I know we have a PA thread already, but it probably needs to die. It's 40 pages long, and was created when the game's Kickstarter was announced over 2 years ago. 40 pages of obfuscation prevent any kind of constructive discussion for a game which, at this point (in my experience), is vastly different than what it was on its official release.
I'm just going to go ahead and treat this like a new game, because, for Kickstarter supporters at least, it pretty much is. There are vast improvements over the original formula, and I think this iteration even surpasses all the goals and promises they made in Kickstarter for us originally.
I'll split my new opinions about the game into 3 sections:
1. Advantages over other modern RTS games.
-Planetary battlefield: Maps are solar systems, not flat squares.
-Land, sea, air, and space: Most RTS games do not even include sea as a potential option. Planetary Annihilation has both sea and space, which in my opinion diversifies its potential options vastly. From what I can tell so far, they've all been done rather well in addition (which certainly wasn't the case on launch).
-Incredible scale: I don't think there's another RTS which can match the sheer scale of thousands of units duking it out with one another across not multiple fronts, but multiple planets. The potential strategy and nuance of just this game mechanic alone, when done correctly, is mind-boggling. Now with Titans and space-class Battleships, the scale of the game grows by an order of magnitude.
-Use solar bodies as weapons: I feel this is self-explanatory, but in any case, it works much, much more smoothly now than it did at release. Now it's practically like it was in the trailer.
-Macro-based gaming: The UI and game-mechanics have been simplified to the point that the game can truly be called macro-based in my opinion. Many things have been done to either reduce or eliminate micromanagement entirely such as planetary patrol patterns, galaxy-wide announcements, picture-in-picture sequences of important events, automated build queues, streamlined pathing mechanics, "construct in this area" mechanics, and just the fact that the game's overall scale calls the player to be more acquiescent to the totality of their plan, instead of laser focused on a single battle where fast clicking makes a huge difference.
2. Advantages over PA on launch:
-Vastly better UI system: Not much to say about this, you just have to try it yourself. I've been very impressed with these changes. A game of this scale needs good UI and I feel they've finally succeeded in this regard.
-Many bugs crushed: Pathing is much better, superweapons work correctly now (and are awesome), less weird bugs and hiccups in general. There's also a lot less lag, from what I can tell, than there was originally.
-Graphic improvements: This probably isn't a huge deal to everybody, but things have definitely improved in this regard. Units and projectiles are more easily identified and appreciated than before, making it easier to tell what's going on.
-Titans: For me, Experimental Class units were always an essentially part of what made Total Annihilation what it was, and even the Supreme Commander games realized this quite nicely. Having extremely expensive but massively powerful monsters which can leave swathes of destruction through enemy armies and bases causes what can only be known as well...total annihilation. Finally PA can boast the same.
-Space fleshed out: A lot of the complaints of the game on release revolved around objects in space (no pun intended). Indeed, space combat felt a little weird, uninspired, buggy, and ultimately soulless. While it could still use a lot of work (hell, space combat could theoretically become as nuanced and complex as ground combat), I feel that it is in a much better, more reasonable place now. The mechanics actually are fun and make sense, and do their ultimate job of allowing the player to easily travel from planet to planet.
3. Cons, or problems still with the game as a whole:
I should probably preface this section by stating that no game is perfect. Every RTS has its own problems and shortcomings, simply by virtue of its own design philosophy. You can't accomplish everything. For example, let's look at RTS-giant Eugen Systems, most well-known for their famous Wargame series. Part of what made the Wargame series so popular and well-received is that it was so realistic and happened on such an unprecedented scale. However, given the game's beautiful graphics and amazingly cool units, many people complained that the generally zoomed-out scale of the titles ruined the enjoyment. What's the point of having beautiful graphics and models of real-life tanks and aircraft if you can barely see them fight?
So now with their game Act of Aggression, they've zoomed the game in and toned down the scale quite considerably as compared to what existed in their Wargame series. Also, given that it is meant to replicate the model of the old C&C style game, realism has taken a backseat to laser weapons, orbital cannons, and a rock-paper-scissors combat style.
So naturally, people are now complaining that the game is too zoomed-in and unrealistic for them to enjoy. As a developer, these kinds of decisions have to be made. You simply can't please everybody, your main goal is to impress your target audience. A lot of the people I've met just really aren't that interested in the kind of game that Planetary Annihilation was even meant to be. That's why I tend to read all positive and negative reviews of the game with a grain of salt.
Having said that...
-One faction/race: This is probably my biggest beef with the game, but I suppose I can understand why it was done. With the scale of the game being so massive and so much more ambitious than anything that has ever been done before, I think most of the effort of the limited indie team went to the design of the planets and macro-based elements of the game. And it shows, because even with so much effort being put into this aspect of the game alone, it was far from finished and is still being polished a year after release. I just think they were stretched too thin to create and balance several races worth of units on top of that. Balancing the units already in the game (air, land, sea, space) has already been enough of a challenge for them. So while it's a little disappointing, I understand the decision. I also see some of the benefits of it, namely that the game is balanced pretty well in the regard that everybody has access to the same units, and the "overpowered race meta" isn't constantly shifting from month to month as it is in games like Starcraft 2.
-Some bugs still exist: I haven't experienced many, but there are some. However, it seems a lot of players are getting random crashes which must be incredibly frustrating. I'm sure the major ones will be fixed in the next patch.
-Attention as a resource: A lot of players are calling attention the third resource of the game. For a lot of people, this "mechanic" is just overwhelming. Having to focus and plan across what effectively amounts to an entire solar system can be incredibly taxing on the mind. It can get confusing, frustrating, and even mentally painful over time. For people looking for a relaxing experience, or who are used to the traditional RTS style, this can definitely be a downside.
-Micromanagement still important: Unfortunately there just aren't a lot of ways around this. They've done everything they can to make the game more macro-based, but micro still plays a huge part, like in every other RTS game ever made (that I know of). Having said that, I still think it's one of the least micro-intensive games on the market right now.
-Titan as a standalone expansion instead of free DLC: This decision has caused what can only be described as absolute rage throughout the Steam community. Even though the Kickstarter backers get it for free, the people who bought the original game on Steam after KS have to pay an extra $13 for the expansion. Since many people see Titans as a more polished, 'what the game should have been on release', this is obviously causing massive anger and indignation. Personally, I don't see it that way. All of the polishes that Titan got were also added to the original game absolutely free. What a previous buyer is paying for are the 21 new units, new game modes, and of course the Titans. $13 seems reasonable for this much content, and I've certainly seen DLC priced much HIGHER for much less (hello EA -_-).
Perhaps Uberent could have released Titans free to every PA buyer, but then how would they continue to run their business? I remember Arcen doing a similar thing with AVWW 2, and Chris later blatantly admitted that giving all AVWW 1 purchasers a free copy of the second game was a massive financial mistake that he regretted. I think at that time the entire company was in danger of collapsing. Sure, some people can say things like, "How Uberent makes their money isn't our problem." And that's true, but it is THEIR problem. And they are people with families, children, and lives of their own. There was an attempt to Kickstart 'Human Resources', a game which could have generated new revenue for them while allowing them to bypass a lot of the work they originally needed to create the PA engine, and get right into production. However, for good reason, this attempt failed, and so obviously they needed another plan to keep the company going. I mean it's not rocket science people, money doesn't grow on trees. I don't feel that what they have done with Titans is unfair, but even if it were, I don't see a lot of better options. Going the way that Arcen did with AVWW would have been a massive mistake.
Final conclusion:
Even with its rocky road and many questionable PR decisions, I believe that PA Titans has accomplished everything that was promised at Kickstarter and more. It stands as a shining pinnacle of true innovation and massive destruction of the sort that is only available to the RTS genre, and furthermore what makes it the best genre in my opinion. If you have been on the fence about this game in the past, I recommend giving Titans a try.
