Grand Strategy Victoria 3

[Reina]

They are competing, and V3 should thus be competitive. If it's not then it simply deserves to crash and burn, that's how the market works. I'm not saying it should have every feature of the competitor, but that it should give one a compelling reason to play it rather than V2.

That's good if you're judging the game as consumer, but not as a critic. For example, CK2 became the game it is now after almost 10 years of development; it's unrealistic to expect sequel to have the similar amount of work put into it at the beginning of its lifespan. I'd like Paradox to spend more time and release better product, but let's be real, it's unfeasible for economic reasons.

 

[Axioms]

But his work as a lead certainly doesn't! Nobody who "gets" GSGs would make V3 into something like this. You can't call yourself ambitious if your game is shittier and with less features than its predecessor.

Judging from the first dev diaries (as well the fact that around the infamous leak Paradox suddenly went silent for months about new features), Wiz had much grander vision from the game, and had to simplify several systems (in particular, economy), because production team failed to properly implement them - or they lacked time to iron them out. Kinda smiliar thing happened with Stellaris, where instead of fixing the existing systems, new lead just overhauled everything after Wiz left the project.

less features than its predecessor.

It's important to judge the base game to the predecessor's base; I don't think base V3 is that much lackluster compared to base V2 (although V2's problems were waaaay simpler to fix). There's also a problem with several systems that more or less 'work' within a game's framework, but fail at other levels. For example, warfare in V2 was more servicable from gaming perspective than mess we have in V3, but it was absolutely awful representation of the warfare in the era, especially WW1.

Well I have a grand vision for Axioms but no one gives a shit until it is released. Wiz didn't imagine a game that was plausible to develop, much less plausible to develop by the mid developers at PDox. You don't get credit for your imagination.

 

[Seigneur Locklear]

Wiz is the alpha canker of Paradox in these current times. We're talking about the man who thought this was a good visual design, adamantly defending it tooth and nail against all common sense:

He's utterly unable to grasp the most sensible criticism because he's a megalomaniac high off his own farts.

 

[Slafk]

Kinda smiliar thing happened with Stellaris, where instead of fixing the existing systems, new lead just overhauled everything after Wiz left the project.

Didn't he introduce Stellaris 2.2 which overhauled planet and economy in the game?
He fucked right off shortly after it to work on a "secret project" (this dumpster fire) and the new lead of Stellaris might have thought "wtf should I do with this shit" and went on trying to fix optimization (years after too many pops are still the bane of a planet rework) and ai issues.

 

[Axioms]

Wiz got lucky one time and thinks all his ideas are great.

 

[thesecret1]

That's good if you're judging the game as consumer, but not as a critic. For example, CK2 became the game it is now after almost 10 years of development; it's unrealistic to expect sequel to have the similar amount of work put into it at the beginning of its lifespan.

Many games have had many years long development cycle, and much more active one than ck2. Yet their competitors have managed to deliver products that are able to compete. Similarly, many sequels of games have all the features of their predecessors.

 

[Tyrr]

Wiz is the alpha canker of Paradox in these current times.

That asshole left Stellaris in a horrible state when he fucked off to Vic3.
I knew Vic3 was doomed the moment they announced it because of him.

 

[v1c70r14]

it's unrealistic to expect sequel to have the similar amount of work put into it at the beginning of its lifespan

Why? They could just integrate all the DLC into the main game and then use that as the foundation of a sequel, all the development is already there and done. There is no reason to assume devs have to start over from square one with every entry and slowly build towards not being shit. When games were released on CDs and DVDs they were usually good from day one, like the first Victoria still is, and sequels were expected to improve upon what came before since the work was already done there in terms of systems and design. That's what a video game sequel is supposed to be, a new and improved version of X with new content, unlike expansions which are just new content.

Why would you buy an inferior game to a higher price and then be expected to buy every new shitty DLC for it until it approaches an okay game, which might not even happen, when you could just play one of the earlier entries for cheaper and get more out of it?

 

[Fedora Master]

 

[Space Satan]

or they lacked time to iron them out

...or talent

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

or care.
why waste time fine tuning when shit sells anyway?

 

[Axioms]

or care.
why waste time fine tuning when shit sells anyway?

Who needs talent when you have dum-dums to fleece.

 

[Fedora Master]

 

[Fedora Master]

 

[HeroMarine]

LMAO what a retarded game

 

[Reina]

Why? They could just integrate all the DLC into the main game and then use that as the foundation of a sequel, all the development is already there and done. There is no reason to assume devs have to start over from square one with every entry and slowly build towards not being shit. When games were released on CDs and DVDs they were usually good from day one, like the first Victoria still is, and sequels were expected to improve upon what came before since the work was already done there in terms of systems and design. That's what a video game sequel is supposed to be, a new and improved version of X with new content, unlike expansions which are just new content.

There are several problems with your proposal. One, it would mean that game technical side remains outdated. There's only no much that can be done to prop up old engine, and V2/CK2 ran on functionally other engine at this point than their sequels. Two, every DLC beyond initial projects has a problem of ruining game's tight initial design, which can be clearly seen in Ck2 - IMO Artifacts, Secret Societies and Bloodlines push the bloat beyond acceptable level. Three, if the game is is just "previous game plus", there's less economic incentives for new customers to buy it. Four, what if some systems clearly don't work and need total replacement? When they are tightly integrated into the systems (like EU's trade, or Vic's warfare), dismantling them requires a revamp of the entire design.

And frankly, I don't want Paradox to just churn out the same 'improved' (bloated) product over and over, I want them to take risks and innovate, even if they sometimes fail. If I prefer older solution to the newer, I can always go back to the CK2 or Vic2 - like I did with HoI when fourth entry, which I despise, has came out.
If, for example, they didn't innovate with EU4 and left the primitive trade centers system from original EU1 in place, the game never would've evolved beyond a board game, as the new solution introduces better, more 'simulationist' and sophisticated dynamics. This in turn positively influences not just economy, but also naval warfare, colonisation and the entire strategic outlook of the player. Same with V3 - I might not like warfare in this game, but to me it's clear that without completely revamping military systems of V2 (and by extension, all connected systems - so... half of the game), the series would not have been able to progress.

 

[Fedora Master]

Having tested the update a bit I can say it's fucking nothing. Also game runs like shit now by the 1850s.

Agitators are basically "Pass this law guaranteed" buffs.

Everything else is still meaningless busywork.

What I do find interesting is that neither on Steam nor on their own forum is there any noticeable response. The community is essentially dead and nobody cares anymore.

 

[Seigneur Locklear]

I don't know about their forums and I don't care to find out (nor do I understand why would anyone visit that hellhole nowadays), but Steam has definitely been vocal when it comes to negative reviews. On the prior note, it isn't at all surprising that, when you foster a culture of surrounding yourself with yes-men and keep banning all the dissenters... you run out of people to criticize you and your product. Only ones engaging seriously with the Paradox """community""" nowadays are literal reddit soy bugmen who are there only to post rationalize their $200+ DLC purchases.

 

[Fedora Master]

The reviews are negative but the Steam forums are still basically dead.
Nobody is talking about this at all, they just took a look and moved on again.

 

[HeroMarine]

Is there a mod already out that at least tries to correct the historical blunders of this shit game?

 

[Average Manatee]

Agitators are basically "Pass this law guaranteed" buffs.

Did anyone think even for a microsecond that doing anything other than immediate submission to progressive whims would have any positive aspects in 2023?

 

[Axioms]

Why? They could just integrate all the DLC into the main game and then use that as the foundation of a sequel, all the development is already there and done. There is no reason to assume devs have to start over from square one with every entry and slowly build towards not being shit. When games were released on CDs and DVDs they were usually good from day one, like the first Victoria still is, and sequels were expected to improve upon what came before since the work was already done there in terms of systems and design. That's what a video game sequel is supposed to be, a new and improved version of X with new content, unlike expansions which are just new content.

There are several problems with your proposal. One, it would mean that game technical side remains outdated. There's only no much that can be done to prop up old engine, and V2/CK2 ran on functionally other engine at this point than their sequels. Two, every DLC beyond initial projects has a problem of ruining game's tight initial design, which can be clearly seen in Ck2 - IMO Artifacts, Secret Societies and Bloodlines push the bloat beyond acceptable level. Three, if the game is is just "previous game plus", there's less economic incentives for new customers to buy it. Four, what if some systems clearly don't work and need total replacement? When they are tightly integrated into the systems (like EU's trade, or Vic's warfare), dismantling them requires a revamp of the entire design.

And frankly, I don't want Paradox to just churn out the same 'improved' (bloated) product over and over, I want them to take risks and innovate, even if they sometimes fail. If I prefer older solution to the newer, I can always go back to the CK2 or Vic2 - like I did with HoI when fourth entry, which I despise, has came out.
If, for example, they didn't innovate with EU4 and left the primitive trade centers system from original EU1 in place, the game never would've evolved beyond a board game, as the new solution introduces better, more 'simulationist' and sophisticated dynamics. This in turn positively influences not just economy, but also naval warfare, colonisation and the entire strategic outlook of the player. Same with V3 - I might not like warfare in this game, but to me it's clear that without completely revamping military systems of V2 (and by extension, all connected systems - so... half of the game), the series would not have been able to progress.

This is true mostly because the engine was such dogshit. A proper engine would have limited trouble upgrading graphics, doing some performance stuff, replacing AI, or swapping out mechanics.

 

[Axioms]

I'll never understand how the Vic3 team dropped the ball on the lowest hanging fruit possible. Like the declared interest system.

Since it operates at the country level and there aren't that many countries, compared to Characters in CK3, you can give it plenty of content/context without hitting performance very hard.

Currently it is way too easy to get a potential interest somewhere and to activate it.

Creating a more detailed system whith more effort involved in "activating" your interest and having tiers of interest would be so easy. A couple mechanics related to rivalry and neutrality to handle how active a given AI would be in "defending their interest". This wouldn't have taken more than a couple weeks of dev time if not less. You'd have saved all the complaints and drama over "great powers getting involved in any tiny conflict anywhere".

And it would be easy to tie into pop mechanics and IGs as well as far as declaring on a potential interest. As it is it is way too easy to change interests and it is almost totally disconnected from the pop/economy sim which is supposed to be the core of the game. There's tons of these failures to tie in flavorful mechanics to the core simulation all over the design of Victoria 3. It is embarrassing. The player just gets hivemind slave collar level control over every aspect of the game with no limitations or contextual restrictions.

 

[Fedora Master]

 

[Axioms]

https://steamcommunity.com/id/chantartca/recommended/2282100/

Brutal