Paradox has always dabbled in a smorgasbord of styles, especially when you consider all its published games, but its in-house efforts are almost all grand strategy games where you paint real-world provinces your favorite color. But before it had solidified that reputation, it was trying to make a name in other genres. Trying, and failing spectacularly.
In an interview with PC Gamer news writer Joshua Wolens, Andersson recalled one of the studio’s earliest games: “If you want to laugh, Google Valhalla Chronicles. We had the best comment ever on that one: ‘bugs, many and diverse, some more interesting than the gameplay.'”
It’s not a looker. But as Andersson explained, the team was “doing multiple games at the same time” and its take on a Baldur’s Gate-inspired RPG “did not turn out great.
“We did a lot of games with a small team of like five, six people for the first, like 10 years,” he said. “We became Paradox in 1999 and Paradox Interactive in 2005. Until 2009, I think we released like 20 different games from that internal studio, and most of them were grand strategy games.”
While strategy was clearly the studio’s wheelhouse, it didn’t become obvious until much later that it’d become its sole focus. Andersson said: “We thought it was EU1 that made it into a grand strategy studio. I think it was EU3, which was probably like the 12th grand strategy we made. That was when we basically were like, ‘we’re a GSG studio, we’re not gonna do anything else.'”
It’s probably for the best. It’s hard to imagine today’s Paradox Development Studio putting out any sort of RPG, but games like Crusader Kings have a way of producing stories no writer would ever be eccentric enough to come up with on their own.
2025 games: This year’s upcoming releases
Best PC games: Our all-time favorites
Free PC games: Freebie fest
Best FPS games: Finest gunplay
Best RPGs: Grand adventures
Best co-op games: Better together
This is an interesting look at Paradox’s journey through different game styles. It’s fascinating to see how their early challenges shaped the company into what it is today. The evolution of their games certainly reflects a commitment to innovation and experimentation.
see how they’ve evolved over the years. Their willingness to experiment is commendable, but it also highlights the challenges of balancing innovation with quality. It’s intriguing to think how those early missteps might have shaped their approach to grand strategy games today.
I agree, their evolution is fascinating! It’s interesting to see how those early challenges with bugs led to a stronger focus on quality in their later titles. This journey of trial and error really showcases their commitment to improving the player experience over time.
Absolutely! Those early challenges shaped their approach to game development and pushed them to prioritize quality in their later projects. It’s intriguing to think how those initial experiences might have influenced their storytelling and design choices in their successful strategy games.
You’re right! Those early bugs likely taught Paradox valuable lessons about quality assurance and player feedback. It’s interesting to see how those experiences influenced their later successes in grand strategy, where attention to detail is crucial.