Lets start by the graphics, because really this is the only good thing i can say about this game, so to sum up graphics are awesome the game is just gorgeous everything looks just great, its a shame that its so shallow and annoying.
This is the classic case of all flash and no substance at all, its a weird fact that so many people actually gave this game so very good ratings it makes me start to think that today everything is just about graphics and hype, has no one ever played Civilization or Rome TW?Even for comparison against space strategy theres no way in hell this game can remotely begin to compare with games like Galatic Civ (stardock game too), or Homeworld...After a rather brief initial learning curve during which the game seems promising, it quickly winds down into a tedious, predictable grind. There's no depth, no variety, no characters, and no storyline to keep your interest; and while space battles are potentially epic in scope, you're more of a spectator than a participant. The game simply has no personality. I've had more fun balancing my checkbook. Maybe it can be salvaged in an expansion packsimply put this game lacks any real depth what-so-ever... this applys both for gameplay and story. It lacks the very essence that makes a game good, enyoyable, lasting and heck... even rememberd
I have to diagree - I too have played Rome Total War to death, along with all the mods for it. I downloaded (and paid for) this game on a whim, when I was bored on rainy afternoon. I have played it virtually everyday since, completely usurping Rome as my time muncher. I am far from disappointed with SOASE, quite the opposite, in fact - I consider it a rare gem of a game.
You pretty much seem like someone who doesn't read about games before they buy them (reviews are people's opinions, and they differ greatly. Never ever ever pay attention to reviews).
But I think Sins is kick ass so you you fail (in my opinion). Had you read previews/articles on sins (or even most reviews I'm sure would have this) you would've found out that Sins has no singleplayer campaign (as of yet).
And may I ask a question (Since this isn't an angry rant), what exactally is the point of posting you're dissatisfaction? It's alot like the people who are like "I'M NOT GOING TO BUY [insert uber hyped game that will sell millions of copies here]!!!!!" since said game company will still sell millions of copies to people who will enjoy the game. Granted, a personal "review" or list of suggestions would be helpful, but this just throws insults at a game and gets nothing done.
Down, Thrawny
Dude HOW ON EARTH can you say Galactic Civilization is better than SINS ??
Just so you know, i am Total War fan and i have played every single TW game, my fav being Medieval 2, and im looking forward to TW Empire and SINS is alot like Total War in Space.
Civilizaion may have alot of depth but i never got passed the demo because its just sooo urgggh UGLY!!!!!!!!
In Civilization and Galactic Civ the units are the same size as the cities/planets - does that not look a little odd to you???
I would love for SINS and Total War both to improve on one thing and that is DIPLOMACY - and i appreciate that people say the Diplomacy system in other games such as the CIV series is superior by far, but my question is how on earth can you bear to look at the screen when its so chunky and horrid?
Also, before buying the game i download both of the demos for SINS and Galactic Civ, and GC was very disapointing, it does not even touch TW - and the turn based system was executed horribly.
I would like to play Civ series but ONLY if those games got a FACE OVER so that its not just spotty geeks sat in their attics moving square cubes around a square map.
Different strokes for different folks. I like both GalCiv2 and Sins, but I prefer the controlled real-time combat of Sins.
Haven't played any of the others.
Just for the record, I purchased the game based on the gamespot reviews. They all seemed positive (for the most part). I gave the game to my cousin a few days after, this is what he had to say. "It's okay, but it gets boring fast. It's trying to be like homeworld, basically. Just not as fun".
If you guys enjoy it, good for you. But I do not and basically feel ripped off by the game. I don't know, just maybe my disastisfaction over spending $45 on a game so over hyped would lead to a post on the developers forums. Where, maybe, just maybe I can voice my dissatisfaction, point out areas that need work and wash my hands of it.
Don't care what other people think of the game, or if they dissect my message into whatever they want to interpret.
Over-hyped? I've never heard that much hype for Sins, much less too much of it!
You didn't really say what needed work, just that you are dissatisfied and that it's graphics were all it really had going for it and that there were no real tatics in the game (I beg to differ! Against AI, yes it is the same old same old most of the time. But against human players, now thats another story...)
Im far to tired after working all day to argue with someone i don't even really care about. Bottom line, this game lacks depth.
Thank you and goodbye.
Gal Civ 2 is hardcore thinking strategy. If you find Gal Civ 2 boring, it's because you prefer action to thought, welcome to the majority of the population. Sins is inbetween braindead fuck RTS and TBS 4X. Hence the lack of depth comments from a slightly brain damaged TBS fan.
Anyone that claims they have to think to play the traditional RTS is a lying bastard or severely retarded, they're simplistic because they must be. If you have to come up with anything inventive over the space of a game, it's a miracle. A well made TBS is the exact opposite, instead of reaction and speed, you have planning and care. You can't out click your opponent, you only get to out think them.
Sins is an ugly duckling in the middle, not a lot of action, not a lot of thinking. Vastly more action than a TBS 4X, and even with the horrible balance, vastly more thinking. As with the metaphore, it's one hell of an ugly TBS 4X or RTS either one, but a damn fine hybrid for those that aren't stuck on one or the other side of the spectrum. I consider it the best to date, the Total War series is probably second, although Lords of Magic is an old school classic that can't be over rated if you ignore the incomplete status of the bug testing. For fully integrated hybrids, I haven't played anything close.
Shadow, I recommend multiplayer. If you like to think, you need to play against another person. AI and real time don't mix. Even if they had a multithreaded AI and needed a quad core cpu to run the game, it still wouldn't be competent without cheating. Maybe in another decade we'll have someone design learning AI that can be ported into RTS games to spank the shit out of us. Against a good player, there is some seriously devious shit you can pull in this game, one wrong move can take you from an insurmountable advantage to a crippling defeat.
I like sins because I love stratergy but not spreadsheet strat, I like to make decisions and have a reasonable lead time before something happens because of it. I like logistics and planning but I guess im thick because all my plans change totaly half way through.
C&C 3 felt like it was made for kids and Civ makes me want to take control of my forces directly.
Anyway Total War and Sins are my favourite level of games and I wish there was more.
I got Sins based on the box. Mind you, I waited until it halved in price
I was disapointed it had no campaign, but it kept me going for a while, I heavily modded it and it kept me going for a while longer and then I got sick of endless shallowness. So now I'm waiting for the next patch.
Overall, there are 3 types of games for me. Make that 4. The kind I dont buy, the kind I return (because its unplayable in some way), the kind that keeps me entertained long enough to have been worth the money, and the very few that keep me going for months and then I return to them over and over in the following years.
Sins is the 3rd type, it kept me happily occupied for a good long while and was well worth the money. I'm not sure if I will go for the patch or not at this point.
Here's what you're missing:
You can't really play Civilization or Alpha Centauri or Galactic Civilization in online multiplayer!.
In other words--the game excels in the area of its online multiplayer experience. Whereas in Civilization or Alpha Centauri you can become bored with playing against a predictable and witless AI or an AI that has to cheat, in Sins you can play against real live human opponents.
Sins may seem simple on the surface but once you get into the game you'll discover that it actually has a pretty high learning curve if you want to be competitive online--there's a lot to learn about the game's strategy. Of course, if you're a noob (as I suspect you are) then you won't be able to grasp the strategic issues.
I know we are all having a great time trying to tell Shadow why not to dislike this game, but I'm pretty sure the attempt is going to fall short. There are plenty of games out there that I've played and just hated, they had their good points, but they didn't meet expectation. I have had plenty of people try to tell my why the game is awesome, "The graphics are great! Multiplayer is where the real action is! This game is awesome!" Sadly it doesn't stop me from hating the game. I'm not a multiplayer fan for RTS's, I get overwhelmed easily when I'm constantly worrying what the other player is doing and I don't need the added stress.
So lets give Shadow a break here. My advice would be for Shadow it keep up on the news about Sins 2. I'm pretty sure from what was being said on the forums and from some very trusted members that is will have a singleplayer campaign. If and when Sins 2 comes out Shadow should download a demo and see if things have changed from the original Sins. If they havn't then there is no reason to buy it, if you think there has been changes then find someone you can borrow the game from and play some. Or you can not pay attention to Sins 2 at all, that would be fine with me.
Sorry you didn't like the game Shadow!
I happen to agree with Shadow. Although posting disappointments on these forums doesn't serve much purpose. The forums are meant for those that enjoy the game and wish to share their experiences playing it.
I am still curious though how many Sins buyers fall into the same category as Shadow. I bought into the hype of Sins way back when it was still in Beta and joined the beta in the hopes that I could help shape what sounded to be such an awesome game. But alas, I soon discovered that my ideas were incompatible with the game's overall vision.
But even though I don't like this particular game, I am still glad, in many ways, that Sins is doing so well. Stardock has some of the best ideas I have seen wrt keeping PC gaming alive.
And there of course is Demigod... looks much more promising .
Count me with the disappointed. I played it on release day and enjoyed it. Than put it on the back burner. Came back this week cause a friend bought it and I've been playing single player, but I realized something was missing.
I realized it was a lack of narrative. Now, alot of people MAY not know what I mean by this, but there have been threads on this in other gaming forums. Narrative is when, like in a game of Civ IV, you have wars, than times of peace, than war again. The competent single player AI seems to almost have a personality (I know it doesn't). the point being, that there's this meta game going on that, in a way, a story is playing out. A story of a civilization that you are creating, growing, etc. This is something you find in 4x games like Gal Civ II and Civ IV. For more about what I mean, read this. Its long, but worth it : http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161570&site=pcg For me to get this narrative in a traditional RTS, I need a metamap campaign type of thing (like Dawn of War dark Crusade, CnC Kane's Wrath global conquest mode, Battle for Middle Earth Living World map, etc. A Company of Heroes is the only RTS I seem able to play in skirmish.)
The issue is, of course, that SoaSE is a bridge. It has a little 4x, and a little RTS. It is a GREAT mix of the two, a GREAT gateway game. Gateway meaning my friend who bought it does NOT like turn-based 4x games. But this game could lead him down that road. Likewise, a 4x turn-based player MAY get into RTS games by playing this.
But, I THINK (opinion, I could be wrong), that people coming from RTS backgrounds will find this game is a step-up from what they are used to. However, 4x turn-based players will find this a step down from what they are USED to You have time to think in a 4x game and execute long-term strategy. You have varied diplomatic options, espionage, etc. Ypu ahve a lot more options of what to do, many more victory conditions, etc. I am NOT saying these things should be in SoaSE, they don't belong in it. But I DO think that's what SOME people are expecting. I liken it to Sword of the Stars. It's turn-based in galactic mode, but becomes an RTS in battle (though that game is stream-lined also, so I feel it is closer to SoaSE than Gal Civ2). I think SOME people are thinking this is Gal Civ with real-time combat (ala Total War series. Now can we have that in space?)
I find myself frantically clicking something non-stop when I am playing, ships go here, you build this, let me research this tech, etc. For me, its faster than what I am used to from playing a 4x turn-based game, and yet slower than a traditional RTS (like CnC 3, you have immdediate combat, usually a single base, but maybe two and a map that is lot more condensed than SoaSE). Again, the developers did a GREAT job in creating this game, and I think have succeded in what they set out to do, but its just not going to appeal to everyone. I think the original poster is used to the options in a turn-based game, and the tactics seen in the Total War series and Homeworld (where the combat is at a slower pace than a traditional RTS, and tactics are VERY important. In Homeworld, you could maneuver ships to come at the enemy from underneath them, etc.).
I have a feeling that I WILL enjoy this online, playing against my friend. But, as some of the fans have said in this thread, its online where this game shines. Unfortunately, not everyone has time for that. There are alot of people who also play off-line, single player. And alot of games DO have competent single-player AI (Gal Civ 2), or even AI mods (A Company of Hereos, DoW) that make playing against the AI alot of fun. And since I play alot of different games and not just hone in on one, I don't really notice the AI doing weird things (like building only 1 frigate factory) like other players who play alot more would (I read about it here, than notice it in the game).
Again, it's a VERY well made game, just not for everyone. That said, I look forward to the campaign that will be featured in the expansion due out sometime next year.
jorune
Personally I think that the lack of a campaign was a high point for me. With just a small overall universe desription the player is able to essentially craft his own story towards galactic domination. I love playing as the TEC and naming my home planet earth and playing against hard AI's and defending earth to the end. The game has depth enough for me. Military, economy, cultural. There are many ways to win and ways to accentuate your strategy. I frankly think it's one of the best games out there and I hate RTS games.
I can't edit my above post, but le tme clarify this statement:
I find myself frantically clicking something non-stop when I am playing, ships go here, you build this, let me research this tech, etc. For me, its faster than what I am used to from playing a 4x turn-based game, and yet slower than a traditional RTS (like CnC 3, you have immdediate combat, usually a single base, but maybe two and a map that is lot more condensed than SoaSE).
What i mean here is that in CnC3, a skirmish is over in 30 minutes or less (Usually less). Whereas SoaSE is like a skirmish that lasts for a few hours, its like running a guantlet. I get exhausted. In turn based mode, the pace is slower because the games are longer. I MAY not be making myself clear, but I'm trying
I agree about the lack of campaign, since most 4x turn-based games don't have them. But as for 'many ways to win'... you probably mean many different strategies to win, which is great. But there is ONLY ONE way to win, and that is to beat your enemy's to extinction. In turn-based games, as I'm sure you know, you have many different Victory Conditions, that lead to even more strategies for how to win. Civ IV has cultural victories, Gal Civ 2 has an Ascendency victory (I think you research al the techs and this is the last one), etc, just to name a few.
There's alot to like about SoaSE, and I have a feeling that the Entrencement expansion may turn this game into more of what I like with its Starbase that allows players like me to just turtle, quietly research and build up my fleet, etc.
Jorune
Dissapointed about spelling. and grammar, And punctuation.
Methinks this game is just over your head.
Sins is a combination of 4x and RTS. So I can definitly see why not having a story can be a downer to some people. It was for me anyway. I WANT TO KNOW WHO/WHAT IS CHASING THE VASARI!! For games that are just completly 4x story is not needed. GalCiv has a campaign and I havn't even touched it yet, but Sins is different. You only have 3 races so the fact that we know only what the manual and into tells us has left me with a slight hollow feeling. And after playing several games as each race and conquering the several maps I look around and say to myself "what next." When you win it just says you are victorious, so does that mean your faction won the war, or just the battle in that sector? Is this war never ending? It can't be for the Vasari since whatever is chasing them will eventually catch up.
I think what really helped GalCiv 2 to not need a campaign was the ability to create your own race from scratch, in that sense you are literally creating your own story that revolves around your race. Will your race be an evil empire bent on conquering all the other races in a war for supreme galactic conquest, or will your empire only enter war to defend your holdings and the holdings of your allies; or will you refrain from war altogether and manipulate the other races around you to fight each other as you build giant economic empire. You had options in GalCiv 2 (also in Civilization series minus race creator), you could play the game how you wanted. Sins doesn't fit that mold very well and that is because it is a bridge of the two genres. The only victory you can achieve in Sins is a dominance victory over the races you aren't allied with and I'm not even satisfied with being victorious with allies. Ally victory in Galciv 2 meant that you were allied with everyone that was still alive, but everyone else wasn't allied with each other, so if anyone wanted to mess with you they would have a freak load of empires fighting against them. In Sins you just win. To me winning in Sins is like taking a drink of Diet Pepsi, to me it tastes good as I am drinking, but once I stop I am left with a very odd aftertaste.
Now many people say that we just need to play multiplayer since that is where the true Sins is and that probably is true at the moment, but I can't play RTS strategy games online. I get way too stressed out trying to pay attention to alll my holdings and trying to figure out what my oponnent is doing while all the while managing my bases, researching, and building. Way too much unneeded stress in my life. As you all know playing against a computer is a lot easier than playing against living, thinking humans so I don't get nearly as stressed playing against cpu's. So for the sake of us players who just detest playing online RTS's a single player campaign would be a very nice touch that would make us just fall in love and marry Sins on the spot. Even without a campaign I am content with warring with AI, I just think campaign would give us good race development and open up Sins to those who are not fond of multiplayer.
the game is very slow paced, and because it is a rts slash x4 strat then it has to compete with 2 genres. however company of heroes is a rts great game, alpha centuari i thought was a great x4 strat. what i am saying is the game isnt faced paced enough to compete with coh, yet it lacks the depth of alpha centuari. i would much rather my coh and alpha centuari and alternate between the two instead of just having this. altho i played alpha centuari single player only and loved it i wouldnt dream of playing this game in single player skirmish it would be so boring, campiagne could be good but not skirmish, it is too similar to playing multi and multi would always be better. i think this game should have a single player skirmish like campiagne, not single skirmish mode and a great multiplayer. the game has potential, i do play it but the lack of depth means its replayablilty is low.
what i mean by depth is for example your sitting there in alpha centuari and ur planning an attack on ur enemy base but all of a sudden there is a virus outbreak killing ur cities so ur income falls and u cannot afford to support a long range assualt (more upkeep for far away troops)...then u get attacked by alien mind worms out of nowhere and then a mission statement come up with a nice poem. things to do when ur doing nothing!!!! i golden rule in these games should be the busyest time is when ur not doing anything.
the critism about when you attack u become a spectator and not a participant is such a perfect and true critic. go play a micro intensive game and then play this.
oooooo less stress in my life lol. I know what you mean, but I kind of enjoy the lack of direct control in battles. Mainly cause I get more time to move through the fight and watch the ships do their things. It is what I wanted in EAW when I found out about the cinematic option. I thought I would send my fleet into battle and then flip on the cinimatic mode and then sit back and enjoy the fight. Sadly it didn't come out that way. So having less involvement in the fights for me was a slight plus.
Damn guys, don't feed the trolls that pop up in the forums from time to time.
Just ignore the OP, if anything he already vented his dissapoinment and has moved on.
The pace of the game is great for me.
Being a little older, I don't necessarily want to get in a click fest to acomplish what I'd like to do. And if you get absorbed in a battle, you will find that things (either pleasantly or unpleasantly) have moved along somewhat.
This game does have depth and all of it is not strategy but sometimes in graphics and game mechanics.
As far as the orignal poster - if you didn't care about what someone said about your post why post hear to begin with?
Troll is accurate.
If Shadow was a troll then he/she was the most polite troll I have ever met.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
