IGN Review

Welp, its not like we didnt tell them.

Interestingly, the "Quarter to Three" guy was of the same opinion.

It's a review of a game and a developer. Not the player community.

So tutorials from the developer that explain, succinctly, how to play their game?


That argument is the same that pervades the Elder SCrolls community - don't worry, mods will fix it.

That's fine. But you don't pay the modders. You pay the developers.

It's about the developers adding value to their product for consumers, not consumers adding value to their product for the developers.

Yes it is. It's just a negative review so it's got everyone's knickers in a knot.


Possibly the projected minimaps that people talked about for a while? A projected map of the sphere would place the entire 3D object in 2D space. Then to fight between planets you coul simply stack those on each other. Not pretty maybe, but it could add more value for a vocal group of players.

Then again, critics would moan about having to play the game a certain way and losing art style... but don't they do that already?

It's not really that it's a bad review, more so that it's coming from a source that has already been stated as being entirely untrustworthy, and that rather than use objectivity, it's filled with subjective gripes.

Such as the whole first paragraph or so.

The game only has 60 / 100 at metacritic and only 6/10 user score. Fanboys here dont want to face it ofc, but... the game just is not that good. its okay though

So are anyone who weigh a handy UI more than a novel map topology.

There were many games with abnormal map topology back in the 90s, I even played a relatively unknown RTS game that use mobile platforms as terrains. So this type of innovations might not be that interesting to someone who is familar with the genre.

I think the value in PA is very much a matter of perspective. PA is (in my opinion at least) a superb multi player RTS game. That is it's focus and was from the start, and when viewed in the context it's very good and worthy of a much higher score.

The downside is most reviewers appear to be focusing on the single player which is much weaker. I mean compare *single player* PA to Starcraft: Starcraft has a (branching) fully scripted campaign complete with cinematic et al. It also has an in depth tutorial- there is allot of value in Starcraft without ever touching on teh multi player aspect. PA only has the GW (a worthwhile mode in it's own right but not really a substitute for a full on 'campaign' if you follow), it also lacks a scripted 'follow me' type tutorial which is expected these days along with a number of other expected features in the context of single player (e.g. save and the ability to play fully offline). TA was always fairly light on this side of things but it did offer it, SupCom and SupCom FA (not sure about 2) had fully leaded Blizzard style campaign modes which were enjoyable to complete. I guess the lack of these things is rather jarring if that is what you were expecting (or if that is what you want out of an RTS).

I think what's perhaps a but unfair for Uber is that these days, it is quite reasonable to create a multi-player focused online only game with no real single player component. There are many of these, and with the simple addition of three letters they are automatically accepted and judged on a different set of rules: MMO. I play 'Star Conflict' which is a space shooter 'MMO' that I think mirrors PA in some respects. It's not really an MMO in the style of WOW, rather it hosts skirmish battles with smaller teams, however there is no mid game save, no offline mode and so on. The biggest problem for PA is the title 'RTS' brings with it the baggage of people expecting the scripted campaigns and such, and so the game is getting marked down as a result.

Utterly true.

I'm not disregarding it because it's negative. I'm ignoring it because the guy didn't put any effort into finding out the truth about the game. He's spreading misinformation about core gameplay features.

I agree, the game ain't done. Jon hasn't sung yet.

Nah, I think 6/10 is good actually, would have preferred 7/10, but meh.

Edit: All were saying is that IGN is truly an untrustworthy source, and most of the Internet makes fun of them for that fact.

Also, that a review should be objective, and not run completely by opinion. We've even said that the 6/6 was false, not sure how that classifies as fanboyism. But I suppose by that logic you're just a troll and I should ignore you, correct?

The game released too early, but please criticize it for the missing features and actual problems. Not criticizing it for limited visibility while also highlighting PIP!

Maybe they were hoping for some "financial compensation" for their ten minute playtest.

Such is the IGN way.

That review was very well-worded, but terribly written. The reviewer opened with the fact he didn't like the premise of the game being on spheres, and griped over the same things ThePilot was madly assaulting in another thread. While I wholeheartedly agree that PA needed a lot more features (namely saves, more GW development, and some basic tutorial documentation in-game that doesn't link to YouTube) before release, this guy comes at it from the angle of "I find it difficult to do things I can in other RTS games, plus spheres suck." It's less of a review and more of an opinion piece.

PA ain't perfect by a longshot, but it's better than this guy makes it out to be. Adapt, people.

How many times you have seen a title made by a small company got long term support after received bad reviews from both the medias and the users?

Reviews don't matter, sales do.

Reviews Influence sales. It's even worse when you consider that most reviews don't get updated over time ergo reviews can have a negative influence on a game's sales even if the game is "fixed" at some point after teh review was created.

It's even more important for PA because it was dependent on both player retention and on-going sales to lengthen it's "development life".

Mike

Yeah, just ignore me. I did nothing and u straight start to flame me.
I just said that the game is not that good, that ign is not the only one who sees it like that, and people here defending the game like its the heaven of RTS. Its not. Its okay, ign went overboard with the very bad rating but seriously, if i wouldnt be a RTS nerd who loved and bought the alpha for this game, i would see this as unfinished as... Arma III for example. Its not just lacking some polishing, watch some fckin videos, if you somehow like the fact that early - mid only tanks n air counts into mass orbital, nobody can say "hey i like those 20 minutes of downtime where i do like nothing but just spam orbital units and dont see or fight my enemy in any way". - or "hey i like when i send my units across the planet but half just stops at some mountain which they could drive around but do not because they dont feel like it right now"

Reviews don't seem to sway people as they did in the past. Many people don't trust Meta critic for instance, nor do people trust some big name reviewers such as IGN.

People seem to be slowly getting smarter, learning that they should forge their own opinion rather than take others' words for it.

Everyone I know loved ARMA III though?

Also I Take what you said as flame bait anyhow, coming onto the official forum, stating "fanboys" disagree with the reviews because they're just fanboys, we'll it's exactly the same as me disregarding you because you're "just a troll"

It's called "taking your own medicine" thank you. Obviously a very affective tactic when viewing the results.

The thing is, the majority of people here know the game is riddled with flaws and bugs, which is why a lot of us think it was a mistake to release at this stage.

This review though? It's just riddled with stupidity.

But they still have influence, the amount is variable on any number of factors but you starting out saying "Reviews don't matter, sales do." which doesn't mean the same things as "Reviews don't matter as much as they used to, these says Sales are more indicative of success."

Of course, we don't know squat about the same figures so it's hard for us to comment on this either way.

Mike