63% review: a very bad sign for Victoria 3. Here's why.

[Mad_House]

Ok being for real here.

You have to ask yourself if you want to see this game still being worked on 3 years into the future, because chewing people out isn't going to fix the following issues here.

#1. It'll put the break on sales.

People actually do look at the rating. It is confirmation of a binary choice; "yes" or "no." That percentile and Steam telling them "Mixed Rating" makes the "yes" or "no" unless they're already dead-set on buying it.

_

#2. It damages credibility of the company.

Paradox Interactive has made some flops in a short span of time, recently:

- Imperator: Rome.

- Leviathan (EU IV).

- By Blood Alone (HOI IV).

- Royal Court (CK3).

- Overlord (Stellaris).

All across the board, the user feedback indicates that they've lost their touch.

That means people like me, who would otherwise buy everything they've got without hesitation, suddenly stop themselves, and start thinking it might just not be worth it.

_

#3. Long-time fans upset, upsets long-time fans.

This game is "great for people new to paradox," as some of the 'positive' reviews indicate. Other 'positive' reviews blast anyone that thinks Paradox should've tried to be closer to the original game, or anyone that thinks the far different formula tried in Victoria 3 was a bad idea.

Old folks that've been with Paradox get it: We're not wanted.

So we're more likely to voice our concerns. That seems to agrivate some people around here.

引用自 【Ｎｉｃｅ　Ｈｉｓｓ】：

I'm so happy that Paradox is slowly exorcising their toxic old fanbase.

Yet we've got money, and we spend that on the games, which keeps the industry profitable. Does harassing, intimidating, and insulting old fans of previous games really help us feel welcome? Not really.

_

#4. Because it has failed right out of the gate, there is a present risk of no long term support and abandonment for this title. There was no funeral, no honors, just a silent burial for Imperator: Rome as it entered "Legacy" status.

The last time Paradox Interactive had to fix a complete mess of a game, they ultimately were so ticked off that they ended up shelving it and turning it into a "legacy" game and fired the lead developer. Did you know it was a Legacy now, or is this new in your book? That's how little they cared to announce it.

Proof is in the pudding: https://strategycon.org/imperator-rome-goes-into-legacy/

_

All of the above factors are something that you should seriously keep in mind if you're an owner of this game and want to keep seeing it updated into the future.

You need to ride Paradox Interactive, hard, to make sure they don't abandon this game like they did Imperator: Rome.

That's a fact. Whether or not you like the game has absolutely no relevancy here. I had one simple reason for refunding this game (which I have NEVER DONE previously for a Paradox title): I do not believe in them to continue development.

It is that simple. Yes, I did not care for the behavior of most of you who continuously defend this game, but I can understand why - you don't want this game in Paradox Interactive's dustbin. You have power as a consumer, you have an online lobbying platform here, and you have plenty of ways to communicate with each other to turn your energy into something USEFUL.

Maybe you'll see the point in these words, maybe you won't, but the bottom line is that only you have the power to tell this corporation to get their ♥♥♥♥ together, and stop slamming low quality content down on the table and selling it. Make Paradox reverse course back to when they were great, or you won't have a product to defend.

[jubal77]

Game is a good base. Review bombing people will disappear. That base that likes the game and actually played Vic2 will keep enjoying the game and its resulting few patches it will be at least gauranteed. Imperator got a couple years worth before they shut it down. This game will get much better.

[ShamusOReilly]

引用自 Kimlin：

引用自 jnpoint：

No matter what the game sold well, so I expect them to do a lot of patching over the next years.

Updates and DLC certainly.

Theres already a list of known issues that are confirmed to be being worked on, from immortal monarchs to bypassing the US Civil War laughably easily

[jubal77]

引用自 ShamusOReilly：

引用自 Kimlin：

Updates and DLC certainly.

Theres already a list of known issues that are confirmed to be being worked on, from immortal monarchs to bypassing the US Civil War laughably easily

Yes they have been very responsive and put out a very worthwhile and agreeable post release plan. I wager no one, outside one or two here, has even seen it lol.

[RANNY ME BOB BOY]

eh got my 50 hours out of it, time to go back to all the other games that had enough content to warrant playing beyond that.

[jubal77]

引用自 LangWangArty：

引用自 Mad_House：

All across the board, the user feedback indicates that they've lost their touch.

been like that for a long long time. look at hoi4 at release compared to hoi3. hell, look at hoi4 now compared to hoi3.
hoi4 is basically unplayable without mods like Kaiserreich.

Victoria 2 was such a refined game that it only had 1 DLC, and the game is still playable without it. Every game since EU4 (and as you mentioned, they're still pushing useless DLC) has been an underdeveloped cash grab. This will probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back for paradox. (as you mentioned) their future games will flop.

Victoria 2 had 2 dude. It also had 3 significant post release patches for vanilla to make it "more playable".

[RANNY ME BOB BOY]

引用自 jubal77：

引用自 LangWangArty：

been like that for a long long time. look at hoi4 at release compared to hoi3. hell, look at hoi4 now compared to hoi3.
hoi4 is basically unplayable without mods like Kaiserreich.

Victoria 2 was such a refined game that it only had 1 DLC, and the game is still playable without it. Every game since EU4 (and as you mentioned, they're still pushing useless DLC) has been an underdeveloped cash grab. This will probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back for paradox. (as you mentioned) their future games will flop.

Victoria 2 had 2 dude. It also had 3 significant post release patches for vanilla to make it "more playable".

TBF it also never had a decreasing player base, its only been increasing since its release and that increase only stopped when *drumroll* victoria 3 released. And hey i mean most companies can only dream of their product increasing in popularity over a 10 year period. Yes it had problems at release but at the end of the day it was still a fun game, thats where it differed from Imperator and as some might point out HOI IV or Victoria 3

[Fatbill]

And, the bans and thread locking has fired up too...

[Mango]

Personally, I agree with almost everything hoi4 and vic2 are my favorite paradox games, and you're right paradox doesn't want its old fans anymore. It doesn't want the community that enjoyed the indepth and complicated games. it wants the new gamers the ones that are willing to spill money for less expensive products. Long are the days of a properly done complicated grand strategy now we get stuff like this. They want us gone for the big bucks they want to become one of those major companies which good for them I guess. But I'm still going to play victoria 2 everyday for its amazing systems that will never bee done again long gone are great changeling ideas lost in a see of mediocrity.

I guess if you really want your old fans good bye I guess? but will we ever see a studio willing to give us a complicated game no matter how little they'll make.

[osskssa17]

引用自 TheDongsmasher：

引用自 osskssa17：

who cares about china? they like retarded stuff

Clearly you're insecure about how much retarded stuff you like, since you've hidden your games list from your profile.

It's all dota and anime no doubt.

No i hate dota liked the pic, its mostly strategy stuff didnt realise i could hide my games

[Mr. Wiggles]

62%

[naughtymoi]

引用自 Blackflame Ignazio：

62%

yep

[Antsan]

With regards to people claiming that is somehow dumbed down in comparison to Vic2, or that it's less historically accurate, here's a military historian singing the game's praises: https://acoup.blog/2022/10/24/miscellanea-victoria-iii-confirmed-first-impressions/
Yeah, the game has some problems that lead to historical inaccuracies, with the Civil War not happening and so on, but the point is that the systems underlying the game are, according to Bret Devereaux, better suited to actually simulate the time period as it was. The problem is not the systems, the problem is the content that gets run through those systems.

Content is relatively easy to fix in comparison to systems.

[Thodas]

By about 15 years in I could see it was rinse and repeat for rest of the game. Still mildly interesting until the crashes started and now they are effectively non-stop. My early game hope was the game would be far more robust after a few DLCs. But now I'm so aggravated with what we have now that I don't anticipate being willing to pay for DLCs just to create a more robust game experience.
This is an economic sim basically. The issue is it's a gaming community that seems to want war as a major component to the game. As an economic sim it breaks down later when all you really effectively need to do is continue to build and sit back and watch.

[Fatbill]

引用自 Antsan：

With regards to people claiming that is somehow dumbed down in comparison to Vic2, or that it's less historically accurate, here's a military historian singing the game's praises: https://acoup.blog/2022/10/24/miscellanea-victoria-iii-confirmed-first-impressions/
Yeah, the game has some problems that lead to historical inaccuracies, with the Civil War not happening and so on, but the point is that the systems underlying the game are, according to Bret Devereaux, better suited to actually simulate the time period as it was. The problem is not the systems, the problem is the content that gets run through those systems.

Content is relatively easy to fix in comparison to systems.

The guy even admitted he was a paid shill for PDX, so his opinion is worth what exactly?
And who cares about a military historian, when the war system is broken beyond function, and Vic3 "is not a war game" anyway?

[RANNY ME BOB BOY]

引用自 Fatbill：

引用自 Antsan：

With regards to people claiming that is somehow dumbed down in comparison to Vic2, or that it's less historically accurate, here's a military historian singing the game's praises: https://acoup.blog/2022/10/24/miscellanea-victoria-iii-confirmed-first-impressions/
Yeah, the game has some problems that lead to historical inaccuracies, with the Civil War not happening and so on, but the point is that the systems underlying the game are, according to Bret Devereaux, better suited to actually simulate the time period as it was. The problem is not the systems, the problem is the content that gets run through those systems.

Content is relatively easy to fix in comparison to systems.

The guy even admitted he was a paid shill for PDX, so his opinion is worth what exactly?
And who cares about a military historian, when the war system is broken beyond function, and Vic3 "is not a war game" anyway?

As a war historian if anything he should be disappointed since front-lines can only have 1 battle at a time in Victoria 3.