Guess the game's metacritic Critic/Reviewer score after 2 weeks of release

It's sad, but I have to agree. But gladly there are some more units coming for the orbital layer, maybe even for other layers. And they're also fixing the T1 issues atm, just think about the grenadier change.

They have the structure for a potentially awesome game. But until it can be rated 9 or even 10, there's still a lot of work to do.

I'm hedging my bets by choosing the option with the largest range.

Lower than 6..... that is a fairly rubbish score

If they fix orbital and late game (major performance optimizations plus seamless, dynamic interplanetary warfare): 8-9

If not: 4-6 with a lot of 'this game has potential maybe wait to buy until modders get a hold of it'

4-6 might be a bit low. Maybe if they released it right now it would be 4-6. If performance was fine it would be 6-7. If balance was better it would be 7-8. If interplanetary warfare was more fun and with a better UI it would be 8-9. And for over 9 there has to be something really awesome, like different kinds of planet smashing, asteroid belts and stuff.

Quite, it will be interesting to see how different reviewers take to this game. Fingers crossed for a positive outcome ha.

Mh, I don't like to play with 6 fps in late game, sorry.

I question the purpose of everything. Usually it ends with something along the lines of "oh shut up" and/or "you're insane".

I don't really care about metacritic, but I voted 8-9.

I imagine it will be below 6, and the average comment will be as follows:

"I didn't buy the game, but have hated it for a few months now since it originally costed $90, and vowed to myself that I would keep checking until I could give it a bad review. Now I finally can."

It isn't fair, metacritic rates everything except metacritic, and metacritic is something I bet would have a piss poor rating, which would invalidate metacritic and its ratings over everything, then again if metacritic has bad ratings then its ratings are bad meaning its bad rating is a bad rating. Time Paradox?

It's like when you do a website. You're promised at been met at 98%, you even add some awesomeness on your own and made your best to include everything the customer asked on top afterward, and took only few days longer to complete than promised... will the customer be happy? Will you be happy?

If we have to listen to what Uber told us, the game will be fairly incomplete at the end of May. Polishing and balancing is gonna take a ton of time and I wish them to find the time to fix the planet editor.

They seem to be aware of the risk, and of course having a deadline in less than two months, some features and assets cannot be included in the "released" version of the game. And that's the version of the game that will ever be reviewed.

Unfortunately I am also afraid that the critic will punish the game as an example of promises not met.

This game has huge potentials that are highly unexpressed. It's a shame they had to release so early. I'm expecting this game to do not better than a 7.

On the other hand, if it's true that Uber could release when they really want, they made some math and decided that the risk to submit an incomplete game to the critic is more convenient for them than to wait longer. I would like to know more about this math and what does that mean for the customers base.

If the game will score 8 or more, everything will be fairly fine. But what is gonna happen if the game will score 7 or less?

No one at Uber is losing their job because of a Metacritic score as far as we're aware. Anyone who actually uses metacritic to judge whether PA is worthy or not is not a sale that I think Uber (and the industry as a whole) should pay attention to, nor mourn/thank for the loss/gain of; doing so only gives metacritic more power.

Even talking about metacritic on this forum like it actually matters is a travesty.

Well, we need to stop worrying about ratings. You moved on from being controlled by mommy and daddy, but your not free, apparently most people are controlled by their girlfriend dangling her influence over them, or metacritic bandwagon influence, or any social derpery.

I know I will give it a good rating, asked who rated it bad who actually played it, who rated it bad based off anything but cost, and finally who goes to metacritic to see low scores and no detailed reason and say "well I gotta follow the group or I might lose the respect of my friends!" like some derpy My Little Pony lesson not learned.

Because, I posted this elsewhere, gamers are two faced scandalous dweebs:

metacritic needs to die ... seriously i am at the point of aggreeing with totalbiscuit thinking that scoring also needs to die as well ....
there is no real standartisation as to how games are QAted pretty much every rating has something biased and subjektiv to it that it in it self negatively influences a rating of a game .....
to me metacritic is the same bs like rottentomatoes with its stars and percentagescores
it doesnt actualy tell you anything and is so easily affected by the rating of hundreds of people
not realy helpfull to a consumer

seriously screw scores ... don't "rate" something
instead just write down what you think about and expierenced with a game ...
a propper critic that tells why something is considered a certain way is so much more helpful to a consumer aswell as to devs then the typical "bad game 0/x" post
and seriously if people want to continue being lazy then just let them run into the wall ...
it still pisses me of ... like realy ....
forget those arbitrary chosen numbers

THE INFORMATION OF WHY IS THERE ... READ THAT INSTEAD!!!

Good point. I'm actually curious to see how Totalbiscuit will review PA. He's one of the very few I still listen and respect in his field.

I would be more inclined to give it my honest score of 7-9, 7 in it's current state and price, 9 if cheaper or more bigtime features added if it werent for the fact other people aren't rating generously.

GTA5: 10/10, people rated it 10 before playing it just because hype was raised, what kind of a way to score is that?

PA: most ratings being 1/10, didn't play the game but didn't like the old price, I don't see many other complaints outside that honestly because it isn't like its a garden variety game you see made a lot lately.

What I will give it, is a 10/10, just because it will weigh up the guys who do the above. If they would grade based on not being a knucklebasher, I would give it a 7 just because it is heavily entertaining, the singleplayer does work and I play it all the time, it arguably now has less bugs than GTA5 did, arguably has better balance than other rts and shooters, at least is getting promised free support, any real "programmer" can tell you can mod the whole thing once server is release and they have no plan on keeping it serverside only and modding capability is obvious as heck, uses simple code but the game has huge utility ability, its a game of thought and self improvement instead of just play it run around and sort of get lucky like CoD, its not a overly common game like generic modern military shooters nowadays... I don't get it, that rating describes why AAA titles deserve a 7-9, much less why PA does.

generaly i expect him to have a rather mixed view on it
cause lets be honest this game had and has a good ammount of controversial and debatable topics to it be it advertising or development related that may or may not negatively influence of how people generaly percieve the making of this game ...
which makes the developement of this game very intresting from a whole lot of viewpoints imho ... but also worrying

i get so skeered when ppl start talking about 1.0 release. the game is SO not ready.

look at the bickering on this board - a fair chunk of which is in no way "constructive criticism for the improvement of the game". and we're the early backers on Uber's side! we're rooting for 'em! can you imagine what forums are gonna look like when they're full of people that just made a purchase expecting a 100% finished product?

If he did a mixed review on it, asking why it didn't do this or this, but finding good enjoyment out of this and this, then that would sound highly intellegent. Of course I would approve of that.

I doubt the sense of entitlement can grow beyond where it is right now.