What average review score you expect PA will get?

The reactions will evolve through time so I don't make this thread a poll.

Currently my expection is somewhere between 7/10 to 5/10, based on my predictions beblow:

UI will be significant better than what we currently have, but still much less fluid and informative than a traditional RTS UI.
Some units will be added in, but it doesn't look like Uber can deliver a basic metagame framework that makes sense and fun before the launch.
Stability and performance will be better, but still have some serious problems.
It could end up being a great modding platform (I don't expect it to be better than spring though), but usually reviewers don't care this aspect of the game.

It doesn't necessary mean the game is doomed, merely the concept of multi-planetary battle itself could sell the game to a lot of people, so there will be enough reason and money for long term improvements. This part is not certain though, considering there were games with attractive concepts that didn't sell.

I think PA will have an average score at release, but if review scores improve, PA's will over time. I agree with the majority of people that Uber needs to delay the game's release, if just for the sake of press.

Mine really depends how many features are out the door by time release comes, and also I have never been in a game based on it's reviews, on average I avoid more ones with good reviews than I do join ones and I join ones that are "dead" or "old" or "bad" more than I avoid them.

Overall, I would expect this game to get a 5/10 at current rate of updates, and 8/10 if all features come together and such, but I don't expect the review to be as good as the game since the "reviewer" is more than likely going to be biased *** metacritic or such who don't like rts games anyway. Did you know that game informer never gave any Mario Party ever a review higher than 4/10?

Anyway...

The UI, being mind-numbingly easy to mod and customize, will hopefully be "good" given all these tester ideas and opinions and how easy they are to make. If Uber copy-pastes modder UI, the UI would be as you describe.

Again, if they go through the ideas thread for units, and then simply copy-paste the existing unit's attributes with mix-and-match, they could turn the ant alone into 3 units varying in different attributes, and amongst those ideas add probably 10 roles of unit into each branch of factory. Take the same time as UI to make happen.

It would be a shame for this game to have any stability problems. It should hopefully if all else release with the odds of a bug happening ingame or a crash happening ingame being 1 game out of 100. And if they clean up code and merge assets, they get a good performance boost. If this game isn't stable on release, it shouldn't release, it should delay.

Depends on the reviewer. They love minecraft, but that is their bias, they don't set all games equal in this field, its either bandwagon or not with this kind of thing. I am not sure if one could compare modding different games, but hopefully one can easily make units, maps, and mechanic add/change. Also I hope Uber would continue to support more and more engine hooks for game mechanic modding. Having a mod database ingame, and having a built in modloader, is a start.

If you haven't noticed by my post, and surely you should have noticed it in posts in the forum before, but when you bring up "reviews and ratings", people who watch BLAWHPS2 and BAWFEYLD3 and GEETEEHAY5 get above an 8/10 when they are no more than a 7/10-8/10 and recycled from the same game they sequel every year onto, they lose faith in ratings. If gta5 has arguably more bugs on release than this one has now, how do they get 9/10 and 10/10 out of sheer bandwagon appeal? In my opinion, it says something about the reviewer that gives it a 10/10 when it has any single glaring bug. Minute one sure, but glaring one? One that cause rage-posts on forums when the bug screws someone? You trust THAT reviewer?

Anyway, I do happen to play GTA5 so I do know what I am talking about. I currently know 2 spots to reliably fall though the map, I never had a bug erase my account but my friend did, I know at least one major gamebreaking car duplication glitch and money glitch, both of which I am fairly certain Rockstar knows about but in recent patches put limits in GAMEPLAY to attempt to fix them which to the best of my knowledge makes the glitches harder to do but still reliable in 1 try and only instead create 5-20 minute delay timers on actions ingame for normal non-glitching players. It is not "best game ever" material. It is a ton of bad mistakes chosen by the makers of an otherwise pretty solid time consuming game which actually in practice usually ends up being "Super Scrub Moshpit Deathmatch World". I literally say that because unlike FPS military shooters GTA5's latency is horrible and the layout of the land is designed specifically for lack of balance so it only caters those who know how to abuse the mechanics and positioning. God I love playing that game. Maybe that is why it got 10/10 at some places. Because it caters to those who just want senseless open world picking fights in stupid ways and blowing up people and things for no reason, which is 99% of random gamers apparently (and me).

/ratingsrant

Anyway, unless PA become much better than it is now, it would be not fair if fans support PA more than they did with SupCom 2 or TA:K.

Cod Ghosts got an 8.8 on ign. Obviously review scores have no actual meaning. Because there is no possible way that game is even close to a 5. Same glitches and netcode bs from the first release over 10 years ago. That's why you cannot trust reviewers. Best thing to do is to watch gameplay and come up with your own opinion on it.

Grudgingly agreeable. To be fair, I put my best hopes and best work into these things at any rate. Generally, they were fair enough to let us play through beta, so until they release it is what it is.

Honestly, any update now I am hoping for unit cannon and for bugs to start dramatically falling. We have a few more bugs to go I think, when they continue to tweak orbital transition and when they make a few things like orbital transports and unit cannon. Besides that, when they get over this next hill, then really I believe it is all plug-and-chug numbers into unit templates, plug-and-chug javascript into coherent UI, and polish the balance/gameplay.

Anyway, if I make this thread a single line longer than I have, even I will think I am a ****. Please, other opinions?

I agree, why is it such a sin that the nanolathe commander RTS games get a new game every 5 years, when CoD gets one yearly?

PA is different to SupCom 2 by actually involving people. I think that makes a big difference already.

There is some transparency on development process, but so far the players don't involve much on development itself.

Far more involved than any game i've ever been a part of. Proper constructive feedback can and has changed this game.

The commander arms having one cannon in each hand, opposed to symmetrical hands holding hybrid cannon/fabricators.

That idea was small, but better in terms of animation design, visual signature of his current action, and in making the commander the exception that proves the rule that the units in this game are cold robotic tools of efficient mass production and destruction (because he himself is not symmetrical nor bland).

There were other good bits of community feedback steering game development. Honestly, we only ask to, instead of inciting developer and community panic, wait till 2 weeks from release and see how things turn. We will either get word that Uber pushes back release by then, or we can go back to making these threads every other day.

this
It is a very hard task to involve this many people. Uber is trying very hard at it and they are doing better than any other developer so far.

Yup and they need to figure out what the actual issues are and sort past the people who are just blowing smoke over their 'ideal' way that they think pa should be. That's why its harder to discern what has changed due to community influence.

But believe me, uber has done an amazing job so far at handling all of this. So really I don't care what the state of the game is at the moment because I didn't have a chance to see where the TA alpha, or even the supcom alpha was thus I cannot properly compare how far we are. That and I really do believe with 2 annihilation titles behind some of the lead members of uber that they know what and how to deliver a completed project. I got hooked on TA from the damn 3 mission demo, that I played for more hours than most of the games I buy today.

I have seen feedbacks being more impactful during starcraft 2 HOTS beta, and that's not a kickstarter game.
Listening to feedbacks isn't always a good thing especially with so little time and budget, Uber have wasted time on experimenting fan suggested ideas like more realistic orbitals and map projections then rejected them.

Uber isn't Cavedog or GPG just like EALA/Jet Set Games/Petroglyph isn't Westwood.

Being panic won't be useful at all once the release date is announced.

I think they knew in general what they/we wanted from the outset. I think that helps too. SupCom2 was highly experimental... no pun intended.

64-bit native native is a big deal, but nobody ever mentions it.
It's literally the next major step in game development.

If the public expects 64-bit, then it's fine.
But if they didn't, then they might be up against a 32-bit memory ceiling.


But isn't it way, way too soon to be making predictions?
We're nowhere near feature-complete.


You're better off discussing the metrics on how PA will be judged rather than making assumptions of what-if and what-will.

Realize PA has a few big things going against it.

1. It is a Niche Game: This is not a game that everyone will like it is an RTS that emphisizes Macro on a Spherical map. This means, depending on the reviewers expectations and patience, there is a lot of room for reviewers to love or loath the game.
2. It is a Multi-player Focused game: Even though single player his rarely the strong point of an RTS game a lot of people are still very much put off by the idea. So again depending on the Reviewers ability look past this there is again lot of to love or loath the game. And yes I know Galactic war is supposed to replace the single player campaign but some people may not see it that way.
3. The Eliphant in the Room: This is an incredibly technically ambitious game being produced by a small team on a small budget. If PA somehow manages to launch without stability issues I'm going to have to re-asses my place in the universe.

You need some assumptions of the final product to discuss those metrics.

For example:

It is a assumption that Galactic War will be done before the game release, which is almost impossible to happen.

i see pa getting arond 75 percent with possible pluspoints for actualy trying to get to the next level ...

All journalists review the release version. They won't publish a new review a year later when the game is patched up to 1.2 and is in a better state. User score on metacritic might improve but that might not be enough.

I guess it'll be around 75 out of a 100 myself, but it all depends how many more units, content and polish will end up in there by release.

Release day reviews can make or break a game as a business venture along with it's post-release support, and I trust the Dev team is fully aware of this.

Why not? of all the features promised us, that one I think has a very high chance of making it into the game.

Remember, it is just a metagame, all it really is is a map of games that you progress through. That is not very hard.