Stellaris |OT| Imperium Universalis

I'm worried about the actual content of the IGN review. It seems to fly in the face of what I've heard the devs were hoping to accomplish, that being a compelling endgame. I'm surprised that one of the complaints is that the diplomacy is weak, and that the late game lacks the interesting events seen in the early game.

Maybe the reviewer is just too good at the game? I don't know it just sounds disappointing.
 
Sure, I am just wondering why they give decimal scores, is there some special reason for that?

Decimal points tend to come out of spreadsheets that average out the nitty-gritty from the pros and cons with some strange amount of weight tied to each category. Nobody really comes out of a review process thinking something is .3 points above a 6 I don't think.
 
o_o it's by Rowan Kaiser too! Shit, where's the Rob Zacny review? WHERE'S MY 3MA CONSENSUS PODCAST?!

It's already up. And not a consensus. But certainly favorable aside from Rowan. He seems to have gotten incredibly unlucky and Arumba'd a few things, but it's still something Paradox should pay attention to.
 
It's already up. And not a consensus. But certainly favorable aside from Rowan. He seems to have gotten incredibly unlucky and Arumba'd a few things, but it's still something Paradox should pay attention to.

Thanks, I'll given it a listen. I don't know why, but I classify all their podcasts focused on new releases in my head as a consensus podcast, even if they all have different feelings on the game. I think it's because they always end the podcast by tallying up everyone's opinion and acknowledging the games faults, what can be fixed in patches, and everyone's feelings on the game/how everyone feels about the game after discussing it for an hour. It usually feels like they reach some kind of consensus at the end.
 
Don't do it guys.

IGN is entitled to their opinion, and that's just fine.

Don't s**t up the thread with defensive character assassinations, please!

This. The IGN review has some well argumented points of criticism about the end game and diplomacy. That's disapointing if true but I'm sure the game will still be great.
 
oh man, i was falling for the hype, but that ign review was like a splash of cold water bringing me to my senses. i'll be waiting for more reviews before blindly pulling the trigger.
 
My only curiosity from the IGN review is whether or not the reviewer was doing anything that would cause the AI to go to war with him. I mean it's one thing if you've got border friction, conflicting ideologies and have pissed them off, and another if you're friendly and are getting upset they won't do the thing that some strategy games do where the AI will inevitably fight you for no reason.
 
CDkeys is cutting it really close this time with their keys, still nothing yet :(

DLGamer has a countdown and a message that says you'll get the key 1 to 2 hours before release and I'm still refreshing my mail every five minutes.
 
Yea, that IGN review (review not the score!) doesn't sound good. To be hones, even that explormiante review shows the game has some big problems. Weird they scored is so high.
 
oh man, i was falling for the hype, but that ign review was like a splash of cold water bringing me to my senses. i'll be waiting for more reviews before blindly pulling the trigger.

Yep, this. That IGN review hit hard, especially considering I tend to agree with Rowan Kaiser. Alot of his critisisms seemed to be legit concerns, especially around the planetary management, diplomacy, and internal politics.
Seriously considering cancelling my pre-order while I can, and pick it up after launch.
 
My only curiosity from the IGN review is whether or not the reviewer was doing anything that would cause the AI to go to war with him. I mean it's one thing if you've got border friction, conflicting ideologies and have pissed them off, and another if you're friendly and are getting upset they won't do the thing that some strategy games do where the AI will inevitably fight you for no reason.

Reminds me of Shogun 2's famous Realm Divide. Basically a pre-programmed trigger that does that when you have a certain size then all remaining factions in the game pretty much automatically declare war on you. I wouldn't mind having something like that here to be honest.
 
I say that I’d expected something messier and part of me had hoped for something messier. That messiness may come with expansions and DLC, but for now Stellaris is incredibly assured and confident, if perhaps a little too tidy and streamlined. It’s one of the most accomplished 4X space games I’ve ever played, but it feels knowable. Despite all of the randomisation and the extraordinary influence of Fallen Empires and other features that shake the 4X formula hard enough to make it wobble, this is a game that can be understood, analysed and mastered. Doing so has been, and will continue to be, a joy, and yet I crave the early days of exploration before the galactic map became a place on which to exterminate the competition rather than to find new ways of living.

The great experiment of the game was not so much the change of scenery, from history to science fiction, it was the decision to create a Civ-like game of expansion with some complexities and aspects of simulation borrowed from grand strategy. It’s in the simulation of a living galaxy that most of the complexity has been lost, but what has been gained is a precise and finely tuned machine. Less erratic and surprising than its ancestors, but much more elegant in its design.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/09/stellaris-review-pc/
 
Kaiser's IGN review in regards to AI being passive is the exact issue that keeps me from fully enjoying EU4 too. AI is just so bad and incapable of taking advantages of opportunities in that the game becomes trivial with even the smallest nations by the mid to end game. Disappointing that Stellaris seems to suffer from the same issues, but I expected it honestly.

It's funny because rulers in CK2 are great about catching the player off guard with civil wars, liege Wars etc. Paradox needs to give the person who developed that AI a raise because their other games just don't cut it in that department.
 
Don't do it guys.

IGN is entitled to their opinion, and that's just fine.

Don't s**t up the thread with defensive character assassinations, please!
Seriously. A review score isn't a universal concrete indicator of a game's quality, just what that one person felt about the game

The whole "Wha...someone gave a score that I think is bad to a game I like, how could they?!" routine is so played out
 
Reminds me of Shogun 2's famous Realm Divide. Basically a pre-programmed trigger that does that when you have a certain size then all remaining factions in the game pretty much automatically declare war on you. I wouldn't mind having something like that here to be honest.

But that doesn't necessarily make sense. This is supposed to be an Europa Universalis in space. Space France doesn't always have to inevitably declare war on you. It's about space nations in the galaxy and how they interact with one another.
 
oh man, i was falling for the hype, but that ign review was like a splash of cold water bringing me to my senses. i'll be waiting for more reviews before blindly pulling the trigger.

This is also the other reaction that maybe is unwarranted. All (most?) of the other reviews are great.
 
Seriously. A review score isn't a universal concrete indicator of a game's quality, just what that one person felt about the game

The whole "Wha...someone gave a score that I think is bad to a game I like, how could they?!" routine is so played out

As long as reviews have scores instead of a more sensible way of indicating the opinion of the reviewer, you will always have this problem.

A score is always something factual in real life. You have x amount of error on your test, so now you have a 87/100. Your team put the ball in the net 10 times from x distance, so now they have 30 points. It's factual.

When you go: this game is a 63/100, then people will assume it is a 63/100 game. It is what it is and I hope we'll soon see the death of putting grades on subjective opinions.

Anyways, the streams have told me enough about how much I will enjoy Stellaris, which is going to be a lot, so I'm good.
 
And wtf is with their decimal score? Are there like 3 reviewers and they do an average?

IGN actually operates on a 100 point scale, effectively. Think of a 6.3 as a 63 out of 100.

And I agree with the people who say it doesn't really matter. One guy's opinion, let's not embarrass ourselves freaking out over it. Nobody wants a Stellaris Reviews Wall of Shame :P
 
Seriously. A review score isn't a universal concrete indicator of a game's quality, just what that one person felt about the game

Reviews should not be entirely subjective. They should be mostly objective and saying that Stellaris is barely above average just rubs me the wrong way. I wouldn't mind if he said something like "the game is good, plays good, looks good, has good music and attention to detail but there are still some problems" and give it an 8 because he knows that Paradox support their games and keep them up to date. I mean, look at Hearts of Iron 3, when it released it was pretty bad, now it is extraordinarily good game. Taking into account the developer's reputation should also be represented in the score in some way, if the company is known for releasing big games with small problems which are swiftly fixed then they shouldn't be overly mentioned in the review since most people will probably never experience them or will be long patched by the time they get the game. Just what I think about game reviewing.

And I agree with the people who say it doesn't really matter. One guy's opinion, let's not embarrass ourselves freaking out over it. Nobody wants a Stellaris Reviews Wall of Shame :P

It matters because IGN is huge and when IGN says "don't bother with this game" then you are effectively cutting off Paradox from their income, which is pretty shameful. I guess I just hate scoring in videogaming journalism overall.
 
Funny how i got my key this morning from an undisclosed cd-key retailer.

Yeah, They're also claiming they've been told release time is 6pm GMT, which would actually be 8pm CEST so two hours later than Paradox have stated. I've queried this on their Facebook page, hopefully they're just using GMT instead of CEST incorrectly and that we will get codes in time.

Annoyingly, I am away for a couple of days so I have a small window this evening to play. Otherwise I wouldn't be so bothered about an hour or two either way. In truth, it's not a biggy, it's just slightly frustrating seeing conflicting information.
 
Wait.

Are we taking IGN seriously? Aren't they just a mainstream mouthpiece for the publisher?

The guy reviewing it gave EU4 a high score, and has clearly played the game a *lot*. Even the good reviews are saying the game has issues.

Which is fine - I have yet to buy a big strategy game that didn't launch with issues. Even going back to MOO2, the base game had some massive balance issues in it that were fixed in later patches. I'm getting the game today knowing I'll have fun with it, but also that I'll be playing it over the next year whenever they update and add stuff.

It's just the nature of the beast. Everyone seems agreed that they have the basic framework of a truly amazing game here - it's just how much the missing bits affect your overall opinion.
 
But that doesn't necessarily make sense. This is supposed to be an Europa Universalis in space. Space France doesn't always have to inevitably declare war on you. It's about space nations in the galaxy and how they interact with one another.

Yeah, this isn't a Civ or Total War game where you win when everyone else is dead, you win if you either reached your goals or decide to be done with it.
 
CiBP9MSUoAAUJv1.jpg

Waiting on these Steambux to come through so I can put it towards this game. Please Valve hurry up.
 
Reminds me of Shogun 2's famous Realm Divide. Basically a pre-programmed trigger that does that when you have a certain size then all remaining factions in the game pretty much automatically declare war on you. I wouldn't mind having something like that here to be honest.

Ehhhhh.... nah. I'd be okay with having some Shaka-esque AI personalities, the "always angry all the time" types, but that's as far as extra aggressive AI should go. The arbitrary "and now, you fight everybody" point felt super forced.
 
While I haven't played the game, the review comes across as well considered and argued. I don't think it should be dismissed as 'It's only IGN'.

The PC Gamer review has the exact same complaints as the IGN review, so it's definitely an issue, though the scores are very different. It's only the content of the review that matters, and in this case I hope it's something Paradox will take into consideration.
 
Reviews should not be entirely subjective. They should be mostly objective and saying that Stellaris is barely above average just rubs me the wrong way. I wouldn't mind if he said something like "the game is good, plays good, looks good, has good music and attention to detail but there are still some problems" and give it an 8 because he knows that Paradox support their games and keep them up to date.
What? Nah. I'm a huge supporter of indie games and even I would never advise people to give a game a better score just because the devs/pubs would need support or because of their past reputation. That's crazy

What matters is what that individual thinks of that game. Good, bad, whatever, a review is just that person's opinion about the game.
 
Reviews should not be entirely subjective. They should be mostly objective and saying that Stellaris is barely above average just rubs me the wrong way. I wouldn't mind if he said something like "the game is good, plays good, looks good, has good music and attention to detail but there are still problems" and give it an 8 because he knows that Paradox support their games and keep them up to date. I mean, look at Hearts of Iron 3, when it released it was pretty bad, now it is extraordinarily good game. Taking into account the developer's reputation should also be represented in the score in some way, if the company is known for releasing big games with small problems which are swiftly fixed then they shouldn't be overly mentioned in the review since most people will probably never experience them or will be long patched by the time they get the game. Just what I think about game reviewing.

Paradox does patch and update their games often, but they have always had trouble with AI (especially in war). I think an average score for a game is warranted if you care a lot about challenge in a game from the AI. Paradox had shown (especially with EU4) that they have trouble making solid war AI. This is still an issue with the game years after release.

I first started getting really nervous with this when watching Quill18s videos. During his first war the AI just constantly sent tiny ship stacks to their homeworld where Quill had his main fleet and destroyed them early one by one with no losses. Was pretty sad to see :/

All the polish and cool mechanics in the world can't save your game if the AI is bad, so I see where he is coming from.
 
Top Bottom