this is pretty much what i think as well. post by some dude at games spot on sins forums.
Lol... we got everything in here from fanboys to science nuts... jebus...
Alrighty, lets see what kind of hornets nest im gonna stir up...
Whoever said the devs were lazy, well, you are correct. They copped out and gave us a pitiful little answer, which is always a surefire sign of laziness among all devs. They also hid behind the shield of being anti-micro. Well, thats nice, cept now i dont feel like my ships are even fighting. Screw realism, look at it! Watching ships just shoot glowy things at each other is about as much fun as a poke in the eye. I got super bored with the battles almost immediately, just because it was like old warcraft. You know what im talking about. You attack with a bunch of catapults and footmen, they all run up to hit the building while the catapults sit there and launch rocks at the enemy building. Cept this time, they are all catapults, and every ship is a building. Dead serious, when i started playing, i had to tell myself I wasnt playing warcraft.
Now that the opinion section is over with, lets look at the issue. lul. We got three sides here apparently. First we got the people who want realism. We got the folks who want cool. And we got the fanboys.
Realism sits there and quotes numbers at each other. Well, that i dont mind, I kinda like the numbers, they be my friends. However, whoever it was that said a sphere was the best shape is correct. That is the most efficient design. Good thing we all agree that we can ignore that little fact, just for the sake of our eyes. I would hate to play a game with steel orbs shooting pew pew guns at each other. As for the rest of the realism stuff, its all true yes, but when you add in the fact that we are talking uber advanced races, well, seems like our concept of realism might be a bit... outdated?
Fanboys. Gotta love em! Yes, the devs had quite the explanation. Something about perfect targeting computers? Mkay, well, see, there's this thing, you know, called, uuurrmmm.. ECM? Electronic Countermeasures? Blah blah? So, umm.. super advanced ships with perfect targeting computers.. shouldn't they also made a counter? *watches as the devs explanation goes boom and sinks like the titanic* Oh! Wait! We dont actually get any cool tech stuff to play with, you know, like stealth or whatever. We get magical abilities.... Warcraft anyone? What i haven't seen yet is a fanboy bring up the devs biggest point, which is to reduce micro. Truth is, they dont want you watching the battles. They want you somewhere else, watching the icons move stupidly about the screen.
As for the coolness guys, rock on. I totally agree with you. Its much cooler watching space battles in ANY other space combat game. MOO2 had more interesting space battles, and they used sprites. Has anyone bothered looking at the flak frigate when it fires? Lul. Total Lul. Oh, and watching fighters bites, because they dont even have textures! Seriously, go look at the advent fighter, and laugh your face off.
I had intentions of getting this game from the day I saw a screenie in PCGAMER. I watched some clips, and I honestly thought that we had gotten a new Homeworld game. A month ago, I look on the Ironclad Forums. One of the biggest recurring threads was about ship movement in combat. The moment they took that out, my expectations went down the tubes. Then one of the devs had the balls to claim it as a sequel to TA. If he had never said that, I would never have posted here. But he did.
So what did we learn here today? First, that removing micro in favor of macro had a detrimental effect on combat in Sins. Second, dont ever compare a game to TA unless you got something to back that claim up with.
The. End.
http://au.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/sinsofasolarempire/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-41253480&pid=935993&page=1