Sins held back by only two things. Disappointing.

Emperor1G

Join Date 02/2008

Sins held back by only two things. Disappointing.

There are only two issues in this game holding it back from being that "fantastic" game that comes around once in a long while. Sadly, they are big issues.

1. The Multi-player system setup is dreadful. I consistently see 300+ people on, and 3-4 games looking for players. Even assuming there are games in progress, day in and out the chat lobby is filled with people asking why they cannot host or join games. The 3 of us in my clan who have committed to purchasing this game have the same problem. We've followed the FAQ's to the letter, forwarded-opened-and initiated everything that requires it, and still are unable to host any games. This is a very wide spread problem, a problem that was never this bad with other titles that DID have issues like the Total War series, Dawn of War etc. Those were usually small, and patched/fixed immediately. This is something else entirely. If this hosting problem isn't resolved, and soon, there is little point to sinking any more time or effort into the game and forming a community. To say nothing of regreting the purchase.

2. Which leads to point #2. In the absence of a decent Multi-player experience, the game is looked to for its single player accolades. Sins however, seems to ignore this. I cannot think of a major, or even minor, RTSish title with any kind of lore that did NOT have a campgain mode exploring the storyline. What was the point of a long intro and a few pages in the manual about the races backstory if there IS no story in the game? Warcraft, Starcraft, Dawn of War, Command and Conquer (both series), the list goes on ALL have a single player story mode/grand campagin. The ONLY series that doesnt, is the Total War series, and it does have missions in the game itself/its based on history, which is a story.

Barring a resolution to the above mentioned problems, especially the MP aspect of the game, I feel thats Sins will fall very short of its potential, and Im already somewhat bitter at Ironclad as a company for not following the lead of countless companies/titles who navigated around the routing concerns. Had I known previously of the problems so many people were having, I would have waited or passed on the title altogether.

I am very disappointed.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

The Internet: I know what I'm talking about and you have all your facts wrong.

Successfully updated karma reason!

the_Monk

Join Date 01/2008

+222

Xenpo,

You didn't offend. My reply was for "clarification" purposes only. I agree, people often have issues with the "how", even after geeks like us explain the "what". I guess I've just always taken people to task who have issues with the "why". People don't always read a geek the right way.

Anyway, I don't really have anything else to add except that with some "coaching" most everyone I've helped to date has agreed that the entire thing was rather painless.

I believe someone once said (and if no one said....well then I just did...hehe

)

"The mountain only looks like a mountain from the base, from the summit we have an entirely different outlook!"

happy gaming/hosting!

the Monk

Successfully updated karma reason!

"The mountain only looks like a mountain from the base, from the summit we have an entirely different outlook!"

So true!

On to the modding forums to learn what I can!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Is Sins similar to games like Settlers since it has nothing to do with normal RTS?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not having a campaign is a concious decision,
wich is perfectly viable.

Sometimes it's better than having one.

As much as i love Supreme Commander (especially in Multiplayer) for example, the campaign was just a quickly slapped together piece of junk. The game would have been better off without it lol.

But that doesn't make Supcom a bad game.
And not having a campaign certainly does not make Sins a bad game either.
The contrary, it's absolutely awesome.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just purchased Sins and quite frankly, I'm a little disappointed. It's not that the game isn't fun or looks bad. It's just missing something. For a 4x space type game, even RTS, it doesn't have an epic feel to it. With huge star systems and galaxies it's just difficult to believe that there are only 3 factions in the whole universe. More factions are needed to give it an epic feel. Comparing RTS to turn based is apples to oranges but take a look at some other Space empire 4x games. GalCiv series, Space Empires series, Imperium Galactica 2, the Moo series, ST BoTF and Pax Imperia. They all have more than 3 factions. There's an epic feel to them. For me Sins is lacking in that department.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Monk - this is a computer game, this is the year 2008 - most people expect the industry standard, plug and play online experience. People like being able to buy a game, roll out their online account, and get on the network for some games. Not saying I disagree, just, look at your posts, and realize what side of the fence you're sitting on.

You bring up car dealerships, guess what, not everybody drives manual. Not everyone wants to port forward. Fact of the matter is, the less that is required to play a game, as stated on their front page, the better it is for the general population to get their hands on. If you don't believe me, look at the front page of sinsofasolarempire.com, for the part reading:

"I saw an article at IGN about how PC developers are blaming piracy as the reason some high profile games aren't selling in the quantities they should. As some of you know, Stardock's "main" business is in the PC software realm so we have a bit different outlook on market dynamics. Here's the deal: Piracy is a problem, no doubt about it. It does cost sales. But it isn't the driving reason for lost sales, it's the size of the market. Sins of a Solar Empire is outselling some higher profile games not just because it's a "great game" but because it runs on a vastly larger number of PCs."

Really, just running on that logic, the best way to include the largest possible playerbase in the online aspect of the game would be the same thing... making the game run on a lot of different types of comps, all with different levels of security, and user control. Some people are able to set up ports in five seconds, some will never be able to. Should Sins be potentially blocking them out of the multi player experience?

Just learn to fix up your computer and your router, and you won't have a problem hosting multi player games. If you can't get it done yourself, tough luck, join other peoples games, and maybe hope for some sort of patch that can address this issue (if even possible).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ashbery76

Join Date 02/2002

+36

In the early days the devs said story elements would be in the sandbox mode ala IG2.I guess they ran out of time.I would prefer story elements in the sandbox compared to small scale missions like GC2 which doesn't suit 4X games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Excerpt from reply #107, by adizmal :

[...T]his is a computer game, this is the year 2008 - most people expect the industry standard, plug and play online experience. People like being able to buy a game, roll out their online account, and get on the network for some games.

[...N]ot everybody drives manual. Not everyone wants to port forward. Fact of the matter is, the less that is required to play a game, as stated on their front page, the better it is for the general population to get their hands on. [...]

Some people are able to set up ports in five seconds, some will never be able to. Should Sins be potentially blocking them out of the multi player experience?

Thanks, adizmal ! I've been stating a similar position on other threads, over and over again, and have consequently been personally insulted over and over again.

I agree 100% with the content of that quote : ordinary gamers -- who do not have the time to study numerous forum-posts and the instructions of www.portforward.com -- should not have to be trained to jump through multiple technical hoops to play an online game, in "the year 2008".

I've had the same router since October 2001, and only one game has required me to enter my router's webpage to configure portforwarding : Sins !

It was quite easy to do, because I had read a few (very helpful) forum posts and the (sometimes more complicated) instructions at portforwarding.com.

But I agree with adizmal : in 2008, most consumers who buy a game should be provided the immediate ease of a an "automatic", and should not be forced to work to get additional training on a "manual".

Successfully updated karma reason!