<\/td><\/tr><\/table>I’ll reiterate my earlier comments that the game needs to do a better job of bringing new players up to speed<\/a>. The tutorials do an adequate job of teaching the interface, but don’t give you a sense of what you should be doing, particularly at the start. This is a common lament<\/a>, and I think it’s the biggest flaw of Sins. “Training” is something normally done in the single-player campaign as elements are introduced gradually, but since Ironclad didn’t include a single-player campaign, the only way to learn is to fumble around and lose a couple of times. This “drown until you learn to swim” approach to teaching new players is a bad idea. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the AI in this game is simply outstanding<\/em>. <\/p>\nThis wouldn’t be a problem if Sins was just another RTS clone, but since it’s fresh and new and different, it needs to provide some way to ease players into its unique gameplay. The quickest and easiest thing would be to add an “advisor” that the player could turn to when they need some suggestions, as in Rome: Total War<\/em>. It could just give the player a little hint and suggest doing whatever the AI would do when prompted. It could also be used to give the game a bit more personality. I realize that strategy games are not normally famous for their character development, but putting a face and a voice together would go a long way towards making the game less abstract, and would help define the overall personality of the three factions. Do not underestimate the power of personality<\/a>.<\/p>\n The sad thing is that once you get over that initial hurdle of knowledge and competence, the game just isn’t that deep. The 4X<\/a> side of the game pales in comparison to something like GalCiv<\/a>, and the RTS<\/a> side of it doesn’t offer a lot of variety. The best strategy is to build a well-balanced force of as many units as you can afford, and fling them at an enemy world. The battles come down to who brought the most ships. I’m still new to the game so perhaps I’m missing on some subtle nuances, but right now it all feels sort of spammy. <\/p>\n The research is de-emphasized when compared to traditional 4X games. Your typical boost from research will let you deal (say) 10% more damage. Compare this to your typical space conquest games where each technology step might double your potential damage output. The steps here are smaller and there are fewer of them, and so it’s just not possible to overcome an enemy with small numbers of highly advanced ships. Tech will give you an edge, but it’s not a trump card. As someone who enjoys turtling in and running up the tech tree in a 4X game, this is a disappointment. <\/p>\n Taking enemy planets comes down to bombing them clean and colonizing them yourself. There’s no “capturing” of enemy planet improvements, no technology theft, no spoils of war. This negates one of the great tradeoffs of 4X games, where you can elect to try and take control of a planet without destroying too much of it. It’s riskier, more expensive, and time-consuming, but sometimes worth it if you want their stuff. The clean-and-colonize routine is a lot less interesting.<\/p>\n The game looks spectacular. Space battles are a blast to watch. I really enjoy zooming in on a small fighter or bomber squadron and following the battle from their viewpoint. As they loop and dive, strafing enemy structures, you can see the planetary bombing in the background and the capital ships hammering away at each other. In the truly large battles, space will be thick with ships, missiles, lasers, explosions, and floating debris. <\/p>\n It’s worth noting that I can start zooming out when this is going on, smoothly pulling back from one lone fighter until I can see the entire solar system. I could even dive back into the fray, jumping into another battle taking place on another world. The game can handle this rapid change in scope without even stuttering. It’s brilliant. <\/p>\n