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.
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.