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
You are so unbelievably correct. I am disappointed to have bought this game. It takes a solid person to spot this stuff. O'Brien will be on your back buddy (1984). Vic 3 is the last game I will buy from paradox for a fair few reasons. The optimisation sucks and it is clearly a platform for DLC and the propaganda...
Being a sandbox don't make the game free of ideology. because of rigged mechanics involved.
and yet if you try and actually play such an economy in Victoria 3, it falls apart, because Slavery hasn't been represented to "Allow" such a state of existence, due to how markets, annual wages, and pop needs work, along with radicals and that.
That's not the devs beating people over the head with ideology?
"Everything works as long as it's leftist utopia"?
True enough, I meant more that things in single player aren't so one sided (thanks to AI being AI) that a player not playing optimally on purpose isn't a gamebreaker. There are definite advantages to liberalizing and such.
Also on slavery, I was under the impression that the slave trade is passive in the background, not something you directly interact with, by design. At least the Dev Diaries state that slaves are acquired by slave trade states from debt slavery and other slave trade states within areas of interest, or something to that effect iirc
As other people have said, there's an unrealistic amount of pressure from your pops to liberalize in some cases, but that's it.
I ended segregation in the 1850s instead of the 1950s because was popular.
well that definition changes based on who answers you and what agenda they wish to push.. I suppose the most neutral and basic, bare bare explanation is...
""woke" is defined as the idea that equality is sustainable, good for everything and everyone at all times, without exception, ever."
woke is believing a woman should be guarding the white house.
Woke means bad.