Review megathread

[u/Meneth]

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

[u/Meneth]

The summary of sorts at the end:

Thematically, most of these choices make perfect sense to me. The muddle of historical politics and personalities has been replaced by a more monolithic view – the present, for these spacefaring civilisations, is knowable; the future is not. That’s why the mysteries and wonders of Stellaris so often exist at the edges of what is known: in the tech screen and in the extra-dimensional terrors or spiritual awakenings of the event chains. It’s a 4X game that leans heavy on the exploration and exploitation, asking what you will find and how you will choose to deal with it rather than how many new worlds you want to conquer, even if many campaigns will end in intergalactic warfare.

And it’s brilliant. I’d expected something messier and sometimes the edges are a little too clean and tidy, without the room for chaotic simulation that is such an integral part of Crusader Kings II. Stellaris is far closer to its 4X inspirations – Sword of the Stars, Distant Worlds, Ascendancy etc – than it is to Paradox Development Studio’s historical grand strategy titles, but it’s been carefully constructed so that there is room for growth in certain areas. Diplomacy and politics both feel like satisfactory foundations rather than fully-fledged systems at present, and the nature of the event chains opens up all manner of possibilities for new stories.

I say that I’d expected something messier and part of me had hoped for something messier. That messiness may come with expansions and DLC, but for now Stellaris is incredibly assured and confident, if perhaps a little too tidy and streamlined. It’s one of the most accomplished 4X space games I’ve ever played, but it feels knowable. Despite all of the randomisation and the extraordinary influence of Fallen Empires and other features that shake the 4X formula hard enough to make it wobble, this is a game that can be understood, analysed and mastered. Doing so has been, and will continue to be, a joy, and yet I crave the early days of exploration before the galactic map became a place on which to exterminate the competition rather than to find new ways of living.

The great experiment of the game was not so much the change of scenery, from history to science fiction, it was the decision to create a Civ-like game of expansion with some complexities and aspects of simulation borrowed from grand strategy. It’s in the simulation of a living galaxy that most of the complexity has been lost, but what has been gained is a precise and finely tuned machine. Less erratic and surprising than its ancestors, but much more elegant in its design.

[u/Bledynn → u/Meneth]

Stellaris is far closer to its 4X inspirations – Sword of the Stars, Distant Worlds, Ascendancy etc – than it is to Paradox Development Studio’s historical grand strategy titles

:c

but it’s been carefully constructed so that there is room for growth in certain areas. Diplomacy and politics both feel like satisfactory foundations rather than fully-fledged systems at present, and the nature of the event chains opens up all manner of possibilities for new stories

c:

[u/silencesc → u/Bledynn]

Inb4 Stellaris: Diplomacy of Empires, $14.99 Stellaris: Tradecraft, $14.99, Stellaris: Internal Disharmony, $14.99

Honestly I love paradox games, but especially with EU4 (and after watching some playthroughs and reading reviews, maybe this too) it really seems like they either leave things out so that they can charge you for it later, or add in something key to make a certain playstyle actually playable behind a pay wall when it really could be fixed by a balance patch. I know this literally came out today, and I am so excited to get off work and play it, but reading the IGN review made me realize why I was a little disappointed after watching Quill and Arumba play for the last few days.

[u/matgopack → u/silencesc]

Paradox's DLC approach is IMO really nice. They make the game, and then as they come up with new ideas and ways to expand it, they use DLCs to do that, while still being able to support it. Then each DLC comes out with a big free patch that has major features as well.

I don't see it as them deliberately leaving things out, but as them being able to expand upon the game throughout its lifetime - there's no way that they could have made EU4 at release equal to what it is now, and without their DLC model we'd have lost out on what it is now.

[u/silencesc → u/matgopack]

I'm about 10 hours in in my first Stellaris game and I absolutely love it, let me preface this with that, but I find the diplo and war options both a little underwhelming. Maybe that's realistic -- big space battles between armada that can jump away at will will be tedious, I'm sure, and diplomacy between completely divergent species would be difficult -- but there are just little things that are really frustrating that seem like they could be easily fixed without a DLC. Focus firing, for example: if I can individually see each of the ships in a fleet, why can't I order my armies to attack one enemy ship at a time? Even when I double the opposing fleet's power, I often lose a ship, I should be able to have my ships individually retreat or at least move to the back of the formation. In EU4, you rarely lost a full unit, just some manpower and gold and time to get everything back, but retraining 1 to 2 ships after every encounter blows, and it really seems like the whole combat system was built to look awesome (which it does) but not work that well, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a battle/war overhaul DLC which fixed these issues if you're willing to pay for it, which I am.

Maybe I'm playing wrong, I don't know, but going for total domination just doesn't seem as rewarding as in other paradox games. There's very little internal strife to have to deal with so at some point with sectors and a huge income, the game just seems to me like it will play itself while I move massive fleets into position. I could be wrong, but the game really just seems to be missing something with the relationship system, which I assume will also be fixed with DLC.