That Johan anecdote about coding stuff into the game after an evening at the pub is crazy. Sounds like me and my buddies homebrewing stuff for table top games. The axiom of: "If you forget it by tomorrow, it wasn't worth having in the game" is particularly striking.
I feel that both says a lot about them. They were messy, incompetent, and more than a little mad, but goddamnit they were passionate about the games they made.
The funniest thing about the latest DLC was all the thumbs up on the basis that it was "better than Voices of the People" just goes to show how low the standards of the PDX consumers has become - no wonder they pump out hollow games and fill the never-ending void with poor DLCs.
11:40 I think ISP was just saying what he thought when he saw the review score. His actual opinion during the video and the fact he uploaded a vic2 video after that shows his opinion on vic3.
I get that paraslop will never make a good game from release, because making it playable cost an extra 100 dollars in slop dlc plus the 40 to buy the game in the first place, but I would have liked to see a bit of expansion on the logistical aspects of war. In Victoria 2, your logistics spending effects every army, not just one individual army or group of them. Being able to group armies together in a system similar to what hoi4 has and choose what level of supply they should get would IMO have been a good addition.
4:08 Possibly the worst parts of each games. The late devlopment cancer of everything being an unfinished turd without any proper QA testing from Eu4, where the game is more about finding the one and only optimal way to play a nation and then win. The constant annoyance of the braindead Hoi4 combat AI, but imagine you can't micro your troops and have to resort on using Battleplans only mode, without even the ability to draw the lines. Plus the really bad economical system. Or Imperator Rome: Getting the game constantly remade from patch to patch, so it won't even have any close proximity of what it was when 1.0 was released. Just to make sure, that if you liked the on-release features and paid for those features specifically, you being screwed by a bunch of lazy dickholes pretending to be a fan-friendly game studio. Now combine all three with the most infuriating part of all three: Having to pay for DLC's, because things what should be in the base game on-basis are now attached to awful flavour packs, what now YOU HAVE TO BUY! Oh, you don't care about the shitty agitator system? Too-bad, you have to buy it, if you want Bonapartist France playthrough!
For some reason they did 1.5 open beta patch for 2-3 months, only to release a bunch new features on patch release, wtf is the open beta for? Because of that they got bug-ridden free weekend, shit hit the fan
I remember some weeks before the infamous Victoria 3 leak back in early 2022 there were posts in 4chan from supposed "PDX insiders" about a power struggle inside the dev team between people who had worked in Victoria 2 and their followers, and Wiz' people, mainly former modders or early Stellaris devs. The rumor was that PDX execs favored the latter because it was cheaper to develop (they were already having rough quarters back then), did some shake ups and went with that option. Apparently some of these "disgruntled devs" were moved to other projects or just fired (that's how the thread went).
The patch and free week saw vic3 have a 78% boost in the number of players over november but that growth has slowed since then and is generally trending back down to pre patch numbers
One topic I have been thinking about for a while is the fact that Paradox basically stumbled their way into the "games as a service" model. With their games being so niche, and having such a dedicated fanbase, it is the most profitable way to monetize it. The DLC creation schedules for games like CK2 and EU4 were canaries in the coal mine for the games industry as a whole. I think one of the key drawbacks to this games as a service model has to do with the content they actually create for their games. Instead of making DLC that adds new mechanics or features that promote emergent gameplay and unique situations, we get railroaded flavorpacks for individual regions. Personally, I find it a bit boring when the AI just works down the same focus or mission tree every game, or when the "struggle" in a region can only "end" one of 3 ways. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with this stuff, but it's just not anything new for the genre. It makes me worry for Paradox's future a bit. Developing a larger number of smaller and more experimental strategy games could give them a chance to innovate and make mistakes without huge consequence, and now they're big enough that they can afford to. Instead, it seems like they're putting a bigger number of eggs into a smaller number of baskets... But I don't work for Paradox so what do I know
It was insanely funny to me that the free week was advertised as "Look, we fixed the war system!" and it had a completely game breaking bug through all of it that made war unplayable for any nation with small allies, like Prussia.
I personally like victoria 3 for its economic simulation. But I am not blind to its MANY MANY issues. The fact that Vic2 a game that came out 12 YEARS ago has a more a more immersive diplomatic system speaks absolute volumes about how hard they dropped the ball with this one...
I keep saying this, but the one great idea vicky 3 has, imo is the political system. The fine tuning of interest groups, policies, and national ideologies to me is way more interesting than the the basic unchangeable choices of ideologies that sometimes had interesting little quirks in it depending on the country. All other ways though vicky 2 is superior. I hope theres a way that this could potentially be added by an interested modder into open vicky 2.
Disagree personally. you are rather limited in what you are reasonably able to play without it handi-capping your game hard which boils down to uber-capitalist or uber-communist. You do have about 30-40 different policy choices but other then you needing to pick something in the interm if the pretty bad "law rolling" system goes against you, how often do you actually stick with one of them and feel no difference from the other one in the same tree that is just superior.
@@SpookyScarySkeletor If you want to talk about what's optimal to play, vicky 2 is just as if not more limited: If you're in the old world you keep reactionaries for them most likely having state capitalism so you have some control over your industry with the faster justification speeds. If you're in the new world you just rush militancy/consciousness as liberals to max immigration. (one thing I'm happy about vicky 3 changing, at least in concept, is immigration being less tied on party and the western hemisphere/australia and more on policy. In practice though this hasn't worked out that well, at least last time I checked) If you're westernizing (another concept I'm happy vicky 3 changed to something more accurate and less western-centric) you sit with liberals. Late game you just go fascist to flip flop reforms and keep militancy down unless you want to tailor your industry bc capitalists built too many shitty nonsense factories, then you go communist. I'd rather have the ability to tailor this and roleplay
And? regardless the game is empty and markets itself as a economic and political simulator more then an actual paradox brand grand strategy game. It goes ahead and touts its pollical complexity while having a clear end goal and making you suffer with no other way to play then one of the two available routes. Yes, can go ahead and say all you wish that Viccy 2 is much more limited and that it is I will admit as it boils down to "go reactionary and have state capitalism/protectionism" to build your own shit and not worry about elections. But that is a game with a lot more in terms of content and flavour with other things to do then worry about the politicking alone. Viccy 3 is not so lucky, having only 2 ways to go with the game actively discouraging you to play other then liberal hyper capitalists or authoritarian super communists is honestly ridiculous. not to mention the fact and it is repeated greatly but for a reason. Paradox is not a baby indie company anymore, Viccy 2 is a product of their roots basically and it was when they were much smaller. It having a rather eh politic system is not that great but its also more or less expected based on what they were trying to go for versus what they could achieve. Paradox is magnitudes larger now and charge AAA prices for their games, its not complex. You may have 100 funny buttons in different menus to mix and match but why do half of them when they either hurt you more or have literal direct upgrades right next to them. Yes you can go ahead and larp all you wish but in terms of benefits you have no reason. and just to say atleast you can use fascists' for something in viccy 2. I have never actually needed them for anything at all. They are literally diet landowners who have some intelligencia laws and serve as more of a "I can try to use them in the early game" thing then anything else. I have never needed to use them for anything but.@@airnspace4814
@@SpookyScarySkeletor I just want to remind you that in my original comment that I said I still think vicky 2 overall is a better game lmao. It kicks vicky 3's ass with economics, warfare, and international diplomacy. I wasn't arguing that it was an overall better game. I just think it has three neat features that I would love to see worked in better modded into open vicky 2 whenever it comes out: changing westernization to international recognition (which is objectively more correct and in line with modern academic historical analysis), allowing immigration to be less centered on the New World, and having these options to more customize your government. Also, isn't it better to go councilist or anarchist than vanguardist for immigration reasons?
I’m not too upset about pops being abstracted to state level. the game is already performance intensive, could you imagine splitting each pop up 10 times?
@@SpudgunOfficial Love Vic 2 to death. Tried Vic 3 and didn’t hate it but wished it was more optimized as it slowed way down around 1890. Hopefully EU5 is much better optimized.
I can very much see the quality of a game when i'm playing MP with the boys and my country stays fine and dandy when i stay 10 minutes afk taking a shit or making a snack. Hell, i even snuck a jack off in the middle of a Vic 3 session and nothing bad happened with it. Quality game, paradox.
Maybe if Victoria 3 gets abandoned if Spheres of Influence flops the devs will go and make EU V an actually good game. Nah I'm just kidding that's gonna suck too
One thing that does give me hope is that Johan claims there is no reason EUV would not include all content from EUIV. If they port the mission system it is entirely possible that they are able to port every mission from every DLC into the base game. If they don't do that it's starting from zero again and I won't even consider buying.
@@sneed457 if they actually included all EU IV content and released it in a playable state I would get it. However given their track record I have no hope for it. The main thing I would want is just a better optimized game because the game slows massively
I've tried playing Victoria 3, but it just lacks basically anything good. The economic system is super confusing and overly-complicated, whereas in Viki 2 you didn't have to worry about the factories too much unless you WANTED to, now you have to, and it sucks. Construction system is annoying and takes forever. The military system is just horrible, the zooming is super weird, and the replayability is terrible, especially considering that it was made by paradox, a studio known for it's game replayability
This was a reasonable and thoughtful video. I wasn't expecting it to come across so calm and measured. I like to see all those Viki 3 apologists call you a blind hater now!
I think he’s dipped into the hating on Vic 3 just cause it exists but overall he’s a moderate and pretty thoughtful guy and I’m glad he can take it to what it is
@@SpudgunOfficial True true, unfortunately. But at least I know now that whenever I do see them, I'll roll my eyes, keep scrolling and continue on with my day. Keep up the good work Spud! 👍
I agree with all this. On top of that I think that they pitched an idea for a game that would take years to do, and they tried to release in just over a year, and this ultimately is a terrible business move. I basically crossed that game, and while I try it every major update it's still somehow the fucking same, and I ask myself am I going crazy. My biggest gripe is that there's just absolutely fuckall to do there. Like 90% of the game is spent in some building menus, trying to understand what the fuck is even happening because the UI is so dogshit, and I've had games where I literally just built buildings for 50 years and nothing more. This is not fun gameplay. You know, if these had an economics sim under the hood then maybe that'd be satisfying to a degree, but in every other paradox game that I have played when you play tall for 50 years you can death war most countries around you. Like if I play Switzerland in EU4 and play tall for 50 years I am one of the major powers in the area, and because of the mountain forts I can white peace worst case scenario. With 50 years of playing tall you can start outpacing France and attack them and be on an even playing field. In Vic 3 you are the same shit country, you get some more money, some better units and that's it. There's just nothing there that feels like an achievement and nothing you do intertwines with anything else, and when it does it often contradicts itself. In EU4 you constantly make tiny choices with the mana points for example, in CK2 and 3 you make little things that amount to something bigger, it all makes sense, makes you feel like you developed this country. Vic3? nah, fuck that. The most pathetic showcase of how boring this game is was when I played that open beta for 1.5 as Japan, and I had like 4 wars against me and nobody came to me. So I wanted to see if maybe the warfare system is bugged so I just started a new game, took France, immediately attacked Spain, and just put everything on "advance", and in a few months I conquered a big part of Spain, with seemingly no hardships. Like... What?! Go into EU4 and do the same, and you MIGHT win, in fact against AI you probably will if you are half decent, but it's gonna be a long and annoying war this will cost money, manpower, and stifle your other conquests that would have been more lucrative. In CK3 you most definitely will win because Spain is struggling, so take something like France vs England in the later start date. It's gonna cost you men, you probably want to have a nice unit composition which will cost you money, you want good leaders which are not a given, you can't take loans so no EUIV style death warring, when you run money deficit the units get worse, so you are bound by the available options. It all takes effort is what I'm saying, and Vic3 does not. It's just such an empty game that is fundamentally broken on every level. This game feels like that essay you had half a year to write, but you put it off until the day before deadline and it is sorta on the topic, but everything about it sucks, and you get a D at best, F at worst.
IMHO, I’d say that internal politics aren’t perfect, but the concepts are sound and well implemented (could use similar system for factions in stellaris) and the economics are solid, but boring,so it needs some rework (having to choose methods manually kills me + no national energy grid). However, it’s a pain in the ass to make and manage all your import/exports, diplomacy needs a rework (lots of options, lack of clear distinction and different mechanichs between them, like being in a customs union makes you a subject) and everything related to war sucks ass (diplomatic plays had good intentions, but made wars too static -impossible to join after war started or change around wargoals, the combat system makes no sense for early game and everything related to the war AI, like choosing which units fight a battle or front reassignment simply does not work). They just needed to take Vic2 systems and add frontline tools from euiv, that would already make late game war manageable and enjoyable and it would be enough
Yeah, poor stellaris. Strange start with a clear line of improvement that's now started just falling back off again. Peak was probably around federations to overlord. I haven't played since paragons was dropped considering how much it broke while not only _not_ adding good stuff, but actively _ruining_ what it set out to improve. Let's see what sphere of influence does for vic 3.
it isnt going that well, they are trying to go ahead and force balance by basically brushstroking everything meta adjacent turning every build good or fun upside down. If you would check on it on steam rn you would see in the last 2 weeks about 3-4 balance patches trying to fix the game because of the complete shit show that was paragons with its balance and leader changes. It hasnt gotten better, the new DLC is almost as bad as CA's and everything is on fire. Within about 2-3 months I think the fire will be out and the game will be playable but rn it anit lookin good chief.
Its really awkward to see PDX try to introduce micro into the game when it is obvious it isnt really build for that. The current system is so clunky its hilariously bad. The worst part is i dont even see a way for it to improve, since many issues are because of the concept of frontlines.
Developer incompetence drove a lot of the mechanics in this game, like how goods are a mana system. Funnily enough, the devs are still really incompetent with things that shouldn't be hard to code.
Thinking about it it's probably a gigantic effort to put a "army stack on map moving around" system into the game like Vic2,eu4,hoi etc since they will need to add shit loads more tiles for there to be room to move around.
@@normalusername5223 Vicky 3 has the most tiles in any paradox game and they're used exclusively for map painting (now superfluous as they changed map painting to go by a full state per battle)
As someone with 3000 hours in both Eu4 and Hoi4, I can confidently say Vic3 does not "marry" anything about them. Maybe it takes the build queue from hoi4, which is funny because that system is so simple so you can mostly ignore your economy to focus on MICROING UNITS. As for EU4 maybe he means they copy the lack of pops? I really don't get it, the point of EU4 is painting and forming your map, which is explicitly the opposite of Vic3's stated goals.
I was gonna say the same. I love EU4 and HOI4. I have thousands of hours into them and have been playing them since launch. And Vic 3 is nothing like those. Hell, Millenium Dawn and Old World Blues have had more work put into it. The cursed pony mod puts any modern PDX game to shame.
@joshjonson2368 This world is getting more and more cursed. But I think you have a point there. The more talented people are always more "eccentric". PS. There should be a place for people like us as well without being lectured. People in the East who do not buy into Western depravity.
Spudgun I'm sorry I have to say this but your 'profile picture' is very displeasing to the eye, it would be wonderful if you could change it to something a more palatable such as a catgirl or a firetruck. Either way I enjoy your 'videos' and wish you the best of luck.
Nobody should take Andy seriously. You may not be in the total war community, but he flipped from being the shilliest of shill to have ever shilled to being the harshest of critics once Volound (a major critic of newer total wars) started to get traction
He just supports whatever is popular, he is a completely unapologetic spineless shill. He hyped up Pharaoh without ever playing it on pre-release... Then the game releases and it flops. A couple of days later he makes a video all about how the game is bad and how he expected it to be bad anyways because CA has fallen off etc...
ck2 I think certainly *was* a labor of love. The iron century update didn't need to happen but it really rounded off a well matured game. Ck3 will need I feel another few years before it even approaches the level of.. fullness that ck2 had after iron century.
@@ravenouself4181 The god awful ui of ck3 caused me to lose my mind more than ck2 ever did and that was the first paradox game I ever played. I gave up on ck3 after about 6 hours.
If you want a banger economic system, and don't quite mind the somewhat lacking war system (as well as own Vic3), Try the Cold War Project mod. It adds a lot more goods, as well as fiscal policy management. The game systems fit so much better into a Cold War system, its baffling how they didn't just set it there in the first place. There are wars, but very few really scaled that high, and the armies fought along the front lines/regions rather than in armies that travelled around in stacks like the Victorian era. Just more of a flavor win and genuinely good improvements
Honestly its hilarious how a game about the victorian era has systems more fitting with the cold war. with that warfare system especially given that during the cold war there were few large scale conflicts
For me, the final straw for this game was the truly pathetic first DLC. Why should I pay 15 dollars for socialist leaders and flavor that should already be in the game on launch? Completely burned all my goodwill for the game.
Every paradox game in a nutshell I don't buy anything from them anymore because of the way they are trying to squeeze every dollar dry out of their bugged game.
I’ll never understand why they chose to do the war system the way they did. Not because I want to map paint every game but that they took away player agency. All other paradox games allow you to MANUALLY control almost every important aspect of your country or empire. Even fucking hoi4 a full on war game has a simple economy system that players can mess around with to some degree. Removing features and player agency to play the game how they want to is something I’ll never understand. Paradox has fallen😔
So you could "focus" on their other half baked systems (besides the economy which ironically is WAY to micro intensive.) Remember, war wasn't the main focus of this era even though we're not designing the game to be much more than a historically flavored sandbox. 🤓 That's always a good sign, intentionally designing a shitty unfun system so the others get more attention. They fucked up. Bad. lmfao
Excellent Breakdown! A side note on the Stellaris bit. I have been playing Stellaris since launch, Initially the game was not focused around balance, but instead focused around interesting play styles and fun stories. With Utopia it built on that vision, then you could sink you massive stockpiles into impractical Mega-structures. Apocalypse was also Awesome, It added planet killers and redid the fleets. Then Came Megacorp. In that Update, they shifted their design philosophy primarily to balance, which involved completely changing, or even stripping out certain mechanics (The FTL Change being the only one I still disagree with). A move that a large minority disagreed with, but overall was an improvement for the game. Every update past that still tried to maintain that balance viewpoint to varying degrees of success, and while quite a few had mixed reviews, they were overall good, even the Species packs (Flavour) were starting to feel like Mini DLC with what they brought to the table. The 'Custodian' updates were also great, having a team dedicated to going back through previous DLCs and mechanics to refine them and tie them together for free was probably Paradoxes single best Idea when it comes to the quality of their games. However, Astral Planes exist now. From the little I could stand to play, it seems like whoever designed it decided to completely leave balancing to the wayside, Parts of it are blatantly OP, while others are completely useless, or even worse, Endless popups that are irrelevant. It fly's in the face of what they had going for the Game. Also, even bigger side Note, the reason why the Star Treck game fails is quite simple, one of the oldest mods for Stellaris is ST: New Horizons, which is infinitely better than the paraslop they are peddling.
At some point they need to make DLC that adds stuff that doesn't just give or change how modifiers work and that is where it is going to be hard for stellaris and it is evident with how mediocre the last few DLC's where. That being said The machine age looks good though I wish they did something other than synthetics which they already covered in a DLC. At least they are adding new ways to play the game instead of new modifier stacking mechanics with a glorified points bar attached,
The thing is the Vic 2 community has never been against Vic 3. We just had another opinion on the mechanics. Most of the people didn't want Vic 3 to fail.
Yes exactly haha, it was the vic 2 community more than anyone who was turbo excited originally vic might finally see a sequel. Lol I dropped it very fast after release and I might be eternally disappointed with it. Spud names some things in 1.5 it inches towards doing in the right direction but over all the game just does not have the content, quality of life or care as vic 2 and it just kind of guts me we will still be without a good victorian era geo politics sim :\ Maybe some indie dev will take their own chances with their own IP in lieu of PDXs failure, lol
Ah, but that doesn't play into Vic3 community's weird victim fetish(?) thing, or whatever you can call that. How can these people enjoy anything if there isn't a group of disney villain 'dinosaurs' hating them as well as the product they consume for no reason other than that they want to right click toy soldiers and "for the natives to be called primitives again"?
Vic 3 is probably gonna be my last first party paradox game I buy. I'm still salty about buying the grand edition before launch. I could be wrong but I feel like vic 3 is a sign of things to come for paradox. Also I recently went back to vic 2 after not playing for about a year, and I was struck by how much easier it is to get the information I want in vic 2 as opposed to 3. Vic 2 ui is super dated and ugly, but at least I don't need to go through like 4 menus and pop ups to see my pop needs
@@Antonious_jeffer The economy is tedious, unrealistic, and boring. Warfare is completely fucked. Politics make almost zero sense for the era. Little to no flavor at launch and even now. I genuinely can't think of a good thing about this game, it doesn't even run faster despite being able to use multiple cores. You literally cannot play past 1880 if you don't have a super high end cpu. It's over for victoria 3. Ideally the best thing to do is for them to completely remake it and fire whoever came up with the ideas and the implementation for victoria 3. But knowing Paradox, they will just milk the game for years without ever fixing the issues, adding more features without fixing existing ones. So all in all, yes. It is hot garbage, I say this having over 200 hours in it and another 2 thousand in victoria 2.
@@datboi9994 damn , i was thinking of giving it a try and see for myself if it was truly garbage , espically that the price fell drastically . Well thanks alot for saving my money .
Btw vicky3 was like a full if not 2 years away from being completed. It got released basically literally half way through completion since paradox was having couple rough quarters and they talked about their release gaps between big games being too big. They lied about the whole "it's actually a game direction" angle it's literally unfinished and not even in the normal paradox way.
@@SpudgunOfficial I'm sure it's out there I saw a random guy with like a 1k view video I already lost somewhere about the statements from the CEOs and the quarters being bad and complaining about big releases being too far apart. I legitimately think it makes complete sense since after having unfortunately play tested (playing is not the right word) it after release for probably close to 200 hours it legitimately is like the base upon which the game was gonna be built and they just SENT it as is. Actual empirical evidence about the development going exactly this way isn't around (yet at least) but I'm 100% sure this happened. Worst part is it was a financial success of a launch so yeah it's over for gamers brainded consoomers are lowering the quality of everything for the rest of us
New Zealand is a tag that is currently in the game, however there is no way to form it other than via console commands. Your 100% correct, this game was released half way through development.
@@whitehawk4099 Eh, I doubt that. Even if they scale things back it's gonna make money i they finish this game's lifecycle in any halfway decent shape.
As someone who plays Victoria 3 as a long time paradox player (I pre ordered the physical copy of Hoi3 if that tells you how F***ING ancient I am), Victoria 3 is an occasional time killer. I’ll play it when a big expansion is released. I’d compare it to a mobile game I play while taking a number 2 to just kill time. All the nations play basically the exact same. All the indepth important stuff like pops and classes have been made irrelevant and back ground noise. I basically live in the trade menu. I can take an unrecognized 3rd world dump and be the number 1 gdp in the world by the late 1800s-1900s basically when the games engine has enough and commits Seppuku because it can’t handle mid-late game calculations. So yes I play it rarely but it’s to bland and vanilla to be enjoyed long term unlike literally every other paradox game. I feel like the entire game could be played on an ipad if they actually had a half decent engine.
I played the free weekend and the game was so much worse than I thought. UA-camrs cut out most of the game so I thought there was any fun to be had. But no, just micro thy buildings and trade, without any of the satisfaction of a game properly built for building growth like factorio
The day before they announced the free weekend I actually decided to buy the game thanks to OPB, so the free weekend actually lost them at least one sale
At this point there isnt any good victorian era game They have to gloss over what made that period what it is Colonization of the dark continent, westernization, and way too many wars to name The impact of the technological leaps during this time outpaced anything people could dream of, nobody can do this part right Idk if you want to mess with economy in a 1800s sense play Anno 1800 or Vic 2
And it would be politically difficult to actually let the player do what European countries did without forcing him to not behave historically by encouraging and rewarding femininist, LGBTQ+, anti-racist, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist events, perks, and decisions.
I think its insane that a company nobody remembers can update a game like Star Wars Empire at War, last dlc in 2006, with a fraction of the playerbase to have 64 bit support and stability fixes in 2023, yet PDX just is content to let Vic2 chads wallow in the swamp of desyncs, rehosts, and not even a lobby system while shoveling their money into a trashfire like Vic3. PDX must be taking notes from Bethesda's design philosophy of "let the players fix it".
@@SpudgunOfficial I specifically baited this reply. I hope you realize a good portion of the vicky 2 community treats you and the project you shill (and don't even contribute to) as a joke.
Overall I agree with you a lot on the war and development cycle criticisms of Victoria 3, however I will disagree with some of your criticisms of the updated Economic and Politics systems of Victoria 3, especially compared with Victoria 2. Things like the local prices, interest groups (and how different pop types affect them), and the market mechanics of Victoria 3 actually present an interesting system, in my view, which gives interesting insights into the way states behaved during the historical time period. I would even argue that these systems are upgrades from the previous systems of Victoria 2, which mostly revolved around election cycle events, militarism/consciousness, and state edicts that do not strike me as an accurate simulation of the forces at work in a nation's political and economic ecosystem.
Fair enough, I don't know much about these systems because the things I did talk about in this video (buildings, war) are enough to put me off playing it and learning and being able to form an opinion on them.
Big issue I see is the lack of replayability that Vic2, Stellaris and EU4 do offer. You cant really mix economics, politics and diplomacy yourself in Vic3 and get a very diverse selection of playstyles and wildly different campaigns. The thing that Vic3 misses is that players see/imagine endless possibilities in the game and want to play nation X and do Y and Z differently in their next campaign. Fixing war, diplomacy and economics doesnt really adress that, its only going to fix the basegame and after that paradox can start to improve the x factor (replayability) to attract people.
I also think releasing the game too early is the main reason why they struggle with the low player numbers and hoped that Stellaris and Imperator shaky releases would've taught them lessons to do it a bit differently. Too much time is put into fixing the game while it should be put into expanding a game that people want to play agian and agian.
The one thing that really irks me is that the ability to play the game is shoehorned into 2 directions, Uber-Communist or Uber-Capitalist. There is no reason or incentive to play otherwise because it is so damaging to your play that you basically cant play anything other then them. There being a few "different" communist governments is also virtually mechanically useless basically just being your favorite shade of authoritarianism, Every game is basically the same with internal politics. It has honestly stopped me from playing more then the little that already happens from game to game. there is almost no replayability other then mental goals.
I play Vic3 as a grand strategy idle game. Something I play while doing other shit. 1.5 somehow made it harder to do that while not adding any depth. I LOVE HAVING TO MICROMANAGE EVERY GENERAL YET NOT HAVING ANY REAL TACTICAL CONTROL OVER THEM, WHAT A GREAT MECHANIC
I will say that you tried to give snide commentary that the army is just walking/ riding down a path before forming a front line but that is literally how it worked and still works
I have thousands of hours in CK2, EU4, and HoI4. I also have played V2 in SP and enjoyed it for what it is. I also bought tons of DLC for all of them. However, I refused to buy Stellaris, I:R, or V3. Why? They weren't made for me. I bought CK3 and played it for a very small period of time. Why? It wasn't made for me. These newest games have a new target audience that does not include the long-time players. I'm cautiously optimistic about EU5 due to how open Johan has been about the failures of their most recent titles, but we'll have to see.
i have a creeping suspicion that paradox suffers from the same problem as creative assembly, that is, a terrible engine with garbage documentation that makes it impossible to work with, even for experience devs, not to say anything about poor new hires. and yes, shillkoen never fucking changes.
@@benismann true but they at least have a vision and actually good ideas flavour and mechanic-wise. I am not certain about how they end up fixing bugs though... And not like hoi4 "bugs" where Devs are just actually not doing their jobs, but engine-level bugs
You mean their attempt at an Auto-Battler with the battleplanner in HoI 4? The one which could be beaten if you spent 90% of the game right clicking tiles for every single unit instead of focusing on grand strategy? Causing 90% of the player base to abandon multiplayer. They replaced their front line system with an actual autobattler.
One fun thing about Stellaris is that the pop system is actually 10 times better and deeper than in Vic3. Aside from species, they have traits, ideological values, happiness, different rights, political party they support, needs and conditions which they prefer, as well as events related to individual pops, somethimes even giving you a special, rare pop. Someone under this also mentioned how much the game lets us control and influence pops. We can freely resettle them, turn them into cyborgs, genetically modify them, etc. As an avid player of Stellaris, for most of any campaign, I always care and overmicro the pops, because they actually feel like real subjects, not mere numbers on a screen.
I'm going to push back against this. Have you played vic 3? Saying that pops in stellaris are better and deeper because they have "happiness, different rights, political party they support, needs and conditions which they prefer" is interesting when you consider that vic 3 has all these same systems. It has pop happiness through loyalists, radicals and SoL. You can't control different rights per race from a menu like in stellaris, but you have voting laws/acceptance laws/women's laws/slavery laws/serfdom. Each pop has a natural inclination towards a political party based on their job, but this is further changed by how attractive the party is and whether the pop is allowed to or even wants to vote, pops influence your empires political ideology significantly more than in stellaris. They also have goods they prefer depending on culture, they avoid pollution/overpopulation and have needs based on literacy, turmoil and past life satisfaction, they will migrate if these needs aren't met sometimes even to states that discriminate against them if it is worthwhile. Stellaris DOES have species traits and really good events (vic 3 has pop events, they just suck like all vic 3 events) and this imo (in combination with it's other basic pop mechanics like happiness and habitability) makes its pop system 10 times better, but I don't think it's even half as complex as what you have in vic 3. That being said Victoria 3 could have the most in depth pop system of all time and it still wouldn't fix the problems plaguing the game.
Laughs in Hivemind, no but seriously I agree with you as long as its not a Gestaltbewusstsein, I am glad after all the work that flows into Stellaris how long it is able to hold itself.
@@dylan5952 The difference is that I can actually interact with my pops in a meaningful way instead of looking at them change things. For example, I can resettle all of the people who support the Xenophile Party and are deeply unhappy to my prison planet to help maintain stability in my empire (As an example). Where is my option to resettle certain elements to Australia as Britain? This is a minor example, but really highlights the differences between the two Pop systems.
@@dylan5952 My judgement comes mostly from watching others play, where pops, from my subjective perspective, appeared lifeless and without any agency. Perhaps that was before some patch I missed, as I have given up on Vic3 as a worthy game some time ago. This is before we even mention the bias that PDX has towards _certain_ ideological and societal elements, which shows tremendously bad in the game, related to pops as well.
Victoria 3 is my favorite queuing simulator. I heckin' love watching bars load! Moving blocks up and down is my favorite aspect of any game ever thank you so much paradox for cooking this baby in the oven for the last decade!
Honestly, the old combat system was almost noonexistent, but at least it was simple to understand and I had eventually accepted it and its "quirks", but this new one is just awful. I'm legit not understanding anything about it, and this lead me to stop playing vic3 after I had almost reached 100 hours on it (for context I'm a late buyer that got the game while on sale)
The review at 14:27 really highlights my view on the diehard Victoria 3 supporters. They really do not want a game that requires any actual player skill or determination. This is amusing because it's a negative review and they would genuinely rather have the game go back to the way it was before when you could become the #1 GDP with 0 effort and the military system was 3 clicks from winning any war.
As someone who self harms regularly by playing Vic 3 often. I can tell you anything that looks "improved" is more of a mess just obscured through new buttons and simulations that weren't there on launch. Every time I play I find the game to be fundamentally falling apart in real time where things just seem to break down the more you look at them. No other paradox game comes near to this level of degradation.
The thing that burns most about Victoria 3 is that I was one of those people that *liked* the original pitch and hate Victoria 2's warfare system with a firey passion. But everything the devs said they were going to do in the early dev diaries, they either utterly failed at or (more often) never even remotely tried to do. So now I have to sit here watching them backtrack on what little innovations I *did* want to see in order to make a dogshit version of Victoria 2. I'm convinced none of the devs have ever played Victoria 3 OR 2, and I will never forget the fact that only a MONTH BEFORE RELEASE I spoke to one of the lead devs and he was completely unaware that "farmers" were a pop type in the game. I warned them so many times about the mistakes that they happily went and made exactly as I had predicted them, and they banned me for it, and now that they're facing the consequences, they're trying to implement my suggested changes for shit like elections. It's such a trainwreck. It's like watching your friend constantly go back to that BPD girl that's ruining his life. You know exactly what the problem is, you know exactly what the solution is, you can explain it and he'll UNDERSTAND and AGREE WITH YOU, and then he'll immediately make the same mistake over and over.
The review skimming sounded lots of people on Hopium that Vic3 will improve and recommending it while also Criticizing it directly or indirectly by saying "its much better" or "still needs ...". If they really recommend it they should say "I has become better/complete". If you balance out the fact that lots of the recommendations actually say the game isnt fixed yet or actually "good" (instead of better) it skews more towards negative sadly. Improvement is good but saying its better doesn't mean its good and its kinda weird to recommend it, but thats just my thought process.
Played vic 3 on the free weekend with a friend. After the 10 minute load screen to get to the main menu we played 20 minutes in game of which all of the gameplay was hoi4 build menu. After those 20 minutes we uninstalled and went to play vic 2.
If there were two groups of people that should have voting rights taken from them it's clickbait paradox youtubers and people who take a personal offence at a game or company they like being attacked or having the piss taken out of it.
The whole debacle with Victoria 3 proves that creating something completely new for a sequel from the ground up is a hilariously bold and imbecilic move from both the gamemaking and marketing standpoint. All they really were required and should have made -- a refined Victoria 2, just. look at the Age Of Empires 2. Skill issue if you ask me.
As someone who lives in south america I'm heavily disappointed with what they made with Colossus of the South. I want a real update not a fast-food DLC.
Ck3 is pretty good the biggest problems are the lack of challenge and no flavors it will be cool if they bring back mechanics like secret societies to the game
Paradox need to stop with these 3000+ dlcs for every game. Why not release full release or release dlcs with no new cost? I really like EU4 but my budget currently doesn't let me spend all my month paycheck on it. Idc about humble bundle, it's one time deal, while doing it right like baldurs gate 3, elden ring and rdr3 did is something that stays...
Modern game developement within the realms of larger corporationa isnt make a fun game Their goal is make a minimal viable product and after thats on the market bleed you dry with live service nonsense
Imperator Rome with Invictus has better systems in all parts of the game. If there was a somewhat decent conversion into the victorian era it would be better than vic3.
good video but dont you think it is a bit dramatic to say that ISP is "on the wrong side of that", he made that video a month and a half before ago before that patch even fully released and even then said he didnt like it or the the game that much still as it didnt fix any of the actual issues that he had with the game. Yeah he took the sponsorship, but its not that much of shilling as it allowed him to say whatever he damn well pleased. He commented on the many minor improvements on the game but said his first on launch video is still entirely correct on almost everything he said on it
I think the sad thing about PDX games is they now seem to be frames for which DLC will be added on to improve it over 4 years. Every EU4 player knows the wall of DLC u can purchase but that’s a game that was released in 2013!! PDX isn’t alone tho, CA is just as bad if not worse as they abandon games immediately. I’m glad PDX doesn’t do that but it’s sad seeing the sorry state they’ve now fallen to when developing games but it seems to be an industrywide problem. It’s exacerbated though when you basically have a captive audience since CA is shit now.
the fact that eu4 has mods like anbennar and shores of the agean and vic 3 prob, will never have something like that is almost a dea*h sentence for the longevity of the game
"Just give the game more time" Except that obviously doesn't work for modern Paradox CK3 is still utterly disappointing, which is so sad, since the game has/had so much potential, but they are just squandering it.
I waited one full year anticipating the full stink of PDX new jank to be on it and still ended up somewhat disappointed. lol. Unplayable without mods, and I mean that. My first game had like 10 major additions in a different bookmark than default. The warfare being so damn easy to exploit when it came to stacking modifiers, godly knights and such, was a real downer.
IMO the Vic 3 game shouldve been built on top of the Imperator map/game. It would obviously take tweaking to make it like Vic2 (but modern); like the Victoria Imperitrix devs are currently. No "hypothetical frontlines" or any bs like that. Actual standing units and such
I hope PDX goes bankrupt. They have become increasingly incompetent over years. Personally i will say they gutted imperator rome, wich wasn't much of great game when it was released. But when i played it at release, I found it had a fun rawness to it. I personally did not enjoy what i heard about ck3. I allso think their development of the game is horrendously slow. Victoria 3 they absolutely brutalized what it should be. Hearts of iron i personaly think is dog shit and a extremely boring experience. Not worth the few hundred hours i put it in it. Stellaris enjoyed the game but after few thousand hours, there isn't much to it. It is a flavorless game. There is next to no vartion in gameplay. So over time it becomes less and less fun. It is likely I won't be spending money on PDX anymore and instead pirate their games or purchase steam keys on third party sites.
All of these war problems stem 100% from the fact that they were too stupid to include tiles and units on the map. And now they're wasting insane development time on tacking on some horrid "micro" system that's just pure tedium and sitting in garbage UI. None of this game has anything to do with the world map. It's always going to be a garbage mobile game. EDIT: It also blows my mind how you can see tiles in the military lens but you can't do anything with them. I cannot wait for OpenVic.
Right? That bugs me every time I boot up Vic 3, it's like, why can I not just DIRECT armies / etc over all these tiles when you've clearly already made them? The next logical step of 1.5s mil changes is to just give us back our stacks, lol, clearly having armies not take up any real 'presence' on the map like front line system just produces endless bugs and is just not fun either, feels like the player has no real strategy like how literally every other paradox title at least offers.
You know people make fun of IGN for their reviews but these are "the people" saying things more or less like "it's broken and extremely flawed: I recommend it"
There is something about the Provinces that really bothers me every time i tried playing this game. At the start of it the map makes use of it for some really dynamic borders and split states which would be really neat to use to draw some arbitrary lines in the sand that benefit you but totally fucks with the native population but you just can't outside of a colonization race which is just such a waste.
This tilts me as well. Such as the sudden decision to use the political borders for the States in the United States for an economic simulation....?!??? In Victoria 3, there is zero economic overlap or interaction between New Jersey, New York, and Eastern Pennsylvania, and Delaware. New England remains a dump the entire game because they are forced to be tiny little islands with zero economic interaction. Every single decision that Paradox made for Victoria 3 was the wrong one. They don't even have cost of transportation in their games yet, even though this is the most important thing in trade and economics.
Only the construction system for me is fun, the way you can trade and expand to force prices to go a certain way and specialize Everything else is sub par You can't isolate a country politically, you can't politically influence other countries (how many foreign supported coups were there in this time frame), warfare is ass and domestic policies are a sham there are like 2 viable builds and it's either giga capitalist of full on commie They're adding journal entries and making countries more unique, like Brazil, but it's still pretty dead on content
Love it when Having subjects actively, objectively hurts you because they hijack your front lines and stall your progress I've had countless wars where I couldn't push through and win because for every battle I win through blood two I lose because one of my subjects bumrushes 1 horse into 50 enemy infantry and resets all my progress with their defeat
Yea, that’s about it. 1.5 was viewed as a big breaktrough update, but the otherwise nice changes weren’t groundbreaking or gamechanging. They do plan to do some naval rework tho, they will be adding actual ship units after january lol.
the base mechanics are honestly fine, their idea for the game while bad could work. the problem isnt what they've built its how they've done, the diplomacy is bad, i barely interact with anyone in any of my games beyond puppets, the front line system would be fine, if it didn't break every time you push or smeone leaves the war. the economy is woefully simplistic and doesnt really make sense, as Japan or the Ottomans i have become the number one iron/coal producer without expanding beyond base borders. the entirity of the pacific conflict in ww2 could boil down to Japan lacking iron and yet the homeislands produce enough. All this would be fine if VIC3 didnt have the most obtuse unusable UI i have ever expirienced in a game, every action causes you to scroll up, which at times makes management require a massive scroll session after every click. theres nothing fun to see in the game, the map sucks, the economy is surmarised by lines and expanding your map isnt fun either. The AI is tedious and bad, its only impact is splitting its fleet to raid every sea zone if at war.
I downloaded and played the leak, one year before releease. The only thing they changed from the leak to release was the bugs where the game crashed every 40 minutes. They spent a year barely fixing bugs..
That Johan anecdote about coding stuff into the game after an evening at the pub is crazy. Sounds like me and my buddies homebrewing stuff for table top games. The axiom of: "If you forget it by tomorrow, it wasn't worth having in the game" is particularly striking.
I feel that both says a lot about them. They were messy, incompetent, and more than a little mad, but goddamnit they were passionate about the games they made.
@@JamesJJSMilton That also describes me and my friends pretty well lol
OpenVic is bringing it back because we met up and went to the pub in April
@@SpudgunOfficialbased
I think the big issue is people not making games they wanna play. I loved ck2 for being someone's dream game come to life.
big big dino, big dino, big dino
The legend❤
Enough of this drop more Vic 3 videos
Every single issue with Victoria 3 stems from Wiz making a game he wants to play.
The funniest thing about the latest DLC was all the thumbs up on the basis that it was "better than Voices of the People" just goes to show how low the standards of the PDX consumers has become - no wonder they pump out hollow games and fill the never-ending void with poor DLCs.
11:40
I think ISP was just saying what he thought when he saw the review score.
His actual opinion during the video and the fact he uploaded a vic2 video after that shows his opinion on vic3.
Ya I agree
"I'll only do a soy reaction for people i actually dislike" - Immediately shows Bokoen with a soy Denmark ball
I missed that can you provide me with the timestamp pls ?
@@omerfarukal9494 It's at 6:35
@@guigilbert2240 thx
Well then I guess he doesn’t like Bo lol
Why tho
Imperator being the poster child for Pdox abandonware is still a sad story in my opinion. That game's final state was actually pretty darned good.
Yeah, if they put all the effort they put into vic 3 into imperator, I think they'd have one of their most well designed games
How was the past week?
15:58 , the bulding system is so complex.
Oh yeah it's super difficult to build something and see green number go up
Very complex for the average Paradox fan
Average paradox player: Nooo i have to micro my industryyy, is a so haard 😩
I get that paraslop will never make a good game from release, because making it playable cost an extra 100 dollars in slop dlc plus the 40 to buy the game in the first place, but I would have liked to see a bit of expansion on the logistical aspects of war. In Victoria 2, your logistics spending effects every army, not just one individual army or group of them. Being able to group armies together in a system similar to what hoi4 has and choose what level of supply they should get would IMO have been a good addition.
4:08 Possibly the worst parts of each games.
The late devlopment cancer of everything being an unfinished turd without any proper QA testing from Eu4, where the game is more about finding the one and only optimal way to play a nation and then win.
The constant annoyance of the braindead Hoi4 combat AI, but imagine you can't micro your troops and have to resort on using Battleplans only mode, without even the ability to draw the lines. Plus the really bad economical system.
Or Imperator Rome: Getting the game constantly remade from patch to patch, so it won't even have any close proximity of what it was when 1.0 was released. Just to make sure, that if you liked the on-release features and paid for those features specifically, you being screwed by a bunch of lazy dickholes pretending to be a fan-friendly game studio.
Now combine all three with the most infuriating part of all three: Having to pay for DLC's, because things what should be in the base game on-basis are now attached to awful flavour packs, what now YOU HAVE TO BUY!
Oh, you don't care about the shitty agitator system?
Too-bad, you have to buy it, if you want Bonapartist France playthrough!
Csá Stalkerqtya :D
Failing to form Germany series delayed
its unequivocally over bavaria bros
For some reason they did 1.5 open beta patch for 2-3 months, only to release a bunch new features on patch release, wtf is the open beta for?
Because of that they got bug-ridden free weekend, shit hit the fan
The fact that Recent reviews are worse than All is just crazy. PDX and their funs are delusional.
You could say it's unequivocally over.
I remember some weeks before the infamous Victoria 3 leak back in early 2022 there were posts in 4chan from supposed "PDX insiders" about a power struggle inside the dev team between people who had worked in Victoria 2 and their followers, and Wiz' people, mainly former modders or early Stellaris devs.
The rumor was that PDX execs favored the latter because it was cheaper to develop (they were already having rough quarters back then), did some shake ups and went with that option. Apparently some of these "disgruntled devs" were moved to other projects or just fired (that's how the thread went).
The patch and free week saw vic3 have a 78% boost in the number of players over november but that growth has slowed since then and is generally trending back down to pre patch numbers
I am not sorry. To me the idiotic "war system" is too big of a fuck you from the dev. It's a deal breaker.
One topic I have been thinking about for a while is the fact that Paradox basically stumbled their way into the "games as a service" model. With their games being so niche, and having such a dedicated fanbase, it is the most profitable way to monetize it. The DLC creation schedules for games like CK2 and EU4 were canaries in the coal mine for the games industry as a whole.
I think one of the key drawbacks to this games as a service model has to do with the content they actually create for their games. Instead of making DLC that adds new mechanics or features that promote emergent gameplay and unique situations, we get railroaded flavorpacks for individual regions. Personally, I find it a bit boring when the AI just works down the same focus or mission tree every game, or when the "struggle" in a region can only "end" one of 3 ways. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with this stuff, but it's just not anything new for the genre.
It makes me worry for Paradox's future a bit. Developing a larger number of smaller and more experimental strategy games could give them a chance to innovate and make mistakes without huge consequence, and now they're big enough that they can afford to. Instead, it seems like they're putting a bigger number of eggs into a smaller number of baskets... But I don't work for Paradox so what do I know
It was insanely funny to me that the free week was advertised as "Look, we fixed the war system!" and it had a completely game breaking bug through all of it that made war unplayable for any nation with small allies, like Prussia.
I personally like victoria 3 for its economic simulation. But I am not blind to its MANY MANY issues. The fact that Vic2 a game that came out 12 YEARS ago has a more a more immersive diplomatic system speaks absolute volumes about how hard they dropped the ball with this one...
I keep saying this, but the one great idea vicky 3 has, imo is the political system. The fine tuning of interest groups, policies, and national ideologies to me is way more interesting than the the basic unchangeable choices of ideologies that sometimes had interesting little quirks in it depending on the country.
All other ways though vicky 2 is superior. I hope theres a way that this could potentially be added by an interested modder into open vicky 2.
Disagree personally. you are rather limited in what you are reasonably able to play without it handi-capping your game hard which boils down to uber-capitalist or uber-communist. You do have about 30-40 different policy choices but other then you needing to pick something in the interm if the pretty bad "law rolling" system goes against you, how often do you actually stick with one of them and feel no difference from the other one in the same tree that is just superior.
@@SpookyScarySkeletor If you want to talk about what's optimal to play, vicky 2 is just as if not more limited:
If you're in the old world you keep reactionaries for them most likely having state capitalism so you have some control over your industry with the faster justification speeds.
If you're in the new world you just rush militancy/consciousness as liberals to max immigration. (one thing I'm happy about vicky 3 changing, at least in concept, is immigration being less tied on party and the western hemisphere/australia and more on policy. In practice though this hasn't worked out that well, at least last time I checked)
If you're westernizing (another concept I'm happy vicky 3 changed to something more accurate and less western-centric) you sit with liberals.
Late game you just go fascist to flip flop reforms and keep militancy down unless you want to tailor your industry bc capitalists built too many shitty nonsense factories, then you go communist.
I'd rather have the ability to tailor this and roleplay
And? regardless the game is empty and markets itself as a economic and political simulator more then an actual paradox brand grand strategy game.
It goes ahead and touts its pollical complexity while having a clear end goal and making you suffer with no other way to play then one of the two available routes. Yes, can go ahead and say all you wish that Viccy 2 is much more limited and that it is I will admit as it boils down to "go reactionary and have state capitalism/protectionism" to build your own shit and not worry about elections.
But that is a game with a lot more in terms of content and flavour with other things to do then worry about the politicking alone. Viccy 3 is not so lucky, having only 2 ways to go with the game actively discouraging you to play other then liberal hyper capitalists or authoritarian super communists is honestly ridiculous.
not to mention the fact and it is repeated greatly but for a reason. Paradox is not a baby indie company anymore, Viccy 2 is a product of their roots basically and it was when they were much smaller. It having a rather eh politic system is not that great but its also more or less expected based on what they were trying to go for versus what they could achieve. Paradox is magnitudes larger now and charge AAA prices for their games, its not complex. You may have 100 funny buttons in different menus to mix and match but why do half of them when they either hurt you more or have literal direct upgrades right next to them. Yes you can go ahead and larp all you wish but in terms of benefits you have no reason.
and just to say atleast you can use fascists' for something in viccy 2. I have never actually needed them for anything at all. They are literally diet landowners who have some intelligencia laws and serve as more of a "I can try to use them in the early game" thing then anything else. I have never needed to use them for anything but.@@airnspace4814
@@SpookyScarySkeletor I just want to remind you that in my original comment that I said I still think vicky 2 overall is a better game lmao. It kicks vicky 3's ass with economics, warfare, and international diplomacy. I wasn't arguing that it was an overall better game.
I just think it has three neat features that I would love to see worked in better modded into open vicky 2 whenever it comes out: changing westernization to international recognition (which is objectively more correct and in line with modern academic historical analysis), allowing immigration to be less centered on the New World, and having these options to more customize your government. Also, isn't it better to go councilist or anarchist than vanguardist for immigration reasons?
I’m not too upset about pops being abstracted to state level. the game is already performance intensive, could you imagine splitting each pop up 10 times?
Yeah I can imagine it, it's called Victoria 2!!!
@@SpudgunOfficial Love Vic 2 to death. Tried Vic 3 and didn’t hate it but wished it was more optimized as it slowed way down around 1890. Hopefully EU5 is much better optimized.
Your "masterpiece" to "comeback" remark gave me horrible flashbacks to total war community. I dont even follow more than CK3, subbed for a fun video
I can very much see the quality of a game when i'm playing MP with the boys and my country stays fine and dandy when i stay 10 minutes afk taking a shit or making a snack.
Hell, i even snuck a jack off in the middle of a Vic 3 session and nothing bad happened with it. Quality game, paradox.
Nurse Reno, is that you?
Maybe if Victoria 3 gets abandoned if Spheres of Influence flops the devs will go and make EU V an actually good game. Nah I'm just kidding that's gonna suck too
One thing that does give me hope is that Johan claims there is no reason EUV would not include all content from EUIV. If they port the mission system it is entirely possible that they are able to port every mission from every DLC into the base game. If they don't do that it's starting from zero again and I won't even consider buying.
@@sneed457 if they actually included all EU IV content and released it in a playable state I would get it. However given their track record I have no hope for it. The main thing I would want is just a better optimized game because the game slows massively
@@sneed457 johan can say whatever he wants, theyre going to release the game bare bones anyways to maximize dlc money
22:50 huh that's a neat fun fact
I've tried playing Victoria 3, but it just lacks basically anything good. The economic system is super confusing and overly-complicated, whereas in Viki 2 you didn't have to worry about the factories too much unless you WANTED to, now you have to, and it sucks. Construction system is annoying and takes forever. The military system is just horrible, the zooming is super weird, and the replayability is terrible, especially considering that it was made by paradox, a studio known for it's game replayability
This was a reasonable and thoughtful video. I wasn't expecting it to come across so calm and measured. I like to see all those Viki 3 apologists call you a blind hater now!
I think he’s dipped into the hating on Vic 3 just cause it exists but overall he’s a moderate and pretty thoughtful guy and I’m glad he can take it to what it is
"I like to see all those Viki 3 apologists call you a blind hater now!" Yes I'm sure they won't *CLUELESS*
@@SpudgunOfficial True true, unfortunately. But at least I know now that whenever I do see them, I'll roll my eyes, keep scrolling and continue on with my day. Keep up the good work Spud! 👍
Spuddyboy, thank you for being the voice of the people
i can’t imagine what an EU5 or even a HOI5 would look like
I vehemently disagree. I think victori 3 is better than vanilla EUIV. Everything else was pretty spot on, though.
I only watch this Vic III content for the few clips of Vic II. I just dont want to waste any brain power with Vic III.
Bought it to play multiplayer with my friends, learned that you can't have more than one mod in a playset in a mp game. Quite literally unplayable.
I agree with all this. On top of that I think that they pitched an idea for a game that would take years to do, and they tried to release in just over a year, and this ultimately is a terrible business move. I basically crossed that game, and while I try it every major update it's still somehow the fucking same, and I ask myself am I going crazy. My biggest gripe is that there's just absolutely fuckall to do there. Like 90% of the game is spent in some building menus, trying to understand what the fuck is even happening because the UI is so dogshit, and I've had games where I literally just built buildings for 50 years and nothing more. This is not fun gameplay. You know, if these had an economics sim under the hood then maybe that'd be satisfying to a degree, but in every other paradox game that I have played when you play tall for 50 years you can death war most countries around you. Like if I play Switzerland in EU4 and play tall for 50 years I am one of the major powers in the area, and because of the mountain forts I can white peace worst case scenario. With 50 years of playing tall you can start outpacing France and attack them and be on an even playing field. In Vic 3 you are the same shit country, you get some more money, some better units and that's it. There's just nothing there that feels like an achievement and nothing you do intertwines with anything else, and when it does it often contradicts itself. In EU4 you constantly make tiny choices with the mana points for example, in CK2 and 3 you make little things that amount to something bigger, it all makes sense, makes you feel like you developed this country. Vic3? nah, fuck that.
The most pathetic showcase of how boring this game is was when I played that open beta for 1.5 as Japan, and I had like 4 wars against me and nobody came to me. So I wanted to see if maybe the warfare system is bugged so I just started a new game, took France, immediately attacked Spain, and just put everything on "advance", and in a few months I conquered a big part of Spain, with seemingly no hardships. Like... What?! Go into EU4 and do the same, and you MIGHT win, in fact against AI you probably will if you are half decent, but it's gonna be a long and annoying war this will cost money, manpower, and stifle your other conquests that would have been more lucrative. In CK3 you most definitely will win because Spain is struggling, so take something like France vs England in the later start date. It's gonna cost you men, you probably want to have a nice unit composition which will cost you money, you want good leaders which are not a given, you can't take loans so no EUIV style death warring, when you run money deficit the units get worse, so you are bound by the available options. It all takes effort is what I'm saying, and Vic3 does not. It's just such an empty game that is fundamentally broken on every level.
This game feels like that essay you had half a year to write, but you put it off until the day before deadline and it is sorta on the topic, but everything about it sucks, and you get a D at best, F at worst.
Vicky 3 is gonna be "ok" when ISP makes a grand campaign with it instead of Vic2 lmao
IMHO, I’d say that internal politics aren’t perfect, but the concepts are sound and well implemented (could use similar system for factions in stellaris) and the economics are solid, but boring,so it needs some rework (having to choose methods manually kills me + no national energy grid). However, it’s a pain in the ass to make and manage all your import/exports, diplomacy needs a rework (lots of options, lack of clear distinction and different mechanichs between them, like being in a customs union makes you a subject) and everything related to war sucks ass (diplomatic plays had good intentions, but made wars too static -impossible to join after war started or change around wargoals, the combat system makes no sense for early game and everything related to the war AI, like choosing which units fight a battle or front reassignment simply does not work). They just needed to take Vic2 systems and add frontline tools from euiv, that would already make late game war manageable and enjoyable and it would be enough
Yeah, poor stellaris. Strange start with a clear line of improvement that's now started just falling back off again. Peak was probably around federations to overlord. I haven't played since paragons was dropped considering how much it broke while not only _not_ adding good stuff, but actively _ruining_ what it set out to improve.
Let's see what sphere of influence does for vic 3.
it isnt going that well, they are trying to go ahead and force balance by basically brushstroking everything meta adjacent turning every build good or fun upside down. If you would check on it on steam rn you would see in the last 2 weeks about 3-4 balance patches trying to fix the game because of the complete shit show that was paragons with its balance and leader changes. It hasnt gotten better, the new DLC is almost as bad as CA's and everything is on fire.
Within about 2-3 months I think the fire will be out and the game will be playable but rn it anit lookin good chief.
@@SpookyScarySkeletor Yeah, I'm just really waiting on the sidelines for that fire to die out, because _God knows_ Paradox ain't putting it out.
Its really awkward to see PDX try to introduce micro into the game when it is obvious it isnt really build for that. The current system is so clunky its hilariously bad. The worst part is i dont even see a way for it to improve, since many issues are because of the concept of frontlines.
Developer incompetence drove a lot of the mechanics in this game, like how goods are a mana system. Funnily enough, the devs are still really incompetent with things that shouldn't be hard to code.
Total incompetence and lack of passion are what made victoria 3 as it is, they didnt even have war figured out, and they still dont.
Thinking about it it's probably a gigantic effort to put a "army stack on map moving around" system into the game like Vic2,eu4,hoi etc since they will need to add shit loads more tiles for there to be room to move around.
@@normalusername5223 Vicky 3 has the most tiles in any paradox game and they're used exclusively for map painting (now superfluous as they changed map painting to go by a full state per battle)
Remember the introduction of 3D illustrated maps and character models?
As someone with 3000 hours in both Eu4 and Hoi4, I can confidently say Vic3 does not "marry" anything about them. Maybe it takes the build queue from hoi4, which is funny because that system is so simple so you can mostly ignore your economy to focus on MICROING UNITS. As for EU4 maybe he means they copy the lack of pops? I really don't get it, the point of EU4 is painting and forming your map, which is explicitly the opposite of Vic3's stated goals.
EU4 Shines in MP, because the multitude of mechanics scale up skill ceiling, and also because the game lasts 400 years and is fluid, diplomacy shines.
(They just mean they look somewhat similar lmao)
I was gonna say the same. I love EU4 and HOI4. I have thousands of hours into them and have been playing them since launch. And Vic 3 is nothing like those. Hell, Millenium Dawn and Old World Blues have had more work put into it. The cursed pony mod puts any modern PDX game to shame.
@@ShahjahanMasood seems like all the good coding work done for games are coming from furries and bronies now and that's just FARKed
@joshjonson2368 This world is getting more and more cursed. But I think you have a point there. The more talented people are always more "eccentric".
PS. There should be a place for people like us as well without being lectured. People in the East who do not buy into Western depravity.
Spudgun I'm sorry I have to say this but your 'profile picture' is very displeasing to the eye, it would be wonderful if you could change it to something a more palatable such as a catgirl or a firetruck. Either way I enjoy your 'videos' and wish you the best of luck.
Nobody should take Andy seriously. You may not be in the total war community, but he flipped from being the shilliest of shill to have ever shilled to being the harshest of critics once Volound (a major critic of newer total wars) started to get traction
He just supports whatever is popular, he is a completely unapologetic spineless shill. He hyped up Pharaoh without ever playing it on pre-release... Then the game releases and it flops. A couple of days later he makes a video all about how the game is bad and how he expected it to be bad anyways because CA has fallen off etc...
ck2 I think certainly *was* a labor of love. The iron century update didn't need to happen but it really rounded off a well matured game. Ck3 will need I feel another few years before it even approaches the level of.. fullness that ck2 had after iron century.
CK2 was definetly made with love for both the game and a sadistic love to make new players loose their minds.
Ck3s team does not even have the passion or interest to add different start dates, making the game even more shallow
@@ravenouself4181 The god awful ui of ck3 caused me to lose my mind more than ck2 ever did and that was the first paradox game I ever played. I gave up on ck3 after about 6 hours.
To me the worst part about ck3 is that it really had potential to rival and be better 2. Instead we got a heavily downgraded version of 2.
@@Gloryholrr Don't worry, give them another 4 years and 300 dollars and it might be comparable. Definitely not better though.
If you want a banger economic system, and don't quite mind the somewhat lacking war system (as well as own Vic3), Try the Cold War Project mod. It adds a lot more goods, as well as fiscal policy management.
The game systems fit so much better into a Cold War system, its baffling how they didn't just set it there in the first place. There are wars, but very few really scaled that high, and the armies fought along the front lines/regions rather than in armies that travelled around in stacks like the Victorian era.
Just more of a flavor win and genuinely good improvements
I mentioned that mod toward the end of the video, it seems to be the most ambitious total rework mod akin to CK3's elder kings and game of thrones.
Honestly its hilarious how a game about the victorian era has systems more fitting with the cold war. with that warfare system especially given that during the cold war there were few large scale conflicts
For me, the final straw for this game was the truly pathetic first DLC. Why should I pay 15 dollars for socialist leaders and flavor that should already be in the game on launch? Completely burned all my goodwill for the game.
Every paradox game in a nutshell
I don't buy anything from them anymore because of the way they are trying to squeeze every dollar dry out of their bugged game.
I’ll never understand why they chose to do the war system the way they did. Not because I want to map paint every game but that they took away player agency. All other paradox games allow you to MANUALLY control almost every important aspect of your country or empire. Even fucking hoi4 a full on war game has a simple economy system that players can mess around with to some degree. Removing features and player agency to play the game how they want to is something I’ll never understand. Paradox has fallen😔
So you could "focus" on their other half baked systems (besides the economy which ironically is WAY to micro intensive.) Remember, war wasn't the main focus of this era even though we're not designing the game to be much more than a historically flavored sandbox. 🤓
That's always a good sign, intentionally designing a shitty unfun system so the others get more attention. They fucked up. Bad. lmfao
At least they would not try to have this system in their news games
Excellent Breakdown!
A side note on the Stellaris bit.
I have been playing Stellaris since launch, Initially the game was not focused around balance, but instead focused around interesting play styles and fun stories.
With Utopia it built on that vision, then you could sink you massive stockpiles into impractical Mega-structures. Apocalypse was also Awesome, It added planet killers and redid the fleets.
Then Came Megacorp.
In that Update, they shifted their design philosophy primarily to balance, which involved completely changing, or even stripping out certain mechanics (The FTL Change being the only one I still disagree with). A move that a large minority disagreed with, but overall was an improvement for the game.
Every update past that still tried to maintain that balance viewpoint to varying degrees of success, and while quite a few had mixed reviews, they were overall good, even the Species packs (Flavour) were starting to feel like Mini DLC with what they brought to the table. The 'Custodian' updates were also great, having a team dedicated to going back through previous DLCs and mechanics to refine them and tie them together for free was probably Paradoxes single best Idea when it comes to the quality of their games.
However, Astral Planes exist now. From the little I could stand to play, it seems like whoever designed it decided to completely leave balancing to the wayside, Parts of it are blatantly OP, while others are completely useless, or even worse, Endless popups that are irrelevant. It fly's in the face of what they had going for the Game.
Also, even bigger side Note, the reason why the Star Treck game fails is quite simple, one of the oldest mods for Stellaris is ST: New Horizons, which is infinitely better than the paraslop they are peddling.
At some point they need to make DLC that adds stuff that doesn't just give or change how modifiers work and that is where it is going to be hard for stellaris and it is evident with how mediocre the last few DLC's where. That being said The machine age looks good though I wish they did something other than synthetics which they already covered in a DLC. At least they are adding new ways to play the game instead of new modifier stacking mechanics with a glorified points bar attached,
The thing is the Vic 2 community has never been against Vic 3. We just had another opinion on the mechanics. Most of the people didn't want Vic 3 to fail.
Yes exactly haha, it was the vic 2 community more than anyone who was turbo excited originally vic might finally see a sequel. Lol I dropped it very fast after release and I might be eternally disappointed with it. Spud names some things in 1.5 it inches towards doing in the right direction but over all the game just does not have the content, quality of life or care as vic 2 and it just kind of guts me we will still be without a good victorian era geo politics sim :\ Maybe some indie dev will take their own chances with their own IP in lieu of PDXs failure, lol
Ah, but that doesn't play into Vic3 community's weird victim fetish(?) thing, or whatever you can call that. How can these people enjoy anything if there isn't a group of disney villain 'dinosaurs' hating them as well as the product they consume for no reason other than that they want to right click toy soldiers and "for the natives to be called primitives again"?
if the game had the EXACT same mechanics, except the war system being the same as vicky 2 it would be so good.
Vic 3 is probably gonna be my last first party paradox game I buy. I'm still salty about buying the grand edition before launch. I could be wrong but I feel like vic 3 is a sign of things to come for paradox. Also I recently went back to vic 2 after not playing for about a year, and I was struck by how much easier it is to get the information I want in vic 2 as opposed to 3. Vic 2 ui is super dated and ugly, but at least I don't need to go through like 4 menus and pop ups to see my pop needs
Do you think vic3 has a good basic mechanics and just needs a few updates and dlcs or it is a piece of hot garbage that cannot be salvaged ?
@@Antonious_jeffer The economy is tedious, unrealistic, and boring. Warfare is completely fucked. Politics make almost zero sense for the era. Little to no flavor at launch and even now. I genuinely can't think of a good thing about this game, it doesn't even run faster despite being able to use multiple cores. You literally cannot play past 1880 if you don't have a super high end cpu. It's over for victoria 3. Ideally the best thing to do is for them to completely remake it and fire whoever came up with the ideas and the implementation for victoria 3. But knowing Paradox, they will just milk the game for years without ever fixing the issues, adding more features without fixing existing ones. So all in all, yes. It is hot garbage, I say this having over 200 hours in it and another 2 thousand in victoria 2.
@@datboi9994 damn , i was thinking of giving it a try and see for myself if it was truly garbage , espically that the price fell drastically . Well thanks alot for saving my money .
Yeah same here. Pdx ruined my trust and I haven’t bought new dlc or games from them
@@Antonious_jeffer you can give it a try, but I suggest taking the high sea route, if you know what I mean
Btw vicky3 was like a full if not 2 years away from being completed. It got released basically literally half way through completion since paradox was having couple rough quarters and they talked about their release gaps between big games being too big.
They lied about the whole "it's actually a game direction" angle it's literally unfinished and not even in the normal paradox way.
This may be true and it sounds plausible but i just need the evidence
@@SpudgunOfficial I'm sure it's out there I saw a random guy with like a 1k view video I already lost somewhere about the statements from the CEOs and the quarters being bad and complaining about big releases being too far apart. I legitimately think it makes complete sense since after having unfortunately play tested (playing is not the right word) it after release for probably close to 200 hours it legitimately is like the base upon which the game was gonna be built and they just SENT it as is. Actual empirical evidence about the development going exactly this way isn't around (yet at least) but I'm 100% sure this happened.
Worst part is it was a financial success of a launch so yeah it's over for gamers brainded consoomers are lowering the quality of everything for the rest of us
@@lucasnadamas9317 Games in a series typically sell off of their predecessor. There will be no Victoria 4.
New Zealand is a tag that is currently in the game, however there is no way to form it other than via console commands.
Your 100% correct, this game was released half way through development.
@@whitehawk4099 Eh, I doubt that. Even if they scale things back it's gonna make money i they finish this game's lifecycle in any halfway decent shape.
As someone who plays Victoria 3 as a long time paradox player (I pre ordered the physical copy of Hoi3 if that tells you how F***ING ancient I am), Victoria 3 is an occasional time killer.
I’ll play it when a big expansion is released. I’d compare it to a mobile game I play while taking a number 2 to just kill time.
All the nations play basically the exact same. All the indepth important stuff like pops and classes have been made irrelevant and back ground noise.
I basically live in the trade menu. I can take an unrecognized 3rd world dump and be the number 1 gdp in the world by the late 1800s-1900s basically when the games engine has enough and commits Seppuku because it can’t handle mid-late game calculations.
So yes I play it rarely but it’s to bland and vanilla to be enjoyed long term unlike literally every other paradox game. I feel like the entire game could be played on an ipad if they actually had a half decent engine.
I played the free weekend and the game was so much worse than I thought. UA-camrs cut out most of the game so I thought there was any fun to be had. But no, just micro thy buildings and trade, without any of the satisfaction of a game properly built for building growth like factorio
The day before they announced the free weekend I actually decided to buy the game thanks to OPB, so the free weekend actually lost them at least one sale
At this point there isnt any good victorian era game
They have to gloss over what made that period what it is
Colonization of the dark continent, westernization, and way too many wars to name
The impact of the technological leaps during this time outpaced anything people could dream of, nobody can do this part right
Idk if you want to mess with economy in a 1800s sense play Anno 1800 or Vic 2
And it would be politically difficult to actually let the player do what European countries did without forcing him to not behave historically by encouraging and rewarding femininist, LGBTQ+, anti-racist, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist events, perks, and decisions.
Remember when Bokoen tried to naval encircle Spuds channel
I think its insane that a company nobody remembers can update a game like Star Wars Empire at War, last dlc in 2006, with a fraction of the playerbase to have 64 bit support and stability fixes in 2023, yet PDX just is content to let Vic2 chads wallow in the swamp of desyncs, rehosts, and not even a lobby system while shoveling their money into a trashfire like Vic3. PDX must be taking notes from Bethesda's design philosophy of "let the players fix it".
It’s the difference between corporate devs who couldn’t care less about the products they make and actually passionate game developers.
Don't worry, Project Alice is fixing vicky 2 for them.
Hell, Half-life got an update recently 😳
@@datboi9994 nah they're not, they're making a game for 1 man's personal gripes with Victoria 2, OpenVic is fixing Vicky 2 👍
@@SpudgunOfficial I specifically baited this reply. I hope you realize a good portion of the vicky 2 community treats you and the project you shill (and don't even contribute to) as a joke.
Overall I agree with you a lot on the war and development cycle criticisms of Victoria 3, however I will disagree with some of your criticisms of the updated Economic and Politics systems of Victoria 3, especially compared with Victoria 2. Things like the local prices, interest groups (and how different pop types affect them), and the market mechanics of Victoria 3 actually present an interesting system, in my view, which gives interesting insights into the way states behaved during the historical time period. I would even argue that these systems are upgrades from the previous systems of Victoria 2, which mostly revolved around election cycle events, militarism/consciousness, and state edicts that do not strike me as an accurate simulation of the forces at work in a nation's political and economic ecosystem.
Fair enough, I don't know much about these systems because the things I did talk about in this video (buildings, war) are enough to put me off playing it and learning and being able to form an opinion on them.
@@SpudgunOfficialL take
I predict we'll get a 2.0 release that gets the game closer to being decent but then abandoned like Imperator.
Big issue I see is the lack of replayability that Vic2, Stellaris and EU4 do offer. You cant really mix economics, politics and diplomacy yourself in Vic3 and get a very diverse selection of playstyles and wildly different campaigns. The thing that Vic3 misses is that players see/imagine endless possibilities in the game and want to play nation X and do Y and Z differently in their next campaign. Fixing war, diplomacy and economics doesnt really adress that, its only going to fix the basegame and after that paradox can start to improve the x factor (replayability) to attract people.
I also think releasing the game too early is the main reason why they struggle with the low player numbers and hoped that Stellaris and Imperator shaky releases would've taught them lessons to do it a bit differently. Too much time is put into fixing the game while it should be put into expanding a game that people want to play agian and agian.
True. I loved to play as Holland in Vic 2 vanilla. As you can choose either Germany or France as your punching bag after Belgium is secure
The one thing that really irks me is that the ability to play the game is shoehorned into 2 directions, Uber-Communist or Uber-Capitalist. There is no reason or incentive to play otherwise because it is so damaging to your play that you basically cant play anything other then them.
There being a few "different" communist governments is also virtually mechanically useless basically just being your favorite shade of authoritarianism, Every game is basically the same with internal politics. It has honestly stopped me from playing more then the little that already happens from game to game. there is almost no replayability other then mental goals.
I play Vic3 as a grand strategy idle game. Something I play while doing other shit. 1.5 somehow made it harder to do that while not adding any depth. I LOVE HAVING TO MICROMANAGE EVERY GENERAL YET NOT HAVING ANY REAL TACTICAL CONTROL OVER THEM, WHAT A GREAT MECHANIC
I will say that you tried to give snide commentary that the army is just walking/ riding down a path before forming a front line but that is literally how it worked and still works
Oh so andystake is a shill for Paradox AND CA?
This game wasn't what Vic II fans wanted, it was what Paradox fans deserved.
they deserved it because they keep buying 20 bucks dlcs on a monthly basis
Average gigachad Vic2 community opinion:
ROMANTIC warrior spotted🥵🥵🥵
I have thousands of hours in CK2, EU4, and HoI4. I also have played V2 in SP and enjoyed it for what it is. I also bought tons of DLC for all of them. However, I refused to buy Stellaris, I:R, or V3. Why? They weren't made for me. I bought CK3 and played it for a very small period of time. Why? It wasn't made for me. These newest games have a new target audience that does not include the long-time players. I'm cautiously optimistic about EU5 due to how open Johan has been about the failures of their most recent titles, but we'll have to see.
i have a creeping suspicion that paradox suffers from the same problem as creative assembly, that is, a terrible engine with garbage documentation that makes it impossible to work with, even for experience devs, not to say anything about poor new hires.
and yes, shillkoen never fucking changes.
shillkoen... that guy is so much copium it's insane when it comes to this game.
I severely doubt that considering modders work on basically the same engine and produce actually good shit
@@benismann there's a difference, modders don't have access to source files of the game.
@@512TheWolf512 which means they have even less to work with
@@benismann true but they at least have a vision and actually good ideas flavour and mechanic-wise. I am not certain about how they end up fixing bugs though... And not like hoi4 "bugs" where Devs are just actually not doing their jobs, but engine-level bugs
Can you imagine how good Vic 3 would have been if they just put the hoi4 combat system over Vic 2
and EUIV peace system
And vic 2 ui...
Seriously it's so annoying.. there was so much they could have done to help simulate the changes to warfare over the century.
You mean their attempt at an Auto-Battler with the battleplanner in HoI 4?
The one which could be beaten if you spent 90% of the game right clicking tiles for every single unit instead of focusing on grand strategy?
Causing 90% of the player base to abandon multiplayer.
They replaced their front line system with an actual autobattler.
It baffles me that HOI4 system would have actually been just fine with a few tweaks and they just made this shit...
One fun thing about Stellaris is that the pop system is actually 10 times better and deeper than in Vic3.
Aside from species, they have traits, ideological values, happiness, different rights, political party they support, needs and conditions which they prefer, as well as events related to individual pops, somethimes even giving you a special, rare pop.
Someone under this also mentioned how much the game lets us control and influence pops. We can freely resettle them, turn them into cyborgs, genetically modify them, etc.
As an avid player of Stellaris, for most of any campaign, I always care and overmicro the pops, because they actually feel like real subjects, not mere numbers on a screen.
I'm going to push back against this. Have you played vic 3? Saying that pops in stellaris are better and deeper because they have "happiness, different rights, political party they support, needs and conditions which they prefer" is interesting when you consider that vic 3 has all these same systems.
It has pop happiness through loyalists, radicals and SoL. You can't control different rights per race from a menu like in stellaris, but you have voting laws/acceptance laws/women's laws/slavery laws/serfdom. Each pop has a natural inclination towards a political party based on their job, but this is further changed by how attractive the party is and whether the pop is allowed to or even wants to vote, pops influence your empires political ideology significantly more than in stellaris. They also have goods they prefer depending on culture, they avoid pollution/overpopulation and have needs based on literacy, turmoil and past life satisfaction, they will migrate if these needs aren't met sometimes even to states that discriminate against them if it is worthwhile.
Stellaris DOES have species traits and really good events (vic 3 has pop events, they just suck like all vic 3 events) and this imo (in combination with it's other basic pop mechanics like happiness and habitability) makes its pop system 10 times better, but I don't think it's even half as complex as what you have in vic 3. That being said Victoria 3 could have the most in depth pop system of all time and it still wouldn't fix the problems plaguing the game.
Laughs in Hivemind, no but seriously I agree with you as long as its not a Gestaltbewusstsein, I am glad after all the work that flows into Stellaris how long it is able to hold itself.
@@dylan5952
The difference is that I can actually interact with my pops in a meaningful way instead of looking at them change things.
For example, I can resettle all of the people who support the Xenophile Party and are deeply unhappy to my prison planet to help maintain stability in my empire (As an example).
Where is my option to resettle certain elements to Australia as Britain?
This is a minor example, but really highlights the differences between the two Pop systems.
@@dylan5952 My judgement comes mostly from watching others play, where pops, from my subjective perspective, appeared lifeless and without any agency.
Perhaps that was before some patch I missed, as I have given up on Vic3 as a worthy game some time ago.
This is before we even mention the bias that PDX has towards _certain_ ideological and societal elements, which shows tremendously bad in the game, related to pops as well.
@@gnatsteak Totally agreed. The ability to 100% control my pops is incredibly appealing (I swear I am not a sociopath)
Victoria 3 is my favorite queuing simulator. I heckin' love watching bars load! Moving blocks up and down is my favorite aspect of any game ever thank you so much paradox for cooking this baby in the oven for the last decade!
Honestly, the old combat system was almost noonexistent, but at least it was simple to understand and I had eventually accepted it and its "quirks", but this new one is just awful. I'm legit not understanding anything about it, and this lead me to stop playing vic3 after I had almost reached 100 hours on it (for context I'm a late buyer that got the game while on sale)
The review at 14:27 really highlights my view on the diehard Victoria 3 supporters. They really do not want a game that requires any actual player skill or determination. This is amusing because it's a negative review and they would genuinely rather have the game go back to the way it was before when you could become the #1 GDP with 0 effort and the military system was 3 clicks from winning any war.
As someone who self harms regularly by playing Vic 3 often. I can tell you anything that looks "improved" is more of a mess just obscured through new buttons and simulations that weren't there on launch. Every time I play I find the game to be fundamentally falling apart in real time where things just seem to break down the more you look at them. No other paradox game comes near to this level of degradation.
The thing that burns most about Victoria 3 is that I was one of those people that *liked* the original pitch and hate Victoria 2's warfare system with a firey passion. But everything the devs said they were going to do in the early dev diaries, they either utterly failed at or (more often) never even remotely tried to do. So now I have to sit here watching them backtrack on what little innovations I *did* want to see in order to make a dogshit version of Victoria 2. I'm convinced none of the devs have ever played Victoria 3 OR 2, and I will never forget the fact that only a MONTH BEFORE RELEASE I spoke to one of the lead devs and he was completely unaware that "farmers" were a pop type in the game. I warned them so many times about the mistakes that they happily went and made exactly as I had predicted them, and they banned me for it, and now that they're facing the consequences, they're trying to implement my suggested changes for shit like elections. It's such a trainwreck.
It's like watching your friend constantly go back to that BPD girl that's ruining his life. You know exactly what the problem is, you know exactly what the solution is, you can explain it and he'll UNDERSTAND and AGREE WITH YOU, and then he'll immediately make the same mistake over and over.
Common Spudgun W
Average Bokoen L
The review skimming sounded lots of people on Hopium that Vic3 will improve and recommending it while also Criticizing it directly or indirectly by saying "its much better" or "still needs ...". If they really recommend it they should say "I has become better/complete". If you balance out the fact that lots of the recommendations actually say the game isnt fixed yet or actually "good" (instead of better) it skews more towards negative sadly. Improvement is good but saying its better doesn't mean its good and its kinda weird to recommend it, but thats just my thought process.
Played vic 3 on the free weekend with a friend. After the 10 minute load screen to get to the main menu we played 20 minutes in game of which all of the gameplay was hoi4 build menu. After those 20 minutes we uninstalled and went to play vic 2.
*pulls out a different, slightly larger, but still comically sized derringer*
Where my Bavaria series
The people want an answer spud
@@themanofshn1855 and I have a gun
*Holds it up Charlie's angels style*
If there were two groups of people that should have voting rights taken from them it's clickbait paradox youtubers and people who take a personal offence at a game or company they like being attacked or having the piss taken out of it.
So we reserve taking away human rights from the people who like this slop garbage?
The whole debacle with Victoria 3 proves that creating something completely new for a sequel from the ground up is a hilariously bold and imbecilic move from both the gamemaking and marketing standpoint. All they really were required and should have made -- a refined Victoria 2, just. look at the Age Of Empires 2.
Skill issue if you ask me.
As someone who lives in south america I'm heavily disappointed with what they made with Colossus of the South. I want a real update not a fast-food DLC.
Can't believe it has already been a year
I like the idea of Vic3 as a game only youtubers play while everyone else watches, kinda like WWE wrestling.
Building baracks to get more troops is pretty stupid and tedious, just let us recruit the troops and keep it sperate from the building slot
And the building takes forever too which doesn't help
both ck3 and vic3 are trash games
Whats so wrong with CK3?
Ck3 is pretty good the biggest problems are the lack of challenge and no flavors it will be cool if they bring back mechanics like secret societies to the game
Paradox need to stop with these 3000+ dlcs for every game. Why not release full release or release dlcs with no new cost? I really like EU4 but my budget currently doesn't let me spend all my month paycheck on it. Idc about humble bundle, it's one time deal, while doing it right like baldurs gate 3, elden ring and rdr3 did is something that stays...
Modern game developement within the realms of larger corporationa isnt make a fun game
Their goal is make a minimal viable product and after thats on the market bleed you dry with live service nonsense
Good luck convincing them to get off the dlc paradigm kek
@@teruterubozo there is no kek here
There is only cringe
iSorrow just stuck with Vic2 in his mega campaign which really just speaks volumes.
Imperator Rome with Invictus has better systems in all parts of the game. If there was a somewhat decent conversion into the victorian era it would be better than vic3.
good video but dont you think it is a bit dramatic to say that ISP is "on the wrong side of that", he made that video a month and a half before ago before that patch even fully released and even then said he didnt like it or the the game that much still as it didnt fix any of the actual issues that he had with the game.
Yeah he took the sponsorship, but its not that much of shilling as it allowed him to say whatever he damn well pleased. He commented on the many minor improvements on the game but said his first on launch video is still entirely correct on almost everything he said on it
I think the sad thing about PDX games is they now seem to be frames for which DLC will be added on to improve it over 4 years. Every EU4 player knows the wall of DLC u can purchase but that’s a game that was released in 2013!! PDX isn’t alone tho, CA is just as bad if not worse as they abandon games immediately. I’m glad PDX doesn’t do that but it’s sad seeing the sorry state they’ve now fallen to when developing games but it seems to be an industrywide problem. It’s exacerbated though when you basically have a captive audience since CA is shit now.
the fact that eu4 has mods like anbennar and shores of the agean and vic 3 prob, will never have something like that is almost a dea*h sentence for the longevity of the game
eu4 has M&T and with that u basically dont need vic3
The game is just not very fun to play.
"Just give the game more time"
Except that obviously doesn't work for modern Paradox
CK3 is still utterly disappointing, which is so sad, since the game has/had so much potential, but they are just squandering it.
I waited one full year anticipating the full stink of PDX new jank to be on it and still ended up somewhat disappointed. lol. Unplayable without mods, and I mean that. My first game had like 10 major additions in a different bookmark than default. The warfare being so damn easy to exploit when it came to stacking modifiers, godly knights and such, was a real downer.
IMO the Vic 3 game shouldve been built on top of the Imperator map/game. It would obviously take tweaking to make it like Vic2 (but modern); like the Victoria Imperitrix devs are currently. No "hypothetical frontlines" or any bs like that. Actual standing units and such
I played Vic 2 during the Vic 3 free weekend. Even if it’s free I don’t want it 😂
I hope PDX goes bankrupt. They have become increasingly incompetent over years. Personally i will say they gutted imperator rome, wich wasn't much of great game when it was released. But when i played it at release, I found it had a fun rawness to it. I personally did not enjoy what i heard about ck3. I allso think their development of the game is horrendously slow. Victoria 3 they absolutely brutalized what it should be. Hearts of iron i personaly think is dog shit and a extremely boring experience. Not worth the few hundred hours i put it in it.
Stellaris enjoyed the game but after few thousand hours, there isn't much to it. It is a flavorless game. There is next to no vartion in gameplay. So over time it becomes less and less fun. It is likely I won't be spending money on PDX anymore and instead pirate their games or purchase steam keys on third party sites.
All of these war problems stem 100% from the fact that they were too stupid to include tiles and units on the map. And now they're wasting insane development time on tacking on some horrid "micro" system that's just pure tedium and sitting in garbage UI. None of this game has anything to do with the world map. It's always going to be a garbage mobile game.
EDIT: It also blows my mind how you can see tiles in the military lens but you can't do anything with them.
I cannot wait for OpenVic.
Right? That bugs me every time I boot up Vic 3, it's like, why can I not just DIRECT armies / etc over all these tiles when you've clearly already made them? The next logical step of 1.5s mil changes is to just give us back our stacks, lol, clearly having armies not take up any real 'presence' on the map like front line system just produces endless bugs and is just not fun either, feels like the player has no real strategy like how literally every other paradox title at least offers.
@@OldSlimJolo also why does siberia have like 2000 random tiles everywhere that are tiny and then there's that one random huge one.
You know people make fun of IGN for their reviews but these are "the people" saying things more or less like "it's broken and extremely flawed: I recommend it"
There is something about the Provinces that really bothers me every time i tried playing this game. At the start of it the map makes use of it for some really dynamic borders and split states which would be really neat to use to draw some arbitrary lines in the sand that benefit you but totally fucks with the native population but you just can't outside of a colonization race which is just such a waste.
This tilts me as well. Such as the sudden decision to use the political borders for the States in the United States for an economic simulation....?!???
In Victoria 3, there is zero economic overlap or interaction between New Jersey, New York, and Eastern Pennsylvania, and Delaware.
New England remains a dump the entire game because they are forced to be tiny little islands with zero economic interaction.
Every single decision that Paradox made for Victoria 3 was the wrong one.
They don't even have cost of transportation in their games yet, even though this is the most important thing in trade and economics.
Only the construction system for me is fun, the way you can trade and expand to force prices to go a certain way and specialize
Everything else is sub par
You can't isolate a country politically, you can't politically influence other countries (how many foreign supported coups were there in this time frame), warfare is ass and domestic policies are a sham there are like 2 viable builds and it's either giga capitalist of full on commie
They're adding journal entries and making countries more unique, like Brazil, but it's still pretty dead on content
Love it when Having subjects actively, objectively hurts you because they hijack your front lines and stall your progress
I've had countless wars where I couldn't push through and win because for every battle I win through blood two I lose because one of my subjects bumrushes 1 horse into 50 enemy infantry and resets all my progress with their defeat
10:14 LMFAO one of the best shitposts I've ever had the honor of watching 😂😂😂
Vic 3 is one of my most regretful purchases I’ve tried playing it once after the military update and I still just can’t
Yea, that’s about it. 1.5 was viewed as a big breaktrough update, but the otherwise nice changes weren’t groundbreaking or gamechanging.
They do plan to do some naval rework tho, they will be adding actual ship units after january lol.
the base mechanics are honestly fine, their idea for the game while bad could work. the problem isnt what they've built its how they've done, the diplomacy is bad, i barely interact with anyone in any of my games beyond puppets, the front line system would be fine, if it didn't break every time you push or smeone leaves the war. the economy is woefully simplistic and doesnt really make sense, as Japan or the Ottomans i have become the number one iron/coal producer without expanding beyond base borders. the entirity of the pacific conflict in ww2 could boil down to Japan lacking iron and yet the homeislands produce enough. All this would be fine if VIC3 didnt have the most obtuse unusable UI i have ever expirienced in a game, every action causes you to scroll up, which at times makes management require a massive scroll session after every click. theres nothing fun to see in the game, the map sucks, the economy is surmarised by lines and expanding your map isnt fun either. The AI is tedious and bad, its only impact is splitting its fleet to raid every sea zone if at war.
I downloaded and played the leak, one year before releease. The only thing they changed from the leak to release was the bugs where the game crashed every 40 minutes. They spent a year barely fixing bugs..
33:20 thank you for not making your viewers look at a piece of shit, I know that took restraint
I am a Stellaris truther. 1000 years Stellaris. God bless.