Stellaris feels like a game made by EA.

[Sparviero]

The core problem is that there are no "telling the story of your empire" mechanics in Stellaris, unlike CK2 or their other previous games which allowed at least some semblance of role-playing. Stellaris is just a real-time space 4X with lackluster content, no matter how much you want to deny it and deflect valid arguments regarding the game's faults

Yeah Sure.
Yesterday i followed the story about one of my planets for two hours.

1) Earthquake underground.
2) Research about this
3) There is an primitive empire underground, what do you want to do? Enslave them! ( becouse of the trait of my race -> Roleplaying )
4) They want war and attack us
5) Reinforce the army of the capital!
6) Win the war
7) Decide to destroy them all with gas ( Roleplaying )
8) After sometimes find one underground city still intact, what do you want to do? Enslave them ( Roleplaying and gameplay outcome becouse now i have slave ).
9) On this planet some pops of my race loose the trait about accept slave ( but not the one they need slave to be happy...looks like hypocrites guys promising freedom to slave to obtain the planet and after keep the slave enslaved -> Roleplaying )
10) A faction about the indipendece of the planet born
11) I decided to enslave also the pops of my same race that want the indipendece of that planet ( Roleplaying )


Keep going, you all, to say this game is a poor game...but know that you are wrong.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Maybe the take home from this thread is that obsessing over the precise definition of "4x game" and what features those games 'must' always have isn't exactly the most productive use of your time?

Evaluate all games on their own merits, not how they fit in pointless and arbitrary categories like 4x vs grand strategy.

 

[spinoza013]

Are we talking about the same game here? You're forced to eXplore in order to do anything with star systems. You're forced to eXpand because unlike better 4X, there are no benefits to playing tall in Stellaris. You're forced to eXploit resources in order to advance. Unless you plan on doing nothing for the rest of your game once you run out of space, you're also forced into path of eXtermination and military conquest.

Or are you arguing that Civilization games aren't 4X because there are civs that can also win without waging war? Or are you perhaps arguing that playing the game itself isn't compulsory, therefore it's not 4X?

I'm simply saying it's not a 4X game. Simple

 

[Tim_Ward]

Like, all this thread seems to be is a really round about way of complaining that there aren't more victory conditions. Which is a valid criticism. But the blather about 'it's a 4x, all 4x's must have x,y feature or i will cry about it on the official forums' is just daft.

 

[AKjeldsen]

I'm simply saying it's not a 4X game. Simple

It's a 3X game that throws out the utterly tedious final X and replaces it with a grand strategy game. Whether that is successfully executed is another question.

 

[monsterfurby]

You misunderstand me, i don't think somebody is standing there saying "We could add this awesome feature, but we won't HON HON HON ! BAGUETTE!" but considering Paradox business model do you find it unreasonable at all that the game design as a whole from the ground up is built to be compatible with the business model? It makes sense from a business perspective to focus on a select number of features and flesh those out and leave a list of things to be added post-release, that is what i meant with shallow. What is in Stellaris is in general well fleshed out, but it seriously lacks depth and i guarantee you that that depth will arrive in 2 installments of 15 € a piece in the next year.

This may of course only my sympathy for Paradox speaking, but I don't believe they would deliver a sub-par product (or even accept delivery of a sub-par product, as their cancellations of that one RPG the name of which escapes me and the HoI cold war spin-off suggest) purely because some features that would be required for a decent one are locked into their DLC strategy.

That said, I do agree to an extent that a well-running DLC strategy like the one Paradox has in place does lower the barrier to shifting certain features out of scope and focusing on less for the release version. This is not necessarily a conscious process, but I'm willing to bet that this kind of thinking does creep in.

We have seen this in action in EU4 and CK2, where Paradox added requested features in DLC. Expecting all of these features to be in-scope for the vanilla game however seems somewhat unreasonable, although Paradox staff have stated that some of the features found in the DLC were originally removed from the vanilla development plan due to time and budget constraints.

I'm not a developer nor a producer, so I can't even guess which features would have made it into the game if there was no DLC - would Paradox have extended development time? Spent more money on the game? Raised the price point further? Yes, some of the omissions are glaring and surprising (wargoals/peace treaties, to name just one) but others are really not something one would necessarily expect as part of the core game (trade, for example).

But here, again, your mileage may vary, as priorities differ. A lot of the depth will arrive in 2 expansions, but most of it will be delivered via free patches, as we have seen before. Value and price are also very subjective, and to me personally, Stellaris - albeit barely - meets its price point (while CK2 exceeded it many times).

 

[Sparviero]

I'm simply saying it's not a 4X game. Simple

In true, you are saying nothing.

 

[tass]

About the interface:
If after 30 hours you're still not sure as to what the game has to OFFER the game has a too complicated interface. Yes, I do realize that many PDX games fall in this category and I still love them. It's not because it "only" takes 10 hours to be able to know and handle all game mechanics that the game is flawed. If it only takes 10 hours to MASTER the mechanics THEN the game is flawed. This is not the case with Stellaris. The interfacesimply has advantages over other PDX games, tho future features are bound to counteract that in part. Again, which doesn't mean those other games are bad. Sometimes complexity is confused with depth.

About victory conditions:
IMHO a GS game doesn't need victory conditions. You make your own, if you finish the game at all. I've never even hit the end time in Vic2. I'm free to ignore features. I'm ignoring the arbitrary victory conditions. I'll set my own goals, thank you very much.

About the non-constructive, hyperbolic comparison with EA:
If this REALLY were an EA-game it would cost $ 59.99, have NO modding support whatsoever, and these are a few of the DLC you would see, one as a pre-order bonus only and one two months after release:

• Stellaris: Young And Old. $ 29.99. Interact with the youngest of species. Observe them, invade them and if they're pre-sentient you can even uplift them! Watch out for the immensely powerful Fallen Empires. Will you risk their wrath with your domestic policies? Will you band together with other Empires to take them down?
• Stellaris: Halls Of Knowledge. $ 15.99. With this revolutionary new research system every game will be different! No longer be curtailed by a static research tree but have the available technologies be dictated by who you are, what you find, who you kill, what you survey and simple cruel luck!
• Stellaris: Conquer And Divide. $ 15.99. Tired of micro-managing your sprawling Empire? Now you assign planets to sectors! Give them priorities, manage their leaders and reap the rewards!
• Stellaris: Final Frontiers. $ 29.99. Go explore new worlds! Build the new Science Ships and have a bold explorer lead them across the galaxy. Engage in exciting events. Find baffling anomalies. Discover all the stories the galaxy has in store for you!
• Stellaris: Strength Trough Unity. $ 15.99. Band together with your allies and form a powerful Federation! Reap the benefits of the Federation Fleet using all of its members most powerful technology!
• Stellaris: The Oncoming Storm. $ 15.99. Think you've won? Think you're on top of the universe? Think again. Being big, powerful and advanced can be dangerous. Three exciting new end-game crises will require all your wits to defeat them!
• Stellaris: Content Pack 1: $ 19.99. Ten new race portraits, one new fleet and three new traits!

It's absolutely unfair to say that Stellaris is a simple, quick and dirty cash grab. This is Paradox's first foray into 4X, not even a sequel to an earlier of their games, the vanilla version, less than a week after release. And it's already contending with other 4X games that have a whole pedigree, dozens of patches and DLC. I'm not saying Stellaris is better than them, I'm saying it's successfully competing with them.

Stellaris is absolutely, certainly, without a doubt already worth its purchase price.

I'd like to be able to rate this funny But you're nailing it.

Actually not really since there was no deal for 30 bucks that were available to generally everyone and the base price was still 40 bucks. Furthermore EA games are generally 60 bucks on release. And some games do actually have these EA access thing which gives you I believe 10% off everything from the base game to expansions and so on. Also the latest game that EA released has a base edition cost of actually 30 bucks.

Er, yes there was. I will admit I cannot speak for all the market (as I got Stellaris very spontaenously), but:
GreenManGaming: 29.99€ with a special code, available to everyone and advertised in large letters on their front page. For none of the last 4 Pdox grand strategy titles I bought I payed more than 30 bucks. Again however you ignore the fact that I even made clear that my logic would still work at a price of 40€ across the board. Even more so if you assume some users get sales, others don't, and thus argue with (for example) 35 bucks on average.

I just checked, your partially right about the 60 bucks release price with most EA blockbusters. But hey, turns out my estimation of only 30 bucks for the premium package was more than off. So we're having the same end result, you hardly make it below 100€ at release for the "full" package.

EA access is subscription based: 3,99€ a month where I live. So how's that actually contributing to your point here? And dragging in "the latest game that EA released" isn't really fair: You didn't specify which game you meant. But it can hardly be a blockbuster. Thus rendering the comparison unfair. Just because they're milking the customers with their audience, that doesn't mean EA does not occassionally refrain from that business model with low budget or experimental games, to survey or prepare the market. But we're talking blockbusters and general policy here, so that is not really relevant.

But let's look at the worst case and say you can prove to me that they're both equally expensive - that still doesn't put them on one level since, as explained by me and others, the content (and the systematics behind that) of the DLCs is significantly different. Or in other words: Pdox would have to charge way more than EA in my eyes in order to (in a negative sense) draw even with them.

We can agree to disagree, that's the nature of a discussion. But please stop these attempts to torpedo my whole line of argumentation with singular examples, isolated numbers and the like.

 

[Sickness_]

I'm simply saying it's not a 4X game. Simple

You simply could not be more wrong. It has all 4 X's. If you believe they all have to be compulsory for it to be a 4X game then I ask you to name a three 4X games.

 

[mmattinen]

Maybe the take home from this thread is that obsessing over the precise definition of "4x game" and what features those games 'must' always have isn't exactly the most productive use of your time?

Evaluate all games on their own merits, not how they fit in pointless and arbitrary categories like 4x vs grand strategy.

A valid part of evaluating games is comparing them to similar ones or other games in the same genre. This can apply to all sorts of media, not just video games. The point people defending Stellaris in this thread are desperately trying to make is deflecting completely valid criticism and comparisons to games of the same genre, on the silly basis of a lie that Stellaris is not a 4X game when it clearly is one, therefore you supposedly can't criticize its 4X gameplay mechanics.

 

[Zaku]

I'm simply saying it's not a 4X game. Simple

Why?
It has everything a 4x game has.

eXplore: This is one of the strongest points of Stellaris.
eXpand: Also a very important part of the game.
eXploit: You gather resources, you imporve the efficiency of your planets. Also in the game.
eXterminate: Oh yes, the space marine in me is extremely happy.

 

[Vohbo]

I'm simply saying it's not a 4X game. Simple

Well, as others have said, it very obviously IS a 4X game.
I will go one step further, and say that this is far more of a 4X game than Civ 5.
Why ? Because in Civ 5 I can win:
- With limited exploration
- Without expanding at all
- Without extermination

Whereas in Stellaris I need to do all 4. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but this game is about as 4X as it gets. So if you persist in saying: "it's not 4X", you really need to justify your reasoning (unless you are ok with it being disregarded).

 

[Tim_Ward]

A valid part of evaluating games is comparing them to similar ones or other games in the same genre. This can apply to all sorts of media, not just video games. The point people defending Stellaris in this thread are desperately trying to make is deflecting completely valid criticism and comparisons to games of the same genre, on the silly basis of a lie that Stellaris is not a 4X game when it clearly is one, therefore you supposedly can't criticize its 4X gameplay mechanics.

You should criticise game-play mechanics on the basis of whether or not they're good, not whether or not they fit with some platonic ideal of a genre game.

Not least because you end up in some silly semantics argument, not having a meaningful discussion of the merits and problems of the game. Witness this track wreck of a thread.

 

[Sparviero]

Are we talking about the same game here? You're forced to eXplore in order to do anything with star systems. You're forced to eXpand because unlike better 4X, there are no benefits to playing tall in Stellaris. You're forced to eXploit resources in order to advance. Unless you plan on doing nothing for the rest of your game once you run out of space, you're also forced into path of eXtermination and military conquest.

Or are you arguing that Civilization games aren't 4X because there are civs that can also win without waging war? Or are you perhaps arguing that playing the game itself isn't compulsory, therefore it's not 4X?

As is anyone saying it's a 4X game expecting that to be a conclusive statement.

Maybe short argomentation...but honestly you look a bit a troll...so, i think you shouldn't waiting for more.

 

[[Q]uik]

Precisely the way you defined it. We're not arguing about definitions here. I'm saying Stellaris is not a 4X game.

4x is a extremely broad definition - if Star Wars; Empire at War is allowed into this genre, then sure as heck Stellaris is too

 

[monsterfurby]

Folks, seriously? Genre descriptions are worthless unless they serve better communication. They are not a contract to deliver x feature. Discussing whether a game belongs in genre X or Y is nothing other than pseudointellectual masturbation that serves really no purpose.

Just replace whatever genre you think the game is or should be with an actual description of what you think the game is trying to achieve and whether it does so. It would make things so much clearer for everyone involved.

Edit: Quasi-Emu'd by alioli

 

[Sparviero]

Folks, seriously? Genre descriptions are worthless unless they serve better communication. They are not a contract to deliver x feature. Discussing whether a game belongs in genre X or Y is nothing other than pseudointellectual masturbation that serves really no purpose.

Just replace whatever genre you think the game is or should be with an actual description of what you think the game is trying to achieve and whether it does so. It would make things so much clearer for everyone involved.

Edit: Quasi-Emu'd by alioli

Well...actualy also the thread title is ridicolous in a lot of way and different reading levels.

 

[tass]

A valid part of evaluating games is comparing them to similar ones or other games in the same genre. This can apply to all sorts of media, not just video games. The point people defending Stellaris in this thread are desperately trying to make is deflecting completely valid criticism and comparisons to games of the same genre, on the silly basis of a lie that Stellaris is not a 4X game when it clearly is one, therefore you supposedly can't criticize its 4X gameplay mechanics.

I cannot go along with that, at least not entirely. I am going to borrow from academics and genre theory (which obviously is heavily based on other media) here:

True is: Each genre tends to have common identifiers and an expectation of elements included by the audience.
True is also: Many works in a particular genre serve at least a certain proportion of these elements, thus the identification with the genre.
Wrong is: Each work in the genre needs to satisfy all criteria to belong to said genre.
Wrong is also: The amount of genre-typical elements included determines the quality.

Now you will argue: "But this is a game, size, content width and complexity are everything". And funnily enough there's people that say the same applies to films, or even books. But they couldn't be more wrong. The length of a book or a film or even the amount of different elements included does not determine the quality and potential of either. It is the way in which the existing elements are implemented that matters much more.

 

[Ratanka]

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.

we got a 4x game more complicated then any game since long and same time simple to use ... of course they will sell dlc but ea ? ea make a shooter with graphic 3 maps finished ... not even close ...

when your out well ... no one will miss you

the gaming sites i read say its the most complex game with huge ton of stuff and i would say the same ...

 

[minami26]

What if Paradox will just release a patch to fix/improve/re-iterate the features of stellaris.
Stellaris is still 4days in guys. jeezus

OP clearly has no faith in Paradox.

I think thread is mesmerizing as it is informative makes sure stellaris molds into something great.