Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
For a game you think is such "crap" it's interesting how many hundreds of hours you've spent playing it.
Personally, I'm all about the 4X, and GC4 is where it shines the brightest.
That's completelly fine. I gotten GCIII as a founder which has cost me 100 Euro. I thought it was a smart move and it has paid off for itself, since we gotten everything early, bonus content and the like. ALL games that respect themselves add free DLC, GCIII included. thyat means nearly nothing. I don't see a valid point in your arguement of a lot of the qualities and abilities and content of GCIII being in GCIV. First off, it means it was such a good game. I'm not American but I solemnly believe in "if it ain't broken don't fix it". Stardock may be keeping stuff, and why shouldn't they, GCIII is what 8 years old?
Which probably means you had that content at your disposal for up to 8 years till now. To which I may say so, it wasn't 300+ dollars and they kept upgrading stuff for free as well. You may not be complaining directly, but you are "soft" complaining for, cause you brought it up. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining. Many companies keep stuff around for the next version of their game. It is how they're upgraded and utilized that is of the matter.
I know very well how the gaming industry works, since I have a great deal of games at my disposal, both in physical and digital form. I've started gaming back at 1987-88. So, please spare me the lecture and what is your opinion of what I said. I could have said the same about your opinion, obviously. I've seen in my life, in the internet, with the anonimity it provides, a lot of opinionists and keyboard defenders of products I don't like, to know by now that their opinion doesn't hold a candle to my own, concerning any game. Cause my money is my own and I will despose it as I like no matter what anyone says. It's just their opinion against mine. Guess whose I give more gravity for decision making that regarding my own affairs, as game buying.
Some companies like to go aggressive with their marketing policies and I've seen how they react to bad criticism. Usually and this is a practice used a lot by lawyers too, they try to discredit some with such an opinion anyway possible and even try to pass through characterizations. Other times they leach other companies threads to intimidate potential buyers since they think if someone doen't get another companies product they have more chances to sell theirs instead. This behaviour is often adopted by fans, who believe someone had authorised them as protectors of their spent money I guess(since obviously they can't have a closer relationship with the company not being in their payroll).
Sometimes it will get to me a little, since I stated my opinion which is true and a 100% accurate in the company's I bought the product of thread and haven't gone to their thread. Since I would get into arguements online up till a point, but in the end, what is the difference? You have your opinion. I have mine. I know I'll keep my opinion, cause I've been with stardock many years as a customer.
I'm quite sure you will keep your opinion and will try to lure others to the game you prefer(apparently Stelaris). Even enticing Stardock to adopt alien for them practices, of companies like Paradox with less cuseomer friendly integrity in my opinion, since if they bleed their customers dry, why wouldn't someone try then Stellaris, if Stardock is as costly and demanding? Externally to someone who hasn't plyed either, there seemingly wouldn't be so many differences. Though there are and that is why I own the better game of the two and the most cost affordable.
There is only one point there that has some validity. Paradox, could have had income from me and like-minded players like me. Their practices and attempts to intimidate me, even if through fans(?) of their games(which I'd guess reflect on their own views on such matters), means they definitelly will not have that income as much as it would have been. Not for any crusader kings games I don't have. Not for any Europa Universallis I don't have. And certainly not for any Stellaris versions now or in the future.
In fact I have their products(CKIII and S) in my wishlist and I will now go and remove it. Thank you for reminding me of the reasoning. Like I said, I don't believe in arguements on internet, since identities are not visible, and some people like to argue for arguing. Which is why I will make tops 2-3 posts in such cases. this is my final post on the issue and with you. Have a nice day and week and enjoy your game.
This really doesn't make any sense. There is no one "X" as you used it since 4X stands for eXploration, eXpansion, eXploitation and eXtermination. Some 4X games are heavier on one X than others, Stellaris does exploration better than any other 4X but is a bit weak on extermination and exploitation. ES2 is also very strong on exploration and weak on extermination, but does a better job with exploitation than Stellaris. GalCiv4 has a pretty strong focus on extermination with weaker exploration (propped up mostly by precursor planets). Distant Worlds 2 has a very strong focus on exploitation and extermination, but is very weak on exploration, and expansion is barely present. Not included in the 4X requirement is diplomacy, a deep research system, and things like alternate victory conditions and non-extermination focuses, which makes some games like Sins of a Solar Empire a "light 4X" because while it has all the staples of the 4X genre and basics of diplomacy, it is for the most part all about combat. While games like Warhammer 40k Gladius are not 4X games even though they claim to be because they entirely lack diplomacy or non-combat gameplay.
They all have strengths and weaknesses, and you may like one of the Xs over the others and prefer the games that focus on that, but to say Stellaris "happens to include some X" is ridiculous. Stellaris is very much a 4X, and the only thing preventing most of Paradox's other "grand strategy" games from also being 4X games is they entirely like exploration. If CK3 had a random map mode with random factions where you had to explore everything, it would be an amazing 4X.
I think what he means is you can play Stellaris as an RPG and not neccesarily be all hell bent on exploring, expanding, exterminating.
One of my more fun runs with it was playing as a civ that just wanted to nurse and protect pre-ftl civs. The only reason I would go to war would be to protect a FTL civ in someone else's territory, since I could not trust them to treat it properly.
Now for you argument on WIlliam the Conqueror being the only one I could think of, here are others:
The fall of the Roman Republic and the birth of the First Triumvirate
Any medieval wars of succession (and actually most if not all medieval wars)
Crusades (the claims being a religious one)
I would even say that that the recent Russian-Ukrainian War and Aizerbaijan-Armenian War are wars over territory claim.
Now there has also been war fought over ideology and not territorial claim (like WW2) which are also represented in Stellaris through liberation wars and total wars.
Now again, I reiterate my argument: this may not be the best representation on how wars are waged but it's a decent abstracted representation.
Finally, would you mind keeping your tone civil? It's a friendly chat after all.
If you like it then that's OK. We are not all the same.
To you Stellaris is Wonderful. To me it is Garbage.
That does not make you Evil. It does not make me Good.
BTW, I could not play GC2 or GC3 on the highest difficulties and beat them on the second try. Their Ai is either smarter or cheats better than those other games. Either way the GC games are better for it.
And Civil? I have been nothing but Civil. Sorry if I appeared otherwise.
It's definitely cheating. So is Stellaris for the matter, I don't know of any 4X games where it isn't the case. In the end what makes Stellaris stands apart for me is the roleplay potential. It's not about finding the best traits for your pop or the best civics for your empire, it's about finding those that fits with the story you wants to create. In that regard, Stellaris is better than any 4X games out there.
Again if you don't like the mechanics then you won't like the game.
sorry but no, stellaris is as much a 4x game as distant worlds (1 or 2) or Galactic Civilizations Series is. just because the other two are not turn based does NOT mean they aren't 4x games (expand, explore, exploit, exterminate). conquest isn't the only thing a 4x game is about.
you can play the isolationist or diplomat as good in distant world or stellaris as you can in gal civ. you can also play as much of a war monger in all three games. your argument that stellaris is about a civilization to "Live in" is funny because its much less about the actual simulation and is much more abstract than distant worlds and even to some degree more abstract to gal civ in some areas.
of course you can disagree but i don't see any objective argument why stellaris or distant worlds might be less of a 4x game than galactic civilizations (hint: they aren't).
of course by labeling stellaris or distant worlds as "not exactly 4x" or outright "no 4x" as you tried here is a nice try of dodging the direct comparison, which most new 4x game will lose against considering stellaris has over 7 years of development under its belt and over a dozen of dlc's / expansions.
but the truth is that they are all 4x games albeit with a different focus, although i think that gal civ 4 tries a bit too much to become stellaris in several areas ... which is why i find it hilarious that you try to deny stellaris its 4x genre.
stellaris biggest focus is on emergent story telling, similiar to rimworld, but its also as much of a war / conqueset game if you want it to be. even if you only compare gal civ (3 or 4) with stellaris on the war front, you have much way types of wars, war goals & outcomes and war machinery compared to other games. you can subjugate enemies or become their overlord with unique relationships ... nothing of the sorts in gal civ. you have a dozen different kinds of planet destroyers, megastructures and titan ships to play with. you have huge ass star bases which can actually hold their own compared to the mostly buffing effects of previous star bases in gal civ (havent played 4 yet).
yes, stellaris is more complex and allows much more to roleplay and play out certain fantasies, but that comes from the breadth of content it has. the differences / steriotypes in gal civ only go so far yet and are of course limited by features.
of course its kinda unfair to compare stellaris with its 7 years of post launch dev time and over a dozen dlc with a newly rebrandend and resold gal civ 4 vanilla...i mean supernova (lol) ... but i am a consumer so i don't care about fairness, i care about product (price, quality, etc.).
if somebody asks me but hands down the best 4x space game is right now then it's quiet objetctively stelllaris. even the argument "its rts, i prefer turn based" is a low value argument because you have changable game speeds and stellaris with its monthly system plays rather like a fluid turn based game than a rts one.
the biggest advantage in my book for gal civ series till now was that all was on the same big map and more formulaic or more mechanics driven approach.
gal civ series also had always a great ship designer ... sadly the combat was always hands of and only watch ...even the watching was quite clunky (don't know gal civ 4 yet but doesn't look so different).
in my honest opinion, instead slicing up gal civ 4 into sectors, trying to mimic stellaris it would've been better to stick with the one big map style, add some clever instant wormhole or gate travel for lategame and focus on expanding on the ship combat with manual combat or at least manually guided combat (maybe similiar to dominion series).
stellaris biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. being so large and indepth now means newcomer have that much more to learn. new interested players in stellaris also have a mountain of dlc to work through. but besides that you have a game (stellaris) where you can role play ANY race you ever imagined because they literally by now pretty much have integrated ALL TV/Movie Sci Fi tropes!