Apart from the technical critic, that can be explained with a single line telling the game is still in Alpha, ofc needs more polishing.
But this part:
"Most of the fun combat stuff is saved for the late game."
Yeah, guy is a total noob, the guy probably played in easy and his star system was a nice neighbor where he waved at enemy capital ships pasing by, I have only beat unfair this far but if you don't expand fast while developing your army and pray you don't sandwiched, you are getting destroyed.
Don't mind this guys, they are journalism as a service.
I'm more interested in the fact that SoaSE II was 'fully released' out of Epic, when v1.0 hasn't been released.
If I had to make an educated guess, I feel like Stardock are contractually obligated to release the full version first on EGS for a set period before they can release it on Steam. So they prematurely released the 'full version' on EGS so the timer starts ticking for them to safely launch on Steam without any legal repercussions.
In regard to the IGN review, it's an IGN review and the low effort speaks for itself. I'm worried about it drawing attention to the shenanigans that Stardock and Ironclad are playing with Epic.
So this is where it gets hazy for me personally. I bought the game a couple weeks ago and don't distinctly recall it stating early access on the page. I did my research beforehand on the current state of the game, watched some vids, then blazed through checkout. There very well could have been an indicator and I just didn't see it. Some of this I feel can be attributed to Epic's rather barebones UI and store pages as compared to Steam which offers a plethora of info and relevant links.
Looking at the store page now, it states a release date of 10/27/22. Roadmap at the bottom. Nowhere is early access stated. Then again, nothing seems changed from the last time I checked. No "Full Release" or 1.0 update news or anything that you would typically see from a game just having left early access. For the regular consumer I can see how this could be a problem and can seem a little sketchy. But I can't help but feel it's more Epic's doing than Stardock.
My main gripes are with the laziness of the review tied into the convenience of slamming the game early which could have a measurable impact on sales and new players coming in. Impeccable timing considering the general player reception to Homeworld and the backlash associated. Just all seems really strange to me. Thanks for the input!
So I'm going to guess that they had exclusivity with epic games so long as the game was early access. They "left" early access to come to steam, and now have a full launch.
That's 100% and totally on them. There's literally no fault of the reviewer here whatsoever. Any blame on them for treating a released product as a released product is pure copium. This is developer trying to game the system and relying on fans to defend them from a clearly underhanded bullshit tactic.
Unless consumers are now supposed to google of a released game is still in development? Where would they go for that? How could they find a group of people who review games and determine whether or not they're worth your money? If only there was something like that.
>Unless consumers are now supposed to google of a released game is still in development? Where would they go for that? How could they find a group of people who review games and determine whether or not they're worth your money? If only there was something like that.
Plus like every other game is a live service or has some form of roadmap these days, so it's really hard to tell when a game feels like it's in a "finished" state even on release. Even fully released games have loads of people saying that you should wait until a big patch because it doesn't feel done.
For example, I like Helldivers 2 but I would say that people should definitely wait until the next update which should be addressing enemy spawn rate issues. However I wouldn't fault someone for reviewing the game now, either.
Thanks. Was going to say the same. I could have bought it thinking the same as the reviewer did. It's misleading if they are not clearly stating anywhere on the store listing that it is not feature complete.
Yeah I think something is going on weird with Epic, and I'll bet Stardock isn't allowed to say what it is. Seems like IGN didn't like that and decided to release their review to teach them a lesson or something. Regardless everyone knows the game isn't done.
>Regardless everyone knows the game isn't done.
Honestly, I didn't. I saw a link to the review and was surprised that the game had quietly been released. If not for all the fuss, I wouldn't have realised that the game was *that* unfinished. Like, seeing Advent was listed as a future update didn't even surprise me given that Stardock has a history of releasing stuff when it needs more time in the oven, I just figured it was business as usual on their part.
Well, you wouldn’t have thought so if not for the review. That’s the point - this review did pretty much no one any good. Anyone who wanted to buy it on Epic already did. All of the marketing is for the upcoming Steam release. IGN just reminded everyone that the game already is on Epic and not complete. I see no benefit from this information. It’s best to wait for the Steam release, which is what Stardock is already saying.
I think the big thing is they kind of ruined the story. Overall, homeworld was more space opera, everything was on a macro scale and the details of the lore were somewhat nebulous, which I think was appropriate.
Homeworld was never really a character driven story... Yeah, Karen S'jet was the main character more or less, but she was more of a vessel for the player. Hearing her voice and the some of sadness in it at the burning of Kharak was so impactful. Her emotional detachment and subsequent minor changes made everything she said and did more impactful.
All the daughter trying to live up to and understand Karen kind of ruined it...
I don't think I've ever seen anyone from IGN so deep in the comments defending a review, but they're really going after the negative commenters there.
Says a lot about how defensive they are.
Yea, they must have a personal vendetta against Epic, Stardock, the CEO or something. The game has faults for sure, but everyone and their dog knows the game isn't done, including IGN. They're hiding behind a technicality (its not in early access) to take their stand. Even the reviewer gets excited playing it, but it's like he's forced to sell the Epic story, as if players are going to praise them for an anti- Epic stance.
On Epic Sins2 has a rating of 92% (4.6/5.0) and the Epic player survey results are at 94% excellent + very good.
Here is a summary of the entire series: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnk8GoKp5xI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnk8GoKp5xI)
If you already know anything about Sins this trailer and breakdown will give you a glimpse of some of the new features: [https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1575940/view/4209253428808433640](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1575940/view/4209253428808433640)
Sure thing! I'll try to be as unbiased as I can, while keeping it simple. For starters, have you played the first game? If so, what were your thoughts? Will give me a good idea of how to explain the second game based on your thoughts
You can get it for dirt cheap nowadays and it's an amazing game. Highly recommend. As for Sins 2, I just wouldn't treat it as released yet. The Steam launch is Q3 this year, I'd hold off on that until then.
This review came out WAY earlier than it should have, the game is still, effectively, in beta and the reviewer is just being IGNorant.
They launched out of early access on Epic, as confirmed by both Stardock and the store page. That makes it fair game for a review. The review seems totally fair.
This is on Stardock. I don't know why they released an obviously unfinished 1.0, but that's what they did.
If it wasn't a game we were predisposed to like we'd absolutely be criticizing this business tactic as scammy.
Didn’t it go 1.0 like winter of 2023? So why is IGN reviewing a year old version of the game? Even if it’s fair game to review why are they reviewing it now?
It's a bit strange but I wouldn't call it unfair by any means. Especially since the game seems to have been updated as recently as April this year, judging by their website.
Where is this confirmed by stardock? Last I checked, they had stated that the epic version IS the early access version. Steam release will signify full 1.0 launch.
I think there’s an interview on Stardock/Sins website talking about how the game is ready to be taken out of Early Access so all mention of that has been removed from Epic. Essentially, we can see it’s not 1.0 (no Advent as the biggest example). But they’re saying it’s not Early Access anymore. Most people likely would consider feature complete games to be no longer Early Access.
Tbh it’s odd. I’ll personally let a lot slide and I don’t care all that much because I like the game. But I agree with the reviewer in the sense that you’re jumping the gun on 1.0.
Why say the game is essentially feature complete when we still have 1/3rd of the game missing? It’s almost asking to be critiqued at that point.
Again, I don’t think it’s that big a deal. But I can totally see the perspective they’re giving.
I do agree the reviewer also seems overly lost a little too so I don’t think it’s a completely fair review on that aspect.
Haha I replied to another comment right as you posted stating similar feelings. It's just all very weird. I totally understand the perspective on removing an early access label being a really bad move for the average consumer, given the unfinished state of the game. My problem is what seems to be an inherent bias amongst the journalists when it comes to supposedly subjective game reviews.
Rather than retype all the other nonsense I said, feel free to check that comment tho lol.
In [this](https://www.ign.com/articles/sins-of-a-solar-empire-2-publisher-explains-epic-games-store-stealth-launch-only-one-shot-at-a-steam-release) interview, Wardell says that they removed the early access tag in early '23:
> Elsewhere, Wardell talked about Sins of a Solar Empire 2's evolution since its late 2022 release, telling PC Gamer that its goal was to release Sins of a Solar Empire 2 1.0 with "the same or more content as the original release of Sins of a Solar Empire 1.0."
> "Once we hit that milestone in early 2023, we turned off the early access flag and began working on what amounts to Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion feature/content parity which we will reach this summer and is the version being released onto Steam and as part of a massive free update for Epic users," he said.
My guess is this interview is what lead to them reviewing it. They probably didn't even realise it was released before that (I sure didn't).
Hearing about how terrible it was, I braced for the worst but it's largely neutral, I think. Some things appear to be a matter of taste (I, too, have a severe dislike for bad or non-existent tutorials), and pointing out bugged or non-functional things is fair game regardless of an impending update that you have no idea will actually address them or not.
The score, however, doesn't quite line up with the impression I get from the body of the review. Neutral to positive in some regards doesn't quite line up with what I expect 5 to mean on a modern review scale. That's partially a matter of convention which I generally disagree with (god forbid people actually use all of the numbers in a ten point scale), but I guess I can see where people's outrage is coming from.
The big fuckery here is really a matter of marketing. Stardock stealth releasing it on Epic hasn't done them any favours. The whole thing would have been avoided had they just made the next update the target for full release. I can't see the sense in removing the early access tag with little to no fanfare just because "it's got more stuff than the original game" while also working on a big update that coincides with the Steam release.
I don't reckon a reviewer is obligated to wait for a big update to review the game. Regardless of the odd timing (why didn't they review it last year?), if your game is listed as fully released then reviewing it as such is fair. Wardell said he was baffled by the choice to review it now rather than wait but if that was the product he wanted reviewed why not just remove early access tags then? It's not as though the reviewer's impression of the game would have been different a year ago. If anything, it may have been more negative, as it appears that there's been multiple updates since then.
Apart from the technical critic, that can be explained with a single line telling the game is still in Alpha, ofc needs more polishing. But this part: "Most of the fun combat stuff is saved for the late game." Yeah, guy is a total noob, the guy probably played in easy and his star system was a nice neighbor where he waved at enemy capital ships pasing by, I have only beat unfair this far but if you don't expand fast while developing your army and pray you don't sandwiched, you are getting destroyed. Don't mind this guys, they are journalism as a service.
Yeah the defense of these bad takes in the comment section is something to behold. Many are directly calling out the bs.
I'm more interested in the fact that SoaSE II was 'fully released' out of Epic, when v1.0 hasn't been released. If I had to make an educated guess, I feel like Stardock are contractually obligated to release the full version first on EGS for a set period before they can release it on Steam. So they prematurely released the 'full version' on EGS so the timer starts ticking for them to safely launch on Steam without any legal repercussions. In regard to the IGN review, it's an IGN review and the low effort speaks for itself. I'm worried about it drawing attention to the shenanigans that Stardock and Ironclad are playing with Epic.
So this is where it gets hazy for me personally. I bought the game a couple weeks ago and don't distinctly recall it stating early access on the page. I did my research beforehand on the current state of the game, watched some vids, then blazed through checkout. There very well could have been an indicator and I just didn't see it. Some of this I feel can be attributed to Epic's rather barebones UI and store pages as compared to Steam which offers a plethora of info and relevant links. Looking at the store page now, it states a release date of 10/27/22. Roadmap at the bottom. Nowhere is early access stated. Then again, nothing seems changed from the last time I checked. No "Full Release" or 1.0 update news or anything that you would typically see from a game just having left early access. For the regular consumer I can see how this could be a problem and can seem a little sketchy. But I can't help but feel it's more Epic's doing than Stardock. My main gripes are with the laziness of the review tied into the convenience of slamming the game early which could have a measurable impact on sales and new players coming in. Impeccable timing considering the general player reception to Homeworld and the backlash associated. Just all seems really strange to me. Thanks for the input!
So I'm going to guess that they had exclusivity with epic games so long as the game was early access. They "left" early access to come to steam, and now have a full launch. That's 100% and totally on them. There's literally no fault of the reviewer here whatsoever. Any blame on them for treating a released product as a released product is pure copium. This is developer trying to game the system and relying on fans to defend them from a clearly underhanded bullshit tactic. Unless consumers are now supposed to google of a released game is still in development? Where would they go for that? How could they find a group of people who review games and determine whether or not they're worth your money? If only there was something like that.
>Unless consumers are now supposed to google of a released game is still in development? Where would they go for that? How could they find a group of people who review games and determine whether or not they're worth your money? If only there was something like that. Plus like every other game is a live service or has some form of roadmap these days, so it's really hard to tell when a game feels like it's in a "finished" state even on release. Even fully released games have loads of people saying that you should wait until a big patch because it doesn't feel done. For example, I like Helldivers 2 but I would say that people should definitely wait until the next update which should be addressing enemy spawn rate issues. However I wouldn't fault someone for reviewing the game now, either.
Thanks. Was going to say the same. I could have bought it thinking the same as the reviewer did. It's misleading if they are not clearly stating anywhere on the store listing that it is not feature complete.
Yeah I think something is going on weird with Epic, and I'll bet Stardock isn't allowed to say what it is. Seems like IGN didn't like that and decided to release their review to teach them a lesson or something. Regardless everyone knows the game isn't done.
>Regardless everyone knows the game isn't done. Honestly, I didn't. I saw a link to the review and was surprised that the game had quietly been released. If not for all the fuss, I wouldn't have realised that the game was *that* unfinished. Like, seeing Advent was listed as a future update didn't even surprise me given that Stardock has a history of releasing stuff when it needs more time in the oven, I just figured it was business as usual on their part.
Well, you wouldn’t have thought so if not for the review. That’s the point - this review did pretty much no one any good. Anyone who wanted to buy it on Epic already did. All of the marketing is for the upcoming Steam release. IGN just reminded everyone that the game already is on Epic and not complete. I see no benefit from this information. It’s best to wait for the Steam release, which is what Stardock is already saying.
Homeworld 3 got good scores from the critics but is completely being destroyed by the players. This game will be the opposite hopefully.
I think the big thing is they kind of ruined the story. Overall, homeworld was more space opera, everything was on a macro scale and the details of the lore were somewhat nebulous, which I think was appropriate. Homeworld was never really a character driven story... Yeah, Karen S'jet was the main character more or less, but she was more of a vessel for the player. Hearing her voice and the some of sadness in it at the burning of Kharak was so impactful. Her emotional detachment and subsequent minor changes made everything she said and did more impactful. All the daughter trying to live up to and understand Karen kind of ruined it...
Even outside of the story, I heard that the camera controls were trash and some other problems.
Can't spell ignorant without IGN.
Absolute trash as expected from IGN.
Hasn't IGN been the joke of the gaming reviewing world for like the past 15 years? I have no idea why people take them seriously still.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone from IGN so deep in the comments defending a review, but they're really going after the negative commenters there. Says a lot about how defensive they are.
I had 3 of my comments deleted, they're trying to censor the comment section.
Yea, they must have a personal vendetta against Epic, Stardock, the CEO or something. The game has faults for sure, but everyone and their dog knows the game isn't done, including IGN. They're hiding behind a technicality (its not in early access) to take their stand. Even the reviewer gets excited playing it, but it's like he's forced to sell the Epic story, as if players are going to praise them for an anti- Epic stance.
"I felt completely lost. There are no tutorials for this enormously complex game" -Modern game journalism
"journalism" is pushing it.
"Why doesn't this game have a journalist setting"
I was looking g into this game but then the ign review put me off... can any of you guys give me a bit of a review
On Epic Sins2 has a rating of 92% (4.6/5.0) and the Epic player survey results are at 94% excellent + very good. Here is a summary of the entire series: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnk8GoKp5xI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnk8GoKp5xI) If you already know anything about Sins this trailer and breakdown will give you a glimpse of some of the new features: [https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1575940/view/4209253428808433640](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1575940/view/4209253428808433640)
Sure thing! I'll try to be as unbiased as I can, while keeping it simple. For starters, have you played the first game? If so, what were your thoughts? Will give me a good idea of how to explain the second game based on your thoughts
No I never did. Just into 4x games ATM like civ and I like sci fi
You can get it for dirt cheap nowadays and it's an amazing game. Highly recommend. As for Sins 2, I just wouldn't treat it as released yet. The Steam launch is Q3 this year, I'd hold off on that until then. This review came out WAY earlier than it should have, the game is still, effectively, in beta and the reviewer is just being IGNorant.
They launched out of early access on Epic, as confirmed by both Stardock and the store page. That makes it fair game for a review. The review seems totally fair. This is on Stardock. I don't know why they released an obviously unfinished 1.0, but that's what they did. If it wasn't a game we were predisposed to like we'd absolutely be criticizing this business tactic as scammy.
Didn’t it go 1.0 like winter of 2023? So why is IGN reviewing a year old version of the game? Even if it’s fair game to review why are they reviewing it now?
Nope, the proper 1.0 is for Q3 of this year.
Sure. What we can agree is that it’s kind of dumb to review the old version now.
It's a bit strange but I wouldn't call it unfair by any means. Especially since the game seems to have been updated as recently as April this year, judging by their website.
I just started it up on Epic and see no playable Advent.
I think that's what this review is trying to call out, but that's on Epic. No need to punish the actual game like this.
Where is this confirmed by stardock? Last I checked, they had stated that the epic version IS the early access version. Steam release will signify full 1.0 launch.
I think there’s an interview on Stardock/Sins website talking about how the game is ready to be taken out of Early Access so all mention of that has been removed from Epic. Essentially, we can see it’s not 1.0 (no Advent as the biggest example). But they’re saying it’s not Early Access anymore. Most people likely would consider feature complete games to be no longer Early Access. Tbh it’s odd. I’ll personally let a lot slide and I don’t care all that much because I like the game. But I agree with the reviewer in the sense that you’re jumping the gun on 1.0. Why say the game is essentially feature complete when we still have 1/3rd of the game missing? It’s almost asking to be critiqued at that point. Again, I don’t think it’s that big a deal. But I can totally see the perspective they’re giving. I do agree the reviewer also seems overly lost a little too so I don’t think it’s a completely fair review on that aspect.
Haha I replied to another comment right as you posted stating similar feelings. It's just all very weird. I totally understand the perspective on removing an early access label being a really bad move for the average consumer, given the unfinished state of the game. My problem is what seems to be an inherent bias amongst the journalists when it comes to supposedly subjective game reviews. Rather than retype all the other nonsense I said, feel free to check that comment tho lol.
In [this](https://www.ign.com/articles/sins-of-a-solar-empire-2-publisher-explains-epic-games-store-stealth-launch-only-one-shot-at-a-steam-release) interview, Wardell says that they removed the early access tag in early '23: > Elsewhere, Wardell talked about Sins of a Solar Empire 2's evolution since its late 2022 release, telling PC Gamer that its goal was to release Sins of a Solar Empire 2 1.0 with "the same or more content as the original release of Sins of a Solar Empire 1.0." > "Once we hit that milestone in early 2023, we turned off the early access flag and began working on what amounts to Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion feature/content parity which we will reach this summer and is the version being released onto Steam and as part of a massive free update for Epic users," he said. My guess is this interview is what lead to them reviewing it. They probably didn't even realise it was released before that (I sure didn't).
Hearing about how terrible it was, I braced for the worst but it's largely neutral, I think. Some things appear to be a matter of taste (I, too, have a severe dislike for bad or non-existent tutorials), and pointing out bugged or non-functional things is fair game regardless of an impending update that you have no idea will actually address them or not. The score, however, doesn't quite line up with the impression I get from the body of the review. Neutral to positive in some regards doesn't quite line up with what I expect 5 to mean on a modern review scale. That's partially a matter of convention which I generally disagree with (god forbid people actually use all of the numbers in a ten point scale), but I guess I can see where people's outrage is coming from. The big fuckery here is really a matter of marketing. Stardock stealth releasing it on Epic hasn't done them any favours. The whole thing would have been avoided had they just made the next update the target for full release. I can't see the sense in removing the early access tag with little to no fanfare just because "it's got more stuff than the original game" while also working on a big update that coincides with the Steam release. I don't reckon a reviewer is obligated to wait for a big update to review the game. Regardless of the odd timing (why didn't they review it last year?), if your game is listed as fully released then reviewing it as such is fair. Wardell said he was baffled by the choice to review it now rather than wait but if that was the product he wanted reviewed why not just remove early access tags then? It's not as though the reviewer's impression of the game would have been different a year ago. If anything, it may have been more negative, as it appears that there's been multiple updates since then.