Yes! 6 out of 6 - review for PA

Well, let's look at this "potential" thing that is bandied around a lot a little more closely.

Server lag is not an issue with the code. It is an issue with the machines running the game. So it is not an issue of "potential". All Uber has to do to solve the server lag is rent more or better servers. So they don't have to change a single line of code to do that. And when you are reviewing a game, you are reviewing the code. That's what a game is -- the code. Same thing with SupCom in 2007. People with crap machines could have also given the game a mediocre score, and then upgraded the score when they upgraded their machines. But is that a problem with the code/game or with their machines?

Now of course people will say that since the game is only online, the servers (or lack of an adequate number of them) are part of the game. And that's definitely true. But what happens if players start quitting the game, because of server lag, and a few of them (including me) keep playing?

The server lag issue is solved lol.

I am not saying that this is a good strategy for Uber -- driving away their customers with a shitty server system so that they stop playing, and then the lag is solved. I am just trying to show that the game is already great as it is and the whole "potential" angle is misguided, because it's all a hardware issue, and therefore it's just a matter of time before it's solved, without Uber having to do anything (server rental prices drop and server performance goes up with time, without Uber having to do anything).

I just don't want to write a review, and then rewrite it every 3 weeks when a new graphics card or a faster server comes out, so these considerations are for me non-issues. That's all I am saying. I do understand, however, that for other people they might be deal-breakers. But other people do not write reviews that last for decades, so it all works out for everyone in the end.

It's the same thing with a scientific breakthrough that does not get applied for decades. Is that a problem with the man who made the breakthrough, or with his contemporaries for failing to understand it and take advantage of it? And when history looks back at the history of science, won't they laud the scientific innovator as a groundbreaking pioneer, regardless of how much time it took for his discoveries to become widely accepted and applied?

That's how videogame history will look at Planetary Annihilation a few decades from now. Ten or twenty years from now no one will even remember all those "deal-breaking" little details people are complaining about now. And they sure as hell won't be reading IGN's review or whoever's, but mine

3rd time lucky may help with this one. I dunno but at least I'll give it a go.

lol, okay. But my comments still stand, because there are many people who do not mind the speed of the orbital layer and still complain about the lag as a deal-breaker. I am not addressing only you with these comments.

But let's get back to you for a second. At the risk of further annoying you and other people more, I will even contest your decision to give the game a different score overall (3/6) to the score you give to one specific mode (1v1: 5/6).

How do you score a game that has many modes? Do you score it the same as its best mode? The same as its worst mode? Or do you average the modes?

I would insist that you score it the same as its best mode. Otherwise, any groundbreaking game could end up with a crappy score by simply including a crappy mode in it. But in most games with many modes, most people do not even play many of the modes. For example, Bayonetta has an "Easy Automatic" mode that basically destroys the complex mechanics that make the game so great. But I've never touched that mode! It would be a crime for me to rate the game lower for including a mode that I hate even though the mode that I actually play is orgasmic.

So what I am saying is that if you are having 5/6 fun by playing one of the game's modes, you should give the entire game a 5/6 too.

And here is a quote from Schopenhauer that I believe is relevant to this discussion (emphasis is mine):

"In appreciating a genius, criticism should not deal with the errors in his productions or with the poorer of his works, and then proceed to rate him low; it should attend only to the qualities in which he most excels. For in the sphere of intellect, as in other spheres, weakness and perversity cleave so firmly to human nature that even the most brilliant mind is not wholly and at all times free from them. Hence the great errors to be found even in the works of the greatest men; or as Horace puts it, quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.

That which distinguishes genius, and should be the standard for judging it, is the height to which it is able to soar when it is in the proper mood and finds a fitting occasion—a height always out of the reach of ordinary talent."

I mean, imagine Uber released an update tomorrow that REMOVED all modes in the game except 1v1. Imagine they said: "You know what, we overreached ourselves with this game, and botched everything except the 1v1 mode, so we are removing everything else."

Then PA would automatically become a 5/6 game for you, simply because Uber removed some stuff that you never even really played.

As it stands, though, games are judged on the basis of how fun they are, and not on the basis of how awesome a technological foundation they are built on.
Thus the argument between the two of you is pointless - you are arguing different things entirely.
This being said, and I repeat myself here, PA is an awesome piece of technology, and a solid game.

I was just trying to explain some things to clopse (and to others posting in this thread) about criticism which I have learned in my 10 or so years of being a critic. I don't think you understand what our discussion was about.

Quite possible. It seemed a bit gratuitous to me, is all.

I can imagine. The fundamentals of criticism seem gratuitous to almost everyone. And that's why sites like IGN are number 1

I've been enjoying your discussion actually I've been *trying* (and failing) to explain the concept to people since the reviews started popping up- how PA should be viewed is one of context, in some respects this is a fantastic game, in others less so. What's important is what matter to the person reviewing the game, PA offering superb multi player is not somehow 'offset' by a weaker single player experience *if* the reviewer is the sort of player that likes multi player (one doesn't negate the other). The reverse is true for someone who enjoys single player, the best multi-player capabilities in the world don't help if you don't enjoy that style of play. On that basis it is wholly possible (and reasonable) for 2 reviews to give the same game 2 very different scores, and I'm happy with that so long as they take the time to qualify on what they are basing their scores / review.

I honestly don't think this game deserves a rating like that. Too many flaws for it to be perfect by any means. It's a good game and I love it dearly. It needs a lot more work then where it is now to even remotely get a 7/10.

On the contrary. Thanks for your poorly veiled insult, much obliged. But those scores found on 'review' sites are not measurements of the objective quality of a product. They are projections of the enjoyment the writer got out of a product unto an arbitrary scale.
As commendable as your efforts are, advocating objectivity in such a subjective assessment is, to say the least, a strange endeavour. It would seem more fruitful to me to convince people of the inherent subjectivity of any such opinion piece rather than preaching this high theory of criticism of yours which to me seems more at home in academical discourse.

I am advocating subjectivity. Objectivity is an illusion, and we have known this for some centuries now.

The difference is that I don't believe that subjects are equal.

For practical matters objectivity is not an illusion at all. Universally that statement makes no sense, either.

"There are no facts, only interpretations." -Nietzsche

If you care to argue against him, by all means feel free to do so. But I think we're veering too far off topic for that subject.

My 3/6 was an unbiased looking at the game as a whole experience score. As in how I would review the game if asked. The reason I play 99.9% 1v1 is because I dont like multiplayer in this game. I love muliplayer games. The year before PA came out all i was doing was playing 3v3s 4v4s and 5v5s in TA. Team games on single planet systems are extrememly messy and lag and team games on multi planets are boring and slow.

For me, team games are king. But I cannot imagine playing them on a single map again, never mind a flat map with black borders. So whatever the negatives to PA's team games might be, for me it still trumps all other RTS team modes.

Note also that I don't claim to offer an unbiased opinion. My opinion is extremely biased. I absolutely love team games and can't see the joy in 1v1 at all.

I think a rating is only helpful if you have an idea about the person who did the review. If clopse just said the game is 5/6 I would know that he rates 1v1 because I know that he mostly plays 1v1. So his rating would be helpful for me. But for someone who doesnt know how clopse plays the game, it wouldnt help. I guess that is why he tried to step out of his shoes and rate the overall experience. Every good reviewer should try to do this or at least try to state what his approach to the game was and what he was expecting.*

This is what I expect of a good review. It would say something like: "The game has some issues and if you are looking for a good single player RTS you have to be aware that it doesnt offer a campaign, GW feels like skirmish with random limitations and you are not able to play offline. However if you are looking for a good multiplayer experience, you can find it in 1v1 or team games but be warned, server lag reduces the fun especially when playing large systems."

So this 6/6 just means nothing for me because I cant even read the article and I dont know this newspaper. Im still waiting for TotalBiscuit because I like his way of "reviewing" games.

The history of scientific endeavours would disagree with you :/