Print

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

[Criptfeind]

I kinda agree with Cruxador. It's weird. I can't straight up say "I think stellaris is a bad game." Because I've got 71 hours in it.

I never understood this sentiment. Some times you need dozens or hundreds of hours - especially in a GSG or a Stellaris-type game - just to finish one game, or to figure out how everything works. It takes that long just to find out how the game works. You're not even qualified to say if Stellaris is a good game or not for probably 50 hours.

I think it's a difference in priority when critiquing something. When I wrote that I wasn't trying to (and I'm still not really) trying to do some real in depth analysis of stellaris and how "good it is" my priority is, was it worth the money I spent, can I recommend it to people? The money for time spent thing is why the hours are important. If a game has a good 50 hours but then gets boring, but it's five bucks, even if after playing 300 hours you could say it's a technically bad game I don't think that'd be fair to it. It would be certainly worth the money spent... Which sorta makes it a good game? Despite the reservations about it? Maybe? That at least seems like a reasonable thought to me. Stellaris I'm not totally sure on that front. I spent 40ish bucks on it and got 71 hours. That's a pretty fair ratio to me. Sure, only about 20 of those hours were really good. And maybe another 20 enjoyable. And the last thirty were a bit sourer, but they were at least worth my time (otherwise I wouldn't have put them in) so can I really say it failed in it's ultimate objective of entertaining me for an amount of time relative to the money I spent on it? From that perspective even if I think it has many many failings can I call it bad? Maybe from a critical stand point if I was trying to be a critic. But I'm not, I'm just thinking about if I could recommend it.

[Chiefwaffles]

I think time is a meaningless way to describe whether a game is worth money. Sure, you can say "Wow! I paid $10 for 100 hours of gameplay!" but you should really just say "Did I enjoy this game? Was $10 worth my net enjoyment?"
I've gladly paid $60 for short games without regret, and there are plenty of games I've played a lot of that I wouldn't recommend. Why try to quantify something that's so fundamentally completely emotion-based?
I'd definitely recommend Stellaris personally, with the caveat that it can be shallow at times and you don't always have something to do.


Also different voices for the Advisor is the best feature ever made for a Paradox game. I was skeptical at first but my god are the advisors great. They each just have so much charm to it. Like the Egalitarian voice. Or Xenophile. Or Authoritarian. Or Pacifist. They're all so great! Even when droning out their version of EVADING HOSTILE FLEET EVADING HOSTEVADING HOSTILE FLEVADING HOEVADING HOSTILE FLEETSTILE FLEET they still ooze with personality.

[ZeroGravitas]

I'm very much a for fun kind of guy, to the point that my biggest issue with EUIV is that it feels too much like a game compared to the character-based CKII or simulationist Vicky.

So I definitely think I'll pick it up come the holidays. Any DLC I need? A cursory examination tells me Utopia lets me be the Borg and/or Space Hitler, Leviathans unlocks giant space jellyfish, and the other one is about robots or something. I remember EUIV and Vicky 2 are severely worse without expansions; are any of these DLCs needed for the proper Stellaris experience, or can I get by fine on vanilla?

Well no, Utopia doesn't let you be "Borg" - that's Synthetic Dawn. And it's definitely the best one to get.

Utopia doesn't add too many features that aren't in Synthetic Dawn or that aren't actually free at the time of the Utopia patch.

Even less reason to buy Utopia:

Ascension Perks
Ascension Perks were added in Utopia as the paid component to the Tradition system to create a set of interesting choices for the player to take as they went through the Tradition tree, choosing between simple but powerful bonuses and more elaborate 'unlocks' such as the ascension paths and Megastructures. However, since then we have noticed that this is a system we keep wanting to build on (for example by adding unique Ascension Perks for Machine Empires as we did in Synthetic Dawn), and found the requirement to depend all of this on Utopia too limiting. For this reason, in the Cherryh update, we are going to make the basic Ascension Perks such as Mastery of Nature, Defender of the Galaxy and so on free for everyone. Biological/Psionic/Synthetic Ascension Paths and Megastructure Ascension Perks (including Habitats) will still require Utopia and Machine Empire Ascension Perks will naturally still require Synthetic Dawn (but not Utopia). The core system itself however, will become part of the base game, so everyone will be able to get at least the basic set of Ascension Perks even if they don't own a single piece of DLC.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-94-ascension-perks-surveying-in-cherryh.1054985/

[Cruxador]

I kinda agree with Cruxador. It's weird. I can't straight up say "I think stellaris is a bad game." Because I've got 71 hours in it.

I never understood this sentiment. Some times you need dozens or hundreds of hours - especially in a GSG or a Stellaris-type game - just to finish one game, or to figure out how everything works. It takes that long just to find out how the game works. You're not even qualified to say if Stellaris is a good game or not for probably 50 hours.

You do not have to play for 50 hours to know if you're enjoying a game, regardless of genre. A well designed game keeps you in the fun zone for most of your play time, not just briefly at the very end. If you are playing the game and not having fun for the majority of your time, you probably don't like it and I don't know why you would continue.

I disagree with this. Different games are different. I play the Dominions series, and someone recently complained to me that after 22 hours, he didn't feel like he understood how to play. That's an extreme case and I think 50 hours is higher than you're likely to need for Stellaris, but different games take different amounts of time to get into. Depending on the game and your personality, games are often not fun until you understand them. Furthermore, with games that employ a narrative structure (whether that's an actual narrative or simply an implication of narrative like the one commonly built into strategy games via tech advancement) you often have an early buildup to a dramatic payoff. The building may be less enjoyable to you, but is necessary for the sake of the payoff, and you can't say if you've enjoyed the whole without both of those parts. Crossing the streams a bit, in the anime thread, there was a fellow complaining that a particular character was an asshole who never really got his comeuppance - but had watched only part of the series and in the very next episode, that character got his comeuppance. Bringing this back to Stellaris, the early game feels like a build-up to the mid-game, and it's boring but has elements of interest which at least make you think Stellaris could be a fun game once you really get into the swing of things. And then you get to the midgame, and it's still boring and now there are lots interesting things going on but now you've gotten into ascension and might be starting to hear whispers of the crises so it feels like you're building up to the late game. But then you get there and it's not that great either but you've been playing this long so you see it through. And then it's pretty much over so you set the game aside and see that you've spent 50 all day playing it, so you must have really enjoyed it.

[Sirus]

Question: is there any point in continuing to play single-planet tall when you have six inhabitable worlds within four hyper jumps of your homworld, along with another world with primitives, and all within a single, defensible cul-de-sac?

Related question: is there any way for a robotic, machine consciousness empire to take possession of an inhabited world without killing off all the natives? Say, enlightening them into a vassal and then merging them into my own empire but leaving the organic pops in peace.

[EnigmaticHat]

My fear would be that they would become a machine consciousness vassal and then purge themselves.  All you could really do is get a vassal or tributary (depending on which one you want), then give them any planets you obtain.  If you're playing tall anyways you might as well just build an observation post and study them for science.

Alternatively, you could... purge them by driving them away.  Although its vaguely implied that a lot of people die when you do that, and AFAIK even if the galaxy is full of havens some of the pops won't make it.  In my most recent game I was bringing xenophobic authoritarian butterflies the human institution of DEMOCRACY when a hive mind enforced their wargoal and took all the worlds I was trying to take.  Which I then realized meant they were going to kill all of them

Fortunately some of them arrived at my worlds.  I had been trying to attract other-climate immigrants for a while so I could colonize different worlds, but none came.  Guess the only way the aliens would come is if they had nowhere to go.  The Rutherians (butterfly people) used to have 7 worlds.  Looking at the species list, there are now 50 Rutherian pops left.  That... seems a bit low.  By my estimation that's between 33-50% of them made it to safety, counting the 2 planets that weren't hive minded.  And this is in a galaxy full of democratic havens eager to take refugees in.  On the plus side, I've discovered two uncolonized wings of the galaxy, so my Rutherians will get to build anew on other worlds.  And then invite their families over because building a colony ship doesn't actually use the pop.

[StagnantSoul]

Problem with that plan is you can't give vassals planets anymore. Thanks Aspec.

[Sirus]

Part of the issue is that they are Early Space Age primatives, and the other part is that they are located within my nice little defensive perimeter. They could nuke themselves into extinction, but they could also advance enough to become a new empire, in uncomfortably close quarters with my own. I'll need to deal with them somehow, some way. I'd rather not purge them all - I'm playing as a race of thinking AI trying to solve the mysteries of the universe, not as xenocidal warbots - but I also don't want to leave a potential rival deep inside my borders.

[EnigmaticHat]

IME single planet countries that emerge midgame (through liberation or enlightenment) never amount to anything.  So I wouldn't worry about it.  The most important thing you could do is have no gaps inside your own borders, that way they can't fuck with you by colonizing/building frontier outposts within your own space.

[Teneb]

You could uplift them and keep them as a protectorate for that sweet +1 influence.

[BurnedToast]

Most of the new features in both DLC ...  are just "for fun"

Fun is kind of the point, though. The problem is that they're not enough to actually be fun.

Yeah, sorry I was not very clear. What I mean is they don't actually add to the gameplay, it's just something you can do because it amuses you or whatever. Like for example, plantoid DLC. Making your race plantoids (instead of humanoid or whatever) does not do anything. It does not help you, it does not hurt you, it does not add new interesting challenges or anything. It's just something you can do if you want.

Most of the additions in the DLCs are the same. Yeah, you can make megastructures, but they don't add anything to the gameplay (except maybe rushing habs but even then probably not) - they come too late and are generally not worth the cost. They don't help you win, they don't help the AI win, they don't add meaningful decisions to the game... it's just another greeble tacked on to make the game look more complex. Ascension perks, a lot of the new race options, etc... it's all the same. It's just something you can do that does not actually make any real difference to the core game.

That's not to say "for fun" stuff is bad, or even never worth buying, just that I feel like they are charging "gameplay DLC" price for what is, essentially, fancy cosmetic DLC.

Also yes - if you play to RP or screw around whatever things might have a different value to you. My perspective is playing the game as a game that I'm trying to win. Maybe that's the "wrong" way to play a paradox game, but that's how I'm valuing it.

[Mephansteras]

I'd disagree with Ascension perks. They do have meaningful gameplay effects and which ones you take (and when) can be an important decision to make depending on what strategy you are playing. They may not be deep decisions, but they are certainly more impactful then megastructures or plantoids.

[StagnantSoul]

Most of the new features in both DLC ...  are just "for fun"

Fun is kind of the point, though. The problem is that they're not enough to actually be fun.

Yeah, sorry I was not very clear. What I mean is they don't actually add to the gameplay, it's just something you can do because it amuses you or whatever. Like for example, plantoid DLC. Making your race plantoids (instead of humanoid or whatever) does not do anything. It does not help you, it does not hurt you, it does not add new interesting challenges or anything. It's just something you can do if you want.

Most of the additions in the DLCs are the same. Yeah, you can make megastructures, but they don't add anything to the gameplay (except maybe rushing habs but even then probably not) - they come too late and are generally not worth the cost. They don't help you win, they don't help the AI win, they don't add meaningful decisions to the game... it's just another greeble tacked on to make the game look more complex. Ascension perks, a lot of the new race options, etc... it's all the same. It's just something you can do that does not actually make any real difference to the core game.

That's not to say "for fun" stuff is bad, or even never worth buying, just that I feel like they are charging "gameplay DLC" price for what is, essentially, fancy cosmetic DLC.

Also yes - if you play to RP or screw around whatever things might have a different value to you. My perspective is playing the game as a game that I'm trying to win. Maybe that's the "wrong" way to play a paradox game, but that's how I'm valuing it.

That sounds like a horrible waste of time if you're -only- playing to win...

[EnigmaticHat]

I mean there are a lot of games out there that are fun with that mindset.

But its the developer that made CK2, the game where past a certain point the only limit on your ability to conquer and raid is the tedium.  So I always approach their games with a mix of RP and try-hard.

[BurnedToast]

I'd disagree with Ascension perks. They do have meaningful gameplay effects and which ones you take (and when) can be an important decision to make depending on what strategy you are playing. They may not be deep decisions, but they are certainly more impactful then megastructures or plantoids.

Some of them do, but most of them are generic and won't even be part of the DLC anymore with the next major update.

The core 3 "selling point" ascension perks - biological, psionic, and robotic are the big problems. The bonuses are ok, but by the time you get them (especially the second tier) the game is already decided.

That sounds like a horrible waste of time if you're -only- playing to win...

And I feel like it's a waste of time to specifically make obvious poor choices to "roleplay" your race.  Neither one of us is correct (or wrong), there are different way to play and enjoy games.

I was simply offering my perspective from a "play to win" point of view.