Stellaris feels like a game made by EA.

[Khaelgor]

Honestly, Stellaris feels a lot like Galciv's little brother. Same gameplay (with some minor difference here and there, ex: pop system), but much more shallow (lack of diplomacy, sectors, etc...).

 

[zebenzui]

EUIV was far more complete on release. It did not feel incomplete even compared to EUIII: DW.
Stellaris seems to be specifcally designed as a hull to be expended upon with an endless stream of DLCs. This is the new paradox buiness model, Stellaris is just the first game that is 100% designed around it.

That's my fear too.

Paradox is basically the last dev I actually feel a little bit of brand loyalty to too. It's a shame.

 

[Titch100]

We're getting wraped up in twisting each other's words now.

The game has obvious faults, both in what it lacks, and what is not working as intended within the game.

Given that you asserted trade should not be a core mechanic in this game/all GSG, I fear we'll never come to an agreement over the omissions.

And also given how you've whitewashed the severity of the bugs extant in the game, and how hard (and convolutedly) you backpeddled when you slipped up and conceded that there are parts of the game which require more work, I fear we'll also not come to an agreement about the state of the game.

I feel I have not been overly harsh in how I approached the game (I've played for about 5 hours hoping a bugged out war, and before that policy list, would fix itself, all the while nothing at all was happening in my side of the galaxy) but we're worlds apart in our assessment of the game. And I don't wish to grapple with this gap as I don't to become unpleasant.

That's fair.
I'll admit that I may have overstated the lack or lack of severity of bugs, but I'd argue that I've never claimed the game to be perfect, previously I've even mentioned things that could be improved upon and things that were somewhat lacking.
Despite this I feel that the game is currently in an acceptable state for a game that was released less than a week ago, and I feel that regarding features and mechanics it is a complete and playable game. I also feel that it must be stated clearly that "complete and playable" and "can be improved upon" are not mutually exclusive statement

 

[Goldseeker]

I've not used slaves yet.

Did you not notice that it is score of 60 warscore is enough to vassalize any empire? and that you vassals never break away even while hating you?

 

[yezhanquan]

That's my fear too.

Paradox is basically the last dev I actually feel a little bit of brand loyalty to too. It's a shame.

I still play Blizzard games. Warlords was lackluster, but I know I'll be in Overwatch on May 24.

To me, Stellaris is probably the first PDS game which doesn't need tons of research to do up the history and geography of the setting.

 

[zebenzui]

I still play Blizzard games. Warlords was lackluster, but I know I'll be in Overwatch on May 24.

You poor wretch.

 

[Titch100]

Did you not notice that it is score of 60 warscore is enough to vassalize any empire? and that you vassals never break away even if while hating you?

I personally have not experienced this, no. Are we going to list all of the issues you've found, or can we skip that step and get to the point?

 

[CyaN]

EUIV was far more complete on release. It did not feel incomplete even compared to EUIII: DW.
Stellaris seems to be specifcally designed as a hull to be expended upon with an endless stream of DLCs. This is the new paradox buiness model, Stellaris is just the first game that is 100% designed around it.

"Far more"? How is that?

You could research technologies (in Stellaris: check).
You could conduct basic diplomacy, including declaring wars, forming alliances, and having vassals (check).
You could colonize (check).
You could have armies and fleets (check).
You got events (check).
You could have a couple of different forms of government (check).


What else was there in release EU4? Where is that magnificent, fully fledged game that you all miss? I never played it. It was a map painting simulator, in which you could paint the map, or stare at your screen and not paint the map. Those were your two options. You couldn't even develop a province in any way, considering that buildings were fundamentally flawed (spending Monarch Points on buildings? No way).

 

[yezhanquan]

You poor wretch.

As a working adult, I don't really mind sitting on games for them to be improved. I don't play SC 2 much other than the storyline, which I rather liked. The new Co-Op mode changes look interesting. We'll see. But yes, I've outgrown Diablo's style of item farming.

 

[Aries666]

I'm afraid to say that you're acting as though Paradox is the only development studio guilty of this.

This isn't even something that's unique tot he games industry! Software releases with bugs all the time, across ALL sectors of the programming and coding industry. Even after extensive rounds of QA and testing. It's a face of life when you're working on software, and some of those bugs seem glaringly obvious when you first encounter them, but just because the bug is obvious to spot, it doesn't mean it's easy to debug and fix.

An adage the CTO of my company uses is as follows: 'It takes 20% of the time to fix 80% of the bugs, and 80% of the time to fix the remaining 20%'

By which he means that there is no sense delaying your product launch by a significant margin to pin down and fix EVERY last problem, because you'll spend more time on the effort than the return. You can always go back and do another pass at a later date.

I love this arguement that because something is prevalent it is somehow excusable, it's like saying if we all go out and start murdering people we should be ok with that.

 

[Goldseeker]

I personally have not experienced this, no. Are we going to list all of the issues you've found, or can we skip that step and get to the point?

How far in the game are you? Never declared wars and never used slaves(okay, they are optional). You seem to play a very little of the game to defend it so vigorously.

 

[yezhanquan]

I love this arguement that because something is prevalent it is somehow excusable, it's like saying if we all go out and start murdering people we should be ok with that.

Remember that time when PDS said that they want CK 2 to be the start of a new era whereby PDS games have less bugs? Sure, nowadays the bugs on launch don't CTD (mostly). But yeah, still plenty of bug wars.

 

[Titch100]

How far in the game are you? Never declared wars and never used slaves(okay, they are optional). You seem to play a very little of the game to defend it so vigorously.

Late-mid/Early-late game (as confusing as that sounds).
I'm going to be afk probably until tomorrow now, but I feel that this basically sums up my position.

That's fair.
I'll admit that I may have overstated the lack or lack of severity of bugs, but I'd argue that I've never claimed the game to be perfect, previously I've even mentioned things that could be improved upon and things that were somewhat lacking.
Despite this I feel that the game is currently in an acceptable state for a game that was released less than a week ago, and I feel that regarding features and mechanics it is a complete and playable game. I also feel that it must be stated clearly that "complete and playable" and "can be improved upon" are not mutually exclusive statement

 

[Khaelgor]

It was a map painting simulator, in which you could paint the map, or stare at your screen and not paint the map.

And now you get a galaxy painting simulator. But, hey, you can develop five planet (if you don't want any penalties) so it's okay now.

 

[zebenzui]

Remember that time when PDS said that they want CK 2 to be the start of a new era whereby PDS games have less bugs? Sure, nowadays the bugs on launch don't CTD (mostly). But yeah, still plenty of bug wars.

I do remember. And to be fair, CK2 was as smooth a launch as I've experienced. It was out-of-the-hat brilliant.

 

[Goldseeker]

...

Missed that post, have a good day/night

 

[Jelbert]

The comparison to EA its in the rip off games is unfair imo, though I can understand the sentiment.

SOTS was as barebones at they come when that was released and it turned out great after several DLC, same with DW.

At least Stellaris is not a train wreck like SOTS2, the game that burnt me the most evahhh.

So whilst it might be sharp practise to release a game in this state, its not just EA games that do this, its lots of Devs/publishers that have made games similar to Stelaris.

 

[igkillerhamster]

To lay the 4X or not debate to rest: In the preview Stellaris streams and the dev diaries it has been stated multiple times that they use 4X mechanics for the early game and open up into Grand Strategy in the mid/late game. So in effect its more aking to a 4XGS, not purely 4X, not purely GS. And I would give more weight towards what the dev says about their own games genre (especially a trustworthy like PDS) since they have the full roadmap, which we lack.

Either we accept that it is something inbetween, or we will have to reevaluate the genre categorization after every single bloody DLC/DLC-Patch (Hint Hint towards the EA accusation: It's not like Paradox gives a good 60-70% of the features of a DLC as a giant patch for free, with some additional content locked behind the DLC purchase. Both sides win. EA would never ever remotely dream of that. So how does one even get close to think PDS functions in a similar manner than EA is simply baffling to me.)

Other than that, yes, it does feel shallow at certain parts. Mind you it is the first time they integrated 4X aspects in their games. Solid Mechanics need iteration. CK has already spawned a full second title (CK2) and dozens of DLC. EU IV is in its 4th full fledged version. If anything a more honest comparison would be CK1 in release state and EU1 at release state. That alone will show that PDS has come a far way already in terms of quality. Also, nobody can say, ever, that they didnt get what they bought. There were DOZENS of hours of game footage available pre-release to inforrm oneselve of WHAT the game actually has to offer.

Paradox games have always been a framework, that was chucked full with content through post-release support. That includes the free patches, read content patches.

Just my 2ct for the topic in general.

 

[CyaN]

And now you get a galaxy painting simulator. But, hey, you can develop five planet (if you don't want any penalties) so it's okay now.

Exactly: Stellaris is roughly at the same level of polish that EU4 was at release. A glorified map painting simulator, with some features here and there to keep you entertained while you paint the map. That's the point I'm making. It will become a fully fledged, thoroughly enjoyable in SP game after some expansions, like EU4 did (and I almost lost faith on that one, but nowadays, it's a great game).

If you didn't expect that, either you expect unrealistic things, which is a bad habit because you'll be easily disappointed, or you didn't know how EU4 was at release, which is a mistake on your part because you would expect the release of Stellaris to be in line with their most recent release.

What you can't do is compare a game with a development time of 2 years to a game with a development time of 6 years (pre- and post-release), and conclude that it's unacceptable that the first one has significantly less content than the second one. Well, thanks, Captain Obvious.

 

[Mr Drone]

The unproven conspiracy theory that Paradox just delivered the absolute minimum of a game and are holding everything else back for DLC is absurd. As I've illustrated before, there are more than a few features in the game right now that they've could've spun off as DLC if they had an attitude actually resembling EA's.

I simply can not fathom why there are people complaining about there features being missing while said features were never announced, at all. Trade was never announced. If you wanted Stellaris with trade then you shouldn't have bought it. Simple.
As far as I can see they've delivered all promised features, apart from slave revolts.

Someone said "there is code that hints at features having to be finished after release." Of course. That is the case for every game. If they would've taken the time to finish those features then others would've spawned in the mean time. If the goal is to finish all features regardless of their stage in development then the game will never be released. The same goes for bugs. You have to release a game with known bugs or the game simply will never be released.

If all the promised features are present and reasonably bug-free within a reasonable time-frame and if said features provide a worth that is proportional to the price of purchase then the game is complete. Period.

If then you complain because you bought a game that doesn't have a feature that you want but was never announced then the fault lies with you. Claiming that certain features such as trade, should've been in the game is ignoring the freedom of developers to make games as they see fit (CK2 doesn't have trade, Endless Space, an excellent 4X game, has pointless token trade) and ignoring your responsibilities as a consumer (to inform yourself).

Don't buy a game expecting unannounced stuff. If you thought the game didn't have enough features then you shouldn't have bought it. No one is forcing you to buy a game that you think doesn't have enough features.