Why is it unfair? X3 is a 4x game as well...set in space. With much, much more going on than in Sins. Much older game as well. Even Sword of the Stars had more details in the models. So...I dont think its unfair to compare...especialy when I am bringing these up as some things devs can get some feedback from. Not saying Sins should LOOK like another game, just some ideas...
Interesting, everywhere I go, x3 reunion is labeled as a space simulator/ trade simulation. Sword of Stars, in itself, is a turnbased game, which is given leeway since numerous battles aren't usually taking place at the same, nor can you zoom all the way out during battle (unless I missed something). I also don't feel that SotS looked better, but meh...
Not neccessarily, I can think of several RTS's that have superior graphics to what we are seeing in Sins, namely Homeworld 2 (much older game, superior graphics, especially the way fighters move around, and the look and feel of the ion cannons), Company of Heroes (different Genre but amazing graphics and detailed damage models on units and terrain), Supreme Commander, and several others. The Graphics in SINS are decent, but I defnitely expected better after setting the many, many options in the menu and then turning them all the way up...
I think what I was slightly dissappointed by in the gameplay was a lack of tactical options in fleet combat that give you a sense of commanding a vast fleet and applying some skill to help you gain an advantage. It seems that ships left to their own devices seem to just move into range and then sit still and shoot at eachother until they or the target blows up. It seems like ships do not really fire while manuevering unless specifically ordered to, which kind of takes away some of the drama of a space combat. I have not read the pdf manual yet, so maybe I am missing out on some command options, but my first few battles seemed to consist of making a big group of ships and ordering them all to attack single targets. Hopefully there are more detailed tactical options buried in the interface that are not immediately obbvious (like formations for instance), rather than just roping a herd of ships and sending them all in with an unimaginitive AI in control.
Both HW2 and CoH take place on a much smaller scale, and the only comparable game would be supreme commander, which looks slightly similar in terms of details. Fighters, in Sins, also maneuver in a manner similar to HW2. Also, people keep referencing to homeworld's capital ships moving on their own.....They didn't. Ships also, in that game, sat and shot each other until they blew up.
HW2 has an attack move command, and tactically this was very useful when playing vs. skilled opponents. I am hoping that Sins has a similar option (I looked at the key bindings and the length of the list made my eyes roll back in to my skull... hopefully reading the manual will be less intimidating).
You are right about HomeWorld 2 and COH being smaller scale games in terms of total numbers of units, although HW 2's graphics (and HW1 for that matter) had a certain unique style that made them a lot of fun to watch (like fighter contrails twisting around eachother, the big red ray from the Battle Cruisers, the Ion cannons sustained fire). I see some of that that from Sins (some of the special weapons on the cap ships have nice effects, but I was really hoping for more.
I also think that Supreme Commander and Forged Alliance is a LOT more detailed and pleasing graphically at most levels of zoom (it is also easier for me to control what is on the screen, although that could just be because I have only been playing SINS for one evening so far). Also, I do not believe that SINS has a dual screen mode that SUPCOM has(which would be really, really handy in this game).
Graphics isn't really what matters in the long run, however, I am more concerned about the relative lack of tactical options that I am seeing in my first session. I am hoping that the manual, forums, and multiplayer experience proves this first impression wrong, however.
