Response to critics.

[moltobenny]

I know it's no fun to like stuff on the internet, but I'd like to respond to what I'd consider a rash of negative pub the game is getting due to a perceived lack of depth, complexity, and content in the current state of the game:

Well. You have a point!

At this point I'd consider the game more "SMAC Lite" than SMAC, for many of the reasons brought up by the critics. I'm writing this, however, in a hope to not turn away potential customers, because only with their support can the game grow in the way many of us would like.

The facts are these:

- Yes, when comparing the game to Civ/SMAC, there is definitely a lack of options/content/etc. I'm not going to argue this with anyone.
- However, it still absolutely nails the 4x one-more-turn theme, and does so in such a streamlined, easy to use fashion that I find it still a joy to play.
- It is polished, and as far as I can tell, virtually bug-free. This used to be the norm, sure, but these days, like it or not, this is remarkably rare and to be applauded.
- The devs seems genuinely interested in staying involved with the game and growing it over time.

That's all. I don't know if this will do any good, but when so many games are released in an abhorrent state, and then abandoned, it is a joy to find something like this which is stable, solid, supported, and unless you are unable to relax lofty expectations, a damn fun game I think.

I thank you for your time.

[boulugre]

You are right writing this post. A newcomer to this board would probably have a negative first feeling about the game when you read the long list of improvement suggested/requested by the players.

I fully join you in saying this game, as numerous its imperfection and lack of content currently may be, is still a blast and totally worth buying.

I have been constantly playing it for nearly 2 months and IMO Pandora is already a great success that can only get better and better when you see the involvement of the devs.

[jdmillard]

I agree.

I'll add that all of the problems are well within the bounds "fixable." It's not like the devs are sitting around looking at each other and saying, "well, time to scrap the game and start over from scratch" lol.

Some of the issues are a simple matter of balancing by changing coefficient values. Others are related to the AI behavior which really only needs tweaking, not an overhaul.

The game engine works very well and has the perfect foundation and potential to be a game that can blow all other 4x games out of the water.

[void]

Thanks guys, highly appreciated!

We're aware that Pandora isn't as good as it could be yet, but we'll get there. Going up against genre titans that had a significantly higher budget is challenging, but overall I think we did a really solid job and made an entertaining game that is worth your money. We'll keep improving it, and everyone who bought a copy can actively and, thanks to the automated update system, easily participate in our beta to check out and refine the latest features.

[arraamis]

I know it's no fun to like stuff on the internet, but I'd like to respond to what I'd consider a rash of negative pub the game is getting due to a perceived lack of depth, complexity, and content in the current state of the game:

Well. You have a point!

At this point I'd consider the game more "SMAC Lite" than SMAC, for many of the reasons brought up by the critics. I'm writing this, however, in a hope to not turn away potential customers, because only with their support can the game grow in the way many of us would like.

The facts are these:

- Yes, when comparing the game to Civ/SMAC, there is definitely a lack of options/content/etc. I'm not going to argue this with anyone.
- However, it still absolutely nails the 4x one-more-turn theme, and does so in such a streamlined, easy to use fashion that I find it still a joy to play.
- It is polished, and as far as I can tell, virtually bug-free. This used to be the norm, sure, but these days, like it or not, this is remarkably rare and to be applauded.
- The devs seems genuinely interested in staying involved with the game and growing it over time.

That's all. I don't know if this will do any good, but when so many games are released in an abhorrent state, and then abandoned, it is a joy to find something like this which is stable, solid, supported, and unless you are unable to relax lofty expectations, a damn fun game I think.

I thank you for your time.

While I'm certain some may feel the need to provide a counter-balance to comments that may seem critical of the game -- I assure all, this is not necessary. I don't believe you will find one person here who does not like the Pandora and who doesn't support its advancement. Have you ever seen guys asking for more features and improvements for a game they don't like .... not really!

IMHO and in the opinion shared my many here on this forum, Pandora is off to a great start -- But as stated in other threads, by many end-users, it still needs a little more of "this" and a little more of" that".

If some are more critical than others, it is because they like what they see so far, and would like to see more of it. Feedback cannot be discriminated against, and it cannot be curtailed or shaped to appeal to a certain group or viewpoint. Feedback must be honest and it must express the end-users honest opinion .... otherwise it is useless to the Developers and ultimately useless to potential fans of the series.

Feedback, gives the developer's a viewpoint they may not have access to and it should be encouraged. Because every Dev. wants interested fans that are willing to provide critical feedback, because optimistically, it may and will ultimately help to make their creation even better. But, as is with all things created, there are and always will be areas that need improvement and the best way to single those area out quickly and efficiently is to involve the end-user.

Bottom line .... I don't think any measure of sensitivity is needed in this instance or in regard to fan feedback.

Pandora won't sour any old SMAC\AX fans -- If anything the Dev's may run the risk of bringing more SMAC\AX fans to the new series, by incorporating the same formula's\features that made the past series successful.

Regards ....

[Dr. Foo]

Here's how I feel. I am 100% convinced the dev's know what should and should not be in a 4x game. I highly doubt they had the budget or a huge development team like Firaxis. I am sure they made the best game they could with what they had. The game is very stable and very moddable. I've been able to do just about anything I want with the game some more successful than others. It's a fun game to play. I have few complaints, but I see lots of room for improvement.

Diplomacy is sparse but it cannot be easy and it must be expensive to code a deep AI diplomacy model. Everything costs money and they are not working for free. It is my hope that sales will increase and then major improvements can be implemented. As the game grows in popularity it will get better with each patch and expansion pack. If not, then we might have a game that could have been so much better but is still a very good game and lots of fun to play.

Here's what I love.

Extremely easy to mod and mods rarely crash the game!

Edits applied to saved game...when does that every happen. If I am getting to far behind in tech I can just open the factions file give myself a research boots or just give myself the tech and bam there it is in my saved game. I can give the AI the same thing if one is really behind and I don't want to see them go so soon, I can give them money and tech and then they come back from the brink. It's really useful to mod and play at the same time.

Alien bug's are so much better than barbarians...they just are.

Refitting is super easy and it's great that I can tailor my military anyway I see fit for the ultimate combined arms force.

I absolutely love that if I am building, say a tank and it has 9 turns left but I need to build something more important and it cannot wait, I can move the priority build over my tank and I do not lose any of the production I've put into it. It is just on hold until the other build or unit is complete. Very useful.

The UI is among the best thought out and easiest to use. They really did a good job of making sure we're getting all the information we need.

I like that they did not go overboard with tons and tons of unit types. We have what we need and it's fine.

Operations are just a genus idea!

More needs to be done but for $29.99 this game has been one of my best buys in a long time. Oh, and if you really want to play bad AI, play Civ 5. I decided to fire up a game, I'm playing on the highest difficulty and the AI is pathetic. I have a large army, fully upgraded, no obsolete units and the AI has nothing. When it did declare war on me I was invaded by an army of catapults...no joke. Warriors, catapults and some chariots. It cannot use the units it has, it does not defend it's borders or cities and it builds no buildings whatsoever. It just try's to spam build wonders and maintains a joke for an army. It's not even fun, at any time I could steamroll the entire planet and there's nothing to stop me.