•
•

Stellaris got a 6.3/10 from IGN. (ign.com)

dtg108[🍰] が 投稿

全 83 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]skyline385 [スコア非表示]  (21子コメント)

FYI, from the subreddit's review thread, IGN's seems to be the only low score review

https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/4ijfh9/review_megathread/

Rest seem to be all above 8.

[–]Groundpenguin[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

After reading the review it feels like this guy just wanted CK2 in space, whereas Stellaris is more along the lines of EU4.

[–]Daisychaine [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

guy just wanted CK2 in space, whereas Stellaris is more along the lines of EU4.

whats the difference between the two? (noobie at these games, but purchased Stellaris <3 space)

[–]Groundpenguin[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

CK2 was where you essentially played a single character. Your main goal was to make your family line the most powerful around and to survive so things that happened were much more personal compared to other Paradox games. The rest EU4, HoI etc you play as a nation in a point in history so things are in a much more high level.

Ck2 was almost an rpg, whereas there other games are more like traditional strategy.

[–]raminus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, you actually play a dynasty, so your current character in the moment doesn't matter so much as their heir, their heir's heir, and so on and so forth. Family stability and all that

[–]Oraex [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

CK2 has a lot of RPG elements. You are a character and not just a country.
You can marry your children off to get claims on other kingdoms or alliances.
You can assassinate them if they have bad traits.

If someone starts a war with you, you can just kill the person who has a claim on your land and the war will end.

And vassal management is a pretty important part of the game.

EU4 is a much more strait forward strategy game.

[–]Igantinos [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

CK2 is political eugenics simulator. EU4 is empire simulator.

[–]tobberoth [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

CK2 is a family manager. You have to keep track of individual characters in different families, check traits, find fitting patents to create good offspring. Often you win wars by assassinating specific characters rather than strategic warfare.

EU4 is more like a standard wargame, where the game comes down to how you develop your provinces, how you build and handle your army and large scale diplomacy.

Different strokes for different folks. Both game series are great though.

[–]y1i [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You have to keep track of individual characters in different families, check traits, find fitting patents to create good offspring. Often you win wars by assassinating specific characters rather than strategic warfare.

reminds of this. still one of the funniest screenshot I've seen.

[–]G_Morgan [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

EU4 is about nation states. CK2 is about families. In CK2 it is entirely plausible to start as a count in England and end up as Emperor of Israel following a completely different religion and culture group. It is all about the journey of the dynasty.

EU4 is about nations. You build a nation and advance it. Maybe you unify your culture group and form a nation like German, Italy or Great Britain but beyond that your nation is largely the same just in different guises.

[–]KlingonAdmiral [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Eu4 is absolutely not about nation states. EU4 ist about first-wave Imperialism. Victoria II is about second-wave Imperialism and those bothersome nationalists that bring nothing but problems (unless you are some ambitious German or Italian state that wands some more assets to further your own goals).

[–]G_Morgan [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Except compared to CK2 it is precisely about nation states rather than rulers (to the point where a common complaint is why regencies affect your decision making poewrs). The whole personality of your game is wrapped up in the tag you play as. V2 is also about nation states with the focus on industrialisation and the imperial era.

[–]KlingonAdmiral [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's about states. not nation states. The whole concept of Nationalism only emerged in Napoleon's wake which is less than a decade before EU4 ends. Only because the nation state is the dominant form of state in our times it does not mean that the concept of the state and the nation were bethroted to one another from the beginning.

And in Victoria 2 it actually heavily depends on who you play if you even are a nation state. While nations like Prussia or Sardinia-Piedmont are pretty much guided towards uniting their nations, other states like Austria, Russia or the sickly Ottomans must keep all those little nations that they subjugated from breaking free.

[–]UltraBarbarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Crusader Kings focuses more on individuals and their relations with each other, where Europa Universalis is about the bigger picture of expanding your empire.

[–]oozekip [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

CK is a dynasty building game; it focuses more on each characters and their interactions. EU is more of a nation building game; it focuses more on you as a country, and individual "characters" are more of a resource than actual characters.

[–]Spockrocket [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I haven't put a ton of hours into either but I've played both casually and watched some LPs. CK2 is more of a dynasty simulator. You're very closely involved in managing your rulers' relationships: forging alliances through diplomacy, sabotaging enemies through espionage, pulling off inheritance shenanigans, ensuring that your bloodline becomes powerful through strategic marriages and the occasional infanticide, etc.

EU4 is more of an empire simulator. You're not terribly concerned on a micro level with your rulers and their relationships. Your main concerns in EU4 are all on the macro level; e.g. managing your trade network, colonizing new lands, conquering your rivals, etc. Elements of CK2-style play are still present in EU4 (you can still absolutely arrange strategic marriages for the purpose of usurping a throne, for example) but for the most part these mechanics take a back seat. They're not the primary focus as they were in CK2.

[–]KlingonAdmiral [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A quick rundom of the 4 flagship historical GSG franchises from Paradox:

CK2: A GSG/RPG hybrid, trying to model the character-driven political interactions of the era. With all expansions lasts from 780 or so to 1453. In my humble opinion by now having become hopelessly overbloated. (Gametime: 207 hours)

EU4: A standard GSG (because EU pretty much consolidated the genre if I'm informed correctly). SIngle characters have become extremely abstracted. Focuses on the early modern era with it's first wave imperialism. Runs from 1444 to 1821. (Gametime: 1608 hours)

Victoria 2: A GSG with a heavy focus on one particular aspect: Industrialisation. My personal favourite, and without doubt the game where most thing change within a campaign, even if it lasts only 100 years from 1836-1936. But you can start as an desotic absolute monarchy that still practices serfdom and end as a Proletarian Dictatorship, and yes that's what irl happened to Russia. (Gametime: 422 hours)

HoI 3: I fear no incest, colonisation or dirty Communists, but this game, it scares me.

[–]Aztook [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Seems like it takes inspiration from all the previous games, but yeah its most obvious influence is EU4 from what I can tell.

[–]DragonEevee1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Makes sense, it is Paradox's most successful game

[–]DrBoomkin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The complaints he voiced are all completely valid though.

Edit: The reviewer also said that he went back to EU4 after he got bored with Stellaris, so I think your point about CK2 is unfounded.

[–]detv [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

IGN Italy gave it 9.3

[–]THEAETIK [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Meanwhile IGN Italy 9.3

[–]fmpf [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

My favorite moment in all my 80-plus hours thus far with Stellaris [...]

And

Developer Paradox struck gold in its previous game, Crusader Kings 2, by turning intra-empire politics into essential gameplay [...]

Just to give some perspective on his review. This wasn't just a review stemming from a ten hour playtime; he's put quite a bit of time into the game. And he's definitely a fan of the grand strategy genre.

With this in mind, I think it's good to lend his opinion credence rather than wave it off dismissively. Some of his complaints do sound like they'd impede enjoyment.

[–]yogoloprime [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They struck gold with Hearts of Iron and EU4 as well. Both had radically different gameplay types. Neither of those had intra-empire politics. I would say he is a fan of CK2 but not necessarily of grand strategy since many of his complaints could be leveled against other popular grand strategy games.

[–]raminus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Some of the points he mentioned are in fact long-running weak spots in Paradox games. Where CK2 has fun and interesting internal management, EU4 lacks meaningful domestic politics/peacetime mechanics, and some of its gameplay is also pretty unengaging (sending colonisers out and passively waiting till they're done, without much interference beyond stationing token troops and the odd event or two) - problems that vanilla Stellaris may seemingly share.

That said, Paradox is also wonderful at giving their games long lifespans with very meaningful content changes down the line, split between free updates and major dlc packs, improving their games significantly years after release. I fully expect them to pursue similiar policies with Stellaris, so we may get a Civ 5 scenario where the game fully comes into its own down the line.

[–]Deakul [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Most reviews seem to say it gets pretty barebones by mid-game and there's a lot of undeveloped systems in place... especially diplomacy.

Sounds like a game to wait for expansions and content patches.

[–]Ascott1989 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I was literally about to buy the game but after reading his review I feel that I'll also hold off for a couple of patches at least. Maybe a DLC.

[–]detv [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Here are some of the reviews from the megathread

Critically Sane 5/5

Destructoid 9/10

eXplorminate rates it "eXemplary"

GameWatcher 9.0/10

Idiotech's Review video

IGN 6.3/10

Manannan's Review of Stellaris video

Paste Magazine unscored

PCGamesN 9/10

PC Invasion 8/10

PC World 4/5.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun review - unscored

TICGN 10/10

Vox Ludicus unscored

[–]Ascott1989 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe. It seems that a lot of the issues he raises can be avoided by playing Multiplayer due to "not a lot happening" due to passive AI.

[–]ThunderKnight [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Knowing Paradox. They will be loads of DLC. I'm going to wait for a while.

[–]Deakul [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, at least until the first major expansion.

[–]WackySkeletons [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

This is the problem with the numbered score system. This thread is gaining attention because people see the number 6 and freak out. Hardly anyone cares about the content of the review and people are going to laser focus on the number and get upset about it. Remember people, 6 is not a bad score, it's above average meaning the game is good but not great in the opinion of the sole reviewer.

[–]Omicron0 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

it's not though, the average score of games is like a 7.

[–]Chuck_Morris_SE [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It really depends what average we are talking about.

I don't see an issue with this review but the game seems to suffer from 4x mid game syndrome, that many do.

[–]Omicron0 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

to know what 1-5 actually means we'd need to see 1-5 reviews, 6 should mean good but with the current state of scores i'd put it more at slightly below average.

[–]cotorshas [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Eh, reading that I'll probably still pick it up. Some of the stuff he/she talks about as negative, I see as positive. And the game-play I've watched looks interesting. Although no trade/espionage is a downer. Hopefully they'll add that with expansions.

[–]G_Morgan [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

An especially annoying quirk of the alliance system is that it’s impossible to get out of wars your alliance members dragged you into. (Maybe it’s a little too real there.) In one game, I had a powerful enemy empire declare war on the weakest member of my alliance, even though all their wargoals were my planets - they attacked my little brother to get to me. They won the war, and slowly worked their way across my empire, destroying my entire infrastructure, and I couldn’t surrender to get out of it because I wasn’t the empire who was initially targeted.. I spent an hour or two just watching in increasing frustration before giving up and starting a new game.

Sounds epic to me. Everything this reviewer is complaining about amounts to mechanics that are very realistic. Do you think Britain really gave a shit about Belgium when it gave Germany an ultimatum in 1914? Wars are rarely about what they are justified on.

Really you need to ask if you really want that piddling ally who's too close to a more powerful empire for comfort. Must be sad to suck at diplomacy in such a simplistic system.

Developer Paradox struck gold in its previous game, Crusader Kings 2, by turning intra-empire politics into essential gameplay

CK2 was not their previous game. I'm beginning to question if this reviewer is anything more than a dabbler at this type of game. I mean EU4 literally is Paradox as much as FIFA is EA Sports.

[–]Naked-Viking [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

He's complaining about the alliance system? I like that change, coming from EU IV. You can just pay 25 prestige for completely abandoning your ally and no one other than that ally will care about it afterwards. In Stellaris you gotta think about who you ally way more.

[–]G_Morgan [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Seems like the Stellaris alliances are more meaningful. There seems to be more of a NATO feel and less of a League of Cambrai approach to the whole thing.

Essentially alliances in Stellaris are more than temporary. They are effectively precursors to federation. Signing an alliance means more than temporary convenience and this is good.

[–]WhyNotPokeTheBees [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A NATO alliance you say?

Like...an Alliance of Free Stars... or a Free Planets Alliance... or a Free Worlds League ...

[–]UnrulyRaven [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You also lose trust globally if you deny a call to arms.

[–]CoolAsACutePenumbra [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I dunno, I think CK2 is just as well known as EU4 is.

[–]G_Morgan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think it came very close to displacing EU before the release of EU4 but honestly it has fallen by the wayside to a degree.

What we see consistently is the EU series sticks around while the other titles tend to fluctuate. EU3 was very popular right up until EU4 came out. CK2 hasn't held attention the same way.

[–]NID_Technology [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

An especially annoying quirk of the alliance system is that it’s impossible to get out of wars your alliance members dragged you into.

Expecting CK2 in space is silly, given the scale involved. This review is being approached from a very specific viewpoint.

[–]Vercadi [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I'm pretty sure CK2 is made by paradox

[–]UltraBarbarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If he didn't like being crushed by a stronger enemy then he should have been stronger. In his next game he might think twice before joining a weak alliance. Lessons learned.

[–]bitbot [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Oh, the reviewer is that guy who attacked TotalBiscuit. I'll wait for second opinions. Like TotalBiscuit's.

[–]Wild_Marker [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Unlikely. TB doesn't cover Grand Strategy because he doesn't have the time. That and he's been busy with PAX coverage.

But who knows, space 4x might pick his interest enough to cover it.

[–]bitbot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe not, but he did say on last week's podcast that he was gonna spend the week playing it.

[–]jamiew0w [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

I hope this review is bad/wrong because this is the first game in a few months that i've been genuinely hyped for.

[–]WackySkeletons [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It's neither of those. It's the reviewers personal opinion.

[–]emmanuelvr [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Read his review, almost all his criticisms are based on subjective enjoyment of the mechanics, not major mechanical or technical failures. All I got from his review was not to expect CK2 in space. My only fear from his review was his note on events/quests disappearing mid to late game, but then he doesn't mention the late game mega events? I'm not sure.

[–]detv [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is the only review that doesn't think it really good. Shame this gets all the attention, when all others are giving it something like 8-9/10.

[–]Loud_Stick [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Might as well just give every game a 9 and not bother actually reviewing it then