>>2098486
>What ruined Stellaris?

Strictly speaking the new population system/patch objectively did, but if you're looking for a more personalized criticism I think they keep doing two things wrong:

-They're still clinging onto the illusion that they can introduce all this *wacky content, but also balance it for multiplayer ?or someone who cares I'm not aware of?. Which is stupid. If they're going to do wacky unbalanced stuff they need to unapologetically lean in on that content irregardless of how balanced it is (whether that means it's super difficult to play or super over-powered).

-You wouldn't think it due to how small the dev team seems to be, but it feels like the old content doesn't have enough interactions with the new content. Their idea of "expanding" old content is often just to completely change the content or to otherwise make the old content irrelevant.
The best example I can think of is the "Wilderness" Origin. It's an Origin instead of an Alternative Hive-Mind Civic, so it can't interplay with: Fruitful Partnership, Tree of Life, Calamitous Birth, Subterranean, Ocean Paradise, Progenitor Hive, or Life Seeded. Nor does it have any special interactions with Plants vs Rocks vs other Species. At minimum I would have liked a plant-based, a flesh-based, an ocean-based, and a crystal-based Wilderness. Other cool options would have been two entirely synthetic ones: one bioengineered, one robotic, and then maybe a *toxic one.

-*Honorary mention, also, to the toxic species dlc being particularly redundant, inferior, and humiliated, with the upcoming release of the "lava world species" dlc that will ?potentially? do what the toxic dlc should have fucking done: introduced a new planet type that only a specific species can live on to the exclusion of everyone else.

>>717494359

>Today's Palawa
>The Aboriginal Tasmanians (palawa kani: Palawa or Pakana)
>Tasmania
??????

There are no Aboriginal Tasmanians today, they're an extinct people. The last Tasmanian Abo died in 1907(?). We literally don't have any left and we don't know anything about their culture beyond the most superficial details. These people are larping.

I'm 29 can I join you guys?

>>713393827
>What went wrong?

DD 1.5, as the other Anons have said.
Less overall content (*fewer monsters, armor slots, missing vocations), basically no memorable characters, story, or plot, the Dragon is the exact same Dragon (Gregori) and he hardly shows up at all, the "open world map" is designed in such a way as to severely limit exploration by being effectively taking place (mostly) on the side of a mountain, the RE engine has the camera too fucking close to your character, and the post-game is on a timer.
*Some of the monsters like the Sphinx and the Colossus can only be fought once a playthrough and don't even drop any materials, weapons, armor, etc.

Some people have commented/video essayed on the "meta-aspects" of DD 2 and even in those aspects I think it failed because the start of the game is such a pointless fucking slog that very, very, few people will ever actually get into the post-game where all of the actual world-building and plot happens. The "fake world" game section is like 10 hours and the "real world" game is 3 hours.

DD2 in a way kind of reminds me a little bit of early jrpg game design for the snes/pc/ps1? That period of gaming where they'd spent a lot of time and resources on a game with a compelling or experimental pitch, but then pad it out with mindless tasks and artificial difficult created by a conscious lack of "quality of life" features.