Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
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
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?
They haven't even admitted it being a 0.6.1 beta.
Oh yes, that game which I shall never play, thanks for reminding me, darling.
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.
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.
Of course you like W&R:SR
Manor Lords is an alternative to Old World? In which way?
"Why the F are you in *MEXICO*?!"
The economics and politics are fun, but everything else still seems to be jank.
Is it 4X? I prefer Ostriv, it´s much better. And don´t worry, the will have customers still.