The Paradox Curse MIGHT KILL EU5 - Here's Why

Whether it's Crusader Kings 3, Imperator: Rome or Victoria 3, Paradox games are suffering from a curse that's hard to shake - the curse of expectation. Thing is, when you play Paradox games for years on end, and the devs continue to update and release paid DLC to enhance the experience, you kind of expect the next numbered entry in a series to follow up stronger and with even more content. But this is though in a world where EU4 has been out for 10 whole years, and where a possible EU5 is going to pick up the mantle and succeed it. In other words, is Paradox making it harder for themselves by keeping their games alive for as long as they are, only to release new titles that don't include all or the majority of innovations from past games?

Or do Paradox fans expect too much, or don't they care as long as the new game actually innovates enough to feel warranted? In short, what does it take for a new Paradox grand strategy game to succeed these days, when most of their successful games have a life span of 8-11 or so years? That's long for any game, and it's almost like some of these PDX games like EU4, HOI4 and Stellaris are reaching MMO territory. But is this a good or bad thing?

What do you want to see from EU5 or Project Caesar, and importantly - what do you expect from it? Please let me know in the comments, and if you enjoyed the video, make sure to leave a like and subscribe to the channel! :)

#eu5 #projectcaesar #eu4 #tintotalks #paradox

[Arditi]

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

[ziggytheassassin]

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

[henryhargraves]

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

[IAmMrGreat]

Personally my biggest problem with Paradox has been their abandonment of Imperator. I don't like how games are released full of bugs and unfinished mechanics and features but I can accept it, with the expectation that games will get better after a year or two.
Paradox completely broke my trust in them, not when they released the broken mess that was Imperator, but when they abandoned it after such a short period and when it was finally reaching a state where I actually found it enjoyable.

Imperator Rome has soooo many nice mechanics and enjoyable content, but rather minor problems just ruins it for me. The optional autonomous armies are amazing but the entire food mechanic is terrible, high tier forts basically has your armies starving themselves. You can be right next to your capital with 5k food in store and yet your army can't resupply without abandoning the siege or manually splitting your army to send part of it back for food.
You can't even split your army if they're loyal to the commander, they'd rather starve to death than move one province away for a month or two.
But personally I find the absolute worst part of it to be how you can't get food in allied territory. Any ally worth having is going to have a decent amount of territory and your armies will be halfway starved to death before they even make it to the enemy.
To be fair, the food issues only really start getting bad from the midgame and onwards, early game there'll be plenty of food because nations are smaller overall so you don't starve walking through allied territory and armies are smaller in general so they resupply faster.

[asgarzigel]

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

[cheesusdagod]

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

[adisonsmith]

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

[Lord_Lambert]

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

[Matvei]

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

[CombThatHat]

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

[Times_Ticking]

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

[chocolaterain]

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

[Coecoo]

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

[lamename]

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

[oilslick]

Problem is that the PDX business model only works with either a new francise (stellaris) OR the first time you implement it with an existing franchise (CK2 and EUIV) CK2 and EUIV at launch were rouhgly on par with their predecessor content-wise. People are willing to pay for it, if only because of better looks and performance. And then the slow adding of new features for a price is ok. Yes it's expensive when you add it all up, but no more that buying FIFA every year fo 10 years straight (which is in essence a glorified database update). And because those features are new you can enjoy them while they come out....

But you can't pull that trick a second CK3 and EU5 can NOT be on the level of CK1 and EU3 to start with:
1) people will sit on the fence until it is at least 80% of what it was before (no income for PDX)
2) But when it gets there, they see how much it wil cost them for the base game + DLC's JUST TO CONTINUE WHERE THEY LEFT OFF in terms of gameplay features. NO ONE is going to fork out €300 to play what is essentially, in terms of gameplay terms, a feature complete EUIV but with better graphics and maybe some redesigned mechanics.

PDX needs to rethink their business model, because THAT had reached end of life....

[gandalf]

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

[Dante-mrrz]

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

[drzombie]

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

if you would prefer to ignore the positives and be pessimistic about it, then take a look at the wastelands shown in tinto talks 2, that one really needs some changing in some areas alright.

[edusoto]

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

edit:
I also forgot player agency.

[EvanHNP]

This video is a pro-Vic 3 psyop disguised as an EU5 video and I’m offended