Yes! 6 out of 6 - review for PA

I just asked Metacritic to add pressfire.no site to its critics/publisher lists. Should definitely have at least some serious reviews on Metacritic too

I can't believe anyone can give this game a 6. So I wouldn't take it too seriously. This game has 6 potential but far from that at the time of the review.

http://www.pressfire.no/anmeldelser/PC/8872/Planetary-Annihilation

Because the image on the mobile site will make your eyes burn like a vampire bathing in a sunlit pool of holy water.

Yep, 0/10, 10/10, 6/6, etc... Imply the game is either non existent or absolutely perfect (in subjective terms)

The game is definitely not perfect, 4/6 would be reasonable.

It semes like everyone thinks there is one universel correct review. I think different reviewers (with different viewers, perspectives and angels) can come to different correct conclusions. PA reviewed in a childs magazine will have other assessment criterias than a hardcore RTS-magazine. Im not saying we cant review reviewers but I think we need to judge them on other things than wether they agree with you own personal conclusion or not.

6/6 is unjustified

I'm not saying there is one correct review and I understand some reviewers will enjoy playing pa more than others. But in a game where most reviewers point out several key flaws, that us as players are well aware of, 6/6 is way too far fetched. He needs to play the game more. I would say the same if he gave 1/6 too.

well no need to discuss it actually. 6/6 is same bullshit as ign review "planets are spheres, i cant see through"

only reviews i trust would be from players around here and we know what the consensus here is:

Game is fun, but game has a lot of unfinished problems. And the game was released too early, probably because of economical reasons

So what RTSes deserve 5 or 6 out of 6? Because I've played a ton of RTSes, and I haven't enjoyed any of them as much as PA, so I could never justify giving PA a lower score than them because it doesn't have "saving" or some other such minor detail.

And if no game deserves a 6, why have the rating at all? But when you remove the 6 rating, the 5 rating becomes the "perfect" rating, at which point it's useless since you'll never use it, so you might as well remove it from your rating scale altogether, at which point the 4 rating becomes the "perfect" rating, and so on lol.

You guys have not thought about criticism enough, and what a full score means. I maintain that you are stuck on details which, in the grand scheme of things, are not even worth discussing.

Put it another way, all the people scoring the game a 3 or a 4, why are you playing PA right now instead of all those superior RTSes that deserve a 5 or a 6?

Your actions belie your words, precisely because you are not experienced critics who can use words adequately to express your feelings.

Your words say 3 or 4 out of 6, but your actions SCREAM "6/6 BEST RTS EVER".

I don't need a game to be 6/6 to have fun playing it. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I would give the 1v1 single planet games a 5/6. They game is fun, nice learning curve, very strategic and fast paced.

But.... The game is called planetary annihilation and that's were I feel the game is lacking. Even with super fast servers the orbital layer and gameplay is horrible and slows down the fast paced feel you get with single planets. They just don't flow together at all. It needs to be much faster and easier to navigate.

For me the game is a 5/6 as I only play 1v1 multiplayer mode. But in total as a critic I would give it a 3 in its current state.

But again that makes me wonder why you are not playing all those RTSes that you would score 4 or 5 or 6. Why are you entering tournaments in this game which you would rate as mediocre? Surely the games you would rate higher would be more fun to you? And what are the names of those games anyway?

He rated 5 in 1v1, and that's what he prefers to play. A rating of 5 is not mediocre, just as a 7 or 8 isn't bad. No matter what some developers or such think. When I see people going crazy over an 8 or a 7 I can't help but think of how ridiculous it is.

I was referring to his 3.

Yes, but he doesn't really play multiple planets with lots of people as far as I know. He gave that a rating of 3, and so instead he plays 1v1s because he likes how fast paced they are.

I guess my difference with clopse is that I do not rate the sim lag as a negative any more than I would rate SupCom's not running well on most machines in 2007 as a negative. When I review a game, I review it from the viewpoint of... well, of eternity. I write reviews that will last for decades, so things like server lag, which are obviously temporary, do not even merit consideration for me.

And, when it comes down to it, even if the sim lag were permanent it would still not change my estimation of the game. There is simply nothing that comes close to the scale of the huge 5v5 battles possible in this game, and when the sim lags I just view it as a sort of slowdown a la Europa Universalis. Hell, I even LIKE it, to an extent, because it gives me more time to think, and therefore makes all my decisions more strategic. Time dilation only helps, in this regard, by making the play experience smoother. It's as if you turned down the speed of the game a la Age of Empires.

I'm rating the game out of 6. Tought we were still on the norwegian roll of the dice scoring.

Well, 3 out 6 is mediocre, no?

You need to start reading what i am saying. Yes it is mediocre, and thats at best how i feel about orbital gameplay now. You would notice when I have given it a 3/6 i say as of now, or in it's current state or something along those line. I also say the game has potential of being a 6. As of 1v1's which i play 99.9% of the time i give it a 5/6. Thats what keeps me playing this game. And just barely as of late.