A classic and a highly-rated dud
41. Stellaris (Paradox, 2016)
42. The Stanley Parable (Galactic Cafe, 2013)
Stellaris represents, I suppose, Paradox Interactive's attempt to branch out from their more historical simulation-style strategy games (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, Hearts of Iron) and produce a more, err, "gamey" game. It is, therefore, more of a straight "4X"-style game, and it's a space setting rather than Paradox's standard historical fare (one imagines this was a conscious choice, to prevent the studio's history-oriented developers accidentally making Europa Universalis again). In resisting the allure of overcomplication, Paradox have avoided the hole that Master of Orion III fell into, and in doing so (and also avoiding several other pitfalls, such as the incomprehensible research tree of Sword of the Stars) have also managed to make what's probably the best space game since its predecessor (I've never been impressed by Galactic Civilizations).
Where Stellaris really shines is the early game; they've done a great job of making space seem vast and incomprehensible; your early explorers will frequently run into the unexplained, whether that's other sentients, a variety of space-dwelling monsters, the remains of ancient civilisations, pre-space civilisations or even fallen and decadent Empires that ruled the galaxy once before turning inward. Inhabitable worlds are relatively rare (and in fact in the mid-game you'll be either trying to import other species to expand the set of worlds you can colonise, or else genetically modifying your own species; terraforming is possible, but it's a huge resource hog you don't really want to bother with - this feels right to me) and the opening scramble for territory is fairly intense as a result. The mid-game is somewhat weaker; that's well, not so much intentional on Paradox's part as acknowledged; they generally release a game that's entirely playable but is short of a full set of features (it's not quite minimum viable product, but a similar idea) and make it up through expansions. The first significant one of these, Leviathans, has just come out, and I'll be interested to see how much there is to improve the mid-game; there's some interesting-sounding new features there. The end-game benefits from specific end-game crises (an extragalactic invasion, an extradimensional invasion, and an AI rebellion) to liven things up, though it does still have the traditional problem that the gap between "strongest power in the Galaxy" and the victory conditions is a bit too big; still, I did have fun closing it in the one game I actually played to completion. Leviathans has also added a new one of these; the "Fallen" empires can rise again, and it's even possible for two of them to go to war; the "War in Heaven" event sounds like it could be huge fun to get caught up in. I've also played a lot of this MP with senji and shadow, and that's every bit as much fun - fighting off the extragalactic invasion as a team is some of the most fun I've had playing a computer game.
The Stanley Parable is probably art, but it's the sort I don't get. I don't think it's actually a game as such; it's definitely a story, and one that couldn't be told using any other medium, but by the usual ways I would define a game it doesn't fit into those boxes. For a start, you can't win or lose, and you're also not particularly challenged intrinsically by the game; such challenge as exists is extrinsic inasmuch as you have to give some meaning to what you're experiencing. There are choices to be made, but you're clearly intended to eventually take all of them, rendering any individual choice meaningless. What the player is actually doing is playing an entirely nondescript character (the eponymous "Stanley"), all of whose actions are foretold by a narrator, who reaches differing degrees of exasperation when you fail to actually do as he says. It's occasionally funny (quite often, actually), but it's also fairly short, and it all seems a bit shallow. My lasting reaction was "was that it?" (as far as I could tell from walkthroughs, etc, it was). I mean, yes, it's briefly thought-provoking, but more of the adverb than the adjective there. If there's anything deeper to it, I missed it entirely.
42. The Stanley Parable (Galactic Cafe, 2013)
Stellaris represents, I suppose, Paradox Interactive's attempt to branch out from their more historical simulation-style strategy games (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, Hearts of Iron) and produce a more, err, "gamey" game. It is, therefore, more of a straight "4X"-style game, and it's a space setting rather than Paradox's standard historical fare (one imagines this was a conscious choice, to prevent the studio's history-oriented developers accidentally making Europa Universalis again). In resisting the allure of overcomplication, Paradox have avoided the hole that Master of Orion III fell into, and in doing so (and also avoiding several other pitfalls, such as the incomprehensible research tree of Sword of the Stars) have also managed to make what's probably the best space game since its predecessor (I've never been impressed by Galactic Civilizations).
Where Stellaris really shines is the early game; they've done a great job of making space seem vast and incomprehensible; your early explorers will frequently run into the unexplained, whether that's other sentients, a variety of space-dwelling monsters, the remains of ancient civilisations, pre-space civilisations or even fallen and decadent Empires that ruled the galaxy once before turning inward. Inhabitable worlds are relatively rare (and in fact in the mid-game you'll be either trying to import other species to expand the set of worlds you can colonise, or else genetically modifying your own species; terraforming is possible, but it's a huge resource hog you don't really want to bother with - this feels right to me) and the opening scramble for territory is fairly intense as a result. The mid-game is somewhat weaker; that's well, not so much intentional on Paradox's part as acknowledged; they generally release a game that's entirely playable but is short of a full set of features (it's not quite minimum viable product, but a similar idea) and make it up through expansions. The first significant one of these, Leviathans, has just come out, and I'll be interested to see how much there is to improve the mid-game; there's some interesting-sounding new features there. The end-game benefits from specific end-game crises (an extragalactic invasion, an extradimensional invasion, and an AI rebellion) to liven things up, though it does still have the traditional problem that the gap between "strongest power in the Galaxy" and the victory conditions is a bit too big; still, I did have fun closing it in the one game I actually played to completion. Leviathans has also added a new one of these; the "Fallen" empires can rise again, and it's even possible for two of them to go to war; the "War in Heaven" event sounds like it could be huge fun to get caught up in. I've also played a lot of this MP with senji and shadow, and that's every bit as much fun - fighting off the extragalactic invasion as a team is some of the most fun I've had playing a computer game.
The Stanley Parable is probably art, but it's the sort I don't get. I don't think it's actually a game as such; it's definitely a story, and one that couldn't be told using any other medium, but by the usual ways I would define a game it doesn't fit into those boxes. For a start, you can't win or lose, and you're also not particularly challenged intrinsically by the game; such challenge as exists is extrinsic inasmuch as you have to give some meaning to what you're experiencing. There are choices to be made, but you're clearly intended to eventually take all of them, rendering any individual choice meaningless. What the player is actually doing is playing an entirely nondescript character (the eponymous "Stanley"), all of whose actions are foretold by a narrator, who reaches differing degrees of exasperation when you fail to actually do as he says. It's occasionally funny (quite often, actually), but it's also fairly short, and it all seems a bit shallow. My lasting reaction was "was that it?" (as far as I could tell from walkthroughs, etc, it was). I mean, yes, it's briefly thought-provoking, but more of the adverb than the adjective there. If there's anything deeper to it, I missed it entirely.