I agree that CK3 did failed to deliver to its potential, bit imo it's way better than CK2, CK2 is a mess of disconnected systems and while CK3 also seems to steer in that direction in last year (the awful and useless struggle mechanic and making stupic administrative system which is a tangled mess instead of modular governments like they did modular religion and modular cultures), it all click much better even though not having even a half of the content CK2 do. Mods are underwhelming on 3d assets but pretty much already as good as CK2 because CK3 is more moddable.
Agree to disagree I suppose. My biggest issue was always how little difference there was between playing in different parts of the world. They went ahead and made a massive map including way more cultures, and the gameplay loop is identical everywhere, with a smattering of flavor events. Playing as nomads, Muslims, Norse, Africans all feels wildly different in CK2, but in 3 they're all the same. They've made small steps to help with that, granted, but it's still so shallow.
I think another factor is the amount of RNG, for a game like crusader kings, I think streamlining systems down to being progress bars that fill up and guarantee results really takes away from the experience, in CK2 the slight randomness made things like Bloodlines, Items, holdings system, mystical events, story event chains, all much more varied for that reason, and added up to make your playthroughs feel significantly different. I actually did like the new Admin system, as it made some sense as a representation of Byzantine government but in typical CK3 fashion, they decided to make it generic and available to every nation.
Stellaris is alright too, hence my "Possibly". CK2, Stellaris and EU4 are currently top spot, just hoping that they don't pull a CK3 with EU5.
I guess we really agree to disagree on here because it seems we play in entirely different games, especially i don't remember any variety from CK2 except nomads and republics and it was a crap variety, disconnected and pretty much bland, and the current administrative system was exactly the same mistake.
just hoping that they don’t pull a CK3 with EU5.
I hope they do, CK3 is way better than Ck2 while EU4 was worst part of the series so that could only mean improvement. Not to mention EU4 is like posterboy of bad DLC policies with tons of small pieces but all of them taste identical.
I hope they do, CK3 is way better than Ck2 while EU4 was worst part of the series so that could only mean improvement. Not to mention EU4 is like posterboy of bad DLC policies with tons of small pieces but all of them taste identical.
I was referring to the DLC policy of CK3 being used again for EU5, I hope EU5 includes all of EU4's features at launch. Saying EU4 is the worst for DLC is turning a blind eye to the fact that every Paradox game so far after Vic 2 has had horrendous DLC bloat. Paradox is probably the worst in the business with this, all their games are barely functional without the DLC.
I was referring to the DLC policy of CK3 being used again for EU5, I hope EU5 includes all of EU4’s features at launch
No chance, EU is THE milk cow and the udders will suffer. Also the comparison is somewhat unfair because CK3 at least tried to make it in another way, but sadly i feel like some people deciding this changed midway and suddenly we are back to CK2 politics (but note that on the usuals suspects, vikings and byzantium), some of the DLC's were really good, T&T was probably one of the best DLC for any PDX game ever. Even Royal Court while flawed was a sign things are going in other direction.
Saying EU4 is the worst for DLC is turning a blind eye to the fact that every Paradox game so far after Vic 2 has had horrendous DLC bloat
Yes, but it don't change the fact EU4 is the worst.
Yes, but it don’t change the fact EU4 is the worst.
Subjective, I still think CK2's had it worst, you can't even play as most of the world if you play without DLC. Hoi4 probably makes a good contender due to the absurd pricing.
I agree that CK3 did failed to deliver to its potential, bit imo it's way better than CK2, CK2 is a mess of disconnected systems and while CK3 also seems to steer in that direction in last year (the awful and useless struggle mechanic and making stupic administrative system which is a tangled mess instead of modular governments like they did modular religion and modular cultures), it all click much better even though not having even a half of the content CK2 do. Mods are underwhelming on 3d assets but pretty much already as good as CK2 because CK3 is more moddable.
And best PDX game is definitely Stellaris
Agree to disagree I suppose. My biggest issue was always how little difference there was between playing in different parts of the world. They went ahead and made a massive map including way more cultures, and the gameplay loop is identical everywhere, with a smattering of flavor events. Playing as nomads, Muslims, Norse, Africans all feels wildly different in CK2, but in 3 they're all the same. They've made small steps to help with that, granted, but it's still so shallow.
I think another factor is the amount of RNG, for a game like crusader kings, I think streamlining systems down to being progress bars that fill up and guarantee results really takes away from the experience, in CK2 the slight randomness made things like Bloodlines, Items, holdings system, mystical events, story event chains, all much more varied for that reason, and added up to make your playthroughs feel significantly different. I actually did like the new Admin system, as it made some sense as a representation of Byzantine government but in typical CK3 fashion, they decided to make it generic and available to every nation.
Stellaris is alright too, hence my "Possibly". CK2, Stellaris and EU4 are currently top spot, just hoping that they don't pull a CK3 with EU5.
I guess we really agree to disagree on here because it seems we play in entirely different games, especially i don't remember any variety from CK2 except nomads and republics and it was a crap variety, disconnected and pretty much bland, and the current administrative system was exactly the same mistake.
I hope they do, CK3 is way better than Ck2 while EU4 was worst part of the series so that could only mean improvement. Not to mention EU4 is like posterboy of bad DLC policies with tons of small pieces but all of them taste identical.
I was referring to the DLC policy of CK3 being used again for EU5, I hope EU5 includes all of EU4's features at launch. Saying EU4 is the worst for DLC is turning a blind eye to the fact that every Paradox game so far after Vic 2 has had horrendous DLC bloat. Paradox is probably the worst in the business with this, all their games are barely functional without the DLC.
No chance, EU is THE milk cow and the udders will suffer. Also the comparison is somewhat unfair because CK3 at least tried to make it in another way, but sadly i feel like some people deciding this changed midway and suddenly we are back to CK2 politics (but note that on the usuals suspects, vikings and byzantium), some of the DLC's were really good, T&T was probably one of the best DLC for any PDX game ever. Even Royal Court while flawed was a sign things are going in other direction.
Yes, but it don't change the fact EU4 is the worst.
Subjective, I still think CK2's had it worst, you can't even play as most of the world if you play without DLC. Hoi4 probably makes a good contender due to the absurd pricing.
Ah in that cathegory we should go back to EU1, only EU2 was the first game with entire map playable.
Well i never think about HoI because it's imo consistently least interesting of PDX main games, i can't be even bothered to play it enough to rate it.