|
Is there anyone else who thinks that Paradox hosed Sengoku when it was perfectly possible for them to have made it far more interesting than it was? I can respect if the problem was lack of funding for the project or lack of time, but aside from that, there was so much possibility. There are few historical periods as awesome as Sengoku Japan, and few historical characters as inspiring as Tokugawa Ieyasu (others consider Nobunaga more interesting, but I have to disagree). There was just so much to the culture and dynamics of the period, especially when it comes to how different warlords interacted with each other and how cultural minutiae played into greater geopolitical outcomes. I mean, just read Morgan Pitelka's Spectacular Accumulation or his blog and see if you disagree that Paradox had a wealth of possibilities for interesting game mechanics directly congruent with the very set-up of the game (playing a noble interacting with other nobles). Aside from the literature, I've also come to this conclusion through listening to the podcast by the Samurai Archives people and some other blogs by specialist historians. It's sad that the other game based on the period and similar gameplay, Samurai Total War, was even worse in this regard.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
Koramei posted:
The gameplay and strategy was fine, but I'm speaking in terms of the geopolitical aspects of the Sengoku era which could have been been inspiration for more interesting content. Granted this would have been more Sengoku's domain than Shogun 2's, with Total War being generally facile when more complex aspects of geopolitics are concerned.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
i swear, i'd give a kidney for paradox to make another grand strategy set in antiquity, it doesn't even have to be a sequel of eu: rome. though there was some interesting stuff in it that i'd like to see paradox rework and improve for a new game. i hope the kidney is enough to afford all the dlc that'll come for it eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:v2 is good and distinct because it isn't eu in a different time frame. gamifying the economy would make v3 pointless; the turmoil of the economy and impossibility of controlling the unleashed beast of capital is a key part of the themes present in the gameplay, which are a reflection of the victorian era itself best thing of victoria is the complex demographic system (which i hope paradox fixes and refines for v3) where you can see the filthy peasants become a bunch of communist revolutionaries in real time, simply because you let them get educated and develop class consciousness. or have veterans of a war you lost become fascists etc. etc. and see how different pops become assimilated into the metropole given different policies and all that other cool poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 03:49
|
|