View Single Post
  #2  
Old 07-06-2012, 07:19 AM
6S.Manu 6S.Manu is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Venice - Italy
Posts: 585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FS~Phat View Post
Hi Guys,

Just wondering if anyone has tried both and what they think.
I've always liked the space opera theme and especially the old wingcommander series.
I know one of these games is a true 4X (ES) and Sins is a blend of RTS/4X.

I could never get into X2/X3 Universe (too complicated) and my last foray into 4X was... well probably never, since most of my time in the 90's & 00's was spent in space and flight sims with the occasional FPS and RTS.

So the question is really... would Endless Space turn based game be a softer entry into the 4X world or the automation and RTS of Sins be a better first plunge?

Keeping in mind I am already short on time, I dont want a huge complicated learning curve but I figure Im probably missing out on something fun and different by not giving these types of games a go?!?!?

Your thoughts?
I've played to Endless Space the last month and the first Sins some year ago: to me the former is something like a Civilization on the space, where the cities are planets... of course there is a big research tree and fights are not very interesting. It's slow... very slow.

Sins is like a Warcraft3: if I remember well number beats quality of the ships. You spend time building corvettes and fighters. Don't know if the latest version is different.

The first is more interesting IMO, just only for the fact that you can design your own spaceships.

I don't think both have a complicated learning curve: AI War: Fleet Command is something you have to avoid because of that.
__________________

A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
Reply With Quote