[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]
You might not think it to look at me, but I actually have something in common with James Bond. No, really. It's "The World is Not Enough". For Bond, it's a family motto. For me, it's more a symptom of my megalomaniac complex. Why would I want to bother piddling about conquering one pitiful little dirtball when there's an entire galaxy out there just waiting for my harsh, but ultimately fair, leadership? Sins of a Solar Empire offers just that opportunity of galactic domination you've been waiting for.
Sins of a Solar Empire isn't a standard real-time strategy, but what one of those self-consciously cool tech-evangelists would call a mash-up. It takes '4X' (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate) gameplay, normally associated with turn-based strategies like Civilization, and marries it with a grand-scale real-time strategy, making the game play like a cross between Galactic Civilizations II and Supreme Commander. Obviously, the potential pitfalls of merging two genres like this are as huge as they are plentiful. Thankfully, Sins sidesteps the biggest ones, stumbling into only the odd interface niggle - but more on that later.
AdvertisementLike any self-respecting RTS these days, Sins features three playable factions: the Trader Emergency Coalition (TEC), the Advent and the Vasari. The TEC represent the typical hero-human society, having no real special powers to speak of, but being very industrious and having a fleet that lends itself to the mass production of ships. The Advent are a sect of religious nutters that were cast out by the TEC for worshipping "the Unity", a religion which heightens psychic powers. Naturally, they have a very different philosophy to the TEC, utilising energy weapons (rather than ballistic weapons, such as autocannons) and have a balanced fleet that utilises the strengths of their hive mind, being very mutually supportive. Finally, the Vasari are the dastardly aliens of the piece, being equipped with very tough (but very expensive) ships. The Vasari arguably have the technological edge of the three factions, having some weapons that will bypass a ship's shields entirely. The races are quite nicely balanced, and it will probably take you a couple of play-throughs before you find a favourite. Personally, I prefer the Advent, if only for the haughty cruisers which reply "We'll consider it" dismissively whenever you give them an order - a very nice touch.
The differences between each faction really manifest themselves in the tech tree, which is pleasingly complex. There are separate trees for military technology and societal advancements, plus a separate tree that governs your fleet capacity. Relatively few research items have prerequisites, so you don't need to slavishly plough your way through the entire tech tree if there's one particular thing you're after. However, there is a dependency on the number of research stations you have for each tree (military or social) to unlock each tier of research. These stations are relatively cheap to produce however, meaning that you can cherry-pick items from near the top of the research tree quite quickly.
Undoubtedly, the tech tree you'll most want to concentrate on early in the game is the one governing your fleet capacity. The two sub-branches of this tree increase the number of capital ships you can maintain in your fleet and the percentage of your income needed to supply your fleet. You may research these sub-branches at different rates, but since capital ships consume much greater amounts of your resource capacity than frigates or cruisers, it is in your best interests to keep both at a similar level; otherwise it is difficult to maintain a good balance between capital ships and the smaller frigates and cruisers. This balance is important, as a fleet entirely composed of capital ships can be overwhelmed by a massed fleet of a few dozen cruisers and bomber squadrons. Once these trees have been fully researched, you can field a force of sixteen capital ships and literally hundreds of cruisers and frigates, making for an impressive sight when you assault an enemy planet.
It's just as well you can build such large fleets, because you've got a lot of space to cover. Sins of a Solar Empire even outdoes Supreme Commander for scale; your view of the action is able to zoom right in to show a frigate until it fills your screen or - at the other extreme - taking you back out to give you an overview of a cluster of solar systems. You can move between both extremes of zoom with ease, with the zoom-to-cursor functionality allowing you to shift your view from one planet (or star system) to another with a quick move of the mouse.
[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
The combat and graphics have very little to do with the score I awarded. I enjoyed the scale, the depth of the research and management models, the balance between the three factions and the inclusion of a map editor - the graphics and combat are the weakest aspects of the game, which is both reflected in the review text and the graphics score.
When it comes to 4X style gameplay, graphical fidelity is (in my opinion) the least important aspect of the game. It never has been a genre that features spectacular graphics, simply because graphics alone cannot make a 4X game compelling. If that's what you wanted or expected, I think the problem is more with your expectations than with any problem inherent within the game.
Oh, and by the way, the Advent *do* use laser weapons and some of their psionic capital ship powers are graphically pretty funky. Try playing with them. Or you could try the other 4X-RTS hybrid I mentioned in the text: Haegemonia: Legions of Iron. It's rather old now, but it's still pretty lovely, both graphically and in terms of gameplay.Last edited on Tue 17 June 2008 by Iain McC
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
i apologise if that comment angered u.i ws in a fit of anger when i wrote it back then bcoz i was expecting much more from thegame after reading ur review .Game is massive yes but i was expecting better much better grafics from the game and better gameplay
I apologise again if mi comment caused u any discomfort.I only wwrote the comment b cauz i rely on videogamer.com very heavily when buying a game
b cauz i think ur's is the best site on net.But i was expecting way more from a game u gave 8/10 .sorry
» Go to 's original post
As for the score itself - it's a question of how you judge the game. Games such as Sins of a Solar Empire, which combine traditional genres, such real-time strategy and '4X' strategy (more commonly associated with turn-based games), do pose a reviewer with a real problem. Do you judge such a game alongside RTS games such as Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, or 4X games like Galactic Civilisations?
For me, Sins plays much more like Galactic Civilisations than Dawn of War. A single Sins map can take longer to play than an entire Dawn of War campaign, so I think it's a little unfair to expect Sins to offer the same kind of graphical or adrenal thrills. The game is clearly aimed at a player more inclined to play less for the moment and more for the longer-term goal. And if you're a megalomaniac like I am, the graphics are much less important with regards to your enjoyment of the game compared to the amount of depth and control you have over the game in the management model.
As a pure RTS, I agree that Sins isn't going to rival Dawn of War or Company of Heroes, but you have to make an allowance in the scoring of the game, because Sins isn't even *trying* to be a direct competitor to these games. I have tried to make this clear in the text, that if you try to play Sins as you would play a traditional RTS you're going to have a hard time, and also that the core of the game isn't in the graphics or even the combat, but the sense that you're running a vast interplanetary empire singlehandedly. I even begin my closing paragraph of the review saying that it's hard to give a recommendation without reservations - acknowledging that some people won't grok the game simply because you can't easily pigeonhole it with other titles...
I don't get offended by a difference of opinion, but I do get annoyed if it seems that people simply look at a score and not the justifications given for it. Still, I guess we reviewers are here to be disagreed with. I should be used to it by now! ;-)Last edited on Mon 30 June 2008 by Iain McC
» Go to 's original post
But the weak points of the game are exactly the things that made me angry .The game has such a great concept And i know that that scale is gigantic with large fleets of ships Battling each other . But the whole exitement is puctured when u actually see them fighting each other .How great coud it hav been if effects like those of say world in conflict's tactical strikes were put in .Now u will again think im comparing it to other titles "dawn of war" CoH .But why shudn't i??
When they've already got such a great concept why not make it even more appealing to both people who like to control *administration* of galaxies and those who love destroying one .
Yes ur true a single scenario lasts more than entire dawn of war campaign but it is more due to the fact that the ships move at a snail's pace even when u increase game's speed to max .I did say this game shud me given less marks ,but not bcauz its bad , its positively good .But its dissapointing . This game has been released in a time when there is no shortage of hardware power .Nor a shortage of storage space to store effects.
There is something such as defining a genre .This game does it greatly .But it falls short of redifining it.
» Go to 's original post
But the weak points of the game are exactly the things that made me angry .The game has such a great concept And i know that that scale is gigantic with large fleets of ships Battling each other . But the whole exitement is puctured when u actually see them fighting each other .How great coud it hav been if effects like those of say world in conflict's tactical strikes were put in .Now u will again think im comparing it to other titles "dawn of war" CoH .But why shudn't i??
When they've already got such a great concept why not make it even more appealing to both people who like to control *administration* of galaxies and those who love destroying one .
Yes ur true a single scenario lasts more than entire dawn of war campaign but it is more due to the fact that the ships move at a snail's pace even when u increase game's speed to max .I did say this game shud me given less marks ,but not bcauz its bad , its positively good .But its dissapointing . This game has been released in a time when there is no shortage of hardware power .Nor a shortage of storage space to store effects.
There is something such as defining a genre .This game does it greatly .But it falls short of redifining it.
» Go to Rohan's original post
Because that would be like comparing an apple with a grape. Sure, they're both fruit, and they may both be green (or red, for that matter) and spheroid, but they're different species and they've got different flavours.
Not entirely true. The scale of the theatre of operations is much larger and you have more to manage. Again, this is due to the 4X roots of the game and is a balancing mechanic, particularly in large scale games. You have to weigh up the risks and rewards of transferring fleets between star systems for offense and defense. This is where the "strategy" part comes in, as if you make a wrong decision and send all your ships off into another system just as another faction launches a counterstrike, you're going to pay for it. With a (misnamed) RTS game (where the action takes place on a small, tactical level, rather than a strategic, logistical level) these decisions are quickly correctable. When you play at a larger scale where tactics are replaced by strategy and logistics (as in Sins), wrong calls should be punished in this way by not allowing you to correct them within five minutes.
True, but nonetheless irrelevant, I'm afraid. When you're designing a 4X game (whether it's turn-based or real-time) the balancing of the game mechanics is the crucial factor. Hugely better graphics would not make it that much of a better game, and the developer has to weigh up the cost of developing the graphics engine against honing the balance of the game. Smaller developers, such as Ironclad, can't throw mega-bucks at the graphics budget in the same way that someone like Blizzard or EA can, so I believe that they made the right decision, because Sins is as well-balanced as any RTS/4X game I've played. And the relatively lowly minimum specifications for the game undoubtedly have quite a bit to do with why the game has sold faster than hot cakes in North America. Not everyone buys a new PC every two years, so having a game that doesn't need the very latest graphics card is clearly a good selling point. Heck, just look at the minimum specs for World of Warcraft. It might not look as good as Crysis, but it's sold over 9 million copies... not everyone wants top of the range graphics, and arguably, they're not even necessary for a great game experience, if you get the rest of the design right.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
He takes the initiative to respond .And ur calling him high school guy??
And we arent having a war here.More like a polite discussion about the game.And this is the bloody best site i've seen on net.They write so very interesting reviews!!
» Go to Wow...'s original post
Heh. I'm going to ignore your rather pathetic attempt at a flame...
D- Must try harder.
Clearly, you have no idea that critical feedback is actually highly valuable for a writer. In all honesty, I don't give a monkey's scrotum if you agree with my opinion on the game or not. If you don't agree with what I think, I'm sure you can find reviews out there that do fall in line with your opinion. No-one's forcing you to read what I said. However, I felt Rohan's criticisms deserved a response because, a) he made the effort to give me some feedback and b) he raised a few interesting points I felt were worth replying to.
As for "Who cares?" You cared enough to try to flame me, so don't get on your high horse... it's missing a couple of legs.
» Go to 's original post
Hey Ian u still havent told me is there any forum in which u can chat with the reviewers??
Also i spent quite a more time with the game and now i am starting to see the real beauty of the game ..........after u've gained a good threshold on the game ,done thr logistical upgrades and other things and have three capital ships it gets more than interesting and u start paying attention to the gameplay and forget the grafics( and most of the time i preferred to zoom out and give orders in 2d mode which is great )
Yup this game is great but requires a little bit time spending on the part of the user
U've got me converted I'ain ! ! ! ! !
Post Comment
Login or register to reply to this topic
Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.