Slitherine

Polaris - this is a real 4X strategy. Stellaris - in each element of the gameplay has defects and shortcomings. Stellaris is not complete 4X strategy.
But what I see after two weeks?
Bought the game: 7K polaris vs 350K stellaris
Playing the game: 1K polaris vs 40K stellaris
Reviews: 143/66 polaris vs 5133/633 stellaris

Stellaris worse than Polaris several times, but the entire Internet in all forums littered with false lengthy and laudatory reviews. All the negative reviews are blurred, erased or there is a struggle with them.

Polaris is much better than the Stellaris, much more interesting and not filled with so many bugs and unllogical elements. But it totally lost on the market.

Why Polaris completely lost market? Why not use marketing?

AlexBTex wrote:Polaris - this is a real 4X strategy. Stellaris - in each element of the gameplay has defects and shortcomings. Stellaris is not complete 4X strategy.
But what I see after two weeks?
Bought the game: 7K polaris vs 350K stellaris
Playing the game: 1K polaris vs 40K stellaris
[/b]

These values are not real by two reasons, Steamspy is not perfect and Slitherine sells games here.

Other incorrect point which I see. It would be if we think how the game must be sold only in the first weeks. Polaris sector will be sold for more time.

But I agree about how the Slitherine people did not try overload the net with information about their games or other games. They publish their games only in the Slitherine sections and by these reason many people do not know the game. If I had sold it. I had announced the game, showed reviews even in all the sites which I would see in the net and I had overloaded all them with information. More previews and reviews.

Other bad point, many games are maintained at secret, they announce the name and the type but they do not show a byte. It is a big mistake because people waiting the game will judge a lot worse than people which they have seen some about the game. The people which they know and they will be familiar with the game because they have followed the developing of the game with screenshots and more, they will be more friendly when you release the game and it will increase your sales in the begining.

May be Stallaris has really the better marketing?

Beside this I think your value of sold copies of Polaris Sector is wrong.
In opposite of Stellaris, Polaris Sector can be used without Steam. Anyone who bought it "normal" like me, can't be in your statistic.

Any yes, because of the information I found in Internet I assume Polaris Sector is the better game. As I will not buy Stellaris I can't really compare it.

I do not think it makes sense to compare figures with Paradox title that was backed up by a long history of other titles.

However, even from that statistics there is one interesting point:
>Bought the game: 7K polaris vs 350K stellaris -> means 50 to one
>Playing the game: 1K polaris vs 40K stellaris -> means 40 to one

So the average play is better for PS

peterw wrote:Any yes, because of the information I found in Internet I assume Polaris Sector is the better game. As I will not buy Stellaris I can't really compare it.

peterw, I can write you a tiny description of why Stellaris bad:
1. Horrible interface. It is so awkward as it can be. Stupid and absolutely unplayable. Terrible "dumbbells", which completely cover the review. Giant windows on the floor of the screen. Interface completely incomprehensible, although the most casual.
2. No tree technology, 80% of the technology is simply upgrades. You cannot automate the selection of technologies, even after shift. I have 1000 times to press the mouse buttons one and same.
3. There is no tactical combat. Only strategic zerg in the system.
4. There is no common scale - there are switching to galaxy map mode or system view!!! 100% Fail. That in space 4X game
5. Play at the end so slow. Game code is not highly optimized and very hard. After the 150 stars you play extremely irritating slideshow.
6. Customization spaceships - a very, very simple and dull. 100% of the time I play with customization handles auto mode.
7. In the game there is no production points. Those. Super Planet will build the spacecraft same time with a poor desert colony.
8. Exclusion espionage.
9. The game just killed diplomacy. (Europa Universalis project inheritance)
10. There are no differences in the races. The only difference is in the settings of the political regime. Even properties race virtually no effect on the game!
11. Micromanagement represented only 4 buttons in the sector settings. The rest is all - the constant and very tedious microcontrol. Just awful.

There are a lot less important drawbacks and bugs. For example you cannot fly on the enemy's territory. Just not allowed and all. It is impossible to capture part of the territory. You cannot declare war, when you want. There's still a lot of "can't" or “impossible”. It is impossible, it is impossible, it is impossible - and it is a global strategy???

Now what is a «nextgen».
1. Politics and policies. In the game the political process should be the main element of the game. However, everything depends on and can easily be solved by political points. There is no strong influence of politicians, such as in Europa Universalis game eventually solve all loans and resources.
2. Diplomacy - the usual diplomacy, as in any other 4X. You cannot trade the technology. I did not see anything new. But it is very silly when the war depends on 100% of the diplomacy.
3. Genetic modification - this is an interesting element. Especially the fact that the population begins to hate modified. I not used this little element of the game, because it requires an unreal microcontrols. Roughly speaking - every planet to manually modify the population under the climate, and then another, and to suppress the uprising. Plus, this planet can be separated from the empire. Fun? I did not use.
4. Space quests and events. An interesting aspect of the game, if it had completed the. 90% of the time the main quest - it collects wreckage of the ships. Stupid.
5. It should be noted that the music and graphics in the game space at a height.

Moding
I have disassembled the game resources. This project Europa Universalis / Hearts of Iron / Victoria / Crusader Kings ported into space. Judging by the modules - this is absolutely the same game. Radically changes the interface or gameplay impossible, since it is simply sewn into the executable module.

And here is my conclusion - marketing and marketing again! Stellaris is shit in a nice wrapper - and get a maximum returns on the game.

I have disassembled the game resources. This project Europa Universalis / Hearts of Iron / Victoria / Crusader Kings ported into space. Judging by the modules - this is absolutely the same game. Radically changes the interface or gameplay impossible, since it is simply sewn into the executable module.

Nobody sold it as one thing different. Perhaps some people did not read the words from creators but they were clear about how Stellaris was made with the same engine. By this reason, the tactical combat is bad and the game is very similar to the EU games. I continue finding ironic how many people were waiting Stellaris because it was from Paradox as if it would give you the perfect game and people were waiting some very different to the game sold by Paradox but most of them ignored the previews. I knew from 6 months ago how it would be game very similar EU without a good tactical mode. Because I was not blind.

Nomada_Firefox, I agree with you. Europa Universalis has an army of fans in 1 million people. Perhaps they have provided this very mendacious propaganda in the comments almost on all sites. And most likely, they provided 95% of sales Stellaris. But the fact that Stellaris does not provide gameplay even 20% of Europa Universalis.

They do not care that such masterpieces as Cities Skylines or Pillars of Eternity not created a paradox team. They only see the brand. In Russia we call this effect - brain iphonization, or kind of zombie population or herd instinct. If space strategy will move in this direction, the genre will die. And it's very sad.

The Microprose, who had published MoM, MoO, Transport Tycoon, Civilization (while it was good), XCOM (don't confuse with X-COM) broke and disappeared.
The 3DO, who had published HoM&M (while it was good) broke and disappeared.
Good games don't make money.

AlexBTex wrote:Polaris - this is a real 4X strategy. Stellaris - in each element of the gameplay has defects and shortcomings. Stellaris is not complete 4X strategy.
But what I see after two weeks?
Bought the game: 7K polaris vs 350K stellaris
Playing the game: 1K polaris vs 40K stellaris
Reviews: 143/66 polaris vs 5133/633 stellaris

Stellaris worse than Polaris several times, but the entire Internet in all forums littered with false lengthy and laudatory reviews. All the negative reviews are blurred, erased or there is a struggle with them.

Polaris is much better than the Stellaris, much more interesting and not filled with so many bugs and unllogical elements. But it totally lost on the market.

Why Polaris completely lost market? Why not use marketing?

Because those are all subjective assessments. I for one like Stellaris considerably more than Polaris, and I don't even like Stellaris that much. So that should tell you how much I think of Polaris. I just check here now and then for game/patch/features status.

If you want better sales from Polaris, you should share the good things from it around the net. It is easy.

bjgrt wrote:The Microprose, who had published MoM, MoO, Transport Tycoon, Civilization (while it was good), XCOM (don't confuse with X-COM) broke and disappeared.
The 3DO, who had published HoM&M (while it was good) broke and disappeared.
Good games don't make money.

I do not agree. They make money. The point is how some of these creators are retired and living from what they won with these games.

bjgrt wrote:Good games don't make money.

I disagree. There are a lot of very interesting indie projects. 4X - there is Endles Space and Endles Space 2 approach. I have seen the video - I was very impressed.
Endles Space bought more than 1 million people. Just need a good marketing approach. What I'm trying to write.
The paradox spent on marketing is 10 times more than the stellaris itself, and here is the result. And if it was a good game - it has sold 10 times more.

I didn't say games don't make money, just good ones.
If millions of fly like it - it's not necessary good (could be honey though).

AlexBTex wrote:

bjgrt wrote:Good games don't make money.

I disagree. There are a lot of very interesting indie projects. 4X - there is Endles Space and Endles Space 2 approach. I have seen the video - I was very impressed.
Endles Space bought more than 1 million people. Just need a good marketing approach. What I'm trying to write.
The paradox spent on marketing is 10 times more than the stellaris itself, and here is the result. And if it was a good game - it has sold 10 times more.

Really I would not say how they have spent a lot of money at marketing. With exception from the advertisements at Steam, I have not seen more than PS at other sites. We should be realistic with this. People like more great graphics than great gameplay. The unique point here with the difference of money, it was told before by Ufnv. Stellaris and Endless Space games had a big budget, they were made by teams of many people.

But from point of view, never I understood what saw the people in Endless Space game, it can have graphics but it can not be modded and at the end, it is a game which you finish at very few time. Modding clearly give a lot of additional hours of play to games.

I am putting Stellaris away until the first patch and dlc. I got it "on sale" for $30, but it's going to cost customers a lot more to get a good AI and many other things. There appears to be a very good and fair review on Steam for the game, and it's depressing. Although the gent says he still enjoys the game.

Interesting that more people avoided the new Master of Orion, and I don't think it's doing well. Have to check.

PS reminds me of an operational level game, and you really need to be paying attention. GalCiv3 just hit the next turn button

PS also has the best ship designer yet, imo. Not as complex and more intuitive than Sword of the Stars, my previous favorite.

All fans can really do now is write a fair review of both games on Steam.

I agree, at PS you must pay attention to each movements. But I do not understand how some people like automatic games, it is not fun.

Given the current state of both games I like PS over Stellaris. But my primary frustration remains "system conquest". First, to everyone that likes it as it is, that's great-- I'm truly happy for you. But I didn't buy this to play the "great galactic logistical simulator"-- so much ELSE is abstracted (e.g., global access to resources), there's not much reason for this not to be streamlined. It would be like Panzer Corps with making us move every replacement and barrel of fuel by individual truck all over the battlefield. Building DOZENS of troop transports & assault ships and managing them around the galaxy is not fun to me, ESPECIALLY in the late game. And to those who claim they can easily take well-defended high-pop planets without bombing I call B.S. Unless you LIKE to wait 100 years or so (and allll that time managing an endless ferrying of troops to just that one planet)-- which is just silly in gameplay terms. On NORMAL difficulty I have seen:
1) A planet with a pop of only 5K and 25 tanks. No other planetary defenses. I drop 2K Marines, and the screen says "we're winning! In 30 years!" WTF?!?!
2) A totally undefended ocean planet with ~100K pop. I drop 1K Marines and take it over in 1 month! Man, them some badass Marines!
3) Too many other "doesn't pass the make sense test" results to mention. It seems to be a total crapshoot much of the time.
This is simply a bad system, and it's a KEY part of the game, although I'm sure it will not be changed.

My point is before everyone jumps on the "PS over Stellaris" bandwagon, consider that PS has some pretty significant warts and unimplemented features (Heroes? WHY aren't they in the main game??). THEN the question becomes: Which one will receive the most comprehensive updates over time? Only time will tell, but the vast majority of Paradox peeps seem completely convinced there will be numerous and significant upgrades/patches (2 major ones have already been scheduled & described). I haven't any indication we'll see much out of PS but some bug fixes & minor tweaking. Which is a shame, because other than the above it is a LOT of fun.

1) A planet with a pop of only 5K and 25 tanks. No other planetary defenses. I drop 2K Marines, and the screen says "we're winning! In 30 years!" WTF?!?!

It is just a matter of what you see.......it can be edited and years can be months. In my mod these things are different.

consider that PS has some pretty significant warts and unimplemented features (Heroes? WHY aren't they in the main game??).

Because I suggested them for my mod and other mods. Probably they were not added in the game because they needed additional graphics and it would be more money.

From my point of view. Stellaris is what you see, it will not be more. It will continue with the same type of poor tactical mode forever. But PS probably will add more and more features with the past of the time.

For invasions - you can set an "instant invasion" option, this should help.

Is that the "instant ground combat" in settings? Or in a file somewhere? Thanks!

Edit: Because that setting crashes every save game. Is it only good for new games?