They never asked a few basic questions about real life that if they would've sought to reflect with this game would've greatly improved the play: 1. Who does the player represent? Am I the leader of the nation? Then why can't I influence what my leader's ideology is? Why are characters even in the game if they don't do anything? All they do is chance the likelihood of succes or failure on dicerolls. 2. How does politics and power work? Power has 4 stages IRL: 1. influence peddling 2. Blackmail 3. Threats of violence 4. Acts of Violence Why can't I bribe a section of the power base? In EU4 you could somewhat do this by granting privileges, you have decades of experience and games to reflect back on, how can you mess this up? Drooling morons in the leadership positions at Pdx.
A lot of your criticism is completely valid, but some things are very clear if you have a core understanding of how supply and demand work. At 9:58, you are losing so much money because building stuff in your country is expensive as hell. You have a huge shortage of all the essential building materials, as you can see underneath the "The Age of the Caudillos" thing. Taxing won't change anything. You have to make the resources more accessible for your construction sites and maybe rely on wooden frame buildings before you do the next one. You can't build iron frame buildings if you don't have any iron extracted in your country. Building is only boring if you have no clue what you are doing and you just build stuff randomly like a Soviet planner in the 1930s.
I personally buy the DLCs because I spend a lot of time on these game and if I didn't I would also spend like 20-30€ on a different game every few months anyway. So if I get a little extra content for the game I really like I don't really mind
Really love the video, you gave a voice to my thoughts. I would like to know what’s your ideal (Victoria-like) strategy game, what are some of your must have features and what kind of ingame systems and experience you want to have. Maybe do a video on it, or just answer me. Either way I am looking forward to hearing (or reading) your thoughts on it.
the reason why the DLC has good review is because people with brain don't buy it until more reviews are available and paradox also made a few updates with fixes, balancing and maybe more content if then the people buy it and it still sucks then the negative reviews are coming in
Finally, I find an honest paradox youtuber who validates the way I feel about this game. I watch so many other paradox players who are like WOOOW the game is so much better! But, it's literally so bug laden still and I still don't understand what any of my decisions are really doing.
It seems like this isn’t the right game for you. A certain amount of criticism is expected since the game needs a lot of improvement. However, you’re complaining about things that are game core, which should immediately turn off people who don’t like this kind of game. So, I see two main possibilities: either you don’t like this type of game and are trying to convince yourself otherwise instead of playing EU4, or you don’t know how to play this game and think it’s "broken" because you’re not having fun.
Yeah I get why it seems that way. But this game is for me, I only complain about it so much cause I find it so interesting. There's tons of shitty games out there - I talk about this one cause I think it's a tragic missed opportunity. Also your english is perfect
@@michalcynarski7321 Agreed. Vic 1 and 2 were niche games that were fun for a specific audience. "Old Paradox" knew their audience, and knew that their audience liked in depth mechanics and the delayed gratification of having played it well. I could spend hours making a monopoly in Vic2, to have it finally pay off after working for it. "New Paradox" is trying to appeal to the map painters and the meme gamers that don't want to play a game, don't want to have to learn any tricky mechanics or understand anything - they want to press a button and have the game tell them they're winning, instant gratification, gameplay boiled down to a bar that fills up - even the most simple of people can understand that. Its always a laugh when people that like the "New Paradox" games use the "you just don't know how to play the game" argument. Lol. Older Paradox fans know how to play more complex games - its the people that like the "new Paradox" games that don't know how to play games, that's why games like Vic3 exist - because games like Vic 1 and Vic 2 would be "too hard". And no, i'm not being unfair - too many Vic 3 players were happy that stuff like troop management and movement was removed because, and i quote, "i don't like micromanagement". Imagine thinking that, 1, managing troops was considered "micromanagement", and 2, that micromanagement doesn't belong in a grand strategy game anyway.
@LostSky866 I wish I had the balls to do this and catch up on my reading, instead I’m trembling in my boots thinking that the economy will crash if I don’t meticulously tend to market prices
it's funny because just like with ck3 they basically take simple Gameplay mechanics that should have been part of the vanilla release and hide it behind a 30$ paywall
Definitely agree on that feeling of thinking about the game more than playing it. Everytime I start a game I notice I have to do the same thing every run then I just get off. Honestly idk how content creators make so many videos on it.
Finally, another channel who does no-frills, moderately sarcastic commentary on games that I'm at least _slightly_ interested in. Cool, cool. I'm curious as to your opinion, if any, on Crusader Kings 3. I've always been underwhelmed by that game since I acquired it back when it was newly release, and puzzled by how most other people seem to earnestly enjoy it. To me, that game and Victoria 3 appear to have a similar game design philosophy, on which I've no idea how to expound. It just feels that those two games have some kind of inherent... deficiency? Like there's something rooted in the foundations of those games that can't ever be improved upon no matter how many DLCs or updates the developers pump out. I don't know if I'm making sense. But it's a characteristic I feel these newer Paradox games have.
I'm a CK3 fan but "inherent deficiency" is accurate. These guys have a bad habit of making games that are technically fine but forgetting to put the good in them
with your japan example. what do you do to get rid of ruling elite? you make the rest of the country angry enough to revolt. then try and pass something to make them happy, which pisses off the Shogun, then you do a civil war and shogun have no power for some time.... ya know, play the game. lol you have valid critiques but i also see that you dont actually know how to play game. yes game can be boring. absolutely. also 30 dollars is insane amount for this patch.... i have the expansion pass so all my dlc is "free" which makes my view of the DLC different as im not paying for them anymore.
I agree with some of your criticisms, especially regarding the interactivity of building, where it could be more regional, but that has been a style since Victoria (original one), it is like 2 games, the spreadsheet and the map, where what you do in the spreadsheet has indirect effect on the map. So in a way, in your opinion, what Vic 3 needs to do to be better is to be further away from Vic 2 and 1. And yea, they could add more granularity so you are not just sitting and waiting around. But in general, this DLC has been a major improvement on the base game. The reviews might be the honeymoon effect, but for a month now the game has been over 10k base players since the DLC came out. So it is clear it has breathed new life into the game.
In my opinion there are a lot of lack of flavor, like culture bonus, national ideas... And you are right about the waiting, normally when I play a have to turn off music and have a good podcast to listen.
I hate blue Persia , i don't know who have done it to my country, but WHY? in every Paradox game , Persia is green . Like how it should be . I hope Gilded Destiny is more like VIC2 than VIC3.
and this is why (bad/overpriced dlcs) "god" invented creamapi. Although I would agree the civ comparison is bs bro, you dont like the game its fine and all but its not a "building buildings" game its about managing the economy of a country, wouldnt say the same about civ. There are some countries in which you dont build all that much actually at least for the first half or 2/3 of the game because your concerns arent there yet. Now I totally understand that people wouldnt find this game to fit in their definition of fun, but some of us do lol
I have to agree this guy is being somewhat pretentious himself saying get off your high horse to belittle others for saying they are different types of games. I enjoy Civ 5, Victoria 3, and Satisfactory. Again these are all very different types of games and a player that enjoys one of these types might not enjoy others. I can agree on his point of these features should have been in the base game and not a dlc. However, I feel he just isn’t the target audience for this sort of game. Finally his game is going pretty slow on 5 speed and the game is a lot more enjoyable when it runs faster so you don’t spend so much time waiting. Again problem with the game. It should run better than it does, but you could decrease waiting times and increase fun by upgrading your pc.
I feel like if he wants to enjoy the game he needs to upgrade his pc seeing it again on 5 speed time should be passing around 4 to 5 times as fast. Is it unreasonable to expect someone to upgrade their pc for one game? Well yes. Is there another solution if you want to enjoy the game? No because paradox sucks and that is life.
11:10 it's the same like in eveery other paradox game and while they can sometimes ne fun for the first 10 hours of playing the game they afterwards get boring af, like take ck3 where these kind of events are the only way of actually interacting with other and your characters and they always have the same often weirdly unrealistic events that always end up in you either get more or less of whatever this event is about, be it opinion or success chance in a plot or whatever
yeah so the game still is just 90% you wait, you set a law and wait and wait and then put a few buildings into the Queue and then you wait and then you wait even more and then you declare war and then you wait and then you press a button to get some alies and then you wait and then you press a button to send your army to the fron and then you wait until the war is over and then you wait and then you decide the next law and then you wait and then there are a few boring generic events once in a while and then you decide for one of 2 or 3 decisions and then you wait and wait and wait
Agreed with all your comments except i quite like journal entries because it gives me a goal. But yeah i own paradox games and the writing for their events is always horrendously bad. Like they arent readable
I personaly like vic3, even more than ck3 for example. But yeah you are right that the game is a bit boring since the only point of building buildings is to make line go up
I feel a big part of the ”boringness” is because of the lack of flavour and visual cues. If you think about it, this game is a fantastic alt history simulator creating all kinds of wonky governments and situations. But the presentation of all that is basically spreadsheets. I think they should double down with the 3D characters, background visuals, event art and all that to breathe more life to the game. Nevertheless I still like the game, somehow provides a nice counterbalance to today’s instagratification culture. Great video, keep it up!
And to add one more thing, Vic 3 could make a great multiplayer game. Paradox should strenghten the diplomacy and geopolitics aspects to make it an engaging mp game. In that sense 1.7 and the DLC was a step in good direction.
Yeah, it is the exact same game, i dont think it changed that much, same gameplay there is lack depth in the game, diplomacy is faulty, polotics is horrible, agitators is a nuisance. Warfare brain dead and frustrating with armies constantly sifting fronts (going of the front to manover over to the same front) and yeah notifications are horible. The game needs a greater rework then just ui and information accses.
it never happened? Stellaris never happened? Europa universalis common sense didn't happen? Crusader kings 2 didn't happen? Wow... listen you got very good points but you are throwing every negativity onto changes as "this should been part of game"... that is not a valid argument! You can't say "FIX THE GAME" and when they do you can't say "THIS SHOULD BEEN LIKE THAT FROM START" yes it should been, but its now finally so what you should say is "good job I am neutral to this issue now" at worst case. its not about building buildings its about building economy, trouble is only way to do it right now is building thats why it feels like that. you say civ... hell civ is doing some stuff WORSE than what you said. In civ its not like you see the map first and then pick your leader and your nation no you pick it and game's engine is like "AH SHIT HE PICKED KOREA! I NEED HILLS!!! I NEED HILLS TO PUT KOREA ON!!!!!" do you want to nitpick flaws that will never be fixed? LETS GO here is civ6 problems that will never be fixed Religious victory sucks and boring unless you are taking religion for buffs. Their movement UI is buggy and doesn't show proper areas they can reach in hostile terrority. rarely you can spawn inside mountains, making you lose at very early game since you can't expand anymore golden age mechanic is literally like: "do just good enough to get golden age but don't get more points because you will be just wasting points and making next one more expensive" game is punishing you for playing good! barbarians is absolutly shit and many players just disable them because how terribly they are made. At higher difficulty you can just lose game because 2 horse archer barbarians spawned next to you. Civ AI is the worst AI in any strategy game I ever seen! Atleast in normal difficulty eu4 AI can still do stuff and not fall onto ground and die civ 6 AI is like running around with crossbows while you are going to space! holy shit! ITS A TURN BASED GAME NOT REAL TIME STRATEGY!!!! ORIGINAL WARCRAFT 3 HAD BETTER AI!!! you are speaking of "oh... this dlc adds nothing" but lets be honest you at best playing those "scenarios" once until half of the mission then get bored and quit. Other than few good ones they are poorly made. to play civ6 you literally need to read a book. Seriously you need a massive encylopedia and if you are not doing that you better not play game at all because at modern era you gonna get so frustated from all the wonders you can't build from very specific requirements they have. don't even make me start with culture victory! Its just you watching numbers get bigger until your numbers are so big that enemy can't stop you you want to be democracy as japan... and shogun says no? Yes duh... do you know what you do when he says no? YOU GO TO WAR! YOU START A REVOLUTION! radicilize your own nation make farmers rebel, now you have no shogun.
Not to defend the guy who made the video, but this comment is just some serious whataboutism. Like, how did you get to talking about Civ's AI? And Warcraft 3? Lmao how?? Those two are completely different games from Vicky anyway and shouldn't be compared.
@@missingmochigumanofficial yes it is whataboutism because he did say all that things and then said "just play civ6" if those problems are reason to not play vic3 then all of these things I mentioned are equally good reason to not play civ 6. if you watch the video he compares vic3 and civ6 first
While I disagree with your criticism of their DLC vs free update allocation, I think this game has been an unmitigated disaster. I understand they need to make money by making DLCs in addition to free updates, so it seems unfair to criticize them for making more of it free and less behind a paywall. In terms of the game’s quality however, it’s garbage. They absolutely trashed the military side of the game with the justification of “it’s an economic simulator”, then didn’t even have all of the economic features of the previous game. Over a year and a half to add foreign investment? Really? The warfare is buggy, tedious, and too up to the whims of garbage AI. If you play a completely pacifist game to avoid dealing with this system, you’re faced with an inability to effectively expand your industry and engage effectively in diplomacy. If you are able to survive that major restriction, you are left with a very boring mobile game where you just click upgrade on your buildings for 100 years then restarting. I think the game’s most fatal flaw is the military changes. If it wasn’t for how ancient Victoria 2 is and as a result how user unfriendly it is, there would be absolutely no reason to play Victoria 3 instead.
Bros literally complaining about the core of the game, obviously it's not for you lmao. Go play Civ??? You're asking this game to be something it's not. The people that actually like the game, love this DLC. The issue is, if you don't enjoy the core gameplay and the fact that its primarily an Economic Simulator, go play something else. This is like playing Mario Kart and whining about the Karts not being realistic. "They'll never make the karts realistic and I'm all about realism". Then play Forza. Literally the equivalent. Also, get good, just a skill issue on your part.
That's the issue though, the core of this game isn't what it should have been. It should have been Victoria 2 with updated graphics and better simulation.
While I disagree with your criticism of their DLC vs free update allocation, I think this game has been an unmitigated disaster. I understand they need to make money by making DLCs in addition to free updates, so it seems unfair to criticize them for making more of it free and less behind a paywall. In terms of the game’s quality however, it’s garbage. They absolutely trashed the military side of the game with the justification of “it’s an economic simulator”, then didn’t even have all of the economic features of the previous game. Over a year and a half to add foreign investment? Really? The warfare is buggy, tedious, and too up to the whims of garbage AI. If you play a completely pacifist game to avoid dealing with this system, you’re faced with an inability to effectively expand your industry and engage effectively in diplomacy. If you are able to survive that major restriction, you are left with a very boring mobile game where you just click upgrade on your buildings for 100 years then restarting. I think the game’s most fatal flaw is the military changes. If it wasn’t for how ancient Victoria 2 is and as a result how user unfriendly it is, there would be absolutely no reason to play Victoria 3 instead.
They should add gems that you can buy for real money to skip construction queue
They never asked a few basic questions about real life that if they would've sought to reflect with this game would've greatly improved the play:
1. Who does the player represent?
Am I the leader of the nation? Then why can't I influence what my leader's ideology is? Why are characters even in the game if they don't do anything? All they do is chance the likelihood of succes or failure on dicerolls.
2. How does politics and power work?
Power has 4 stages IRL:
1. influence peddling
2. Blackmail
3. Threats of violence
4. Acts of Violence
Why can't I bribe a section of the power base? In EU4 you could somewhat do this by granting privileges, you have decades of experience and games to reflect back on, how can you mess this up?
Drooling morons in the leadership positions at Pdx.
A lot of your criticism is completely valid, but some things are very clear if you have a core understanding of how supply and demand work. At 9:58, you are losing so much money because building stuff in your country is expensive as hell. You have a huge shortage of all the essential building materials, as you can see underneath the "The Age of the Caudillos" thing. Taxing won't change anything. You have to make the resources more accessible for your construction sites and maybe rely on wooden frame buildings before you do the next one. You can't build iron frame buildings if you don't have any iron extracted in your country. Building is only boring if you have no clue what you are doing and you just build stuff randomly like a Soviet planner in the 1930s.
that would mean even more waiting around and less playing
@@4thKaiser dude its a sim game, the whole game is waiting my guy.
I personally buy the DLCs because I spend a lot of time on these game and if I didn't I would also spend like 20-30€ on a different game every few months anyway. So if I get a little extra content for the game I really like I don't really mind
Also with vic3 they need this money, like game could literally die tomorrow. And while it's a bit borring it's also too unique to die just like that
It's paradox. They don't need the money. They need to make decent content @@Vr-ib8hp
This is reasonable
Thank you for expressing everything I thought about Vic3. This game is bad at its core and everything is about waiting.
Really love the video, you gave a voice to my thoughts.
I would like to know what’s your ideal (Victoria-like) strategy game, what are some of your must have features and what kind of ingame systems and experience you want to have. Maybe do a video on it, or just answer me. Either way I am looking forward to hearing (or reading) your thoughts on it.
the reason why the DLC has good review is because people with brain don't buy it until more reviews are available and paradox also made a few updates with fixes, balancing and maybe more content
if then the people buy it and it still sucks then the negative reviews are coming in
I wasn't planning to buy the dlc until its 50% off anyway, thanks for reinforcing my decision.
Finally, I find an honest paradox youtuber who validates the way I feel about this game. I watch so many other paradox players who are like WOOOW the game is so much better! But, it's literally so bug laden still and I still don't understand what any of my decisions are really doing.
It seems like this isn’t the right game for you. A certain amount of criticism is expected since the game needs a lot of improvement. However, you’re complaining about things that are game core, which should immediately turn off people who don’t like this kind of game. So, I see two main possibilities: either you don’t like this type of game and are trying to convince yourself otherwise instead of playing EU4, or you don’t know how to play this game and think it’s "broken" because you’re not having fun.
Forgive any mistakes in my English, I'm still learning
Yeah I get why it seems that way. But this game is for me, I only complain about it so much cause I find it so interesting. There's tons of shitty games out there - I talk about this one cause I think it's a tragic missed opportunity. Also your english is perfect
I played victoria 1 and Victoria 2 with dlc religiously 1000s of hours, Victoria 3 sucks. This game isn't for Victoria fans at all.
@@michalcynarski7321 Agreed. Vic 1 and 2 were niche games that were fun for a specific audience. "Old Paradox" knew their audience, and knew that their audience liked in depth mechanics and the delayed gratification of having played it well. I could spend hours making a monopoly in Vic2, to have it finally pay off after working for it.
"New Paradox" is trying to appeal to the map painters and the meme gamers that don't want to play a game, don't want to have to learn any tricky mechanics or understand anything - they want to press a button and have the game tell them they're winning, instant gratification, gameplay boiled down to a bar that fills up - even the most simple of people can understand that.
Its always a laugh when people that like the "New Paradox" games use the "you just don't know how to play the game" argument. Lol. Older Paradox fans know how to play more complex games - its the people that like the "new Paradox" games that don't know how to play games, that's why games like Vic3 exist - because games like Vic 1 and Vic 2 would be "too hard".
And no, i'm not being unfair - too many Vic 3 players were happy that stuff like troop management and movement was removed because, and i quote, "i don't like micromanagement". Imagine thinking that, 1, managing troops was considered "micromanagement", and 2, that micromanagement doesn't belong in a grand strategy game anyway.
I could listen to you rant about bad Paradox games for hours, you're hilarious dude lol
I must confess, I sometimes just read a book whilst the game ticks in the background.
Soon you will progress to the next level, reading a book whilst the game is turned off
@@dungeonman.fromyoutube I wish, my brain is too fried to be able to only do one thing at a time for more than a few minutes.
@LostSky866 I wish I had the balls to do this and catch up on my reading, instead I’m trembling in my boots thinking that the economy will crash if I don’t meticulously tend to market prices
That DLC should be free 💀💀💀
it's funny because just like with ck3 they basically take simple Gameplay mechanics that should have been part of the vanilla release and hide it behind a 30$ paywall
CK3 still has fewer mechanics/events compared to CK2.
Definitely agree on that feeling of thinking about the game more than playing it. Everytime I start a game I notice I have to do the same thing every run then I just get off. Honestly idk how content creators make so many videos on it.
Finally, another channel who does no-frills, moderately sarcastic commentary on games that I'm at least _slightly_ interested in. Cool, cool.
I'm curious as to your opinion, if any, on Crusader Kings 3. I've always been underwhelmed by that game since I acquired it back when it was newly release, and puzzled by how most other people seem to earnestly enjoy it. To me, that game and Victoria 3 appear to have a similar game design philosophy, on which I've no idea how to expound. It just feels that those two games have some kind of inherent... deficiency? Like there's something rooted in the foundations of those games that can't ever be improved upon no matter how many DLCs or updates the developers pump out. I don't know if I'm making sense. But it's a characteristic I feel these newer Paradox games have.
I'm a CK3 fan but "inherent deficiency" is accurate. These guys have a bad habit of making games that are technically fine but forgetting to put the good in them
I'm on the same boat. Conceptually I should be adoring CK3 but every time I tried playing it, I get bored on a level it's hard to express in words.
more historical flavor is the bare minimum of content that you should expect to be added for free in every update
with your japan example.
what do you do to get rid of ruling elite?
you make the rest of the country angry enough to revolt. then try and pass something to make them happy, which pisses off the Shogun, then you do a civil war and shogun have no power for some time....
ya know, play the game. lol
you have valid critiques but i also see that you dont actually know how to play game.
yes game can be boring. absolutely.
also 30 dollars is insane amount for this patch....
i have the expansion pass so all my dlc is "free" which makes my view of the DLC different as im not paying for them anymore.
Look into guilded destiny, looks like that vic3 civ style competition u talked ab
With your thoughts on spreadsheets vs tangible things, wonder what your opinion is on democracy 4
Dunno but I'll pick it up for you mr gaming
I agree with some of your criticisms, especially regarding the interactivity of building, where it could be more regional, but that has been a style since Victoria (original one), it is like 2 games, the spreadsheet and the map, where what you do in the spreadsheet has indirect effect on the map. So in a way, in your opinion, what Vic 3 needs to do to be better is to be further away from Vic 2 and 1. And yea, they could add more granularity so you are not just sitting and waiting around. But in general, this DLC has been a major improvement on the base game. The reviews might be the honeymoon effect, but for a month now the game has been over 10k base players since the DLC came out. So it is clear it has breathed new life into the game.
In my opinion there are a lot of lack of flavor, like culture bonus, national ideas... And you are right about the waiting, normally when I play a have to turn off music and have a good podcast to listen.
I hate blue Persia , i don't know who have done it to my country, but WHY? in every Paradox game , Persia is green . Like how it should be .
I hope Gilded Destiny is more like VIC2 than VIC3.
and this is why (bad/overpriced dlcs) "god" invented creamapi.
Although I would agree the civ comparison is bs bro, you dont like the game its fine and all but its not a "building buildings" game its about managing the economy of a country, wouldnt say the same about civ. There are some countries in which you dont build all that much actually at least for the first half or 2/3 of the game because your concerns arent there yet. Now I totally understand that people wouldnt find this game to fit in their definition of fun, but some of us do lol
I have to agree this guy is being somewhat pretentious himself saying get off your high horse to belittle others for saying they are different types of games. I enjoy Civ 5, Victoria 3, and Satisfactory. Again these are all very different types of games and a player that enjoys one of these types might not enjoy others. I can agree on his point of these features should have been in the base game and not a dlc. However, I feel he just isn’t the target audience for this sort of game. Finally his game is going pretty slow on 5 speed and the game is a lot more enjoyable when it runs faster so you don’t spend so much time waiting. Again problem with the game. It should run better than it does, but you could decrease waiting times and increase fun by upgrading your pc.
I feel like if he wants to enjoy the game he needs to upgrade his pc seeing it again on 5 speed time should be passing around 4 to 5 times as fast. Is it unreasonable to expect someone to upgrade their pc for one game? Well yes. Is there another solution if you want to enjoy the game? No because paradox sucks and that is life.
11:10 it's the same like in eveery other paradox game and while they can sometimes ne fun for the first 10 hours of playing the game they afterwards get boring af, like take ck3 where these kind of events are the only way of actually interacting with other and your characters and they always have the same often weirdly unrealistic events that always end up in you either get more or less of whatever this event is about, be it opinion or success chance in a plot or whatever
Love this sarcasm.
yeah so the game still is just 90% you wait, you set a law and wait and wait and then put a few buildings into the Queue and then you wait and then you wait even more and then you declare war and then you wait and then you press a button to get some alies and then you wait and then you press a button to send your army to the fron and then you wait until the war is over and then you wait and then you decide the next law and then you wait and then there are a few boring generic events once in a while and then you decide for one of 2 or 3 decisions and then you wait and wait and wait
They should hire you instead, but to be honest, I recommend Geopolitical Simulator > Victoria 3
Agreed with all your comments except i quite like journal entries because it gives me a goal. But yeah i own paradox games and the writing for their events is always horrendously bad. Like they arent readable
I personaly like vic3, even more than ck3 for example. But yeah you are right that the game is a bit boring since the only point of building buildings is to make line go up
He is right
I feel a big part of the ”boringness” is because of the lack of flavour and visual cues. If you think about it, this game is a fantastic alt history simulator creating all kinds of wonky governments and situations. But the presentation of all that is basically spreadsheets. I think they should double down with the 3D characters, background visuals, event art and all that to breathe more life to the game. Nevertheless I still like the game, somehow provides a nice counterbalance to today’s instagratification culture. Great video, keep it up!
And to add one more thing, Vic 3 could make a great multiplayer game. Paradox should strenghten the diplomacy and geopolitics aspects to make it an engaging mp game. In that sense 1.7 and the DLC was a step in good direction.
Yeah, it is the exact same game, i dont think it changed that much, same gameplay there is lack depth in the game, diplomacy is faulty, polotics is horrible, agitators is a nuisance. Warfare brain dead and frustrating with armies constantly sifting fronts (going of the front to manover over to the same front) and yeah notifications are horible. The game needs a greater rework then just ui and information accses.
its a lot more...but still there is nothing like a world war 1 scenario or anything.
its weird.
Finally a content creator that has a sensible opinion on sphere of influence. I swear all the big creators are selling optimism to the audience
Hilliarious - totally agree. Great game to fall asleep to.
Clout chaser
I already have all the clout
Factorio should be liked doom, i want to shoot enemies in first person
The game isn't for you and it's fine to admit it. I actually like building buildings in spreadsheets menu.
You can do that for free in actual spreadsheet tbh
it never happened? Stellaris never happened? Europa universalis common sense didn't happen? Crusader kings 2 didn't happen?
Wow...
listen you got very good points but you are throwing every negativity onto changes as "this should been part of game"... that is not a valid argument! You can't say "FIX THE GAME" and when they do you can't say "THIS SHOULD BEEN LIKE THAT FROM START" yes it should been, but its now finally so what you should say is "good job I am neutral to this issue now" at worst case.
its not about building buildings its about building economy, trouble is only way to do it right now is building thats why it feels like that.
you say civ... hell civ is doing some stuff WORSE than what you said. In civ its not like you see the map first and then pick your leader and your nation no you pick it and game's engine is like "AH SHIT HE PICKED KOREA! I NEED HILLS!!! I NEED HILLS TO PUT KOREA ON!!!!!"
do you want to nitpick flaws that will never be fixed? LETS GO
here is civ6 problems that will never be fixed
Religious victory sucks and boring unless you are taking religion for buffs. Their movement UI is buggy and doesn't show proper areas they can reach in hostile terrority.
rarely you can spawn inside mountains, making you lose at very early game since you can't expand anymore
golden age mechanic is literally like: "do just good enough to get golden age but don't get more points because you will be just wasting points and making next one more expensive" game is punishing you for playing good!
barbarians is absolutly shit and many players just disable them because how terribly they are made. At higher difficulty you can just lose game because 2 horse archer barbarians spawned next to you.
Civ AI is the worst AI in any strategy game I ever seen! Atleast in normal difficulty eu4 AI can still do stuff and not fall onto ground and die
civ 6 AI is like running around with crossbows while you are going to space! holy shit! ITS A TURN BASED GAME NOT REAL TIME STRATEGY!!!! ORIGINAL WARCRAFT 3 HAD BETTER AI!!!
you are speaking of "oh... this dlc adds nothing" but lets be honest you at best playing those "scenarios" once until half of the mission then get bored and quit. Other than few good ones they are poorly made.
to play civ6 you literally need to read a book. Seriously you need a massive encylopedia and if you are not doing that you better not play game at all because at modern era you gonna get so frustated from all the wonders you can't build from very specific requirements they have.
don't even make me start with culture victory! Its just you watching numbers get bigger until your numbers are so big that enemy can't stop you
you want to be democracy as japan... and shogun says no? Yes duh... do you know what you do when he says no? YOU GO TO WAR! YOU START A REVOLUTION!
radicilize your own nation make farmers rebel, now you have no shogun.
Not to defend the guy who made the video, but this comment is just some serious whataboutism.
Like, how did you get to talking about Civ's AI? And Warcraft 3? Lmao how?? Those two are completely different games from Vicky anyway and shouldn't be compared.
@@missingmochigumanofficial yes it is whataboutism because he did say all that things and then said "just play civ6" if those problems are reason to not play vic3 then all of these things I mentioned are equally good reason to not play civ 6.
if you watch the video he compares vic3 and civ6 first
Found the DLC gobloid
we still have anouther shot with gilded destiny check it out!
While I disagree with your criticism of their DLC vs free update allocation, I think this game has been an unmitigated disaster.
I understand they need to make money by making DLCs in addition to free updates, so it seems unfair to criticize them for making more of it free and less behind a paywall.
In terms of the game’s quality however, it’s garbage. They absolutely trashed the military side of the game with the justification of “it’s an economic simulator”, then didn’t even have all of the economic features of the previous game. Over a year and a half to add foreign investment? Really? The warfare is buggy, tedious, and too up to the whims of garbage AI. If you play a completely pacifist game to avoid dealing with this system, you’re faced with an inability to effectively expand your industry and engage effectively in diplomacy. If you are able to survive that major restriction, you are left with a very boring mobile game where you just click upgrade on your buildings for 100 years then restarting.
I think the game’s most fatal flaw is the military changes. If it wasn’t for how ancient Victoria 2 is and as a result how user unfriendly it is, there would be absolutely no reason to play Victoria 3 instead.
Bros literally complaining about the core of the game, obviously it's not for you lmao. Go play Civ??? You're asking this game to be something it's not.
The people that actually like the game, love this DLC. The issue is, if you don't enjoy the core gameplay and the fact that its primarily an Economic Simulator, go play something else.
This is like playing Mario Kart and whining about the Karts not being realistic. "They'll never make the karts realistic and I'm all about realism". Then play Forza. Literally the equivalent.
Also, get good, just a skill issue on your part.
That's the issue though, the core of this game isn't what it should have been. It should have been Victoria 2 with updated graphics and better simulation.
@@vodyanoy2 Then go play Vic 2, from how the maker of the video talks he wouldnt even like Vic 2 though
@@Barndo13 Nah
@@vodyanoy2 then stop crying about it
@@enzocarrascosa7850 Who's crying? You?
Comment for the algorithm, good luck my man.
The fact that victoria 3 is victoria 3 and not Victoria 2 2 should be a crime against humanity.
This game is not for you, stop torturing yourself with something you never liked
Great video your one of the few UA-camrs to keep it real
While I disagree with your criticism of their DLC vs free update allocation, I think this game has been an unmitigated disaster.
I understand they need to make money by making DLCs in addition to free updates, so it seems unfair to criticize them for making more of it free and less behind a paywall.
In terms of the game’s quality however, it’s garbage. They absolutely trashed the military side of the game with the justification of “it’s an economic simulator”, then didn’t even have all of the economic features of the previous game. Over a year and a half to add foreign investment? Really? The warfare is buggy, tedious, and too up to the whims of garbage AI. If you play a completely pacifist game to avoid dealing with this system, you’re faced with an inability to effectively expand your industry and engage effectively in diplomacy. If you are able to survive that major restriction, you are left with a very boring mobile game where you just click upgrade on your buildings for 100 years then restarting.
I think the game’s most fatal flaw is the military changes. If it wasn’t for how ancient Victoria 2 is and as a result how user unfriendly it is, there would be absolutely no reason to play Victoria 3 instead.