Should I get this or CK 2?

[Ajvar the Boneless]

So I've seen some of the insane stuff that can happen in Crusader Kings 2 and it seemed like a good old time.

Considering that CK3 is a newer game I'm wondering how it compares to CK2, purely in terms of content and gameplay. I don't care about graphics

Also, I haven't seen anything to that effect mentioned, but I am concerned that the newer game might be a bit more... current year, injecting modern sensibilities into a historical setting where they appear woefully out of place, at least to me, like AoE4 has done.

I'm a grown man, I don't need or want to be protected from sensitive content.

Anyways, I don't want this to devolve into a political discussion about the merits and realism of equality and inclusivity in a medieval setting.
I've stated what I'm looking for and what my concerns are, so if anyone can make an honest recommendation which one of the two would be the better for for me it would be greatly appreciated.

[Waldo]

Ck2 is raw unfiltered madness while ck3 is a more simplified version

CK3 is not necessarily bad but it lacks a lot of content and they intend to slowly add it back through dlcs its combat is frustrating and annoying while realm management is simplified and changed to a point of redundancy

CK3 is a game made for the AI rather than the player most of its changes to combat help the ai especially to a point of hindering the player

While ck2 is more about chaos some random ai might try to murder you because they want a county you are holding etc

CK2 is basically victoria 2 in that regard it has its bad sides but is overall a masterpiece once you learn more about it

CK2 and CK3 are very different in that if ck3 were to have all the content of ck2 the core features still make it frustrating to play mid-late game

Most of its tech features are time gates compared to ck2 where you could eventually change your succession to better types or become ahead of time through focusing specific technologies

TLDR: CK2 is old paradox while ck3 is new paradox
CK3 is far tamer than ck2

[LzDK14]

Originally posted by Ajvar the Boneless:

So I've seen some of the insane stuff that can happen in Crusader Kings 2 and it seemed like a good old time.

Considering that CK3 is a newer game I'm wondering how it compares to CK2, purely in terms of content and gameplay. I don't care about graphics

Also, I haven't seen anything to that effect mentioned, but I am concerned that the newer game might be a bit more... current year, injecting modern sensibilities into a historical setting where they appear woefully out of place, at least to me, like AoE4 has done.

I'm a grown man, I don't need or want to be protected from sensitive content.

Anyways, I don't want this to devolve into a political discussion about the merits and realism of equality and inclusivity in a medieval setting.
I've stated what I'm looking for and what my concerns are, so if anyone can make an honest recommendation which one of the two would be the better for for me it would be greatly appreciated.

CK2 has MUCH more content, but it is an "old time" game, released almost a decade ago. Dispite some saying that CK3 has all "core" content of CK2 - it's simply not true. For example, you can't play rebuplics.

CK3 has SOME nods to modern sensibilities, but they don't look out of place, for example, you can decide to give religion you create equal view on male and female, which leads to men and women been treated equaly in terms of rulership and inheritance.

[Ajvar the Boneless]

Originally posted by LzDK14:

CK2 has MUCH more content, but it is an "old time" game, released almost a decade ago. Dispite some saying that CK3 has all "core" content of CK2 - it's simply not true. For example, you can't play rebuplics.

CK3 has SOME nods to modern sensibilities, but they don't look out of place, for example, you can decide to give religion you create equal view on male and female, which leads to men and women been treated equaly in terms of rulership and inheritance.

As long as it's one option out of many others and the game doesn't flinch away from allowing more messed up ones to really crank up the human nature factor I'm actually all for it. The more the game ALLOWS me to do the better.

I meant more along the lines of sanitizing or "modernizing" actual historical facts like some "history" shows on TV have been doing recently (or games like AC: Valhalla)

[LzDK14]

Originally posted by Ajvar the Boneless:

Originally posted by LzDK14:

CK2 has MUCH more content, but it is an "old time" game, released almost a decade ago. Dispite some saying that CK3 has all "core" content of CK2 - it's simply not true. For example, you can't play rebuplics.

CK3 has SOME nods to modern sensibilities, but they don't look out of place, for example, you can decide to give religion you create equal view on male and female, which leads to men and women been treated equaly in terms of rulership and inheritance.

As long as it's one option out of many others and the game doesn't flinch away from allowing more messed up ones to really crank up the human nature factor I'm actually all for it. The more the game ALLOWS me to do the better.

I meant more along the lines of sanitizing or "modernizing" actual historical facts like some "history" shows on TV have been doing recently (or games like AC: Valhalla)

Nope, nothing like that. As I said, there some nods, but they do not feel as been shown into your throat.
And from gameplay perspective they do a pretty good job too. Custom religions are one of the features I actually like in CK3.

[Maison De Cornusiac]

We're looking here at two games in different development stages (progression), so the question is a bit unfair. Look again at CK3 when it has reached the age CK2 has now. Given its state already now, it will be far superior.

[Maison De Cornusiac]

Upcoming 'Royal Court' adds so many things as expansion, it would have required several DLC of the kind CK2 had to match up in content.

[RedStar]

You can't compare them yet: CK2 is a decade old game with multiple DLC's and is 'finished' whereas CK3 is young (especially for a Paradox game) and will no doubt get better and better once it receives more DLC.

Do you want to play the older, finished game or play the shiny new one and be along for the ride?

Get CK3.

[LzDK14]

Originally posted by RedStar:

You can't compare them yet: CK2 is a decade old game with multiple DLC's and is 'finished' whereas CK3 is young (especially for a Paradox game) and will no doubt get better and better once it receives more DLC.

Do you want to play the older, finished game or play the shiny new one and be along for the ride?

Get CK3.

Sooo, should I buy a duck egg for a price of chef prepared peking duck meal by that logic? And I should not complain and compare them also, since an egg is young and all that bl-t?

And that's even assuming CK3 will improve. Seen quality of their last DLCs for other titles, it seems as a VERY far fetched goal.

[Maison De Cornusiac]

Originally posted by LzDK14:

Originally posted by RedStar:

You can't compare them yet: CK2 is a decade old game with multiple DLC's and is 'finished' whereas CK3 is young (especially for a Paradox game) and will no doubt get better and better once it receives more DLC.

Do you want to play the older, finished game or play the shiny new one and be along for the ride?

Get CK3.

Sooo, should I buy a duck egg for a price of chef prepared peking duck meal by that logic? And I should not complain and compare them also, since an egg is young and all that bl-t?

And that's even assuming CK3 will improve. Seen quality of their last DLCs for other titles, it seems as a VERY far fetched goal.

It's rather a very far fetched assumption a Paradox title would not improve over time by expansions and dlc being added. Each title did.
Of course, when you chose to play blind duck and parade your negative attitude around for cheap attention, you can act the ducky way you do...

[RedStar]

Originally posted by LzDK14:

Originally posted by RedStar:

You can't compare them yet: CK2 is a decade old game with multiple DLC's and is 'finished' whereas CK3 is young (especially for a Paradox game) and will no doubt get better and better once it receives more DLC.

Do you want to play the older, finished game or play the shiny new one and be along for the ride?

Get CK3.

Sooo, should I buy a duck egg for a price of chef prepared peking duck meal by that logic? And I should not complain and compare them also, since an egg is young and all that bl-t?

And that's even assuming CK3 will improve. Seen quality of their last DLCs for other titles, it seems as a VERY far fetched goal.

Paradox are notorious for their DLC policy and, Leviathan aside, they have supported HOI4 & EU4 with a plethora of well-received DLC (No Step Back being the latest) so it is only logical to assume they will do the same with CK3, seeing as they did that with CK2.

Your snide analogy is nonsensical and worthless (and doesn't really apply to the conversation). CK3 is new and CK2 is old. Thus one has more DLC than the other so therefore has more content but it is reasonable to assume that won't be the case forever.

The OP would most likely be better with the newer game.

[Ēarendel]

Depends on what you're looking for in a game. If you've never played Crusader Kings I would strongly recommend against CK2, unless you're going to invest a lot of time into tutorials and learning, which is painful, the UI there is abysmal. And compared to CK3, it doesn't have modern graphics, new UI, elaborate genetics system for characters, CK2 is an old game with a ♥♥♥♥ ton of DLC's which you'll have to buy btw. So your choice on something new and in development or something old with extra purchasable features

[Anapoda]

Next dlc is going to be sold for 30 bucks. Just think about that for a minute.

30 freaking bucks...

Yeah, CK2 my man, CK2.

[LzDK14]

Originally posted by RedStar:

Originally posted by LzDK14:

Sooo, should I buy a duck egg for a price of chef prepared peking duck meal by that logic? And I should not complain and compare them also, since an egg is young and all that bl-t?

And that's even assuming CK3 will improve. Seen quality of their last DLCs for other titles, it seems as a VERY far fetched goal.

Paradox are notorious for their DLC policy and, Leviathan aside, they have supported HOI4 & EU4 with a plethora of well-received DLC (No Step Back being the latest) so it is only logical to assume they will do the same with CK3, seeing as they did that with CK2.

Your snide analogy is nonsensical and worthless (and doesn't really apply to the conversation). CK3 is new and CK2 is old. Thus one has more DLC than the other so therefore has more content but it is reasonable to assume that won't be the case forever.

The OP would most likely be better with the newer game.

"so it is only logical to assume they will do the same with CK3" It isn't. If anything, logical step would be to look at their recent behaivour. And it clearly shows that quality of games, DLCs and support of thier released games had a sharp drop in recent 1-2 years.

"Your snide analogy is nonsensical and worthless" Is that so... Why exactly?
You're offering to compare existing product to some non-existing product, which may or may not become what you're expecting.
Just as well, PDS may go belly up (aka egg spoiled) in near future and there will be no support for CK3 at all.

"The OP would most likely be better with the newer game." Why? Because newer means better? How so?

[LzDK14]

Originally posted by Maison De Cornusiac:

Originally posted by LzDK14:

Sooo, should I buy a duck egg for a price of chef prepared peking duck meal by that logic? And I should not complain and compare them also, since an egg is young and all that bl-t?

And that's even assuming CK3 will improve. Seen quality of their last DLCs for other titles, it seems as a VERY far fetched goal.

It's rather a very far fetched assumption a Paradox title would not improve over time by expansions and dlc being added. Each title did.
Of course, when you chose to play blind duck and parade your negative attitude around for cheap attention, you can act the ducky way you do...

"It's rather a very far fetched assumption a Paradox title would not improve over time by expansions and dlc being added." Their CEO was FIRED couple of month ago because of fan backlash concerning abismal quality of their DLCs and lack of support for released games.

[Ēarendel]

Originally posted by Anapoda:

Next dlc is going to be sold for 30 bucks. Just think about that for a minute.

30 freaking bucks...

Yeah, CK2 my man, CK2.

I'm all against price-gouging, however this is not the case. There's just too many DLC expansions for CK2 which add very little, they average around 7,5 each on SALE, have mixed reviews (and for good reason!). Those same DLC's could be implemented on CK3 via Workshop... The upcoming DLC is going to be a major expansion not just for overhauling cultures, but as a graphical content feature update. If being honest, its not even worth getting the game without it, that's why you get the Royal edition up front.