I hope that Stellaris doesn't follow any of previous scifigames, I hope that it is really something new.
- 12
- 1
Worst space strategy games you've played and why you hope Stellaris won't follow them
- Thread starter Krajzen
- 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.
Simulation and not having trivial or unplayed features, if Paradox can stick to their previous game philosophy centered around those, they should be good. Fun features that are primary, will ease the micro management issue, and the simulation will mean that there is no need for automation or much micro. The AI can run your side as well as it runs every other side, because your mechanics are the same as the AI's mechanics.
Sword of the Stars 2 was definitely the worst of all possible scenarios, horribly reconfigured UI and strategy phase with the slowness of too many cpu cycles eaten and turn based on top. Would have made a great fleet tactics game if they had focused on that.
The game was fundamentally mis designed by Mekron's yes men and women, so even with the funding years later, it didn't really change anything. The fundamental foundation was already cracked.
Sword of the Stars 2 was definitely the worst of all possible scenarios, horribly reconfigured UI and strategy phase with the slowness of too many cpu cycles eaten and turn based on top. Would have made a great fleet tactics game if they had focused on that.
The game was fundamentally mis designed by Mekron's yes men and women, so even with the funding years later, it didn't really change anything. The fundamental foundation was already cracked.
I couldn't agree with this more. Something else that irked me with that game was the massive tech tree almost all of which had so little impact as to be pointless. I find this to be true of way too many space strategies altogether.
- 2
I'm not really worried about Stellaris being bad. Everything points to it being a good game. But I am honestly worried about it being too similar to Distant Worlds, and really not any better. We'll see.
- 1
My two concerns are micromanagement and trade. However, since having less than the small amount of knowledge we have about them now would likely be more accurate than our current impressions, I'm not particularly worried. Paradox is a good dev studio, and they typically know what the fan base wants.
I agree that the combat in that game was repetitive and not exciting, but it's at least visually pleasing. It's not that much different than two knight models whacking each other or infantry models shooting at each other. Besides, you can always just skip the combat animation.
Long Range Kinetic was sooo damn good in that game... despite how the AI mostly favored Kinetic defense.
But you can skip the combat sequence in Endless Space after choosing your combat tactics cards.
- 2
- 1
- 1
MOO2 was a good game for its time but I would not hold it in a very high regard if it was remade with better graphics today.
MOO3 was a good game in concept but the UI made it hard to play, some decent good ideas there though.
One really bad game in my opinion is GalCiv3... at least in its current state. Space Combat are extremely predictable and imbalanced, micromanagement of certain elements and the economy system is broken. It simply kill the fun of the rest of the game.
StarDrive 2 is a decent game but fail in that it has a fun ship design concept which the AI can't use. The main feature of the game and the AI are completely oblivious to it which make the AI totally broken in ship combat past the early game.
Endless Space is a good game but to me it feel a bit soulless and more like a spreadsheet game.
SotS 2 was in concept a very good game but its execution not so brilliant. It is a playable game but AI still lack in certain areas a bit too much.
Distant Worlds is a great game but what breaks it for me is that ship design is all about the biggest and newest toys and there are very little tactics in ship combat and design. At least in Stellaris design will matter and we will get to see how they work in combat. I presume it will be similar to ship combat in HoI but with prettier graphics.
Horizon was a total let down... I followed the development for that game nearly ten years and asked many questions about how they intended handling economy, snowballing effects, diplomacy and many different things. Answers was always positive but execution was the opposite. Ship design is very bland and boring for a tactical combat game. I even believe Stellaris will have better ship design despite not having any tactical ship combat.
My best 4x memories comes from MOO1/2, Ascendancy, Imperium Galactica, Stars!, SotS1, Aurora and Distant Worlds... the common denominator here, I think, are that they all differ from each other in several ways and to some extent were ground breaking for their day.
In my opinion any 4x game that is mainly about galaxy conquest and that include tactical ship combat are always destined to fail because they quickly become boring to play with too little to do between wars. All the things you do is only to gear your civilization into the next war and any tactical combat just make game balance worse and turn the game into several games in one package.
The worst thing about almost ALL game in this category is the almost linear progression forward, it is so boring.
It might also be my tastes that have changed over the years and I'm a more mature gamer and feel less urges to wage war as my main goal to have fun. I want an interactive environment that react to what decisions I make. I don't want a soulless population that follow my every command like robots. I want people to be enraged if I obliterate an enemy planet from space just because they care about such matters (or if I don't). I want internal politics to matter and empire management to be an important part of the game not just the next conquest.
All this put a higher focus on things other than the military and the means to wage war. Space combat will always be an important part of any space strategy game but should not be the main focus. The main focus should be to explore space and manage a civilization and make that interesting. That is the kind of game that I like to play. I still enjoy the military side of it all but not to the exclusion of politics, economy and ethics.
MOO3 was a good game in concept but the UI made it hard to play, some decent good ideas there though.
One really bad game in my opinion is GalCiv3... at least in its current state. Space Combat are extremely predictable and imbalanced, micromanagement of certain elements and the economy system is broken. It simply kill the fun of the rest of the game.
StarDrive 2 is a decent game but fail in that it has a fun ship design concept which the AI can't use. The main feature of the game and the AI are completely oblivious to it which make the AI totally broken in ship combat past the early game.
Endless Space is a good game but to me it feel a bit soulless and more like a spreadsheet game.
SotS 2 was in concept a very good game but its execution not so brilliant. It is a playable game but AI still lack in certain areas a bit too much.
Distant Worlds is a great game but what breaks it for me is that ship design is all about the biggest and newest toys and there are very little tactics in ship combat and design. At least in Stellaris design will matter and we will get to see how they work in combat. I presume it will be similar to ship combat in HoI but with prettier graphics.
Horizon was a total let down... I followed the development for that game nearly ten years and asked many questions about how they intended handling economy, snowballing effects, diplomacy and many different things. Answers was always positive but execution was the opposite. Ship design is very bland and boring for a tactical combat game. I even believe Stellaris will have better ship design despite not having any tactical ship combat.
My best 4x memories comes from MOO1/2, Ascendancy, Imperium Galactica, Stars!, SotS1, Aurora and Distant Worlds... the common denominator here, I think, are that they all differ from each other in several ways and to some extent were ground breaking for their day.
In my opinion any 4x game that is mainly about galaxy conquest and that include tactical ship combat are always destined to fail because they quickly become boring to play with too little to do between wars. All the things you do is only to gear your civilization into the next war and any tactical combat just make game balance worse and turn the game into several games in one package.
The worst thing about almost ALL game in this category is the almost linear progression forward, it is so boring.
It might also be my tastes that have changed over the years and I'm a more mature gamer and feel less urges to wage war as my main goal to have fun. I want an interactive environment that react to what decisions I make. I don't want a soulless population that follow my every command like robots. I want people to be enraged if I obliterate an enemy planet from space just because they care about such matters (or if I don't). I want internal politics to matter and empire management to be an important part of the game not just the next conquest.
All this put a higher focus on things other than the military and the means to wage war. Space combat will always be an important part of any space strategy game but should not be the main focus. The main focus should be to explore space and manage a civilization and make that interesting. That is the kind of game that I like to play. I still enjoy the military side of it all but not to the exclusion of politics, economy and ethics.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
That would be the exact opposite of realistic though. If human history has shown us anything, it's about constant consolidation. 600 years ago Europe was covered with small to medium sized states. Now? It's dominated by large consolidated nations. In another 100 years the current nations within Europe may be states within a European federation.
If anything, the AI should be hardcoded to blob, either through military or through diplomacy and culture.
Think EU4 ottoman rampage vs Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth. If the AI blobs, then that represents a healthy AI. All that needs to happen is the galaxy to remain dynamic. The PLC can break up. A new more motivated military power can dethrone the Ottomans. Stability shouldn't be permanent.
- 5
- 3
Take away the Holy Roman Empire and Europe is far more balkanized now than it ever was back in the day. Also see: 1800s-1900s Europe.
- 5
- 4
I loved Master of Orion 2 because there were truly different approaches one could take. Customizing race and ships was also fun. Again the choices really mattered. More recent games don't have this depth of meaningful choices. I have fond memories of figuring out and perfecting truly different strategies. Balance wasn't great.
Sword of the Stars 1 was also fun. The end game disasters were entertaining. Ship and fleet customization was excellent. Graphics and art were good and really set the atmosphere. It still felt a bit bland in the same way some parts of EU IV feel bland compared to Civilization.
Sword of the Stars 1 was also fun. The end game disasters were entertaining. Ship and fleet customization was excellent. Graphics and art were good and really set the atmosphere. It still felt a bit bland in the same way some parts of EU IV feel bland compared to Civilization.
What I hear you saying is you want aliens to eat your face.
- 3
A few people mentioned SoTS II, and they should be aware that it is one that was named as an inspiration for Stellaris. While I, personally think it will glean the good, and avoid the bad - which was mostly bad AI and overly abstracted planetary management.
So, does that mean that the general outline of SoTS and SoTS II are radically differing in conceptual framework? Or are they quite similar? ie....three section hulls, limited hull sizes - and just variations within the sections. I'm personally not aware as to how well the AI functioned in the first iteration, nor do I know if the planetary management was any more complex, but I suspect not.
You must also know that Paradox took on the troublesome SoTS II toward the end there...don't you?
I always wind up liking the idea of strategy/4X games and then get it and then wind up being aggressively uninterested. I've tried Civ 5, Endless Legend, GC, EU and got bored and quit soon thereafter. The only game vaguely like this I can play is CK2. Which I play a lot. Because it has some hook that makes it different, for CK2 it's the character/family angle obviously that's not gonna be present in Stellaris but hopefully it also has some hook in conjunction with the 4X stuff so that I don't hemorrhage interest within the first 42 seconds.
Birth of the Federation. It's horribly unbalanced, bug-riddled and a graphical disaster, but I still play it because it's the only Star Trek 4X.
- 2
i have played alot of space games, i dont dislike them, though they fall short of what they could have been, and never filled my taste with them...
i could list them but it be to long so ill summarize the common ones:
- Gal Civ series
- Sins solar empire series
- star drive series
- FTL
- predestination
to list as the most common ones, and fr me im watching stellaris because it may be something worth getting and wont disappoint me, but that remains to be seen with ship building and designs DD that is yet to come out
i could list them but it be to long so ill summarize the common ones:
- Gal Civ series
- Sins solar empire series
- star drive series
- FTL
- predestination
to list as the most common ones, and fr me im watching stellaris because it may be something worth getting and wont disappoint me, but that remains to be seen with ship building and designs DD that is yet to come out
MOO3, like an insanely hot girlfriend that is completely crazy and eats only gluten-free wallpaper paste and insists elves are real, I tried to love it despite all its flaws but in the end just gave up.
BotF was also bugged, had a memory leak and just not fun.
Both development teams would benefit from some Singaporean caning as a educational and motivational experience.
BotF was also bugged, had a memory leak and just not fun.
Both development teams would benefit from some Singaporean caning as a educational and motivational experience.
- 7
- 1