Is this game more EU or CK?
Well, it's developed by the guy who did CK2. 
Garion333 wrote:Is this game more EU or CK?
Well, it's developed by the guy who did CK2. :-)
I know, but I don't see it. I feel it'll be less CK than Rome was.
I think the unique thing about CK2 is the focus on individual people and families. It humanizes things in ways that I don't anticipate this game even attempting. That doesn't seem to be its focus.
Which, I suppose, doesn't preclude them finding a narrative angle to tie it all together, but even so it seems like a different beast.
My question:
Some people say one of the reasons that Crusader Kings is so good is that it makes it fun to lose. I don't agree. I find Crusader Kings very frustrating sometimes, because I don't enjoy a game when losing is inevitable. I start over a lot. Will Stellaris appeal to someone like me, or will it set up situations where it is impossible to win?
I hope the latter. I hope they set up a universe where sometimes you are just hosed. Or where you just get lucky and have everything you need to make a steamroller. And everything in between.
Because making a strategy game where you will win every time is boring and useless.
So far it sounds a lot like a fairly traditional take on 4x with a Paradox real time spin on it, so I'd expect that losing won't happen a lot in the way it does in CK.
But we really don't know.
When is early access?
One reason losing works in CK2 is that it's really about the family not the nation. You can lose the entire kingdom, but as long as the family keeps going the story continues.
I suppose Stellaris could have something similar on the species level, if they really wanted to try for that.
Because making a strategy game where you will win every time is boring and useless.
There's a difference between "you will win every time" and avoiding unbeatable scenarios.
I prefer to feel like it was my fault if I lost, that I could have won if I had played better. Not that I was playing an impossible game.
I suppose Stellaris could have something similar on the species level, if they really wanted to try for that.
I'll be shocked if they do. CK2 is such a different beast because of what you mentioned. I'm okay not having the fail but continue scenario that a CK2 has because it doesn't quite fit the scope of a typical space 4x.
Btw, I keep saying "traditional" or "typical" 4x and I'm not damning with faint praise here, I'm simply intending to differentiate it from CK2 as that's not what I would consider a typical grand strategy game.
tboon wrote:Because making a strategy game where you will win every time is boring and useless.
There's a difference between "you will win every time" and avoiding unbeatable scenarios.
I prefer to feel like it was my fault if I lost, that I could have won if I had played better. Not that I was playing an impossible game.
This makes no sense to me. Pick an easier starting ruler.
tboon wrote:Because making a strategy game where you will win every time is boring and useless.
There's a difference between "you will win every time" and avoiding unbeatable scenarios.
I prefer to feel like it was my fault if I lost, that I could have won if I had played better. Not that I was playing an impossible game.
And yet you called out CK2 as being an example of an "unwinnable" (paraphrasing) game. Which I am pretty sure it is not.
Of course in CK2 the definition of "winning" is very open to interpretation.
I hope they keep the CK and EU design philosophy of "sometimes bad stuff happens that is extremely hard to overcome". I also hope they keep the ability from those games for Stellaris to have the ebb and flow of those games: non-linear progress, every empire has its ups and downs, if you push too hard the game pushes back.
If I want to color the map I can always play MOO or ES. Or Civ.
BadKen wrote:tboon wrote:Because making a strategy game where you will win every time is boring and useless.
There's a difference between "you will win every time" and avoiding unbeatable scenarios.
I prefer to feel like it was my fault if I lost, that I could have won if I had played better. Not that I was playing an impossible game.
This makes no sense to me. Pick an easier starting ruler.
Nah, just change the definition of winning.
If you define "winning" CK2 as surviving to the maximum year, then I can see how it would be frustrating.
I think of it more like a game of Pac-Man or Galaga. Sometimes you do well and sometimes you don't. The game ends eventually either way.
Sometimes you do well and sometimes you don't. The game ends eventually either way.
Kind of like life.
*nods sagely*
Sorry, there is quite enough losing in my life already. When I'm playing a video game, I want to have at least the possibility of winning. I don't play video games to be punished even though I do my best.
And tboon, you're making it sound like I want it to be a cakewalk. That's not true at all. I just don't want it to be impossible to win. No Kobayashi Maru scenarios.
Soln: pick an easier start.
Lets all return to frothing excitement at a paradox game now.
And tboon, you're making it sound like I want it to be a cakewalk. That's not true at all. I just don't want it to be impossible to win. No Kobayashi Maru scenarios.
In general, with CK2, unless you screw up incredibly badly, it's really really really really really really unlikely for these situations to happen. But the chain of failure is so great that you basically have to start out trying to get that end state for it to happen.
With EU4, it's possible, especially if you start with a vassal'd Scandanavian minor state that gets diploannex'd by 1500. But there, the solution is literally 1 mouse click at the beginning of the game: don't play as a small vassal'd Scandanavian minor state.
And it's really sounding like strategy games as a whole aren't for you. Have you considered that possibility?
And it's really sounding like strategy games as a whole aren't for you. Have you considered that possibility?
Considering I have been playing and enjoying PC strategy games as long as they have existed, no, I have not considered that possibility.
I love everything I've read about Stellaris so far. I just hope it's not the Dark Souls of 4X space strategy.
It's a paradox game. Losing is a part of winning.
Play as a viking duke. Vikings are basically the easy button. They think casus belli is a thing for chumps.
Play as a viking duke. Vikings are basically the easy button. They think casus belli is a thing for chumps.
Now if Paradox could create space Vikings without getting sued for ripping off the Klingons.
Quintin_Stone wrote:Play as a viking duke. Vikings are basically the easy button. They think casus belli is a thing for chumps.
Now if Paradox could create space Vikings without getting sued for ripping off the Klingons.
The TOS Klingons are Russians.
The TNG/DS9 Klingons are a traveling Shakespeare troupe. In space.
Space vikings would be... the borg?
Space vikings would be... the borg?
Pakleds.
Considering I have been playing and enjoying PC strategy games as long as they have existed, no, I have not considered that possibility.
I love everything I've read about Stellaris so far. I just hope it's not the Dark Souls of 4X space strategy.
IMO challenge and difficulty (especially when opt in) exist to fight the runaway leader and boring end game problems that many strategy games have.
I for one hope that stellaris is dark souls of strategy in that it forces players to understand systems which present challenging gameplay throughout the experience.
BadKen wrote:Considering I have been playing and enjoying PC strategy games as long as they have existed, no, I have not considered that possibility.
I love everything I've read about Stellaris so far. I just hope it's not the Dark Souls of 4X space strategy.
IMO challenge and difficulty (especially when opt in) exist to fight the runaway leader and boring end game problems that many strategy games have.
I for one hope that stellaris is dark sould of strategy in that it forces players to understand systems which present challenging gameplay throughout the experience.
I, for one, hope that every game ends with the universe ending.
f*ck this new forum and its crazy icons
cube wrote:Space vikings would be... the borg?
Pakleds.
No, that's when they call you into their war with someone else and they just end up running around in circles instead of, you know, fighting.
boogle wrote:BadKen wrote:Considering I have been playing and enjoying PC strategy games as long as they have existed, no, I have not considered that possibility.
I love everything I've read about Stellaris so far. I just hope it's not the Dark Souls of 4X space strategy.
IMO challenge and difficulty (especially when opt in) exist to fight the runaway leader and boring end game problems that many strategy games have.
I for one hope that stellaris is dark sould of strategy in that it forces players to understand systems which present challenging gameplay throughout the experience.I, for one, hope that every game ends with the universe ending.
Acolyte of Chaos! PURGE THE HERETIC!
Pages