IGN Review

It has been a long time since I've played RTS games. The majority of RTS games I played were oldschool ones like Command and Conquer Red Alert, or Age of Empires II.

So the games I'm used to playing? Yeah, what I say is true in that, no other RTS game out there allows you to have the amount of control that PA gives you.

Just being able to give a move order through the minimap barely counts as control through a minimap.

It's like saying my horse and buggy can get me from New York to San Francisco as efficiently as a Boeing 747.

.......Hence why it is under polish. Also I think the UI would be perfectly fine.

You were talking about orders, most RTS games that support move order in the minimap support other orders too, from a technical perspective they are not really different .
Selection box might be rare for minimap, but it do exist in Sacrifice and the games on Spring.

I could never manage to comprehend and fight in a system like that, personally.

But that's not big deal. Reading here and there I got the idea that Uber itself doesn't understand the definition of 1.0 And that's kinda of a problem.

Anyway, most of the opinions and reviews are subjective. Saying that the cartoon-graphic is a plus makes no sense at all. I love it, but others might hate it and it's totally subjective.

But that's how opinions form. And sometimes they nail down real issues.

For example, speaking about a system with a tons of moons, when you say that:

That's totally legit. But what if you couldn't manage a system's complexity beyond the first planet? What if the second planet already troubled you so much that you would start hating the game when it asks you to play on more than one planet?

That would be a totally subjective opinion of yours and many would disagree with you. They would tell you that "c'mon the game's core mechanic is about wars spawned across multiple planets!". Still you would think that the game is better played on a single one (which is kinda true at this stage). Wouldn't you feel that you still have a valid point?

Does anyone remember Descent? I so loved that game, it was a blast. It challenged my very perception of space, and after playing it for a fairly bit, I could see the geometry of rooms and architectures around me differently. It opened a new perspective on reality for me.

That time I was writing reviews for a couple of magazines to pay for my studies. I did not review Descent 'cos that was a big title and I was a young freelancer. But I promoted it to all my friends.

Only... no one who I knew appreciated it the same way I did. The freedom of movement in a no-gravity 3D virtual environment was too much of an obstacle for all of them. Some got methodically lost and were unable to play.

It was totally subjective. But it is still important that a review nails down those aspects. For some, playing on a sphere is too much of a trouble.

Too bad, 'cos personally I do like it a lot, and I think it's the one big thing PA brings into play. But of course for some others it might be an obstacle. How can you say that they're wrong?

I prefer to be able too zoom out and see the big picture, but it's not that much of a hassle (on smaller planets) to scroll about for the same effect.

I think you guys are missing the point I was trying to make with those pictures. The point was to show that there are moons that have non-flat orbital paths to back up my original post.

The system in its current state would never be able to load that many moons around a gas giant for you to be able to fight in a system like that. But with only one or two it would not be that hard at all to see what is happening

Oh really....... Challenge accepted.

I believer there's actually a hard limit of like 14 planets.

yeah and Juipter has 63 (known) moons...

Done. Twas easy.

67 actually.

Point still stands

Picture or it did not happen.

Uber was moving their offices, it could either means they have a lot of spare money so they decide to give the enlarged team a better environment, or they are in financial difficulty so they sold their property like Petroglyph did a while ago.
If the latter is the case, it's not necessary a bad thing for PA, it could means Uber is really willing to support PA financially.

This has been stated very directly by Uber multiple times. They are reinvesting all money they get from PA into PA again.

Whether that is a good thing to emphasis depend on how profitable PA is.

They've told us PA is doing marvelously, sales wise.

If it wasn't selling marvelously Uber won't be able to defer the release for so long.
But we don't know how much of that keep up after the release.

I'd like your source for that informatipn, because it sounds like an assumption to me.

Of course it is a assumption. PA was supposed to be released at January in a much worse state than it currently is, nothing would likely change that beside good sales.