Sins gets 60% from 2404.org?

from Sins Forums
Check out this review from 2404.org:

http://www.2404.org/reviews/4164/Sins-of-a-Solar-Empire-Review

Now, every reviewer has a right to their opinion, but if you are going to be reviewing games then you darn sure at least ought to get your facts straight...

The 3-way dynamic comes not from Starcraft, but from the fact that 2 races is just too few in a game like this, and four races is considerably more work than 3, especially when it comes to balancing. There is no need to ascribe the decision of any developer to use three races to some sort of Starcraft-based decision, it is virtually always due to a mix of game-design and economic factors.

Resource trading and diplomacy in games came about WAY before Age of Empires, and the mission system for diplomacy in this game is WAY different than the AoE system anyway. As for the resource trading, yes that is pretty generic, but the ability to leave stuff on the market for sale to other players is at least a little bit new and different.

Galciv II is SO not the father of the planet upgrading system. As a matter of fact Galciv's system is FAR closer to being a copyof the system used in Ascendency (1995) than the far more generic system used in Sins is copied from Gal Civ II's system. Indeed, in many ways Sins is far closer in design to Asendency than it is to probably any other game made to this point. (BTW, Ascendency 2 is in development. Hopefully it will be even better than the original).

The combat is not at all like Warcraft, I have no idea where is comment about that comes from. The LAST thing I thought of was Warcraft.  It is actually closer to something like Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, because this game is also focused on capturing and holding "resource" points.  It is also about getting units through the battles with at least one member still alive so you can reinforce back to full strength for the next battle, much like Sins. Warcraft is about spamming crap as fast as possible, which you can do in Sins, but that is basically the only way to win in Warcraft, unlike Sins.

I understand if the guy didn't like it at the 90% level, or even the 80% level, but really 60% is way to harsh, and his whole line about the game coming from elsewhere is both wrong on many factual points, and pointless anyway. Most RTSs are 95% copied from other RTS's, and 5% original.  At least Sins is 10% original, with the rest being 50% copied from RTSs and 40% copied from 4X games.
98,195 views 74 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
If i have never heard of the website and its not popular and the review sucks... Why should i care about the review  ;p 
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
In any group, there's always the individual who has this strange desire to buck the trend in order to show some kind of superiority over the masses. It's especially common in reviewers, IMO (Those that can't do... review?).

I see similar things amongst critics in just about every medium you can think of. If everyone in their social group is raving about something, that person gets a chip on their shoulder and sharpens the claws in order to show everyone else how shallow their analysis was.

Anyway, I haven't heard of the site either. Not that it's a bad thing, but given with how many things are misrepresented, misstated, or just plain wrong I think I'll just move on from the review. :)
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
Believe it or not, a lot of people tend to trust sites that very new and not popular, because either that site has what they like or the review is worded 'just' right to trick them into believing a game is crap, where in reality that game could very well very great and a top seller.

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
If i have never heard of the website and its not popular and the review sucks... Why should i care about the review   
End of quote


You could care because these reviews get rolled up into the metacritic and gamerankings numbers, and because one bad mark requires tons of very good ones to offset it.

For instance, if the game deserves an average of 90 then it takes six scores of 95 to offset that one outlier of 60, and get the average back up to 90.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
I think 60% is needlessly harsh, I would peg Sins at more like an 80%, but the review seemed pretty objective to me...is it so unbelievable that not EVERYONE thinks Sins is the greatest thing since sliced bread? I don't think it's fair to call it a 'bad review' just because it doesn't serve your purpose, even though the score seems arbitrary (as I have pointed out before here, many of the "good" reviews' scores don't jive with the text of said reviews).

As for the popularity/notoriety of the site, didn't one of the devs just post a link yesterday to a site that no one had ever heard of that gave the game a glowing review? How is this review or this site any less valid- because it's negative?
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
every reviewer has a right to their opinion, but if you are going to be reviewing games then you darn sure at least ought to get your facts straight...

The combat is not at all like Warcraft, I have no idea where is comment about that comes from. The LAST thing I thought of was Warcraft.  It is actually closer to something like Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, because this game is also focused on capturing and holding "resource" points.  It is also about getting units through the battles with at least one member still alive so you can reinforce back to full strength for the next battle, much like Sins.

Warcraft is about spamming crap as fast as possible, which you can do in Sins, but that is basically the only way to win in Warcraft, unlike Sins.
End of quote


Oh the irony... If you're going to say things like 'get your facts right', then you should at least make the effort to do the same yourself...

The very first thing I noticed about Sins was that the combat reminded me of Warcraft. It's the twin necessities of creating a balanced fleet (army) and then making sure that army is kept together whilst moving about the map, which are the two core principles of Warcraft III. It doesn't have the micro rquirements of Warcraft (thank God), but the general principles are very similar. It's based upon the idea of individual units being too weak to make any real impact, and therefore making it pointless to send scattered units around to make attacks. Hell, Sins even has hero units!

It's also very, very different to DoW. Yes, you need to capture strategic resources around the map, but you need to do that in every RTS in history (grab that gold/stone/wood/food pile before the enemy!). And Sins has no requirement to keep 'at least one unit alive so that you can reinforce'. I have absolutely no idea where on earth you got that concept from. DoW does, since it make economic sense in that game to save squads and reinforce rather than build new ones from scratch, but since Sins doesn't operate in a squad system, it really has no relation to DoW at all.

And your last point really displays your ignorance. Saying that one of the best, most popular and well-balanced RTS games of all time is 'about spamming crap as fast as possible', as 'that is basically the only way to win in Warcraft, unlike Sins', is about as completely wrong as anyone has ever been about anything, ever. If there's one thing Warcraft's not about, it's spamming units! Go and watch some tournament matches where players have won using heroes only, or go online to Battle.net and see how far your spamming strat gets you in 1 v 1 matches. You will get eaten alive. Warcraft is all about uber micro, unit countering, and judiscious use of hero abilities. Play Sins online, and you'll see plenty of frigate spamming and rushing. Why would we have all the complaints about underpowered capital ships otherwise?

The silly thing is, the reviewer is obviously talking crap. That 60% score for a game as brilliant as Sins is absurd and it's almost certainly written to generate hits on the site (which you've provided them with, btw) rather than offer a genuine review. But the irony of it all is that you've managed to pick out exactly the bits where the reviewer is actually right, and leave out most of the parts where he was talking cr@p!

Please, if you're going to stick up for our favourite space-empire game, do it by using facts and challenging falsehoods, not by demonstrating your clear lack of knowledge about other games.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
So the economic and technological aspects of the game drive players heedlessly into the map, gobbling planets up left and right and tearing away as many resources as they possibly can and pumping them into huge fleets. After several hours of this incessant buildup, conflict becomes almost inevitable. Meanwhile, all of our saved up effort has been left over, too. Resource gathering is simple, research is simple, everything is simple. It seems like the game is saving our time and consideration for something else.

But the combat is simple, too. It's definitely satisfying from a graphical standpoint – and you only need to look at the screenshots on the official site to figure that out – but it involves picking the right fleet composition beforehand and just clicking them into battle. There are no formations or tactics or even many opportunities for micromanagement, aside from triggering capitol ship abilities at specific times. Ships are generic and adhere rigidly to a rock-paper-scissors structure. Some cruisers hold fighters and other cruisers have flak to shoot them down. Some capitol ships have abilities that allow them to drain energy or slice through shields, and others have the ability to buff shields or distribute energy to nearby spacecraft. If you can balance pluses and minuses and click the right ship-creation buttons, then you too can conquer the galaxy, it seems, which is profoundly disappointing.

But perhaps the real hard core of the game is diplomacy? Here, too, things are one-dimensional. Allies and enemies periodically contact you with missions you can pursue to increase your standing with them, and as your standing increases they offer alliances, trade pacts, line-of-sight treaties, and even tribute. And that's it.
End of quote


I can't really disagree with any of that.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
It's not a bad review because it didn't serve our purpose, it's a bad review because the mans facts aren't straight.

This is exactly why I don't trust player reviews anymore; because most people make reviews out of impulse, some do it either because they hate the company, or because they hate the series.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
If a reviewer constantly uses "capitol" for cap ships, he fails. I wanted to stop reading there, but couldn't. He's funny, that guy.
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
I'm surprised that metacritic does include them, since, looking at the site, it's basically "Bjorn's gaming blog". Looking at their about section, they're basically just a clan that decided to be a news site.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
http://www.2404.org/reviews/4164/Sins-of-a-Solar-Empire-Review
End of quote


Wait, what facts aren't straight in that review? The only one I saw is that the combat takes place exclusively in the 2D plane (which I would argue IS true 95% of the time).
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
Yeah, it's a "reminds me of these other games" type review. Oh well, not everyone likes it or gets it, which is to be expected.
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
Actually for the most part, the review seems extremely accurate. If you want me to elaborate, bring up a point from it.


As for the popularity/notoriety of the site, didn't one of the devs just post a link yesterday to a site that no one had ever heard of that gave the game a glowing review? How is this review or this site any less valid- because it's negative?
End of quote


It's entirely because it's negative. If it was a positive review they'd be celebrating it too. Some people just can't understand that people who disagree with them can still be correct.
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
The review seemed largely accurate to me but it makes the mistake of overlooking the fact that Sins is largely uncharted territory (RT4X) and therefore, taking creative liberties and cutting off features is to be expected. It actually did bring down the total metacritic score, unfortunately, from an 89 to an 88.
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
60% for Sins is certifiably insane and loses all credibility.

I might not fault a critic who goes into the 70's because of the lack of polish in graphics and sound, and no single player campaign, and IF they fail to notice the advances that have been made in RTS gameplay, and IF they don't like RTSs so they don't notice how fun it is. But most reviews seem to be above 80%, which seems right.

There will always be the odd outliers.
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
(BTW, Ascendency 2 is in development. Hopefully it will be even better than the original)
End of quote


HOLY CRAP FRICKIN AWESOME! I still have my original copy of Ascendancy and that just made my day, where'd you hear this?

Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
I might not fault a critic who goes into the 70's because of the lack of polish in graphics and sound, and no single player campaign, and IF they fail to notice the advances that have been made in RTS gameplay, and IF they don't like RTSs so they don't notice how fun it is. But most reviews seem to be above 80%, which seems right.
End of quote


Actually, if you read the review, he praised the graphics and sound, he felt it was the gameplay that was sorely lacking, because he felt this game was far too simple, and that's a point I strongly agree with.
Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
I feel that the most lacking part in all this is the Diplomacy factor...

Personally? I liked the diplomacy from Imperium Galactica II, would have loved to see the things in that here.
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top

Meh. Never heard of them.

Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top
(BTW, Ascendency 2 is in development. Hopefully it will be even better than the original)HOLY CRAP FRICKIN AWESOME! I still have my original copy of Ascendancy and that just made my day, where'd you hear this?
End of quote


It's been in development for more than a decade, and even if they ever actually finished it it's going to be an MMO and thus of no value.
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
See, I'm amused that they gave it 60%, and yet the review factors add up to give 72.5%.
(See the bottom of the page)
Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top

I'm amused metacritic actually heard of them.

Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top
I liked the diplomacy from Imperium Galactica II
End of quote


What did you like, specifically ?

My dad still has that game, but we never seriously played it.

Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top
I can't really disagree with any of that.
End of quote


Neither can I. There's a lot of vindication of the game in MP, and it's definitely fun to play, but he raises some valid points.
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
...has become almost as common as random map generators...
End of quote


This one really make me scratch my head.

Random map generators common?I havent seen it for years in a RTS.

The devs wants the combat to be simple because combat in Sins doesnt happen in one place only.You tend to have combat on different parts of your empire at the same time.Your ships need to know how to take care of themselves without getting killed.

This is a large scale combat game.There are certain things that needs to know how to take care of itself.If not,it's gonna be a nightmare fighting 3 different battles at the same time.