Tangoownage
Member
Have you constructed a mining station on the terraform material?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Stellaris |OT| Imperium Universalis
- Thread starter More_Badass
- Start date
Have you constructed a mining station on the terraform material?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yea, it was already a mining station, then I got the research and the material was already on the planet/astroid.
I agree that you shall not take in consideration for future content/patches.
But here is also a fundamental flaw with reviews since in reality a game can become god-teir which I am 110% certain this game will become (it is very good now but lacking some more deeper mechanics in some areas).
But here is also a fundamental flaw with reviews since in reality a game can become god-teir which I am 110% certain this game will become (it is very good now but lacking some more deeper mechanics in some areas).
I just don't see the problem with them. A few tweaks would be nice, but they do the job just fine.
Edit: I believe you need two of each terraforming material.
As somebody who played a ton of Stellaris right at launch, I kind of agree with this. I'm waiting for patches now as well. It just seems like it doesn't quite get there and it's not because they didn't know what they needed to do, just that they didn't do it yet.
CrazedProfessional
Member
At the moment the game feels betaish which is a shame. Reminds me of Sengoku
Bingo. His review is fair, and I agree with the vast majority of his criticisms (and don't agree with his praise for the combat, actually. He should have said more about how poor combat, and in particular war mechanics in general, are.) and the score appropriate given the review.
Yes, and they have even admitted as much by saying they shipped without finishing the midgame, not too happy with that fact.
Other than they're the antithesis of fun? They're a mechanic that reduces micro-management and replaces it with... nothing. They're a decent idea in theory, but the practice is ass.
how's it a flaw? it's good for the here and now and will be outdated in time, but who cares about that right now
Early game is fine. Mid-late game needs a ridiculous amount of work.
LurkerPrime
Member
Great work with the Star Trek portrait mods, y'all.
Yeah, it's a bummer. While it's a lot of fun even now, there's a great deal of rough edges that hamper the experience in the long run--it would've been better if they waited some months to refine and improve it before releasing.
I'm fully prepared to universally praise the music, though. Perfect compliment to the game itself.
Yeah, it's a bummer. While it's a lot of fun even now, there's a great deal of rough edges that hamper the experience in the long run--it would've been better if they waited some months to refine and improve it before releasing.
I'm fully prepared to universally praise the music, though. Perfect compliment to the game itself.
Oh sure. But not to discount that the base is solid, unlike say Beyond Earth, which should have went back to the drawing board.
Absolutely, it's a very solid framework. Hence why I think the 1/5 score in the RPS review is unfair. But I also understand that review is a snapshot of the now, and I hope Tom revisits the game in 6 months/a year when major changes have been made.
StrategyFan
Member
the game is alright for killing time
i don't think it's a good game yet, and i doubt it will ever become a good strategy game. it might become a good RPG/story-generator game though
the strategy is weak from a 4X perspective
the balance and pacing is awful from a RTS perspective
the entire game is lacking from a complex empire sim perspective
i don't think it's a good game yet, and i doubt it will ever become a good strategy game. it might become a good RPG/story-generator game though
the strategy is weak from a 4X perspective
the balance and pacing is awful from a RTS perspective
the entire game is lacking from a complex empire sim perspective
The thing is... I know reviews are subjective, but a 1/5 score to me just doesn't jive. That is the score you give a game that fundamentally doesn't work. Stellaris works. It's very fun for the first third and then slows down. But it's never a frustrating experience and I'm at least always wanting to hang around for one more game year.
It reads as clickbait.
But that's just my opinion.
It's really going with a jack of all trades master of none pitch at the moment.
Maybe the 1/5 is justifiable for a snapshot review at this point in time, but reviews are usually one and done.
Is he going to rewrite every time a patch comes out? Or for every DLC? With modern games, the first iteration is rarely if ever the final iteration (if such a thing exists) and yet a negative review will be a negative review forever.
Which is why I disagree with the "should not count future content". Unless reviews are as continuously iterated upon as the games they're judging, it's reasonable to look towards the long term potentials of Stellaris.
Is he going to rewrite every time a patch comes out? Or for every DLC? With modern games, the first iteration is rarely if ever the final iteration (if such a thing exists) and yet a negative review will be a negative review forever.
Which is why I disagree with the "should not count future content". Unless reviews are as continuously iterated upon as the games they're judging, it's reasonable to look towards the long term potentials of Stellaris.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
He doesn't use the same review scale other people do. It's fruitless to lose any sleep over such trivialities. His critiques are far more important than the arbitrary score attached.
the negative review will be a negative review of the game as it was when it was written. if you read a review of tf2 from release and use it to see whether you should play tf2 now you a dumb dumb. everything is a product of its time and context
whether or not he ever writes another review of stellaris or blogs or tweets about it is irrelevant. you can't review the future. (you can talk about potential, but it's... well, potential)
I don't agree with Tom Chick that the game needs racial traits. That goes against Paradox's "everybody starts the same" mantra they were going for with this game. If you add inherent racial traits, some are definitely bound to be stronger than others. In Civ for instance this is a big problem, some Civs are inherently stronger than others. I like that races are random in Stellaris.
Twilight Imperium is an awesome game by the way.
Maybe I haven't reached what people call the "mid- to late game" in the 22 hours I've played (on a single game), or my standards are just incredibly low given this is the first Paradox game I've played, but I'd put it closer to a 4/5.
There are tons of things I'd like improved, particularly interface-wise, but what's there is already extremely compelling.
There are tons of things I'd like improved, particularly interface-wise, but what's there is already extremely compelling.
It's called a review for a reason. They look at the current state of the game. Very few media outlets have the resources to revisit a game after each major patch/content update (expansions being the exception).
As a Paradox "fan" it's easy to see the potential, but it's certainly not a given that it will be reached anytime soon.
I think of it as an investment, and you can definitely consider the future of investments.
Given my experience with CK2 and EU4, and extrapolating that to Stellaris, I give the game good odds in the long term. Is this wrong? To judge a thing that changes over time you must also assume a perspective that allows for that change.
I agree you can't take future content into account when making a review. Where we seemingly diverge is that I think because the traditional review cannot account for the future, it is inadequate for judging a game like Stellaris, or really, most of Paradox's games, or any continuously developed game. How many outlets have rereviewed Dota 2 since its release in 2013? It's a drastically different game now. I don't think Dota 2 needs updated reviews per se (they actually exist in a vague sense with patch analyses). I'm just using this example to illustrate why the very concept of a review is flawed for many modern games.
Maybe not racial traits as in they are typically portrayed with buffs and minuses, but something that makes them feel more than an image. I can't think of a balanced answer, but there's gotta be haha
I'm not sure if that's the right approach. My biggest problem is how arbitrary everything is. It doesnt matter what ethics, or race or techs the neighbouring empires have... it always comes down to the same game after a few hours. They're all lacking identity and character, even politics wise. The smallest non-important lordship at the other end of the world had more character and peculiarities in CK.
Same with techs in Stellaris. I've just stoppped my third playthrough because the game becomes the same after a few hours in. I can't really go a specific route, or say a specific themed playthrough. You always have to research some crap you didn't really need.
I had completely different ethics and start conditions but it doesn't help in the long term.
Lacking trade, diplomatics, espionage and other halfhearted features doesn't help with this problem either.
It's by far the worst game Paradox has released in a long time. Even Vanilla EU&CK were much better. And don't get me started on HoI. And it's the most simple they released. I'm sure it will get better over time... no question. But I think the few really negative reviews are on point.
HOI 3 is still broken in some areas.
It is a flaw in the sense that you might disregard a great game due to bad early reviews.
I bought this last weekend and played for a few hours and just wasn't feeling it. I was getting confused with sectors and frontier outposts etc.
Something clicked today I sunk a bunch of hours into it. I'm still unclear on war and warscore but just the exploration and colonisation aspect really grabbed me.
Something clicked today I sunk a bunch of hours into it. I'm still unclear on war and warscore but just the exploration and colonisation aspect really grabbed me.
I guess a special ability slot, like require energy instead of food or increased pops per tile. Something that changed how the game plays, but you don't have to pick it for a more generic race.
I mean, aren't you describing traits?
I can't really agree with this, a big part of the appeal of the game for me is that you get to design the races or encounter weird random races. Attaching racial bonuses to the type would work directly against that.
It's supposed to just be a picture because you're all intelligent life!
I'm only 100 years in, but after giving control of a few planets to sectors and seeing just what is being done with them (nothing) I'm really quite annoyed. I really don't want to give any of my planets over to sectors after seeing this, which means I basically don't want to expand further as a result.
I'm strong enough to take a few empires by force though so maybe I'll do that.
Also I got 3 planets from some slaving despots, only 1 of which had any of them on it who are causing a ruckass. Am I right in thinking that even if I had forced resettlement, I couldn't send these buggers back to their own nation? I can't starve them out, I can't purge or enslave, and the remaining options have done feck all.
I'm strong enough to take a few empires by force though so maybe I'll do that.
Also I got 3 planets from some slaving despots, only 1 of which had any of them on it who are causing a ruckass. Am I right in thinking that even if I had forced resettlement, I couldn't send these buggers back to their own nation? I can't starve them out, I can't purge or enslave, and the remaining options have done feck all.
It's something more game changing than the traits we have right now. I mean you can just add them into traits, I guess.
But these games had so much more to offer and different playthroughs felt ... well... different.
... and so is Stellaris too.
UcchedavÄda
Member
That review pulls no punches, but it also pretty much sums up my feelings of the game at this point. Especially the part about empires lacking personality. It's exciting the first time you meet new empires, but in practice they are all just indistinguishable blobs on the map that mostly act the same regardless of whether or not they love or hate you. The galaxy just ends up feeling empty.
I might start another empire, just to try out a different play-style (insofar that is even possible), but after that I wont be returning until the major content patches start landing.
You have to review the game that you have in your hands, not the game that the developer is promising you that you'll have in the future, nor what you imagine that the game might become in the future. Because that is the game that we can actually buy and play. We don't actually know how many patches and expansions it'll take to fix the major problems in Stellaris, nor even if Stellaris will become a better game in the end.
You can, however, always return to a game once major updates have been published, and see if the updates actually do address the problems that you had with the game. And it is entirely fair to note in reviews that Paradox has a history of continuously improving their own titles, but that should serve as a reminder for people to check back again in the future, not as an excuse for a game's current problems.
Or you might just end up with a dud that never really gets any better, and even if it does improve, it may well end up costing you more than if you had just waited for those improvements before buying it. You don't have to purchase the game at launch to get access to those (potential) improvements.
I don't know if you've played Crusader Kings 2 on release, but Stellaris is way more polished than CK2 was.
if it gets good word of mouth will turn. as it stands stellaris has had great reviews and now some minor pushback as we get further in and its flaws become more apparent.
I was talking about content and not polish. But yeah ofc it's easier to polish a game if you cut half the content/depth.
GrandHarrier
Member
The review doesn't read like a 1/5. Is this someone who is a 1/5 or 5/5 and nothing in between or something?
Game feels more like 3.5/5 right now. A great foundation for future work.
The main problem with sectors is that they are very poor at managing. I would be fine if they:
A. Did planet management properly, (almost) as good as a human would rather than way, way worse
B. Also managed other things in their sector (Had their own construction ships that built their own mining/research stations, upgraded all the space ports). For empires with slavery or droids, they also should take care of that aspect.
C. Could be ordered to build x units of something and gather them somewhere.
D. Didn't take away my control of what to do with primitives.
Facism
Member
I wish they had taken a similar route to something like Endless Legend, where rival factions generally function differently from each other and provide a different way to play.
At least this is confirmed to be a bug. You should be able to control observation posts in sectors.
This is not the thread you're looking for.
So here we are at the moment, I'm the British Galactic Empire and 118 years in, my Vassals are the Multyx League, League of Opyrra Jukal, Eruxo Allied Nations and Steccashi United Suns.
Basically just been declaring war on anyone near me and vassalising them. The Eruxos still love me, but the rest were scum in the first place.
So little going on unless I declare war, and I've stopped colonising entirely, just because of lol sectors.
Cant find the victory conditions button anywhere, though I know I've seen it.
Mine is the exact opposite, I've 3 sectors 2 of which have been running for some time. Half the buildings aren't even upgraded where they should be. Its a mess. That it also costs to remove a system froma sector, and to disband a sector too is just pish when it does this.
Basically just been declaring war on anyone near me and vassalising them. The Eruxos still love me, but the rest were scum in the first place.
So little going on unless I declare war, and I've stopped colonising entirely, just because of lol sectors.
Cant find the victory conditions button anywhere, though I know I've seen it.
Mine is the exact opposite, I've 3 sectors 2 of which have been running for some time. Half the buildings aren't even upgraded where they should be. Its a mess. That it also costs to remove a system froma sector, and to disband a sector too is just pish when it does this.
LurkerPrime
Member
Your screenshot reminded me... I pray that Paradox makes the sector border fill out completely, instead of the weird cut-within-a-blob thing they've got going on right now.