izigame.me

OK. I see where Paradox is taking us and I don't like it. The recent DLC (this one) has dramatically increased the power of the new nations which had their missions created in the current Paradox design philosophy. Denmark, Sweden, Teutonic Order, etc. can absolutely stomp any other nation with smart play and manipulation of mission parameters. The game is essentially over by 1500 if you play these nations and have no other goal besides domination of your continent. Sure, you might go for a world conquest as Livonian Order into Kurland or something, where you might not have before, but can you be satisfied with it if the missions are handing you absolute power?
Once you've completed a game as Sweden, try to go back and play as France. Or England. Or any other nation which received its missions early on in the Tinto Dev cycles. I foresee a day when these nations get their missions reworked and sold to us once more as another additional future DLC. I weep for what EU5 might become, with massive UI elements depicting my consort with a huge pregnant belly or some shit.
I think Paradox needs to reexamine where they are taking the player with the missions. It's great to have missions, and I absolutely love the life it has brought to the game for me. I wouldn't have over 3700 hours if I didn't love it. But with that love comes the privilege to criticize. I think Paradox is taking themselves over the top, turning EU4 into the last-gen version of what they've created their new-gen games like CK3 and Victoria 3 to be: Less historical grand strategy, and more excuse to let the player be some kind of immortal Swede who never loses. Fluff instead of substance. Memes instead of natural storytelling.
I love Paradox. I will always support them. But success has brought them to the edge of a decision they have to make: Will they pursue profits over all else, or will they stay true to their historical simulation roots? Is there a balance to be struck? Can they do it? I have my doubts, but I'm rooting for them.