Sword of the Stars

[Thon]

Fileplanet will have the demo tomorrow. i've had my eye on this for a few months, since i've always been a fan of Master of Orion type games.

the demo has up to 4-player multiplayer, and the full version has 8-player. can't wait to see how the game plays

[Crandaeolon]

I've been waiting for this one too, downloaded the demo and toyed with it a bit.

First impressions are mostly positive, though some areas could use improvement. Mostly convenience-related stuff such as reviewing weapon stats from ship design screen, the ability to see ship damage in tactical battles, better tooltips and things like that. The research interface feels... wobbly and unfinished, for lack of better words. Oh, and the circling planet selector thingie is annoying. And... why a 3-D galaxy? Seems like unnecessary complexity for a fast-paced multiplayer 4X game.

Other than those, looks like a potential candidate for Total War in space. I've been waiting for a game like this since... well, since the existence of the 4X genre.

[Bob the Insane]

I tried the demo and I have mixed feelings....

I think there is more depth in there but it is pretty well concealed. It just seems ot be, build ships, research better ships, explore, colonise and conquorer (with those same ships)....

Add to this the fact that the battles seemed a little vague... No real feedback on how things where going or how effective our weapons were or whether we should use lasers or guass guns for what...

Well there you have it...

[Oaty]

Compared to Galctic civs 2 how would yas rate it if you have played both?

[Crandaeolon]

GC2 and SotS focus on entirely different things. GC2 is all about civilisation management and diplomacy, SotS concentrates on tactical fleet action. It's difficult to compare the two games, but based on the SotS demo GC2 probably "does its thing" better. However, if you like tactical battles on a 4X background, SotS is pretty much the only choice there is right now.

If they manage to iron some kinks out of the fleet battles, SotS might be a worthwhile purchase. Its economy is balanced so that churning out and maintaining a lot of ships is easy, technology comes in at a rather slow pace, and ships age well. But, it remains to be seen how much depth they can get into the battles in the full game.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

SotS is MTW in space. It r0xx0rz. The interface is suprisingly simple and easy to manage; a real plus. As Bob says, there is probably more depth to it, but seeing as its a demo limited to two of the four factions among many other settings, and there isn't much of a manual with the demo, the full player game should be more interesting.

For control, I think I read on their forums that some technology will increase your tactical options.

As for researching, the trick is to double click on a tech to zoom in and see the details, then double click again to zoom out. It's unconventional, but I like it.

Gauss cannons are short range but powerful, lasers long range and faster firing but weaker. You can see this on the research map, again, if you zoom in.

It would be nice if you could compare techs side by side, but it isn't that much work to zoom in on one, then zoom out and on to the next.

And it doesn't require an amazing graphics card!

[Crandaeolon]

For control, I think I read on their forums that some technology will increase your tactical options.

Yup, technologies do improve the interface. Imo it's silly; the interface should remain consistent. This way it's benefiting the "advanced" players more than newcomers. SotS has a strong multiplayer focus, and the designers feel that it's important to give experienced players ways to distinguish themselves with personal skill. I agree with this principle in general, it's just that they used it in a wrong place here.

As for researching, the trick is to double click on a tech to zoom in and see the details, then double click again to zoom out.

Would be better to include the details in a zoomed-out view as well, in the form of a tooltip. Or in the bar at the bottom of the screen. That would make browsing faster, an important thing in timed-turns MP games. (Again, one could argue here that veterans already remember the various technologies and don't need to zoom in to check out details.)

Gauss cannons are short range but powerful, lasers long range and faster firing but weaker.

Nope. Gauss have longer range and higher damage, but are more inaccurate than lasers.

[Zalmoxis]

Looks interesting enough and all, but I had Nexus and have lost all taste for space warship combat after losing disc two of that game, making me unable to install it. I'm going to conclude that life sucks.

[Navaros]

I was interested in Nexus until I noticed that the devs forever abandoned the game whilst it still bug-ridden after only 1 patch, which of course ensured that hardly anyone ever played the multiplayer of it. As a result, I never bought or played Nexus. No doubt many others were in the same boat.

Hopefully Sword of the Stars won't fall into that same "one patch then we abandon the game" mindset. If it does not, I will buy it.

Haven't really followed Sword of the Stars at all. Has anyone ever asked the devs if they are planning to "pull a Nexus" on the fanbase?

[Crandaeolon]

Has anyone ever asked the devs if they are planning to "pull a Nexus" on the fanbase?

Probably not, these devs are rather fanatic about their game. They play it too, I already squared off against who i think was the lead designer (!) of Kerberos.

This fanaticism is for good and ill both. The devs are very active on their forums, and are sometimes a bit... undiplomatic. I got to watch a friend get flamed to a crisp for some criticism, and the thread deleted shortly afterwards without a word. Parts of the criticism were somewhat unwarranted, but it was nevertheless kinda ham-handed.

[Navaros]

I browsed their boards a bit after reading this thread. Saw (who it seems is) the head dev actually flame back a poster who called a part of the game stupid, then the poster submitted to the dev's flaming. That was truly hilarious!

I've never seen a dev flame someone before that.

I bet it would be funny if one of you guys started a thread "Do you devs plan to 'pull a Nexus on us'"? on their boards just to see what they have to say about it.

I might do it myself eventually if no one else who already posts on that board wants to.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Crandaeolon - I'm pretty sure (basic) Gausses are shorter range than (basic) lasers. I've watched some scout duels and the lasers always open up first, though I wouldn't call it conclusive.

There are some wonderful little things in this game, like how you have to manage (or just deal with) how guns can be obstructed by the ship and can only fire in certain angles.

I haven't really looked at their boards much at all, but CA peeps have been a bit terse occassionally. No flames, but then CA's a large company and a much better established one.

I didn't really like Nexus, although it was pretty. I had the demo, and it just seemed to be luck (and the difficulty setting) determining if I won or not. Too complex for me, I guess.

There aren't cruisers in the demo, right?

[Martok]

This looks like such a promising game, but there's just no way I'll be able to enjoy it with only 4 races and no ability to conquer planets (the only way to take out an enemy race is to exterminate it). I don't consider wiping out an enemy planet's population and then recolonizing it as "conquering". That's my own problem, I know, and I'm happy that at least the rest of you seem to be enjoying it (the demo).

[Sigh]

[Crandaeolon]

SotS is out (at least there across the pond), and ign has published the first review, rating the game at a mediocre 7.7. http://pc.ign.com/articles/726/726551p1.html

Apparently, the full release suffers from some of the same problems as the demo, most of those relating to the interface of the game. Kerberos has addressed some of those issues in a release patch, but as most game sites tend to review retail versions only, the interface and gameplay issues will most likely impact review scores negatively.

Generally, large release day patches (like this one which adds or modifies several dozen items) are a bad sign. It can mean a half-finished game, nevermind the publisher advertising an early release. Iirc, the game was already pushed back at least once, so... an "early release" but one that was previously pushed back? I'm confused.

My Sloppy Game Design Sense (tm) is tingling, which is a shame since I really hope this game to succeed. But, there might be deeper issues about the gameplay such as pacing and information accessibility. Even in the demo, the most fun multiplayer battles had a minimum number of stars and accelerated technology & economy. It would be wonderful to have fast paced epic scale games, but somehow the pacing of turns felt off for epic scale empire management.

Any first-hand impressions about the game would be most appreciated.

[CBR]

Hm Im tempted to get it as I liked the demo. But somehow I cant order it at GamersGate. I saw in the forum that others had same problem with VISA cards.


CBR

[Navaros]

In my view IGN usually tends to inflate review scores to 20% above what a game is actually worth.

Hence IGN only giving it 77% makes me think it's actually a 57%ish game.

I'm definitely gonna keep my eye on the other reviews that come out before thinking about buying this.

[doc_bean]

In my view IGN usually tends to inflate review scores to 20% above what a game is actually worth.

Hence IGN only giving it 77% makes me think it's actually a 57%ish game.

I'm definitely gonna keep my eye on the other reviews that come out before thinking about buying this.

Have you read the review ? The reviewer seems to really like it, it loses points over interface issues (which can be a drag but might be a little thing if you get used to it, depends on the issue) and the fact that it's a niche game (doesn't have the same variety found in games like Galactic Civilizations, but then this is a space COMBAT game isn't it ?).

Personally i'm just gonna play around with the demo some more. I probably won't get since I have too many unfinished games still lying around (well, all 3 PC games I bought in the last year, I've been busy ).

[Crandaeolon]

By the way, there's another epic-scale RTS space battle game coming out in the relatively near future, called Sins of a Solar Empire. http://www.sinsofasolarempire.com/index.html

This one's a full RTS with 4X elements, and the trailer looks pretty nice. Empire management, diplomacy and research are supposedly a tad deeper than in SotS, but of course there's the full RTS format to consider. Trying to add too much 4X depth could result in a Rise of Nations -type twitch game, and although I personally liked it, many complained about the insane speed and information overload of RoN.

Anyways might be a good idea to keep an eye out for SoaSE as well. Maybe it'll get its own thread once the game is closer to release.

[Navaros]

Have you read the review ? The reviewer seems to really like it, it loses points over interface issues (which can be a drag but might be a little thing if you get used to it, depends on the issue) and the fact that it's a niche game (doesn't have the same variety found in games like Galactic Civilizations, but then this is a space COMBAT game isn't it ?).

Yes, I read the review. I think perhaps he was too easy on the amount of points he took off for interface problems.

Since first posting in this thread I did a lot of reading about SoTS. Many of the demo players all over the Internet have hammered it due to interface issues. Just look at it's user score of 5.0 on metacritic (it was 4.0 or less for the past few weeks until ~today). Of course that score thus far is and has been mostly based on the demo, so keep that in mind.

I also read a lot of the devs' own postings on their boards. Their attitude is universally: "We designed the game how we like it and if you don't like it, shut up and go away." They seem to get agitated by people criticizing the game in blunt ways. Had the criticisms been invalid due to the strength of the game, I suspect perhaps the devs would not get so agitated.

I haven't played SoTS so feel free to take my views on this with a grain of salt.

[Vladimir]

Reading their web site a while back they said their business plan was basically to make "budget" games. Producing games at a low cost (and quality) but high (relative) playability. I can't say I'm suprised.

[Puzz3D]

SotS isn't priced as a budget game.

[Martok]

SotS isn't priced as a budget game.

What exactly *is* it priced at, anyway? A couple of my friends (despite my best efforts to discourage them) are interested in picking up SotS.

[CBR]

$40 for North American and €40 for Euro players.

Edit: and thats for digital download.


CBR

[Navaros]

GamePro gave it 55%. Ouch!

This is perhaps the only game in the genre to actually make each race feel unique and balanced... However, it isn't enough to compensate for the flawed tactical combat that lies at the game's core; nothing save a complete overhaul can redeem SotS from its current mediocrity.

http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/g...ws/79522.shtml

[Kraxis]

GamePro gave it 55%. Ouch!



http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/g...ws/79522.shtml

Ouch indeed...

I have only watched the videos and I quite liked that a bunch of smaller ships in one of them seemed to be running circles around a couple of big battleships. Those battleships or whatever simply couldn't bring their guns to bear enough, and it was their own smaller escort ships that had to clean up the mess.
And I must admist that those distorted voices are cool... Feels right...

But that review was good. It said what was needed. I don't feel that it was a biased tester, but one who actually knew what he was talking about.

[Crandaeolon]

Some bits made me wonder:

why is most of my fleet hanging back while only two cruisers take on a massive Hiver fleet?

Why the discrepancy? I doubt that there are radical differences in the ship-fielding abilities of different races (if yes, that would be an incredibly stupid design decision.) Did the reviewer fall behind in C&C technology race? Is he complaining because he lost the initial confrontation? Either of these would indicate sub-par performance in some areas of the game, which is not good for credibility.

Would also be nice to hear more detail about the reinforcement system.

you are only able to bring a fraction of your vessels into combat at any given time, with the rest being set aside as "reinforcements."

How much is a "fraction"? TW games have a reinforcement system, and I can't recall too many complaints about those. Maybe SotS has some horribly skewed numbers then, like 10-20% of fleet in the initial battle and rest as reinforcements? Would be nice to know in more detail, but alas, the reviewer does not tell.

Other dubious bits in the review as well. Iirc battle lengths are adjustable, so the complaint about five-minute battle length is kind of invalid. And it was not that hard to figure out the strong points of lasers and gauss guns, not to mention that there's an entire tech tree branch that deals with point defense.

I don't feel that it was a biased tester, but one who actually knew what he was talking about.

Funny, I got a different kind of impression. I don't think the reviewer was biased; his points about getting frustrated were probably quite honest. But, I do feel the review was a bit rushed. Pretty much the entire review could be based on the demo only - only a couple of sentences mention features exclusive to the retail release.

Maybe the game really is that shallow, I dunno. This review, however, wasn't very convincing. Not enough detail.

[CBR]

Well for a game with such low review scores Im surprised I like this game so much heh. Its one of those games where I totally forget about the time.

A fleet has a certain amount of command points based on what C&C ship/tech you got. Right now my Dreadnought C&C ship gives me 66 points and the cost for the shiptypes are 2/6/18 for destroyer/cruiser/dreadnought.

Im not sure how many command point you have with no C&C ship but its not much...12 perhaps(you can of course still control a dreadnought). Any ships you cant control in first wave will be reinforcements that come in when you lose a ship. I think someone actually modded it to have double the points so if one doesnt like it it can easily be changed.


CBR

[doc_bean]

It seems (based on the comments and reviews) this game really has one major failing: lack of a decent tutorial

Of course, damage report and a way to browse through your fleets or planets FAST would be nice too...

So far I haven't had much combat experience yet. I'm going to start a new game with a tiny galaxy and double production/research rate. Fighting with just three Armors isn't that exciting

[Kraxis]

Ahh... It seems the reviewer got overwhelmed rather than actually finding physical flaws.

Well, I tend to find that if the game does a poor job of explaining itself, and it is supposed to be played, it isn't terribly good. Better than the other case, but still not great.

[CBR]

My obvious response would be RTFM But yes there is no big flashing sign telling the player that he needs C&C ships for more control. I figured it out by playing the demo and checking out the tutorial that mentions the fleet management screen. On that screen you cant do any formations without a C&C ship and there is a even something like command cost/quota 0 on the right column.

My best guess is that the reviewer never give strategy games high scores as he gets overwhelmed easy. Information on weapon stats could be better indeed but you can still check them out in the research screen.

As it is right now Im inclined to say the opposite of what the reviewer concludes: that the depth of the combat system more than make up for the lack of information one might find in the game. I see a need for some tweaks and certainly not a complete overhaul as he claims.


CBR