arentol arentol

Sins gets 60% from 2404.org?

▼

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 #26 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)
End of quote


You're right!!! I'd like to see where those 12.5 points went... Looks like he's just throwing out arbitrary numbers to suit what he wants. (the least he could do is lower the review factors, guess he's lazy)

And what does "value" even mean there. If the game had a perceived "value" of 80%, wouldn't that mean the game is closer to an 80? Could be I just have no idea what value means, if so, someone please correct me.
Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top
Looking over it I'm actually rather impressed by the site. I'd never heard of it before this thread, but the hit/miss ratio in their review archive is better than most of the big name reviewers. It's worthy of a bookmark and is worth consulting in the future before purchases, IMO.

As to the "review factors" most game sites give overall scores that are not strict mathematical sums or averages of their subscores, find something else to nitpick because the site is criticizing your beloved game. Better yet, just dismiss it as irrelevant because you don't like what is has to say.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top
I see a lot of writing there but all I read is 'waah waah waah'.
Reply #29 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)
End of quote


That was the first thing I calculated after I read the review. Apparently the reviewer does not know how add and divide.
Reply #30 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)That was the first thing I calculated after I read the review. Apparently the reviewer does not know how add and divide.
End of quote


On the reviews page it clearly says:

Know that the overall score is not an average, rather a number that the reviewer feels is appropriate.
End of quote


This is a standard disclaimer, you'll find the same on IGN or Gamespot. I find it amusing that the best criticism anyone seems to be able to level at the review is that it follows the same numerical conventions as every other game review site. For example, IGN, which gave Sins an overall score of 8.9 (a serious overrate, IMO) had subscores of 9, 8.5, 8, 9, and another 9. The average there is 8.7, not 8.9. By the logic espoused in this thread IGN "lied" to give it a higher score. Of course that's nonsense, they gave it the score they felt it deserved, as did 2404.
Reply #31 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)
End of quote


Some factors are probably weighted more heavily than others. Gameplay makes sense to be the most heavily weighted. If there is an example game with no gameplay at all, but excellent sound and music, it doesn't deserve to get a 7/10 as a game on the mere basis of averages. (a 1, a 10 and a 10). Plus, I don't know about you, but to me, gameplay is far far more important to a game than sound effects.
Reply #32 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)You're right!!! I'd like to see where those 12.5 points went... Looks like he's just throwing out arbitrary numbers to suit what he wants. (the least he could do is lower the review factors, guess he's lazy)

And what does "value" even mean there. If the game had a perceived "value" of 80%, wouldn't that mean the game is closer to an 80? Could be I just have no idea what value means, if so, someone please correct me.
End of quote
Obviously "gameplay" should and does have more weight than the other factors. I'm pretty sure value is just the amount of game you get for your money.
Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top
http://www.2404.org/reviews/4164/Sins-of-a-Solar-Empire-ReviewWait, 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).
End of quote


Well, here are a few examples:

Since crystal and metal mines can both be exhausted
End of quote


+1 to missile damage and so forth
End of quote


to research and several new abilities which can be granted to capitol ships
End of quote


I don't mind minor errors in reviews, but not knowing that mines don't get exhausted, for example, or that there are no cap ship abilities that need to be researched strikes me as more than "minor".

Be that as it may, I must admit to some distaste for the reaction here. Obviously most of us think that Sins is a good game. But that's merely a matter of opinion, and there's no reason to think that someone who dislikes the game doesn't hold an equally valid opinion. And despite the errors in reviewing, I can't completely disagree with some of the major points that are made (although I might not sharing them).

Bh
Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top
Is there some way I can make a whole thread spoken by comic book guy?
Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top
I've never heard of 2404.org so I visited their site. It does appear to be just another lackluster clan site but this one rates video games. The moment I saw that they rated UT3 10/10 I immediately closed the window and never intend to go back. These people are rating strictly on how "competitive" a game is it seems. Therefore I have no interest in knowing what they say.
Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top
Be that as it may, I must admit to some distaste for the reaction here. Obviously most of us think that Sins is a good game. But that's merely a matter of opinion, and there's no reason to think that someone who dislikes the game doesn't hold an equally valid opinion. And despite the errors in reviewing, I can't completely disagree with some of the major points that are made (although I might not sharing them).
End of quote


I agree. Though I normally disagree with him, Vinraith also has a good point; however, the reviewer here clearly got some things wrong - and if he got those details wrong, doesn't that mean he didn't have a good enough look at the game?

Even so, would you guys be as quick to criticize if a website said: "seeing that the game incorporates a complex diplomacy and multiple ways to win, this game deserves a stellar 9.5/10"? Also, perhaps this forum isn't the best place to debate something like this.

For the record, from what I've played of the demo, I absolutely love this game. I disagree with this particular reviewer on the score, and think he's a bit silly for getting some things wrong. And don't beat up on him because he's part of a minor review site; on this site we've praised reviews from other such minor sites.
Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/sinsofasolarempire

Maybe their trying to get attention?

They gave painkiller overdose a high score too. And UT3.
Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top

The problem with the review is that there's no context.

Every game has "legitimate" elements to criticize. But in order to justify a 6/10, you have to also argue that Sins is about the worst game that's come out in the last couple of years.

Does anyone here, even someone who doesn't like Sins, really want to make that argument?  Reviews don't exist in a vacuum. If your site is going around averageing 8 to 9 reviews for nearly everything released and then gives a 6 to one, then you better bloody be able to back up why it's so deplorable.

Reply #40 from Stardock Forums Top
LOL... Well, just to add fuel on the fire, nothing can beat this game:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/goldencompass?q=the%20golden%20compass

SO no it wouldn't be one of the worst games in years.

The review isn't very good though.
Reply #41 from Stardock Forums Top
Anyway, if their giving adrenaline feuled games like UT3 and Painkiller high scores, their probably angsty teens with add.

Stardock, don't email them, email metacritic with the things they got wrong in the review. With any luck, their site will be taken off the list.

Angsty kids with add and adhd shouldn't be reviewing slow paced games. Send the email for all devs who make slow paced games. It'll be a good thing.
Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top
I enjoy the game a lot and would give it a 85-90% rating but I am pretty surprised that the vast majority of gaming critics (2404 or whatever excluded) give it very high honors. I thought the game would not appeal to the mainstream RTS fans. Nowadays, a lot of gamers have very short attention spans. Most RTS games like Command and Conquer 3, Starcraft, etc. have very fast and visually appealing battles that last a minute at most. Minerals and resources are obtained at a much faster rate and rather than taking it slow and thinking about your next move, it requires you to move fast before your opponent outproduces you. However, it appears that there is a pretty large group of fans that enjoy games just like this.

PC Gamer also gave Sins a glowing review in this month and last month's issues.

The 2404 site is rather obscure and I'm sure that most of us, including myself, have never heard of it. It clearly does not know how to properly review a game and surely contributes to its obscurity.
Reply #43 from Stardock Forums Top
The fact is, angsty kids should be able to play what they want.

But the simple fact of reviewing is that you pick someone who likes those games. I mean hell, you can always find someone who hates any type of game.

That site reeks of angsty kids.
Reply #44 from Stardock Forums Top
I investigated this further.

Here are all the reviews by the guy who reviewed Sins:

http://www.2404.org/reviews/2773/ArmA:-Queen's-Gambit-Review
http://www.2404.org/reviews/2670/MINERVA-Review
http://www.2404.org/reviews/2455/Civilization-IV:-Beyond-the-Sword-Review
http://www.2404.org/reviews/2229/ArmA:-Combat-Operations-Review
http://www.2404.org/reviews/2005/Battlefield-2142-Review
http://www.2404.org/reviews/1135/Ghost-Recon:-Advanced-Warfighter-Review
http://www.2404.org/reviews/214/Age-of-Empires-III-Review
http://www.2404.org/reviews/12/Empire-Earth-II-Review

It looks like they DID send in the best guy to review an rts. The thing is though, these guys aren't exactly slow paced gamers, as evidence by most of Kyle's reviews.
Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top
Man, they'll let ANYONE have a review site these days.
End of quote


The Golden Compass game reminds me of Gigli. The game (and movie) are so bad that I actually want to try it out. If I ever have the opportunity to borrow it (which is very unlikely) I think I may need to try it out.

It's also VERY UNFORTUNATE that Metacritic recognizes 2404. 2404's review looks like an outlier considering the glowing reviews from other, more respectable and reputable reviews.
Reply #46 from Sins Forums Top

I agree with Brad, the 6/10 seems a bit out of context.

It looks like they DID send in the best guy to review an rts. The thing is though, these guys aren't exactly slow paced gamers, as evidence by most of Kyle's reviews.
End of quote

Perhaps Anguel Delidajakov would have been more appropriate - he's the guy who did the last space RTS they reviewed. http://www.2404.org/reviews/2148/Genesis-Rising:-The-Universal-Crusade-Review 

 

 

Reply #47 from Sins Forums Top
I read the review the other day, I can see what they were saying and some of their dialog made sense but ultimately it was poorly assessed when they tried to put it into numbers.

I think they gave a shock review just to get noticed.
Reply #48 from Sins Forums Top
Every game has "legitimate" elements to criticize. But in order to justify a 6/10, you have to also argue that Sins is about the worst game that's come out in the last couple of years.
End of quote


Yeah, considering the way most games are reviewed 6/10 is excessively harsh by any standard. Of course that's partly the fault of a game review press that rates games on a scale where 6 or 7 is bad and 10 is good. What are all those other numbers for, anyway? :D
Reply #49 from Sins Forums Top
I think in a sense, the reviewer got it both right and both wrong, it depends on whether you are part of the competitive game playing or the hard core game playing crowd. By hard core, i mean people likes their games to not only breaks ground in every aspect in game mechanics and game design, but with perfect execution. And competitive gameer type, i am referring to all those pro star craft players. For me, Sins will always has its own charms, and to echo Frogboy, the game is not as in depth in many aspects compare to things like Space Empires 5. But i bet the AI is better than what you get in Space Empires 5. I have seen complaint on that forum regarding the weakness of the AI, I think Sins and similarly Galciv 2 has an infinite better AI. But seriously, if you want really depth in micromanagment, you would not choose Sins as number one choice.

Yes, the 2404.org's critic are right in critizing the perhaps over abstraction in Sins. I have heard of the same criticism from my friends who plays DOTA and Starcraft competitively, and whomn happens also to constantly make comparisons to the differences to the Homeworld Series. However, one should also look at given the over abstractions done in Sins, does it offer strategic depth. And i think many would agree that yes it does. Also, this game went through like 4 public open beta process before it went through a release. The open beta process was positively noted on many prominent review websites and also PC gamer during their preview phase of game development. So if there were any flaws in the game, the people who participated in the open beta should also be blamed, but to really joined point the fingers at the testers is just wrong and misguided. Simply many game developers do not have such open access to beta testing and also, the wishes of the players and testers don't get heard. So can Sins be faulted for overabstaction and oversimplifications, well depends on how you look at it. Chess is extremely simple to learn but hard to master, but in terms of options and details, it would not be fair to compare it to Risk or Axis and Allies. But both has strategic depth. People keep harping on that "oh Sins is so simplistic compare to other RTS on the market" But what did it accomplish with the simplificaton process as a result, certainly a more enjoyable, accessible and fun game for players at all different levels.
Reply #50 from Sins Forums Top
I came here looking for mods and found this. I wrote the review and I figured I should attempt to clear up some confusion- there are people going back through everything I've written and trying to triangulate my tastes. You'd be better off asking me :)

I don't write things to get a rise out of people because I'm older than twelve and I don't get paid for my writing anyways so there's little point in being maliciously dishonest. I can assure you that whatever minuscule bump in traffic this provides the site will not translate into cash in my pocket. If it did, you better believe I'd be slandering every game I could get my hands on!! ;)

Anyway, there's a section on our site where you can complain about the review and demand my head on a silver platter, etc, and I'll be happy to explain my reasoning there, but I don't like the tone or the direction of this discussion. I wrote a review which picked out flaws in your game. I did not murder any of your pets or molest any of your children and I'm not going to deal with some of the things people have said in this thread because frankly they are immature in the extreme.