tgb123
1881
That’s my take on it as well. I was going to start a new game but decided to wait at least for the June patch.
I would certainly say those are all deserving of high praise, for whatever that’s worth.
Quite frankly, I think Tom’s scale is bound to bring disagreement. Sure, it’s quite sensible to use the “I hate it” to “I love it” scale, but when the entire world uses it to mean a different thing, well, you can pull a Cpt. America “No you move”, but it’s probably easier to just go with the flow. :D
“The entire world” have a 0-100% scale, except they only use 70-95, where 70% means something is terrible and 90+ means it is another call of duty.
Amiga Power had the right idea when they decided to use all the numbers, and their reviews contained text that explained the why of it, pretty much like Tom’s reviews.
I’m not saying Tom’s scale is wrong, it’s not. It’s at least as good as any other scale and scoring a game on how much you like it is IMO pretty much the only way to do it, but when people think of a 1 as being a game that’s literally unplayable from a technical standpoint, using the same 1 to mean “I hate it” is going to bring disagreements.
I own and admire Distant Worlds but must confess to never finishing a game and not really being drawn to it. The presentation of this one (and Endless Space) actually keeps me interested for now though we’ll see as with ES I got bored of the end game. I’m shallow, I know :)
Suppose reviews could use iconographs(?). Kinda like how Creative Commons have a lot of different logos for various features.
So, say CC = the score, then the other icons are sub-scores: Gameplay, Technical,
Think Avault had this review system, i.e. points for gameplay, graphics, tech, and a final score.
I am of a similar mind. I can’t help thinking that Tom would have much more fun playing the remake of Master of Orion, a game that, even in Early Access, makes me sad at a fundamental level.
Other than the AI limitations (sectors have worked quite well for me, it’s all about giving them “grants” so they can kickstart their economy) and the sometimes flawed UI (map modes, hiding key installations in sectors, etc.) the rest of his review I can’t relate to.
Saying that Stellaris lacks personality is quite unreal, to be honest. There’s no one single 4x game where the initial sense of wonder wears off quite quickly (even Endless Space). One can design and mod in “clones” of the “Master of Orion” races if they wish so, and there’s in the game the possibility of pin pre-designed races to specific game starts. At least Paradox modding support allows people to write their own stories and add them to melting pot. And certainly, what Tom prescribes as “right and proper” science fiction, sounds to me like churning and/or regurgitating time and again old tropes that probably E. E. Doc Smith first used in his novels, 80 years ago.
In the long term I agree with you to keep the game fresh, but in the short term, I think it is really important to have some way of making the races memorable. I’m 70 hours into the game, and I have yet to find any differentiation between the races other than some have green opinion of me (mostly races I created) and most have a red opinion. I can occasionally give a few mineral per turn that will cause the red races to exchange star charts and the green races are happy to conduct and R&D agreement.
Perception=reality for many things. There maybe a dozen different features between two 31" monitors, but if they aren’t readily apparent to me, I don’t care. Armani jeans and Kirkland jeans maybe made in the same factory and the same way, but plenty of people are willing to pay 3x more for the Armani jeans cause of the label. Paradox may very well have done exactly as you say. But I doubt that Tom and I are the only feel this way.
No one has ever wondered “what will the Ooki-Naba Federation do?” Because the Ooki-Naga Federation was never a who. They were only ever numbers down this column and numbers along these rows. They’ve had random words slapped onto them. Ooki and Naga, followed by some noun a space empire might call itself.
I played a modest amount of EUIV and it didn’t really matter what the attributes of Sardinia were, but it certainly mattered what the personality of the rulers of France, Britain, and Portugal was. Even countries like Castile that I was very unfamiliar with before playing EUIV became a “who” not just collection of attributes and tech levels.
All great games have stories. Sometimes it is because the story is part of the game, but mostly its stories created by the player. “I convinced Rome to declare war on the Zulu right as they were besieging my capital.”, or “I was surrounded by Super Mutant Brute, but I manage to aggro a couple of death claws that distracted them.”. But stories need heroes and villains, and I think that’s where Stellaris is lacking right now.
I have never seen so many people agree with one of Tom’s reviews when he bucks a ratings trend. I’ve read ~20 reviews while sitting on the fence on this title and Tom’s really hits the things that matter most to me. MOO1 & 2, Star Control 2, Alpha Centauri, Gal Civ - all those games have memorable aliens. And also had all the information you needed easily accessible. Stellaris looks good, but they left too many holes for DLC to fill and that is a worrying trend as they have become so overtly DLC dependant. Now as PI releases games it has turned into (for me): Play new release for a week then stop playing due to glaring interface issues, missing content, bugs, etc. Place yourself into cryogenic sleep and come out in 2 years after 5-7 DLC’s have hit to get full enjoyment out of game.
Yeah this is kind of where I am. I can’t dispute anything he says, but I still enjoy it.
Knowing Paradox will likely support the hell out of this and make it better also makes annoyances easier for me to tolerate. With both free UI improvements and with some decent DLC down the road I’m sure it will get better. Let’s also not forget it has mod support.
I also bought and played Distant Worlds. I really don’t have strong memories of it, but it didn’t find myself drawn into and never had any desire to dig deeper.
I still find Stellaris opening to be quite compelling, there are stories and the excitement of finding a big Gaia world, and the task to get influence points for the leader and bunch of other things. Where the game stops being fun is in the middle.
Panzeh
1893
There were actually different and randomly generated AI personalities in MOO1, too, though they didn’t amount to as much as one might think because the RNG guided a lot of big decisions in that game.
Honestly, though, the bonuses are kinda tiny and inconsequential to most of the ethos choices, with only a couple standing out as any good. Just about everything in the game is low impact. Events paper over the lack of interesting and divergent gameplay. Much like ship designers, race designers tend not to create much anything interesting, so instead of diverse races with diverse styles you either get monkeycheese nothings or optimization.
kedaha
1894
I would have hoped that EU4 players would understand (if not agree) with Tom’s point about randomised ‘races’ being devoid of a memorable personality.
Anyone I have ever discussed EU4 with has anthropomorphised the specific individual abilities and bonuses that countries such as France, Austria and the Ottomans get into nations with individual personalities that tend to behave in a similar pattern throughout many games, and with the player taking on many different countries.
The important thing is that this ‘personality’ is constant across playthroughs and helps us build a stronger narrative throughout an individual games, and across repeated games.
Nesrie
1895
I am pretty sure if any other reviewer used a 1 to rate a game, I would expect the game to crawl out of my machine and eat me. They don’t use those bottom scores for anything. I think reviewers should review their opinions and use the whole scale or stop using scores. My only problem is with Tom’s score, there’s no difference between Stellaris and say a game that won’t actually launch… you know like Sim City at launch… a game where he actually says
SimCity does not work yet. And anyone who has reviewed it favorably at this point is reviewing it entirely on its promise.
I’ve already said reviewers shouldn’t review on promises, but I have faith in Paradox whereas Tom seemed to have faith in EA.
Tom’s review is fair for his experience. I just don’t know why he gives some games long passes and won’t score them until later and not others.
I’m pretty sure Tom has a scale for his star ratings. 1 star is something like “hated it”. If he hated Stellaris, what was he supposed to give it?
Hehe. I always saw those threads about game journalism/criticism but I never clicked on them to read them. They sounded boring! LOL
CraigM
1899
So what you’re saying is that the problem is not Tom giving a 1 to games he dislikes, but rather the extreme reluctance of other places to do the same?
Yeah, I’m on board with that. That’s the thing with scores, people automatically conflate them with school grades for stupid reasons. Bad public, BAD!
Nesrie
1900
Tom seems to review games based on his experience, personal tastes and uses his entire scale. Yes, all reviewers should do that. That would give us a much wider range of scores and reflect the experience of a variety of reviewers. This would be a good thing, and I see no problem with reviewers playing games they don’t like and their reviews reflecting that.
