Reply With QuoteThats where we started using a QA studio for certain things and nowadays we got a small QA studio internally..Originally Posted by Talorc
Yeah, from about Victoria II onwards, they seem to have made a conscious effort on quality control (i gather there are some balance etc complaints about Vicky 2, but it was a solid release in terms of bugs)
Thats where we started using a QA studio for certain things and nowadays we got a small QA studio internally..
Am I reading this wrong, or did you not have a QA team before Victoria 2?
Of course they did QA, considering it would be 100% impossible to release a PC game without doing SOME QA FFS. Johan is saying they made a conscious decision to pay money to an external contract QA studio for Victoria 2. (likely in tacit recognition of the fact their internal QA efforts could be better)
I didn't ask if they did QA, but if they had a (dedicated) QA team or not.
Ah fair enough, didn't see that nuance.
Not on payroll.. We were 6 people working on HoI3, and had 1 person doing QA 50% of his time, and a group of 100 volunteer betas. Same concept we had used since eu1 in 1999.
HoI3 was made by 6 people? Are you kidding me? That is crazy ambitious. Does that number include artists?
For comparison, how many were on the CK2 team, if you don't mind the question and derailment?
Wow, that explains quite a bit ;)
Thanks for the information.
yes, it includes our two artists. 1 project lead, 2 programmers, 2 artists, 1 scripter.. with some other people joining it at times to help out.
The CK2 team was 1 project lead, 2 programmers & 1 scripter.. They had about 1.5 artists assigned to them, and there was practically 1 extra scripter assigned for most of the project, and they used perhaps 50% of the QA team.
That is seriously amazing. We all know that HOI3 had a rough launch, but it is one of the most ambitious game designs I've seen in terms of scope. That is awesome you're able to pull off these games with team sizes that small. I guess that's why you guys are able to keep making these awesome niche strategy games that I purchase with abandon. :)
So, with Magna Mundi off the table, I guess Paradox will just have to release EU4 (although I don't know how you top EU3 Divine Wind at this point).
It works nicely.. growing bigger does not really pay off that much..
what has paid off has been adding more months..
I can tell the difference. While I've been critical of you guys in spots, I'm not critical of your game quality, at least on your developed titles.
I was looking forward to MM, but I'd rather be disappointed that the game was cancelled instead of it not living up to my expectations.
Hell, I don't see how they could really top it, to be frank. Maybe instead offer an EUIII+ release instead which is a presentation/UI update (using the sexy graphics from CK2 would be fantastic) to the base game? I really don't see what would make EU3 any better other than facelift-related items.
I buy Paradox games even when I know I won't have time to learn and play them just to show my support for the subject matter. I want to play and enjoy them, I just no longer have the time as I once had.
Carlos is Ubik? It makes a bit more sense now (been hanging around paradox EU1 and EU2 forums for about 9 years, seen a lot of arrogant and closed-minded posts from Ubik in that times)
It's time to highlight new periods of history. I would like a "pop" modelled game more than a province modelled game (ie, a map with populations like Victoria 2 but no fixed provinces, but rather settlements on the 3d map that slowly grow and change). I've always thought the bronze age empires of 1500-1200BC would be a fantastic setting for a game. I have in my mind's eye this view of civilization just waking up to the world at large, still rude and crude, based around the "tribe" or extend palatial manor, with virgin lands in every direction, and where trying new things always succeeds. A world where there are houses but not windows or doors, or where the finely outfitted galley seems like the greatest accomplishment in living memory,.where every adventure and exploration comes back with tales and goods that have never before even been imagined. A world where the tenuous accomplishments of these small handful can be irrecovably lost in disaster, and where empires are formed out of whole cloth, without the benefit of any comprehensive social, political, or economic framework or science (or knowledge), and where everything is ad hoc and trial by error.
This means EU should be left alone until EU4, though I'd have to convinced that an EU4 is needed.
Really? Man there are a metric tonne of things they can do to EU3 to make it better.
1. Characters. Flesh out the current 3 trait faceless ruler with actual leaders. You don't have to go hog wild like CK2, but at least give us someone we can relate to as the head of your country.
2. Sliders. Get rid of 'em. There must be a better way to model different country development than 'move one point towards centralization every 10 years'. Even if it involves some kind of (whisper it) internal faction.
3. Combat. Can be completely overhauled or at least made more progressive to a HOI model the later the game goes.
4. Colonialism. There must be a better system than 'wait for a bar to fill up'. And there is, it's called Pride of Nations.
That's just for starters. PI have years of games design and a clean slate to make a great new game, I hope they push the envelope on this, even if we have to wait to 2014 to get it.
Posting Permissions