VICTORIA III - Available now!

[al_infierno]

Yeah, ouch... That review is damning.  Sobered me right up!

This seems to be a continuing trend with Paradox.  Strip down and assimilate all nations into one "player nation" blob with different outfits.

Also in that video, I lol'ed at "New York Utah front."  WTF?

[Tamas]

Hi everyone, it's been a while!

May I suggest you check out this review as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68dr_pPlAlw&t=242s I think it does a good job of staying level-headed, gives the game 7.5 out of 10 which is I think fair, and importantly, it reviews the game systems for what they are and does not approach it with the question: "is this exactly like Victoria 2?"

I think a lot of criticism is coming from this weird nostalgic picture of modded Victoria 2 that lives in people's heads. Missing things like not necessarily having to build factories on your own, forgetting that the "autonomous" factory building in Vic2 made little sense. Victoria 2 was great because there was literally no other attempt (apart from Victoria 1) to simulate the 19th century. But both as a game and as a simulation it was deeply flawed and broken. It was played despite the way it worked, not because of it.

And I think it is the "simulation" part where the key Victoria 3 advantage lies. Sure, the human and AI players select the factories they build, but thanks to the underlying fairly complex supply/demand system, the resulting economic environment feels FAR more realistic and engaging than Vic2's universal global market.

On the political front there is no contest I think. In my one game as Sweden/Scandinavia played to 1907, I had to engage with the political situation in my country more than ever in Vic2 - there are levers to pull, again, abstracted, but engaging ones.

Overall, in everything but war, I have more to do, more depth to consider than in Vic2.

Victoria 3 may handle more like a game than a simulation when compared to Victoria 2, but the result of those "more game-y" systems is a much more authentic simulation of 19th century economics and politics and how they interconnected.

War kind of fits into the same theme. This is the Paradox game with the least focus on war when it comes to manual user input. That has its drawbacks. Personally, I am glad to be rid of whack-a-stack gameplay from their other titles, but I understand if others feel differently.

However, the Vic3 war system is more in line with the overall simulation, not less, when compared to Vic2 or any other Paradox game. It has a profound effect on one's economy and population, and because it is not possible to overcome the AI by mouse-driven maneuvering, it fits much better into the game's scale - if I prepared for my war well, I will win it (barring misfortune). If I rushed into something ill-prepared I will get punished.

Now of course I am not saying the game is perfect, there are plenty of things to tweak (most especially the fairly common AI tendency to overcommit to what should be minor "win quick or get out" wars), but what's there now is fun, engaging, deep, and already miles ahead of what even modded Victoria 2 was for me, let alone vanilla.

[al_infierno]

I think a lot of criticism is coming from this weird nostalgic picture of modded Victoria 2 that lives in people's heads. Missing things like not necessarily having to build factories on your own, forgetting that the "autonomous" factory building in Vic2 made little sense. Victoria 2 was great because there was literally no other attempt (apart from Victoria 1) to simulate the 19th century. But both as a game and as a simulation it was deeply flawed and broken. It was played despite the way it worked, not because of it.

Thanks for sharing the video.  I'll definitely check it out.  In my mind, the issue is not with the execution of Vicky 3's systems but the philosophy behind them.  What you described about Vicky 2 is precisely why people love it.  If it weren't for those unique and broken mechanics, it would just be another obscure back-catalogue Paradox game.  I would 100x prefer the devs to focus on building a new system with that same philosophy, while making it more slick and polished and "modern," rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater and stripping away the unique qualities to make it "Paradox game but in the 19th century." 

They could have named this something else if they wanted to make a 19th century game with a completely different design philosophy than Victoria 2.  I guess what really disappoints me is knowing now we'll never get a Victoria sequel with the same design philosophy as 2.

I'm also just a weirdo that prefers old, wonky games with fun and unique ideas over polished, mass-produced modern AAA games that are identical except thematic gimmicks and window-dressing.   

[Tamas]

I get that sentiment and I would agree with it fully if it was applicable to this game, but it is not.

Vic3 is not making any compromises on the attempted simulation front, quite the opposite. If you want to look into it in more detail or need to learn the game before playing, this a very long but excellent video: https://youtu.be/XWSoyOlVVfk

[al_infierno]

Thanks!  I will check out both videos before I make up my mind  O0

[Destraex]

Who made those youtube videos and did they receive a free copy of the game?

[WallysWorld]

I see that the game is basically fueling a big storm on Steam between those who like it and those who don't as it was when Imperator was released. I must admit I'll probably pull the trigger much sooner than I told myself before about waiting. Just an FYI the game is 16% off at Green Man Gaming, but of course with that store, no refunds once activated.

[SirAndrewD]

Watch the video WallysWorld posted. It will bring you back from the ledge.

Yes...it did.  Especially because I'm familiar with the channel and respect the reviewer, and I can see and understand every issue he's talking about as problem for someone like me that played Vic 1 and 2.

[Ian C]

I watched this review (opinion) in its entirety:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZVMbCaeHI

Just to play Devil's Advocate: From the start he makes it clear that it's a critique of the game measured against how Vicky 3 isn't Vicky 2. I want to know objectively how the game stands on it's own merits, not hear a litany of disappointment from a Vicky 2 fan who reports what they have dismembered from the previous game. I played Vicky 2 a few times. I can't remember it. Maybe for me, ignorance is bliss?

He says that capitalism has been completely removed from the game, yet, there are local and world markets in Vicky 3 in which you can invest, buy, sell, manipulate prices, trade and so on. I stopped watching at that point.

I'd like to be convinced that I've bought a stinker so I can have good gripe about it, but no one has put me off yet.

[Tamas]

Who made those youtube videos and did they receive a free copy of the game?

Listen if you are not keen on trying the game that's fine, I just feel like people here might miss out on something they would enjoy because of what seem to me like overly emotional and negative reviews of people who wanted their ideal dream of Vic2 to materailse.

I am a bit concerned that if the most innovative and complex desigm by Paradox since, well, probably ever, gets tanked by the coalition of grumpy old people and meme-hungry young people, then we will not see such games again for quite a while.


But that aside, all I can tell you is that I was a very active beta tester on Victoria 1, a less active on Victoria 2 and played both games to death, and Victoria 3 is a more complex and comprehensive simulation than either of them. Yes, even the war system, because its valid to argue that not having little dudes to order around the map is less fun, but it certainly was in no way realistic.

[Destraex]

Who made those youtube videos and did they receive a free copy of the game?

Listen if you are not keen on trying the game that's fine, I just feel like people here might miss out on something they would enjoy because of what seem to me like overly emotional and negative reviews of people who wanted their ideal dream of Vic2 to materailse.

I am a bit concerned that if the most innovative and complex desigm by Paradox since, well, probably ever, gets tanked by the coalition of grumpy old people and meme-hungry young people, then we will not see such games again for quite a while.


But that aside, all I can tell you is that I was a very active beta tester on Victoria 1, a less active on Victoria 2 and played both games to death, and Victoria 3 is a more complex and comprehensive simulation than either of them. Yes, even the war system, because its valid to argue that not having little dudes to order around the map is less fun, but it certainly was in no way realistic.

I just want people to be wary of what they watch being impartial is all (your videos probably were impartial, I did not click on them), but there are a lot that are paid to promote and generally referred to as a result as shills. Also wish links resolved here so I could see the preview here with the name as I don't click on everything and like a youtube summary. I am not trying to be difficult. But I do express my opinions rather bald faced. I know the reputation for the internet being toxic, I am not trying to be that guy that is negative for the sake of it, glass always half empty rather than full. I only have so much money to spend on games and must be frugal and judge things well.
If you like it for what it is. Cool. No issue here.

[Jarhead0331]

But that aside, all I can tell you is that I was a very active beta tester on Victoria 1, a less active on Victoria 2 and played both games to death, and Victoria 3 is a more complex and comprehensive simulation than either of them. Yes, even the war system, because its valid to argue that not having little dudes to order around the map is less fun, but it certainly was in no way realistic.

While your opinions are most certainly valid, informative and helpful, statements like this come across as disingenuous and extremely biased. You are literally the only person who has claimed the war system is "more complex and comprehensive". The only one. Virtually everybody else, even those who are giving the game favorable reviews, acknowledge that the war system is stripped and watered down to the point of being almost arbitrary in ways. I don't think it's fair to belittle criticism of a system in a strategy game that has no system of unit organization and control on a map, army or navy. To say that having such a system is "unrealistic" is illogical. From that perspective, just about every system in every game could be criticized as unrealistic in one way or another. Most importantly, is it fun? Realism or not? I think that this is the biggest problem that some people are having. The war system in Vicky 3 just doesn't seem enjoyable.

I'm glad you like it and are defending it and I want to continue to see your impressions. But don't get put off by people who have a different take, have concerns or criticisms. The most common ones definitely seem to have support and merit.

[Tamas]

OK, the part about the war system was not clear: the simulation factor of it is better than in Vic2, in my opinion but of course in terms of complexity of options and player input Vic2 had more.

It's just that lessening (in this case removing) RTS-level control of the military pushes toward realism in the scope of these games, not away.

If one is looking for a wargame (even strategic) covering the 19th century, this game most certainly isn't it.

[Jarhead0331]

*sigh*

I got it. I settled a big case today and felt entitled to some new toys. I picked it up on CDKeys.com at a 36% discount. $30 even.

[ArizonaTank]

*sigh*

I got it. I settled a big case today and felt entitled to some new toys. I picked it up on CDKeys.com at a 36% discount. $30 even.

Why the sigh? Has Paradox ever let you down?

On second thought, don't answer that...;)