I guess I didn't make it clear in my OP... however this game does NOT appear to have more depth than a standard RTS. Now don't get me wrong... I bought this game knowing what it was and enjoyed the first several hours of it!

I'm not trying to say one game is better or worse than it. I'm not trying to trash talk Sins. I'm just trying to help people see "the light" and possibly the develpers... If nothing else maybe gather some groups for mods to fix the short-comings.

Yes, there is a plent mod... but aside from the HORRID nature of having to copy files into some stupid folder burried deep in "user settings"... You have to copy ANY, ALL, and EVERY texture file into the mod folder to run them. Yes, I hear they are making a patch to fix this... But, my guess is they want 1.03 to be some major HUGE update... Rathher than giving us features as they become available.

Take WC3 for example.

WC3: 4 Races - VERY different in style and play
Sins: 3 Races - Different Style and very similar play

WC3: 4 (or so) weapon upgrades per race
Sins: 3-4 Weapon upgrades (Beam, Missile, Bullet... and Siege)

WC3: Unit Research (Some just require the building while others require research)
Sins: Basically exactly the same... Some you can just build, others require research.

WC3: Usually have 1-2 bases... with lots of building variety.
Sins: Have LOTS and LOTS of bases... With very little building variety.

WC3: You have 3 Resources - Gold, Woot, Food
Sins: You have 4 Resources - Gold, Metal, Crystal, Food

Research: If you look at the research tree for WC3 (I think collectors addition came with one... and some sites have them posted)... It looks basically the same as sins... only vertical.

I won't comment on diplomacy or anything of the sort as I strongly believe its not finished. I think they shipped the game and threw it in as a side thought, rather than any in-depth testing and development involved.

I gotta agree with Painlezz. Ive had a struggle clicking the game icon because it feels so boring. Its more like clock work then enjoyment, heck, even less thinking involved as well. Depth is a problem. There is really only one option for doing everything and thats filling it with a lot of laser fire. I'd love to see ship-to-ship boarding (siezing/destroying ships from within), planeteray invasions, more planetary upgrade options, additional planetary defenses both space and surface borne, espionage: stealing technology to unlock new types of weapons and ships and so forth. And more stuff to make the game enjoyable because it really boils down to massing ships and hoping you have more than the enemy. As a side note why don't planets have any moons (so far as Ive seen at least)? Here's hoping for a big expansion.

Thank you (wanted to leave it at that, but that might be confusing), someone here understands me without even knowing it. Not that SD (they doing the advertising I believe) will listen. Although, even knowing what it was, I probably still would have bought it, it is quite fun, if still quite buggy.

I'm glad to see this comminuty is a lot more mature than most. Rather than Bash what I say... or 100% agree with it.. everyone gives feedback based on their own opinions...

None replied with "Can I have your stuff?" yet... which is so nice!

Realistically if Sins has done anything is make me thirsty for more! Its either that, or I really need a beer, its been a very sober week.

I think with Warcraft3 you've gotta remember you're comparing a game that's been out for years to a game that's been out for weeks. When War3 first game out it probably had less strategic depth than Sins has now, there were only one or two viable tactics for each race, and you would typically just mass one type of unit. The game has evolved a LOT over the course of many patches and an expansion and developed from good game to a great game.

I'm hoping that Sins does that too, it's very hard when you don't have a massive community of fans like Blizzard does to keep people interested in your game and I just hope Sins fixes it's major issues before everyone loses interest.

Wait....


Sins when are we comparing Sins to WC3? I think WC3 Sucked....

EDIT: You know you play to much Sins when you start replacing since with sins.

I'm sorry, having not played the game I'm at a bit of a loss here.
Could I ask what some of these mechanics are? Just curious, is all.

Here is an example of tactical combat I microed almost the entire fights myself, took a good 40 minutes of micro.

Combat Replay

I could not micro this well in Warcraft 3, hell none could minimize losses like this. I played enough of WarCraft 3 to know this game does borrow some, but the gameplay is totally different. I enjoy it more, as I enjoy the game. I am not against change, I just do not like the idea of any fundamental change to a game I enjoy to bring it more in-line with another game already out there!

As far is having fundamental differences between factions, there are reasons not to go that route. Sure it can be fun and exciting, but it would also be very hard to balance. On a scale of a game where a match can take couple of hours, it would take endless energy to balance the factions. Many players would also not like to play a game where there is a perception of imbalance amongst the factions, especially if each match lasts an hour or 2.

How many strategy games out there, real time or turn based, lack any kind of balance between factions/races? It's the kind of stuff that isn't so apparent in single player, where you win 100% of the time, but totally destroys multiplayer. I think the choice to go with fairly similar factions was a right one. Easier to balance, and easier to make transition from one faction to the next.


I play random faction almost 100% of the time. I enjoy all 3, and each one is different enough to offer it's own strategy, yet similar enough for me to apply my basic knowledge and play all 3 effectively. I never had confidence like this in WarCraft 3. I just stuck to one race because of the differences. I would like to try other races, but I knew it was a totally different ballpark. And once I started another race and stunk at it, I might not be able to return. I could easily forget how to play the previous race effectively.

If you wish a game more like WarCraft 3, then by all means play WarCraft 3. At a time where game industry is plagued by lack of innovation and sequel syndrome, I would think people would like the idea of a game that's a bit different. Even if you do not like the game itself.

I get that, and it makes sense - but if these similarities are exemplary of other gameplay similarities, then wouldn't Sins just end up as WC3 anyway, except in space?
Thanks for the response - but I somehow don't get the impression that all the similarities are as obvious as the heroes.
Could you enlighten me if I'm wrong?

I'm the kind of gamer who likes RTS games where I can build up my empire with a LOT of options, and be peacefull. Like Sim City type shit, but then at the same time have the ability to amass a giant military and wage war on my enemies. I'd LOVE to see the peacefull sides in Sins be able to win the day over pure military might. I want to see trade lanes be important, I want to see culture steal worlds from your enemies. I want to see more options for managing your empire. I wanna see more civic buildings. It'd be nice to have more peace oriented buildings, like residential stations in orbit and the like. Just generally more options to win the game other then 'lol I massed 100 LRM's and rushed you so I win'.

Oh ok...

and I am guessing there were never Hero units before wc3? I played it for about hour before I got bored.

Anyway, I might as well say wc3 copied starcraft because it has 3 races and then starcraft copied Dune because it also has 3 races.

Now as idiotic as the above statement is, can you see how I look at your posts right now? Can we please stop these kind of pointless debates and discuss the actualy game instead trying to find similarities between other games.

Believe it or not... people are actually trying to compare WC3 with Starcraft 2... >.>

Of course there were, but that's really beside the point. Here's how heroes worked in WC3: You have a hero, they have four skills unique to them, one of which they can't level in until level 6 (that's their super ability). Their maximum level in the others is one half the current level of the hero rounded down, which means you can't just level in the same skill every time. There are neutral enemies scattered around the map, and in the early game its important to travel around and kill or "creep" these enemies to level up the hero so its more competitive when you finally meet the enemy.

Hell, the buttons for the skills are even in the same place. It's a good hero system, I see why they "borrowed" it, but it's more than a little flagrant and obvious to anyone that's ever played WC3 considering that the system isn't merely similar it's identical.