frankly don't know. personally don't see why it can't be both. it has roleplay, ck3 is much more personalized with you controlling a specific character as opposed to a country. you also make strategic decisions on a world map, with intrigue and direct warfare being involved. most people's definition of "role-playing game" dont fit into ck3's mechanics.
so i'd say calling it a grand strategy game with large roleplay elements isn't far off the mark.
People just love wasting their time with putting everything in tiny little boxes. But since no box ever really fits 100% it keeps you busy and away from dealing with the important stuff. Instead you fight insignificant little intellectual proxy wars about the right boxes.
I mean...are you questioning the usefulness of categories? Sure some people take it a little too seriously but having things be organized so you can find the kind of things you like is pretty nice
it depends on the perspective, are the labels prescriptive or descriptive
if its descriptive, it doesnt matter much, a description of an item will never be 100% identical to the item, its okay if its not very accurate *
(obviously the caveat here is that the labels are reasonably accurate, just dont deceptively label it as RTS and it be fine)
if its prescriptive, it matters because it affects the future direction it goes
if many people prefer ck3 to focus more on the role-playing aspect, then the dev might just do so, which may alienate some group of fans in the future, a perfectly legitimate concern for them
personally, for me, i see the labels as descriptive, hence i dont care about the labels, if ck3 in the future changed too drastically for my taste, i just stop playing it, truthfully, i have no loyalty to the franchise, its literally just a game to me
Oh yes, I had fun playing CK3, asked my friend for a fun game, he sujjested me to check Warzone. Because the most important thing if it's fun, right?
Categorization is important to show similarity between entities, and is useful if you want to find something similar, or communicate certain features of an entity without having to list them. „Fun” is absolutely useless in that regard.
To me, it doesn't matter. I love the game and have fun playing it.
As for the genre, it's both. That is why it is my favorite of the PDX titles. I have always loved role-playing and strategy games, and with CK3, I get them both.
I like labels for the sake of categorising things for myself and also when I want a similar thing it's easier to communicate what you want using boxes.
To me ck3 is a gsg with rp elements but I would also not get offended if people put it in different boxes, those boxes are for me
You could call it a potato for all I care. People like you're describing only care that much about labels to gatekeep and think they're better than people.
I'm all for genres, I think they help people find things they might like more easily, but the idea that genres are mutually exclusive from one another is ridiculous and the basis of so many pointless arguments
Semantics aside, if I marketed CK3 as a “roleplaying” game and someone who doesn’t like grand strategy games bought it, they’d be rightfully upset with me for describing it the way I did.
However if I marketed it was a “grand strategy game”, I don’t think a fan of that genre who dislikes roleplaying games would be terribly upset with the product they receive.
As a lot of others have said, CK3 takes elements from both genres, but at its core it’s a map game where your objective is (generally) to change the color of the map. That spells grand strategy for me lol
Compared to other paradox games, it's the 'least' grand strategy but compared to genre as a whole, it's still far more grand strategy than most games are.
If Total War can be described as grand strategy - the grand strategy of building a doomstack and right clicking on other settlements for 20 hours until you win, then CK3 certainly is.
I guess it's more important for people who haven't purchased the game, but for the people that have played it and know what the game is all about, yes trying to make it fit into a label is pointless, you already have the knowledge to provide someone with an accurate description.
Arguing about this stuff is generally pretty useless. Even the definition of Grand Strategy (nevermind GSGs), is disputed.
I wouldn’t really delve into gameplay mechanics themselves to argue whether or not CK3 is a GSG. I think the goals of when you play CK3 is more important to answering the question.
I would say the main goal of CK3 is to expand and improve the reputation of your dynasty. This more often than not means advancing the interests of your state, since creating a larger and stronger state will in turn increase your renown, but they’re not necessarily aligned.
Your dynasty would much prefer your incompetent son to be elected to rule your empire, but the empire’s best interest would care about who is most meritorious to lead the state. In that regard, we aren’t advancing the states best interests, but rather our dynasty’s.
By that definition, the CK games are not GSG’s since your goal isn’t to advance the state. It’s usually aligned with advancing your dynasty, but not necessarily.
Now that I just explained why the CK games aren’t GSGs, I’m going to say that I dislike that interpretation. My definition of a GSG is that “I know it when I see it.”
Really I would say a GSG is a group of gameplay mechanics that attract a certain crowd. What those gameplay mechanics are could be argued forever and ever. But to me, I know a GSG when I see one.
I’m big into the roguelikes. Look up the Berlin Interpretation and you’ll see how silly these discussions get.
I think everyone recognizes that most games cross genres.
"Grand Strategy Game" is literally a PDS marketing gimmick.
Maybe that category can be applied to Civ or some other games, but saying that a PDS game *isn't* the catchphrase they came up with is just wrong.
frankly don't know. personally don't see why it can't be both. it has roleplay, ck3 is much more personalized with you controlling a specific character as opposed to a country. you also make strategic decisions on a world map, with intrigue and direct warfare being involved. most people's definition of "role-playing game" dont fit into ck3's mechanics. so i'd say calling it a grand strategy game with large roleplay elements isn't far off the mark.
People just love wasting their time with putting everything in tiny little boxes. But since no box ever really fits 100% it keeps you busy and away from dealing with the important stuff. Instead you fight insignificant little intellectual proxy wars about the right boxes.
I am 14 and this is deep
Bikeshedding at its finest.
I mean...are you questioning the usefulness of categories? Sure some people take it a little too seriously but having things be organized so you can find the kind of things you like is pretty nice
it depends on the perspective, are the labels prescriptive or descriptive if its descriptive, it doesnt matter much, a description of an item will never be 100% identical to the item, its okay if its not very accurate * (obviously the caveat here is that the labels are reasonably accurate, just dont deceptively label it as RTS and it be fine) if its prescriptive, it matters because it affects the future direction it goes if many people prefer ck3 to focus more on the role-playing aspect, then the dev might just do so, which may alienate some group of fans in the future, a perfectly legitimate concern for them personally, for me, i see the labels as descriptive, hence i dont care about the labels, if ck3 in the future changed too drastically for my taste, i just stop playing it, truthfully, i have no loyalty to the franchise, its literally just a game to me
The descriptive vs. prescriptive is a very good distinction.
Oh yes, I had fun playing CK3, asked my friend for a fun game, he sujjested me to check Warzone. Because the most important thing if it's fun, right? Categorization is important to show similarity between entities, and is useful if you want to find something similar, or communicate certain features of an entity without having to list them. „Fun” is absolutely useless in that regard.
Have you tried asking them directly?
To me, it doesn't matter. I love the game and have fun playing it. As for the genre, it's both. That is why it is my favorite of the PDX titles. I have always loved role-playing and strategy games, and with CK3, I get them both.
I like labels for the sake of categorising things for myself and also when I want a similar thing it's easier to communicate what you want using boxes. To me ck3 is a gsg with rp elements but I would also not get offended if people put it in different boxes, those boxes are for me
You could call it a potato for all I care. People like you're describing only care that much about labels to gatekeep and think they're better than people.
Potato Kings III: Taters and Tournaments
Potato Kings III: Irish potato famine
I'm all for genres, I think they help people find things they might like more easily, but the idea that genres are mutually exclusive from one another is ridiculous and the basis of so many pointless arguments
It's both.
Pedantism
Semantics aside, if I marketed CK3 as a “roleplaying” game and someone who doesn’t like grand strategy games bought it, they’d be rightfully upset with me for describing it the way I did. However if I marketed it was a “grand strategy game”, I don’t think a fan of that genre who dislikes roleplaying games would be terribly upset with the product they receive. As a lot of others have said, CK3 takes elements from both genres, but at its core it’s a map game where your objective is (generally) to change the color of the map. That spells grand strategy for me lol
Compared to other paradox games, it's the 'least' grand strategy but compared to genre as a whole, it's still far more grand strategy than most games are. If Total War can be described as grand strategy - the grand strategy of building a doomstack and right clicking on other settlements for 20 hours until you win, then CK3 certainly is.
You could say that of basically any discussion on videogames.
I can conquer the world, it’s counts as grand strategy
I guess it's more important for people who haven't purchased the game, but for the people that have played it and know what the game is all about, yes trying to make it fit into a label is pointless, you already have the knowledge to provide someone with an accurate description.
It could be put in the poo genre, and I would be proud to play games from the poo genre.
Arguing about this stuff is generally pretty useless. Even the definition of Grand Strategy (nevermind GSGs), is disputed. I wouldn’t really delve into gameplay mechanics themselves to argue whether or not CK3 is a GSG. I think the goals of when you play CK3 is more important to answering the question. I would say the main goal of CK3 is to expand and improve the reputation of your dynasty. This more often than not means advancing the interests of your state, since creating a larger and stronger state will in turn increase your renown, but they’re not necessarily aligned. Your dynasty would much prefer your incompetent son to be elected to rule your empire, but the empire’s best interest would care about who is most meritorious to lead the state. In that regard, we aren’t advancing the states best interests, but rather our dynasty’s. By that definition, the CK games are not GSG’s since your goal isn’t to advance the state. It’s usually aligned with advancing your dynasty, but not necessarily. Now that I just explained why the CK games aren’t GSGs, I’m going to say that I dislike that interpretation. My definition of a GSG is that “I know it when I see it.” Really I would say a GSG is a group of gameplay mechanics that attract a certain crowd. What those gameplay mechanics are could be argued forever and ever. But to me, I know a GSG when I see one. I’m big into the roguelikes. Look up the Berlin Interpretation and you’ll see how silly these discussions get.
It’s all epeen measuring and it always has been.
Something that a lot of people fail to realize for some reason: things can fit into MULTIPLE genres at ONCE! Crazy!!
I think everyone recognizes that most games cross genres. "Grand Strategy Game" is literally a PDS marketing gimmick. Maybe that category can be applied to Civ or some other games, but saying that a PDS game *isn't* the catchphrase they came up with is just wrong.
People get unreasonably upset about categories. I don't dont know why.