-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So in your world being PROFESSIONAL = being a robot ?
No, I like it that they interact with us, not aloof like most devs/ customer service. At least the Paradox ones do. I dont mind the occasional sarcasm.
What does the part you bolded have to do with the context? You post "So, how are those "at least 2 or 3 updates a week" working out?", if you meant that as anything other than a snipe at Kerb for no longer doing 2-3 updates a week, please explain what you meant. Without the context that they only said they would do this for the first month it looks like a failing on their part to deliver the updates they promised, with context it's clear you're either purposely trying to mislead people or you just like to post random quotes. Which is it?
Also the OP in the thread I linked has not been edited, if it had been there would be an "edited by X at <date>" line.
Seriously? After making such a big deal about "context", now it does not matter because I did the same thing you did?
Last time I checked, the game is still not what it was supposed to be on 29 October, so I am not sure how anyone could suggest that Kerberos has not failed to do what was promised by them at this point.
I really have nothing further to comment since apparently I can not answer you in the same manner that you commented at me without being in violation of forum rules.
Again, how is that relevant? Your post was "So, how are those "at least 2 or 3 updates a week" working out?". Read it again. Do you mention anything about the game being in X state by a certain date? No. Sure you can say the game is not in whatever state you want if you like, but the post by you that I replied to did not say anything about that, so don't try to move the goalposts mid-match.
I do like your idea that I am trying to "troll" you by taking a quote out of context while linking you to the source in the same post, though. That make a lot of sense!
This thread is for complaints about the game. If you have them, free free to post away, but what it is not for is random sniping at the Kerb team using false statements or out of context quotes, do not do so again. In fact, since you have already asked for and received your refund:
I do like your idea that I am trying to "troll" you by taking a quote out of context while linking you to the source in the same post, though. That make a lot of sense!
This thread is for complaints about the game. If you have them, free free to post away, but what it is not for is random sniping at the Kerb team using false statements or out of context quotes, do not do so again. In fact, since you have already asked for and received your refund:
I am not sure why you are still posting here except to troll people, and since there's been at least one patch since you got your refund you cannot even comment on the current state of the game.
It would help my feelings
Well i can: its pretty much the same piece of crap as it was before
("Crap" is fine with forum rules, isnt it?)Almost as much as complaining about me leaving something "out of context" by not posting the full sentence and then doing the exact same thing.
Sorry, but like I said, I can not reply to your post in the same manner that you seem to find appropriate with me since it would be a violation of forum rules. Some of us have to follow the rules.
Well i can: its pretty much the same piece of crap as it was before
It is NOT the same Crap as it was on release, far from it in my opinion. It is still not fully enjoyable and it still crashes from time to time.
A) Because He was just told not too.
B) He does not own the game, so is not qualified to comment on the current state of it.
You are lucky it is the complaints thread.So you are on topic.
Admin spin double speak explanation:
You see there is the rare use of "Too", that it is used to denote the combination of the the other two forms of "to"s, if you get my meaning.
You see I was telling him as well so number "Two" and what I was telling him the verb "to"
When using a "to" to denote both "to" and "Two" you use "too".
Pretty advanced grammar I hope everyone followed.
This is absolutly right..
I passed everything.. the state, the bugs, problems.. lets think the game is fully playable... will we like it? Is the game realy good rather then bugs..
I am playing Sots 1 like an addict after Sots 2 fail.. I liked it much.. giving hours to it.. then when i get nearly bored, i noticed some great MODs.. yeah realy great mods.. and i get more addicted..
Sots 1 was good and with mods nearly i found everything about what i am looking for.. So after that i tried Sots 2 again with new patchs.. i started the game and continued a bit.. but it doesnt make me feel so good.. it was not the Sots 1.. something was not right.. my eng is not so good but the guy i quoted told what i wanna say here...
I wish that, Sots 2 should be a game which with better graphics, some more spy tools, more secitons, more ships, more reseachs.. you should know where you stop at making a game development.. yeah adding more things is good but if you lose control, it became more complicated and fails..
To be honest, i would prefer to have a Sots 1 version with good shiny graphics and modded hard code (more sections, ships and choises)..
I played ACM mode at sots 1 for 1200 turns and i continiue to play.. it took my whole week and it was nearly perfect.. i cant imagine over 1000 turns at Sots 2.. not only for game style-state, the need of time would be at least a month for that number of turns if you include lame battles and loading times..
So Sots 1 2.0 > Sots 2 1.0 i can say...
Just wanted to say that while EU3 is niche, the 4x scene for space games is just as niched, if not more so. I am sure EU3 has sold better than SOI 1 did.
This is a complaint thread, so I hope I'm not being out of line with the following statement:
So, Pride of Nations, then Supreme Ruler: Cold War, and now Swords of the Stars: II. Three big games that were hyped up 2011 and were met with, er, let's say "less than desirable" launch quality.
I'm really starting to loose faith in Paradox's decisions for outside development teams. Still, I give Kerberos props for at least acknowledging the current state of their game, this is the first time I have seen such an occurrence here on this forum.
Honestly, besides the couple fan-made derivatives (i.e. AoD, Darkest Hour and probably when it's released Magna Mundi), the only games in the past couple years I can think of not developed by Paradox that were actually good are Mount & Blade, Magicka, and perhaps Cities in Motion (I can't speak much on the latter since I have not played it, but the Sim City-type buffs seem to enjoy it a lot).
I honestly don't know why Paradox decides to stick with Developers that consistently seem to release content that is never quite up to par with the standards a major Publishing company wishes to maintain. Paradox developed games are great, why would this company wish to soil their good name? For example, I can not name one single AGEOD or BattleGoat game that ever did well. In a world dominated by MetaCritic and other generic numbers (which bugs myself, but it's inevitable), I really don't see the point in letting sub-par games ever come to light. Is the small-net niche communities surrounding these games really worth the effort, economically?
Just my personal opinion, everything I just said could be complete hog-wash for all I know, as the closest I've ever come to being part of the industry would be modding games for fun and living in Redwood City at one point.
Paradox is a great company, and I really hate to see their name in a bad light when their own games are quite good.
So, Pride of Nations, then Supreme Ruler: Cold War, and now Swords of the Stars: II. Three big games that were hyped up 2011 and were met with, er, let's say "less than desirable" launch quality.
I'm really starting to loose faith in Paradox's decisions for outside development teams. Still, I give Kerberos props for at least acknowledging the current state of their game, this is the first time I have seen such an occurrence here on this forum.
Honestly, besides the couple fan-made derivatives (i.e. AoD, Darkest Hour and probably when it's released Magna Mundi), the only games in the past couple years I can think of not developed by Paradox that were actually good are Mount & Blade, Magicka, and perhaps Cities in Motion (I can't speak much on the latter since I have not played it, but the Sim City-type buffs seem to enjoy it a lot).
I honestly don't know why Paradox decides to stick with Developers that consistently seem to release content that is never quite up to par with the standards a major Publishing company wishes to maintain. Paradox developed games are great, why would this company wish to soil their good name? For example, I can not name one single AGEOD or BattleGoat game that ever did well. In a world dominated by MetaCritic and other generic numbers (which bugs myself, but it's inevitable), I really don't see the point in letting sub-par games ever come to light. Is the small-net niche communities surrounding these games really worth the effort, economically?
Just my personal opinion, everything I just said could be complete hog-wash for all I know, as the closest I've ever come to being part of the industry would be modding games for fun and living in Redwood City at one point.
Paradox is a great company, and I really hate to see their name in a bad light when their own games are quite good.
Last edited:
Well don't shoot the messenger, but I can tell you I have been game shopping recently and looked at a few games, I was kind of interested by one and then I realised who it was published by and walked away, no sale, directly due to the way this release was handled. Statistically speaking I am probably not the only one.
Lets be clear it was not because SotS2 is very very buggy, it was because the state of the game was misrepresented. I found that offensive. If the release had been properly described as a full price buy in beta, that would have been honest, I could trust the source. How can I now? It was a very big mistake & I dont think those responsible have understood that.
You cannot hide the truth in the age of the internet, you have to work with it. Honesty and openness are the only way forwards. There is no kind of concealment that can succeed here, it will always be seen for what it is.
Only player recommendation from trusted sources will overcome the kind of distrust I now have for both brands. You need us more than we need you.
Lets be clear it was not because SotS2 is very very buggy, it was because the state of the game was misrepresented. I found that offensive. If the release had been properly described as a full price buy in beta, that would have been honest, I could trust the source. How can I now? It was a very big mistake & I dont think those responsible have understood that.
You cannot hide the truth in the age of the internet, you have to work with it. Honesty and openness are the only way forwards. There is no kind of concealment that can succeed here, it will always be seen for what it is.
Only player recommendation from trusted sources will overcome the kind of distrust I now have for both brands. You need us more than we need you.
Last edited:
Thats the point... and there are quite a few other words for "misrepresenting" things on purpose...