Is IGN going to change their rating now that serverside is coming out?

Removed.

Yep, seeing as there's nobody literally insulting each other and breaking the forum's rules, it hasn't been closed.

I think TotalBiscuit (despite his sometimes flaming rhetoric against microtransactions) is actually being rather smart here by delaying his review until more updates/material has come to light for the players to test and play than is currently available.

I'd say wait for the Unit Cannon. Because that's going to be the worst night of my life - staying awake all night with burntcustard and Vorell testing strats.

But that's just me.

Also, screw you IGN. And metacritic. Fail and go to gamer hell or whatever.

Of course IGN isn't going to re-review PA, the reason they re-reviewed GTA online is because rockstar has a shitload of cash of which IGN is dependant.

IGN works in ways predicted by AMIGA POWER (truly the games-magazine of champions) back in 1995 (thats almost 20 years ago math fans)





This article (sadly) is spot on, especially if you pay attention to the lower right corner, almost every game-website practices that exact example.

Ever wondered how gamesmags or websites can say: "WHOAAA THIS GAME IS F*CKING GREAT" even when the game isn't out for the next two years and there isn't a snippet of playable code yet? Answer: Four trips to the states and a free crate beer.

Uber is a small publisher which can be bullied around, but don't expect 'game-journalists' to bite the activision-,EA-, rockstar- or Ubisofthand that feeds them.

Honestly, I highly doubt it, and I'm okay with that.
There's a reason Total War Rome II wasn't given a rereview once it was patched to the point of being good. Reviews are judgments of a game on launch day. Not after launch day.
Rockstar treated GTAO as a separate game (or at least like an expansion pack), so it wasn't bad for IGN to review it. But offline doesn't change the game into something it isn't currently, it does not in any way warrant a new review.

Isn't it incredibly bad form to re-review games and anything else for that matter. Not only are you conceding that you were wrong originally but you run the risk of complaints being made at you from individuals who based their purchases off your review. Additionally you run further at risk of companies complaining or even taking legal action against you as you essentially have slandered their game inevitably hurting sales. I don't know the legality of it, just my two cents.

no because the reviewer is an idiot .. his complains were mapnavigation and contentammount related ... he didn´t give a scrap about this games mechanics and ideas ..

I think the fact that he's reviewed almost 5 games since PA's launch is pretty telling. I don't think he'll be doing a review (maybe post offline, which would make sense, since it would actually be worth a recommendation then.).

he might be a dong at times and i do disagree with his opinions here and there but seriously i personaly find him to be one of the most respectable persons on youtube regarding gaming and i totaly dig his way of criticising games with his first impressions videos ...

People say PA will suffer for releasing early. They get the same stuff, but with a stupid title called release somewhere thrown in. Uber said they don't care about release as anything more than another step. If other people DO care, and they DO want to shoot themselves in the foot and set fire to drapes and pee on bushes...

...Then screw them too, but GTA5 is a 6/10 on release, you can buy a good review, reviews mean nothing, and everyone is a damn grampa as far as PA goes because PA isn't doing the old fashion EA Call of Duty 5 way of doing stuff. And Jesus is black. Live with it.

Oh, ALSO, remember how Mojang released a game early for sale value because they ran out of money? That was a great move. Oh how mass-opinion changes. Millions of people love something for no reason other than other people loving it. Millions of people hate something for no reason other than other people hating it.

Honestly, much as I dislike IGN and their review of PA, they have absolutely no obligation to alter their review EVER and certainly not only a few weeks after release.

When a game is released, that's when it's reviewed. In the modern day of online gaming and regular updates no reviewer goes back and alters scores with every patch that's released, it simply isn't feasible. An intelligent buyer will check to see what's changed since the review (this being in the unlikely event an intelligent buyer is reading an IGN review). As for people who don't look at patch notes, well that loss of revenue is on Uber's back, not IGN's.

Is that official? I know he backed it but haven't heard anything else.

People with a large influence on Youtube are really the only reviews that count imo. I really hope his review turns out to be unbiased and released at the right time, because that's the kind of publicity that counts on the interwebs.

Apply the same courtesy to Rockstar for GTA Online, or G-way-TFO.

I really have my doubts, he has some pretty big bias against microtransactions, and early access itself. :/

from a couple podcasts and twitterposts he stated that he enjoys it for the most part ... played it even with members of his starcraft team ... so sounds rather positive ... but will see what he says on the actual video ...

and? considering cases like deadspace 3 and towns he´s totaly right on having a critical view on that ... the reaction with the boxed EA of PA while a kneejerk one was actualy a bit understandable considering an outsiders point of view ... yet he defended/explained ubers way of marketing PA during alpha and the high price, he even put a recommendation for PA during a 50% off sale while in beta stating that it wouldn´t be the worst move one could do ...
i don´t think the thing with microtransactions that are purely cosmetic (considering his impressions on SMNC) and PA EA are that big a problem ... EA is over anyway so that doesn´t have any major significance anymore...

so overall while i am sure he will point out an ammount of PA´s weaknesses and eventualy questionable developmentdecisions from uber i am rather optimistic that he will have a general possitive view on PA ..

Got links to the twitter posts?

can´t link them but i just quote:

TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 27. Sep.
There's nothing quite like carpeting bombing a base with 200 bombers, only to have them all shot out of the sky in 3 seconds

TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 27. Sep.
Been working on a video for it, along with a video for like 23598235 other games. So far I quite like it.


TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 27. Sep.
There's nothing quite like carpeting bombing a base with 200 bombers, only to have them all shot out of the sky in 3 seconds




then





TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 5. Okt.
To be fair I didnt tell him how to get into space and then bombed his army with orbital platforms.




TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 5. Okt.
He likes me to remind you of that, famous Korean RTS progamer @axcrank - RTS expert

0 Antworten



TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 5. Okt.
Hmm probably time to get this Planetary Annihilation video done. I should remind everyone that I am currently 2-1 against progamer @AxCranK





here is a bit of a recent weird one though regarding ubers promisses


TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 5. Okt.
40 player games? That sounds like a stupid promise to make and an awful idea in general





TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 5. Okt.
PA = Planetary Annihilation sorry





TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 5. Okt.
I've heard a lot of complaints about the game being incomplete and I'd like to research that topic





TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 5. Okt.
Btw does anyone who has followed PA for a while have a list of features









and one unrelated

TotalBiscuit @Totalbiscuit · 5. Okt.
Planetary Annihilation - "Insufficient Metal" - http://wallpaper.metalship.org/images/immortal9.jpg… - Problem solved.

Uber should source community made planets, units plus all their other planned updates and release a GOTY in 6 months or so.

If the game wasn't ready then they shouldn't have released it. They knew what they were in for but I can only imagine they realised that the game wasn't really going to hit the heights all of the backers had in mind so they might as well kick it out now and move on rather than keep everyone waiting for nothing. It's obvious now that they just wanted to kick off a new revenue stream . What is the point in even improving the game now being as those initial reviews will stick with it forever and the only way it will get new players is when Steam sell it on offer for $4.99.