heflys

[quote]Character units, for one. Simply adding in characters can substantially increase different game mechanic interactions. Additionally, it would be nice to have ground troops (in an abstract manner, not actual ground combat). And moreover, it would be nice if battle outcomes could affect planet's allegiances.[/quote] I thought you would say something ridiculous, like emulating combat or something. Thank you for keeping it sane. [quote]Actually, other planets would only g

[quote]I'm not used to seeing such blind hatred.[/quote] What are you talking about, is this not a discussion about rebellion? Shame on me for being honest and tarnishing your favorite game!! [quote]It's my opinion, and I have yet to have you give any precise counter-arguments to what I mentioned.[/quote] In other words, you have no means of refuting my claims, so you play the denial game. How amusing. Heck, I answered you questions perfectly. [quote]IF Lea

[quote]There are some aspects in Rebellion that I wish were in Sins.[/quote] I have to honestly ask, what would those be?

[quote]Build more scouts?[/quote] Certainly! If they didn't take, depending on the number of facilities, 10 minutes each, nevermind the more important things that could be built with less headache. That reminds me,if I recall correctly, the game also lacked decent organization for planetary facilities, so, you'd have to go to all your planets to find out what they possessed. Genius!

[quote]the music was nicely used in the game too.[/quote] Pong could have star wars music, and it would be nice. [quote]I don't know that it took too long to do something in Rebellion. What happened quick in SOASE?[/quote] Serious question? One, when I need something done, it usually happens immediately in Sins, and I don't have to continuously give the same order over and over to get even simple task done. Nor do I have to search a trillion planets to find an enemy

BTW, why did someone create this topic?....Seriously....

[quote]As it is right now, Sins is doing great but it lacks the depth that Rebellion had. Hopefully, Ironclad will use Sins as a starting point to design even greater games. Until then, I'll have to keep playing Rebellion to satisfy my Star Wars strategy needs. I've come to also find that the Total War games are also fun with massive strategy built in, as well as Paradox's Hearts of Iron and Europa Univeralis games.[/quote] You can't be serious. No, you are....Aren't you? Anywa

What sucks is people not realizing that this was clearly a joke topic. It was blatantly obvious.

[quote]I just have a personal dissatisfaction for those who choose FPS games over RTS, just like I had a dissatisfaction with the subject of your post.[/quote] Its alright you poor beast. [quote]Sports gamers play on consoles. They not only lack the lingual skills to write a post, but they lack the typing skills to put it into a computer. It'd come out more like... ;ijokj;kjmmnjh;o kn njbh Than anything else as their ham hands hit 5 keys at once[

[quote]1.4 will be coming out in a day or so, let us hope they fixed this ship problem.[/quote] Yeah, sure. Glad to see that you reviving utterly dead joke topics.

whoops!!

Sounds like you suck to me, I mean you have no crystal and you complain about ships being able to move freely because the a.i. is putting the smack down on you, but meh..... Here is a new review from Game Revolutions A- = 91% (according to metacritic) http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/sins_of_a_solar_empire

[quote]That's one of my biggest reasons for not wanting to buy it until it goes cheap.[/quote] Great! You're too cheap to pay for a good game that is relatively cheaper than the competition. In actuality, you probably can't even afford it. But who cares really?

[quote]Betas 1-4.[/quote] Uh, in the current format. [quote] I actually agree with some of the points the reviewer made. However, although I too would rate sins between 6 or 7 out of ten, my reasons for doing so differ from the reviewers.[/quote] Which ones? Most of the ones I read didn't make much sense.

[quote]Yeah, sure, its a problem with MY system, not with THEIR code. But yes this rant is increasingly off-thread, I will shut up now and go back to my hole.[/quote] Well seeing as how you initially weren't being very specific (there is difference between mp issues and a game not working at all), and that I wasn't referencing to you, but merely mentioning how people frequently blame games for their problems, I'm confused by your statement. "GULP" indeed. But who cares, accordi

Hmmm, I see them frequently replying the technical forum, and they've provided three patches and working on a fourth. Even if there were an issue with your computer, and not the game, how many people would admit that? Likely they'd say it was a game issue, particularly when they haven't updated their drivers in over a year. Just saying.

[quote]because I can't play the game[/quote] ROFL!!

Don't know all that relates to caring about a review score, but meh.

Lack of customisability, campaign, and variety in scenarios (what scenarios? the maps?), so the game gets 69%, eh? Like I said, who cares really.

I believe some of these sites are deliberately trying to give the game a low score in preparation for Starcraft 2....Who am I kidding, I'm just ranting. [quote]Totaly redicilous, seems like they never heard about this game and let someone with no clue test it who thought it doesnt deserve a high rating cause its from a small company.[/quote] Doubt anyone really cares, about the review that is.

ROFL. One of the highest rated strategy games on their site is "Faces of War".....It out scored this, Supreme Commander expansion, was .1 behind Company of Heroes (LOL!), and, well, that's general it, since they scarcely review strats, and do about six reviews a year. Why is this site being taken seriously? Who knows..... Anyway, Let's get to the review that "picked out flaws in your game". [quote]There are no formations or tactics or even many opportunities for micromanageme

6/10 ROFL! Pretty amusing review, he actually complains about the lack of micromanagement during combat! [link="http://www.2404.org/reviews/4164/Sins-of-a-Solar-Empire-Review"]WWW Link[/link]

[quote]Would you rather I compare it to a Greek phalanx or a Spanish tercio?[/quote] Might as well. [quote]I actually think that this game is a bit like chess. You move, then they move. Wash, rinse, repeat. When your bishops (fleets) hit their forces, the fireworks begin. Vinraith makes a good point in that it sacrifices some of the 4X depth of GalCiv and some of the RTS depth of, say, Age of Empires (throw me a bone here, I havn't played any RTS's besides Empire at W

Very doubtful....Particularly when looking at the scale of the game.

[quote]Sadly I'm forced to agree. It tries to be a hybrid of RTS and 4X and in doing so loses the depth of gameplay of both genres. It's pretty to look at, but a game should never be more fun to watch than it is to play. I still think the game's a viable platform for a real strategy game if they have an interest in making it so, but there's a lot of rampant denial about the depth of the present product so I don't get my hopes up.[/quote] Yeah, sure....Please, tell me what this