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

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
CK2 is a failed game.

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.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
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.

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?

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
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.

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…

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
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.

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

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
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.

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…

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
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.

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.

Originally Posted by wiretripped
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…

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)

Originally Posted by wiretripped
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.

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.

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?

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

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…

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
CK2 is a failed game (…) Court play has always been weak in this game when it should matter.

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).

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

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…

Originally Posted by Gloo
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.

Originally Posted by wiretripped
We'll agree to disagree. So just because the game isn't played as the devs intended, it is a failed game?

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.

And how do you even know what the devs intended?

By going through the stage of learning how to play the game.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Gloo
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 ?

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.