Wow, this "game" is a sham.

[User4035]

If you have previously bought paradox games then you should know by now that the initial release is essentially an open beta.

I like polished games which is why I wait.

 

[Horrux]

People are still feeding the troll?

I'm enjoying every bit of the game.
Yes, it has problems and a lot of room to grow, but it WILL grow.

I would give a lot of reasons to stop with this whining and trust in Paradox work to turn this great game even better, for no additional costs, but it will be useless.

People like this OP are like "hur dur dis gaem is sahm an 4eva will b".

I see no reason for people to keep feeding this useless post. Don't waste your arguments in this sad hole.

Good night.

So you are enjoying the problems? Not my fault you are masochistic, but don't be calling me dumb for not enjoying the problems.

 

[Pen Name]

Pen's anecdote does nothing to demonstrate that the saying is not applicable in the context of the thread, which has the topic "This game is a sham".
Damned if I'm gonna get called out for bringing the divarication back to the matter at hand.

But this is not good enough.
I didn't pay good money today (well, last month) for "A game that will become great after 2 years of growth and patching", and it is disingenuous of you to characterise people as 'whiner trolls' for having the temerity to expect that a released product would be at of a certain basic quality.

My Sega Genesis games never needed 2 years of patching. I don't quite understand how we have regressed in QC technology over the past 25 years, and I understand even less why some people seem to be defending the slide.

The point is quite simply that unless you can prove that the game is objectively a scam, or objectively false advertising, or objectively unfit for purpose, you have no right to cry 'the customer is always right'. You can complain and criticise, you in fact should if you feel there is a problem, but don't come here with some sanctimonious nonsense about how because you bought the product your criticism is inherently correct and itself immune from criticism.

And you seriously think that games back on early consoles always worked? E.T. the Extraterrestrial: The Game would like a word.

The reason games today release in buggier and more incomplete states than before is caused by two things. Firstly, games are a hell of a lot more complicated that before, and when it comes to PC games the potential list of conflicts and issues is so impossibly immense that you would need to keep the game in QC for years, by which point your company has shrivelled up and died due to the lack of return on your investment. The second is simply due to the fact that patching exists, whereas it didn't back in the day, or at least not at anywhere near the same level as it does today.

People are on the defending side because they think that your 'side' is wrong. Is it really that hard?

 

[kreissig]

Really? Personally, I feel that the universe in Stellaris is much more alive than the Earth in EU4. This is mostly due to all of the really interesting quests.

I have a word document that I've been using as a log of the history of my empire; I've never even considered doing the same for EU4. It's fun to write about my empire discovering ancient shrines to old Gods and then realising that their destiny is written in the stars themselves. It's not quite so interesting writing about the King's tax reforms to keep the economy afloat, or the fact that a meteor scared everybody.

Exactly, look at the story writing that is starting in the multiplayer games on Steam, its not something I've participated in before. In this game, we (the playerbase) can literally create fictional history through our own imagination.

The OP brought up a point about remembering the definitive aliens in other titles that literarily made each game so memorable. I understand his point...really I do. But Stellaris is unique in a new way.

If you think about MOO2 or any such game, its as if you are seeing/playing a fictional novel as a computer game. So you are playing the creation of some author. In Stellaris we have the chance to make up our own memorable alien species for a multiplayer game.

Now.....maybe this is where the disconnect lies. Stellaris is decidedly multiplayer focused, and some of its best attributes are demonstrated in that mode.

 

[Camtheman]

TBH Stellaris is pretty trash, I've posted about major event chains (The Unbidden, Preythorn) not working or advancing.

No meaningful trade mechanic beyond 30 year intervals.

No fleet formations.

I could go on but am too busy playing far superior games such as CK2

 

[Silmarion]

Stellaris has some issues. Enough that I've stopped playing until the 1.1 beta hits. But I've also gotten more than 60 hours of very enjoyable play out of it. Comparing the my $/time ratio with this game, and things like a night at the movies or a AAA title, I could never pick Stellaris up again and still legitimately claim to have gotten more than my money's worth from it

Really, while there are certainly areas for improvement, these sorts of threads are just hyperbolic.

 

[JakeCourtney]

I know it will eventually have the depth and complexity that I want eventually, but I do have to agree that the game was released way too shallow for me. Not sure why they didn't keep this one in development longer.

I had no desire to start another game after my very first one. I had seen the little mechanics all within just a few hours.

Going to take some serious heavy expansions for to pick this up again.

 

[Michael Hunt]

Agree with Silmarion entirely. I've played Stellaris longer than I play most games and so I feel I've already got my money's worth. And if I do shelve it for a while I know that it's good enough that I'll come back to it like I do all Paradox games.

 

[Silmarion]

I know it will eventually have the depth and complexity that I want eventually, but I do have to agree that the game was released way too shallow for me. Not sure why they didn't keep this one in development longer.

I had no desire to start another game after my very first one. I had seen the little mechanics all within just a few hours.

Going to take some serious heavy expansions for to pick this up again.

Because there is always going to be room for improvement, some neat new idea you could add or a system that could use a little more polishing. At some point, if you want to actually release and sell a game, you have to make a deadline and stick to it.

 

[Vexxar]

Pen's anecdote does nothing to demonstrate that the saying is not applicable in the context of the thread, which has the topic "This game is a sham".
Damned if I'm gonna get called out for bringing the divarication back to the matter at hand.

But this is not good enough.
I didn't pay good money today (well, last month) for "A game that will become great after 2 years of growth and patching", and it is disingenuous of you to characterise people as 'whiner trolls' for having the temerity to expect that a released product would be at of a certain basic quality.

My Sega Genesis games never needed 2 years of patching. I don't quite understand how we have regressed in QC technology over the past 25 years, and I understand even less why some people seem to be defending the slide.

Yeah, it's sad that you think the game is not good enough, but this is not the case for a lot of people. Myself included.

I think the game is amazing and I'm pretty happy that it also has a lot of potential, and that Paradox is working hard to address many of the current problems with the community feedback.

I'm not saying that Stellaris is perfect, but I loved it, and so do thousands of people. It's an amazing game. I just can't stand these threads like "HUR DIS BE NO GAEM, DIS B GURBUGE". It's even more sad to see people wasting their times and arguments with someone who clearly won't change their opinion about that.

Anyway. You have valid complains, I respect the fact that you didn't enjoyed the game, and certainly don't look like to be the kind of person that my rant was directed, but sorry about that anyway.

 

[Kardo]

They had LIMITED TIME so that the shareholders could upgrade their yachts with our money for a game that is barely worthy of alpha status.

Paradox currently does not have shareholders.

 

[Pen Name]

Paradox currently does not have shareholders.

But muh anti-consumer conspiracy!

 

[Baalshazar]

I'm here for the anime mods. Aliens (particularly the fungoid) plus anime can surely only lead to great things.

 

[suksas]

I do agree. The fact that we getting mid game events only at the end of june is ridiculous. At this stage I'm playing a MoO clone or better yet a worse version of GalCiv3.
I'm sure Paradox will add more content both free and paid later on. But it's obvious that Stellaris was just a bait to catch thouse who usually ignore these sort of dev's who release early beta version of the game, if not alpha.

 

[JakeCourtney]

Has Paradox not gone public yet?

 

[Kardo]

Has Paradox not gone public yet?

Not yet.

 

[apostrof]

I somewhat agree with OP. Sure they will "fix" it in a couple of months, but you will have to pay more for some dlc-s. Sure they add free stuff with every patch, but in EU4 they took money for features that should be in the game from day one ( Art of War for example ). Also some DLCs you simply had to buy since free patch enabled use of said functions to the AI but the player had to spend 20 bucks to unlock them ( Common sense and province upgrades ). Not to mention how some free patches change certain mechanics of the game completely ( colonies for example ). Crusader Kings is even worse in this regard, they just filled the game with new mechanics and gizmos, while leaving old ones unpolished or changing them completely making CK2, a game I spend a lot of money on, not enjoyable anymore ( for me ).

 

[Silmarion]

I somewhat agree with OP. Sure they will "fix" it in a couple of months, but you will have to pay more for some dlc-s. Sure they add free stuff with every patch, but in EU4 they took money for features that should be in the game from day one ( Art of War for example ). Also some DLCs you simply had to buy since free patch enabled use of said functions to the AI but the player had to spend 20 bucks to unlock them ( Common sense and province upgrades ). Not to mention how some free patches change certain mechanics of the game completely ( colonies for example ). Crusader Kings is even worse in this regard, they just filled the game with new mechanics and gizmos, while leaving old ones unpolished or changing them completely making CK2, a game I spend a lot of money on, not enjoyable anymore ( for me ).

I prefer a variant of Hanlon's razor: "Never ascribe to malice what new ideas cropping up after the fact during 2 years of additional development time will explain"

 

[Grog]

I was offended by their use of "free patch." Are they suggesting they are doing us a favor by patching broken and buggy elements for free? Has there ever in the history of computer gaming been any other kind of patch? Are we supposed to seal clap at their generosity?

I love Paradox but this game, although promising beyond anything released in two decades, was released too soon.

 

[Sanny]

Now.....maybe this is where the disconnect lies. Stellaris is decidedly multiplayer focused, and some of its best attributes are demonstrated in that mode.

Completely agree, the game is fun on multiplayer but with singleplayer everything relating to the AI and diplomacy just feels so wrong. In fact it literally doesn't work half of the time.

For me I'm just fed up of waiting 2 years to see a Paradox game in all its glory, and then ruined again when the original developers are moved on and a new team is moved in to support the game. Example of this is CK2 after Horse Lords.