Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
ok, arumba 1# fan of pardox games, the person that is doing CK2 and EU4 lets play for ages..
stopped playing stellaris in his middle of lets play because the game i boring :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHBfKAV9TWQ
They have also recognised some problems with mid/late game (see link),taken feedback and making patch,like usually for any 4x game at laungh (eu4 had many problems at launch). Like stardock made a patch for starbase and so on.
The mid game "problem" depends also from game to game,and from ethos of own empire (if he was individualist, he couldent make slavery a thing and he woulden't encounter this bug:P), and its not always the same (mid/late game is a general problem of every 4x, i dont see stellaris worse...i think its even bettere than other games in this regard)
Another tiny, little thing that Stellaris does right and I'm hoping to maybe see in GC3, someday: actual ship class naming. It's just such a tiny detail, yet makes a world of difference: being able to see at a glance what class a ship belongs to.
GC3 is an okay game, with a great potential and Stardock are (along with Paradox, coincidentally) one of the 2 companies that earned my trust and admiration over the years for their dedication to their games... but it's still lacking too many "little things" right now to make it a great game. I know Stardock are not the kind to just let things limber and abandon their games, but we're not really seeing any progress and are being promised a lot so I guess I'll just wait and see.
I absolutely care. The engine, and 64-bit framework, are really, really important! I love GC3 in its current incarnation, and knowing that it's future is technically bright makes me want to play it that much more. That post by Draginol is awesome--thanks for bringing it to my attention.
That being said, I don't agree with the title of this thread. It's rude, imo. I purchased Stellaris, but I haven't played it yet because I'm having too much fun with GC3. But I look forward to playing it at some point, and I'm sure it will be fun judging from the positive reaction of players.
Just because I prefer GC3 atm doesn't mean I need to tear down Stellaris. I hope both games continue to do well.
If you like Stellaris more, that's fine. I like Stellaris too, at least the early game of it. It all depends on what features are important to you.
But you are the one who mentioned Stellaris has X and release and GalCiv III has been out a year. So you are comparing.
Like you said above, all that matters is where they are, right now.
Both games have their strengths. For the last year, we've been getting beaten up about AI. Do you think the AI in Stellaris is remotely close to where GalCiv III's AI is today? Do you think the ship customization is Stellaris is close to where GalCiv III's customizationis today? What about pacing? What about colony management? What about information and statistical opacity?
Because if any of the answers to the above are "Well sure, GalCiv III is better but it's been out a year" then it's totally fair to say "Yes, but Stellaris is built on an engine that has had years of work on it."
There are a lot of features in Stellaris that I think GalCiv III needs (particularly in setting up your civilization and in terms of the internal government intrigue).
If I had designed GalCiv III it would obviously have been very different. Not necessarily better, you would have had a lot less war fighting features (you wouldn't even have had a battle viewer, the fighting would have all been on the main map based on fleet adjacency for instance) and a lot more "boring" political stuff because that's what I like.
But what people in this thread have tried to communicate is that the engine of GalCiv III does matter because GalCiv III can get a superset of Stellaris features while Stellaris will never be able to do what GalCiv does because of the limitations of its engine. It''s a trade off.
If I had to pick between them today, it would be hard because I much prefer the political features of Stellaris to that of GalCiv III. Stellaris is also a much better MP game because it's real time and easy to set up. But on the other hand, GalCiv III, I think, is a better single player game as it has much better AI, more interesting colony management and its pacing has been refined over the past year).
But what about a year from now? Tell me: Which game is more likely to let people actually play the Klingons vs. the Federation vs. the Empire vs. the Mimbari with each side having those ships fighting it out with truly custom ships on a map with thousands of stars and a UI to help manage the universe in terms of sectors / quadrants / etc.? If you were a betting man, which game do you think is more likely?
So if it were me, I'd buy both. I'd also buy the new MOO and Polaris.
The existence of Stellaris isn't a threat to GalCiv because they're ultimately not rivals. If any fanbase should be threatend by Stellaris it's Distant Worlds.
Uhh he stopped playing because his empire, that was built on slavery didnt work well with how sectors currently are implemented not because the core game is boring. Seriously tell the whole story instead of trying to make Stellaris look bad next time.
Personally i prefer Stellaris over GC III, mainly because the economic system in GC III is terrible. Planetary wheel anyone? No cost to produce goods (like in GC II) makes the game mostly about abusing modifiers.
If during the next 5 years they can add many features, features that are also in europa universalis 4/ck2, why they need a new engine?for 10k stars and 200 IA? If one day it will have 90% of the features of europa universalis 4/ck2, it will be the greatest 4x and the engine can make it.
it doesn't need 10k star or 200 IA, because they have nailed the galaxy immersion even with 600 stars and 30 ia. In this thing stellaris is great,the immersion, the initial discovery of space, the distance of the things, the travel time, the political/population aspect. More immersive in the end that my insane galaxy in galactic civilization (thet i like, but i consider it a very classic 4x, the feeling that "i have just played this", it seems more old from a gameplay prospective than stellaris). not a bad game,i like it,,and i look forward for the future,buying dlc/expansion to support, but for now it seems more old type while stellaris give a sense of new generation 4x.
Galciv3 seems more like a boardgame, stellaris give me more impression of a galaxy. Not better or worse, just different experience.
In Stellaris they' ll add many scripted events for mid game,diplomacy crisis and so on, they dont stop the develop for the engine, stellaris is not a the max potential, they dont need, now, a new engine. I think paradox has made a choice, and when they feel that their games, for the features that they want to put in them, will need a new engine,theyll' made a new engine (probably they are already working in a new engine for an ipotetical europa universalis 5/crusader king 3 and future stellaris sequel). They'll think at the cost/benefit equation.
In the end, galciv3 and stellaris are different game, turn based vs real time, typical 4x managmeent vs 4x lite managmenet+ grand strategy features, so its a matter of preference,for now.
In one year i dont know, i trust Stardock, but i trust also paradox seeing their past hystory and seeing the difference beetween their vanilla game (broken ia, many incomplete aspect)and the same games after some times. In 1 year from now,both games will be better for sure.
Distant worlds is good but is a the end of its development circle(5 years with 4 expansions and many patches, and at beginning it was worse than stellaris in IA and other aspect) and i prefer stellaris to it in general. For a classic 4x experience, galciv3 is probabily the best and has probably the more potential of all typical 4x (more boardgame experience),. Stellaris is more a 4x/grand strategy hibrid, board game/ simulation hybrid, and in this category it will rule in my opinion.
ps. these planned 3 patches for the next 3/4 months, will solve 99% of the critics made to stellaris https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-33-the-maiden-voyage.932668/ , the rest of time will be expansions/dlc and patches for additional features. The sector problem with slavery will probably be fixed in the end of may with 1.1.
Gal Civ III: Plenty of dead worlds that no amount of research will fix. Can't easily find planets that I could have colonized but need to click everywhere to find again. Gal Civ II let me find useful planets more easily that my ships have spotted at least once. Lots of clicking Turn button until something is built or the Drengin slaughter my ships. Very pretty and detailed customization of ships. Too bad I can't live long enough to use any designs well. Gal Civ II was more forgiving and my ship designs could be focused on exactly what I needed. Gal Civ II detailed graphs and civilizations has been replaced with a tiny vague map in upper right corner under a tab. Am I the blue or the cyan color? I can't squint enough to see if I'm winning...
GalCiv may be not perfect, but Stellaris does not look appealing to me.
What simple things do you want?