I have to diagree - I too have played Rome Total War to death, along with all the mods for it. I downloaded (and paid for) this game on a whim, when I was bored on rainy afternoon. I have played it virtually everyday since, completely usurping Rome as my time muncher. I am far from disappointed with SOASE, quite the opposite, in fact - I consider it a rare gem of a game.

Down, Thrawny

Different strokes for different folks. I like both GalCiv2 and Sins, but I prefer the controlled real-time combat of Sins.

Haven't played any of the others.

Over-hyped? I've never heard that much hype for Sins, much less too much of it!

You didn't really say what needed work, just that you are dissatisfied and that it's graphics were all it really had going for it and that there were no real tatics in the game (I beg to differ! Against AI, yes it is the same old same old most of the time. But against human players, now thats another story...)

Gal Civ 2 is hardcore thinking strategy.  If you find Gal Civ 2 boring, it's because you prefer action to thought, welcome to the majority of the population.    Sins is inbetween braindead fuck RTS and TBS 4X.  Hence the lack of depth comments from a slightly brain damaged TBS fan. 

Anyone that claims they have to think to play the traditional RTS is a lying bastard or severely retarded, they're simplistic because they must be.  If you have to come up with anything inventive over the space of a game, it's a miracle.  A well made TBS is the exact opposite, instead of reaction and speed, you have planning and care.  You can't out click your opponent, you only get to out think them.

Sins is an ugly duckling in the middle, not a lot of action, not a lot of thinking.  Vastly more action than a TBS 4X, and even with the horrible balance, vastly more thinking.  As with the metaphore, it's one hell of an ugly TBS 4X or RTS either one, but a damn fine hybrid for those that aren't stuck on one or the other side of the spectrum.  I consider it the best to date, the Total War series is probably second, although Lords of Magic is an old school classic that can't be over rated if you ignore the incomplete status of the bug testing.  For fully integrated hybrids, I haven't played anything close.

Shadow, I recommend multiplayer.  If you like to think, you need to play against another person.  AI and real time don't mix.  Even if they had a multithreaded AI and needed a quad core cpu to run the game, it still wouldn't be competent without cheating.  Maybe in another decade we'll have someone design learning AI that can be ported into RTS games to spank the shit out of us.  Against a good player, there is some seriously devious shit you can pull in this game, one wrong move can take you from an insurmountable advantage to a crippling defeat.

I got Sins based on the box. Mind you, I waited until it halved in price

I was disapointed it had no campaign, but it kept me going for a while, I heavily modded it and it kept me going for a while longer and then I got sick of endless shallowness. So now I'm waiting for the next patch.

Overall, there are 3 types of games for me. Make that 4. The kind I dont buy, the kind I return (because its unplayable in some way), the kind that keeps me entertained long enough to have been worth the money, and the very few that keep me going for months and then I return to them over and over in the following years.

Sins is the 3rd type, it kept me happily occupied for a good long while and was well worth the money. I'm not sure if I will go for the patch or not at this point.

I know we are all having a great time trying to tell Shadow why not to dislike this game, but I'm pretty sure the attempt is going to fall short. There are plenty of games out there that I've played and just hated, they had their good points, but they didn't meet expectation. I have had plenty of people try to tell my why the game is awesome, "The graphics are great! Multiplayer is where the real action is! This game is awesome!" Sadly it doesn't stop me from hating the game. I'm not a multiplayer fan for RTS's, I get overwhelmed easily when I'm constantly worrying what the other player is doing and I don't need the added stress.

So lets give Shadow a break here. My advice would be for Shadow it keep up on the news about Sins 2. I'm pretty sure from what was being said on the forums and from some very trusted members that is will have a singleplayer campaign. If and when Sins 2 comes out Shadow should download a demo and see if things have changed from the original Sins. If they havn't then there is no reason to buy it, if you think there has been changes then find someone you can borrow the game from and play some. Or you can not pay attention to Sins 2 at all, that would be fine with me.

Sorry you didn't like the game Shadow!

Count me with the disappointed. I played it on release day and enjoyed it. Than put it on the back burner. Came back this week cause a friend bought it and I've been playing single player, but I realized something was missing.

I realized it was a lack of narrative. Now, alot of people MAY not know what I mean by this, but there have been threads on this in other gaming forums. Narrative is when, like in a game of Civ IV, you have wars, than times of peace, than war again. The competent single player AI seems to almost have a personality (I know it doesn't). the point being, that there's this meta game going on that, in a way, a story is playing out. A story of a civilization that you are creating, growing, etc. This is something you find in 4x games like Gal Civ II and Civ IV. For more about what I mean, read this. Its long, but worth it : http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161570&site=pcg For me to get this narrative in a traditional RTS, I need a metamap campaign type of thing (like Dawn of War dark Crusade, CnC Kane's Wrath global conquest mode, Battle for Middle Earth Living World map, etc. A Company of Heroes is the only RTS I seem able to play in skirmish.)

The issue is, of course, that SoaSE is a bridge. It has a little 4x, and a little RTS. It is a GREAT mix of the two, a GREAT gateway game. Gateway meaning my friend who bought it does NOT like turn-based 4x games. But this game could lead him down that road. Likewise, a 4x turn-based player MAY get into RTS games by playing this.

But, I THINK (opinion, I could be wrong), that people coming from RTS backgrounds will find this game is a step-up from what they are used to. However, 4x turn-based players will find this a step down from what they are USED to You have time to think in a 4x game and execute long-term strategy. You have varied diplomatic options, espionage, etc. Ypu ahve a lot more options of what to do, many more victory conditions, etc. I am NOT saying these things should be in SoaSE, they don't belong in it. But I DO think that's what SOME people are expecting. I liken it to Sword of the Stars. It's turn-based in galactic mode, but becomes an RTS in battle (though that game is stream-lined also, so I feel it is closer to SoaSE than Gal Civ2). I think SOME people are thinking this is Gal Civ with real-time combat (ala Total War series. Now can we have that in space?)

I find myself frantically clicking something non-stop when I am playing, ships go here, you build this, let me research this tech, etc. For me, its faster than what I am used to from playing a 4x turn-based game, and yet slower than a traditional RTS (like CnC 3, you have immdediate combat, usually a single base, but maybe two and a map that is lot more condensed than SoaSE). Again, the developers did a GREAT job in creating this game, and I think have succeded in what they set out to do, but its just not going to appeal to everyone. I think the original poster is used to the options in a turn-based game, and the tactics seen in the Total War series and Homeworld (where the combat is at a slower pace than a traditional RTS, and tactics are VERY important. In Homeworld, you could maneuver ships to come at the enemy from underneath them, etc.).

I have a feeling that I WILL enjoy this online, playing against my friend. But, as some of the fans have said in this thread, its online where this game shines. Unfortunately, not everyone has time for that. There are alot of people who also play off-line, single player. And alot of games DO have competent single-player AI (Gal Civ 2), or even AI mods (A Company of Hereos, DoW) that make playing against the AI alot of fun. And since I play alot of different games and not just hone in on one, I don't really notice the AI doing weird things (like building only 1 frigate factory) like other players who play alot more would (I  read about it here, than notice it in the game).

Again, it's a VERY well made game, just not for everyone. That said, I look forward to the campaign that will be featured in the expansion due out sometime next year.

jorune

I can't edit my above post, but le tme clarify this statement:

I find myself frantically clicking something non-stop when I am playing, ships go here, you build this, let me research this tech, etc. For me, its faster than what I am used to from playing a 4x turn-based game, and yet slower than a traditional RTS (like CnC 3, you have immdediate combat, usually a single base, but maybe two and a map that is lot more condensed than SoaSE).

What i mean here is that in CnC3, a skirmish is over in 30 minutes or less (Usually less). Whereas SoaSE is like a skirmish that lasts for a few hours, its like running a guantlet. I get exhausted. In turn based mode, the pace is slower because the games are longer. I MAY not be making myself clear, but I'm trying

jorune

Dissapointed about spelling. and grammar, And punctuation.

Methinks this game is just over your head.

the game is very slow paced, and because it is  a rts slash x4 strat then it has to compete with 2 genres. however company of heroes is a rts great game, alpha centuari i thought was a great x4 strat. what i am saying is the game isnt faced paced enough to compete with coh, yet it lacks the depth of alpha centuari. i would much rather my coh and alpha centuari and alternate between the two instead of just having this. altho i played alpha centuari single player only and loved it i wouldnt dream of playing this game in single player skirmish it would be so boring, campiagne could be good but not skirmish, it is too similar to playing multi and multi would always be better. i think this game should have a single player skirmish like campiagne, not single skirmish mode and a great multiplayer. the game has potential, i do play it but the lack of depth means its replayablilty is low.

what i mean by depth is for example your sitting there in alpha centuari and ur planning an attack  on ur enemy base but all of a sudden there is a virus outbreak killing ur cities so ur income falls and u cannot afford to support a long range assualt (more upkeep for far away troops)...then u get attacked by alien mind worms out of nowhere and then a mission statement come up with a nice poem. things to do when ur doing nothing!!!! i golden rule in these games should be the busyest time is when ur not doing anything.

the critism about when you attack u become  a spectator and not a participant is such a perfect and true critic. go play a micro intensive game and then play this.

Damn guys, don't feed the trolls that pop up in the forums from time to time.

Just ignore the OP, if anything he already vented his dissapoinment and has moved on.

If Shadow was a troll then he/she was the most polite troll I have ever met.