![]() While there is a lack of flavour for some of the smaller nations and a handful of other problems that stop Victoria 3 being as good as it could be, there’s a vast myriad of strategies available to players, and many ways to plot out a successful campaign. Its brilliant law systems create a truly enigmatic power struggle that will keep us playing for many hours to come. The role of a leader can be fickle and overwhelming at times.Īll in all, Victoria 3 does a brilliant job of bringing this era of global politics alive. If you'd like a chance to lead millions and create a nation to rival all others, then this is the game for you. Victoria 3 is a niche game that at its core is about enacting social and political change through close internal management of your nation, and nothing on the market comes close to replicating it. There may be flaws, but they are negligible and won't cause massive damage.Īn extraordinarily detailed economy and range of interlinking systems make Victoria 3 a grand strategy to rival some of Paradox's best. I, for one, am happy that they at least seem to have made a solid foundation, and I'm looking forward to what the future brings for Victoria 3.Ī hallmark of excellence. It's probably going to take years of development, iteration, and balancing for this game to realize its potential, and if they waited until it was perfect, it would've never released. This is likely Paradox's most ambitious game ever, from both a technical and a design perspective. I think it can get at least a partial pass on this. I don't necessarily want to make excuses for buggy/incomplete game releases, and Vic3 could've certainly been better on day one with some more time in development, but honestly. So yeah, overall, I think it's definitely a flawed release, but I also think it gets a hell of a lot right. the US colonizing Africa/South America, etc). The colonization process itself works fine, though the AI definitely needs improvement in its colonial target selection (i.e. The idea of "decentralized nations" instead of "uncolonized lands" is a far better representation of historical colonialism, but it trips up again with the "one-and-done" nature of native uprisings, which were often much longer-lasting, but lower-level conflicts, historically. But again, it improves the gameplay experience by adding a wider variety of options, outcomes, and uncertainty to diplomacy, while also making more sense in a historical context, compared to the sudden, unilateral war declarations with no buildup in previous PDX titles.Ĭolonization is a little more of a mixed bag, but I don't think it's irredeemably so. Still, not only does it make for a better experience by reducing reliance on a player's skill at micromanaging troop movements, it also makes sense in the context of large-scale warfare at the time!ĭiplomatic plays also have the potential to provide a much richer gameplay experience in regards to diplomacy, though it could also use some more depth and transparency. Unlike Victoria 2, prices don't wildly fluctuate at random, and it's not nearly as difficult to understand how the actions you take will affect the economy.īeyond that, even the game's rawer, less fleshed-out systems still have a lot of great design behind them - there aren't many ideas or concepts here that strike me as inherently flawed and bad for the game long-term without getting completely scrapped ( cough mana cough), just a lot of great ideas in need of more depth and fine-tuning.Ībstracting out warfare into fronts and fully delegating military maneuvers to your generals is something that I think Paradox should've started doing years ago, though I do think it could use more transparency as far as how battles are started. The big thing, for me at least, is that the economic simulation actually works, for the most part, and usually responds predictably and logically to given inputs. Victoria 3, on the other hand, was a bit confusing at first, but by day two, I was already well on my way through a successful France run. I had made a few attempts to get into it over the years, but even using guides, the game just never clicked with me. ![]() That says a lot, because I always found Victoria 2 to be downright impenetrable, even with quite a bit of experience with other Paradox grand strategy games. Still, I think a lot of the game's core systems are remarkably solid and coherent for what they are, and I see a ton of potential in the game's future.Įven right now, I'm already genuinely having fun with it, despite its flaws. Warfare isn't very intuitive, diplomacy is rather barebones, the AI could use some work, and there's hardly any nation-specific flavor. ![]() I totally understand a lot of the criticism going around about the game right now, and honestly, I think there's a lot of validity to it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |