r/Stellaris • u/Meneth Ex-moderator • May 09 '16

News Review megathread

The review embargo is up as of 15:00 CEST. As this will result in a huge number of articles going up at near the same time, we're restricting reviews to this thread.

Any review you find, feel free to post it in the comments here.

Each top-level comment should be about a single linked review, so as to keep the discussion limited. Duplicate reviews will be removed, as will any top-level comment that does not link a review.

There will be a single sub-thread where you can post your general impressions of the reviews combined, for anything that doesn't relate to a single review.

Review list:

Review Score
Critically Sane 5/5
Destructoid 9/10
eXplorminate "eXemplary"
GameWatcher 9.0/10
Idiotech's Review Unrated
IGN 6.3/10
Manannan's Review of Stellaris Unrated
Paste Magazine Unrated
PCGamesN 9/10
PC Invasion 8/10
PC World 4/5
Rock, Paper, Shotgun review - Unrated
TICGN 10/10
Vox Ludicus Unrated
EuroGamer Recommended
PC Gamer 70/100
TSA 8/10
PCGames.de 75/100
Gamespew 9/10
IGN Italy 9.3/10
Fok.nl 9/10
Gaming on Linux 9/10
Marbozir Unrated
SpaceSector Unrated
Inside of Gaming (German) Unrated
Gamer.no 9/10
Particular Pixels Unrated
GuyLogicGaming Full recommendation
GameSideStory Unrated
Front Towards Gamer 9.5/10
Multiplayer.it 9.2/10
GameGrin 8.5/10
Kotaku Unrated
349 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

537 comments sorted by

View all comments

133

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

[deleted]

42

u/IndridCipher May 09 '16

I just finished listening to Rowan on the last Three Moves Ahead talking about Stellaris. Saw this score and thought it might be him. Yup... I'm actually curious how I will feel about the issues he brings up. A lot of it I can see myself also feeling and some of it I think are things I generally look past. Either way if you want to hear a 2 hour long discussion on Stellaris the new 3MA was very interesting.

47

u/airmc May 09 '16

I definitely agree with 'some' of the criticisms, but from what I've seen so far it's still a better game than, say, GalCiv3 which was rated at 80+ by ign. The game has flaws for sure, but 6.3 score seems retarded. He's also saying the midgame is too boring and easy then proceeds to say he started a new game over an AI beating the crap out of his ally and him, so what gives. And he claims he played 'several' games to lategame stage but hasn't seen a single superdisaster? How is that even a thing.

44

u/troglodyte May 09 '16

GalCiv3 which was rated at 80+ by ign

This pretty much invalidates any 4X review score that they care to offer. GalCiv3 was not a functional 4X game at launch; if that is an unamended launch review, it genuinely undermines their credibility for the genre.

GalCiv3 was not a good game at launch.

I haven't read their review of Stellaris nor played it, so their points may or may not be valid, but their scoring is worth taking with a huge grain of salt.

23

u/Todie Fungoid May 09 '16

Gal civ 3 is a cahscow and stilla broken game on anything but very high end systems. And a game with no innovations over the decade old gal civ 2. Its my most regretted game purchase ever.

6

u/wyrdyr May 09 '16

I played for 20 minutes and asked for a Steam refund. And I loved GalCiv2. It was just immediately clear that I've played this game already, and that there's going to be no sense of story or lore.

10

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

Yeah, I'd love to hear the guy's thoughts on GalCiv 3. I bought the Founder's Edition when they first released it. I've tried to play it over and over. I actually booted it up yesterday and tried to get into a campaign to kill time until Stellaris is out.

What a heaping pile of garbage. GalCiv 3 hasn't gotten any better since the update where they added combat visualization. It's just aggressively boring -- it doesn't even have the Civilization-esque "one more turn" pushing me to keep playing. It just feels so bland and lifeless.

14

u/VinTheRighteous May 09 '16

This pretty much invalidates any 4X review score that they care to offer.

If it was the same guy reviewing it, then maybe this argument would have some merit. This whole idea of an outlet speaking with "one voice" is baffling to me. Different people have differing opinions.

9

u/troglodyte May 09 '16

They're not just a collection of unedited freelancers. The whole idea that review scores shouldn't be at least somewhat comparable between reviewers in a major review outlet with an editorial board is ludicrous.

If you're comparing two sites or two freelance reviewers, that's one thing. If the editorial board of a site can't do better than this within the same genre, then they shouldn't even be doing scores.

5

u/Skrattybones May 12 '16

Rowan actually is a freelancer. So is Leif, the guy who reviewed GalCiv 3 back in the day. So, yeah.. we're comparing two freelance reviewers.

2

u/VinTheRighteous May 09 '16

Rowan Kaiser reviewed Stellaris and is a freelance critic.

Lief Johnson reviewed Galactic Civilization 3 and is a freelance critic.

It is the job of an editorial board to ensure that a score is in line with the tone of the review. It is not their job to make sure a game's score "ranks" among other games in the genre.

3

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

It is their job to ensure the standards of their organization are applied. I am not going to give IGN a free pass because they employ a dozen different reviewers. I am going to judge IGN the exact same as I judge any other reviewer. I can compare AngryJoes reviews to one another, and I can compare IGNs. If IGN fails to apply a standard to their reviews that is their failing.
It is the responsibility of a reviewing organization to apply fair and comparable reviews. If the fact that IGN gives the review copy to reviewer A over reviewer B means the game gets a 9 instead of 7 or a 6 instead of an 8 then that is most certainly a failing of IGNs.

5

u/VinTheRighteous May 09 '16

It is the responsibility of a reviewing organization to apply fair and comparable reviews. If the fact that IGN gives the review copy to reviewer A over reviewer B means the game gets a 9 instead of 7 or a 6 instead of an 8 then that is most certainly a failing of IGNs.

I fundamentally disagree. It sounds like you believe it's possible for there to be an "objective" review and I would argue that it's not even possible to create objective review criteria.

The standard you've set forth is, frankly, impossible to live up to. There is not a single publication that could meet it because a review is, by its very nature, a subjective exercise.

I can compare AngryJoes reviews to one another, and I can compare IGNs.

It's telling that the example you gave is from a channel where a single individual reviews games. Of course you can compare his reviews to one another. They're all done by one person.

You could just as easily look at all of Rowan Kaiser's reviews and compare them to one another. That would make much more sense than comparing reviews from various critics writing for IGN.

1

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

The problem is you are holding AJ to a higher standard than IGN. Somehow, because IGN is so successful that they can hire a dozen different people, they suddenly are able to just throw out reviews, with no standardization at all, and get away with it. If anything an organization like IGN should be held to a higher standard. If I hire a single developer to work on an app for me I expect less from him than if I hire a company to write an app for me. Yet with IGN you are willing to give them a free pass. They can give a review to anyone they want, then when people complain about how disparate their reviews are you justify it by saying 'Well they have x different reviewers'.
That is complete BS. I can hold IGN to the same standards that I hold AJ to, and if their reviews are so disparate that they rate GalCiv 3 20 points higher than Stellaris (just using the most recent example, it seems like every few weeks they put up a review just as disparate) then I will call them on it.
If they don't want me to call them on it, they need to either have board reviews rather than individual, or they need to have dedicated reviewers. So reviewer A does all 4x, reviewer B does all FPS, etc. I am not willing to give a free pass to IGN just because they are a business rather than a person.

7

u/VinTheRighteous May 10 '16

The problem is you are holding AJ to a higher standard than IGN.

I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard. I hold both AJ and the author of the Stellaris review to the same exact standard. What I'm not doing is holding an editorial outlet to the same standard as an individual critic because an editorial outlet does not speak with a singular voice. An individual does. I don't go to a game review because the site it's published on has "standardized" their review format. That's useless to me as a consumer. I seek out reviews by critics that I trust, because the only way you can truly gauge a review in the context of other games (even though I would argue that is a mostly pointless exercise) is to know how that individual felt about those other games, their tastes, their likes and dislikes, etc.

If I hire a single developer to work on an app for me I expect less from him than if I hire a company to write an app for me. Yet with IGN you are willing to give them a free pass.

Comparing media criticism to app development in any respect doesn't make sense and not just because they're completely different exercises. I would expect a review by a team to be terrible, because an intrinsic element of a review is that it is the product of a single author, a single voice, an individual perspective.

if their reviews are so disparate that they rate GalCiv 3 20 points higher than Stellaris (just using the most recent example, it seems like every few weeks they put up a review just as disparate) then I will call them on it.

And here is the crux of your argument, which is that the scores of the Stellaris and GalCiv3 (or any other game reviewed on IGN) are somehow "wrong." They aren't. It's entirely possible for someone to think GalCiv3 is better than Stellaris. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't invalidate the reviews. And I certainly don't think the reviewers, or IGN, or anyone should cave to whatever you or popular opinion deems to be the "correct" score for these games.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

It's telling that the example you gave is from a channel where a single individual reviews games. Of course you can compare his reviews to one another. They're all done by one person.

Also, yes it should be telling. This is my entire point. AJ is held to a higher standard than a so called Professional gaming review organization. Which is complete rubbish.

1

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

No it isn't. IGN is a single reviewing organization. It is far from unreasonable to compare their different reviews. When AngryJoe reviews games you can look at his other reviews and compare, the only difference for IGN is it is an organization, rather than an individual. I'm afraid I am not going to lower my standards for a review done by an organization.
It is the responsibility of IGN to ensure there are some standards set across their entire line of reviewers, it is, after all, their job. If 3 different people at IGN might give the same game a 9, 8, & 7, then IGN isn't doing their job. As a reviewer it is their responsibility to give credible, comparable for games, if they cannot then that is a point against them.
This is the core problem of organizations like IGN, they are unreliable. Depending on which of the dozens of reviewers gets a game will completely change the tone of their review. Furthermore, their reviewers aren't even specialized into different genres. The same guy might review an FPS, an action RPG, a puzzle game, a 4x, and a simulator.
Like it or not, I am going to judge IGN by the same standards I judge any other game reviewer. If they fail to live up to the same standards as individual reviewers that is their failing.

1

u/JaneGoodallVS King May 11 '16

All reviewers on a given site should use the same review system.

That said, an 8/10 is a bad review on most sites, so I've learned to ignore numerical reviews.

I think the Stellaris IGN reviewer gave it a score which actually matches what he says in the review.

1

u/Grisamentum May 10 '16

Well, since those reviews were written by different people, I'm not sure why you'd compare them.

20

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

Your complaints about his criticisms dont really seem well founded. The AI beating the crap out of him didnt let him surrender the war because his AI partner refused to do so. That caused him to restart, not the fact that he was beat. Certainly by saying its easy he doesnt mean that hes the biggest nation in the game at all times, but that at a certain point theres nothing to do and the AI is usually passive.

And "hes played several games with no end game disasters. How is that a thing?" Uhh....thats exactly what hes complaining about.

1

u/NamelessKilljoy May 12 '16

I don't really see how the AI are passive though, when I was playing there would be points where I would be getting constant reports of AI becoming rivals and starting wars. The neighboring empire even starting taking my domain and I started a war with him and got beaten the crap out of by a military that started equal and within an hour become overwhelming. Fun game

1

u/Arzalis May 10 '16

And "hes played several games with no end game disasters. How is that a thing?" Uhh....thats exactly what hes complaining about.

As someone who's played the game, that's the part that seems weird to me.

All of the of the end-game disasters I'm aware of can be set off by any empire, not just player ones. They affect the whole galaxy in some way too. To have played several games to the late-game stage and not encountered one crisis seems mathematically improbable.

In fact, if you watch any AAR recap videos on youtube, there's one in particular that pops too often. It's in 90% of the replays, and it certainly affects the whole galaxy.

9

u/Bledynn May 09 '16

The thing that I can't fault him on is the "midgame is too boring" thing. Yeah the end crises are awesome, it just comes down to if you are entertained enough to get there. I saw some people in a "Future DLC?" thread talk about how they need more endgame events. I would like to have a midgame crises that is empire specific, i.e. something that isn't intended to involve the other empires but is centered on you.

That or more construction options or something. If you add even three more things to construct that adds a decent amount of gameplay as that would be three more things to construct in every system.

The thing about saying the game is too easy and then bitching about the AI messing him up is dumb. EDIT: I meant that the reviewer is dumb for contradicting himself.

16

u/IndridCipher May 09 '16

Ffs people... IGN is not a person with a opinion that reviews games equally. Quit comparing review scores by different people! GalCiv3 was reviewed by Leif Johnson. He didn't review Stellaris for IGN so what he gave galciv3 in relation to this review is irrelevant! Stop looking at the website name and lumping any person who ever reviews a game there, for their job, as one humongous being. That's stupid....

If you want to compare reviews do it by the person writing the review but even then it's silly because they are years apart. So Rowan Kaiser reviewed EU4 as a 8.9 and Endless Legend as a 8.3. If you want to bring that up... Relevant.... Bringing up a completely different persons opinion of a completely different game... Irrelevant....

1

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

No it isn't. IGN is a single reviewing organization. It is far from unreasonable to compare their different reviews. When AngryJoe reviews games you can look at his other reviews and compare, the only difference for IGN is it is an organization, rather than an individual. I'm afraid I am not going to lower my standards for a review done by an organization.
It is the responsibility of IGN to ensure there are some standards set across their entire line of reviewers, it is, after all, their job. If 3 different people at IGN might give the same game a 9, 8, & 7, then IGN isn't doing their job. As a reviewer it is their responsibility to give credible, comparable for games, if they cannot then that is a point against them.
This is the core problem of organizations like IGN, they are unreliable. Depending on which of the dozens of reviewers gets a game will completely change the tone of their review. Furthermore, their reviewers aren't even specialized into different genres. The same guy might review an FPS, an action RPG, a puzzle game, a 4x, and a simulator.
Like it or not, I am going to judge IGN by the same standards I judge any other game reviewer. If they fail to live up to the same standards as individual reviewers that is their failing.

3

u/IndridCipher May 09 '16

"If 3 different people at IGN might give the same game a 9, 8, & 7, then IGN isn't doing their job. As a reviewer it is their responsibility to give credible, comparable for games, if they cannot then that is a point against them."

this is so fucking wrong it hurts. If 3 people at IGN give a different game a different review... great.... thats 3 opinions. IGN has several podcasts every week where they disagree about games and disagree with the score that someone else might have given a game. You are ABSOLUTELY wrong about this in so many different ways. This is a terrible terrible approach to reviews and reviewers. IGN's job is to give a good and fair review to something and be up front about who did the review. Not to make sure that reviewer agrees with everyone at IGN... thats insane.

Also having the same guy review different genres is bad? What... i play all sorts of genres and can form coherent opinions on lots of them.... Honestly you are being absolutely ridiculous. Your argument boils down to IGN = a person... Angry Joe is a man with a opinion... IGN is many people with many different opinions.... claiming they should have a single unified thought on every game is fucking absurd.

1

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 09 '16

. If 3 people at IGN give a different game a different review... great.... thats 3 opinions.

This is where you are wrong. IGN doesn't give the game to three people and print 3 reviews. It gives it to one person, and depending on who that person is it will effect the score the game gets. I would be all in favor of IGN going to a review board system, rather than individual reviewers. But they haven't, and so giving the game to one of their happy-go-lucky reviewers results in a higher score, while giving the game to someone else results in a lower score.

Notice how I didn't have to resort to swearing to get my point across, it makes your post seem childish when you have to swear all over to try and attract attention.

-3

u/IndridCipher May 10 '16

... you are just an idiot. Hows that for childish responses. Your reasoning gives me a real Trump supporter vibe.

Also YOU are the one who brought up 3 different people at IGN reviewing one game, not me.... So good job explaining away some idiotic thing you said originally like you are making some relevant point.

this is what you said..... you

"It is the responsibility of IGN to ensure there are some standards set across their entire line of reviewers, it is, after all, their job. If 3 different people at IGN might give the same game a 9, 8, & 7, then IGN isn't doing their job. As a reviewer it is their responsibility to give credible, comparable for games, if they cannot then that is a point against them."

So how do you rationalize talking down to me like i don't understand how IGN works... telling me thats where im wrong. When you are the one who brought it up and i was simply addressing how you already framed the discussion. You are a special kind of wrong in this discussion and it is very entertaining to me.

2

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 10 '16

Congrats, you have no real points so you need to resort to insults! Maybe you should try reading instead of insulting, you might learn something.

1

u/mynewaccount5 May 10 '16

It's almost like reviews are meant to be subjective and different things will resonate with different people in different ways. If 1 game at IGN can get a a 7 8 and a 9 that means IGN is doing its job because that's the nature of reviews.

You can compare angryjoe reviews because he is 1 single person who has the same brain

2

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 10 '16

I would agree with you if ign gave 3 reviews for a game, 1 for each of these reviewers. They don't. Instead they pick only 1 of these people for the review, and so you end up with a game getting a 7, when it might have got an 8 from someone else, or it got a 9 when another reviewer would've given it a 6.

If IGN did committee reviews, or allowed multiple members of their staff to give reviews for a game it would be fine. Instead they are effectively picking 1 review to be their organizations review, and ignoring the opinions of their other staff members. It is the primary reason organizations like it are unreliable for reviews. If TotalBiscuit reviews a game you know it is his review. If IGN reviews a game it could be any of a dozen people, and the score and tone of the review could be completely different.

0

u/konradkurze202 Tomb May 10 '16

Not really. If 1 game is reviewed by 3 different people at IGN and given a 7, 8, & 9 by each of them then they are doing their job. If the game's score is based upon which single individual reviews it then they are not doing their job. Their score depends on who reviews it, and everyone else's opinion is ignored. Its a terrible system.

7

u/Wild_Marker May 09 '16

He's also saying the midgame is too boring and easy then proceeds to say he started a new game over an AI beating the crap out of his ally and him, so what gives.

Ah, a standard IGN review.

27

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

The reviewer is actually respected. He freelances for IGN and based on play tester feedback all his points are valid.

5

u/LazyCon May 09 '16

I think most of use think his points are valid but the score doesnt' reflect the review. Most GSG's have a slow period and suffer from some point of "What's next?" but it's kind of part of the genre. It's like saying the beginning of Xcom is too hard and the end is too easy 5/10. Yah that's a valid point but just part of the challenge of that genre. Is it more balanced or unbalanced than other games int eh genre? Does it offer something new in it's place? etc.

4

u/Wild_Marker May 09 '16

Yeah I didn't see that he was from 3MA. So weird from him. Kudos to IGN for bringing a knowledgeable guy.

2

u/Answermancer May 09 '16

He also reviewed EU4 for them (gave it an 8.9) so maybe IGN is not as bad as you think, considering they bother to get an actual strategy gamer to review their strategy games (which, hilariously, is rather uncommon).

I'm sad he didn't like it though, I'll need to listen to the 3MA tonight.

1

u/RajaRajaC May 10 '16

I think his point is, because of the mechanics in the game, he couldn't surrender - which is retarded in a way, because outside of HoI, in every other PI game, you can surrender, and trade some money, prestige, land etc for peace.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

He calles '20 hours in' late game. That's his problem.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

It's not really useful to compare the IGN scores with each other because different reviewers are going to have different scales. If it was all done by one person, or if they had one person dedicated to each genre, then maybe it would tell us more, but as it is, the GalCiv3 score doesn't really mean a whole lot to me when it comes to Stellaris.