IGN Review

Nope It's a torus/donut.

Sorry, but that falls so far short of what we have that I can't consider it a viable solution. Plus the whole 2 flat maps floating in space is ... lame, for want of a better term. I can list a very large number of issues with the concept of cornerless flat maps that represent a 3D object, too - unless you are also scrapping a large number of features such as 3D pathing, destructable terrain etc.

Only if you want a clunky, unconvincing experience. Floating flat maps does not fit the premise of Planetary Annihilation.

It's not that its harder to do; it's that it's fundametally different. If one were strictly better than the other I would agree, but this this is a choice between two types of RTS which both have merits, and you're penalising one just for being different than the other. PA certainly has negative points on the UI, but you need to judge them independently on the problems they are trying to solve, not the problems of a different game. For example, an FPS has a different camera system to an RTS, because it has different needs, and when looking at how effective the camera is, you take those needs into account. A multi-map RTS has different needs from a single map one, so you can't judge it based on the single map experience.

Sup Com solved the single battlefield awareness issue. Which is not entirely applicable to PA. The parts that are applicable, namely the actual zoom controls, is already present in PA.

I watched the kickstarter again and this game is not close to the original concept depicted in that trailer. I think the art and the orbital mechanics are the main reason for that. If Uber had waited for offline, saves, tutorial, multi-window/monitor, bug fixes, and more optimizations the score would have been better, but I fear not by much. I am not talking about only this review but others as well. I think that if Uber had followed that main vision depicted in the trailer the score would have been a lot better.
I am not saying the game is bad in it's current state, just different. The game is actually good, really good, but undoubtedly still VERY beta.

For me I think that these are the main things are holding it back and not letting it get the scores it deserves:

• Bland/Boring Planets: Planets in their current state are uninteresting and lacking of terrain features. Also different types of planets do not provide any difference of gameplay.
• Orbital Weirdness: Orbital needs to be focused on. The launcher animation is broken, the Astraeus is not working as it should, fighters stack on each other, animations between planets are not smooth, interplanetary travel lines are broken, rockets are not used to travel between planets as seen in the kickstarter trailer, and lastly and most discussed the expected unit cannon is missing.
• Lacking Smash Animation: let's face it, it needs work, a lot of work to even be up to par with the one seen in the release trailer, not to mention the glory it was in the kickstarter.
• Overall Missing Polish: Believe it or not, people do judge a book by it's cover, and as hard as it is for me to say this, this books cover is lacking. This game needs polish and it needs it bad.
  • Only one Skybox
  • No planet rings/other unique features
  • Planets can only be on flat plane
  • Explosion + weapon effects lacking
  • Not much color depth
  • Only one type of sun
• Saves, Offline Mode, Server Missing: This like many other people said is a big one.
• Slow Game Menu + Other Menus: This causes people to feel that the game is broken or not made very well.
• Bugs: Oh there are still so many....

Sorry this is a little harsh, I love this game I really do, but it is 1.0 now and I will judge it as so even if it should still be in beta. So I would give it as others have 3/5 stars.

Like it or not, the game is first and foremost an RTS in the spirit of TA/ Supcom, so it comes from that context. The context of flowing control over massive armies of units, the context of being an ultimate commander of an enormous war machine. I ask myself the question - can I control my armies as effectively and smoothly in PA as I could in Supcom? The answer right now is: No.
So the review is spot on in comparing the experience to a shopping cart with a busted wheel. You can manhandle the thing into the right direction with enough effort, but it's tiring and turns into a pain in the ***. Does it still get the shopping done? Yes.

Can you have fun playing PA right now? Absolutely. Is it more fun than FA? Questionable. I can't fault the reviewer for suggesting you stick to the (cheaper) FA right now.

And yes, Spherical planets ARE harder to do - they're a whole new layer of complexity. By their very nature you can't depend on tried & true old methods of doing things, so you have to invent new ones to solve the problems. I'm not arguing that it should have been flat, or that because it doesn't handle like it's flat it sucks, I'm saying that it's NOT flat, and the strategic zoom feature of Supcom isn't enough to overcome the new challenges. Ergo, I'm in agreement with the reviewer that the implementation of spherical planetary maps is half-done.

Here is my response to the review as I posted it on IGN.

"Yes, the single player campaign saves after every battle automatically.

He also did not mention the ability to pause, even in multiplayer games, or the fact that you can use the Chronocam feature to freely scan back and forth in your live game to catch something you may have missed.

He also didn't mention that it is possible to bring up a replay of every game ever played on the Uber servers, regardless of version release, as long as you have the Game Id.

He did not mention that you can instantly move your camera to any planet in the solar system by simply clicking on the planet in the drop down menu in the upper right hand corner of the screen.

He didn't mention that you can click on any alert to instantly travel to the exact spot of the event.

He didn't mention that one of the super weapons is an entire planet that fires a planet killing laser at any planet in the solar system.

He didn't discus unit balance.

He didn't discuss the ability to queue commands in any combination including area commands by simply holding down the Shift key when you click on the map.

Need I go on? This review is as half baked as he accuses Planetary Annihilation of being."


While Planetary Annihilation is not yet fully complete in the sense of the new player experience it is far more complete and the interface is far more developed than he gave credit for."

Here is the link so you can see the comment in full context.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/09/17/planetary-annihilation-review#comment-1595871560

I found the UI quite horrible and unpolished.

Perfect summary.

Not all premises are equal. For a premise like multi-planetary RTS, you need to be sure that you can solve the conceptual problems come along with it before you put it into development, no matter how awesome the premise seemingly sounds.

Hindsights 20/20 huh?

Be careful on that high horse of yours!

Actually for all of you bitching about pathfinding... I went back and played a load of games on Spring the other night, and you know what? The current pathfinding is *much* better in PA. PA pathfinding is *semi intelligent* (i.e. units will avoid obstacles in most situations). In Spring units path in a straight line and if anything blocks them they stop- you have to manually manipulate all your paths.

TA pathfinding was similar from what I remember, I think SupCom was a bit more intelegent but then the SupCom maps featured very little terrain variation so that point may be mute anyway.

TL;DR, I actually think pathfinding in PA is quite good, I wonder if this 'pathfinding sux!' attitude is related to older versions where it really was a problem? I mean a few units getting stuck out of a large army really *isn't* a problem...

People are suspicious of PA's concept since the begining, problems like visibility on multi-spheres map got mentioned a lot on internet before the kickstarter ends, it's just most people assumed Uber might have a creative plan for them since they are veteran professional developers.

Anchor points, PIP and notifications - problem solved - oh wait these are all in the game already so you have the the tools needed without any mods. The only addition needed to full manage things over multiple planets would be multiple PIPs or multi-monitor support.

PiP allows for control over two screens at once (on one monitor, that's pretty impressive). Eventually, with any luck multimonitor support will allow us to raise the bar even higher.

And the whole "oh no, my visibility is impaired" argument is kind of irrelevant if your opponent is similarly hobbled. I know the AI wouldn't be, but this game is predominantly designed for multiplayer even if the user base probably won't reflect this.

this

... yea? the only way a planet would not move in the same plane as all the others is if it was flung from it's own system and got caught in a new one. And that should happen very rarely indeed.

Also planets tend to form (in the REAL UNIVERSE) on a flattish ecliptic plane. The majority of the top and bottom of solar systems are just plain boring void. Having a little bit of lateral positioning wouldn't make much of a difference.

You can use fairness to justify any game design as long as all players have the same tools.

Yep, I'm sorry- but round planets is just the premise of the game, limited visibility is also a part of that. It's just how units not firing in Starcraft is just a part of the premise.

This actually can be applied to anything, just how there is no actual good or bad balance, just different balance. Good and bad is just the subjective part.

I don't understand the haters of spherical maps personally, but then again I've never had a problem navigating them (I do 3D CAD work on a daily basis for my job so I guess I'm more familiar with the controls scheme than most).

As with the old debate of 3D Cad vs 2D Cad- both have their uses. 3D cad means you have to do allot of rotating to see things or hide things which can be made visible in a 2D projection. On the other hand, 3D can instantly make certain interactions between components clear and understandable that aren't obvious in 2D views. This is how I see PA- the 3D terrain is a sudo-realistic representation of a planet (ok it's scaled waaay down), and I've never liked the hard edges of maps in standard RTS.

I agree that this does limit your view of the battlefield, though the zoom allows you to go out and what what is going on at a system level quite nicely (which, once you have a whole planet is what you should be watching anyway). I *personally* think the system in place is sensible. As for 'unwrapping' the planet to make a mini map, I'm on the fence on that one. I can see the logic though the representation might be hard to read. I personally think a '3D radar' type mini map of a planet could work (similar to how Radar is represented in the Wing Commander games if your familiar with them). I guess in the context of PA this would be a mini sphere with units colour coded depending on if they were visible or obscured by the planet (e.g. enemy units on the camera side of planet in red, show them in a much darker red for units on the other side).

I know about the planets, I am more talking about the moons.

I totally agree. It was fine being mentioned, but the way he put it sounded as if it were a detriment to the game when its just not. However, i am one of the few that likes the art style, but wouldnt be bothered if they removed the models of the units from the game. I am still in favour of a rename to something like Moon Icon Wars.