Well it certainly needs a demo before I will buy it, however I wont resort to stealing it. If they get a demo out there, great I will try and buy if I like. If not, then I simply wont buy and concentrate on GC2!

Not having a demo is sort of like a movie being released without the reviewers getting an early viewing, it may indicate the quality.

Personally I buy all my software but too often I get "burned" , the latest example is "SunAge" here so as much I dislike downloading it lately it's what I do - if game has no demo I download it from torrents give it a "test drive" for a day or two and then either delete or buy.
It's a sad world we live in

They said there'd be a demo roughly a month after release. I hope they hurry up on that point, because I definitely want to play this one before making a purchase decision.

I hear you about getting burned, I have been upset by that in the past. Fortunately for me I do not buy many games anymore so unless it has a demo or it scores near maximum at several of the top tier review sites then I do not buy it. A good example is Oblivion which as far as I know does not have a demo but ranked high on all the review sites. So I bought it and have enjoyed it greatly.

Of course the developer has a lot to do with it as well. Stardock makes great games, at least in the TBS realm so when TA went to beta I was onboard. Sins, if I understand correctly is not developed by SD so I am very cautious.


It may be extremely wonderful and bring back the joy I used to have with homeworld but I want to try it first.

Any news on retail availablity outside of the US?
would love to pick-up a copy in the UK really.

Buy online downloadable copy - do you really have to have a box ?

It's nice, my video gaming habit is as much about collecting as it is playing - though I won't spend too much to satisfy the collection part.

I have said before that I am not a big fan of RTS.

Sins might be one of the few examples to that rule.

And I admit that the delay in Gal Civ (even with the betas) is leaning me toward picking this up in the meantime.

Just actually deleted it,
Game is almost perfect with one exception that kills all the fun for me - no story, no compain.

I mean I liked everything - the UI , the tech , everything but playing such game without story is not fun for me, I am not multiplayer fun and playing maps here against computer without any story sci-fi behind somehow brings up the term "onanism" into my mind (sorry for the strong word).
It's not like GalCiv(1/2) where you build your own world and story and compain actually the other way around - mostly not played at all or used as "tutorial".

Other then this *small* detail game has a huge potential and I recommend it to anyove who loves multi player.

Two small comments:
- music in the intro film makes troubles to hear what they say and there is no subtitles to read.
- It's considered a "good taste" in such games to have tutorial that in addition to text written on screen actually pronounce it, without this the tutorial look "doll".

Well, not all games are for all people. I took a gamble on it and bought it, but so far it's just not for me. It may be different than the majority of RTS games out there, but it's still an RTS at its heart.

I have no doubt that it'll be a great success, and I wish them all the best, but I'm returning to the pleasure that is GalCiv2:TA. When's the next beta?

Which was advertised as being that way for a long time. Actually one of the selling points in my opinion.

Honestly, do you play GC2 for the campaigns? I don't. Sandbox / Metaverse exclusively, and that Ironclad forewent putting in the time for a campaign and chose to include a very good sandbox mode is a big plus for the game.

Why would you take perfectly decent 4X gameplay and force people to play it in real-time instead of thinking about their actions? Saying "It combines 4X depth with real-time gameplay" is like saying "It combines chess with Whack-A-Mole".

Read my post again , I addressed GalCiv point.
I also find very hard to define why something that good in GalCiv (or Civ or MoO or MoM ...) bad in "Sins" and similar games.
May be it's the number of variants, after all in GalCiv you have huge number of techs, in "Sins" limited number.
May be it's a difference between turn based and real-time ? May be it's the "education" we got from prev. games but bottom line when playing GalCiv I enjoy going further and further, with "Sins" it was , OK so I built this and that, conquered map , so what ?


Bottom line, the game is not for me , GalCiv is , and I did missed part about this "selling point".

Whack-A-Mole chess sounds AWESOME.

I'm going to try that.

"Saying "It combines 4X depth with real-time gameplay" is like saying "It combines chess with Whack-A-Mole"."

There are games that combined a turned based campaign map with real time battles, and they are good. If you dont know about them then you need to play more games instead of acting like you know what your talking about when you really don't.

You could make an awesome MOO2 style campaign map combined with great homeworld style real time battles and get away with probably one of the best games ever made. Is that "chess with whack-a-mole?" if you think so then you obviously dont know what you are talking about.

Plus Pax Imperia wasn't a bad 4x FULL real-time game. It was buggy but the gameplay was good. Then again you probably never heard of it as your obviously new to gaming.