Starcraft vs. Sins of a Solar Empire » Forum Post by CraigHB

Repeat after me: Sins is not Starcraft.

It has nothing in common (other than being realtime) and I would not even consider it the same genre. Starcraft is focused on micromanaging the tactical level, Sins plays mostly from the strategical point of view.

I do have one question about the game? How much clicking do you do? This is the reason the only RTS I ever liked was Kohan (and I view that as a game that was almost great- though Kohan II sucked)

Kohan was great since you didn't worry about resources, and only have about 5-10 units to worry about. You could spend your time doing military strategy like flanking to kill Naava.

Heh, Sins does include an end-of-game statistic, where indeed your 'click count' is measured. I know that some players who micro everything have thousands of clicks. On the other hand, in a typical small game, I have about 300 to 400 clicks per hour. Not much more than GalCiv2, I imagine.

Like pndrev said, you cannot compare these games. There is just too many differences.

Not to be rude, but I am failing to understand why you want a comparison for two games you have never played.

Although i havent played Sins yet i surely can tell that any modern RTS game cannot be compared with Starcraft. Stracraft was groundbreaking and a great game for sure. But as any other genre RTS has developed much since Starcraft. SC had its quality in good balancing, very differently playing races and a Multiplayer that was pure fun. As said before i do not know sins yet, but i know that Stracraft in its old form would not really work in a modern game because the standards have changed. As well you would not ask how Crysis compared to Doom. Even Warcraft 3 is being similar - but its not really comparable. Instead of asking whether Sins compares good to a very old game you should ask "Is it a good game?" The Reviews seem to think so. Maybe you should just try it out, i will.

How about Computer Geeks Not Getting Laid vs Surfers that do? How long you gonna keep playing the former game?

You really don't know how the Stardock sites work, do you man? This was posted on either the GalCiv or Sins site, and happens to cross-post to the JU forums.

You don't like it, go away. Just keep telling yourself you're really getting laid while stroking the one-eyed gopher there, man . . .

Both Sins and Starcraft are great games. But comparing them just can't be done. One is a tactical clickfest. The other is an epic space battle with more 4X flavor. Apples to oranges.

Starcraft would be a bad analogy, Sins plays more like a hybrid of Supreme Commander and Homeworld with a few extremely light TBS elements thrown in. Don't let anyone tell you it's Gal Civ in real time or some kind of 4X game, it's still very much a traditional RTS. Gameplay is centered around collecting recources, building ships, and hurling large diversified groups of units at your opponent's huge diversified group of units. The Capital ship hero system is identical to that used in Warcraft 3, if you've played it. The game is slower paced than traditional RTS's, and its necessary to build more bases than normal, those are the only two characteristics that distinguish it from the other titles I've mentioned. If you're interested but unsure you should wait for the demo, I was really disappointed with it myself.

How about Computer Geeks Not Getting Laid vs Surfers that do? How long you gonna keep playing the former game?

Where is the problem with getting laid AND playing computer games?

This is not WOW we are talking about. ^^ Imagine, there may be people that enjoy playing a computer game in their freetime just for fun and not for a substitution for life.

What's the problem with discussing Starcraft?

(Personally, I never liked it.)

This is a computer gaming forum. A computer strategy gaming forum.

A new RTS title just came out, so of course people are looking for comparisons. The OP wasn't even 'obsessing' about Starcraft, he just asked if Sins would be as likely to become a classic.

I loved Starcraft personally. I've played most big time RTS games, such as Company of Heroes to Warlords Battlecry.

I get a kick of listening in on this forum because every here is a TB maniac

Put some better graphics on it and BAM! its better then 85% of RTS's out there. If it had pretty graphics most of your would be saying how great it is compared to how old it is. Its the gameplay itself that makes the game. Graphics is just a plus.

I always sucked at Starcraft.

Nevertheless: the storyline, the design of the alien races, the differing strategic possibilities and finally the suspenseful music - All this made this game a fantastic one. Anyone who measures the value of games solely in graphics and in age is a real ??wit.

I enjoyed Starcraft in its day, but gameplay-wise it's been surpassed by more recent titles. There's an excess of micromanagement, I never cared for the linear campaign format, and it lacks simple modern conveniences like a "find next builder" button. Every attempt to rekindle interest in it has ended in frustration, I find it's better to play Dawn of War or Rise of Nations.

Question answered, the games don't compare. However, I was more interested in hearing if "the value" was comparable to Starcraft, which from what I've read, is one of the most replayable games ever made. When you spend ~$50 on a game, you'd like to know if it's a good investment.

I bought Sins last night and played it for a couple hours. It's going to take me some more time to get a handle on it, but it feels somewhat like Company of Heros, the only other RTS I've played. I enjoyed that game, but did tire of it after a while.

I've found strategy games to be the ones with real value. I usually play the big hit FPS tiles for PC like Crysis, Quake 4, etc. just to see them because they are so graphically amazing. But, once you've played them through, it's like okay, saw it, done. They might be worth one or two replays. Not the best value out there.

The FPS games do have extensive multi-player capabilities adding to their value. In fact, Crysis looks pretty amazing in that regard. I did play one FPS online a little bit, Call of Duty I believe. That was pretty good because it was all team based, but it didn't hold my interest long. Usually, there's some kid wizard on a console kicking the crap out of everybody. I have zero interest in competing with that on a keyboard and mouse. I'm not into video games enough to play on a console or add a game controller to my PC.

However, I was more interested in hearing if "the value" was comparable to Starcraft, which from what I've read, is one of the most replayable games ever made. When you spend ~$50 on a game, you'd like to know if it's a good investment.

You can't really measure the longevity of a game like Starcraft to, really, anything. Understand, Starcraft is effectively the sport of choice for an entire nation (South Korea). That is, people actually go to studios to watch and cheer Starcraft players. They talk about Starcraft matches like Americans do Football games. They know terminology like "micro", "macro", "rushes", etc. Professional Starcraft players fund their professional play through endorsement deals, and they live quite well off of them. And nobody there finds this at all odd.

Sins of a Solar Empire probably won't be that. Starcraft II may not be that.

Starcraft is one of those unique situations, where it was the right game in the right place at the right time to captivate millions for 10 years now. Assuming Sins has equivalent depth (obviously in different ways, due to being so very different of a game), it probably won't last as long, simply due to not being the right place or time.

They might be worth one or two replays. Not the best value out there.

The longterm value of most FPS games (those that have longterm value) is in the multiplayer component. As is the value of Starcraft. People don't play Starcraft for its singleplayer.

Of course, value is in the eye of the beholder. I've played GalCiv2 in terms of number of hours far more than I have Half-Life 2, but I wouldn't say that I value GC2 more than HL2. They're both money well spent, but well spent for entirely different purposes.

The most important thing about Starcraft is if you are comparing a Single player game vs Multiplayer..
Starcraft was a great fun game in the Campaign mode but playing against the AI in any single player map was never fun, due to rush tactics by the AI..before you could ever build you were being attacked..!! Multiplayer against another human was a more balanced game..
As for SINS, I have not played it but from every thing I've seen and read it's more like Homeworld on steroids..

Understand, Starcraft is effectively the sport of choice for an entire nation (South Korea)

I heard Starcraft was popular there, but had no idea it was *that* popular. Maybe that's where all the hype comes from, the people that take the game so seriously. If Starcraft is all about the multi-player, that's not going to be of great interest to me. I'll probably pass on Starcraft II then. In any case, I've enjoyed Sins so far and I think I'll be glad I bought it. Though I don't think it's going to keep my interest as well as GC2.

I've played GalCiv2 in terms of number of hours far more than I have Half-Life 2, but I wouldn't say that I value GC2 more than HL2.

In my case, HL2 has been one of my least favorites. I found the graphics rather unimpressive and the puzzles rather pointless. It got a lot of hype for no reason in my opinion. I regret the purchase, especially with the requirement for Valve's clunky and intrusive Steam interface. I think Doom 3 and Quake 4 blow it away in just about every respect. In fact, Quake 4 is still on my computer for replay one of these days.

Yeah starcraft is a national thing in Korea its amazing the level of competition and how entreached it hasbecome in the cultural. Sins vs. Starcraft is an apples and oranges comparison. Sins has gotten some nice reviews across the gaming community. I plan on shelling out some hard earned cash on it within the next month or so.

Vuk-

Yeah starcraft is a national thing in Korea its amazing the level of competition and how entreached it hasbecome in the cultural. Sins vs. Starcraft is an apples and oranges comparison. Sins has gotten some nice reviews across the gaming community. I plan on shelling out some hard earned cash on it within the next month or so.Vuk-

Seriously, wait for a demo, it's not the game it's made out to be at all.

I usually play the big hit FPS tiles for PC like Crysis, Quake 4, etc. just to see them because they are so graphically amazing. But, once you've played them through, it's like okay, saw it, done. They might be worth one or two replays. Not the best value out there.

I know. Most FPS cant even motivate me enough to play through. I dont know why but 1-2 hours of playing and i get saturated with these games and have to do other things. With GalCiv II i need to take care i dont waste whole days gaming because it is so addictive. The long term potential of this game is enormous. It is basically the same principle every game, but somehow the game manages to not become boring. There are very few Single Player games i spent mor time with.

The long term potential of this game is enormous. It is basically the same principle every game, but somehow the game manages to not become boring. There are very few Single Player games i spent mor time with.

As someone who loved (and still loves) FPS games, I concur. I thought that the game that (for me) had the biggest replay value was Unreal Tournament and UT2004 - until I started playing GalCivII. I find it more rewarding and satisfying than fragging the crap out of all those n00bs on the UT servers, and it's single player.

What a great game.

Yea, for sure, strategy games are way more immersive. It's a lot of fun running around in those graphically amazing FPS environments, but like di55ec7ion said, I won't sit at one for more than an hour or so at a time. I'm finishing up with CoD4 and that one is fairly impressive. Though, Crysis has been my all time favorite FPS to date. Crysis, like Q4, is also sitting on my hard drive for replay one of these days.

I'm finding Sins even more immersive then GC2, although I still like GC2 better. Time really flys by with Sins. I think it has to do with the constant urgency of everything when playing RTS in general. That's one thing I like better about TBS, you can really take your time and put a lot of thought into each move.

How the hell can you compare Sins to that WH40K knockoff?? Besides the real time part, and resource aspect, they are nothing alike.

I hate Starcraft, it was a horrible game, wooo 3 friggin races, and races that can be given one word to describe them:

Protoss: Strength
Terran: all-around
Zerg: Rush

wow, great game, NOT!

if you want to play a good game that was *actually* years ahead of its time, play Total Annihilation.

R0fLz: I guess the majority of people disagreed with you

StarCraft was way more popular then Total Annihilation. I actually liked both but StarCraft and especially Broodwar are so much superior ...
And how exactly was TA ahead of its time? What did it do that was so special and now got picked up by nearly every RTS released? The StarCraft races made it quite far in the gaming world as a rolemodel. And about every RTS has the basic interface now that StarCraft introduced it (double-click for selecting all units of a type and shift for waypoints). Speaking of which ... please make double-click in Sins work as it does is other games

I never liked the alt-click.

As for the comparison with Sins: Sins plays much slower and fast-clicking like in StarCraft is not required. It played generally way more "relaxed" then StarCraft.