Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
By 1444 most of the powers that would become major powers are already established at game start, in 1337 most of them are still in struggle to even establish a lasting presence.
Much of this process of forced historic outcomes is sadly dependent on the devs, and we will have to wait and see.
Other than that lets hope that the game will even run, with all the features presented.
Not that hyped but eager to see what they are cooking.
Although i disagree with notion that pdx had some kind of unsuccessful streak lately. Imperator failed, but at the same time it was a major improvement over its predecessor - EU: Rome. Vicky 3 has its problems but it is vastly superior to Vicky 2. Same story with CK3, on surface it could look like it has less content than CK2, but in reality it is a wast improvement just in modularity, let alone other types of content. Stellaris has its up and downs with DLC content, but the game itself massively evolved scince its halfbaked poormans Vicky release state. HoI4... yeah... HoI4 was trash in release, and it stays this way till now, it is popular, but its popularity is a proof that popular product isnt equal to good product. EU4... EU4 was itself a solid release if compared to final version of EU3, it had it ups and downs ( DDR Jake era was the worse, im sorry Jake ) and its development finished in a solid state, could be better, could be worse. CK2 was in a worser state when it ended its run.
Overall id say that here are nothing to worry about, the only stinker among games developed by Pdx studios is HoI4 ( but kids love it, so it doesnt count ). All of this comes from a person that plays Pdx games since EU2 and CK1 times, so yeah i saw some things that you people would not believed, games crushing and burning years after release and requiring fan patches to simply be more or less stable, game mechanics that simply did not worked even with fan patches and other Pdx made horrors.
As for EU5, considering it'll go for a long development period, I'll touch it a bit to see if it's promising in term of game mechanics, and just wait years to get the most refined version of the game. Paradox lost my trust with Stellaris' development (the game is great, the constant changes in game mechanics is just a proof of a lack of vision by its designers), and it'll be hard to get it back.
About EU5, what I have said several times: I don't trust actual Paradox. I expect nothing good nor relevant, but even with that I will try the game in any mean, and if I like what I play I willl buy it, otherwise it will be a Victoria 3 result: not even in the wishlist.
Interesting clip