Dear Diary with Paradox

[Naked_Lunch]

<strong>[ Update ]</strong>

<p><a href="http://www.paradoxplaza.com/" title="sss">Paradox</a> has been doing these weekly dev diaries things about Europa Universalis 3 that <strike>Baby Arm</strike> we've somehow missed, but thanks to <a href="http://thundercats.vpga.com/artwork/young_lion_o.jpg" title="Go Llyranor!">some guy</a> on the forum that won't be happening anymore. Anyway, here's a clip from the <a href="http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=244767" title="sss">most recent entry</a> .</p><blockquote><p>Betatesting has now started, and a few lucky people have gotten their greedy little paws on an early copy of the game. The words, &lsquo;this is a modders wet-dream&rsquo; was a fairly common statement. Our newly hired beta-coordinator have been working hard putting them to full use. Our interface team has wrapped up the diplomatic interface now, and are working on adapting tooltips to all various sub-interfaces right now. One of the coolest things the artists finished last week was the first ship-unit, a galleon, which looks great at the sea. We are hoping to get in at least fourteen different ships into the game. The focus for the history database development is currently all historical wars, and their battles, while the gamelogic focus have been to adapt old concepts like warexhaustion, trade agreements and military access to our new system. </p></blockquote><p>In the beta stage already? Gee whiz, I thought this game was still in pre-alpha! Anyway, they have some new <a href="http://www.tacticularcancer.com/gallery.php?dir=Europa%20Universalis%203&file=00155724.jpg" title="LOL!">screenshot(s)</a> along with the diaries, and as you can see the game is shaping up quite nicely, though it still doesn't have that "boardgame" feel I've come to know and love from Paradox. Reminds me a lot of Civ 4 actually...</p>

 

[Jason]

We also just updated our EU3 Gallery today. Hope you like pictures of buildings and stuff.

 

[Llyranor]

Jerks.

 

[kris]

[quote="2729]In the beta stage already? Gee whiz, I thought this game was still in pre-alpha! [/quote]

It kind of is, but they started with BETA earlier around this time and this first group of BETA testers was mainly around to help in research from what I gathered.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

We also just updated our EU3 Gallery today. Hope you like pictures of buildings and stuff.

That is one hot wharf.

 

[Jason]

The african models are way sexier.

 

[Avé]

How is it "shaping up nicely" considering the 4 week old screenshots look basically the same as the current ones?

 

[Naked_Lunch]

It's the first I've seen of some of the menu screens and they look nice and I personally think the maps are looking better and better. I don't put much stock in how well the game looks anyway. As long as the map isn't to distracting and doesn't get in the way of gameplay, i'm cool with it.

 

[Mefi]

IIRC there will be 2 beta stages. They've just entered the first with long-time Betas (the ones who do things like run public beta tests or design the mods which get included with platinum editions which is why HoI2 isn't getting much love any more).

For most companies this would be Alpha stage still. Paradox seems to have learnt a lot from its HoI mistakes. It's kind of like Troika but it managed to haul it's ass out of the fire for long enough to get out of the bad shit cycle.

Sod how it looks - it's how it plays which counts with Paradox games. And if they have expanded modding capabilities from EU2 with the graphics sides then they can afford to focus more on getting coding issues sorted out knowing that they can just lift any good mods and include them in a patch later on. I don't buy Paradox games to use my gfx card to its limit.

EU3 is on my must buy list. HoI2 is the moneymaker and has made enough to indulge Johan in this project. Hopefully, it will also fund a revisit to the CK concept too...

 

[Avé]

Mefi "Sod how it looks" is well and fine, but why the fuck did they go from 6 year old 2d graphics that still look pleasant to ugly ass 3d that looks like it came from the 90's?

So far 3d doesnt GIVE us any more information than the 3d map, and the only "advantage" is the "OMG ITS IN 3D" factor which got old a decade ago.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Paradox is probably just doing it for that omg 3d factor and yes, I'd rather it be boardgame 2D stlye like all their other games, but it's not as bad as it could be. As it is now, it's tolerable and it will doubtlessly get better as development goes on. I'm more interested in the mechanincs of the game and the new things they bring to the table than the map graphics.

 

[Mefi]

Mefi "Sod how it looks" is well and fine, but why the fuck did they go from 6 year old 2d graphics that still look pleasant to ugly ass 3d that looks like it came from the 90's?

So far 3d doesnt GIVE us any more information than the 3d map, and the only "advantage" is the "OMG ITS IN 3D" factor which got old a decade ago.

Fuck knows why they've changed to 3d. Bored of 2d and wanted a new look for the new engine maybe?

It's still in alpha with the trusted betas crawling over hunting bugs and making suggestions for the UI from what I've been told. Who knows what it will look like in the end.

Even if it's as ugly as sin, providing the new engine delivers the game we want, are you seriously going to tell me that ugly graphics in a Paradox game is going to stop you buying it?

 

[Avé]

Even if it's as ugly as sin, providing the new engine delivers the game we want, are you seriously going to tell me that ugly graphics in a Paradox game is going to stop you buying it?

What the fuck? You're excusing stupid and sloppy design decisions because other parts will be good?

Game design isnt "We can only have 2 good parts in this game: graphics, multiplayer or combat engine"

I suppose its ok for oblivion to be shit because its pretty, as games are about sacrifices and if you want pretty games it's ok to fuck over everything else?

Get a grip.

 

[Llyranor]

Heh, I dunno. EU2's map looks nicer than how this one is currently shaping out to be.

 

[kris]

Even if it's as ugly as sin, providing the new engine delivers the game we want, are you seriously going to tell me that ugly graphics in a Paradox game is going to stop you buying it?

What the fuck? You're excusing stupid and sloppy design decisions because other parts will be good?

Game design isnt "We can only have 2 good parts in this game: graphics, multiplayer or combat engine"

I suppose its ok for oblivion to be shit because its pretty, as games are about sacrifices and if you want pretty games it's ok to fuck over everything else?

Get a grip.

For a strategy game the importance in graphics is what it convey, not how advanced it is. You could call it functional, but I find in a game like this I want the map to show me the important things for my strategy. That means that terrain should be easily recognisable (it isn't now from what I seen), By glance I should know if province is important or not (depends on cities I believe). Rivers should be so that I know where they affect me in a attack/defense. Level of fortress should be displayed. Possibly weather should be displayed. etc.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Ave, you're bitching about graphics and the game is still in fucking alpha. Paradox's number 1 priority shouldn't be making the graphics purty, it should be hammering out design and gameplay elements, squashing bugs, and generally making the game playable. Once that's done, then they can sweeten up the graphics and whatnot.

 

[Avé]

Ave, you're bitching about graphics and the game is still in fucking alpha. Paradox's number 1 priority shouldn't be making the graphics purty, it should be hammering out design and gameplay elements, squashing bugs, and generally making the game playable. Once that's done, then they can sweeten up the graphics and whatnot.

Get a point, you're excusing again and again without anything to back it up is starting to bore me.

"zOMG THEY CHANGED THE GRAPHICS BUT THEY STILL LOOK GOOD TO ME COMPARED TO NOTHING"

"YOURE BITCHING ABOUT GRAPHICS WHEN THEY CHANGED THEM FOR NO REASON, RESULTING IN LESS INFO BEING DISPLAYED AND THEM BEING UGLY AS FUCK"

"YOU CANT COMPLAIN ABOUT STUPID DESIGN DECISIONS THAT INVOLVE GRAPHICS AS ITS A STRATEGY GAME"

noobs

 

[Mefi]

What the fuck? You're excusing stupid and sloppy design decisions because other parts will be good?

Game design isnt "We can only have 2 good parts in this game: graphics, multiplayer or combat engine"

I suppose its ok for oblivion to be shit because its pretty, as games are about sacrifices and if you want pretty games it's ok to fuck over everything else?

Get a grip.

Eh? You ever played a paradox game? Want to tell me that you think HoI2 is shit because the sprites are the crappest things ever?

You're a fucking retard. The graphics rank around number 100 when evaluating the games which Paradox produces. Hold the front page : "Small Swedish company fails to produce game require 512mb gfx card!".

And I'll stick by that even if the graphics in the alpha build are the ones which make it to the final version.

Think about it this way - Paradox makes a graphically challenging game which the vast majority of its user base can't play. Bit of an error, eh?

 

[Avé]

Eh? You ever played a paradox game? Want to tell me that you think HoI2 is shit because the sprites are the crappest things ever?

You're a fucking retard. The graphics rank around number 100 when evaluating the games which Paradox produces. Hold the front page : "Small Swedish company fails to produce game require 512mb gfx card!".

And I'll stick by that even if the graphics in the alpha build are the ones which make it to the final version.

Think about it this way - Paradox makes a graphically challenging game which the vast majority of its user base can't play. Bit of an error, eh?

Wow, you missed the point completely and re-used the "OMG STRATEGY GAMES DONT NEED GRAPHICS"

1)They changed the graphics from 2d to 3d for no apparent reason
2)The 3d graphics look poo
3)The 3d graphics show less information than the old graphics
4)3d graphics are far more time intensive to develop, and generally have a greater propensity for bugs.

Learn to read/comprehend or shut the fuck up, retard.

ps, where did you get the information that 99% of players cant play games with a 3d engine from 1995?
Thats what EU3 looks like right now. It's certainly now Rome:Total War, which sold bucket loads despite having a nice strategical map.

Odd that.

 

[Mefi]

Wow, you missed the point completely and re-used the "OMG STRATEGY GAMES DONT NEED GRAPHICS"

Shitwits strikes again! Bravo!

1)They changed the graphics from 2d to 3d for no apparent reason

They changed to 3d because they can only afford to have one engine. A move to 3d will mean that they can build on it for future releases.

2)The 3d graphics look poo

Yup. And?

3)The 3d graphics show less information than the old graphics

Unsure about that. I've only seen screenshots of the alpha build. Paradox games tend to have different map views. Those looked like the shots for a terrain map.

4)3d graphics are far more time intensive to develop, and generally have a greater propensity for bugs.

Indeed. So why are you whining about alpha screenshots for a game not out until later this year? Beta doesn't start until summer for god's sake.

Learn to read/comprehend or shut the fuck up, retard.

Comment on things you know about or you end up looking like a wanker who can't tell RTS with strategy elements from grand strategy. Oops.. you do that later in your post don't you?

ps, where did you get the information that 99% of players cant play games with a 3d engine from 1995?

Where did you get the information that the engine is from 1995? Have a look through Paradox listings when it was suggested people might need OMG 1gig of RAM... Paradox core consumers are not likely to buy extra memory, nevermind a new graphics card.

Thats what EU3 looks like right now. It's certainly now Rome:Total War, which sold bucket loads despite having a nice strategical map.

Hey you certainly know your games. That's like comparing Super Mario with Super Mario Kart Racing. Nice one.

 

[Avé]

They changed to 3d because they can only afford to have one engine. A move to 3d will mean that they can build on it for future releases.

Nonsensical, it doesnt explain why they went 3d,

Indeed. So why are you whining about alpha screenshots for a game not out until later this year? Beta doesn't start until summer for god's sake.

Because extra time spent on an ugly 3d strategy map could be better spent elsewhere?

Comment on things you know about or you end up looking like a wanker who can't tell RTS with strategy elements from grand strategy. Oops.. you do that later in your post don't you?

Where do you get that from? Up your ass like everything else?

Where did you get the information that the engine is from 1995? Have a look through Paradox listings when it was suggested people might need OMG 1gig of RAM... Paradox core consumers are not likely to buy extra memory, nevermind a new graphics card.

It looks like its from 1995.

Hey you certainly know your games. That's like comparing Super Mario with Super Mario Kart Racing. Nice one.

What the fuck does that have to do with comparing graphics of similar depictions?

A 3d strategy map of Europe showing cities, terrain, depictions of armies etc, is a 3d strategy of map of Europe showing cities, terrain, depictions of armies etc.

Wait, you think the strategic part of R:TW is real time?

I'm beginning to think you never even played EU OR rome total war, it's the only way to explain your sheer idiocy and lack of any sort of knowledge about either.


According to you, x-com apocalypse MUST have had two sets of maps/graphics, one for turn based mode and one for real time.

 

[kris]

1)They changed the graphics from 2d to 3d for no apparent reason
2)The 3d graphics look poo
3)The 3d graphics show less information than the old graphics
4)3d graphics are far more time intensive to develop, and generally have a greater propensity for bugs.

1. Can't answer that one.
2. I agree that they don't look good at present. We can't tell how they will end up though.
3. Nonsensical to claim at this point. Try when the game is closer to being ready or when they said "map is done".
4. This is not a problem in their case. The time to make the graphic resources will be much less than the time for programming the rest.

 

[Mefi]

Nonsensical, it doesnt explain why they went 3d,

Erm, no, that is the reason.

Because extra time spent on an ugly 3d strategy map could be better spent elsewhere?

I don't know - how much graphics work do Paradox games have? It's not as if they are pushed for time over models either. And their sprites always look crap. I don't think Dick can code - so what else should he be doing?

Where do you get that from? Up your ass like everything else?

Comparing the TW series to Paradox games is, erm, a little odd. TW is just a glorified rts series with strategic elements. A good game, but it is not grand strategic.

It looks like its from 1995.

It looks like it's in alpha.

What the fuck does that have to do with comparing graphics of similar depictions?

A 3d strategy map of Europe showing cities, terrain, depictions of armies etc, is a 3d strategy of map of Europe showing cities, terrain, depictions of armies etc.

Well spotted. But again, you miss the point. Companies when small and without major backing cannot produce games to the same graphical quality of companies which do have major backing or have become successful. Paradox will not reach that standard until a couple of more releases down the line. Kind of like how it went Shogun, Medieval and then Rome. Or the graphical improvements from HoI1 to HoI2.

Wait, you think the strategic part of R:TW is real time?

Erm, no I think it is a shallow as any other of the TW series. The rts part of the game is very well done though. Play any of the TW series on turnbased strategic and see how dull the game becomes. It's an rts with strategic elements. A better done version of Lords of the Realm.

I'm beginning to think you never even played EU OR rome total war, it's the only way to explain your sheer idiocy and lack of any sort of knowledge about either.

I already know you're a titwank. You're comparing a series which is heavily backed by major players in the industry with a small company who have only just started to climb the ladder.

According to you, x-com apocalypse MUST have had two sets of maps/graphics, one for turn based mode and one for real time.

When did I say that? Oh wait - I didn't, you're just a dumbfuck.

 

[Avé]

Erm, no, that is the reason.

No it isnt, they had a 2d shared graphics engine for EU1/2/HoI/Victory/Crusader Kings, but again it seems you have fuck all knowledge about paradox games.

I don't know - how much graphics work do Paradox games have? It's not as if they are pushed for time over models either. And their sprites always look crap. I don't think Dick can code - so what else should he be doing?

Yes, building a 3d engine isnt that hard, nor is it any harder to make 3d models and textures than 2d sprites.

Comparing the TW series to Paradox games is, erm, a little odd. TW is just a glorified rts series with strategic elements. A good game, but it is not grand strategic.

And where did I compare the TW series to Paradox games? I compared a similar depiction in both games.

It looks like it's in alpha.

I've seen plenty of strategy games in alpha, none looked that shit.

Well spotted. But again, you miss the point. Companies when small and without major backing cannot produce games to the same graphical quality of companies which do have major backing or have become successful. Paradox will not reach that standard until a couple of more releases down the line. Kind of like how it went Shogun, Medieval and then Rome. Or the graphical improvements from HoI1 to HoI2.

So it's ok that Uwe Bolls movies are shit, because he doesnt have much money?

Your loss when you watch them.

Erm, no I think it is a shallow as any other of the TW series. The rts part of the game is very well done though. Play any of the TW series on turnbased strategic and see how dull the game becomes. It's an rts with strategic elements. A better done version of Lords of the Realm.

So why is it people arent allowed to compare its strategy map to other games?
I'll remind you what you said earlier "Comment on things you know about or you end up looking like a wanker who can't tell RTS with strategy elements from grand strategy. Oops.. you do that later in your post don't you?"

You didnt mention money until I showed just how big a fucking idiot you were, and you decided to do a Rex and pretend you had a different point all along.

I
I already know you're a titwank. You're comparing a series which is heavily backed by major players in the industry with a small company who have only just started to climb the ladder.

Where did I compare the series? More quotes pulled from your own ass.

When did I say that? Oh wait - I didn't, you're just a dumbfuck.

Because you cant compare graphics of games from different sub-genres!
And you said that, let's quote you again because you're blind.

"Comment on things you know about or you end up looking like a wanker who can't tell RTS with strategy elements from grand strategy. Oops.. you do that later in your post don't you?"

"Comment on things you know about or you end up looking like a wanker who can't tell RTS with strategy elements from grand strategy. Oops.. you do that later in your post don't you?"


Try again.

 

[Mefi]

No it isnt, they had a 2d shared graphics engine for EU1/2/HoI/Victory/Crusader Kings, but again it seems you have fuck all knowledge about paradox games.

What the fuck are you whittering on about? Yes, Paradox had a 2d engine for their first games. EU3 is their first 3d game and *shock horror* it will be reused for future titles

Yes, building a 3d engine isnt that hard, nor is it any harder to make 3d models and textures than 2d sprites.

Bingo. We're getting somewhere. And paradox is notoriously bad for those things. And a screenshot in alpha is going to look like the red-headed stepchild. So what is the problem? "OMG! Paradox graphics sux!" ?

And where did I compare the TW series to Paradox games? I compared a similar depiction in both games.

You mean the bit where the paradox map shows one of several screen views but somehow it's perfectly logical to compare it to the rome:tw map? Ah ok.

I've seen plenty of strategy games in alpha, none looked that shit.

Really? Do tell. As usual, your dribbling arsegravy again.

So it's ok that Uwe Bolls movies are shit, because he doesnt have much money?
Your loss when you watch them.

No, but then you are trying to make a very shite comparison again. Most small filmakers don't have the gloss and camerawork of the big studios - but does that make them shit films by default? Or are there other things that count? You don't get to see many films do you? I hear Pearl Harbour has pretty pictures. Might be up your street.

So why is it people arent allowed to compare its strategy map to other games?
I'll remind you what you said earlier "Comment on things you know about or you end up looking like a wanker who can't tell RTS with strategy elements from grand strategy. Oops.. you do that later in your post don't you?"

Thanks for the reminder. As I was saying, trying to compare anything about rome:tw with a Paradox game is the sign of a fuckwit.

You didnt mention money until I showed just how big a fucking idiot you were, and you decided to do a Rex and pretend you had a different point all along.

No. My point stands. You are comparing a single map view (out of several, as I presume that the map will also have to show economic/cultural stuff too) which is meant to show terrain with a highly polished effort where such details do not have to be taking into account. On top of that, you've got the financial issues. I'm sorry you're not keeping up. I'll try to talk spastic so you get the concepts in future.

I
Where did I compare the series? More quotes pulled from your own ass.

Thats what EU3 looks like right now. It's certainly now Rome:Total War, which sold bucket loads despite having a nice strategical map.

I left your typo in. Sorry.

Because you cant compare graphics of games from different sub-genres!

Well, you can. But you end up looking like someone who think RTS is cutting edge strategic planning. Might as well compare the graphics with Lords of the Realm. OMG! They both show land. And look - there's a tree! They must be the same! You must have a bastard of a time finding an attractive girlfriend - they all have two breasts and a cunt.

And you said that, let's quote you again because you're blind.

"Comment on things you know about or you end up looking like a wanker who can't tell RTS with strategy elements from grand strategy. Oops.. you do that later in your post don't you?"

"Comment on things you know about or you end up looking like a wanker who can't tell RTS with strategy elements from grand strategy. Oops.. you do that later in your post don't you?"


Try again.

It's three times for emphasis tard. Can't even get that right. Are you sure you've played paradox games? I've got a feeling that I've probably answered your questions before like how to install the fucking game.