CKII vs CKIII

[Iskandar]

hey guys, what game is better if you have 0 DLC?
And what game is better if I have all the DLC for each game?

[Crusader993]

Both games quickly become boring without DLC.

CK2 with all DLCs is more challenging and therefore more interesting.

CK3 has much better graphics, but currently offers far too little of a challenge, because the level of difficulty is too low and essential game elements are missing. With that I want to say: CK3 urgently needs more (and good) DLCs.

[Kromii]

CK3 doesn't compare to the game depth of CK2, but that will change it over time, but you can spend many hours in CK3 if you like roleplaying and know how to enjoy the game.

[red66]

I wish they could port all of the DLC's for CK2 into a Vintage DLC. then we can all choose to play with or without. personally once i play a newer verison of a game it is hard to go back to a previous verison

[Jojo]

Well, this question should be quite easy to answer:

Comparing both games with zero DLC, CK3 is better.

CK3 with zero DLC is probably better than CK2 with all DLC. I loved CK2 and I have all the DLC besides the sunset invasion one. CK3 base game is superior, in my opinion.

[VipreRX]

No DLC CK3, all the DLC CK2 but not by much IMO.
CK3 released with a lot of the CK2 DLC already integrated. IIRC Muslims weren't playable when CK2 released that was added in the first pack.

[Crusader993]

Originally posted by red66:

personally once i play a newer verison of a game it is hard to go back to a previous verison

I feel the same as you.

Of course, the full content of CK2 combined with the graphic innovations of CK3 would be ideal as an interim solution. Paradox could then build on this foundation and add completely new features and game techniques to the game.

[Kromii]

Originally posted by Crusader993:

Originally posted by red66:

personally once i play a newer verison of a game it is hard to go back to a previous verison

I feel the same as you.

Of course, the full content of CK2 combined with the graphic innovations of CK3 would be ideal as an interim solution. Paradox could then build on this foundation and add completely new features and game techniques to the game.

i hope so

[garthurbrown]

III is better and it's not even close. In II you can only play feudal Christians.

[Toblm]

Originally posted by ☢ ☣ Pizza.Reaper ☣ ☢:

hey guys, what game is better if you have 0 DLC?
And what game is better if I have all the DLC for each game?

CK3 hands down.

[Jerubius]

Still prefer CK2 with all the dlc. Had fun with CK3, but I just lose interest way faster, and in particular, I miss having something comparable to Conclave in 3 that adds a lot more depth to the internal politics of your realm. Also, you need most of the dlc to be able to play anywhere in CK2, but each area feels very unique to play, whereas CK3 lets you play anywhere from the start, but everywhere also feels very samey to play. The last CK2 dlc also added a map randomizer with a lot of customization options, so you can mix things up when you start running out of stuff you want to do.

Base game is pretty different though. CK2 is pretty limited in the base experience, and it's definitely showing its age. CK2 is also a lot more obtuse to learn than 3, so it's definitely a harder recommend to a new player.

Also, while CK3 is lacking a lot of stuff compared to CK2 with its dlc, so far every time one of those mechanics has been reintroduced, it's gotten more depth and more polish than its CK2 counterpart. Duels are a chain of events with options instead of just a single event. Artifacts now have more ways to acquire them, degrade over time, can have claims attached to them, and generally just a lot more ways to interact with them. Minor titles/court positions aren't mostly just free opinion bonuses anymore, but instead come with costs and bonuses for employing people in them with a suitability system that scales how much you get out of the position. It may take a while until it catches up with CK2 in terms of features, but if it continues as it has, it won't merely be at parity with its predecessor when that happens.

[frozenman]

crusader kings 2 is much better than crusader kings 3

[Bordric]

CK2 was pretty bland and boring on release, without the DLC it would have been dead long time ago. CK3 was a much better release and much more fun to play than early CK2. Can't really compare them that far apart though because of technology changing.

Even with all the DLC in CKII it is old and after playing over long time so haven't picked it back up in a long time.

That said these games have longevity, I may play 30 40 hour campaign then not play again for months maybe a year. Never know, but I always get the itch again and have enjoyed CK3 much more even before Royal Court.

[Elazul]

Base game with no DLC? CK3 easily. With all DLC? Tough one. CK2 is starting to feel aged, but I think it's long list of DLC will probably tip it for most long time fans. Those of us that are newer fans of the franchise, though I did play CK2 before it released near the end of it's life, likely prefer CK3.

[RepealThe19th]

I'm just gonna be honest and say, if CK2 was as optimized to run as fast as CK3, I would probably not play CK3 again until it got some major improvements.