bit.gamer review

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2014/09/18/planetary-annihilation-review/1

Basically, all the reviews say pretty much the same thing, but come to different score conclusions.
OPINIONS, innit.

tl;dr 80%

I think 79.267% would be a fairer score, but that's just me.

I think that was a fair review, coming from his perspective.

I don't know if this contributes to metacritic, but it would be nice if it did, for those that care for metacritic.
This way, the game stays pretty much around 60-65 overall score, which is about right for the state of the game right now. IDeally, this would go up to more like 80ish after everything is in.
IMHO it's a 75 already.

Solid review. At least they did more than just bash their head against the keyboard (*cough* IGN *cough*).

The reviews of this game are so insanely mixed.

Also, on an unrelated note, I love this screenshot

The trail of the missiles look like afterburners, looks awesome!

I think eight might be a teeny bit high, but whatever, nice to see a happy review.

Edit: I'll need to read through it, see how much it mentioned, good, and bad.

it mentioned a fair bit of the negative stuff mentioned in other reviews, it's just that overall it seems like those things didn't taint the reviewer's experience as much as some other people.
I agree, 8/10 is nice to see, but maybe more like 7/10 as the game stands RIGHT NOW.
Again, it should hopefully mean that the average balances out.

Whats with everyone posting game reviews of PA on the forums? Is it just fanboyisim or is it something else?

But we post both good and bad reviews? It's to see what the reviews are, a couple well thought out ones, and a couple ones neglecting information.

That doesn't necessarily mean that ones praising the game are good reviews, and the ones hating it are bad. It's just that a more well rounded view and review is nice. I'd rather a review that gives all information about the game and not just a snippet. (It's why I don't agree with both the RPS review nor the IGN review, both are missing a lot of info.)

All reviews have been posted, good or bad.
We like the game, so we like to see what other people think of it in the real world?

Good of you to ask the question. It's fanboyism. and frankly getting on my nerves.

I like how us debating how ludicrously OP the metal planet is knee-jerky to brad, enough so for him to close the threads but these ones .....ohnono ...no knee-jerking going on here. /s

You must not yet know the definition of the word "all", get back to work, quit slacking, there are 1500 other reviews on PA!

I think he meant official reviews.

Im starting to get sick of seeing all these reviews myself now :|

Would you people NOT keep posting them all here?

That link was pretty random.

Anyway, I don't see how it's fanboyism to disagree with reviews that fail to mention everything. (And I'm talking positive and negative reviews here)

If you're a professional reviewer you'll try your hardest to keep out all subjective information, and keep in mostly objective info. That 6/6 earlier was completely unwarranted for example, as the game is far from being perfect, but honestly IGN's 4.8 was also too low I'd say, as the reviewer didn't even like the premise, he wasn't the guy who should have been chosen to review the game... I'd say anything between 5 and 7 is what this game deserves, seven is my personal preferance.

I think he meant here. because who the hell would ask the question "why are all the game reviewers reviewing a game that just came out when that's their job?"

Right..... 'cause they can tooooootally hear you. /s

I was talking about Drz1, silly.

Edit: When did I say they could? People want to know what the reviews for PA are, and people post them for that reason. Heck when Brian posted the IGN review he clearly said that "this is what happens when a game is released without being complete" or something along that line, dies this mean anyone posting a bad review on the forum (and agrees with it) is a troll? Because that's the same thing.

I think thankfully that this community is actually pretty troll free. There are a lot of passionate people, which is why things can get pretty heated, but that in of itself need not be an issue.

"Commanders tend to specialise in certain technologies, so you may play a ground-focussed commander battling against one that is dedicated entirely to airborne units. Hence, you’ll need to prioritise building Anti-air units and turrets. "

They seem to have gotten this information wrong, or maybe meant galactic war load outs?