PA Metacritic reviews

Maybe they don't know that the Armory has nothing to do with the mechanics (but it does have to do with the aesthetics, which are also part of the "play experience" fyi).

Maybe they are stupid.

And if they say the game is good but give it a low score, they certainly are.

So stupid people have stupid opinions: news at 11!

That still doesn't make them any more "biased" than the opinions of anyone else.

If your reviews are based off something that isn't directly related to gameplay (I don't care what your blog says that's a word, and it makes sense), then it's invalid. You can't say (for example) Dead Space 3 is bad because EA is a crap company. You can say it's bad because of the microtransactions (that have a direct effect on gameplay), you can say it's bad if the weapons handle like monster trucks on ice skates. You can also say that you personally disliked the characters and the writing. But saying a game is objectively bad because of external factors or personal preference is just nonsensical.

But dude...

What about Uwe Boll? I can analyze his movies inside and out, and spell out exactly what is wrong with all of them. Will you allow me to take a step back from this, though, when all the analyses have been written, and sum it all up as "Uwe Boll's movies suck because they were made by Uwe Boll"?

Not unless you explain yourself otherwise it sounds like some random agenda.

I've already said that I would write the analyses first. But I have the right to stop watching Uwe Boll movies at some point, and simply discard everything he makes as "crap that is not worth my time".

That's more or less what "biased" people do, and with good reason. God forbid we were forced to watch every piece of crap Uwe Boll makes before discounting the value of his entire output.

Could Uwe Boll change, and become a better director at some point? Sure man, perhaps he could. But I won't be holding my breath for it, nor will I be obsessively watching and analyzing every piece of trash he makes in anticipation of it. And when people call me "biased" I'll answer "Indeed I am, and I am proud of it too". In which case it is up to YOU to show that my bias (read: opinion on Uwe Boll as a director in general) is a bad one, and correct it.

So... You want to review movies you haven't seen?

Sure. I also judge books by their covers and people by their appearances. It's what everyone does, and with good reason. Smart people just do it better than less smart ones. And everyone is equally biased -- towards their opinions.

Anyway, I'll spare you the aggravation and drop out of the thread because I don't want to derail it further.

I won't trust user reviews of anything in general most of the time, unless I can see they've put some decent thinking time into it and at least attempted to see both sides. Fact of the matter is, a lot of people are willing to slander something if it doesn't stand up to their exacting - and often entirely unrealistic - standards. Likewise, others are prone to jump on every bandwagon that comes along simply because they love bands and wagons. In the game of offering opinions, the minority are those who will actually attempt to review the product - rather than just throw their opinion at it.

The argument of "user reviews are fine because I'm capable of writing a great review" doesn't really stand up, either. We're part of a forum community which, for the most part, attempts to intelligently discuss, build on, and improve something we like. A lot of people in general really aren't of that mindset.

Especially if they dislike the thing which you are trying to intelligently discuss, build on, and improve!

...

I am sorry for the snark, I just couldn't help myself. I just wish more people would cotton on to the fact that objectivity is an illusion.

I think it's too easy to call everyone who gives this game a bad score a troll. Ofc people who give the game a 0 are as bad as people who blindly rate this game with a 10.

But there are some valid reasons to criticize this game as it is now. And I've been doing it for a long time now. But I think that people should trust more in professional reviews than user reviews.

Although you will see, that professional reviewers also tend to criticize this game a lot.
And I'm very glad for that, because it gives mee hope, that it will reach Uber's ears eventually.

I think the score (currently 6.9) is not unfair for the launch version of Planetary Annihilation. I would propably give it a 6-8 myself.
That says nothing about the potential of the game (wich is huge)! Only the game as it is now.

I think I speak for everyone when I say: It was a bit too early to launch it right now.
Even the devs make clear that this is not yet v 1.0 by any means.

I don't know what exactly forced the release at this stage, but I am going to asume it was mostly steam demanding a date for thier calculations. And/or the money was needed for the further development, because the servers were a bit more expensive then anticipated.
Lacking important stuff like the offline mode during launch/too early launch is exactly the kind of executive meddling that I hoped a kickstarter financed game would not run into.

Doesn't excuse the people trying to get attention by calling Uber scammers. But I can agree with most justified cirtique.

That's borderline disinformation.

From what I seen, it doesn't change the fact that the score is like a collaboration of bloodlust on the game for varying reasons, and most the negative reviews are all the same monotone thing.

Like I say to anyone else, I am not sure the influence of Steam or Metacritic, but it's a shame one can say the majority of everyone in existance listens to them. Maybe y2k would have been better for everyone...

Now this, I can understand what's behind this. If someone rated it a 6 or a 7 and typed this, I would like their rating.

As it stands, it is obvious this game picked up a real organized anti-movement as well as a strong backing for the game. It is 6.8 out of 10, based entirely on 0 and 9s... Look at it. 0, missing server. 0, missing unit cannon. 0, devs lied. then there are 8, 9, 10, 9, 9...

Lastly, for those people who rated it a 0 because of a missing feature, when the feature comes, they won't change their rating, and the ones who don't, I really don't wish them well. It is like, if you were charged with murder, given life in prison, a year later they discover absolutely exonerating evidence, and simply said "well how about that...", without letting you out of prison or making a public statement.

I think Metacritic has it's uses. Icy you mention that it by it's nature 'reflects the view of the masses' however I think that in some respects that is useful.

In relation to PA having a score in the region of 6-7 is probably reflective of the games current state. I love PA, I would score it higher than that (currently 8) however that is from my experience which is focused on multi-player. So for me, the only real annoyance is that larger games can get pretty slow (for a range of difference reasons), so I'm finding playing on more than about 3 planets isn't really practical. I also think there should be a bit more unit variety in the vanilla game (admittedly the balance mods address this, just wish they were played more).

The point is though that a game getting a middle score like that indicates to 'Joe Public' that there are issues for some people- which would (to me at least) suggest reading a bit more before buying. If Joe Public does their research, they will find that:

The fundamental game is good, very like TA and many people love it. However there is no offline mode yet (so avoid if on restricted internet), there is no save currently (so avoid if your time limited and want to play casually) and that there are still some issues with performance.

I don't think that is unfair really. The thing is once PA addresses these points, then the average score will climb. Sure a few people will still bash it due to 'in game store' or other pet niggles, however the proportion of overly negative reviews will diminish. I think once offline is released + a few other features the score will climb steadily. I'll probably add my own thoughts on it at some point, possibly after the next patch lands.

Precisely, I quite often have to remind my co-workers that we have to design game elements and UI not for our desires, but for those that we are designing it for, and hopefully the majority of them to the best of our ability. If you don't, it will quickly reflect in such scores as meta-critic.

I consider this game to be incomplete until I have the ability to play truly single-player / local only games. It was one of, if not the primary draw card to me Kickstarting the game all those months ago. I can deal with balance issues, but without this, I don't think its feature complete.

I'm not sure it's quite a black and white as that- I think objectivity isn't natural, but it can be achieved by making the concious choice to do so (and even when you do it isn't easy).

People are most defiantly capable of overcoming our more basic animal nature to achieve something more than that, sadly many choose not to though...

No. Absolutely not. Screw you for blindly presuming everyone's judgemental. How dare you.
It's insulting you would even think that.

I am not. I damn well try to be objective about everything I can. Even if something's not my personal taste, I can appreciate the work done and effort put forth into it as well as what it tries to conceive. (I can name examples too) Just because you are unable to be objective does not mean others can't either. Your very post is proof why you're wrong in every aspect of this. That said, people view things with their own bias, yes. Everyone does this, and there's no way around it. Being truly objective on something you experienced is not possible without having experienced the other side as well. If you have experienced both sides of the spectrum, you can be truly objective. Whether one decides to be objective is personal choice.

This all ties in to websites like Metacritic as well. People make their reviews based off what they saw and/or by using friends or other resources. There's nothing you can really do about it. Personally, I don't base my opinions on review sites since I've played many a game that had amazing reviews but many were little more than garbage at it's core wrapped in a colorful bow of unicorns, rainbows, and evil butterflies that kill your most 'beloved' character.

I give props to those trying to give legitimate reviews on Metacritic. I totally understand people not liking the game for X factor or Y reason, but giving it a 0/10 is not fair, and the game doesn't deserve it. I also totally understand people rating it 10/10 to try and balance out the trolls, but it's going to take a lot to stop the hate train.

Personally, I'm mixed about PA because it's overwhelming simply as an engine, as a massive-scaled RTS, and as a macro-based RTS at said scale. The superweapons, teleporter shenanigans, massive unit fights happening simultaneously, and other such awe-inspiring aspects truly make this game a wonder to behold and play. It's underwhelming in finalized gameplay features, unit variety, balance in a general sense, planet features, and other such items that I believe will eventually make their way to the field one way or another. It's hardly a finished product, there's no question about it, but it's not even close to being trash wrapped in a pretty bow either. PA has good and bad, and while most of that is obviously opinion-based, it takes some things that have never been done before, Some things that are rarely done, and some things that are essential, and ball it into one game using a fraction of the budget it deserves. By all accounts, PA should have fallen to the ground in a flaming pile of rubble by now, yet here it is, functioning, released, and on shelves soon. If that doesn't spell a future for PA, I don't know what will.

I can't really say other people's review's have influenced my opinion of the game in any way Not many people on Metacritic can say that..

It's a shame having to read some of these posts in this thread to be fair, people arguing over opinions and arguing how 10/10 is so much better than 0/10... Score the game how you want, based solely on what you want. One purchases the game, you are free to judge it on any part of the product you choose to. Even if you're representing some journalistic business.

I need to update mine, can anyone tell me how?

July 2nd 2014.
"The development for this game so far has been good, the game is starting to look like a finished product, although some features are still missing, and others still need tweaking and finished. A lot of the balance still needs sorting out and the unit roster could do with fleshing out, there's still a whole lot of fun to be had with PA!
The game has been said to be more of a platform to make mods for and play your own way so the game ultimately is going to be quite light on content and is going to be expected to have many mods such as full balance conversions and new units and hopefully Shields! I can see this RTS being very popular when finished, it does help that PA is pretty much the only current RTS at the moment, it is the only game of its kind with huge scale.

Time will tell how well this game will do, and just what is actually finished at 1.0 release. And for that reason, this review is subject to change."

6/10

A personal review is just that, your own opinion, so there can be no 'right or wrong' answer. I think what most people on here find irritating though is the tendency for some of the reviewers to go to extremes (at either end of the scale), and as such aren't really being fair or representative.

The point is though that the extreme low and high scores balance each other out and the average falls around where it should be. As I was trying to point out earlier- how good PA is in its current form depends very much on how you want to play it. PA is a very good multi player game right now (which negates the issues of online and lack of saves) so from that perspective it feels like it's being scored harshly. However a great many people (even by Uber's own admission) don't play the game like this and to them no offline or save functionality is an issue, hence the rating.

In my opinion it's not that far off the mark, and I also think as these issues get addressed the rating will climb as the majority of people reviewing the game will score it higher. PA just needs a bit more time to mature, TA (as great as it was) *wasn't* perfect on release by any means. Many of the best features of TA were added in later patches or via community created mods (e.g. the demo recorder, that also added line / circle build queues and a few other important UI tweaks).

While I see you're point, and respect you're opinion, My opinion of the average user score in this case differs. To me it's completely useless because of the structure people have used to get that average score. Each to their own I suppose.

Also, I don't think it depends on how one plays it, at all. Nor should it depict how good PA is. Me and the few mates that have this game are fairly evenly pants at being competitive but we are still very capable of having fun. Again, that's my opinion, and I'm capable of respecting other peoples opinions. I did buy the game mostly for SP and comp stomps anyway, because that's where "I" find the most amount of fun.