I've never experienced a "crippling" bug in any iteration of Stellaris and your use of this word is misleading in my opinion.
Understanding strange attitude of Paradox loyalists
- Thread starter Alzara
- Start date
-
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.
I've never experienced a "crippling" bug in any iteration of Stellaris and your use of this word is misleading in my opinion.
Everyone that have been playing paradox games for years know about the bugs, is a cycle, a new dlc or patch came out, new features are added, sometimes so many that are not completely tested before release, then people report the problems in the forums and bug section, a fix is release by paradox, then we all continue with our lifes until the next patch.
Thats why I for example don't play Ironman games, because I know that this games are not bug free, also I don't enjoy that "harcore" thing of no save game, or if you lose you just lose... but that just me
Other people just wait a few days to see if the games is ok or not for playing after a new release and that is...
I agree 100%. Personally, I detest iron man, and I don't need achievements to compare my e-p**** to other people. These games are so complex that even in their final version, strange bugs still appear. Delicate use of the console rights these wrongs without breaking the game to my advantage, maximizing the fun.
Crippling like destroys gameplay. Yeah maybe it is a somewhat strong word. But sector Ai was a massive problem for a while for example. The late Ai not declaring war bug etc. All things that essentially prevent a decent or fair play-through. So yeah that's kinda what I meant by crippling. Not a hard crash just a game breaking issue.
Good point they do seem very open to the community.
Last edited by a moderator:
I kinda disagree here. Referring back to the CA forums from 7 or 8 years ago, people were foaming at the mouth because Empire was such a trainwreck. It was a great game ruined by some horrible bugs, which infuriated people all the more when CA threw their hands up in the air and left it up to community patches to try and fix things.
The majority of people on that forum and in the Total War Center Forums were not there to praise CA, even before CA threw in the towel. There were maybe 2 or 3 people that were actively defending CA. That mess is actually what led me to EU3, and I could never go back.
OP... you basically are describing the Windows Operating System. Except Microsoft employs thousands more people, has billions of more dollars, millions of more users, and is the underlying foundation for things that are vital to modern society (like power stations, traffic control, financial systems).
Makes Paradox kinda... well... not as bad...
Makes Paradox kinda... well... not as bad...
.png){kind=avatar}
I don't think I would ever defend Paradox's 'development protocols." I think of Paradox as a company that makes fantastic, unique games which unfortunately also don't work very well. I remember a couple years back inviting some friends to play a Paradox game that had just come out and they basically laughed at me and said they would consider it if we waited a year for the bugs to get worked out. This reputation is, sadly, not entirely undeserved.
And yet, and yet. I think about all the other 4X games where everything is focused entirely on production, tech, and conquest, and all anybody ever fights over is territory. The ethics and policies in this game, and all of the factions and warfare options built around them, give Stellaris a life that no other game I've ever played in the space strategy genre comes even close to. It just feels alive. Those other games feel dead now, even if they have superior AI and superior QA.
And yet, and yet. I think about all the other 4X games where everything is focused entirely on production, tech, and conquest, and all anybody ever fights over is territory. The ethics and policies in this game, and all of the factions and warfare options built around them, give Stellaris a life that no other game I've ever played in the space strategy genre comes even close to. It just feels alive. Those other games feel dead now, even if they have superior AI and superior QA.
My mom runs windows on a virus riddled toaster and it drives me crazy how slow it is. I'm sure if I used a credit card on her computer Kim Jong Un would be using it to buy pokeballs for Pokémon Go within a few minutes.
Which Raises a funny thought...do you think there are any Pokémon in The DPRK?
I think it boils down to
1) Does the game have an engaging story?
2) Do the bugs detract enough from the game?
Stellaris tells a good, engaging story. The question is, do the faults break the game for you?
CA Total War Empire had a good story, but the more you got into it, the more it broke the story. I feel a lot of the difference is the world is always the same in most historical games. A game like CIV or Stelaris has the advantage of a new world every game, so there is still that unknown every new game vs the known of historical setting games.
1) Does the game have an engaging story?
2) Do the bugs detract enough from the game?
Stellaris tells a good, engaging story. The question is, do the faults break the game for you?
CA Total War Empire had a good story, but the more you got into it, the more it broke the story. I feel a lot of the difference is the world is always the same in most historical games. A game like CIV or Stelaris has the advantage of a new world every game, so there is still that unknown every new game vs the known of historical setting games.
Really? Because Stellaris feels remarkably stale to me. Go play Distant Worlds and tell me that Stellaris is alive.
Well....the game is not literally unplayable. Even if it were...I trust them to fix the bugs because they earned my trust over countless CK2 and EU III/ IV patches and DLC.
The world does not stop to turn if a budged patch makes playing the game unenjoyable for a week or two. So I don't whine about it. People who do act like little spoiled kids in my eyes.
By the way: Insulting the devs over bugs will not get problems fixed faster. On the contrary it will lower motivation.
The world does not stop to turn if a budged patch makes playing the game unenjoyable for a week or two. So I don't whine about it. People who do act like little spoiled kids in my eyes.
By the way: Insulting the devs over bugs will not get problems fixed faster. On the contrary it will lower motivation.
Like @Adantigus said, other turn based strategy games just feel like they always devolve into a territory grab. I really tried to like Civ 5, but I find it remarkably underwhelming. It just feels too much like a board game ported into a PC game, and the end game always seems to devolve into at least one civ going on the warpath, eating everyone else.
I used to have this criticism of EU4, but I just finished playing a remarkably fun "tall" Savoy campaign. It's nice not having to devour everyone in sight in order to win.
I've thought about it, but it looks awfully micromanagement heavy. Even Stellaris is too micro intensive for my tastes.
Someone spoofed the GPS to make the game think their phone was in NK. They got some interesting results:
http://www.thepokeden.com/single-post/2016/08/28/Here’s-What-Pokemon-Go-Looks-Like-In-North-Korea
Actually, Distant Worlds comes almost completely automated. I mean it.
Slowly toggling the automation off and taking the reins is a lot of fun. You quickly learn what you like and dislike doing yourself, and just toggle automation of certain features on/off at your pleasure.
If you buy it, there's actually a somewhat entertaining walkthrough on playing under total player control. Shoot me a pm and I'll send you the link.
How unsurprisingly strange and creepy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting. I'll have to take another look. At the very least, it will give me something to pass the time until the next major content patch comes out.
Stellaris has much more developed exploration and a far more robust events system. And DW doesnt really even take a stab at politics other than general happiness and certain racial preferences.
you can actually pretty much have your empire run by AI in Distant Worlds. The original idea is that you could even just focus on being a fleet admiral or captain of individual ship while your race developed on its own initiative. The gameplay isn't quite there for it, but you can still do it. It is also a very interesting comparison on how a game can avoid doomstacking.
I find agreement with your post, but this "niche market" isn't really so small. Stellaris is a 4X game that competes with the likes of Civilization, Galactic Civilizations (especially), Endless Space, and many other 4X franchises. This market isn't no small market, and Stellaris currently is the "PlayerUnknownBattlegrounds" of the 4X genre. Which is a good thing.
Would you like the clear, unvarnished truth, my young student?
I'm just here for the Victoria, and I will support every single game Paradox creates in order to show my desire for the continuation of the Victoria.
When Victoria is declared dead, my support might die with it, or so I would have said once upon a time.
But now I have Stellaris, so things may have changed.
I'm just here for the Victoria, and I will support every single game Paradox creates in order to show my desire for the continuation of the Victoria.
When Victoria is declared dead, my support might die with it, or so I would have said once upon a time.
But now I have Stellaris, so things may have changed.
Sorry but when I think of sycophantic fans o think of magic the gathering or game of thrones not paradox