Victoria 2: Broken on Launch

[Thanas]

^Given the experience with HoI 3, I really doubt their beta test crew consists of more than a dozen admiring fanboys.

[TC Pilot]

I remember a few years ago I applied to be a beta tester for, IIRC, EU3. Naturally I wasn't picked. In fact, now that I think of it, I don't recall any of the more capable modders on their forums (including any of the people who made their own Paradox-liscenced games) have ever been picked.

[scythewielder]

I really, really wanted to be a beta tester for the original Victoria, given the wonderful setting and all, but wasn't picked either. I did get a couple of interesting opportunities after that, but in any event...I never ended up liking the game that much despite participating in the resulting community modding efforts and, after hearing about its issues, I'm not in any hurry to pick up Victoria 2 so soon after launch.

On the bright side, EU3 Complete has been pretty fun and remains an absolutely worthwhile purchase at this stage.

On that note, does anyone know what Paradox's beta testers actually do, if not find such hugely obvious game-ruining problems? Or are the developers just completely blind

I can't speak for any of their more recent games, but my conclusion would be that their design philosophy is just too ambitious given the length of the development time assigned to each of their games. They would need either more testers, programmers and development time or just simpler games. I'm sure there can be an element of laziness on an individual level but the structural problem goes far beyond that. It's trying to do too much with too little.

If they haven't been able to change that, by and large, it's either because they just can't do anything about it or, perhaps more importantly in the long run, because they still manage to turn a regular profit with EU and HOI.

[Stark]

Or they need actual project management so they can not piss away their time on shit that never works and features that are essential but broken. Assessing cost vs return is pretty basic in business.

[Spoonist]

As it stands right now there is no incentive for them to change their ways. Almost all their titles has made a profit, this since their development budgets are very limited compared to their output. Their fanbase still buys their games at launch, regardless. For you who participated in the Blayne threads you know what I mean.
Their selection criteria for the beta testers remain the same. And the limited input they do get from them is almost irrevelant.

Now the strange thing is that when you meet and talk to the guys they are aware of their problems. They are a bright, dedicated team who really want to put out a great product. But its like they are so deeply entrenched in the process that they have little breathing time to actually take a step back and change something.
Then add to that that everyone is calling for different changes so its hard to seperate the good input in the maelstrom of bad, then you have the 'mess' that they have today.

[Thanas]

That pretty much translates to "We are cheap and will not spend money for a good betatest" IMO. I mean, I could understand it if units are a bit inbalanced, but when one of the main features does not work?

[Skgoa]

After having played a couple more games, rectifying the worst mistakes (theres a typo in rebells.txt and I reduced the needs of craftmen to a tenth) and getting ever deeper into the game mechanics, I am confident to say this:
The game is broken on launch.
Horribly, horribly broken. And not only that, its just not a lot of fun. There is nothing in this game but the challenge of smacking your head against the plethora of retarded design joices that do their best to keep you from in control. On the one hand you have so few options, most of the time you are just waiting for something interesting to happen. On the other hand the options you do have are so broken and counterintuitive, that success is not so much a question of making the right decisions, but understanding what is even going on. Oh and once you are bored of micromanaging populations and orienting your production by the world market, you notice that it doesn't even matter.



At the end of the day this and what has been said in the preceding posts comes down to Paradox games having extremely low production values. They have a couple of ideas for game mechanics, they implement them in only the most rudimentary fashion and then don't sufficiently test and polish them. Do they not have a producer? Or anyone else who knows project management or even the first thing about producing software? Paradox is to small, to poor and to set in its ways to make the games they want to make in any kind of acceptable quality.

[Thanas]

And on that note, I have updated the thread title.

[MKSheppard]

So it seems like they they spent money on fixing some of the blatant "oh god!" gamebreaking bugs that plagued HOI3 on launch so that they would be able to sneak past the initial reviews and get stuff like "Victoria 2 - Suprisingly not broken on launch"; to get a larger initial buy; before people got a bit deeper into the game and went "what the hell?"

[Thanas]

Those reviewers must not have played the game for very long not to notice that the key feature of Industrialization, which just might be important for gameplay/accuracy, is horribly broken.

[Stark]

So long as reviewers are stupid enough to be blinded by 'ambitous scope' and 'sweeping historical simulation' and other nonsense, they won't notice that essential mechanics are totally, unavoidably broken.

This is why gonzo reviewing is useless.

[Thanas]

This is why I love Gamersglobal - they flat out said that the game was "as accessible as a textbook for nuclear engineers" and gave it a rather low rating of 7/10. Too bad it is only written in German.

[Stark]

That anyone considers 7/10 'rather low' damns reviews EVEN FURTHER.

[Thanas]

That anyone considers 7/10 'rather low' damns reviews EVEN FURTHER.

Well, that is their scale for "standard fare, recommended for fans of the series".

They do not hand out that many reviews above 9.0 either, with only two 10/10s so far (none of them PC games).

[Vendetta]

On the other hand, if the game is cataclysmically broken, then possibly it shouldn't be reccommended, even to fans of the series.

I mean it took what, four goes to get Hearts of Iron 2 to really work, and there's still plenty of stuff to sort out (the next AoD patch promises a AI overhaul, and they're still fixing balance issues) and the game still basically stops being interesting as soon as WW2 ends because without any real event work in place the AI basically sits and does nothing but build infantry for the entire 1950s.

[Vympel]

Game review scales have been broken for as long as they've been around. Generally, any game that gets less than 80% is not worth playing.

[Artemas]

That anyone considers 7/10 'rather low' damns reviews EVEN FURTHER.

Well, that is their scale for "standard fare, recommended for fans of the series".

They do not hand out that many reviews above 9.0 either, with only two 10/10s so far (none of them PC games).

GameSpot doesn't hand out that many scores over 9.0 either, and I don't think they've ever given a 10/10. They must be super honest!

Anyway, it's sad that Paradox is really the only developer when it comes to grand strategy games of this type. Like the total war series, some half-decent competition would do them wonders. Or they would all crash and burn. Hard to tell.

[Edward Yee]

re: betas -- I can definitely sympathize with the developers having the issue of "too many damn different things that the beta testers want, especially when some are directly opposing things that other beta testers want." *looks at the MAG beta and particularly knife defenders*

[Stark]

Turns out the game developers should actually have a plan instead of 'go whichever way the naggers nag the loudest'. Design by forum = MoO3.

[Edward Yee]

At which point the plan will promptly be complained about by said forum, especially when the plan isn't turning out the way the developers wanted it to be... or are still publicly claiming. (I'm looking at "Escalation," count me out of that in its current state.)

[Stark]

So... what? Especially in Paradox's situation (where they have a totally captive audience who will buy any old broken shit), what do they have to lose?

[Edward Yee]

Heh... I wish I were Paradox Interactive all of a sudden then.

[Stark]

So you can churn out endless waves of broken shit to people too stupid to learn?

I guess it worked for the fast food industry.

[Thanas]

GameSpot doesn't hand out that many scores over 9.0 either, and I don't think they've ever given a 10/10. They must be super honest!

Don't be a snippy little person, I've quoted their reviews several times in threads here and even Stark agreed with their review of SCII.

[Stark]

SC2 is a good example really; I think it's a really boring game, but it's polished, it works, and it's only real problems are balance (depending on your point of view). Victoria 2 is like saying... Vespene mining stops working after 10m.