PA and the misery of official reviews

Seriously. I checked out metacritic scores of PA and found the reviews rather abysmal. I'll provide a small summary of general complaints. However, I'd like to know, how do people generally relate to metacritic scores? For example, I personally see them as such; X amount of people each of which represents a gaming news related company Y who spit out their opinions and use various kind of arbitrary reasoning for their verdict. These guys, when it comes to reasoning, are better bricoleurs than Bob The Builder himself. They know how to come up with dodgy reasoning that has only face value or pull out standards from a certain place as they see fit. Metacritic scores for PA seriously echo this point. And what is shocking is that publisher backed developers might actually have to rely on these scores to get their bonuses, as Obsidian instance had shown us.

So here's the common complaints:

- No saving

Okay, I agree, it would be nice. But is it truly so devastating? Yes, it apparently is, because you might find yourself in 1v^8 match that stretches on further than an hour. And because you live in a fairyland where all the remaining participants after the save will, actually, come together once more to finish the game. Yes, I've seen this happen so many times in so many games, in fact my brains got all confused from the amount that I just can't recall any specific instance of this. Now ain't that a coincidence?

- You play in many maps instead of one and UI doesn't save you from the complications it creates!

Does this make sense? No, it doesn't, because you can't do that. But apparently reviewer meant that you play on multiple planets (as the others did) and that it was kind of hard to keep on with that. Well, I have news for them: yes, it's added complexity. And no matter what the UI does, it cannot distribute the attention your cerebral cortex can provide you with evenly everywhere. It's also a problem that everyone has to face, there is no way around this. Complaining about this is similar to complaining that you cannot focus everywhere in a TA map at once. Oh, but you've used to this limitation? And now that PA expands it further and spices up things more, you bash PA because of this? Yeah, shame on them for coming up with multidimensional playfields that are bigger than your screen.

It's unjust to bash PA over this.

- PA does not treat you like a toddler and assumes you might be capable of intellectual thought

Another curious complaint; how devs of PA actually assumed that the player might actually use the power of thinking and figuring out things on his own! They went as far as to not assume that you're a toddler and decided that resources are better spent elsewhere than upon what would follow from such a premise. The worst part was that... they did not provide this 15-30 min mandatory introduction tutorial that attempts to explain you in the most boring possible ways the basic mechanisms of PA. Because you could end up spending only 5 minutes with nerfed out 0,1x econ AI and find out yourself. how stuff works. Oh... the horror!

There were no tooltips. Because when you don't have active skills or auras with arbitrary visual feedback, it's all so confusing without tooltips. I go and see "boom bot" and can't just help to but to stop and think "what does this do?". I still have no clue what walls are supposed to do. No matter how many I build, they just do nothing except chill around.

Yes, sometimes stuff like tooltips is useful and necessary. PA does not suffer from the apparent lack of them and I can expand this point very well upon request.

- No profound documentary

Which is absolutely disgraceful; I don't even buy games to play them, I just want to read the documentary. I found this to be cheaper form of literature than books, more cost efficient per letters. You also get it in different languages. This compliments my other hobbies such as keeping track of time.

By the way, do toddlers read documents? I'm just curious, because you had these both complaints in the same reviews occasionally.

- You can't observe a whole planet from one point of view!

Which is blasphemy, I tell you! You're always limited to seeing only half of a planet at the best! I have a suggestion: what if we would make it possible to observe the whole battleground from one point of view? Well yes, that would mean we would have to take out the whole "Planetary" part out of it and then come up with something else... Oh, wait.

- PA is PA and not TA or FAF

Yes, this shocking discovery was echoed in many of the reviews. PA actually turned out to be completely different from TA or FAF!

More seriously though, this subject often was accompanied by these strange analogues of how something is different in PA compared to TA and then you had this dodgy line of reasoning why PA implementation is utterly bad compared to TA. For example, the "you can only see half of a planet" issue is a problem because you can see whole map in TA.

- Planets aren't detail rich

Yes, because it adds so much to interplanetary wars where you can toss some galactic bodies into other ones or actually have a death star that completely obliterates them. Shame on you for not considering the finest aesthetic details of your planets! Someone might actually, once in a lifetime, zoom closer to a tree and find out how very detailed it actually is. But before you got that far, your fabs already removed the tree though as they're building this colossal structure. And in fact you notice that you have about thousands of other things to worry about much more.

- Galactic Wars weren't the most awesome single player experience I ever had!

And boy what a surprise it was, considering that devs actually originally did not even promise anything like that at all and considered that PA would be a MP only experience (well, with skirmish AI).

...and these are the people who do the metascore verdict which might affect many consumers on their purchase decision. I really wish that someone would actually create alternative PA game based completely on their interpretation of these jackals and compare that alternative PA with the original. Yeah, it would probably seem completely different game.

Yeah some of the reviews are quite dumb, although they are useful to an extent that they highlight the areas that things aren't 'as expected in an rts'.... many players have similar reactions unfortunately.

I think the other issue, these reviews don't get updated. They all apply to the release build in September, yet pa is a considerably more developed game now (and a save feature due soon ). It's bad that metacritic doesn't account for the fact games develop post release.

I've stated this before and I'll state it again. Reviews in this day and age are irrelevant and it is unfortunate that so many people still rely on them. This is due to as @cdrkf stated, this is the digital age where games can be updated on a regular basis. In PA's case the game has changed and improved by leaps and bounds since its launch and it is a shame the so many of these old reviews are misleading potential customers.

I can make a pretty biased list of grievances from players as well. A lot of them I personally find very valid still today and I agree with a lot of points brought up. Just because you discredit them doesn’t make them go away, or stop hurting PA from growing. Uber needs to listen to a lot of these issues and try to resolve asap.

“Planetary Annihilation looks and feels underwhelming. Interplanetary combat might seem fun on paper, but gameplay-wise it's an absolute chore. And that's just it, Planetary Annihilation is missing all the FUN which was present on Supreme Commander - a much better successor to Total Annihilation.”

Mostly agree, I never felt like gameplay was a chore, but it does lack a lot of the fun (units) that are present in SC and TA. There are no large multi turreted experimental, no shields, no awesome huge defensive weapons, ships are tiny and don’t feel epic. Weapon effects fall flat and are mostly boring.

“Despite its solid foundation this is not a good game. The techtree is too shallow, strategic finesse, cunning or defensive play is hardly rewarded.“

Agree again, gameplay is pretty shallow and lacks depth and strategy. A lot of this stems from boring units and lack of asymmetrical factions.

“Spherical Planets are certainly a very unique gameplay element, and playing on a map with no "edges" is a nice refreshing prospect in the RTS genre, unfortunately this is marred by the various different Biomes and planet types feeling like mostly like a cosmetic thing and there isn't much biome/planet-type related variety in regards to the gameplay. This is in part aided by the somewhat shallow unit roster filled with very plain unit roles while at the same time missing a few that seem obvious like Anti-Air for Bots and proper Amphibious units.”

This one comes up a lot, plain boring biomes and planets. Probably one of my biggest pet peeves. Very big agree on this as well. Notice shallow units coming up again? Hmmm, exactly what I have been advocating fixing on the forums. Very common complaint as well.

“Then you can experience the same heartbreak I did with this terrible game! I bought it for $80 and for my money it's not worth the $6 it's on sale for now. Lack of unit diversity, tech, boring terrain, the list goes on... something is wrong over at Uber, this thing was mismanaged into the ground after being funded EXTREMELY well on Kickstarter.”

No one forced him to buy an $80 game, so I don’t really think that’s valid, but what do you know.. boring terrain and lack of unity diversity. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Very common complaint. I’d also like to add that this reviewer felt like Uber is being mismanaged.. I definitely feel that way as well.

“Constant glitches make the game unplayable.
Game lags because the tech used to run it is garbage.
There is ZERO strategy behind this. Zergrush, or die. I'm not joking. Calling this a strategy game is a joke.
UI and Camera are weird, and due to glitches, may not always show up and don't work right.
Textures don't always work. I've had the entire game become a series of indistinguishable red blobs, rendering an hours worth of gameplay useless.
Absolutely NO Unit balance. None. Go Air or Die.“

I had my fair share of crashes on PA to the point where it was unplayable for me to (until recently). Game used to be pretty laggy due to no unit caps, it’s much better now though. Again, notice someone complaining about lack of strategy and zergs. The pattern continues...

I could keep going on but you get the picture. The sad thing is i didnt even cherry pick reviews. I just sorted by recent and went down the list a bit. I skipped non constructive reviews like "this game sucks". Hopefully Uber doesn't just listen to the vocal minority on these forums and starts to look at the big picture.

This bothers me honestly less than how unprofessional these interviewers are. As it seems with new ideas generally, what we find is that the interviewer hasn't really been able to adopt during the short period in the new paradigm and you end up with a review where the reviewer is giving subpar scores and trying to rationalize the fact that he couldn't simply dig it during the period.

More over. Personally, if I would be asked to review a game (and especially while being paid for it -- even though I know it's really one of the worst professions), my main goal would be to attempt to shed some light into the question that the reader is assumed to have; would I or would I not like the experience?

The quartertothree interview just dazzled me. It was the lowest score, 20/100. It's blacklisted (reasonably) so I'm assuming you guys have read it / can find it by yourself.

Notice anything interesting? Like how first 3 paragraphs are mostly ranting about how publishers again shine in glory and crowdsourcing is bad as PA, supposedly, demonstrates? You're supposed to review a game yet you spend 3 out of 16 paragraphs in this topic?

Or take this as an example. First the author paints this picture how PA is just subpar version of SupCom, like this: "For instance, why make this game when you could instead just play Supreme Commander, which plays like a more convenient and more fleshed out version of Planetary Annihilation? Or, to put it another way, why would Uber go to all the trouble of making a version of Supreme Commander with so many features stripped out, ranging from content, to functionality, to tuning, to gameplay? Why such a direct nod without a better understanding of what makes the source material work?"

And then the rest of the review is basically about the author answering to those magnificent questions, how PA is actually too intricate for him because there's all these "unnecessary" new elements such as interplanetary war. Yeah, what's the point? I wonder.

The only review that matters; for good or ill.

http://steamcharts.com/app/233250

I just hope that people slightly interested in the game will checkout gameplay videos and use those to base their final decision on whewther not to buy the game - reviews don't quite hold the weight they used to hold. I still get PC Gamer magazine here in the UK and I more or less trust their opinions and reviews, but if I'm curious about a game I will always check for video reviews and gameplay footage. There's plenty of that on Youtube. So hopefully the negative reviews did not damage sales much. Hopefully...!

Only the galactic war, lack of tutorial and saving I can understand.
The galactic war just isn't as they have promised that it would be yet. But it will come!!

Saving -> only handy for skirmishes, but I usually don't continue my saves anyway...

Tutorial -> at launch we had a 2 minute video, now we have some documentation but it is far from a full fledged tutorial. I often have to explain my barely playing friends how to use the camera anchors to switch between planets more easily.

So from these complaints, saving comes within a few days, tutorial is there, more or less but will be expanded upon later and galactic war changes will probably be the next big changes after introducing saving ^^

1. Some of the issues you presented are debatable and this is why they might be better left for the modders to deal with considering that modders have their tools. Such examples would be shields and "bigger units". Though I personally do agree on the "epic feel"; generally speaking you do not get this feel in traditional sense from these massive T3 units, but rather, from the zergs. And I do understand that not everyone loves them much. I'm not a fan of zergs either.

2. While other issues have clear design purpose. One would be the lifeless biomes and planets. Honestly, what do you want out of them? You aren't going to enjoy the scenery because you're busy with the ongoing war. And less of these details equals to less distraction. Yes, maps could have more interesting strategic content, but that is also possible with the editor + probably can be expanded with mods.

3. The issue I have is not with valid complaints, but with general tone of these reviews. They're filled with unreasonable criticism & bashing towards PA and they do not give any impression of professional attitude in their reviews. The lack of valid complaints probably is because most of them probably couldn't get far with PA during their review period, so they wouldn't know what to actually grunt about.

I actually agree with his question he poses. Why make a game like SC and then strip so many features from the game. Why not innovate and make your own game without being a copycat? If you are going to be a copycat, do it better by expanding on features instead of removing a lot of them.

What about contacting the major reviewers to tell them to have a second look with all the added features?

Looking better would be nice, and I definitely think they could all use another pass to add some things. But more importantly, at least for me, is all the strategic value you can get out of interesting biome features. Hills and cliffs could offer choke points and range advantages. Marshes could slow and impede units, while offering a niche for hovercrafts to excel. Brush and forested areas could provide cover. Snow and mud could reduce traction and cause units to slip or get stuck. There is a lot you could do that would add depth to the game. Also, they do currently look pretty meh.

I hate when people don't use constructive criticism or give a one liner review. I get that, and I agree. But if the review is done in a constructive way, the opinion of the reviewer is not invalid just because you don't agree with it.

What's the point when a lot of them were clearly biased before they wrote the initial review?

Except that PA isn't trying to copy FAF. In fact, if you approach PA with same mentality as FAF, you're gonna have a bad time. Wouldn't this be the most definitive proof that PA isn't going for the same thing? I heard you wanted things to be bit slower in PA... would the perfect amount of slow be somewhere along the lines of FAF build time? Just asking.

scores need to die ... simple as that ...

not gonna happen especialy with sites like ign ...
i am still dissapointed that no major youtuber showcased the game postrelease ...

Yes, this is something that has to be done, but later when all the initial issues reviewers complaint about are assessed.

50% drop in the last 30 days, bloody hell! I'd love to know what the ratio between Steam players and Uber launcher players is...

If you look back over the chart, it jumps up and down in line with the various sales and updates. @ufarax loves to point out the dips Still the games peak player count was this January so it's far from dead, undoubtedly Uber will put PA on sale again over Easter with a big patch to go with it and we'll hopefully see players spike again.

first it is a spiritual sucesor ... that means it WANTS to copy a certain style of games which is the annihilationstyle games .. which we dont realy have all too many ..
second it IS its own game ... unless you can provide a game that did the multiple spherical battlefield idea with orbital battles and planetcollisions before ..

Yeah it spikes with each update, but still! :O

All I'd say is this: Change the sample time frame a bit and you'd get some very different results. Statistics are a 'black art' at best, and are easily manipulated to prove whatever point you want them to prove The link given shows just the last 30 days, as that looks most dire, increase it to 60 days and it'll look very positive (as it will encompass the all time peak players for one thing).

You've got to consider where we are in the year- specifically right in the middle of term time / work time / when everyone is really busy. Given PA has many older players, with life commitments like jobs, university, kids and such- it's not really surprising that they're not playing much. I haven't played a game in a couple of weeks (and by 'a game' I mean *any game*- I just haven't had time). I would be more worried if PA showed a drop during the Christmas or Easter holidays.... mid feb? I would say it's to be expected