vic 2 or vic 3?

[manbear118]

Im just getting into the vicky series. I have never played any of them. Would you say 2 is far better than 3?
I dont want to waste my money on 3 if 2 is better.

[fakemon64]

2 is a good game and its complete. but, 3 would be an investment seeing as how they will more than definitely be adding things to it

personally i'd say just go ahead and hop on the vicky 3 train but if youre filling iffy, i'd go to youtube and watch a few guides and see from there which game looks a bit more manageable for you to stare at for a few hours

both are great games and pretty much top games of their genre either way. so its a win either way you go imo

[SaD-82]

Vic2, hands down.
Maybe in some years Vic3 could surpass it, but if I look at how bland and inferior CK3 is compared to CK2, I highly doubt it.
If some of the major problems and not working mechanics in Vic3 will be solved in the coming months, I would (maybe) give it a try. And (maybe) even could have fun with it.
But as for one being superior to the other: Vic2. At least for a very long time.

[Munrock]

By the time you learn how to play V2 properly, V4 will have been announced.

[ybud]

Originally posted by manbear118:

Im just getting into the vicky series. I have never played any of them. Would you say 2 is far better than 3?
I dont want to waste my money on 3 if 2 is better.

Vic 2 atm, Vic 3 can be fun, theres not enough depth, it feels way to artificial. Vic 2 is the superior economics sim

[whatamidoing]

Vic2 is fun, but boy is its economy shallow and arbitrary.

[Mikel]

Originally posted by manbear118:

Im just getting into the vicky series. I have never played any of them. Would you say 2 is far better than 3?
I dont want to waste my money on 3 if 2 is better.

Just get Vic2 its better in every way

[Perkomobil]

Originally posted by ybud:

Originally posted by manbear118:

Im just getting into the vicky series. I have never played any of them. Would you say 2 is far better than 3?
I dont want to waste my money on 3 if 2 is better.

Vic 2 atm, Vic 3 can be fun, theres not enough depth, it feels way to artificial. Vic 2 is the superior economics sim

This is the issue: Most diehard victoria 2 players saw Victoria 3 get announced and all they wanted was "Victoria 2 remastered!!!!!", well, that didn't happen. Paradox said they wanted to make something that they hadn't tried before, that didn't use their normal formula. Wether they succeeded or not is a different matter.

Victoria 3 is meant to be unorthodox.

[Mikel]

Originally posted by Perkomobil:

Originally posted by ybud:

Vic 2 atm, Vic 3 can be fun, theres not enough depth, it feels way to artificial. Vic 2 is the superior economics sim

This is the issue: Most diehard victoria 2 players saw Victoria 3 get announced and all they wanted was "Victoria 2 remastered!!!!!", well, that didn't happen. Paradox said they wanted to make something that they hadn't tried before, that didn't use their normal formula. Wether they succeeded or not is a different matter.

Victoria 3 is meant to be unorthodox.

Victoria 3 is meant to be a ♥♥♥♥♥ slap to every (loyal) paradox buyer. They would rather strip everything that makes a game, "a game " just to pander to casuals and increase the revenue. Honestly, its quite disappointing.

[AlienWired]

Everything in 2.....

Is included in Vicky 3. People just don't realize it.

They did the same thing with CK3. Everything in CK2 is already in CK3.

[Zebulon Ecthelion]

If you listen to a lot of the people praising Vic2, you'll probably be surprised at what a waiting simulator it is. You don't have much control over anything unless you have the right political parties elected, and getting those parties elected can be a cheese all unto itself since you have little control over that aside from a state-by-state nudge in the right direction. What's more, the economy constantly breaks at random. This can sometimes be fixed with sphereing, but if you're not a great power, you're screwed. Speaking of, the "uncivilized" nations are practically unplayable, and the few that are viable are even more of a waiting simulator than the regular nations while you're westernizing. Oh, and when it comes time to westernize, the game makes you choose between a tech debuff that makes the whole process basically take the entire game or a debuff that puts your whole nation at near max unrest until you finish. I guess you can go to war as an unciv, but that literally just involves throwing masses of irregular conscripts at the enemy because you don't have access to any units other than the irregular and I think a crappy cavalry unit iirc until you westernize.

You should keep in mind that a lot of the praise for Vic2 is coming from people who were playing a specific State Capitalist Military-Industrial-Complex build typically with a great power or a nation on the cusp of being a great power.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by AlienWired:

Everything in 2.....

Is included in Vicky 3. People just don't realize it.

I could mention a long list of things that would prove you wrong, but one example should be sufficient:
Where is westernization in Vic3?
Oh, wait, you don't need to westernize as every single nation starts as being civilized. Every single nation. Even the most backwater, freshly discovered, not being able to forge any metals nation.
Starting a game in Vic3 is like watching Oprah:
"YOU got civilized...and YOU got civilized...and YOU got civilized....EVERYONE got civilized!"

If you don't see any problems with that in a strategy game that calls itself historical and is set in a specific era of mankind...well, then I can see why you do the same comparison for CK3 and CK2.

[whatamidoing]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Originally posted by AlienWired:

Everything in 2.....

Is included in Vicky 3. People just don't realize it.

I could mention a long list of things that would prove you wrong, but one example should be sufficient:
Where is westernization in Vic3?
Oh, wait, you don't need to westernize as every single nation starts as being civilized. Every single nation. Even the most backwater, freshly discovered, not being able to forge any metals nation.
Starting a game in Vic3 is like watching Oprah:
"YOU got civilized...and YOU got civilized...and YOU got civilized....EVERYONE got civilized!"

If you don't see any problems with that in a strategy game that calls itself historical and is set in a specific era of mankind...well, then I can see why you do the same comparison for CK3 and CK2.

If you don't see the problems with the idea of "westernization" as some sort of tangible, set process, it's no wonder you don't like the extra depth of Vic3. Now, instead of "westernization" being a button you press once your "stolen land" mana meter is full and then everything magically works, you have to actually deal with the internal institutional problems themselves.

[Neutron]

Originally posted by whatamidoing:

Originally posted by SaD-82:

I could mention a long list of things that would prove you wrong, but one example should be sufficient:
Where is westernization in Vic3?
Oh, wait, you don't need to westernize as every single nation starts as being civilized. Every single nation. Even the most backwater, freshly discovered, not being able to forge any metals nation.
Starting a game in Vic3 is like watching Oprah:
"YOU got civilized...and YOU got civilized...and YOU got civilized....EVERYONE got civilized!"

If you don't see any problems with that in a strategy game that calls itself historical and is set in a specific era of mankind...well, then I can see why you do the same comparison for CK3 and CK2.

If you don't see the problems with the idea of "westernization" as some sort of tangible, set process, it's no wonder you don't like the extra depth of Vic3. Now, instead of "westernization" being a button you press once your "stolen land" mana meter is full and then everything magically works, you have to actually deal with the internal institutional problems themselves.

You could argue that the mechanic was a bit too gamey, but it still played a vital role in distinguishing different countries.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by whatamidoing:

you have to actually deal with the internal institutional problems themselves.

Which you had to do in Vic2, too - as soon as you became civilized.
So, where is your extra depth? Instead - this is cutting depth: The process of going from uncivilized to civilized. The process of representation of how things actual happened.
Now there is no real difference between starting somewhere in Africa or South-East-Asia or Europe or America. You basically will have the same game from the get-go.
That's lack of depth.
And basically lack of replayability.

[whatamidoing]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Originally posted by whatamidoing:

you have to actually deal with the internal institutional problems themselves.

Which you had to do in Vic2, too - as soon as you became civilized.
So, where is your extra depth? Instead - this is cutting depth: The process of going from uncivilized to civilized. The process of representation of how things actual happened.
Now there is no real difference between starting somewhere in Africa or South-East-Asia or Europe or America. You basically will have the same game from the get-go.
That's lack of depth.
And basically lack of replayability.

No you didn't. There were no internal institutional problems to slow anything down. There's far less difference between those places in Vic2, as well, with "westernization" being a static binary throughout the world. You are or you aren't.