|
Viral Warfare posted:How playable is it, is it one of those games that tries really hard to be realistic and simulationist and just winds up being absurd/buggy/broken? Price tag looks really high Honestly, it is all of those things (most obviously, it's overpriced) but also it is fun and playable, I think. I wasn't telling people to buy it, just using the internal politics thing as an example of what I like in strategy games. Has a lot in common with vicky 2, though; hell, it's even got newspapers. Though if it does go down in price sometime I think it's worth picking up corn in the bible fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Jun 3, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
I agree with the sentiment that Vicky2 and CK2 make you feel like a part of the narrative where you actually care. EU4 feels like an exercise in anonymous blobbing and Stellaris is more of the same. In fact Stellaris takes it to a whole new level. I don't think I could care any less about my empire or my randomly generated adversaries. Beeline for techs, blob, endgame, restart, ad nauseum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Victoria's a bit of an ancient mess with horrible mechanics now though. Could use a revamp rather badly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Victoria 3's focus absolutely can't stray from economics though. There's a reason wars suck to fight in V2 and why they're bloody as hell and have a huge impact on a country's economy: because that's how the 19th century worked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Drone posted:Victoria 3's focus absolutely can't stray from economics though. There's a reason wars suck to fight in V2 and why they're bloody as hell and have a huge impact on a country's economy: because that's how the 19th century worked. Victoria without the economics would basically just be EU set in the 1800s. The economics and internal politics are the defining features of the series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
Viral Warfare posted:How playable is it, is it one of those games that tries really hard to be realistic and simulationist and just winds up being absurd/buggy/broken? Price tag looks really high If I recall correctly I played one of the earlier games in the "series" and I spent most of my time as Obama trying to seduce the wives of every national leader I could find. It's a pretty terrible game tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Victoria without the economics would basically just be EU set in the 1800s. The economics and internal politics are the defining features of the series. Yeah, pretty much this. It was a defining period in European history that spawned movements that shaped and are present in Europe's economic and political landscape to this very day. This should be Victoria's central theme.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
Totally agree, I just think Paradox is going to have a hell of a time making an economics simulator that is fun. And unfortunately the V1/V2 style of fun isn't mass-market enough to fit in with modern Paradox design philosophy or their customers now. I mean, not to say they've made everyone filthy casuals, but they have to find out how to somehow make economics accessible in the least grognardy way possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
mackintosh posted:I agree with the sentiment that Vicky2 and CK2 make you feel like a part of the narrative where you actually care. EU4 feels like an exercise in anonymous blobbing and Stellaris is more of the same. In fact Stellaris takes it to a whole new level. I don't think I could care any less about my empire or my randomly generated adversaries. Beeline for techs, blob, endgame, restart, ad nauseum. I dislike Vicky2 and CK2 because their game systems aren't very interesting and mostly loved by people who can't hack it in real games. gently caress stories and black box systems and random garbage. (EDIT: That probably came off as harsher than I thought but I much prefer the EU4 style to Vicky/CK2 and I believe Stellaris has basically the advantage of neither game.) Panzeh fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
EU4 is more like a boardgame, and as such feels more like a game where CK2 and V2 feel more like simulations. I'd honestly be fine with V3 going either way. The biggest thing though is that I cannot really see how you can go down the simulation way and also make it feel transparent or interactive. The economy in the era is literally about the invisible hand of the market, so regardless of how well it's made, if the economy is transparent and easily accessible to the player it will feel out of place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:50
|
|
YF-23 posted:EU4 is more like a boardgame, and as such feels more like a game where CK2 and V2 feel more like simulations. The invisible hand of the market is transparent and easily accessible - Vicky does not really use the invisible hand of the market though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:EU4 is more like a boardgame, and as such feels more like a game where CK2 and V2 feel more like simulations. You can't really - that's kind of the point of simulations though. They're built around using computers to do things that would be way too complex for a human to handle while playing a board game (not that there aren't some obscenely complex board games out there, but like 90% of the complexity of those games would vanish if they were video games and just had the computer handle all the paperwork). Game systems don't have to be transparent to be fair - they just have to work how you logically expect they SHOULD work. The main failing with a lot of games in this style isn't the systems themselves but the documentation - descriptions of things being out of date or just plain wrong giving people the wrong impression about what is happening when they use ability X.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Even with good documentation that will result in an economic system where you could easily say "this is a system that was fun for the developer to make, not for the player to play". The best you could do is make it something the player doesn't feel he has to understand by giving them other things to do, but then you also have the problem that the economy feels less important if you don't have to deal with it quite as much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Well, if I were to design a economic system for Vicky 3 it would work like this: Goods are sold on the world market to the highest paying customer, but there are certain modifiers: -If sphered, everyone outside the sphere gets a 50% malus (=> has to pay double), everyone in the sphere except for the sphere owner gets a 25% malus (=> has to pay 50% more). This additional income goes to the sphere owner. -Tariffs have to be paid by the customer -Logistics cost have to be payed by the customer (not sure if this should be included) GaussianCopula fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
paid
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I dislike Vicky2 and CK2 because their game systems aren't very interesting and mostly loved by people who can't hack it in real games. Eh, I don't think Victoria 2 and Crusader Kings 2 are much alike in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
I wonder if "simulation" as an ideal isn't kind of a red herring. If Vicky's systems for economy, population, and politics are supposed to be simulations of their real-life counterparts, there is really only the faintest resemblance. That isn't a knock against Paradox, it's just a fact that gigantic social systems are really hard to understand and predict for anyone. What does count against Paradox is that the resulting simulations are basically taking tons of programmer and CPU effort for no real benefit - the computer gets to have all the fun, as they say. I hope we'll see less emphasis on """realistic""" systems in the game, in favor of historically flavorful and fun mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Well, if I were to design a economic system for Vicky 3 it would work like this: The above would then result in the basic added cost of goods, based on how connected the start and end point are, and on top of that you'd then add tariffs and/or subtract subsidies. Which I don't think should be a simple fixed number really, when it comes to sphere members. I'd basically have a subject interaction screen which allows you to determine internal tariffs between you and your sphere members/puppets/protectorates in the same fashion you'd do it for your own country toward anyone else. To different degrees depending on your control over the country of course, so perhaps a country which was only weakly sphered could only have its tariffs towards you (and your subjects if you so desired) reduced, while one that's solidly yours could have it stripped away entirely, while you'd be able to set the tariffs (toward you, subjects, and other countries) of puppets just as freely as you can your own. Expanding on those parts, where the player can meaningfully plan out how they can improve the economy of their country, while stripping away needless detail (Does the game really need 30 different types of goods for the AI to get confused about?) could I think maintain the feel of the setting while making it more accessible to a greater player base.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Drone posted:Totally agree, I just think Paradox is going to have a hell of a time making an economics simulator that is fun. And unfortunately the V1/V2 style of fun isn't mass-market enough to fit in with modern Paradox design philosophy or their customers now. EU4 is pretty complex though? I mean, the combat system and the trade system at least are very far from simple to understand
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:EU4 is pretty complex though? I mean, the combat system and the trade system at least are very far from simple to understand By comparison, there is literally nobody who understands how Victoria 2's trade system works except the guy who created it, who apparently no longer works at Paradox and has fallen off the face of the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Drone posted:By comparison, there is literally nobody who understands how Victoria 2's trade system works except the guy who created it, who apparently no longer works at Paradox and has fallen off the face of the Earth. No he still works here, he doesn't understand it either. Implementing something means you understand the individual parts, but you have to understand that the world market code ties in to every single thing almost in the game making it very hard, in essence emergent behavior from several modules doing their own independent thing. This in return means an actual overview to explain why the economy crashed at this specific instance becomes much more complex to deduce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
For me, CK2 is pretty explicit in the stories it can tell, whereas with EU4 I tend to fill in the blanks myself, and I kind of love both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Groogy posted:No he still works here, he doesn't understand it either. Much like the real economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Athaboros posted:I would read an LP of this.  anyway ck2 is cool but conclave is irredeemable. explain yourselves pdox
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Didn't somebody actually do an LP of it at some point? The UI looks so familiar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Yeah I remember that as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
I'd very much like to read that LP. Also lol at "loutish state".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:
Why do you hate Conclave so much? I feel like it's the only decent CK dlc since old gods. AE and coalitions are dumb as hell but they came in the patch
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:Didn't somebody actually do an LP of it at some point? The UI looks so familiar. Because it's part of a longish game series that incrementally "improves" with each release. The UI doesn't seem to change much outwardly though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:Didn't somebody actually do an LP of it at some point? The UI looks so familiar. I did an LP of one of the much earlier games in the series yes. It was during the great archive failure though so it's gone forever
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:49
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I did an LP of one of the much earlier games in the series yes. It was during the great archive failure though so it's gone forever Wasn't it this? I can read that just fine.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
As someone who formerly worked in journalism, this hurt so much to read that I died and am now a ghost. Edit: Jesus christ did no one pay attention in English classes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:Wasn't it this? I can read that just fine. Yeah, that's the one!  Ah yeah, that's the stuff. This is the web content I signed up for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:Wasn't it this? I can read that just fine. That's the one. I thought it was gone! Anyway, while the fundamental game is still similar to that (GPS2) it mostly works a lot better in the modern version. Plus you can play as the opposition or an insurgency, which is neat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:Yeah, that's the one! I'd totally pay  or something just for the humor value, too bad it's $50 and has some sort of lovely limited activation 3rd party DRM. gently caress you, no. EDIT: I wish someone competent would compete in Paradox's gamespace. It'd be good for everyone, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
I wouldn't have nuked Texas if Congress hadn't okayed their independence e: as far as I know, the steam version of gps4 is not limited activation like the previous one was (which is why I never bought it, even on sale). I can try and find out though I guess Actually, 2 was limited activation as well, but I paid like two bucks for it in a used bookstore, so that was OK. corn in the bible fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
I was so completely charmed by the fact that after you nuked Texas you could offer its president a nice cup of coffee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
I love that the LP was basically just a series of vignettes since it seems impossible to stay in power no matter what you do. A Good Game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Athaboros posted:I love that the LP was basically just a series of vignettes since it seems impossible to stay in power no matter what you do. A Good Game. I still love that in almost every case the player lost power for an incredibly stupid reason, too, even if they'd done other things that were way worse. Ireland's government fell for trying to ban Satanism; the United States started World War III and the President was deposed by Republicans who were rioting over troop withdrawals from Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:32
|
|