Sins of a Solar Empire or Galactic Civilizations 2

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: bobross419
@irishscott

I actually saw SE5 last night at Gamestop and was going to post about it today. Sounds like it could be a very fun game. How does it compare to MOO? Is it turn based like MOO? It looked good from what I saw on the box, although the graphics might be a bit dated.

Can anyone else give some info about SE5?

Never heard of MOO, so I can't make the comparison. However it is completely turn based (with the exception of the Real-time combat option). This actually turns out to be a problem for some. In a single player game with lots of computer opponents (as in 10+), it can take up to a minute to get to the next turn in the mid-late game, as the computer crunches more and more data. Of course, this also depends on your CPU, so your mileage may vary. For reference, I'm running it on a Core Duo T2500 2Ghz laptop.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: ibex333

Originally posted by: CU
Was looking for something new, and I am trying to decide between Sins of a Solar Empire and Galactic Civilizations 2 + expansions. I like the large tech tree and ability to build custom units in GC. Is Sins tech tree anywhere near as large? How about the maps, which has larger ones? I will only play single player, so which has a better / more human AI? Is the single player story line in GC any good? I know Sins doesn't have one yet, and that is a big draw back for me. Just not sure if I want to keep playing skirmishes against the AI. I don't mind turned based because when I play the AI in RTS games I usually set the game speed to the slowest setting anyway. What is consider a large fleet in both games? Is 20 large for Sins, and 10 large for GC. That was just an example. I have no clue how big the fleets can be in either game. I am leaning toward GC, but I will miss the pretty graphics and RTS aspects. I just think the the ability to build custom ships and largeness of the game sounds very fun. Wish it would switch to RTS during the battles. That would be the best of both worlds. Hint, Hint, Stardock.

And no I can't get both. I barely have time to play any games.

I suggest you don't buy either of them. Both games have a lot of depth, but have a lot of mediocrity in them too. For example, fans of Sins of Solar Empire make excuses for the lack of single player campaign by saying that the games sole focus is on multiplayer which is done exceptionally well. I call BS, and I attribute this to the laziness of the devs... Same laziness that made them skip on a decent campaign in GalCiv.

Off course gameplay is more important for me than movies and gfx, but stardock games are completely MISSING those elements. My biggest problem with GalCiv, is that it is mostly for the people that are willing to play that game alone for years upon years. It just takes waaaaayyyyy too much time to get anywhere in this game. I found myself getting frustrated and clicking frantically on the end turn button just to finally see that next ship design or laser.... It's excruciating. The tutorials are not very good and do not explain as much as they SHOULD explain IMO. GalCiv is probably nice for people with crappy laptops because the requirements are not too high and you can play that game forever...


As for Sins, I uninstalled that game about 2 hours after I installed it. It feels like half-a-game rather than a full one due to the lack of a single player campaign. On top of that, it just feels.... mediocre somehow. There is no feel for depth of field... It's an RTS in SPACE after all, so it should feel like Homeworld at least... But instead it feels FLAT. Like units are not flying through space but gliding on a flat field just like any generic RTS. Supposedly the sequel to Sins will change all that, but I have my doubts.

I suggest you go play EVE Online instead... Now there's an awesome game. I just cannot get enough of it. It has a ridiculously steep learning curve, but it's well worth it to stick with it and learn how to play.

Pretty good considering 9 people (minus some voice acting) made the entire game. But yes, there should have been a single player campaign, which they may offer in a (not free) expansion.

 

[sandorski]

Campaign Schmampaign. Games like GalCiv2 are best served cold with nothing but an Unknown Map and no direction dictated to the Player.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Harmattan
I'd say Sins of a Solar Empire is good, but Galactic Civilizations 2 is good too. But then again, Sins of a Solar Empire is a good game.

Well that was conclusive...

Buy sins of a solar empire. I had fun with it, its a real shame theres no campaign but whatever its still fun.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Ibex333, you don't like Galactic Civilizations 2 or Sins of a Solar Empire's single player campaigns. Then I have to ask how's Eve's single player campaign???

You say Gal Civ 2 take too long to play, but how long does it take to win a game of Eve? How long does it take to buy and make the largest space ship in Eve?

What you criticize Gal Civ 2 and Sins for, Eve is worse.

You only tried Sins for 2 hours. No one would like Eve after only 2 hours of play.

http://www.escapistmagazine.co...tuation/208-Eve-Online

Thats my fav review hes done, eve players are to nerds what nerds are to normal people lmfao!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ibex333I suggest you don't buy either of them. Both games have a lot of depth, but have a lot of mediocrity in them too. For example, fans of Sins of Solar Empire make excuses for the lack of single player campaign by saying that the games sole focus is on multiplayer which is done exceptionally well. I call BS, and I attribute this to the laziness of the devs...

Why does Sins need a campaign anymore than Civilization IV or Alpha Centauri need a campaign? Will it affect the actual game play and enjoyment that comes from playing the game in some sort of way? Also, the real Sins game is online multiplayer against human opponents and not against silly AI.

As for Sins, I uninstalled that game about 2 hours after I installed it. It feels like half-a-game rather than a full one due to the lack of a single player campaign. On top of that, it just feels.... mediocre somehow. There is no feel for depth of field... It's an RTS in SPACE after all, so it should feel like Homeworld at least... But instead it feels FLAT. Like units are not flying through space but gliding on a flat field just like any generic RTS. Supposedly the sequel to Sins will change all that, but I have my doubts.

In that case, you have no idea what you're missing. It is in fact a 2D game, but it's great regardless. If you'd learn to play it and play it in online multiplayer (instead of being a sissy single player), you might gain an appreciation for the complexity of the game's strategy.

 

[bobross419]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: ibex333I suggest you don't buy either of them. Both games have a lot of depth, but have a lot of mediocrity in them too. For example, fans of Sins of Solar Empire make excuses for the lack of single player campaign by saying that the games sole focus is on multiplayer which is done exceptionally well. I call BS, and I attribute this to the laziness of the devs...

Why does Sins need a campaign anymore than Civilization IV or Alpha Centauri need a campaign? Will it affect the actual game play and enjoyment that comes from playing the game in some sort of way? Also, the real Sins game is online multiplayer against human opponents and not against silly AI.

As for Sins, I uninstalled that game about 2 hours after I installed it. It feels like half-a-game rather than a full one due to the lack of a single player campaign. On top of that, it just feels.... mediocre somehow. There is no feel for depth of field... It's an RTS in SPACE after all, so it should feel like Homeworld at least... But instead it feels FLAT. Like units are not flying through space but gliding on a flat field just like any generic RTS. Supposedly the sequel to Sins will change all that, but I have my doubts.

In that case, you have no idea what you're missing. It is in fact a 2D game, but it's great regardless. If you'd learn to play it and play it in online multiplayer (instead of being a sissy single player), you might gain an appreciation for the complexity of the game's strategy.

This is a very unhelpful post. I prefer single player in games usually because you can play longer games due to the ability to pause and save. I only get to play in 10-15 minute increments which makes it difficult to play multiplayer. Add to that the number of assholes *cough* that flock to multiplayer and singleplayer just leads to a more enjoyable gaming experience. Calling someone a "sissy" (Dude, are you 8? At least have the balls to say pussy... pussy) because they aren't a big fan of mp is just asinine and serves no purpose other than to boost your post count.

Here is a new flash wonderboy, different people have different ideas of what makes a game enjoyable. I think Starcraft and WoW blow big hard donkey balls, but instead of saying that people that like these games are sissies, pansies, ninnies, lame-os, or whatever other 8 y/o vernacular one might use to describe these people I figure that they just have a different idea of what is enjoyable.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: ibex333I suggest you don't buy either of them. Both games have a lot of depth, but have a lot of mediocrity in them too. For example, fans of Sins of Solar Empire make excuses for the lack of single player campaign by saying that the games sole focus is on multiplayer which is done exceptionally well. I call BS, and I attribute this to the laziness of the devs...

Why does Sins need a campaign anymore than Civilization IV or Alpha Centauri need a campaign? Will it affect the actual game play and enjoyment that comes from playing the game in some sort of way? Also, the real Sins game is online multiplayer against human opponents and not against silly AI.

As for Sins, I uninstalled that game about 2 hours after I installed it. It feels like half-a-game rather than a full one due to the lack of a single player campaign. On top of that, it just feels.... mediocre somehow. There is no feel for depth of field... It's an RTS in SPACE after all, so it should feel like Homeworld at least... But instead it feels FLAT. Like units are not flying through space but gliding on a flat field just like any generic RTS. Supposedly the sequel to Sins will change all that, but I have my doubts.

In that case, you have no idea what you're missing. It is in fact a 2D game, but it's great regardless. If you'd learn to play it and play it in online multiplayer (instead of being a sissy single player), you might gain an appreciation for the complexity of the game's strategy.

Sins could use a campaign because of the interesting start up movie. What is chasing the vasari?? It cant be another race because whatever annihilated them came from their core planets. What will happen when it catches up and they still havent broken through the TEC lines and to complicate things the long gone advent have shown up for a fight.

Interesting setup, a campaign would definately be a big bonus for the game. Sins multiplayer sucks, games would take way too long and people would quit long before the game actually concludes. Its not a multiplayer oriented game, its like civilization, multiplayer is a nice little add on, but really CoH or starcraft are where multiplayer RTS is at.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Your average Sins 3v3 or 4v4 online game normally doesn't take longer than 2,5 hours with many ending long before that. The games are normally decided in less time than that.

 

[ibex333]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Ibex333, you don't like Galactic Civilizations 2 or Sins of a Solar Empire's single player campaigns. Then I have to ask how's Eve's single player campaign???

You say Gal Civ 2 take too long to play, but how long does it take to win a game of Eve? How long does it take to buy and make the largest space ship in Eve?

What you criticize Gal Civ 2 and Sins for, Eve is worse.

You only tried Sins for 2 hours. No one would like Eve after only 2 hours of play.

http://www.escapistmagazine.co...tuation/208-Eve-Online

You make a good point. I got a little overexcited there with my writing...But when I referred to EVE I simply meant that is is a better game overall. (purely IMO) I'm not saying that it has a better "campaign" or anything like that. It's a completely different game in every way. The only similarity is that it's also space themed.

The OP can make up his own mind on what to play. I'm merely giving MY opinion, from my own experience with these games. I really have no problem with turn based games, but I'd prefer Heroes of Might and Magic 3 to GalCiv any day. I have no problem with strategy games, but I'll take C&C3.. Hell Even Tiberian Sun over Sins of Solar empire without a second thought.

Oh and if the OP wants to try a nice space game without paying monthly fees, I suggest "Nexus: The Jupiter Incident"... or was it Accident?

 

[ibex333]

EDIT: Oops... Misread post.

 

[KillerCharlie]

I was searching the internet for which one to buy when I found this thread. I'll only play singleplayer so it looks like GC is better?

 

[Cancer12]

I got bored of both, though sins was better. I wanted to like Galciv, I wanted it to fulfill a deep desire I have to find an awesome 4x space game. Unfortunately, it felt more like playing on some artificial grid. It just didn't feel great.