single game often enough for it to work for me though. I tend to beat something once and move on. I'd much rather get the fully polished experience once and move on to something else.

Those people deserve frustration until they find another culture or change the one they're in. Buy what you're interested in and only what you're interested in.

HOWEVER, I have to agree that I like the Egosoft way of doing this better than Paradox's. With them you buy the game then they give free updates with small/medium content additions for maybe a year or two. Then they sell either a big expansion or a whole new version of the game with major content updates. Guild Wars 1 and many 4X games have used this model for a long time.

Paradox, however, is having us pay every step of the way and they don't seem to be doing a big expansion. I guess that lets us pick and choose, which is nice, but it sure makes for a bewildering array of DLC to pick from.

I don't mind this way of handling things… These types of games (CK, EU, HOI, …) are better served with incremental updates than with new iterations anyway, in my opinion. It makes sense of them to keep building on the existing game, and not moving on right away. Let's leave CK3 in the freezer for a while still. :)

Also, you people forget that each major DLC also includes a host of new features free for all, and nobody is forcing you to get the DLC. I am waiting on a sale myself to get Charlemagne (as I do with each DLC), but this one sounds like a dream come true, and exactly what CK needs: more RP options.

This might be a day 1 purchase…

C.K.2 has already reached 175 euros with all its DLCs… I bet Paradox is aiming at overtaking the 200 euros peak and maybe attaining the Guinness book record for a single game ? :)

That's correct for someone buying these series on day one but what about a person trying to catch the train en route now ? Would you be happy considering the fact you have to pay 200 euros in order to get a complete experience of the current gameplay ? I'd never accept to pay that much, even if knowing this would be the best game of the genre ; not to mention the installation and download process needed to have this monstrosity running !

I get what you mean, and yes, all those small bits and pieces really add up cost-wise. However, they also go on sale plenty of times, most of it even up to 75% off, which makes it a lot more affordable. Also, there is a LOT of content here. I mean, the amount of replayability is near endless, and each campaign will be different (even if starting with the very same character).

As for installation and download process, my entire CK2 installation directory is 1.4 GB (and I have everything except Charlemagne and Sunset Invasion). Fairly painless I would say, especially since Steam downloads and installs everything neatly for you.

CK2 is a failed game. It is going to be interesting to see if that expansion manages to correct the gameplay core.
The game is supposed to be about expanding your dynasty and players do not play it that way.
They largely prefer to play that game as a territorial expansion game instead of a dynastical expansion game, the increase in dynasty rank matching the territorial expansion.
Paradox, across all their patches, tried to coerce the player to delegate as much as possible with various penalizing tricks, but it has not worked so far. Players ate the penalties and keep building their huge blobs to dominate everything.
This way of playing smashes many other features that consumed much of the developpment resources.
In this game, everyone seeks the same: increasing their dynasty and they approach the issue depending on their personality, which makes the AI predictable.
It is not so much about controlling land by yourself, but about your dynasty controlling land, which includes the part of the dynasty that might be under direct control of the AI.

Wonder if this expansion will push the player to focus on local scale instead of aiming globalization of power.
Will the player be led to keep relatively small, working with the AI to expand the dynasty elsewhere or will the player keep the same ways?

Court play has always been weak in this game when it should matter.
At start, I tried to mimick historical strategies: parallelizing the rise of the chosen dynasty with minor dynasties that would take charge of the martial, economic, religious sides. it is so tedious it is hardly sustainable.
Let's see if that expansion fills the gap and provide court play.


Downloading: within these days, as you must put up with over 40Go downloads, you certainly can put up with CK2 download size.

Even if they wished to, they could not act otherwise. The game is opposed by so many knee jerk reactions they could not take the risk of releasing a complete version from day one. They would have to rework too many features because players would not like too many features.
CK2 has been going through intense lobbying. It wont be easy to dismiss that factor.

I was not aware that was a fact. Has it been scientifically proven that the game is "failed" then? It's one of my favorite games, and one I keep going back to, so you can keep your so-called facts, thank you.

You like to generalize, don't you? A lot of people (including me) play it for what it is at it's core: a dynasty simulator. But, if people want to play it to paint the world in their color, why not? You play the game however you want, not sure why that makes it a failed game?

They've used a trick here and there, to balance the game better. I can imagine it is quite a mission impossible balancing a game of this magnitude, with so much going on at once and such endless possibilities in the way the world may evolve.
Each DLC does see a period of fixes and patches until it reaches a state where most things are working properly; they've gotten better in their QA dept, but sometimes these DLC break a bunch of existing stuff.
Very unfortunate, but as I said, lots of stuff going on in this game. At least they churn patches out at a reasonable rate…

That is the point of the game, yes. I fail to see your point though?

I'll grant you this one. Court play is somewhat lacking at the moment, which is why I am excited for this particular expansion. Hopefully it will fill that gap…

I would think, with the same reasoning, that it's a very successful game. Every player can play and enjoy it however they want. Some people go on and on about how they managed to bring Zoroastrism to England, or how they 'gave a good tumble' to their daughter in law and assassinated everybody, or how the did this and that, while others (like me), prefer the more conquering spree approach (which is actually a slower way of expanding). Different people with different approaches, with the only common aspect being that they all had fun doing whatever they were doing, playing however they prefer to play. That, to me, means it's a success.

You can get Charlemagne for $7.49 at http://www.macgamestore.com/product/…I-Charlemagne/ (it's a Mac store but the Steam code works regardless of platform)

So as it is one of the favourites, it cant be a failed game.

Nevertheless, games still obey use of resources to meet objectives of gameplay.
As a result, when players do not play a game as the designers would like them to, it means a waste of resources as features do not come together.

It makes it a failed game as designer must think beforehand of the way players are going to play the game in order to allocate resources to developpment of features in order for players to use them.

It is not generalizing as Paradox took measures patches after patches to try to induce players to play they would like it to be played.
It has nothing to do with painting

It has nothing to do with balance. All with pressure to try to get players to change their ways of playing. Since Paradox collect data through online connection, they decided all those measures as they gathered information. No generalizing.

The point is simple: as players prefer to control land, it erases all the work put into other features. Most of them are related to partnering with the AI.

Some time after release, after a few thoughts on the game, I started a game as Brittany.
I took Ireland, Wales that were required to constitute an empire.

That is all the land I took for all the game. At the end of the game, my dynasty ruled over Scandinavia, England, France, land in Middle East.
The expansion was made by working with the IA.

From that day, only played the game that way, working with the IA.

We'll agree to disagree. So just because the game isn't played as the devs intended, it is a failed game? And how do you even know what the devs intended? It's a sandbox game that simulates the medieval society, you play it however you want within those rules; which is one of its strengths! If you want to go on conquering spree, why not? I've never seen "partnering with the AI" as THE defining features of the game: it's all about you and the power you hold.

You've got some very odd reasoning going on there. Though possibly some of your points get misinterpreted or lost because of your oddly constructed English. It makes my head hurt trying to figure out what you're saying. :)

I partially agree on this particular point for trying to lead a dynasty as much historically as possible is somewhat frustrating. Frankly, I had much more fun playing a game like Knights of honor with its mods, than I ever had with the C.K.series (even taking into account how different those games may be).
I guess those thinking downloading more than 1,2Go (the actual size of my C.K. dir without most of the DLCs) in order to play a game, take for granted everyone rely on high speed ADSL connections but for me, downloading is done through 120Ko at best ! Most of the time that implies a good connection for more than three hours, something I consider myself very lucky with each time that occurs… ;)

That is assuming a different situation. That might be the case. That might not be the case.
No matter what situation one is, it remains that games are ballooning up to 40, 50Gos (will help to impose clouding when players consider that games have grown too big to be downloaded plus the pressure of FAIs etc)
Pointing out 1 Go games while other games are 40 times the size only brings that strange feeling.

In some part of the world, when people do not meet the objective that were set, it means failure.
Design set objectives, not meeting those objectives means failure. Hence failed game.
By going through the stage of learning how to play the game.
Sandbox is another word that means less and less.
CK2 is a real time strategy game, with a start date and an end date.
Between those two boundaries, a general objective that is defined by conditions of victory is set. The performances of the player are measured.
Sandbox games might not come with these types of features as they limit the player' ability to play in a sandbox.
Only reasoning. Even though this site is about story, not about gameplay and that any attempt to introduce any point about feature must always be considered in this regard. Dont discuss dogs in a site dedicated to cats.

I'm against dlc (certainly day 1 shit) but this does not count for ck2. The main game is good and the dlc are actually devs thinking we got this game how can we expand on it and every content dlc really does add to the whole game. I like to be playing a good game and knowing that devs are working to expand it, not just aiming to get a ck3 out and begin all over again. Also you have this very responsive costumer care; in all the years I'm playing ck2 i've had just 2 crashes to desktop and in both cases I posted it in the forums and got replied to within the day.
Plus you're never left behind, if you play multiplayer every player gets to use ALL dlc the host has to offer (not really sure about the cosmetic ones, but who cares about those;)).

Not really I think… I bought the game along with all dlc(including music, units and portrait packs) at a discounted steam sale some months ago and it was 39 bucks total. Kind of pricy for an old game, but if you count all the gameplay value and added content I think it was worth it. The prices drop frequently, I doubt the game will ever be sold for such a high price even with all dlc attached.

Unless of course you mean you bought everything at release price and have been playing the game since it was originally released. Then indeed you will add up the costs through the years.

I didn't mind their "business model" because I just got into the game and I was taking advantage of all the added content. Now that I just bought Charlemagne(15 more bucks!) and will be waiting for the release of WoL before Christmas I'm not so sure. Kind of sucks to start a new campaign every few months in order to enjoy new content and the Charlemagne release was so full of bugs that it was a plain fiasco(though paradox does seem to have learned its lesson and is doing open beta testing of the new patch).

In the end though, I suppose I like the game and I'm glad that it is being supported and expanded, even though it means I will be paying a few extra bucks every few months. It also needs to be said that they do release the patches for free and that they do add new content. The next one for instance will provide with means to discover adultery and deal with it properly, something pretty much vital that has been strangely missing from the game so far.