What else is there to expect? That the op and the rest of us not sink to that level, I should hope.

Sins is awesome because it marries 4x with RTS without having a rock paper scissors combat model.

Sigh.

Once again, I haven't criticized anything, I am merely asking people to convince me that Sins is worthy of the praise it seems to be receiving on this board.

That's all.

Second post is trolling?

Here's post 2.



How was his post trolling?

It was you that started using profanity.

Trolling? I just pointed out that your allegations of 'fawning praise' are rather conclusively debunked by the press at large, and invited you to take it up with them.

Quite frankly, you started the entire thread off with a hostile tone ('fawning', 'drooling' q.v.). You have no basis for calling anyone a troll.

And I gave you some examples and so have others. We're not going to "convince" you of anything because we don't care if you like the game or not any more than you care if we like Bioshock or not.

Done
/thread

I think your math is a little off there, pal. The OP is the first post.

Also, using profanity is not outside of acceptable conduct on this board. Can we please talk about the game, and not the thread?

What's so new, or revolutionary, that would drive someone to say this is the best or deepest game they've ever played? Look, I said the game is OKAY, but "the best game I've ever played" is waaaaaaay beyond minor praise.


Xan, so don't post then! What is so hard about not replying to a thread you don't agree with?

Its the best 4x game ever made is a much more reasonable assessment.

What he said.

Parrot, there's only one win condition though.

Even Civ has 6 or 7...

"I'm sorry to interrupt, but can I have your autograph, sir?"

Why do you need to be convinced? You've shown that you aren't, and that's that. Our reasons for liking the game won't all coincide, proving that there is no objective way to ascertain a game's worth. It's entirely personal.

Actually, there I might disagree with you. I think one of the Civs or SMAC might hold that crown.

I'd say it's the best integration of RTS with 4X.

I don't need to be convinced, hell, I already paid for the game. I just thought an objective discussion might be interesting, though it seems that it just may not be possible.

There isn't only one win condition dude. Just the other day I beat an opponent because I cultured him to death. You can win through economics, diplomacy, culture, pirate hiring, or military.

Since when is Civ an RTS?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you must destroy all enemy planetary bases to win, yes?

There is no other condition by which the "win" screen will be shown, is there?

An objective discussion about opinion?

That's what you want?

I gave specific examples. You just seem to ignore them.

What's revolutionary? How about the empire tree? This is the first game that lets you manage a massive empire on screen without resorting to some little mini map kludge.

It has an awesome blend of the best of Warcraft/Starcraft and Total Annihiation when it comes to planning out your strategy.

You can queue up build orders and move orders to a very high degree but it doesn't force you into the TA model of having to prioritize what is getting build.

It has the best looking combat of any game I've ever seen. Age of Empires 3, Warcraft 3, even Dawn of War pale compared to the sights you see in this game when it comes to battles.

The pacing of the game is wonderful. I never feel like the game is won or lost due to how fast I can manuever the user interface. The game's not about micro managing a bunch of special powers or knowing obscure tricks.

It blends a lot of nice 4X elements like diplomacy, trade, culture with the smoothness of a real time strategy game. In Supreme Commander the game hinges on your ability to know the right formula for cranking out units with helper units and micro managing your forces with a kludgy UI.

The game is one of the few strategy games that really makes me feel like I'm building something, a real empire with little ships flying around. I can see my empire thrive and grow.

I mentioned before that the single player game is fun and has lots of different options to keep it fresh.

Sins is the best RTS I've played. If you have some other candidate for that spot, speak up.

You don't have to destroy all their bases. You only have to destroy their capital, and occasionally, they just surrender if they fear you, or if you out culture them or destroy them economically.

What people mean is that there are many different avenues to victory. It isn't just about cranking out the most miliary units and swarming the enemy like it is in most RTS's.

Xan, I agree, the Empire Tree is revolutionary. I love it, and I don't want to play another RTS without it.

That much I can get on board with.


However, I have let 4 or 5 friends try the game and they feel the same way I do, just sort of "meh". I don't have to list my gaming pedigree as so many here feel the need to, but Sins feels to me like it is missing something, so I'm looking for reasons to love it rather than just feeling like it's "all right". I'm trying to understand that 88% at metacritic- when none of the reviews I've read are outstanding but the scores are, I start to wonder what's going on.

Also, I have to take issue with the "many different avenues to victory"- even when playing against 2 hard AI's the strategy seems to be "make a blob, throw at enemy". Over a dozen games, it's worked every time.

But different people will always have different opinions on things.

Look at the Orange Box. There's lots of people going gaga over it. Games for Windows practically wetted themselves over it. I play it and go "meh". It's just a first person shooter bundle with the only innovative game being Portal which has about 5 hours of game play to it imo. It's just so tired.

But I wouldn't go onto a valve forum and start asking why people are "drooling" and "fawning" of it. I know I have different tastes.

Civ is a 4X. Which is why I don't think Sins is the best 4X game ever made.