I'm in agreement for the most part. I think I'll have to come back in 6 months or so and see where the game stands then. Currently there's just not enough there.

It doesn't have the awesome diplomacy that I expect from Paradox. It's pretty difficult to interact with other empires at all, because there are so many rules (this guy won't interact with other ethos at all, that guys a xenophobe, that ones a fallen empire, just too much non-interaction) and downright broken things with them. Like not being able to get access or alliances without borders (even vassals don't count for borders!). That is so idiotic. Most of the diplomacy menu might as well not exist for how often even a very friendly empire will agree to anything. Also the options available are fairly limited anyway. Really, unless they border you, the AI might as well not exist.

The galaxies feel very sterile. A couple ships roaming around, maybe some space monsters. Distant worlds was much more interesting to watch in this respect with their civilian economy. EU4 and CK2 did this with the sheer number of countries/counties/individuals. There was always a war on somewhere. It felt alive, Stellaris doesn't.

The victory conditions are terrible. Really boring. I think the asymmetric victory conditions from Distant Worlds is the best part about that game. The weird part is they already have this down in eu4, they just call them achievements. The best eu4 runs are achievement challenges, like Prester John, or The Sun Never Sets on the Indian Empire, or Norwegian Wood. Interesting, challenging, and different.

Basically, this is what I expect a first draft of a novel to feel like. The basic story is there, it's recognizable as a story, but none of the characters feel real and there's none of that magic. I fully expect this game will flesh out into brilliance, so long as Paradox stays true to their core and doesn't pander to "mainstream" (ie simple).