Let down by CiV? Loving Paradox games?

F

frkhead

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
26
I have no intention to whine here. But since many seem disappointed by the game so far, and by the way the franchise has evolved in the last many years, I opened a discussion thread on the Paradox interactive forum. For those of you who love Paradox games... and for those who don't know them of course :) You are all welcome.

Here's the link to the discussion (if i'm not allowed to post outside links here, sorry Moderator. Erase it). I believe people can easly find it on the Paradox Interactive general discussion page.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11680889#post11680889

Thanks
 
frkhead said:
I have no intention to whine here. But since many seem disappointed by the game so far, and by the way the franchise has evolved in the last many years, I opened a discussion thread on the Paradox interactive forum. For those of you who love Paradox games... and for those who don't know them of course :) You are all welcome.

Here's the link to the discussion (if i'm not allowed to post outside links here, sorry Moderator. Erase it). I believe people can easly find it on the Paradox Interactive general discussion page.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11680889#post11680889

Thanks
Click to expand...

Doesn't this count as advertising?

Also, being someone who loves both Civilization as well as Paradox tittles such as EU 3: HTTT I can easily say that trying to compare the Civ franchise to Paradox games is just so stupid on so many levels. There is a whole world of a difference between Civ and Paradox game.
 
Advertising? If you say so. Is this site the property of 2K or Firaxis?

And as far as I know, I never compared Civ with any Paradox title. All I'm saying is that one company manage to create the complexity and the feel I look for in an empire/civ managing game, while the other, post-Alpha Centauri, fails.
 
I'd rather have my games playable without paying $20 for each series of minor content patches/bug fixes. Or actual games instead of 'historical simulators'.
 
Paradox games: Who needs good gameplay when you have absurd levels of unnecessary complexity?

Paradox games: Ever wanted the stress and frustration of running a real country with none of the reward?

Paradox games: So it's 1000 AD, I just gave North Umberland everything including my first born child and they STILL REBEL! WHY!? "Because it's coded into the game because it's historically accurate!"

I own like 7 Paradox games... I've tried to get into them, I really have. I spent probably a month in HoI3 trying to turn Canada into an Axis super power, but eventually I realized it felt more like work than play.
 
@Yfelsung

Fair enough. But as the title of the thread implies, my post insn't intended to you. No offense.
 
frkhead said:
I have no intention to whine here. But since many seem disappointed by the game so far,
Click to expand...

You say "many" are disappointed. How many is many? Just because you see some threads in here about it, doesn't mean many are disappointed. Most of the happy people are playing the game, and I'd say that's the majority of people right now.
 
Kruelgor said:
Some Paradox games are decent, most are horrible.
Click to expand...

I didn't mind EU Rome... after I pirated a strategy guide to figure out half of the game's mechanics.

And it's not like I'm a strategy slouch, I play a lot of strat games and I have a tested IQ of 135 and I STILL find Paradox games to be stupidly and needlessly complicated with lacking tutorials.

Five minutes of flipping through Hearts of Iron's 3 interface menus is enough to make me stop playing.
 
Yfelsung said:
Paradox games: Who needs good gameplay when you have absurd levels of unnecessary complexity?

Paradox games: Ever wanted the stress and frustration of running a real country with none of the reward?

Paradox games: So it's 1000 AD, I just gave North Umberland everything including my first born child and they STILL REBEL! WHY!? "Because it's coded into the game because it's historically accurate!"
Click to expand...

I LOL'd. Well played, sir... well played. :goodjob:
 
Well, I'm a bit of weirdo, so I'll just say this ...

I like EU3, and Civ V. And I think they're about as related as Foursqaure and Dodgeball. They're both games on the playground with a big red ball, but that's about it. Civ V and EU3 are both games were you run a group of people and manage it's fate, but that's about it. EU3 is very satisfying but it's designed to be played in a different way than Civ.

Paradox games: So it's 1000 AD, I just gave North Umberland everything including my first born child and they STILL REBEL! WHY!? "Because it's coded into the game because it's historically accurate!"
Click to expand...

Remove Historical progression and Lucky nation status and you'll avoid all of that crap, by the way. I always do and as a result you can actually do anything with good play.
 
Paradox games are full of what I call false complexity.

Look at HoI2, over a dozen different brigades but most are garbage. Large chunks of the tech tree aren't even worth researching (but the brainless AI goes for them anyways). The AI in war is highly exploitable.

Victoria 2, you've got hundreds of statistics and numbers and little toggleable options and NONE OF THEM MEAN ANYTHING. As I mentioned in another thread I turned Ethiopia into a world power despite only owning the game for a couple of days. All you have to do is just ignore all the insignificant BS and focus on the big picture.

I haven't played other Paradox games but I can't imagine they are much different. Paradox is good at making interactive spreadsheets but they kind of fail at making challenging games.
 
I love the Paradox games and highly recommend that people try them, but they are very very very different from Civ.

Some of the games are more complex than others, I would say Europa Universailles 3 and Hearts of Iron 2 (and the 3rd one too probably, I haven't played it yet) are the easiest to get into. The complexity is not a bad thing, it is very good, and once I figured out EU3 and HoI2 they didn't seem nearly as complex as I thought they would be. Victoria 1 is supposed to be the most complex, and Victoria 2 almost as complex. Crusader Kings is fun, though hard to get into at first because unlike almost every other game like it (the other Paradox games, Civ, Galactic Civ, Total War etc) you are not really trying to grow your nation (though that does help. Instead you are building a dynasty through selective breeding :p Was very different from what I was used to, but I think most of the difficulty was just getting out of the box I was used to.

Its very rewarding once you figure it out, a good feeling of accomplishment.
 
It's not wrong if you like both types of games...I certainly remember losing hours upon hours to EUIII.

On the other hand if you think Civ V is buggy, oh boy...most Paradox games are barely considered playable after a year of patching. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_J
April Fool's: 2K buys Paradox, Millennia is the "next civ game in development"
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Quintillus
Quintillus
PDX Firefly
Millennia | Release!
Replies
4
Views
2K
V. Soma
V
leif erikson
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Civ VII Forums Notice Board
Replies
0
Views
3K
leif erikson
leif erikson
Kyriakos
Pursuing a university degree vs playing games/boardgames professionally
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
2K
Kyriakos
Kyriakos
K
About possible DLC monetization plans
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
CivKirk64
C
Top Bottom