I haven't bought it and don't intend to. The steam reviews are very positive but I suspect those reviews are from people who only casually played CK2. From hardcore players of CK2, there are a lot of complaints about features in CK2 missing in CK3. With a total of 1400 hours in CK2, I think I am a hardcore player. And as someone who did everything there is to do in CK2, I see no reason why I would want to play a prettier stripped down version of the game.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:Macbeth, what do you think of Crusader Kings 3?
I didn't intend to play it before the user reviews came out anyway. CK2 is still perfect for what it is. Seeing numbers fighting numbers on a screen doesn't require fancy graphics. The only new release I was even marginally interested in would have included Total War still battles. In fact CK2's engine would still work perfectly in Total War style battles were grafted onto it. Just pause the game and give the player an option to fight or simulate a battle when they are initiated on the campaign map. Doesn't require reinventing the wheel.