The Paradox Curse MIGHT KILL EU5 - Here's Why

Whether it's Crusader Kings 3, Imperator: Rome or Victoria 3, Paradox games are suffering from a curse that's hard to shake - the curse of expectation. Thing is, when you play Paradox games for years on end, and the devs continue to update and release paid DLC to enhance the experience, you kind of expect the next numbered entry in a series to follow up stronger and with even more content. But this is though in a world where EU4 has been out for 10 whole years, and where a possible EU5 is going to pick up the mantle and succeed it. In other words, is Paradox making it harder for themselves by keeping their games alive for as long as they are, only to release new titles that don't include all or the majority of innovations from past games?
Or do Paradox fans expect too much, or don't they care as long as the new game actually innovates enough to feel warranted? In short, what does it take for a new Paradox grand strategy game to succeed these days, when most of their successful games have a life span of 8-11 or so years? That's long for any game, and it's almost like some of these PDX games like EU4, HOI4 and Stellaris are reaching MMO territory. But is this a good or bad thing?
What do you want to see from EU5 or Project Caesar, and importantly - what do you expect from it? Please let me know in the comments, and if you enjoyed the video, make sure to leave a like and subscribe to the channel! :)
#eu5 #projectcaesar #eu4 #tintotalks #paradox

[@Arditi1922]

The real curse of the paradox is the fact, that they don't have any real competition to worry about. So they don't have to make an effort.

[@Fran5Malan]

Creative assembly suffers from this curse as well.. They are getting so hungry with dlc as well..

[@Izadirad1995]

Their competition is their older but superior games though. Just gotta play the older titles

[@Tafrara-idir]

Wait until age of history 3 comes out

[@prosteslavek]

​@@Tafrara-idirnah..age of history 3 Is Simple grand Strategy.paradoxs games Are Complex

[@therealjoeyp]

NBA 2K syndrome

[@ziggytheassassin5835]

The paradox model has a serious problem where games become fleshed out and more beloved after years of dlc, then when a sequel comes out, it goes back to the barebones state of the release that doesnt compete with its built up predecessor at all. Every paradox sequel is doomed to be a disappointment.

[@Shayrin2]

It's the fucking Sims model. Every fucking game you have to pay 30$ to get a dog. God I hate these executives.

[@AndysParadox]

yes, this is an issue, one I hope they'll take very seriously for EU5

[@Sadiregu1619]

Exactly, it seems they learn nothing at all from previous games, and reinvent the wheel for every new game or sequel.

[@oilslick7010]

Indeed, this is the big hole Paradox have unwittingly dug for themselves with this business model of a game with a long lifecycle. Talk about unrealistic expectations from gamers all you want: but when I see the same title with a higher number behind it, I expect either an improvement on what came before or a follow up (like with films). This is what most people expect and this isn't some ridiculous entitled behaviour. What paradox does is in fact rebooting their existing games (with better design and technology than the previous installment). And although "Europa Universalis: Reboot" doesn't sound very inspiring, that's what it is. But even with a reboot there's the perfectly reasonable assumption that it contains at least the same amount of content as its predecessor. My advice to paradox would be to include at least 80% of EUIV's content and mechanics in EUV at launch and then use DLC's only to flesh out the remaining 20% and to expand on the scope.

[@MaXiMoS54]

Imperator had a lot of innovative new concepts I think that will be imported to EU5 in particular the pops.

[@IAmMrGreat]

Personally my biggest problem with Paradox has been their abandonment of Imperator. I don't like how games are released full of bugs and unfinished mechanics and features but I can accept it, with the expectation that games will get better after a year or two. Paradox completely broke my trust in them, not when they released the broken mess that was Imperator, but when they abandoned it after such a short period and when it was finally reaching a state where I actually found it enjoyable. Imperator Rome has soooo many nice mechanics and enjoyable content, but rather minor problems just ruins it for me. The optional autonomous armies are amazing but the entire food mechanic is terrible, high tier forts basically has your armies starving themselves. You can be right next to your capital with 5k food in store and yet your army can't resupply without abandoning the siege or manually splitting your army to send part of it back for food. You can't even split your army if they're loyal to the commander, they'd rather starve to death than move one province away for a month or two. But personally I find the absolute worst part of it to be how you can't get food in allied territory. Any ally worth having is going to have a decent amount of territory and your armies will be halfway starved to death before they even make it to the enemy. To be fair, the food issues only really start getting bad from the midgame and onwards, early game there'll be plenty of food because nations are smaller overall so you don't starve walking through allied territory and armies are smaller in general so they resupply faster.

[@Saufs0ldat]

They didn't end support until TWO YEARS after release. In what bizarro world can you call that a "short period"? Imagine any other company supporting an unprofitable game for two years. People are straight up unhinged when it comes to how much free work they expect Paradox to perform.

[@ploober5696]

@@Saufs0ldatTwo years is short by paradox standards

[@Saufs0ldat]

@@ploober5696 That's my point. People got so spoiled by Paradox that even two years of free updates are considered "abandoned after a short period". Many Paradox player don't play other games and start to think the PDX business model is somehow not insanely consumer friendly.

[@greywind243]

I'm gonna be realistic here. I'm not sure that Imperator was ever designed to be a main title. I went into Imperator with the idea of something like MotE or Sengoku, a title inbetween to generate some money and be able to test mechanics separate from a main title. Many elements of I:R have filtered through the cracks to the games after it.

[@willywonka6487]

@@Saufs0ldat that was not free work. they charged for atleast two DLC during that time

[@henryhargraves4184]

The real curse is releasing half finished/ broken games and then charging you extra for each feature. First impressions count. Victoria 3 Doesn’t have spheres of influence? What?! that is a core feature.

[@Fonsecaj89]

You have to pay for the new dlc…

[@lolasdm6959]

@@Fonsecaj89 Well you don't have to pay for the DLC if you have Victoria 2, which is currently a better game than Victoria 3 with 2 mods installed. Doesn't even cost more than one Victoria 3 dlc if you buy from a third party site.

[@ppp-vz1mi]

@@lolasdm6959 Victoria II is kinda ass without DLC. You can't even play mods without DLC so DLC is a must buy. From what I remember, you can't justify wars, it's hard to distinguish which troops belong to what nation, westernizing doesn't exist, no crises and Prussia's yellow.

[@lolasdm6959]

@@ppp-vz1mi Yeah and right now I can buy the entire Vic 2 plus all dlc for less than the price of a single Vic 3 dlc. So why would I play Vic 3 if I am not so worried about graphics?

[@ppp-vz1mi]

​@@lolasdm6959 It's nice that DLC used to be cheaper. Victoria 3 is not Victoria II with just better graphics. It's a diffrent game with diffrent ambitions, goals and system. They do share things, but It's not enought to justify calling it the same game but with better graphics. It's not Victoria II "remastered" or "definitive edition". It's part of the same series... but It's not something revolutionary for sequels to differ from previous game. Victoria 3 had to create it's own identity for people to not call it Victoria II with better graphics... so many changes yet Paradox still failed at defining Vicky 3 identity :(

[@adisonsmith2633]

"Paradox actually maintains their games for years on end"- while showing a clip of Imperator. God, I love paradox games but that is crazy to me. Paradox has set the precedent for abandoning their games. The "curse" isn't people expecting too much, though that is true. It's the fear that even if I do enjoy the game, I won't know if paradox will fix the numerous launch issues before dropping the thing.

[@brandonbeilbymcleod6546]

Imperator was the exception, not the standard. Many players and Paradox themselves know that players fear they may drop Victoria 3 or even future titles. That's exactly why I don't think they're going to abandon Victoria 3. One game already tarnished their reputation this much; I don't think they're going to make that mistake again. Not to mention, despite Victoria 3's issues, it still has way more players than Imperator ever had.

[@AndysParadox]

obviously this wasn't the case for Imperator, but even then, PDX actually stuck by that game for two years, probably doing so in a big financial loss. Obviously it's their fault the game wasn't ready for launch, but that's another matter. A lot of companies don't even bother to fix a broken product if it's not worth the investment. And as @brandonbeilbymcledo6546 suggests, Imperator is so far the exception that proves the rule.

[@Sombre____]

PDX doesn't maintain title where they can't sell DLCs on it. PDX is clearly a bad company. They just want our money. Klei Entertainement continue to update their game years after launch without asking for a single dollar from you. Proving than PDX is greedy.

[@michaelgoldsmith9359]

Think the problem is they made games catering to the fickle interests of content creators that like to hear buzz words but failing to actually make any gameplay loops before release. There is no excuse for what they put out day 1. And it's not that they can't match the content of current games because almost all of the launch day features always end up getting thrown out on 2.0 reinvention down the line. They never build a solid foundation for a growing game.

[@bmking1015]

@@Sombre____ "Klei Entertainment continue to update their game years after launch without asking for a single dollar from you." The simple fact that they have 48 DLC listed on their Steam dev page says otherwise. Yes, it is far less than Paradox (averaging 4 DLC per game, vs 8 for Paradox, although this also includes Expansion subscriptions and music packs, which are little more than ingame soundtracks), but to say they don't ask for a single dollar is very disingenuous.

[@cheesusdagod585]

I've never played Vic2 and Vic3 was still a huge disappointment. The problem with that game is that there are no meaningful choices to be made, and war is simply a numbers game, the only choice you can make is to have the bigger numbers. You can't choose to have your army defend mountains and leave the plains alone, or do anything strategic in this grand strategy game. When it comes to building up your country, every single country is the same - again there are no choices there - except if you have an event or two specific to your nation. By removing control of armies they also downgraded the importance of geography, which, when you are staring at a map the entire time, ought to be important. And there is just so much tedious shit to do in that game. I remember in 1.0 when the entire game was just staring at the construction queue, and now that there is a private construction queue it feels like there is barely anything to do except stare at the map. The diplomacy is lacklustre due to the play system. While the play system has improved, it still isn't fun and is way too gamey. And of course because of it they completely removed the ability to attack by surprise or to break truces. Overall I still don't find Vic3 enjoyable even with all the updates, maybe once we get to 2.0 it will get fun lol.

[@cheesusdagod585]

Oh and I forgot to mention encirclements

[@HatKiddy]

Yes, Vic3 is just a bad game, it's not a matter of high expectations. I mean, it's poorly optimized, political system is a joke (just rush revolution to put intelligentsia and/or industrialists to power and start building thriving economy (staring on screen for 5 hours). Also modding community in this game is dead so probably even them won't fix this game.

[@HatKiddy]

And I just saw the price of new DLC! It's so EXPENSIVE, imagine wasting money on Vic3 📉📉

[@masau8672]

​@@HatKiddy to me vicky 3 just feels like I'm baby sitting the economy and nothing stimulates me in that game, warfare is null, why conquer when you can import and avoid fighting with the stupid war system and micro managing another state that will probably rebel 50 times. Having an intresting economic system is cool but killing the warfare, something that very easily retains a player, for the economy management means you must make it worth while, ignoring the fact that war is a major factor in these games. It just doens't feel like it deserves the name "Victoria 3".

[@HatKiddy]

@@masau8672 economic system isn't really that great to be honest, it lacks many things and there is almost no QoL features. I realized it after few games.

[@asgarzigel]

imo the best thing they could do is a beta / early access phase for EU5, so they can collect some feedback on what works and what doesn't. Otherwise they run the risk of having to redesign large parts of the game like with Imperator and Vic3

[@otkroy_glaza]

Remove Johan from working on new games. Invalid EU4 and dead IR are an indicator of this. His ideas will lead the PC to bankruptcy or the sale of the studio. The real world is on the verge of an intercontinental war - create a game about modernity. Amen. Inshallah.

[@Matvei22420]

Took them 3 years to put logistics back in Hoi... yeah they are not getting my money again

[@Morskoy_Velican]

Bro, I promised myself not to buy this game when I saw the barter exchange of factories instead of the economy.

[@Blossomy77]

​@Morskoy_Velican yeah, the lack of an economy isn't the best but the factory system is simple and easy to understand. Also that shouldn't put you off from buying the game it's really good, has one of the best war systems paradox has made, and it has lots of content without having to spend extra money.

[@avotsm]

@@Blossomy77 not even the best in it's series lol

[@Coecoo]

These "accusations" as you so defensively put it are in fact true. Paradox themselves admitted to releasing unfinished games, KNOWINGLY, with Skylines 2.

[@Bleilock1]

They are not the devs of city skylines They are just a publisher

[@felixmustermann790]

@@Bleilock1 and publishers have no quality management or can exert pressure onto the developer ? like cmon stop it

[@Bleilock1]

@@felixmustermann790 bro have you seen the quality of their own games? Yea i doubt they be checking what their other devs are doing

[@antorseax9492]

​@@Bleilock1 Publishers who pushed CO to release CS2 because of falling shareholder profits.

[@Bleilock1]

@@antorseax9492 this is also true but not something im getting into I think both are resposible

[@edusoto2509]

I'll be honest, the problem with vic3 can be easaly summed up by this: It is wide as an ocean, but shallow like a lake. In vic2 pops are legitimetly meaningful. Treat them too harschly and they either die, revolt or leave the country. Also they removed coalitions. In vic3 it feels like you can gat away with anything. edit: I also forgot player agency.

[@themageofspace5516]

One that was improved is that atleast playing a non European country is fun

[@ShiftySheriff2]

@@themageofspace5516 Its not when playing the game in general isnt fun. Also who cares about playing shitholes like Sokoto.

[@themageofspace5516]

@@ShiftySheriff2 I do, have you played Ethiopia it's fun.

[@ShiftySheriff2]

@@themageofspace5516 it sucks ass

[@gandalf1675]

in the last tinto talk, johan, in the comment section, said that he and his team plan to release definitely-not-EU5 with as much flavor and content as EU4 right now

[@th0mas_papill0n3]

Thats what companies do, talk about and promise how great their product will be but on release it will be just another half done early access level garbo

[@krullet3560]

That's such a bad thing to say since it's probably impossible to achieve unless they copy-paste stuff. It's a great thing to promise if you plan to hype it up then grab the money and leave

[@gandalf1675]

@@krullet3560 the game is in production since 2020, they had the time to create the flavor for this game since the start

[@dragooons176]

​@@gandalf1675 They also had the time to make CK3, Vic 3, Hoi 4, and imperator into well seasoned games, instead of constant hollow shells. Those games plus EU IV as well as all titles paradox purchased has had for years now a total "mostly negative" for each DLC released. We all know with an infinite amount of time you can get a pretty good piece of literature out of a monkey, however all you can get out of a Paradox dev with infinite time is an even greater time spent manually back patching and disappointment. Paradox became Creative Assembly in all ways.

[@krullet3560]

@@gandalf1675 This gives me a lot of hope. I assumed it was a 2year project maximum so 2 extra years is big

[@Times_Ticking]

Perhaps, but EU5 seems to incorporate already available features in M&T3, which is an amazing mod. Estates. Levies. Pops. etc... M&T3 is basically a blueprint for EU5.

[@KaiTheKool]

Yeah M&T was basically EU5 before EU5 was even announced lol

[@chocolaterain5097]

Im not finished the video yet, but CK2 was an all time success as a Grand Strategy game. But CK3 is very worthy successor that made HUGE improvements to UI and gameplay. The major issue is that it's too easy. Way too easy.

[@user-zc4br7yt4i]

The UI in CK3 is a huge step back. Even after all this time, it still isn't intuitive to me, meanwhile I can go back after not having played CK2 for a year or more and instantly pick the controls/UI back up. Gameplay is a mixed bag. The character related stuff is better, but war is substantially worse.

[@AndysParadox]

Honestly I miss the "simple" UI of CK2, especially for events where they feel like simple gameplay-moments and don't take up half of my screen with its 3D characters. I miss the drawn UI windows tbh

[@chocolaterain5097]

@@user-zc4br7yt4i For UI/UX: The menu point and hold system was revolutionary. I thought everything except laws was quite clean and easy to navigate. Except Laws! Having to go through the specific title and change laws, sucks big time. War: I think both have positives. The Knights and men at Arms system is awesome IMO. I just don't like how units suddenly muster at a location. There should be an auto muster, and a chance/modifiers in place to have them intercepted, if enemies are within your lands. The unit's should actually have to travel to the muster point on the map. I agree that made CK2 better in a way because I had to plan out my demense/domain better.

[@chocolaterain5097]

@@AndysParadox I do feel this way about CK2 portraits. I much prefer the stillness of the portrait. It's more timeless 🙏

[@JediTiga]

There's so much content that still isn't in CK3. CK2 is a far superior game still.

[@Lord_Lambert]

The expectation for Victoria 3 was to have a good game in the Victoria franchise. I don't think that is too high an expectation. Vic3 still fell short.

[@willhuman641]

They fixed a lot of Vicky3 but the main problem is that it really shouldn’t be “Vicky3”, it’s just so far removed from what Victoria 2 was. I’d say the game is good now, not great, but good, I’m just not a fan because it doesn’t feel like a Victoria game. Hopefully they’ll pull it back into line and make it more of a successor to V2. I’ve been with Paradox since the launch of Stellaris and that game was complete trash at launch compared to the gem it currently is, so I know they CAN do it- it’s just a matter of if they will

[@Lord_Lambert]

@@willhuman641 could be named anything they like, it would still be a fundamentally bad game.

[@simoncolin5939]

​@@Lord_LambertI disagree, the game is broken because of spaghetti code but the concept and core mechanics are appealing to me. I dropped HOI4 (stayed on EU4 though) because i dont like its warfare system based on cheese on numbers (space marines light flametank support on infantry goes brrr and CAS spam and boom world conquest its too easy). If it was named differently it wouldnt have received that much of a bad welcome. If it was released in the 1.5 version of it it would be considered a good game. We all know that bad PR is harder to remove than bad gameplay. They cleaned the gameplay but the bad PR stays, you are the proof since you are not willing to give it a second thought.

[@antorseax9492]

​@@simoncolin5939 Have you considered playing the game without cheesing it in singleplayer, or in multiplayer with rules?

[@lscreagle7022]

Yeah that’s my problem with a lot of this video it’s a bit too favorable to the Vic3 release. If a different company released that game in that state we would not think well of it, it would most likely be panned as Vic 3 largely was. The game was released in a poor state bug wise and feature wise, so much so that they had to fundamentally change quite a few systems to get it in the current state.

[@Sombre____]

Expectation to get a full game at release are not wrong expectation. You need to unlearn what PDX teached you those past 20 years and stop accepting them selling you half-baked product made to be able to add DLCs on it.

[@ppp-vz1mi]

That's kinda how all games operate I think. It's nothing new nor company specific. For an example I will list 2002 game called Heroes of Might and Magic IV. The game promised a lot but it ended up being rushed, unfinished and unbalanced. It also got 2 dlc's but they didn't target the core problems the game has. When project is ambiguous and expectations are high then the project tends to dissapoint when it's released.

[@CombThatHat]

As a person who plays paradox games almost exclusively for mega campaigns I'll wait 3 years when everyone shills EU5's "comeback" through dlc which will cost over 100 usd

[@Dante-mr3rz]

Oh no. I'm so sad that Paradox is having issues. It's almost as if their DLC policy is biting them in the backside.

[@celdur4635]

You're clueless, Victoria 2 only had 2 expansions, completely different to ck2 and the others.

[@drzombie9485]

from the scraps of information the tinto talks gave us I'm optimistic, all the systems shown so far look like a straight up better version of what we have in eu4, sure some features might not make to game launch (like custom nations my beloved) and others might be discarded (my guess would be RNW), but at the same time they already started communicating with us before even game announcement, so I expect about 3-4 years before launch when they can shape the game with community feedback and, hopefully, have no UI problems or major bugs at launch. Also, even as a eu4 main with over thousands hours in this game I have to say... eu4 already is a dated game, sure it's fun and all but c'mon, just look at it. if you would prefer to ignore the positives and be pessimistic about it, then take a look at the wastelands shown in tinto talks 2, that one really needs some changing in some areas alright.

[@hoi-polloi1863]

I think the main thing people will be disappointed about will be the depth of country-specific content; it took a decade to work all these things into EU4, so it's not really fair to expect EU5 to be as deep out the gate, but we probably will. Oh, and they can take my Random New World when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers! ;D

[@notlucas6859]

i get optimistic but then i slap myself and remember its paradox, but then i slap myself again and remember johan is on it, then i slap myself a third time and idk anymore

[@oilslick7010]

Problem is that the PDX business model only works with either a new francise (stellaris) OR the first time you implement it with an existing franchise (CK2 and EUIV) CK2 and EUIV at launch were rouhgly on par with their predecessor content-wise. People are willing to pay for it, if only because of better looks and performance. And then the slow adding of new features for a price is ok. Yes it's expensive when you add it all up, but no more that buying FIFA every year fo 10 years straight (which is in essence a glorified database update). And because those features are new you can enjoy them while they come out.... But you can't pull that trick a second time........ CK3 and EU5 can NOT be on the level of CK1 and EU3 to start with: 1) people will sit on the fence until it is at least 80% of what it was before (no income for PDX) 2) But when it gets there, they see how much it wil cost them for the base game + DLC's JUST TO CONTINUE WHERE THEY LEFT OFF in terms of gameplay features. NO ONE is going to fork out €300 to play what is essentially, in terms of gameplay terms, a feature complete EUIV but with better graphics and maybe some redesigned mechanics. PDX needs to rethink their business model, because THAT had reached end of life....

[@brandonbeilbymcleod6546]

I bought Victoria 3 a few weeks after its release. I knew about the issues with it, and while I like the game-I have over 700 hours in it-Victoria III has many problems. I primarily play the game in multiplayer, but Paradox doesn't seem to care about it. Almost every update breaks multiplayer, and some updates never fix it. For example, version 1.4 had multiplayer broken the entire time, and I can only hope that 1.6 fixes it, as it's currently broken. The war system has definitely been improved; you can actually see your armies, and they're a bit easier to control. However, it's still an awful system. The entire game, including warfare, is built on you doing something, then waiting. There's nothing in between, and that comprises most of the game-waiting. I hope and really want Victoria 3 to be a good game, but I feel like it's always going to be flawed. Now, for EU5, I think they're taking a much better approach. I don't think it's going to be like EU4, and I believe they're going to improve it and make it different where it counts. It doesn't have to come out with hundreds of mission trees or flavor. As long as the fundamentals are good, which is something I think Victoria 3 failed at, I think the game will be great.

[@AndysParadox]

Yeah, truly I think it will be a great game, I just hope we don't have another Imperator or honestly even CK3 on our hands where it takes 3-4 years for the game to finally assume its true shape in the form of "finally being worth it"

[@dylanroemmele906]

I've had the opposite experience, MP gets more stable as the game updates. If we do find issues, we find ignoring the De-Sync notification is fine.

[@lamename2010]

Vic2 vets do not think that vic3 is more feature-rich because they aren't looking at the number of features, but if the features they got used to and like using, are there. Sphereing is one example, another is foreign investment. Both of which are getting added in later in Vic3, than they got added in Vic2, with a much smaller budget and crew.

[@Dmitrisnikioff]

CK3 did not get criticized for being unfinished?? Vicky 3 literally was trash at launch and remains shit

[@piellamp]

As someone who plays vic3 I sadly agree with u

[@sziklamester1244]

CK3 was in my opinion a good start for something but sadly they started to add content as dlcs as they do from a long time by now. Vicky 3 in my opinion was meant to come before the CK3 if you looking at the models and how ugly they are you can see which games have the more advanced tech. I did not checked the files itself when they were created but I strongly believe the Vicky 3 is unfinished and a lot of stuff will be added as hot fix, dlc or slightly larger expansion.

[@calebmoe9077]

I still feel like CK3 feels more empty than CK2 did and especially on launch it felt like that.

[@Dmitrisnikioff]

@@calebmoe9077 Yeah, but it still had the entire, larger map working perfectly with it own, different systems from day 1. Was it thin? Of course, but I feel like most people weren't super surprised or felt entitled to it being as complete as CK2

[@hyperion3145]

​​@@Dmitrisnikioff It at least solved some problems the original had. A lot of people forget that you couldn't always play Muslims and your leader could randomly convert to Islam, ending your game and also blocking a good chunk of the world from being playable. It's nice that you can play as the rest of the world but it sucks your people will threaten civil war against you if they are mildly annoyed.

[@Cocaine420_]

Imagine being a fan of a series that always has sequels that are worse than the last one. Man, I wish I had a Pokémon pfp right now. Would perfect the joke. I can't be bothered to download one though.

[@AndysParadox]

LOL at that ending

[@guthrum6085]

People didn't like imp because it was a weird mix of mechanics from different games and had as much depth as a kids pool, people didn't like ck3 because a lot of ck2 features where removed resulting in the game lacking depth, people didn't like vic3 over the war mechanics, shallow economy and frustrating diplomacy. Every problem with modern pdx games boils down to a lack of depth which is inexcusable as the preceding titles all had such. Instead building the new entry on the shoulders of the old pdx seems to tear down what they built just to build it up and then sell it to us again.

[@linkhidalgogato]

did people not like ck3 tho? aside from an absolutely insane free weekend peak for ck2 in 2018 the lowest ever player numbers for ck3 on steam are higher than the highest ever numbers for ck2. same with victoria 3 the lowest numbers victoria 3 ever did are almost twice the highest numbers of victoria 2. seems to me like people like them just fine

[@hyperion3145]

​@@linkhidalgogato You've got to keep in mind that CK2 and Vic2 were released when Paradox was an indie company and are now older thsn some of the people playing Paradox games. It'd be a problem if they did better than their successors. CK3 seems to be doing fairly well whereas Vic3 is still seen as a flop. Even Imperator seems to have been getting a better reputation over time, on the other hand. So only Vic3 flopped entirely. However, you do make the good point that more people are playing even Vic3 more than CK2 or Vic2 combined on their best day. Which makes it all the more disappointing that Paradox doesn't actually finish their games.

[@shirazdomingo7088]

@@hyperion3145 Well yea paradox audience grew since those games and have more mass appealing UI's and aesthetics.

[@stirpsromanica]

Paradox should change the way they make their games. If they would launch them on a finished state, and the dlcs were fewer but richer in content (which could make them more expensive, as a benefit for the company), people would have less problems with them. But you can't launch a game 30% done and finish it with 40 dlcs in the span of a decade, like EU4.

[@hyperion3145]

Even with EU4, imagine telling someone that the game is good... You just need 5 or 6 $20 DLCs for some extra features and even more for flavor.

[@vb3playz66]

@@hyperion3145 That's the reason I don't play EU4 much, or at all. I've had it for over a year now, and I still rarely play it because I can't be bothered to spend 100 dollars on DLCs I need to even be able to play a vassal or a tribal state. The only paradox game I've actually gotten good at is HOI4, and I have every single dlc for it.

[@lscreagle7022]

I have tried getting people into EU4 that is the biggest problem, literally no one wants to enter at that price and for a map game at that. At least with Total War Warhammer they can look at the pretty models.

[@stirpsromanica]

@@lscreagle7022 You can still play it fully if you pirate it... it's not a big deal. I have the game on Steam though, but without most of the dlcs.

[@lscreagle7022]

@@stirpsromanica I mean yeah, but you can say that for any game ever. Not everyone is gonna pirate it and that shouldn’t be the solution to this problem.

[@Gajus_Julius]

The only curse is paradox realising games that are just worse/unfinished. If the sequel only has like 2-3 new features, 20 features missing and is just worst product with better graphics overall then ye its a shity game. The expectations are not to high, they are far to low with every paradox game.

[@AndysParadox]

Yeah, it definitely needs to be a good balance between features lost vs gained. In my opinion, Victoria 3 actually succeeded here (despite its actual functional state), but CK3 was the one who failed on launch

[@SupremeNoob3231]

Well CK isn’t the best baseline imo. Some serious mistakes have been made regarding the DLC pipeline, they spent way too much time and money on the Courtroom expansion and it didn’t really meet expectations. They have been fighting an uphill battle ever since. The game had great potential at launch, but it’s largely fallen flat in my own opinion. I think Vicky is moving in the right direction and I’m excited for Eu5.

[@tsniperhd4405]

The paradox curse is not expectation its greed. Instead of updating the engine/visuals and adding new features, they instead try to sell u old features AGAIN

[@blitcut9712]

For CK3 at least all features that were in CK2 and its DLCs end up included in the free patch when added to the game. So it's not really true there at least.

[@linkhidalgogato]

i cant think of a single time when they added a feature from an old game back into a new game as dlc, they certainly havent with victoria 3 or ck3

[@JohnSmith-ts3el]

no competetion= no motive

[@afrovarangian]

​@@blitcut9712Me when I spread misinformation on the internet.

[@joeblack5393]

Props on pronouncing Johan's name properly like the Swedes do. But yes, the problem is, they have some sort of internal rule where before next iteration of a flagship game starts development, it needs to get a "champion" designer. Which means a person needs to come up with a core design for the next game and there is like a break down in %s of how much of the old game gets ported and how much is replaced by new stuff. This is why they dont simply port the entire old game and build a new one on top, but they appear to drop beloved features and add brand new ones that often dont feel like they belong in that game. And youre right, this is compltely of their own doing. So what you end up with depends greatly on who the base design turns out to be and what their preferences are. Sadly.

[@AndysParadox]

Thanks, man! As a Norwegian, pronouncing Johan comes natural ;)

[@joeblack5393]

@@AndysParadoxAh ok yeah makes sense haha. Most people (including myself) just call him like they would in German i guess; ive known him a for like a decade chatting with him before i realized its not Yohan but Yuan almost kek.

[@mousinius]

why not just copy paste all eu4 content but with updated graphics and better UI?

[@SarudeDanstorm]

The majority of bad reviews I saw for Imperator were with regards to the game feeling shallow despite that fact that it released with comparatively more content than CK2 and EU4 at launch, which was wild to me. I loved Imperator because of all the potential I saw in it

[@samjac8042]

Same I liked imperator

[@michaelgoldsmith9359]

More content than ck2 no way! Pretty sure I've made games with more launch content that Tetris but noone gives a fuck.

[@technobloode9709]

It is astonishing how many of you try to justify bad games by pointing out the launch of games released decades ago

[@SarudeDanstorm]

@@michaelgoldsmith9359 Lmao I am so sorry for you

[@SarudeDanstorm]

@@technobloode9709 The same reviews I'm referencing were comparing Imperator's "lack of content" to the abundance of content Ck2 and Eu4 had after 6 years of dlc and development. I'd agree these comparisons shouldn't even be made. The game met most of my expectations at least, aside from the initial bugs

[@The_Proud_Texan]

As someone who never had the dlcs for ck2 I must say that basegame ck3 is FAR better than basegame ck2.

[@AndysParadox]

This is probably true in many ways, but for the hardcore fans who usually sticks around for and buys the DLC, the difference was/no a certain extent now is clear

[@edim108]

The light of hope I have for EU5 is that Johan and others are very active on the forum asking the community what they want. Imperator was made in 6 months which is why it released in that state- it was Johan's passion project with a very tight deadline. Now EU5 development starte in 2020 which Johan confirmed himself and it's still being worked on, so by the time of its release it'll be the longest running project Paradox worked on so far, combined with the input from the community, shaping it up to be the best game PDX made to date, and radically different than EU4. From the start date being over a century earlier than EU4, no mana, pops system instead of development and estates, manpower, trade and so on being directly tied to the pop system, etc.

[@wotanvonedelsburg1610]

Johan's redemption arc

[@ironiccookies2320]

EU5 will be barebones and only contain probably like 10% of all the DLCs from EU4. Then PDX will sell all the missing features from EU4 as DLC for EU5. People will complain but at the end of the day, people will still buy EU5 and its DLCs because there are no other strategy games like Paradox's.

[@Jukanella]

Bro when a company spends 10 years on development of a game and charges shitload of money for it, while modders create the same (if not better) content in few month, there is usually issues with a company, not with our expectations

[@JB-bb1bh]

Eu4 basically had almost all the features of the DLC's up Until divine wind, sans lack of colonies which was wild to fight spain back then. It was the reason why I bought eu4. It was already a full experience, mostly.👀 So Most of the missions and decisions from previous games I do kinda expect,

[@Chuck12312]

Tbh from what I see I have faith in Johan and the eu5, because it has been first being worked on 4 years ago in comparison to imperator Rome which was made from scratch to release in 6 months and I’m sure there wasn’t a lot of time for ck3 and Vicky 3, paradox likes to rush the game to release but Johan sees the aspect of a good launch and to minimise amount of DLCs, and UI has been constantly being worked on and will change before release , but maybe my hopes are too high and I love it’s literally a new game, new meta, and I love the Tinto talks as it allows the community to ask and support the team before launch

[@baldwin3243]

paradox games should release with comparable features to the previous game in the series. the releases are totally embarrassing lately.

[@EmperorCaligula_EC]

CK3 was a good restart worth from the start, though, IMO. It didn't restart that much from zero. Also when I changed from EU3 to EU4, I never looked back. Tbh I found Stellaris and Imperator Rome boring in ANY later stage. Ok when you said you only now regard CK3 as acceptable, we have apparently WAY different views and expectations.

[@shirazdomingo7088]

CK3 was pretty decent at the start but still a bit lacking. The real fumble there was their bizarre early DLC decisions which didn't address these holes until a few years later.

[@palsada1166]

I like that IR soundtrack was the background music here, because it absolutely slaps. One of the best soundtracks ever produced by Paradox.

[@turencmpressor4152]

tbh, CK3 has 6x current players CK2 has and a few thousand more than EUIV (at this exact point in time)

[@rileywilsonepicarcher9995]

The fact that paradox still releases parts of every update that aren’t bound to the paid DLC just goes to show how dedicated they’ve been to improving the base game and how much work really went into it.

[@Fallout3131]

Im not even going to look at Eu5 for the first 3 years of its release. Victoria 3 taught me well.

[@Niveaufriedhofchef]

Fundamentally agree with the idea that the paradox model is risky, but much more rewarding. Will the average audience have the patience to struggle through the early days of EU5, CK3, V3? I hope so but its not a given

[@AndysParadox]

Yeah like, I need at least a big revolutionary change for it to be worth it to be missing out on content I loved from the previous games. EU5 will have pops, and I love this change, so I hope that might be one such difference that makes it all worth it

[@testtoon1452]

The curse of Paradox is not the consumer's expectations it is that fact that they moved to a DLC model when they release unfisnihed games. EU1 and EU2 and the early HOI games were mostly decent, you had a few DLCs but it was not DLC heavy with features added in that the previous game already had a release nor did they do reworks of major game mechanics like with Stellaris and other recent games. Now they release beta versions and then 2-3 years after release you get a proper game.

[@dzorgoncz6441]

The only reason why im excited for EU5 is that there is a chance for another humble bundle for EU4

[@felixmustermann790]

9:30 "paradox listened to the players and improved the warfare system" considering players said that BEFORE the launch and paradox did nothing... well, not a good argument mate

[@YoutubeHandleModerator]

If they literally just took all the old mechanics, and just introduced new systems to account for that, everyone love it.

[@rezaulbari3404]

Hey, are you interested in discussing the optimization challenges your channel is facing?

[@barsguzel7559]

This problem is like Sims Syndrome, the Sims series are always selling the same expansions/dlcs with each new game. There is a pets expansion for the all 4 of the Sims games, for example(not sure about 1🤔)

[@FromIdeologytoUnity]

The way I see it, EU5 should not lack any features EU4 has unless its a better replacement feature. Rather, it should be a significant upgrade on the prior game. Paradox can put a lot more into their next title, and STILL add dlc content because they can ALWAYS come up with more dlc content.

[@GamingPenguin4545]

You shouldn't be comparing EU4 now to EU4 on launch, you should be comparing EU 4 on launch to EU 3 at its end

[@Reichsritter]

The curse isn't wrongful expectation, the curse is green and laziness. The developers generally do a good job making a groundwork but then get greedy and leave out all the content. Just on the case of Hoi 4, the very existence of the generic focus tree is proof of it. Even for the most irrelevant nation, take Finland or something, creating a basic focus tree shouldn't be that hard, modders do it.

[@punishedwhirligig3353]

the Paradox model is like advertising a Big Mac, then just selling you the patty amd having you pay extra for the bun and all the toppings, relying on people who just buy whatever PDX shovels out. Unfortunately for PDX, the number of those people are rapidly shrinking

[@xZxOxVx]

I'm just waiting for the Grey Eminence. EU V if comes out, it will take at least 3 years of new dlcs to become enjoyable without mods.

[@TheShlongman]

Agree fully with this. Yes games shouldn’t be unplayable on release, but people are delusional if they think PDX can afford to spend 10 years developing a game so that its ’content complete’ on release. They’d have to charge £300 for each game, and we’d have nothing to play while the game is being fully developed. I really like growing as the game does and getting to grips with each new mechanic as it’s released.

[@rabbaniazzahra1784]

the problem is, even if theres new games, it should atleast have 3/4 content of the original game (full of updates), not 2x of the content of the original game (when released)

[@Ron-nr8lw]

My real expectation for any new paradox game is atleast have as many functioning systems as the previous title in the series and also atleast all the major powers in each playable region are fleshed out like for example the fact that in Ck3 republics and hordes still lack content when they are major elements of the setting is absurd but in like Vic 3 or hoi4 I get like minor nations not getting flavor for a few years

[@athena1015]

I think Paradox fans that have a tendency to shill or talk about why harsh critic and expectation to Paradox are unjustified tend to forget one very vital part of the conversation, and the main reason I will not let up on them. Paradox, whether you agree or don't, are not a small time company anymore, like when ck2, eu4 or vic2 was first released. A lot has happened company and profit wise for them since that release, and the fact paradox has capital to buy up other franchises only to ruin them or release a game none wants or asked for, also tells you that they are not a small indie dev company, as they used to be. I would argue they are in the high end of AA development and on track to become an AAA development studio, but they consistently provide subpar products or products with the same amount of features their older games had. But I am sorry to be the bringer of bad news, with more profit and expansion, more should be able to be asked for and expected on release. I would also note on the part of Victoria 3 the game had no right to use the franchise name, as it's basically a bastard child that only got the name to get the profits of those who heard the praise from ck2 players, but due to age and lack of easy access to MP was turned away. I would also note, that for a game with multiplayer strategy features, it is a mystery to me why CK3, VIC3 and potentially all upcoming new games from them has no in game chat, so you can socialize and coordinate multiplayer features. Is this also too much to expect, or is regression of all kinds just excusable to the well established strategy developer and publisher?

[@jesusduron1511]

I don't know why people get mad. I play pirate version of EU4 with the latest update and DLC and is amazing, then Epic Games gave an opportunity to have EU4 completely for free, so I "bought" it and I didn't see the small letters of the contract, I was getting almost the 1.0 EU4... It was a horrible experience. If players could ever play the old "better" versions of the game they would immediately stop playing (I stopped playing that Epic Games EU4 before 1500 since there's not so much to do and I ain't spending almost a day on a chair viewing a map).

[@dragosdragon7515]

Im personally happy whith pdx whith how they market the system and build games up over time, the problem is every purchase is made in the good faith that pdx will build upon the groundwork and move forwards with it 1.Reputation is key 2.imperitor is a recent blemish on that Reputation 3.sequals take more effort to compete whith there predecessors Pdx needs to 1. Make clear what work it wants to do whith these titles 2.make promises on requirements like purchases required before getting peoples hopes up 3.maintain its good community response

[@Arygua]

On one hand the developers dont have alot of excuse for leaving out big systems that people have gotten used to in older releases of a series. On the other EU5 is not EU4, just like CK3 is not CK2. Youre playing a different game that is designed to appeal to different playstyles, allow for different stories and to be more accessible to people in different ways. Paradox has relied too much on forcing you to buy the DLC to not be punished by the free updates in some ways. EU4 you can easily play without any dlc but dlc does give you alot more power.

[@zacharysilver911]

Makes me glad that my first paradox’s games were HOI4, EU4, and CK3. I’m not comparing these games to HOI3 or CK2. I just get to enjoy them. Even if EU5 is barebones at first, if it’s basically Vic 3 in EU4 time period but with micro warfare that would be cool.

[@stevespain6445]

It's not a curse, it's incompetent executive management; and the snowballing of consequences of bad decisions.

[@justinhammer3196]

It was a "wrongful expectation" to assume Star Trek Infinite would be supported for at least a year, was it?

[@Ragatokk]

Bro, this is just disingenuous. Imperator was straight up a scam, ck3 was bare bones but it has been improved a lot.

[@Danielbxt]

the problem is that they make the game on purpose and then sell us dlcs to fix up these problems.

[@Faneus101]

When they release a new game it shoul include all the previous one's features at launch and then build uppon that. Dev time would be significatively longer but players would not be dissapointed

[@oceaniaimperia1985]

Honestly I do not know why anyone could possibly defend paradox after all these years given their track record. After all when you buy a game like any product you expect a certain standard to be met when it comes to the product, think of a bottle of dish liquid as a paradox game which has both the shiny label, says what it does but then when you go to use this product you end up finding out that you need to pay for the dish liquid inside the bottle to have extra cleaning power as well or otherwise you are left with basically slightly bubbly water that barely works, or another example take a banana but without the fruit inside and what you got is exactly what paradox does to the consumer not mentioning the amount of product you get with dlc instalments. At the end of the day however it isn't paradox that is the issue here but rather the customers who enable this level of behaviour and they very well know it and until people get their heads out of their arses and stop being mentally feeble is the day that pigs fly.

[@roccocan]

nope the most forgetten is march of the eagles it was never remembered

[@AndysParadox]

this is true

[@danymend5797]

And no one wants to

[@roccocan]

yup

[@neochris2]

Don't care about it tbh

[@roccocan]

Good

[@Cool_Night_King]

Paradox games are playable at launch but are simply an unfinished product that gets finished over the years , where paradox sell us the game features as DLCs , it's a total monopoly strategy and is bound to make the devs lazy.

[@3zzzTyle]

Why tf would you throw out all the mechanics and depths of a previous game? Like, how does that make any sense?

[@sytrostormlord3275]

As a person, who didn't buy DLCs for CK2... CK3 is much better game for me (don't have any DLC here either)- it includes some of nessesary features which CK2 had, after buying aditional 5-8 DLCs ? it doesn't have all of them, but simple ability to be able to play any religion, have regular armies (instead of levies only) or being able to influence your character or other characters development are a real must have.... As for EUV (aka Project Cesar): since economy, colonisation, warfare is being rebuilt from the ground... i just hope that: - what Art of War brough into the game (lots of additional peace deals, abilitity to set goals for your war allies etc.) will be included Other than that, just looking forward to try new mechanics and maybe suggest some historical events to pop up for players to make decisions...

[@smthsmth]

We have Victoria already, which is struggling, despite haveing good ideas and innovation in the game (while missing out a lot of stuff as well). EU5 will fail no matter what Paradox does. Not worth it.

[@AndysParadox]

I hope you're wrong, truly! :D

[@Lord_Lambert]

Difference is Vic 3 does not have good ideas or innovation, whereas we're already seeing that Eu5 does.

[@wargamesmaster]

I don't know why but I have the feeling they're releasing their games this way because they want to do something that feels "unique" compared to other entries in a series, it is unpopular and doesn't always work but I understand why Paradox is staying on this way.

[@purpleemperor8554]

What is the point of a sequel if it is not at least matching predeccessor? They are also relying on their built playerbase so they willl not do much marketing outside of already built community and of course those players expect something that is more worth their time thna previous title. I:R was mostly advertised towards EU4 and CK2 players so without bugs, it could have survived in its barebone state if they tried to get new playerbase.

[@vladboch]

The biggest problem I have with Paradox games is their cash grab DLC strategy with selling skins that should already be in the game. Also, the amount of DLCs is too much for me. EU3 had 5 iterations of the game, each one being better than the previous. While I love EU4 and its expansions like The Art Of War, it had lots questionable mechanics added later, like the Class system. I just wish they'd tone it down with DLCs and keep it simple with up to 5 major expansions per game.

[@steppebro]

Ah, making people pay $200 for a full game, but hiding it behind "new feature updates" I think the true Paradox curse may just be greed

[@user-ib3hk7rq3n]

I think the development you refer to is a difference between PC and console game producers/community.

[@antorseax9492]

CS2 and V3 were rushed by the company, because of shareholders complaining about low profits and to win points after the Leviathan update disaster, respectively. Paradox being publically traded is its shortcoming.

[@vectrom21]

HOI IV was really good already on release, getting a lot of innovative mechanics after the years. It lacked a few ones that HOI3 had, but it was surely an improvement.

[@hmmmmmmmmm7267]

Although I agree that paradox games are never what they should be on release, but its still very frustrating if yoy spent hundreds of dollars on a game like eu4, hoi4 or ck2 just for the next one to be "next gen" yet lack the most basic stuff. Imagine a hoi5, but with no equipment designers, navy designer, agency, vic3 combat, just for all of it to be behind a 20 dollar paywall for the smallest thing.

[@ArisPLteles]

I think that Paradox got several problems. The most dangerous is that their audience is a niche, with very strong expectations plus rather heavily invested to games they are fans of (money + time I mean). So it is impossible to make a next installment that changes main direction of specific series. Victoria is a prime example - fans wanted better version of Vic2 with QoL in place, better mods support, better graphics and long-term support. That game was pretty complex. PDX went for sth different - I believe with a task to have a wider audiance. So we got a game for no one - it is not interesting to new players (still from grand strategy niche but new to Vic series) and it is an abomination for most fans of Vic2. For me it is more like mobile phone "clicker". I am afraid that with approach to games that PDX has - you launch game and you gradually improve it with DLCs and patches Eu5 would have a bumpy road ahead. So what PDX can do to mitigate that risk? Make a different game based on same foundation - we have different time span for example, we may have different mechanics etc so this game will be very different experience from EU4. This is still a gamble as they did sth like that with Vic2 and Vic3 however Vic2 was rarely played and out dated, Eu4 is still alive.

[@biodtox]

It's not a curse, it's their own doing.

[@bogda1917]

I fully agree with the testing, UI and optimization, but I do think the games have been releasing without obvious features that should be at launch. Spheres of influence and foreign investment in Victoria for example, or a military system that works, or some flavor. Essential to the core of the game, unexcusable that its not vanilla.

[@seamusfinnegan1164]

I think Paradox biggest problem is trying to completely rework things, it sometimes works, sometimes does not but is generally positive for pre-existing games to keep it fresh, but when combined with a game being new on top of that and thus far less content fille it only makes it worse when something falls flat flares out on top of missing content people are used too. In this regard I believe new releases (that arent a new series entirely like Stellaris) should focus more on maintaining as much existing content as possible before even thinking about any major and massive changes and any additions should build upon what already exist. For example alot Paradox games have resources a given province might make, something to add would be more resource variety, and depending on the game series build upon what can be done with resources both new and pre-existing. After that we should see at least 1 or 2 years of 'restoration' efforts for anything that could not make it into the release either in free updates or DLC before facing any massive overhauls. In case they want to take a game in a entirely new direction, DONT, just DONT, when people buy a strategy game that's not a entirely new game series they are expecting either the same thing but better, or the same thing but executed less well, if your gonna make a different game, give it a different bloody name, but Paradox might be a bit addicted to the idea that any game made in a specific timeframe of history has to be part of a specific game series, which fair that makes sense but just wont end up well if you suddenly decide to drive the train off the tracks seconds after leaving the station.

[@rotmistrzjanm8776]

Kinda agree but also no. It worked for them in case of EU3 and EU4 where only after Common Sense DLC game started feeling like next succesor and not simplified rip-off with more provinces

[@davict97br]

Victoria 3 is just amazing for me and the evolution in 2 years was much greater then i anticipated! Paradox games are for the long run boys

[@terratorment2940]

I expected support for Star Trek infinite but Paradox stabbed us in the back

[@felmaci3910]

This is a silly take. I have played Paradox games since EU2, CK1 and Vic1 and I played all games in those series. There is a reason I had thousands of hours in the older titles despite clunky ux and many more problems and only a few hundred hours in the newer ones despite many improvements to map, ui e ux. Paradox has made shitty decisions recently going for bloat, fan service through OP tag based content that does does not add to the general game strategy part and click button to immediate effects that make long term strategy meaningless. You could remove missions, estates, edicts and decisions from EU4 and I would not give a shit. I want meaningdul systems with no obvious meta or choices that are the same for all countries and situations. If all countries play the same in the core mechanics, the game is not strategy it is a puzzle game and how many times can you play the same puzzle before it gets boring? I would not care if EUV had 30% of the "features" if the remaining features were good and deep enough in the strategy and simulation that would result in emerging gameplay. Halo is the best shooter I ever played because despite me having my favourites weapons all of them are useful and satisfying and depending on enemy, terrain, etc I will naturally want to use them all through a campaign playthroguh and if I played again I would different weapons on the same moments. Current paradox games mostly suck because they are currently about having a single meta and making min-maxers happy by stacking bonuses that are just modifiers with no underlying connection to anything and all "flavor" is making some bonuses tag or religion or culture locked.

[@siavashashavand4834]

I mean what else do we expect when they release a alpha version of each game after less than 1 year of real development then spend the next half a decade leisurely filling it up small bit by small bit with dlcs that eventually triple the cost of the whole thing AND THEN WE KEEP BUYING IT and telling them its fine to be money grubbing cheats?

[@badusername9903]

if they went in more interesting new directions it might not be a gigantic issue when they dont have as much flavor as older games. ck3 and vic3 are both ok but they didnt make a big change to their series so they ended up as prettier and less developed versions of their prequels. i hope eu5s pop system distinguishes it and changes up the gameplay loop

[@feelsgood7929]

Comparing Tinto to other studios doesn't really hold up. EU5 has been in development for 4 years already, let's see what this studio can cook up and not compare it to the ones that brought the monstrosity that is Vic3 or CK3 which has amazing base game but embarrassing DLCs. This video is basically Vic3 good, Tinto bad even though this is going to be their first game release.

[@spatrk6634]

i had some fun with imperator rome. a mix between crusader kings and europa universalis but not as good

[@HjaltiBH]

Don't get it, I have loved these games for 16 years and still do. Vic 2 was a great game and 3 is pretty fun. EU 3 was good, EU4 has been amazing and I look forward to EU5. The community around these games has changed a lot though.

[@RM-cv4tl]

I can deal with minor bugs and issues no problem. What I struggle with the most is the complex gameplay and UI, which I can never get around to enjoying. I constantly come back looking to spark some interest in the game that I did not find before, but I am always disappointed. That being said, I am restarting Imperator Rome this evening. Maybe I can last longer than a few hours without getting overwhelmed and bored

[@liamwarren7590]

I wish they would improve the journal entries on Vic 3, it's so annoying that you can't see the consequences of finishing a journal entry and what it can lead to. The mission trees on EU4 are so much better and usee friendly.

[@Tziplays]

euh thats just untrue.

[@1MuchButteR1]

Paradox needs to stick with basics. Warfare, blobbing , beautiful painting map, and good AI is what makes EU4 loved.

[@greywind243]

Does anyone still remember when CK2 got popular and everyone was frustrated that you were only allowed to play as Catholic Kings in Europe?