Here is some advice: if you want to represent a group of people better, you should listen to what they say about the way they're being represented. I was delighted when the PR around CK3 drew explicit attention to issues of representation, because Paradox has often been quite badly behind the curve in this regard. I've spent probably upwards of a thousand dollars on Paradox games and thousands of hours of my life playing them. I've been a loyal customer for almost a decade. Especially on such a significant issue as this.ġ00%. I don't know if that would be the case here, but I'm definitely not satisfied with the devs preemptively not even giving us the chance. There have been times when modders have shown great ingenuity in working around limitations and problems that the devs thought were insurmountable, or at least would take too much time. what? Our 'safety,' maybe? Not wanting us to suffer the disappointment of bad mods? It's a very insufficient reason, if you ask me. But if we accept they're being entirely forthright and honest there (which is still up in the air for me), then they're basically playing gatekeeper on what kind of mods we can even try to make out of a sort of exaggerated concern for. It doesn't reflect on the dev team at all. It cites the changes made in 1.3 to have made same-sex relationships 'difficult to mod in without breaking a lot of stuff.' Shouldn't that be the sort of thing modders have to worry about, not the devs? If a mod breaks something, the modder will either go in and fix it, or accept a buggy mod. The RPS article also has a quote from an email response Paradox gave to them, which doesn't seem very satisfying. There's also one up at Rock Paper Shotgun: I found the article by searching for it:
0 kommentar(er)
