Reviews around the web

[Vishniac]

I don't own the game and neither played it yet nor beta-tested it.
All I can do for now is then to link you to the reviews and help you get an opinion! 

We start with the one at gamespot:
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/pandora-first-contact-review/1900-6415642/
It doesn't seem good...

Extracts:
- While it is meant to be a respectful tribute (to SMAC), Pandora is laden with awful design choices and a confusing mishmash of old and new mechanics.
- There really is only one correct play style: extreme aggression.
- Without scarcity, there's very little to fight over, and the monotony of expansion across hundreds of same-y tiles wears down to tedium very quickly.

The conclusion: I want to love Pandora, I really do, but nostalgia can't fix a game that doesn't work even at the most basic level.

Final note: 4 = Poor

The Good:
- Early game is exciting, albeit restrictive 
- Lots of variety for unit upgrades
The Bad:
- Cumbersome UI 
- Limited victory options 
- Upgrading units can be extremely tedious 
- Incomplete and unfocused design elements

[Vishniac]

A very long and very detailed review of Pandor on The Space Sector.
http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2013/12/pandora-first-contact-review/
Review is dated from Dec 6, 2013.

Comparisons with SMAC included.

I played a lot of SMAC in the day, which I consider to be one of the best games I’ve played, but it’s been almost 15 years. So, to refresh my memory I dedicated a portion of this review time to play SMAC and to see how Pandora really stands out against Firaxis’ sci-fi strategy master piece.

Pandora’s graphics are better.

SMAC clearly wins on the factions department.

SMAC’s terraforming is much richer than Pandora’s.

overall Pandora wins on the UI department

Then there’s one aspect where SMAC really stands out. Social engineering, or government policies.

Pandora’s diplomacy is Ok but I don’t think it can compete with SMAC’s,

I tend to prefer Pandora’s flora and fauna

Part of the conclusion:

If you’re a Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri fanatic I think it can go both ways for you though. If you loved SMAC in the day but are now looking for something fresh and more accessible, perhaps not as complex and immersive but much more fluid and war-like, then Pandora is the right game for you to try. On the other hand, if you’re looking for an experience similar to SMAC in what complexity and immersion are concerned, then there’s a good chance that you’ll still prefer to play SMAC. However, I suspect that you still have a good chance to enjoy this game since it offers an interesting new take on the alien planet exploration theme that you love so much.

Score: 8.3/10 Great

The Good:[/b]
- Excellent stability and performance (very low turn-time)
- Easy to pick up due to low learning curve and user-friendly UI
- Fun and replayable tech progression due to tech tree’s random nature
- Good AI that is both competent in managing its cities as challenging in the battlefield
- Elegant and micromanagement-friendly economy allows for the specialization of cities
- Interesting and diverse fauna and flora provides a nice sense of discovery
- Very enjoyable warfare that really makes you think offering diverse customizable units
- Support actions/operations are very fun to use (e.g. nukes, sat scans and black holes)

The Bad:
- Diplomacy is too simple and too predictable
- The factions are not innovative or special enough, and are also too few
- Gameplay a bit light (e.g. no espionage, social policies and simple terraforming)
- Not as immersive as Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri (similar game from the 90′s)

[Yitzi]

Another good review (though I've never played it either) from Extra Credits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NN3dPEPSO8

Unfortunately, he doesn't discuss how the storyline compares, and for me that's one of the big appeals of SMAC/X (not the only one, but a very strong one.)

His biggest criticism is the high complexity from taking a 4X game and adding on a changing tech tree, sci-fi terminology, and a unit workshop that apparently makes SMAC's look a tiny bit limited...but I doubt that's going to be much of a concern for the people here.

[Vishniac]

From what I've read so far inreviews and comments, the biggest criticism is that there is no real manual.
Either you know 4x games and you're fine or you're a newbie and you're lost.

[vv221]

While the manual doesn't cover the rules (the devs justify it by pointing out it would be obsoleted by rules being modified in successive patches), tutorial pop-ups shows out when you're doing something for the first time, like opening the base screen or the research screen.
You can of course disable them when you've grasped the rules.

I think this critic isn't pertinent for Pandora, the game is pretty easy to learn.
(and difficult to master, but isn't it what we're looking for in 4X?)

I'm nothing close to new to 4X games, so my view can be biased (and it is probably).

-----

His biggest criticism is the high complexity from taking a 4X game and adding on a changing tech tree, sci-fi terminology, and a unit workshop that apparently makes SMAC's look a tiny bit limited...but I doubt that's going to be much of a concern for the people here.

Hey, that's what makes Pandora something else than just another Civ-like!
How can anyone not be happy to see a bit of freshness in this genre?

[Yitzi]

Hey, that's what makes Pandora something else than just another Civ-like!
How can anyone not be happy to see a bit of freshness in this genre?

He is happy, but the difficulty of learning it is a downside if you're new to 4X games.  I get the idea that Pandora is a poor choice to introduce someone to Civ-likes.

(That said, my own reason for feeling that it can't be a proper successor to SMAC is that I feel that the path to Transcendence is a huge part of the flavor of the game, and what makes it better than just a well-executed Civ-like, and while Pandora does seem to have a well-done Gaians expy, they don't seem to have any equivalent to Transcendence.)

[Green1]

This is a pretty good time period for 4x games. In the past, you had very limited choices other than Civ and a few others. Now, you have many different flavors for someone to be introduced to this style game.

If they like Lord of the Rings and high fantasy stuff, Age of Wonders 3 or Fallen Enchantress : Legendary Heroes will addict them.

Historical situations? Europa Universalis or even Civilization 5 may tweak some interest.

Science fiction? Now that is the kicker. Depends on what level. I do not think Pandora would be it. Neither do I think SMAX is it. As much as we old geezers love classic SMAX, modern expectations require good eye candy to reel folks in.

Science fiction is really much harder to categorize than fantasy or historical. Is it galactic level like Master of Orion 2 or Galactic Civ? Is it one planet like SMAX,  Pandora or Beyond Earth? Or is it a genre I think NEEDS to occur like interplanetary (not FTL) where it is just one solar system and moons like Kerbal Space except a 4x?

But I digress..

For newbies.. feed them the current popular eye candy classics. Not indies like Pandora which is not a builder/ sandbox friendly game (most common playstyle) but a straight war game.

[Geo]

Science fiction is really much harder to categorize than fantasy or historical. Is it galactic level like Master of Orion 2 or Galactic Civ? Is it one planet like SMAX,  Pandora or Beyond Earth? Or is it a genre I think NEEDS to occur like interplanetary (not FTL) where it is just one solar system and moons like Kerbal Space except a 4x?

That's the whole thing with SciFi in my opinion: go beyond current borders, whatever the borders of this particular time may be.