Why didn't you like the review?
"Attempting"
It will certainly be interesting to see where URR goes, but as I've understood it, it's already been in development for years and is the passion project of one guy doing it in his spare time, so even if it's successful it's probably going to take many years to get there. I also suspect that, like Dwarf Fortress, it's the sort of monomaniacal work that is unlikely to be successfully replicated commercially.
Do you find Paradox comments on IGNs review a bit hypocritical giving your past dealings with them?
That's the other thing. When they announced Stellaris I was like "well, that's a pipe dream if I ever heard one", but then when they announced how soon it was coming out I was like "uh...that can't possibly have been in the oven long enough". And sounds like it wasn't.
Well, Master of Orion II, for one. And then, uh.....yeah, actually that's about it, from what I've played.
Ha ha, you played Stellaris.
Wow, Tom. Please go and have some fun with the Master of Orion remake. Lots of "personality" and Civ-like gameplay there for you to enjoy.
What's sad is that there really isn't an incentive to change this approach. Outside this and the IGN review, reviews have been very good, sales records, top steam game, etc. Now everyone is just raving about how great PP is for all there post release support. With all the current users, DLC will sell like hotcakes when the prevailing thought will be that it will 'fix' all it's issues.
The cynic in me thinks they purposefully knew they could front load the game knowing gamers and reviewers won't be as critical to the nonexistent mid game. The initial wow factor will bleed over in and help conceal it. Their first post release dev diary is telling:
"One area I was not at all surprised to get flak for is the lack of
mid-game scripted content, however. We simply took too long getting all
the early and late game stuff in, and neglected a whole category of
events called “colony events”, which were supposed to be the bread and
butter of the mid-game for the Science Ships."
"...not surprised..."
They're not all surprised about the lack of mid game content because they knew they didn't implement any, but they shipped it anyway. They thought they could get away with it and they did.
When I play the game it doesn't feel like a 1/5 though...
Very interesting, thanks for the link. That game will lean on history, though, for it's flavor - the very first picture is a plinth with an Ionic volute, which has very specific historical connotations - and I think part of the point that Tom was making was that when you take the history out of a strategy game, you can't just replace it with numerical values. But space games have nothing to fall back on from a "historical" perspective without using existing sci-fi IP.
"Why is information as basic as another empire’s hyperspace links unavailable?"
One correction. This is intentional. If your empire doesn't use hyperspace travel, you can't see hyperspace links until you research the technology to view them.(It is called "hyperlane mapping") Then they *do* show up on the UI.
True, though there are certainly more DF clones these days than there used to be; Gnomoria and Rimworld to name two.
What is the chance that Stellaris a year from now is a very good game? Paradox seems to be quite good at this. I wouldn't buy the game now, certainly, but I'll keep my eye on it.
That's a fair point and to be clear I don't disagree with Tom's point regarding Stellaris and its flavor or lack thereof. I was more taking exception to the idea that, as a rule, you can't make procedurally generated history/culture interesting. It does take more than just replacing historical context with a +5% minerals modifier though.
Its pretty funny that Tom Chick slams Stellaris but doesn't even realize how messed up the combat is.
Same...pretty much agree with Tom except go even further as the combat's failings ( and resulting 2nd/3rd order effects) are stark.
I don't find the game bereft of soul like Tom does. I can pull some identity out of those traits. However even if you concede the design is good the game has trouble working as designed as it has quite a few technical issues. Those are what really get me. That and the mid game deal. The game feels unfinished but Paradox says the game is, so it's entirely fair to review it as a finished product.
Tom Mc
Tom, just refrain from reviewing strategy games, they're above your sensibilities. Stick to rail shooters and action RPGs, those are more your speed. Why Metacritic even bothers with your constant barrage of 1's and 5's is beyond me. Your reviews aren't even well written, which is probably why you're on a blog and not an actual publication. Congrats on being the one guy we can all rely on to severely underscore any game that you can't immediately grasp, you vacuous cretin.
Sincerely,
Someone who hates 94% of your reviews, because 1-5 star ratings are for chimps.
Sure, but last I heard none of them come close to replicating the obsessive depth of simulation that's what really makes Dwarf Fortress what it is.