This game is awful

[Clemente]

I love the period, but I hate the war "mechanics". It's a shallow game, with the entertainment value of Cookie Clicker.

[AlienWired]

Originally posted by Herr Wolf:

Originally posted by AlienWired:

War is shallow.... It's not much more than point and conscript your soldiers, mobilize generals and designate the objective.

Everything is done automagically....

I saw they are working on it..... I am thinking they need to bring hearts of iron type military style here.

But, the game is not "awful". Far FAR from it.

The consensus seems to be that it IS awful so I don't know what you're talking about.

Imagine that??

Someone has a different opinion than you and doesn't base it upon "consensus".

67% of the people who have reviewed this game give it a POSITIVE review.

That leaves 33% that have given it a negative....

Some "Consensus" there you have buddy.

[Vyndicu]

Originally posted by AlienWired:

Imagine that??

Someone has a different opinion than you and doesn't base it upon "consensus".

67% of the people who have reviewed this game give it a POSITIVE review.

That leaves 33% that have given it a negative....

Some "Consensus" there you have buddy.

I can't entirely agree with what you said.

Whenever I post a Steam review for any video game, not just Victoria 3, there are only two choices: Positive or Negative.

There is nothing in-between, and even when I am happy with 7 out of 10 of the game. I am forced to post a negative review to highlight the issues with the game. Or post a positive review with a "buyer caveat" that the game could be better.

That 63% you cited is approximate and, in all likelihood, inaccurate, as there are plenty of positive reviewers whose reviews say that they are unhappy with warfare, just as often there are negative reviews that say the same thing.


There are also, on the other flipside, positive reviews with nothing in it to explain what they like about the game. Some joking/meme positive reviews don't help customers (the whole point of the review system).


Those entertaining or empty reviews inflate the aggregate number in the same sense that a massive wave of negative reviews can exist and inflate the aggregate number in the opposite direction.

This is why I usually take aggregate numbers with a grain of salt.

[whatamidoing]

Nah, it's pretty good.

[AlienWired]

Originally posted by Vyndicu:

Originally posted by AlienWired:

Imagine that??

Someone has a different opinion than you and doesn't base it upon "consensus".

67% of the people who have reviewed this game give it a POSITIVE review.

That leaves 33% that have given it a negative....

Some "Consensus" there you have buddy.

I can't entirely agree with what you said.

Whenever I post a Steam review for any video game, not just Victoria 3, there are only two choices: Positive or Negative.

There is nothing in-between, and even when I am happy with 7 out of 10 of the game. I am forced to post a negative review to highlight the issues with the game. Or post a positive review with a "buyer caveat" that the game could be better.

That 63% you cited is approximate and, in all likelihood, inaccurate, as there are plenty of positive reviewers whose reviews say that they are unhappy with warfare, just as often there are negative reviews that say the same thing.


There are also, on the other flipside, positive reviews with nothing in it to explain what they like about the game. Some joking/meme positive reviews don't help customers (the whole point of the review system).


Those entertaining or empty reviews inflate the aggregate number in the same sense that a massive wave of negative reviews can exist and inflate the aggregate number in the opposite direction.

This is why I usually take aggregate numbers with a grain of salt.

IT's ok, I am not here to be totally agreed with everything that I say, it's the neat thing about opinion..

Everyone has one and they are entitled to it, no matter how right or wrong they are.

But, think of this.... You are literally nitpicking over an estimated "63%"..... and trying to justify whatever it is you are trying to justify to yourself using the consensus of others...

Without thinking for yourself.

Have a nice day.

Will the last lemming that walks over the cliff, please turn out the lights before they take that last step????

K,Thanks.

PS - Maybe learn how to write reviews instead of being arbitrary. Just because there is an element of a game that isn't to your standards doesn't mean that the game over all is "bad" that warrants it to receive a bad review.


I've played really bad games, I've experienced many of them over my 46 of my 53 years... I've even played a couple of really bad games here on Steam...

Nothing about Vicky 3 warrants the hatred generated against it.

[whatamidoing]

You only need to look at the usernames/pfps of half these people to see why they're so opposed to the game. It's ideology. They don't like how Vic3 portrays history with a greater focus on the common people instead of the history of "great men" and military conflict.

[kgkong]

Originally posted by whatamidoing:

You only need to look at the usernames/pfps of half these people to see why they're so opposed to the game. It's ideology. They don't like how Vic3 portrays history with a greater focus on the common people instead of the history of "great men" and military conflict.

Then you also see all the people complaining that things are too ahistorical and then they also go and complain that certain aspects of the game are too historical. Which one is it? Too historical or too ahistorical? lol

[AlienWired]

Originally posted by KingGorillaKong:

Originally posted by whatamidoing:

You only need to look at the usernames/pfps of half these people to see why they're so opposed to the game. It's ideology. They don't like how Vic3 portrays history with a greater focus on the common people instead of the history of "great men" and military conflict.

Then you also see all the people complaining that things are too ahistorical and then they also go and complain that certain aspects of the game are too historical. Which one is it? Too historical or too ahistorical? lol

Totally agree with both of you.........

KingGorilla and I ran into someone like that just the other day.........

The neighbors of Paradox's home country couldn't be more envious of Sweden and their NATO upgrade and are doing everything they can to voice that dissatisfaction here on the internet through these forums and elsewhere.

So with the combination of those 3 elements of people ideologicals, ahistoricals and nationalists...

We get the troll-fest of every game released.....

[whatamidoing]

Originally posted by BOOM:

I'm thinking if you wanted to have a game that defined little boys as little girls and little girls as boys and doing genital mutilation and butchering the organs of those children.

You could have asked paraducks to make you a game that only you liked and we would have left you alone in your sanitized eutopian chimera in your brainwashed parallel world.

And left us our favorite game which was Victoria 2.

I believe the whole players and the community of Victoria 2 do not need your morals which turns humanity into bestial states.

And when it's not clear from their pfp or username, they just post crap like this lmao
Nobody's taken Vic2 from you, big guy.

[Chairman Scorpion]

Agreed. I genuinely cannot believe how bad this is lol.

At least Imperator had the excuse of trying something new.

[Vyndicu]

Originally posted by AlienWired:

Originally posted by Vyndicu:

I can't entirely agree with what you said.

Whenever I post a Steam review for any video game, not just Victoria 3, there are only two choices: Positive or Negative.

There is nothing in-between, and even when I am happy with 7 out of 10 of the game. I am forced to post a negative review to highlight the issues with the game. Or post a positive review with a "buyer caveat" that the game could be better.

That 63% you cited is approximate and, in all likelihood, inaccurate, as there are plenty of positive reviewers whose reviews say that they are unhappy with warfare, just as often there are negative reviews that say the same thing.


There are also, on the other flipside, positive reviews with nothing in it to explain what they like about the game. Some joking/meme positive reviews don't help customers (the whole point of the review system).


Those entertaining or empty reviews inflate the aggregate number in the same sense that a massive wave of negative reviews can exist and inflate the aggregate number in the opposite direction.

This is why I usually take aggregate numbers with a grain of salt.

IT's ok, I am not here to be totally agreed with everything that I say, it's the neat thing about opinion..

Everyone has one and they are entitled to it, no matter how right or wrong they are.

But, think of this.... You are literally nitpicking over an estimated "63%"..... and trying to justify whatever it is you are trying to justify to yourself using the consensus of others...

Without thinking for yourself.


PS - Maybe learn how to write reviews instead of being arbitrary. Just because there is an element of a game that isn't to your standards doesn't mean that the game over all is "bad" that warrants it to receive a bad review.


I've played really bad games, I've experienced many of them over my 46 of my 53 years... I've even played a couple of really bad games here on Steam...

Nothing about Vicky 3 warrants the hatred generated against it.

The way you phrased that "67% of the people who have reviewed this game give it a positive review." in your own words makes it sound less like an opinion and more like a fact.

Just because I posted a positive review doesn't mean I like "everything" about the game. This statement is true of anyone who posts reviews regardless of how you view or utilizes the aggregate score.


For instance, I love playing any video game, and I'm not too fond of one or two things that annoy me the bespoken in-game. I post a positive review with a few constructive criticisms on how to fix the issues that annoy me.

Imagine someone taking my positive review for that video game and treating the same video game as having no flaws that annoy anyone.

What are you talking about, having no thoughts for myself? What that has to do with my earlier post?



Can you provide examples of genuine hatred toward Victoria 3?

Aside from a tiny vocal minority, I have yet to see as much genuine hatred of Victoria 3 as you claim to do so. Yes, I know a few people like Spudgun whose opinions are ruining any meaningful debate we could have. I am not that guy or part of that vocal community.

It feels like you are mistaking my opinions as someone else who hates Victoria 3, and I am anything but a hater. With more time, I see a better history economic simulator video game of the Victorian Age.


I have been posting here in the Victoria 3 Steam forum for a long time. I have seen people who treat a slight "dislike" from others as pure vitriol regardless of how people posted their opinions as constructive criticism, which those posters intended for Paradox Interactive Staff to read and to make the Victoria 3 video game better for everyone.


Uncomplicated constructive criticism examples exist, such as the following but are not limited to: 'warfare is boring or uninteresting,' 'internal politics mechanic is lacking,' and 'economic simulator feels like a chore.' Imagine treating constructive criticism as something that Paradox Interactive Staff should not take sincerely at face value and, in all likelihood, will preclude any meaningful conversations in the Paradox Community about what makes a particular video game not fun and how to change it to be better.



TD: LR; An aggregate number of opinions is still a subjective measurement.

Yes, a vocal minority exists on both sides that seek to disrupt any meaningful dialogues about improving Victoria 3: I am not one of those people.

[olstar18]

Originally posted by -=COMMUNIST=-:

Originally posted by Vyndicu:

The way you phrased that "67% of the people who have reviewed this game give it a positive review." in your own words makes it sound less like an opinion and more like a fact.

Just because I posted a positive review doesn't mean I like "everything" about the game. This statement is true of anyone who posts reviews regardless of how you view or utilizes the aggregate score.

you’re abstracting into the absolute to advance your base goal: attacking vic3 for whatever reasons and with whatever goals (they do seem vile and in a bad faith though, given the fact that you even publicly admitted working for another game developer)

positive review means, if speaking in mathematical terms: likelihood >50%, otherwise negative. if your personal evaluation of the game’s aspects translates into just 51% positivity or if you literally like every single aspect of the game, so 100%, is completely irrelevant since it’s above the threshold of 50%

if you’re my friend and are acting like a ♥♥♥♥, i will tell you that you’re a ♥♥♥♥, but it won’t change the fact that i still do like you. but if you’re acting like a ♥♥♥♥ without being my friend, then you sure as hell can expect me to dislike you

TD: LR; An aggregate number of opinions is still a subjective measurement.

inter-subjectivity is the nature of living-beings. but that’s not the point of your argument anyway, isn’t it?

Yes, a vocal minority exists on both sides that seek to disrupt any meaningful dialogues about improving Victoria 3: I am not one of those people.

mate, you ARE that vocal minority. the one on the negative side. deal with it

There is no point arguing with him. You could point out that the argument abut the 67% positive reviews was in response to a claim that the consensus was the game was awful and he will ignore it. Just look at the response I got when I asked him to rewrite his argument about how bad the dlc are when I pointed out the companies history of supporting games long term and making massive changes to them.

[Herr Wolf]

Originally posted by whatamidoing:

Nah, it's pretty good.

Dude, I'm on here once in a blue moon, maybe every 6 months. You are in literally every thread I ever look at. Do you even play this game or do you just spend all your time defending this game on the Steam forums like your life depends on it?

[whatamidoing]

Originally posted by Herr Wolf:

Originally posted by whatamidoing:

Nah, it's pretty good.

Dude, I'm on here once in a blue moon, maybe every 6 months. You are in literally every thread I ever look at. Do you even play this game or do you just spend all your time defending this game on the Steam forums like your life depends on it?

This is my first post here in months. What are you talking about?

[Herr Wolf]

Originally posted by whatamidoing:

Originally posted by Herr Wolf:

Dude, I'm on here once in a blue moon, maybe every 6 months. You are in literally every thread I ever look at. Do you even play this game or do you just spend all your time defending this game on the Steam forums like your life depends on it?

This is my first post here in months. What are you talking about?

I do not believe you

[Vyndicu]

Originally posted by Herr Wolf:

Dude, I'm on here once in a blue moon, maybe every 6 months. You are in literally every thread I ever look at. Do you even play this game or do you just spend all your time defending this game on the Steam forums like your life depends on it?

I also recognize that user's name from various Victoria 3 2022 threads.

I do recall conversations between you and that person in the past.