Talk:Hearts of Iron III

Untitled
I'm not clear on where the US release date has gone, since the link supporting the EU date references it too, so I'm going to re-add it with the same supporting reference. If there's a way to get both of them to point to the same entry in the references list, kindly do so or tell me how so I can. The Mink Ermine Fox (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref name is how you do that. I removed the US release date, as I didn't see it on the Gamespy page, apologies.


 * Actually, no, this is how you do it. Still playing around myself. Geoff B (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So, over here we have the lead programmer saying that the US and EU release dates are the same week (August 7). Does this trump gamespy? I know that forums are not generally regarded as reliable, but considering that it's the lead programmer I expect it might make a difference. The Mink Ermine Fox (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that WP:RS says forums are not a reliable source, regardless of who is posting. Shouldn't be too long until a RS picks up on it anyway, even if we can't use the forum posts. Now it's August 4th according to the forum psots. Geoff B (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
The criticism section seems to be confined to a single forum of complaints. I don't think this quite qualifies as the game facing "much" criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.34.227 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If you look at Empire Total War, which had plenty of forum criticism, the article has a very, very, positive "reception" section that lauds and praises it. I really don't think the criticism section follows what is acceptable citations. (unfortunately actually, as I feel that the ETW wiki page unfairly portrays the reception)76.14.34.115 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is because anyone who questions the 'perfect paradox game' is shouted down as retarded. The fact that the game runs slow as hell if at all for most people means that there should be/is plenty of criticism about the game. Presenting the game as flawless in the article is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.95.57 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fourms are not reliable for WP:ELNO Supergodzilla  20 17:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So until a major review website points out what EVERY SINGLE person who bought HOI3 has complained about for weeks, we should pretend that everything is fine? That threatens Wiki's credibility in the worst way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.95.57 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there are huge problems with the game and Wikipedia should accurately portray that.24.201.199.36 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here I found a well known review site that you can use to point out the huge flaws in the game: http://www.gamepro.com/article/reviews/211594/hearts-of-iron-iii/
 * The only credible threat to Wikipedia's credibility is editors putting their own POV into articles and not allowing other viewpoints. If you have reliable sources, cite them. Geoff B (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, this is exactly why Wikipedia's reputation is sinking lower and lower with each passing month. The consensus on various game forums regarding HOI3 is that its unfinished and buggy. Not everyone, but most people. At the very least all people acknowledge that it runs slower than its predecessor, that is a quantifiable fact. And the policy states SHOULD AVOID, not verboten, so perhaps in this once occasion the usage of the forums for owners of the game to discuss the game might be held as a reliable source of the product owners feelings on the matter. 66.214.187.229 (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do so enjoy all the claims about Wikiedpia's sinking reputation from people who are frustrated because they are not notable. Would you mind telling me where these consensuses can be found?  Have you carried out a poll?  And why on Earth would a bunch of people on the internet be notable?  What makes them more notable than forums of people that think HOI3 is just fine? That's why we insist upon reliable, notable sources and that's why Wikipedia's reputation will not be lowered by people like you. Geoff B (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "I do so enjoy" "We". You're referring to yourself in the third person...ok you win buddy. The game works fine. 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.187.229 (talk)


 * Yes its hard to get information and it shouldn't be about opinions about the game anyway. The article should be based on facts which are a bit hard to get but not impossible. For example one reliable source is the official change log in patches. Below is a small part of the changelog indicating a number of bugs that were in the 1.0 version of the game (which was sold in the stores). A lot more bugs are listed under other sections (fixed AI bugs listed in the AI section etc). See the full changelog for example

--- - Bugfixes --- - Airintercept orders are no longer broken at a reload. - Fixed a problem which caused some combats to become invalid after a reload. - Fixed a few issues with save games not being setup properly when loaded. - Fixed a calculation error for offier ratios at start of scenarios. - Fixed another reason for out of synch.
 * 1) Changes for 1.1 below.
 * 1) Changes for 1.1 below.
 * Restart/Reload Issues

- Fixed the aircombat goto button. - Fixed a display issue for technology abilities. - It is no longer possible to get duplicate convoys through the interface. - Peace messages are now shown properly again. - Fixed a glitch with attrition tooltip. - Fixed a mismatch in toggling auto-resource and auto-supply buttons. - Research alert now deactivates properly when under ai control. - Fixed an issue with flickering reserve icons. - Shift-clicks can not be used to get out attack delays. - Reinforcement needs can no longer wrap around to negative numbers.
 * Interface

- Range check on move for naval units added. - Airunits can now actually raid convoys. - Fixed a bug with naming of serial brigades. - Can no longer rebase to neutral bases. - It should no longer be possible to merge invalid units (cags from different carriers etc). - Units will no longer leave being a bomb target until they actually LEAVE a province. - Fixed an inversion of efficiency on repairs in naval/air bases. - Fixed a few bugs where combats couldn't be selected properly - Convoy raiders should now be sunk properly if they are damaged for <0strength in a convoy attack. - Illegal convoys are now tagged as inactive even when autocreation/destruction is off. - Fixed a problem where naval sorties and intercepts would find units it had no intel on. - Inactive leaders should no longer be assigned to units through auto-assign. - Range checks now from base, and not current location. - Convoys and escorts are cheaper now - Targetfleet is now saved and loaded in navalintercept orders. - Supply needs are now calculated properly even when a country is out of supplies. - Returning expeditionary force no longer requests confirmation of returning party and returns unit after one month - Nationalist rebels are now separate depending on which country they are aiming to reform.
 * Units

- Alot of compability issues have been tracked down and dealt with, improving general stability for users. - Influences now end if the target is removed. - Fixed some issues with liberating countries. - Puppets are represented more accurately (no embargoes between puppets and overlords etc) - Calling allies to arms in a limited war should now cost influence as advertised - Improved and fixed some of the events commands - Listening stations and escorts are now properly enabled by their techs only and not randomly. - Rocket Interceptors now get a proper counter.
 * Misc

Wargamer:"game out of the box is in essence unplayable."
Further information on Hearts of iron III http://www.wargamer.com/article/2769/hearts-of-iron-iii-state-of-the-game

Despite the three updates offered by Paradox, the game still remains unplayable – and unreviewable - for us. A few minor issues seemed to be resolved (we had a one-time event pop up every 30 seconds for about 5 minutes – that’s fixed!) – but there are still many outstanding problems that render the game more or less useless even for people with machines powerful enough to run the game “properly”. Once again, we’ve only been able to confirm the existence of many outstanding post-patch bugs in the most rudimentary sense since the game runs at a crawl for us. However, the take-home point from this is that there are severe issues, many of which we can say are not just minor complaints trumpeted above their worth, that remain as of the writing of this article.

Other issues include, but are not limited to, problems with the weather. Some gamers have noted that it has rained daily over Poland for over a year without interruption. That might be something which could be overlooked in the ETO as a comical glitch, but in the PTO, where the weather can sock in all carrier flights, the result is one of a carrier-less (or at least a grounded air force) conflict that is decidedly ahistoric. Such issues are reminiscent of Europa Universalis III being released with core functions like spy creation being absent from the central nation of the era: France. What is curious about these issues isn’t the fact that there are bugs in the game – all games have bugs – but rather that they are so glaringly obvious and obviously unacceptable that one wonders if the QA team signed off on them after an evening overindulging in Aqvavit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akvavit).

Mixed Reviews
I dont see how a game that averages a 77 on metacritic is considerd mixed by wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, several of reviews on the metacritic where changed after the first patch so the "Reception" of the game actually got worse criticism compared with the current metacritic avrage. Add to the fact that some sites didn't even bother to rate the game due to various flaws in the game. So even with with some of the reviews updated after the patch the reviews are quite mixed.

Several reviewers are about to make a new review with the latest patch. When this are done it would be good to update this page. However the initial "Reception" would still be mixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morkul (talk • contribs) 09:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And which reviews have been updated exactly? Which reviewers refused to review the game at launch? Who are these "several reviewers" who are going to update there reviews which isnt normally practiced by most review sites? Please remember that blogs and such dont count as repudable review sources. Also, a majority of the game articles on wiki use metacritic as a refrence so it seems okay to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wargamer is just one of the sites and that you can read about on this page. To say anything else then mixed reviews cant be based on facts. One can even argue that "mixed reception" are a to good average mark. However Wikipedia are suppose to reflect neutral view bases on facts. If we look at other articles its quite worrying to see that metacritic are in some cases to be seen as a good refrence next time a poor, all depending on who writes the article.

About patches: Read the reviews that are listed at metacritic you will notice that several of them have been updated.

About "blogs and such dont count as repudable review sources": That would make the whole discussion about metacritic invalid since they are including bloggers reviews on their listings. --Morkul (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Morkul. Current metacritic score cannot be considered valid for the initial reception. Hobartimus (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Metacritic is used in a lot of game articles to give an overall impression of how a game performed critically. Why isn't it applicable here?
 * Edit: Oh, for the initial reception? Did it improve substantially after patching?Geoff B (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's applicable for the present reception however the initial reaction not so much. The main reason being the hundreds of officially confirmed bugs & bugfixes that were applied since release. Anyway check my edit in the article and tweak it if you like. I think the present "generally favourable reviews" description should be kept to reflect the current status as seen on Metacritic in 2009 December. I also added a source describing the changes and bugfixes applied between 1.0 and the current version.  Hobartimus (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me, thanks. Geoff B (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the current version with "Hearts of Iron 3 initially received a mixed reception..."--Morkul (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just completed the quote from Gamespot. Why are someone quoting half sentences?--Morkul (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Price info missing
For casual game players such as me, this should be the first info listed simply because I will never, NEVER, pay money to have access to a game. Period

Surely there are millions of other wiki users who have the same priority, so why make them search for vital info?

Put price upfront and visible!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.3.61.13 (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn’t a review, this is a Wikipedia article. Prices change, deals happen, different prices on different platforms, etc. There’s never any prices. ’’’PhilDaBirdMan’’’ 18:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The price will change over time so there's no point adding it. This is an encyclopedia, not an online store or games site even.

Sequel section
The fact that we have a sequel section in this game and not for any of the previous games seems a bit like advertisement, especially as it mentions another game not in the core series. 90.194.185.80 (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hearts of Iron III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828032440/http://www.gamer.no:80/videoer/6056 to http://www.gamer.no/videoer/6056

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hearts of Iron III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817032117/http://gamerlimit.com/2009/08/gamer-limit-review-hearts-of-iron-iii-review/ to http://gamerlimit.com/2009/08/gamer-limit-review-hearts-of-iron-iii-review/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714013705/http://www.macgamer.com/news/virtual-programming-releases-hearts-iron-semper-fi-europa-universalis-rome-gold to http://www.macgamer.com/news/virtual-programming-releases-hearts-iron-semper-fi-europa-universalis-rome-gold
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609061230/http://www.paradoxplaza.com/press/2012/6/e3-2012-new-expansion-for-hearts-of-iron-iii-announced to http://www.paradoxplaza.com/press/2012/6/e3-2012-new-expansion-for-hearts-of-iron-iii-announced

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)