Was it always this bad?

[Paddy]

Alright guys it's been over a year since I played Victoria 3. To be honest after coming back I have to say I'm impressed with many aspects of the game and enjoy it much more now however there are other aspects such as Colonization that is broken. I never played Victoria 1 or 2 so just wanted to add were things always this bad with the older games this long after release? Where many things are unfinished and still broken? I'm also a fan of the Cities Skylines franchise aswell and just seen the complete demise of that franchise in recent months. It just appears to be never-ending. I love these games by the way and want them to thrive but it's just bad decision after the next.

My issue is that fixes happen so slowly and over a great amount of time. Was it always like this with older titles and we just perceive it to be getting worse or are we looking at the downfall of a string of franchises?

[BitterKlinger]

Publicly traded software game companies do not like the people they sell games too.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

City Skylines 2 doesn't look like a dead game, just IMO there.*

But Vic 3 flopped and flopped hard because they clearly didn't test out a lot of key pieces very well.

The war system was always going to be complained about by people who didn't like the change, but even people open to an abstracted war system (like myself) were put off by how clunky it was. It's better now, but still too random and can still glitch out.

Economy even, the core of the game, is poor. No stockpiles, so you can't strategically trade with someone and save stuff up prior to knowing you'll have to fight them.

IGs originally could all be stacked into the same government with no problem. Internal politics are threadbare and even with changing it so you can't cram every IG into your government, it's still a poorly designed system.

Colonizing and the way expansion works is indeed problematic still.

And like you said, a lot of players gave up. I have been waiting for optimization fixes and overall performance boosts for ages... and the game still, even now, just chugs past 1890-ish, which is nearly half the available time of the game.

They need to really consolidate resources and pick a game or two to do right by. Trying to keep Stellaris, EU-IV, CK3, Vic 3, and HoI4 all going at the same time is too much. There absolutely has to be prioritization going on at this point... and I think there already is, which is why CK3 and HoI4 get decent-ish DLC while Vic 3, newer than both, is languishing.


* EDIT:

I just checked City Skylines 2, and yeah, actually, it isn't doing very well. Worse than Vic 3 player #'s. So I stand corrected, and I apologize, as in reality City Skylines 2 is very much like Vic 3, down to the performance issues and over-hyping.

I forgot that I never picked up City Skylines 2... what I played was City Skylines 1, so my fault. The sequel is indeed in a bad place right now as far as user reviews and player #'s.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

City Skylines 2 doesn't look like a dead game, just IMO there.*

But Vic 3 flopped and flopped hard because they clearly didn't test out a lot of key pieces very well.

The war system was always going to be complained about by people who didn't like the change, but even people open to an abstracted war system (like myself) were put off by how clunky it was. It's better now, but still too random and can still glitch out.

Economy even, the core of the game, is poor. No stockpiles, so you can't strategically trade with someone and save stuff up prior to knowing you'll have to fight them.

IGs originally could all be stacked into the same government with no problem. Internal politics are threadbare and even with changing it so you can't cram every IG into your government, it's still a poorly designed system.

Colonizing and the way expansion works is indeed problematic still.

And like you said, a lot of players gave up. I have been waiting for optimization fixes and overall performance boosts for ages... and the game still, even now, just chugs past 1890-ish, which is nearly half the available time of the game.

They need to really consolidate resources and pick a game or two to do right by. Trying to keep Stellaris, EU-IV, CK3, Vic 3, and HoI4 all going at the same time is too much. There absolutely has to be prioritization going on at this point... and I think there already is, which is why CK3 and HoI4 get decent-ish DLC while Vic 3, newer than both, is languishing.


* EDIT:

I just checked City Skylines 2, and yeah, actually, it isn't doing very well. Worse than Vic 3 player #'s. So I stand corrected, and I apologize, as in reality City Skylines 2 is very much like Vic 3, down to the performance issues and over-hyping.

I forgot that I never picked up City Skylines 2... what I played was City Skylines 1, so my fault. The sequel is indeed in a bad place right now as far as user reviews and player #'s.

Yea I'm not sure what this developer is doing. Are they communicating with their fanbase? The developers of CS2 essentially alienated their community when they called us Toxic for complaining. It's a Complete mess. I honestly think the Victoria franchise is dead after this and perhaps most of Paradox games. They might as you said have to streamline to one or two titles and even then they will just milk each game for 10-15 years like what EA does. Bring on Gilded Destiny which might be the new franchise that will carry Victoria onward. We have been here before when developers get big. They lose sight of what made them big and then some smaller developer moves in to take over

[6ap6apblckaAa]

They called people toxic on CS2? Ahaha, nice.
I think, the only reason it is still afloat is lack of competition. As soon as a good comparable game comes out like Gilded destiny, playerbase will drop.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by 6ap6apblckaAa:

They called people toxic on CS2? Ahaha, nice.
I think, the only reason it is still afloat is lack of competition. As soon as a good comparable game comes out like Gilded destiny, playerbase will drop.

Yea I see there is a Kickstarter for Gilded Destiny out now at its nearly made its target with almost a month to go so when it finally is released and if the features offered works as advertised Victoria 3 will be gone. I actually don't mind a DLC system if it's cost relates to the content we are getting but Paradox in recent years have become so arrogant ignoring their community and in doing so will no doubt continue to decline because of it. So many of their recent games have been flops. As for CS2. Maybe modders can fix it but it won't fix the reputation lost between the developer and community. Competition will come as it naturally does and will remove them.

I also find it ironic that Paradox are about to release a civilization style game venturing into newer territory. Perhaps it's their way of giving up with games like Victoria that require a significant layer of complexity that isn't worth their time and effort.

Anyway has the developer of Victoria 3 mentioned anything to the community about the current shape of the game?

[Alex]

Originally posted by Paddy:

Anyway has the developer of Victoria 3 mentioned anything to the community about the current shape of the game?

No, only happy little steps to improve the game.

They haven't even admitted it being a 0.6.1 beta.

[Frakt0s]

Originally posted by FailedNormiee:

Publicly traded software game companies do not like the people they sell games to.

You can know this by whether they force DEI garbage into their games or not.

[VelesWorshipper]

Originally posted by based and truly redpilled:

Victoria 3 is an embarrassment. Shallow, boring, without even an ounce of flavour.

Yes, yes, yes. Please, tell us about your hidden gem, I forgot the name.

[VelesWorshipper]

Originally posted by based and truly redpilled:

Originally posted by VelesWorshipper:

Yes, yes, yes. Please, tell us about your hidden gem, I forgot the name.

It’s Terra Invicta.

Oh yes, that game which I shall never play, thanks for reminding me, darling.

[AKUA]

Originally posted by Paddy:

Originally posted by 6ap6apblckaAa:

They called people toxic on CS2? Ahaha, nice.
I think, the only reason it is still afloat is lack of competition. As soon as a good comparable game comes out like Gilded destiny, playerbase will drop.

Yea I see there is a Kickstarter for Gilded Destiny out now at its nearly made its target with almost a month to go so when it finally is released and if the features offered works as advertised Victoria 3 will be gone. I actually don't mind a DLC system if it's cost relates to the content we are getting but Paradox in recent years have become so arrogant ignoring their community and in doing so will no doubt continue to decline because of it. So many of their recent games have been flops. As for CS2. Maybe modders can fix it but it won't fix the reputation lost between the developer and community. Competition will come as it naturally does and will remove them.

I also find it ironic that Paradox are about to release a civilization style game venturing into newer territory. Perhaps it's their way of giving up with games like Victoria that require a significant layer of complexity that isn't worth their time and effort.

Anyway has the developer of Victoria 3 mentioned anything to the community about the current shape of the game?

I don't know why you (and other people) think Victoria franchise is dying. Actually it is performing well financially. You can see their recent quarter report. Although there is a big loss due to cancellation of their sims competitor, the sale of DLC does rip revenue. You also check recent diaries (when 1.7 release) that DLC was a success. This game just won't go away soon (they have planned like 1.8, 1.9).

To be honest, it is not Paradox abandoning community (although sometimes they are arrogent). They are trying to expanding the audience at the price of abandoning "old folks" and make the game less hardcore, or more mobile-gamy; this is why many complain this is a cookie clicker. This is unfornately a trend in Strategy game as a whole. I don't know if this is a good market strategy.

I don't believe the success of Gilded Destiny means the demise of Victoria 3 (it is just a false dichotomy, sound like to me success of Battlefields means demise of COD), but Gilded Destiny may be a gauge if "old folks" still matter.

[Gedsaro]

Originally posted by 6ap6apblckaAa:

They called people toxic on CS2? Ahaha, nice.
I think, the only reason it is still afloat is lack of competition. As soon as a good comparable game comes out like Gilded destiny, playerbase will drop.

Lack of competition is definitely the niche where Paradox thrives lol.
They always had pretty janky and buggy games, but they had charm, they always pretty much got better though with time.
But lately... I'm still around because while they aren't doing as well as they used to, there still isn't anyone else who has managed to do a half decent job making the same kind of games with the same kind of scope and feel. (There are a few Hooded Horse games that look promising... but until they actually come out of EA (or out at all) I try to pretend they don't exist so I won't be as disappointed if they never do come out(or do, but shouldn't have (looking at you Real Politik 2), which seems to happen to most games that try to do something similar to Paradox.

[VelesWorshipper]

Originally posted by based and truly redpilled:

Originally posted by Gedsaro:

(There are a few Hooded Horse games that look promising... but until they actually come out of EA (or out at all)

Terra Invicta is already very much deeper and more complex than Stellaris with all of its DLCs. And it’s super fun.

Old World is a better CK2 (and by this means a 200% better CK3) that just got an interesting alternative: Manor Lords.

And Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic is a better C:S (and thus 200% better C:S 2).

Of course you like W&R:SR
Manor Lords is an alternative to Old World? In which way?

[Thomas]

I just had a war with France, my army was holding the French tide, and then it disappeared. For some reason, it decided to teleport to Mexico...
"Why the F are you in *MEXICO*?!"

The economics and politics are fun, but everything else still seems to be jank.

[VelesWorshipper]

Originally posted by based and truly redpilled:

Originally posted by VelesWorshipper:

Of course you like W&R:SR
Manor Lords is an alternative to Old World? In which way?

Well, it’s more of a city builder than a nation builder, and it’s 4X. That’s what’s holding me back as I prefer managing already existing nations or at least having a hybrid between GSG and 4X. It’s an indie though, so supporting it will enable development of other similar games and will pressure PDX to stop serving their customers slop, provided they will still have any customers by then.

Is it 4X? I prefer Ostriv, it´s much better. And don´t worry, the will have customers still.

[Lumpus]

Ostriv is fun... but even buggier than V3 (lol). Solo dev living in Ukraine... so we cut him a lot of slack - the game continues to improve. If you like good Banished clones try Patron also.