Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

I don't get why so many people don.t like paradox. I have a min. wage job with kids, the games are not expensive. =/

The games are not expensive, until you factor in the whole sections of the game locked away by hundreds of quid worth of DLC

[Greenbane]

It's only really expensive if you never ever wait for a sale, which are far from uncommon.

I don't play Paradox games all the time, so I rarely buy anything at launch price. I'd have to be playing a specific one and have a DLC come out at the time for me to consider buying it right then. It's rare.

[motorbitch]

I don't get why so many people don.t like paradox. I have a min. wage job with kids, the games are not expensive. =/

its not the price. they murdered sots2, i will hate them forever. its a personal thing.

[USEC_OFFICER]

Paradox only published SotS2 though. I don't see how they could have murdered the game when Kerberos Productions did a fine job of that on their own.

[Culise]

It's not uncommon to see people blame Paradox for pushing it to release instead of giving the developers an extra six months to a year gratis.  My only thought on that is that, when Kerberos was given their six months to a year after release to clean up and patch it into a working state, including free DLC, they only at most managed to reach a state of thorough mediocrity.  It's similar to people who blame them for taking East Versus West or Magna Mundi out back and putting them down like Ol' Yeller, even now that we know what state both games were in when Paradox finally pulled the plug.

[Majestic7]

Regarding Magna Mundi and such, I think Paradox was great at giving amateurs a chance to begin with. Unfortunately project management is actually hard and doing big stuff within budget constraints is very hard. Just look at how many kickstarts fail for similar reasons.

It is a shame that SotSII went to shit but that was all on Kerberos. I think they had a critical team member fall seriously ill or something like that. I'm glad they patched the game to a working condition and I actually enjoyed playing it after the free DLC. Still, it is sort of a Game That Could Have Been had it worked otherwise.

[USEC_OFFICER]

From what I've played/read about SotS2, I can't imagine why anyone would blame Paradox for the condition of the game. Some of the crashes and AI problems were probably due to rushing the game out, though as you've mentioned they didn't improve much after Kerberos had time to patch it. But you can't blame Paradox for the fundamental design decisions which made SotS2 terrible to play nor for the way that the people at Kerberos acted towards those who complained about their game.

[Draignean]

I don't get why so many people don.t like paradox. I have a min. wage job with kids, the games are not expensive. =/

its not the price. they murdered sots2, i will hate them forever. its a personal thing.

Believe me, I empathize. I love SotS I to death, and I've bought the complete collection for at least half a dozen people JUST so I can guilt them into playing with me. It's a damn fine game.

That said, it's not Paradox's fault that II flopped. Kerberos overextended and ended up in a situation where they could either go bankrupt or release the game in a slapdash state. For obvious reasons, they did the later. It was an unfortunate situation, but the guilt isn't with Paradox. It's sad and regrettable, but it's not a Fox and Firefly scenario.

Granted, I don't know how Paradox could publish SotS and then make Stellaris' combat, technology, and shipbuilding system without feeling a vast sense of inferiority.

[Cruxador]

It's not uncommon to see people blame Paradox for pushing it to release instead of giving the developers an extra six months to a year gratis.  My only thought on that is that, when Kerberos was given their six months to a year after release to clean up and patch it into a working state, including free DLC, they only at most managed to reach a state of thorough mediocrity.  It's similar to people who blame them for taking East Versus West or Magna Mundi out back and putting them down like Ol' Yeller, even now that we know what state both games were in when Paradox finally pulled the plug.

What state was EvW in? I remember the drama explosion when Magna Mundi was canceled, but all I remember of EvW's cancelation was a lot of people being disappointed.

[Dunamisdeos]

I don't get why so many people don.t like paradox. I have a min. wage job with kids, the games are not expensive. =/

its not the price. they murdered sots2, i will hate them forever. its a personal thing.

Between this and the previous page, I feel like you kind of just hate them, which likely had one hell of an impact on your willingness to play the game when you tried it out.

I don't buy EA games. I also don't buy Ubisoft games. I don't like getting effed over by them, so I avoid them. It's as simple as that for me.

I am considering buying Ubisoft again because they announced X4. I sure won't be pre-ordering it.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I think my biggest gripe with Stellaris is A.) how high stakes warfare is, and B.) how rarely it happens. I have only ever had the AI declare war on my nation TWICE across every game of Stellaris I've played and it was some cede half your space to me type deal both times.

Now, Star Ruler (the original, not the 2nd which I hate, but everyone else loves) and Distant Worlds did it right. In Star Ruler, war just goes on for ever and ever, and it's just this constant battle of roving fleets and superweapons jockeying for position and strategic advantage. Likewise, in Distant Worlds you can have tons of low-intensity warfare. Raiding. Border Skirmishes. You had the big fleet actions too, but it was more nuanced.

My two cents is that there needs to be 100x more low-intensity conflict.

[da_nang]

My two cents is that there needs to be 100x more low-intensity conflict.

Little green Blorgs?

[Culise]

It's not uncommon to see people blame Paradox for pushing it to release instead of giving the developers an extra six months to a year gratis.  My only thought on that is that, when Kerberos was given their six months to a year after release to clean up and patch it into a working state, including free DLC, they only at most managed to reach a state of thorough mediocrity.  It's similar to people who blame them for taking East Versus West or Magna Mundi out back and putting them down like Ol' Yeller, even now that we know what state both games were in when Paradox finally pulled the plug.

What state was EvW in? I remember the drama explosion when Magna Mundi was canceled, but all I remember of EvW's cancelation was a lot of people being disappointed.

The game itself was...ah, unfinished would be putting it mildly.  I cited those two rather than Runemaster because both EvW and Magna Mundi were actually leaked, so we know what the games looked like fairly close to the time development ended.  For EvW, multiplayer was completely broken.  Diplomacy and espionage were both unfinished; the AI was non-functional and peace treaties were completely broken in the former, while failure was literally not an option for the latter.  Apparently, supply production (and by extension logistics) were also broken, and game crashes and other bugs abounded.  I think the forum reaction regarding EvW was muted by the fact that it was starting to become expected as delays stacked up and ideas of a public buy-in beta or releasing with multiplayer removed began to float around. 

[Mephansteras]

I think my biggest gripe with Stellaris is A.) how high stakes warfare is, and B.) how rarely it happens. I have only ever had the AI declare war on my nation TWICE across every game of Stellaris I've played and it was some cede half your space to me type deal both times.

Huh, I've been attacked numerous times in several play-throughs. Heck, in my current game there have been two huge galactic wars between multiple groups of empires as a single war would cause other empires to declare war on someone already involved in a war until everyone was participating in at least two conflicts. They lasted decades and often ended with limited successes on one side or another simply because everyone had too many war fronts to deal with.

It's been awesome.

Although I'd love to see more low-grade conflict like raids and the like without it having to be full-on conquest/liberation wars.

I think I've seen...maybe one war that was simply to humiliate an opponent? More of those would probably be good. Cheap warscore and destabilizes an opponent, but the AI almost never goes for it.

[Sirus]

Oh they go for humiliation plenty. The problem is that they stack it along with a ton of cede planet demands that almost never work out, so it ends in a white peace more often than not.