Stellaris feels like a game made by EA.

[zebenzui]

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

You're describing part of the problem here. DLC fixed it, you had to pay for the fix for what you already paid for.

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.

Agree with the rest of your post. But the part about "reasonable time-frame" is nonsense.

The reasonable time-frame is pre-release.

 

[Aries666]

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.

I think I'll just put this here

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.

 

[soondragon67]

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.

If we all were going out murdering people, wouldn't that imply that we were okay with murdering people to begin with?

Just a thought.

 

[Aries666]

If we all were going out murdering people, wouldn't that imply that we were okay with murdering people to begin with?

Just a thought.

Good on you for totally missing the point.

 

[zebenzui]

Good on you for totally missing the point.

Oh don't be like that, he was just having a laugh.

 

[StormyDmaster]

Honestly, who has actually EVER played a Ck 2 or EU 4 game to completion? I certainly have NEVER done so, yet I have 250 hours on Ck 2 and 850 hours on Eu 4. For me the cost of the original game plus the DLC divided by the time I spend with them, justifies the price. Each time a DLC is released I usually get around another 50 hours of playtime out of it, sometimes I just randomly binge the games because I feel like it, no new features included. For me the journey to the point of "I can't be bothered with this anymore." Is waaay more fun than reaching an arbitrary win condition that doesn't do anything except stroke my ego. Originally I was also super salty about how I needed to pay all these extra fees to play Muslims and hindus in Ck2 but now I understand that these features WEREN'T in the base game and instead were added in post development. I don't expect a grand strategy game that works perfectly from the release date. That isn't Paradox. Paradox is building on community feedback and further developing their games. I mean for other games I would of just stopped playing hundreds of hours ago, but the new features, bug fixes and community involvement brings me back time and time again. While I would have liked a more polished game at the start, I remember the **** show, that I still played, whose name was Eu 4 on launch month. I willingly preordered Stellaris KNOWING it would be a bit rough around the edges, knowing that eventually would get better and knowing that eventually the price of everything justifies itself. Honestly if you don't know how Paradox does things that is on you as a consumer to research the company and the game thoroughly before purchasing.

 

[CyaN]

You're all missing the point about "it's normal to do that on the videogames industry". Nowadays, it's normal to release a very solid framework, which is definitely playable but still shallow and somewhat lacking, and adding in-depth functions later through gradual expansion. "Normal" means that the devs do it and it works. And people agree. How do I know that? Well, because they buy it. And then you always have some nostalgic from the 80s on the forums claiming that releasing a DLC is basically armed robbery and they will never support that model of business (it would be interesting to see how many of the games they own follow that model; it seems to me that, in fact, they are supporting it). But the sales work perfectly and the reviews work perfectly, which shows that the customers are OK with that and consider it a valid strategy.

PDS does it because it's a successful strategy that achieves objective success (again: sales, and reviews). They're not trying to pull off a shady trick that their players hate. Their players agree. There's simply no data of any kind pointing in any other direction.

 

[Reaperdamo]

This game is crap and paradox should feel bad.

No espionage?

Vassal an empire no matter how large they are for 60 warscore?

No slave revolts?

Scourge shows up as an end game event and its a broken event chain so you gotta get a workshop mod to fix it to make it even playable??

Give me a break I expected better from this company.

Is that true you can vassalise any empire for 60? that is a major design flaw. I just vassalised my neighbour and i thought 60 took into account their size. That is like being able to vassalise France for 60 warscore - its ridiculous and shows you how little effort they have put into some parts of this game. Put alot of effort into the pre-release videos though and the hours and hours of footage of them playing it.

 

[Reaperdamo]

Honestly, who has actually EVER played a Ck 2 or EU 4 game to completion? I certainly have NEVER done so, yet I have 250 hours on Ck 2 and 850 hours on Eu 4. For me the cost of the original game plus the DLC divided by the time I spend with them, justifies the price. Each time a DLC is released I usually get around another 50 hours of playtime out of it, sometimes I just randomly binge the games because I feel like it, no new features included. For me the journey to the point of "I can't be bothered with this anymore." Is waaay more fun than reaching an arbitrary win condition that doesn't do anything except stroke my ego. Originally I was also super salty about how I needed to pay all these extra fees to play Muslims and hindus in Ck2 but now I understand that these features WEREN'T in the base game and instead were added in post development. I don't expect a grand strategy game that works perfectly from the release date. That isn't Paradox. Paradox is building on community feedback and further developing their games. I mean for other games I would of just stopped playing hundreds of hours ago, but the new features, bug fixes and community involvement brings me back time and time again. While I would have liked a more polished game at the start, I remember the **** show, that I still played, whose name was Eu 4 on launch month. I willingly preordered Stellaris KNOWING it would be a bit rough around the edges, knowing that eventually would get better and knowing that eventually the price of everything justifies itself. Honestly if you don't know how Paradox does things that is on you as a consumer to research the company and the game thoroughly before purchasing.

im sorry but you cant compare a game that has a static map that has lots of different challenges based on history and cultural knowledge to one that is essentially a 4x game that is different everytime. I also hate - like really hate - the playtime divided by cost analogies.

 

[soondragon67]

Good on you for totally missing the point.

I didn't miss the point. I just thought your hyperbolic analogy was completely ridiculous and akin to those in politics who cry that everyone and their mother is actually Hitler reincarnated, so ridiculous in fact that I believed that the only proper response was to mock the analogy.

Now that said my post does have some value to it in relation to the current argument, in that when standards are set as a result of what is considered to be normal, it is not egregious for someone to practice what is normal, rather those who demonstrate beyond what is normal should be the ones who are the ones who should be lauded or attacked.

 

[Red_warning]

EA breaks down their games during development and sells parts as DLC, Paradox does not, they include everything except a few cosmetic pre-order bonuses with the base game. You don't like the game mechanics, which is fine, but the comparison you make is pretty stupid, to be blunt.

 

[Aries666]

I didn't miss the point. I just thought your hyperbolic analogy was completely ridiculous and akin to those in politics who cry that everyone and their mother is actually Hitler reincarnated, so ridiculous in fact that I believed that the only proper response was to mock the analogy.

Now that said my post does have some value to it in relation to the current argument, in that when standards are set as a result of what is considered to be normal, it is not egregious for someone to practice what is normal, rather those who demonstrate beyond what is normal should be the ones who are the ones who should be lauded or attacked.

Normal is an individual perspective and clinging to such perspectives and admonishing those who hold a different view is no better what you suggest I'm doing in your first paragraph. I used the example I did because extremes often make a point clearer I am not advocating that people should be happy with murder but if I had said farting in public is prevalent (you may or may not find this excusable ) probably wouldn't have had the same effect.

 

[LastLeviathan]

Paradox should be proud of how much even just a portion of the community is complaining about Stellaris. Not because any other reason than because of how much quality people expect from their development team.

The game is the most immersive Grand Strategy/4X I've ever played. That being said, there are many areas for them to improve on to make this game fantastic. Yes, the AI can be passive, more political depth can be added, people say it is lacking in the mid game, and in many ways it is, there is plenty of room for improvement. We've all discussed and heard them all these past days and weeks. But first, let's take a look at other games that hit an even larger crowd and though not exactly the same, can be compared in principle.

Sins of Solar Empire 4.5/5 Metacritic
More of an RTS but ends up being who can build the biggest fleet wins with little depth to politics, or anything but combat.

Civilization 5 4.5/5 Metacritic
Had no trade mechanics, hardly any politics and has little depth to it after a while until the DLC added Trade, World Council, etc.

Endless Legend 4/5 Metacritic
Immersive but mid-late game falls short in feeling dynamic or strategic.

All of these games started simpler, and in the end were made better as time went on. Now, I've thrown countless hours in Civ 5 because it could be fun, but in the end only with mods could I bother to play it and enjoy myself because it was still lacking(Funny enough, EU4 style diplomacy and events mods was the best one for me).

I'm not saying the game does not have its faults or making excuses for PDX, but they released a great and beautiful game that has the potential to be perhaps the best Grand Strategy/4X I've ever played and can keep playing for years to come. If you disagree, I suggest you play Stellaris in a MP setting with almost 30 players, and you'll understand how enjoyable this game is and the potential it has with just a few tweaks and additions. In the end, what is hopeful is the difference between them and some of the bigger companies, as we've repeatably seen form their dev team, is that they care and that they listen to the community actively.

 

[00000101]

Is that true you can vassalise any empire for 60? that is a major design flaw. I just vassalised my neighbour and i thought 60 took into account their size. That is like being able to vassalise France for 60 warscore - its ridiculous and shows you how little effort they have put into some parts of this game. Put alot of effort into the pre-release videos though and the hours and hours of footage of them playing it.

Yep thats completely broken. In my current playtrough I easily vassalized the whole galaxy and the only thing that slowed me down was that I was tired of going to war with 100k fleets against some 5k enemy. I didnt even have to built a good fleet or do research myself. Once you vassalized the first empire its kind of snowballing from there. Even fallen empires didn't stand a chance against my vassals.

 

[Jukhy]

I don't think EA is the right analogy (EA games are much more polished), but it's definitely a thin version of Master of Orion.

Highly recommend Master of Orion 1 & 2 to anyone interested in a more complex 4x experience, by the way! These games are from the early '90s but there's a lot more meat on their bones, plus they have better AI (e.g. AIs don't send 1 assault troop at a time to fortified planets).

You must be joking, right? I mean you can't possibly be serious, with a statement like that. MoO2 doesn't have nowhere near the content this game has! Don't get me wrong, I love that game and played it way too much back in the day. In Stellaris I'm now playing 1000 star galaxy with 39 AI opponents and you say MoO2 has more content?

 

[Goldseeker]

Is that true you can vassalise any empire for 60? that is a major design flaw. I just vassalised my neighbour and i thought 60 took into account their size. That is like being able to vassalise France for 60 warscore - its ridiculous and shows you how little effort they have put into some parts of this game. Put alot of effort into the pre-release videos though and the hours and hours of footage of them playing it.

Sadly, it is true. And yes amount of pre-release streams and marketing makes you question paradox priorities

 

[Sarz]

Hi guys,
let me get straight to the point:

1) People in the reviews tend to say, that interface of Stellaris and its simplicity is great feature. Well, I disagree. We didn't get simple interface, we got simple game. I am after 30 hours of gameplay and I feel like I saw everything this game has to offer. There is no single mechanic in there, that I am not aware of or don't know how works. I want to remind you, that after 30 hours of Europa Universalis, I was still not really sure, if I saw half of what the game was offering. Stellaris is mechanicly empty, there is nothing interesting to discover in terms of maths, that runs behind the game graphics.

2) There are areas in game, that more than obviously was ignored in v1.0, just to better justify tons of later DLCs.
Now, as fans of strategy games, we all know that in 4X galaxy-wide video game, there are some typical features, that we consider canon of the genre.

LET ME PLEASE ANNOUNCE FIRST 3 OF STELLARIS DLC:
a) super hyper cool DLC about diplomacy, galactic senate, ways to influence other civilizations with treaties and economy. 14.99€
b) super hyper cool DLC about alien and mystical resources, that changes the way you can use them. Now you need them to get technological advantage of you neighbours, rather than use them to power buildings you don't need. 14.99€
c) super hyper cool DLC that will add unique experience of several game endings. You don't want to fight? Great, try to beat them technologicaly, culturally, politicaly or diplomaticaly. Wow! That's also 14.99€

I could go on for like 5 more examples, but let's get to the point:

There are things in 4X, that simply are canon, making a game without even trying to support this features is obvious, OBVIOUS way to get some more cash from our wallets. This is making me feel like buying game from Electronic Arts, EXCEPT THEIR GAMES ARE MORE COMPLETE, THAN STELLARIS.

3) [until DLC I announced] We only have 2 ways of ending the game, both militaristic, I tried to imagine, if I could add some typical paradoxian sandbox in it and try to make up some goals myself. You know, like "I will start as a norse, will never ever raid, proclaim republic and take control of silk road before 1000AD". Well, you simply can't do it in Stellaris. The game is too shallow. What goal can you set for yourself? It always will be some iteration of "I will conques chunk of galaxy". Of course, you can say that CK2 or EU4 is also "I will conquest chunk of the world" type. BUT! In CK2 or EU4 you can set goals, that uses different game mechanics to get what you want. In Stellaris you will ALWAYS use the same mechanics all over again, because there is simple not enough different mechanics in game after all.

Anyway, my final point: imagine just for one minute, that Stellaris was actually published by Electronic Arts. Just try. Now think about current state of the game. It is unfinished, it is unpolished, it is bugged and yes, there will be 15 DLCs, which will be OBLIGATORY, if you ever want to have full game experience. It fits. You would get angry. Why aren't you?

My question is: why are gamers and reviewers praising Paradox, even if they use the same money grabing policies, as Activision or EA? Well, until now you could say: 'well, at least they make really unique and good games, so it's kinda worth it'. Honestly? I think that was UNTL NOW. Stellaris is not a complete game. It's not even complete in 40%. I'm out.

3: "It always will be some iteration of "I will conques chunk of galaxy"." I think it is more so you don't identify with any of the points in space. where as saying I am going to conquer France seems better than I am going to conquer the starts in the Kileths'cans badlands.

Last point. I think people would be mad if it were EA but they are a AAA gaming title. I believe that paradox isn't so for them this game is pretty polished yeah occasional release bug. But atleast we can play the game even multiplayer 70% works. Most major titles are unplayable in their first few days

 

[Jelbert]

Good on you for totally missing the point.

You are missing the point. I was not talking about whether it was excusable, I was talking about the specific comparison to EA games.

 

[CyaN]

paradox priorities

Making money.

Because they're a company.

And companies make money. Ultimately, all they do is about making money.

If PDS was offered 10 million dollars a day to stop making games, they wouldn't make any more games.

When will we, as in "the Internet", be able to go beyond the childish, laughable fiction that "companies should care about the product and the player, not about making money" and start having real discussions about the real world? For God's sake, we're adults, or at least some of us are. It's time to accept it: what they want most of all is our money, not our happiness. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Of course they're spending resources on marketing campaigns that they could have spent on more content. They want to sell the goddamn game. It's their line of business. They have children to feed.

 

[caesarian]

This is stupid, PDS is nothing like EA and Stellaris is nothing like an EA game. This is how PDS has done things for years, they create a game and then support it for years to come. You cannot expect the game to be as deep as ck2 or EU 4, even right after release for all of the games, because this is a brand new IP for them so the mechanics they used in previous versions of EU4 and CK2 are not there for Stellaris to build on. Also the game is $20 dollars cheaper than one you'd get from EA and its better out of the box than their games.

My 2nd point is, you are all spoiled. PDS supports their games unlike the vast majority of the gaming industry, adding features, mechanics and hour upon hour of extra gameplay for us. Stellaris as released would be a full game with hardly any support from almost any other game company but the fact that we all expect PDS to come out with DLC's for this game is a good thing, not a bad one. It shows we trust them to support the games we love.

My last point is that PDS has earned our trust and it's annoying as all hell that you all expect Stellaris to be just as great as CK2 is now, right out of the box. Learn some patience and have some gratitude