Crusader Kings III - Fate of Iberia Flavor Pack available on May 31
- Thread starter HiddenX
- Start date
Two years after it's release and Crusader Kings 2 is still the better game that's sad. Only because it's still fleshed out with more content, and the variety of mods available.
I feel like that's not entirely correct. Many of the features on religion and culture weren't in ck2 or only added much later.
There certainly are areas the game isn't at the same level as ck2 but many things are there and improved upon. The only thing for me which isn't done well yet is the game balancing. It seems too easy for me.
My point is valid they want players to migrate to the third game and it's still inferior. I don''t know why Paradox cuts so much content or simplify every new release.
It's the same engine and they already released/developed the systems/content. I'll tell you why it's to resell you the same updated content once again of course.
It's the same engine and they already released/developed the systems/content. I'll tell you why it's to resell you the same updated content once again of course.
Re-releasing almost the same content and similar DLC only works for awhile. Eventually people will tire and start closing their wallets. It works well for big titles like Civilisation and Sports games etc - but they have far larger audiences and they can get by with a bunch of customers skipping a version or two. They also have significant graphical updates etc.
EU3 -> EU4 was a much bigger update than going from CK2 -> CK3. For both graphics and functionality/options. CK2 was very successful and while CK3 has had a lot of success so far it remains to be seen if it will have the same longitivity. I have a feeling that when it comes time for EU5/CK4 that people will start expecting bigger changes.
I paid 16 bucks for CK2 and all DLC so I may not be the target market though. I guess they probably do have a reasonable hardcore captive audience (strat/history nerds) - I just doubt the same conviction to the franchise will be shown by their wider customer base.
EU3 -> EU4 was a much bigger update than going from CK2 -> CK3. For both graphics and functionality/options. CK2 was very successful and while CK3 has had a lot of success so far it remains to be seen if it will have the same longitivity. I have a feeling that when it comes time for EU5/CK4 that people will start expecting bigger changes.
I paid 16 bucks for CK2 and all DLC so I may not be the target market though. I guess they probably do have a reasonable hardcore captive audience (strat/history nerds) - I just doubt the same conviction to the franchise will be shown by their wider customer base.
Every bit of content needs to be programmed and tested, that's why they can't release the features developed over 8 years in a new game directly.My point is valid they want players to migrate to the third game and it's still inferior. I don''t know why Paradox cuts so much content or simplify every new release.
It's the same engine and they already released/developed the systems/content. I'll tell you why it's to resell you the same updated content once again of course.
Yes, I doubt that modules can be easily reused in a new game that has a different, evolved base.
I thought that some of the content added later in CK2 was already in the initial release of CK3 (among other, the religion and culture that Pladio mentioned earlier)? If so, why is it inferior to CK2 at the same stage after release? Or is it a comparison of the games right now?
How interesting are the character evolution and features? Does that feel a little bit like an RPG in a grand strategy game, or is it a small feature drown in the overall management of the territory?
The generation / inheritance seems a good idea too.
I would like to try it but like their previous games, they only support US keyboard layouts, which really doesn't work with me. And I'm not sure how stable and mature it is. I'll wait until they fix this problem, though I have little hope since they never bothered with Stellaris or their previous games in general (despite many threads of bug reports that they systematically close, very unprofessional).
I thought that some of the content added later in CK2 was already in the initial release of CK3 (among other, the religion and culture that Pladio mentioned earlier)? If so, why is it inferior to CK2 at the same stage after release? Or is it a comparison of the games right now?
How interesting are the character evolution and features? Does that feel a little bit like an RPG in a grand strategy game, or is it a small feature drown in the overall management of the territory?
The generation / inheritance seems a good idea too.
I would like to try it but like their previous games, they only support US keyboard layouts, which really doesn't work with me. And I'm not sure how stable and mature it is. I'll wait until they fix this problem, though I have little hope since they never bothered with Stellaris or their previous games in general (despite many threads of bug reports that they systematically close, very unprofessional).
Wrong again as I mod both games and the process to do so is the same. It's about releasing the same bare bones sequel for the sixth time again.
Like I said above it's to milk the consumer base again for the same content.
The new charterer system is the only new good change from CK 2. For reference they only released the North-men and now this Iberia pack two years after release.
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
I like the UI redesign and graphics upgrade of CK3, but not enough to buy it given that I own CK2 and never really got my head around it. As far as features, CK3 contains a lot more than CK2 did at launch and has added some new stuff that didn't exist in CK2, so I think they've done alright there. If I liked the game more to begin with, I probably would have bought the new one.
With EU4, it's a totally different story for me as I do like and play that game. I have a hard time seeing myself buying the eventual EU5 given how much would be stripped out of it. I'd rather they just keep fleshing out areas of the world for a while yet, as they have been.
With EU4, it's a totally different story for me as I do like and play that game. I have a hard time seeing myself buying the eventual EU5 given how much would be stripped out of it. I'd rather they just keep fleshing out areas of the world for a while yet, as they have been.
Ermm no. Software that you develop for yourself may not need extensive testing but developing games you know for money does. The features they make need to be
1 developed
2 tested
3 balanced against other systems
Your mods can be done without steps 2 and 3 because you're not charging for them.
If you make a mod giving you 5000 gold per month that's fine, but that doesn't mean the development process is the same as for a game sold to people.
Plus the throne room décisions, but I don't like it too much. It was nice the first 3 times but then got boring to me.
Were just going in circles Paradox Fanboy so topic closed for me. No offense meant on the fanboy part and I make total conversions not money mods. That's noob stuff.
Anyway my points are valid despite you countering them.
Anyway my points are valid despite you countering them.
Thanks for the info!
I've tried UE4 a few times, but I'm not there yet. And the period covered by CK3 is more tempting to me.
I've tried UE4 a few times, but I'm not there yet. And the period covered by CK3 is more tempting to me.
They killed themselves.
Would I put the hundreds of hours I sunk in a EU4 in a new EU? Unlikely, my EU4 has been completed with the right DLCs for me, tuned with mods to provide me with what I exactly want. The same with CK2.
They let those games run for too long, EU is 9 years old, CK2 is 10 years old.
I tried to play CK3 but it's just barebone. Mechanisms you liked, some you had made your way around just don't exist.
Still or Yet.
And that is also another problem, we know what is coming years after years. CK3 will be at the CK2 level of content and, more importantly, mechanisms in few years.
Finally, I am just disappointed in general by their last creations. Take Imperator:Rome.. Bloody hell, what was that?
They managed to make one of the craziest period in human history a bland generic mess. The game was basically you trying to buff your 'mana' to do stuff.
They said in their forums: 'People don't want complex mechanisms and prefer simple things'.
What people were those? The ones who never played your games and will not play them?
Result: They have been trying to rebuilt and save the game for the last 3 years, patch after patch.
They just lost it.
Would I put the hundreds of hours I sunk in a EU4 in a new EU? Unlikely, my EU4 has been completed with the right DLCs for me, tuned with mods to provide me with what I exactly want. The same with CK2.
They let those games run for too long, EU is 9 years old, CK2 is 10 years old.
I tried to play CK3 but it's just barebone. Mechanisms you liked, some you had made your way around just don't exist.
Still or Yet.
And that is also another problem, we know what is coming years after years. CK3 will be at the CK2 level of content and, more importantly, mechanisms in few years.
Finally, I am just disappointed in general by their last creations. Take Imperator:Rome.. Bloody hell, what was that?
They managed to make one of the craziest period in human history a bland generic mess. The game was basically you trying to buff your 'mana' to do stuff.
They said in their forums: 'People don't want complex mechanisms and prefer simple things'.
What people were those? The ones who never played your games and will not play them?
Result: They have been trying to rebuilt and save the game for the last 3 years, patch after patch.
They just lost it.
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
You're out of date in your criticisms of Imperator. They remade it practically from the ground up, significantly changing virtually every system as well as adding lots of new things (the whole EU4 mana thing is long gone, for example), and people generally liked the current version quite a lot. The anger these days is because they subsequently ended development on the game. I felt, and still feel, that Paradox put an inexusably low amount of flavor into the game at launch so they could sell flavor packs, and that never changed (except through the release of a few flavor packs), but the mechanics were dramatically improved and expanded.
Imperator was another letdown and I wasn't surprised. The forum comments on it's development alluded that. Paradox eventually abandoned the game but did fix it.
Sure, I was talking about the game at release and their new meaning for 'Grand Strategy'.
I also added than they had worked on rebuilding the game (quite different from just patching). An effort as you mention they stopped in 2021.