The problem of modern paradox design philosophy - a short essay

[Vuyek]

This is written by Naselus, a fellow member of Explorminate, perhaps the best group on Steam. I will quote this in full, because I believe that what he wrote here about paradox philosophy of design - the modern paradox - is spot on. I have asked and received permission to post this here from him. To wit:



"The problem is that of all the Paradox IPs, Victoria was always the most obtuse. At a time when Paradox games were considered to be the most extreme end of the complexity scale, Victoria was considered by far the most complex Paradox title. It took 20 hours to learn to play HOI or EU2 or CK1 reasonably competently, but Victoria took comfortably twice that.

And this was fundamental to the gameplay in Vicky. You were never in direct control. If you researched a tech, you didn't get any direct benefit from it - you just unlocked the ability of your population to make breakthroughs themselves, which might be locked off due to other requirements. You didn't control the economy directly, either; you created the conditions for your population to build it rather than doing so yourself. Your political choices were constrained by the whims of your population.

The result was incredibly abstract gameplay based on subtly influencing a simulation rather than commanding it. But this lateral thought-based gameplay is anathema to the 'accessibility first' approach of modern Paradox games. Paradox want people to understand their new games in the space of an hour or two, but most people are not naturally good at lateral thinking and it takes many hours to learn the connections lurking in the depths of the system. That's not something that will appeal to the hundreds of thousands of players that Paradox now needs it's products to sell to.

Victoria was the product of a small band of devs who could produce games cheaply and were able to break even at 60k copies sold, so they could cater to a tiny, super-niche market of obsessive weirdo history buffs who would play a single game every day for 5 years. Modern Paradox is not that company, and the modern Paradox audience is not that market; they've basically surrendered that portion of their fanbase to Matrix."

[Ashling]

I think insinuating modern Paradox fans aren't also interested in history is somewhat prejudicial. They are, they just like different games.

[ManBearPig]

Originally posted by spasti696969:

Originally posted by ManBearPig:

Imperator Rome was released in April 2019 and was met with many of the same criticisms. I know because I was there making many of the same arguments as I am now.
HOI 4 also had the same if I remember correctly.
Stellaris?
CK3?

I appreciate what your trying to say and maybe that did have an impact but this is an issue thats been going on for far longer than Covid.

Yea that's the thing, CK released in September 2020 which was about 6 months after the mandates and lockdowns started. So that would have had some effect on the end stage development but nowhere near as long as Victoria 3. Wasteland 3 also came out in the Fall / Winter of 2020 and felt unfinished, and of course we all know about Cyberpunk.

Don't even get me started on Cyberpunk....but I will cause you mentioned it That in my view was down to massive over promising and massive under delivering rather than Covid, but im happy to be proven wrong on that.

I thought CK3 was prior to covid so fair enough, though 6 months you'd expect the game to be pretty much done by then and just needing polish and testing etc. Which I felt the game was fine at launch to be honest though lacking in a lot of stuff that CK2 had.

I really don't think Covid had as much of an impact on this game as some might think but thats just my view.

Originally posted by Triangle:

I think insinuating modern Paradox fans aren't also interested in history is somewhat prejudicial. They are, they just like different games.

Maybe I missed it but I don't think anyone has said that? I certainly didn't anyway.

[naughtymoi]

Originally posted by Triangle:

I think insinuating modern Paradox fans aren't also interested in history is somewhat prejudicial. They are, they just like different games.

Interested? As in learning from V3? You know they have no clue of history (most of them) whatsoever?

[Fatbill]

Originally posted by Qoojo:

Originally posted by Fatbill:

Stellaris wasn't bad AT RELEASE. They totally gutted it when they patched 1.9 two years later, and turned it into console fodder. And lobotomized the AI.

They have changed their focus from making good PC strategy games, to shoveling out stuff that can be played on consoles and PC, even if they need to dumb the games down to do so.

Which is the whole point.

Plus PDX can't seem to make a decent AI anymore, either.

Still mad about the change that removed the different travel types.

But that isn't the only thing about it, is it?
Yes, that changed a core game play element.
But the patch/revamp itself changed the game so much, that the AI couldn't handle the changes, the DLCs (that people paid for) did not work or matter to the game play, and simplified or removed a good number of systems that worked fine (like selectable sector management).
And that is even beyond that PDX changed the game people bought from one thing, to a different thing, AFTER they bought it. And if existing customers weren't happy, "Well, screw them, we have their money already..."

All so they could flog more copies on consoles.

That is the new PDX.

[Hugh de Salle]

When Wester came back as CEO he cancelled all the projects not related to Paradox Business model of making paint the world simulators and flogging game mechanics to make the game play better in a few years.

Paradox are stale and bland we have seen this in the last few years they peaked at Stellaris back in 2016 and like CA have been declining ever since.

However its important to mention while both CA and Paradox are stale from a creative point of view but it seems Gamer's have become more Naive and Gullible as their profits have been rising every year with poorer standard of games being released.

[欣怡 (Nathalie)]

Originally posted by ManBearPig:

Originally posted by 欣怡 (Nathalie):

I mean, you can play matrix games and Paradox. I do. Why limit yourself? Plus this game is equally as complex as like half of matrix's catalogue. Hey this game is more complex than the last Ageod game, and about the same level of complexity as Vic 2. People only think Vic 2 was more 'complex' because it was obtuse and hard to understand. If you did understand the economy in it, it was broken, and heavily abstracted in many parts. Warfare was wack a mole, and westernisation was boring af.

The result of Vic 2's approach was waiting around for years of in game time, upwards of 50 with non majors, before you could even do anything. This one however has an engaging economic system that means I actually do stuff! I'm really not sure many people are remembering Vic 2 correctly at all. And most who are are thinking of it through mods like HPM. Vanilla vic 2 had the most weird and random a historical things happen, like Russia owning loads of Africa, and the whole scramble being a-historical.

You make a fair point about Vic 2 HPM, when I think of Vic 2 I think of HPM or other mods that significantly improved the game. This isn't really a defence for Paradox though is it since they could have learned from what those mods did and applied the lessons learned into Vic 3.

You might have a point about the complexity of Vic 2 being related to its arcane systems as well but I still maintain that Vic 3 is not as complex as it should be. The warfare was rubbish and westernisation was boring but thats not an argument against including it in a game thats set in a time when westernisation was going on, its an argument for including it in a more engaging way, again there is the lack of ambition on Paradox's part. The new warfare system also leaves a heck of a lot to be desired.

It feels like to me that most people defending this game are basically saying, yes its not perfect and neither was Vic 2, but this game is better than Vic 2 because it replaced bad mechanics with new mechanics that are also bad but they're new so its better. Maybe both of these games are bad in the own right for different reasons? Or maybe I've had too many vodka cokes at this point..

No, I'm loving it. Gamers in their entitlement make the mistake of often assuming that if they dislike or don't understand certain mechanics those mechanics are bad, instead of that simply being their opinion. I mean if you don't like the game why hang around the forums?? And there is 'westernisation' the idea it was removed is just people not playing the game, or like not really understanding what 'westernisation' was. As Iran in Vic 2 I watched a bar progress for 50 years. As Iran in Vic3 I industrialised by personally controlling the build up of my industry, subtlety influencing the politics by limiting the wealth of the elite to be able to pass political reforms, built up bureaucracy and universities, and had to source military equipment whilst modernising the army. Its like literally a more engaging game. The idea it isn't is mind boggling to me.

The idea that its 'easy' is also a failure to understand what the games goal is. The goal isn't always to get max gdp. Like most paradox games 'winning' is easy af. The goal is whatever you want it to be, and in that way it excels. Currently playing as the US and not only does it have as many decisions and flavour as Vic2 (and much less repeated events than vic 2) but it also feels very very different from playing Iran.

Bugs asside, the war system whilst it could do with some development, is also actually rather complex. Again its an issue of people not really understanding the game.

Ultimately though complaints are so bizzare given the game is LITERALLY what was advertised. All of this, all the mechanics were mentioned in dev diaries, and even many of the bugs were seen in streams prior to release.

Most of the complaints on this forum show ignorance to mechanics, a desire for the game to be something it nor vic 2 ever was, or are just racists and bigots upset that women and black people existed in the 19th century. Thats pretty much all I've seen. Like if you don't like the game fine. Leave a negative review and move on. But the reality is despite all the entitled whinning, many people are playing and enjoying the game despite the bugs and issues...that says something.

[Flameraiser]

The biggest change in Paradox games in the last 10+ years that now I can actually touch their games on launch rather than AT BEST 1 week to 1 month from release of game / DLC.

I consider this a vast improvement.

[ManBearPig]

Well we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on a number of your points, I don't really feel like going over all these points once again when they've already been debated a 100 times already on this forum. Plus your bordering on personal insults after what I felt was a mostly reasonable conversation so I'll move on before the mood sours even further.

For the record I don't hate this game, there are parts I like and parts I dislike. I'm here on this forum having these discussions and pointing out what I see as faults because I paid for the game and want to get my monies worth out of it. If your largely happy with the product as is thats fine, I'm in the opposite camp and that should be fine to.