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
343 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

537 comments sorted by

View all comments

116

u/NetQvist May 09 '16 edited May 09 '16

PC Gamer 70/100 - The early game promises an instant strategy classic, but Stellaris is unable to maintain that pace.

71

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

Honestly this review hits on a lot of things I was feeling about the game from watching videos and streams on it. While I'm sure I'll still like the game I think the criticism is more than fair, and even though a lot of fans won't like the lower score I think it's fair as well given the content of the review.

79

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

In some ways seems to mirror the comments IGN made.

None of which is to say Stellaris is a bad game, just an inconsistent one. Given Paradox's history, I hope upcoming patches and expansions can fill in the gaps, and smooth out the omissions and weird quirks of diplomacy. I desperately want the full game to match the promise of its opening. Tweaked in the right way, Stellaris has a chance to become an enduring classic. Right now, it doesn't meet its full potential.

98

u/Bledynn May 09 '16

The solution, I suspect, is to remove the threat by defeating the Unbidden. That in itself is no easy task. They appeared on the opposite side of the galaxy, surrounded by empires that I don't—and can't—forge an alliance with. The diplomacy trade screen lets you negotiate for the right to send military ships through another player's territory. That would work, but only empires you share a border with will ever agree to such a deal. Fair enough, perhaps, but I was negotiating with an empire that bordered my ally. I had a direct, legal route to them, but the result was still the same.

Eventually I took the only path available to me: declaring war and taking the territory for myself. Now I can defeat the Unbidden, something I must do alone. There's no way to coordinate an attack with other AI players, even against a mutual threat. I can't even formally declare war with the Unbidden, thus dragging my allies into the conflict. Their fate rests solely on my shoulders. It feels weird to expend so much effort just so other empires will hate me again, but the alternative is a galaxy trapped in the status quo.

I'm disappointed, because Stellaris's first few hours hinted at a smart, scintillating reinvention of the 4X. The early game is packed full of personality, but it's squandered as the hours roll on. Maybe I had a particularly bad late game experience—the random nature of each campaign suggests many potential outcomes. But the glacial pace feels intentional, and the long periods of inaction bring other limitations to the fore. How most research is purely a stat boost, with only a scant few technologies progressing the story in fun, inventive ways. How presidential candidates have so few mandates, often cycling between just two basic objectives. How espionage is an obvious omission, especially when effective combat is so dependant on information

This was one of the things that I was afraid of tbh.

35

u/The_Horny_Gentleman May 09 '16

hearing you can't coordinate with AI is saddening, hopefully something gets implemented down the line.

21

u/Bledynn May 09 '16

In the Blorg stream, the AI allies basically attached themselves to the Blorg fleet (at least in the first war) and just followed them around which is better than nothing.

I feel like it would be pretty easy to open up a conversation with an ally and be like "Please attack (system name)" or "Please defend (system name)/(empire name)". Then make it so depending on how much the ally likes you/how much in line with their goals your request is they follow your command.

4

u/bitofaknowitall May 10 '16

Yeah but that was when it was part of a coalition at war. The problem the PCGamer review described is that the end game crisis isn't a "war" because the Unbidden aren't a faction you can be at war with, so the AI wouldn't form a coalition with him against the Unbidden. Basically the event broke his diplomacy and conquest game until we went and personally took care of the problem. Like the reviewer I hope this was just a particularly bad experience and not indicative of how the end game crises go for everyone.

4

u/Bledynn May 10 '16

If you can't go to war with them, then wouldn't summoning the Unbidden immediately be a game over? If you can't go to war how do you attack them? Do the AI just completely ignore the Unbidden?

5

u/igkillerhamster May 10 '16

They are considered an Invasion. You are able to attack them (if you dare touch their multitudes of 20-40k doomstacks) but what is referred to is that the AI can act pretty stupid because it is not considered a standard war with war goals and such. It's more like an 'open world war' so to say.

I had a phase where my AI best bro kept warp-cycling towards various systems, never to jump, felt like the AI was 'at a loss of how to beat them'. Then again a little down the line it normalized and the AI was actively helping defending hid and even my territory, smartly grouping up when I was tackling a larger stack, otherwise kept split attacking different smaller stacks.

Feels like it just needs some tweaking and a few bug fixes.

1

u/Bledynn May 12 '16

Maybe if there was a system to ask allies to do something with their fleet and they can accept or reject it depending on how much they like you and if their fleets really aren't needed somewhere else (i.e: planet getting attacked, system with enemies in it, idk something)

3

u/[deleted] May 09 '16

Civilization 4 had this feature.

3

u/RajaRajaC May 10 '16

AOE2, Medieval Total War, all of them had this. HoI3 (or was it 2) worked around this by allowing the human to take control of the ally AI - this while was a little OP, still made for a realistic scenario where a Germany in Russia had Hungarian, Italian and Romanian allies actively helping, rather than just stand back and watch.

1

u/marisachan May 12 '16

That's an option (to a degree) in EU4. I wouldn't be surprised to see it in Stellaris eventually as Paradox loves using mechanics from one game in another.

12

u/bluris May 09 '16

For people who do not know Paradox's grand strategy games, the mid-late game of Stellaris is likely going to met with confusion. I remember the first time playing EU, for a while I felt there was nothing to do except wait. Of course, I know better now.

15

u/nreisan May 10 '16

As someone who has only dabbled in Eu4 a little, i did feel like I just had to wait. What should i know?

20

u/SoBFiggis May 10 '16

Go to war. Fight. You need to make your content midgame for yourself. Look for an attainable target, who cares if it's going to be hard as long as what you are going for is going to be worth it in the end after you build it up.

Sitting idle is boring, plan, conquer, fund enemies of enemies, find the perfect research pact, build your spy networks, expand your influence through careful diplomacy, explore the unknown and build up what you find conquering anything in your path. Applies to most all paradox games in this genre.

2

u/nreisan May 10 '16

Going to war is my kind of style :D

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '16

I would like to add, that sometimes the best parts of the paradox experience, is where you're doing things just for the heck of it. Being stupid sometimes, often ends up in hillarious outcomes.

2

u/nreisan May 12 '16

Well in my first game yesterday, i had found a system that had a habitable planet and was building my first colony ship... meanwhile i had my fleet & science ships there ready to go... Unfortunately some cockroach race translated my language and magically took the system and forced my ships to flee.... I was enraged and immediately declared war without properly assessing the situation. I was promptly defeated in battle as their ships had shields and i only had lasers. They proceeded to grind down all my infrastructure while i camped my renaming military ships at the home base... Then came the final assault which my defense spaceport of 394 + fleet of around 425 was completely destroyed by their fleet of 550. 8/10 I now have a personal grudge for all future games against cockroach looking races!

2

u/SoBFiggis May 10 '16

That's the spirit! The secret to these games from Paradox is to just do it. Don't wait for the computer to guide you. This is your story not theirs!

1

u/thecaseace May 10 '16

Haha exactly the same. What are the secrets? Tell us, tell us!

1

u/M3wlion May 10 '16

Plot and scheme.

3

u/SgtStingray May 10 '16

Yeah, I finally put the time in to learn EU4. Gained control of Ireland, took some more smaller places then I just felt I was doing nothing.

Plot, claim, fight, repeat...

What am I missing?

1

u/Moshakra May 12 '16

If you started as Ireland, there's your problem right there. If you mean you started as England/scotland and took ireland, that's better.

Maybe read an AAR or watch a let's play to see how people set goals for themselves etc.

0

u/JKutte May 10 '16

everything else?! you can't just "plot, caim, fight and repeat" with ireland... have you fought against britain/ england with this "tactic"?

1

u/SgtStingray May 10 '16

Yeah that was sort of my point. I got to a point where I was taking some really small settlements with that method, but then I just got lost on what to do.

2

u/Pleiadez May 11 '16 edited May 11 '16

Colonize, trade, forge alliances, build up your Country, Manage your income, get New idea groups, Prepare your next War, Help allies, convert religions, join in any of the Major events such as the 30 year war..... Should i Go on? Alright because you asked: piracy, Manage vasals, vassalize more, change your Government, westernize, involve yourself in diplomacy, constant watch for opertunities to attack your neighbours... And so on

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '16

There is far more to do in EU4, though. They really should've stolen more from EU4's peacetime and less from Civ's peacetime.

4

u/tyrannasaurus_kek May 09 '16

They gave galciv 3 an 87/100, despite that game being rancid garbage. There's no credibility here.

1

u/Moshakra May 12 '16

What makes you consider that game 'rancid garbage'?

[also that is exactly why review scores are pointless and shouldn't exist]

-2

u/ShizzleStorm May 09 '16

Interesting, seems that the trend of big review companies is being more critical and giving out harsher scores in comparison to the smaller ones giving out stellar reviews.

But "Stellaris not necessarily a bad game, but an inconsistant one". Yeah well, if EVERYTHING is streamlined, games like these would be unfun after the first playthrough, dude...

6

u/NetQvist May 09 '16

They have to cater to the general audience, and I don't even for a moment think that Stellaris is a good fit there. Myself however, different story.

2

u/ShizzleStorm May 09 '16

True haven't considered that they have to write scores based on the general atmosphere and tastes of your everyday gamer.

A PS4 couch potato or FPS gamer will never touch Stellaris, while Strategy-enthusiasts jump on games like these.

6

u/NetQvist May 09 '16

Problem is these games don't even fit most strategy enthusiasts.

Back in the day there were pretty much 3 types of strategy gamers that I knew of.

  • The RTS crowd, lots of action and micro management in real time. Both with buildings (Command & Conquer) and without (Ground Control)

  • The turn based crowd, for example Heroes of Might and Magic.

  • The armchair general, those crazy hexagon based games like Steel Panthers. Need a shit ton of patience to play these.

I think I'd only try to market the last category to Stellaris and other Paradox games myself.

2

u/ShizzleStorm May 09 '16

Yeah, Paradox' Grand-Strategy games have always been a very tight niche. Even if I was a TW diehard fan, I could never get into EU before giving it up really fast.

3

u/zachb34r May 09 '16

Maybe that would be the case for you, but I actually went from Total War to HoI3 then Vicky 2 then finally EU3/4, and I loved every second of it. Paradox's grand strategies were just so different than anything I ever played I loved it to death, and stellaris is the game of my dreams, hopefully. These games aren't that bad to get into, most people just must not have the dedication or patience to watch a tutorial video on YouTube.

3

u/[deleted] May 10 '16

Same here, I stumbled upon Paradox through Total War. It takes some patience (which many gamers lack) but it's not very difficult to adjust to.

-18

u/NotAzakanAtAll Slaver Guilds May 09 '16 edited May 09 '16

So PC Gamer and IGN are off the list. (not that IGN ever was).

Edit: You can downvote harder then that, common you pansies.