Quoting: RutineI can only say one thing : everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am somewhat in between the "Paradox DLC policy sucks" and "I so love Paradox". More towards the second than the first. That doesn't make what this user said, or what I think, bullshit. Thanks.

Said comment was aimed at "Just play vanilla" and "you can always revert to the last patch". Which is just nonsense and it doesn't work like that. Paradox DLC policy is criticized rightfully even by big Paradox fans. And not just the monetary aspect, but the design aspect as well.

Quoting: RutineI think it does make much sense. Take Age of Wonders III that I like too. It had a classic two DLC's and now development is stopped, waiting for AOW 4 probably (hopefully). Meanwhile Crusader Kings II has been out for more than 5 years and is still in development. If there were no DLC's we wouldn't have had some very good free changes to the base game.
It's a matter of choice. I personnally prefer that they continue working on the same game, improving and refining it. And yes, I bought almost all DLC's but I'm always like two or three DLC's behind current release. Because this way you can get them for 2,5 to 5 € which doesn't seem so much to me.

I can't speak for Crusader Kings II. Hell, I can't speak even for EU4 any more. But even from design point of view, you have to come with list of features that are worthwhile to pay for in DLC if you want to extend the game AND at the same time, not make said paid features required for any decent playing, i.e., said features must be good enough, but not required. This puts you under big hurdle when you want to just throw away and modify some mechanics. So while the development really continue, benefit and "free features" to someone who does not buy DLCs, hell even to someone who buys said DLCs, is questionable.

That is partially given by budget. As I said before, Paradox used to do drastic changes to its game, and it was good! However, lately a lot of changes are usually rather shallow. Most of new mechanics and features, while good on paper, are rather shallow. The only benefit really are some ROTW nations that gets similar local features like interaction with Papal State is for Christians.

Quoting: RutineWhen did they remove mechanics and return them as paid ones? I mean, which mechanics are you referring too? I'm much more of an expert in EU4, so I really don't know which one(s) you are talking about.
And concerning the bugs.. I can't really speak for CK2, but it has been a long time since I have seen any serious bug at all in it. Yes, possibly the DLC releases are buggy if you buy the DLC the same day and play it immediately. That's why I don't do it also, I wait for the two or three hotfixes that they usually do. For me it's no big deal.

From top of my head, two example. First is tiny: forced march. Used to be part of one national idea, now you have to have DLC (won't know which ones). The other is westernization. This was substituted by a new system, which is interesting and looks good on paper (works like CK technologies, stuff spreading around). However, to my knowledge, it was at start quite bugged and to interact with this system, you need another DLC to increase development in your provinces.

Quoting: RutineI don't understand your point. It's true that they release DLC and patches at the same time, but the patch is free so you don't need the DLC. And again, I don't see the games so buggy. I have played recently a complete playthrough of EU4 and antoher one in Stellaris without encountering any bug.

Bugs are this weird thing. Either you don't encounter them, or you meet them every time. It depends how are you playing and with what system you interact.

To explain what I said before:
DLC reworks features -> perceived as bad (i.e., putting something behind paywall) -> suggested to play with previous patch
But said "free patch" (funny, I thought that patches were always free) corrected some bugs from previous version, which were sometimes caused by bogged feature from previous DLC (from what I remember, there is usually just one patch after DLC that tries to repair most bugs and imbalances, which sometimes is not successful, and then next DLC comes). I.e, player is forced to either work with broken game or buy DLC/stop playing game.

Why Paradox DLCs are still bugged? Because you need to create system, where you don't know which part would be available by player and individual parts shouldn't interact, but they inevitably will. Its QA hell as you would have to try all combinations.

I am able to cut Paradox a lot of slack. They support Linux and everything they even publish lately is on linux by default, the DLC policy idea is customer friendly as one can customize his game as he wants (ideally, but not really). It probably brinks them a lot of money and they were the first one who tried something like that. I just hope that they will not think that current state is a good and something to continue or strive for, but they will think about the state they got in, the design box they build for themselves (or maze?) and the reconsider also the pricing policy. I think they can afford to release older DLCs and if they integrated slowly old DLC into main game (which could be more expensive then), rather than kept DLCs in high prices, it would make EU much better product to buy in even in later stages.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It sounds like there was something in the "we investigate feasibility" in the beginning.

Still, most of Civ games are always singleplayer. I only wish that we would get some technical update. I mean if someone sit down and write down blog what is technically wrong. I always like to read those things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LakortaNo need to fight over the DLC policy. That happens often enough in the Steam forums already^^

At the start especially, the DLC policy was not that bad. I guess that in CK, it can have potentially lesser impact as you can much more easily produce interesting flavour-only DLCs (although Retinues were BIG and are more or less required).

However, Paradox did dig a trap for itself and the fact that it changed how it approach development did substantially make the case less in favour of them.

A lot of problems are in total expense as well. Paradox refuses to make game cheaper, while putting up new DLC every half year, followed by minor patch, which is not enough to fix all the bugs. Its just... sad that studio that was so big pro-customer and did a great things changed substantially in this. There was no need for DLCs to keep patches rolling as their games were slow-burners and sold well even after years. I used to play Paradox games almost exclusively... Nowadays its not the case. And now, look at Stellaris, its empty game. It was clearly designed with a lot of DLC content on mind.

Said DLC policy with the right approach would be good and everyone supported Paradox when it started its DLC policy as Paradox had the right approach. But its not the case any more and Paradox seem to show some bad practices.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TeodosioI would be careful with accepting fashionable opinions too quickly.
Without Paradox's DLC policy, Crusader Kings 2's development would have stopped years ago. No, DLCs don't make the game unplayable if you don't buy them because you can choose which version to run... run vanilla if you like and pretend DLCs never came out.

Lets play the game "spot bullshit".

1. Without Paradox's DLC policy, Crusader Kings 2's development would have stopped years ago.
Which generally means that there would be no retarded DLCs. Nothing else. This argument thus doesn't even make any sense.

2. "No, DLCs don't make the game unplayable"
EXCEPT when they remove mechanics and return them as paid ones. EXCEPT when they stop fixing bugs, usually caused by previous DLCs, and release bugfixing as part of "free content". Thus something that was standard and even mandatory for Paradox to do (because of horrible bug-ridden state the games were and still are released), nowadays is promoted as "something on top and only thanks to DLC policy".

3. "you can choose which version to run... run vanilla if you like and pretend DLC's never came out."
EXCEPT that DLCs are connected with bugfixes, because Paradox basically stopped bugfixing game outside of DLCs launch, in which case they often introduce new bugs. That is, if you want to play with known bugs that were solved, because Paradox QA is shit as well (look at stellaris, even after several patches, they weren't able to fix the first quest line with ancestor civilization and there were bugs that you literally could find in first half hour).

Paradox DLC policy seemed good. However, it was good if Paradox didn't changed how they patch games and treat customers. Additionally, even when Paradox DLC policy was first announced, people could already see some specific problems, like problem with feature design to make features worthwhile for paid customers, but not too influential to be essential (which Paradox was not able to do), that features from one DLC shouldn't be dependent on features from another DLC (again, Paradox failed at this) and that sooner or later there will be design trap when paradox can't remove piece of game, rework it so it works better and return it (as Paradox used to with stuff like Trade in EU3), but must somehow add some paid features on top of it.

Even nowadays more reasonable Paradox fans question Paradox choices, especially regarding how DLCs features are packed and how some DLCs became essentials (I have more exp. with EU4) and how some DLC offer less and less content for their price.

But not single one of your arguments was even able to question this critique and instead is repeating something that people repeat against this critique (like "its optional" and "you don't need to buy that" and "so just play vanilla"... and "development would have stopped years ago")

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: RafiLinuxBioshock Infinite looks interesting but I have questions - The trailer shows the character shooting and also using 'powers' - Are the power usage optional? In other words, can I play and end the game using just weapons?

Yes, since powers cost you energy, which is not replenishing by itself, it serves just as another type of ammo.

However, don't expect much from Infinite, it is way worse then previous Bioshocks.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Skyrim would be great. And other Bethsoft games like Dishonored.

However, I am looking also for good RTS/TBS, be it city-building or so.

Hegemony III would be cool.
Endless Legend also.
Age of Empires: remastered and AoE2:HD.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Does anyone knows if RPG system was modified from PoE?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Look at GOG which is i think the second most used infrastructure (on PC of course). Multiplayer is still a big problem on games using steamplay because gog users remain isolated from the huge majority of players.

You cannot compare GOG and STEAM infrastructure. To my knowledge, GOG doesn't provide such unified and feature-full service as steam, with such huge amount of software, mods, multiplayer support and cloud for saves. GOG infrastructure is tiny compared to that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ah, I know why. Postal 2 is not available in New Zealand. Darn it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Yeah, the graphics looks really weird. The palette looks too bright and the animations are horrible.

Also, can I play as single char? I don't really like squad/party based RPGs as I am loner and I usually have to "identify" myself (i.e., roleplay) certain character... and I can't do that in party... which results of my playing one and having X backpacks... which is weird. But usually games that have party are designed against playing it with single char.

Shame, there is not enough good RPGs.

View this comment - View article - View full comments