Review | Sword of the Stars: Ultimate Collection
Format: PC | Genre: Space strategy | Publisher: Paradox | Developer: Kerberos | Out June: £24.99 (Steam)
By Barry White
Welcome to Sword of the Stars, the 4X space game combining turn-based empire management and real-time tactical ship combat that I’ll bet you’ll have neither heard of nor played.
This is the Ultimate Collection, which contains the original Sword of the Stars as well as its two expansion packs, Born of Blood and A Murder of Crows. On the face of things, it certainly looks like a good deal for your cash. Develoeprs Kerberos Productions have had plenty of time and opportunity to iterate and improve on the foundations of the initial release, and while they haven’t necessarily made the most of that opportunity, the game as it stands now is vastly improved from when I played the original release in 2006. For the purposes of this review, I spent most of my time playing the A Murder of Crows expansion, mainly because it’s the latest one (but sneakily because I thought the name sounded cool). If you’re going to pick this up, I’d install and play through the game and expansions in order, as there’s an over arching narrative that will ultimately be lost on those unfamiliar with the fiction.
//RTFM
With A Muder of Crows, the game now packs in six factions, humans being only one, each with their own variation on traversing the cosmos at faster-than-light speeds. Humans use familiar faster-light-drives and their ships cruise along set lanes between worlds, while a fleet of a race such as the Morrigi will actually travel faster the more ships it contains, and the Hivers have to make do with much slower travel until they can establish their network of teleport gates. This is one of Sword of the Stars’ really good little ideas, a very easy way of giving each race a bit of a different spin and character as well as a readily apparent different style of play. Sword of the Stars’ has a handful of really good little ideas like this, ideas you wish were incorporated in to other, better, games. Things like the tech tree, which contains randomised elements that are different from one game to the next while preserving the familiar core of the tree, or the meaningful modular ship design. Managing things like your planets’ production and trade outputs is handled with a series of sliders, rather than having them governed by constructing relevant buildings planetside. There’s no fiddling with different tax rates either; you just tweak another slider. It strips out a tremendous amount of (potentially tedious) micro-management, which is perfect if the idea of a less complicated “complex” game like this appeals to you.
But there are also myriad minor problems that all combine to detract significantly from the quality of the experience. For a start, new players can expect to be left feeling slightly flummoxed by the tutorial on offer, which amounts to a series of poor-resolution videos of walkthroughs for specific aspects of the game. They’re more akin to the kinds of pre-release developer narrated play-throughs we’re seeing more and more of these days, and they’re of minimal use when trying to learn to play the game properly in addition to looking absolutely wretched. There’s supplementary text with accompanying blurry screenshots, but they might have just left a little pop up box that said “Read The Manual” to save you time. An interactive tutorial of some kind would have been a much more worthwhile and instructive addition.
The main interface for the game presents the corner of space you wish to conquer in full 3D, but there’s no way to easily scroll the map so you’re limited to rotating your view with the right mouse button and given the 3D nature of the star map it can also be difficult to judge distances between planets. The rest of the UI provides basic information about whatever planet you’ve currently selected, but if you want a summary of your empire at a glance it’s not immediately obvious where you might find such information. The research screen uses a pretty-looking 3D representation like the star map, but it makes getting things like an overview of the whole tech tree a pain, because it can’t present it all on the screen at the same time. You have to keep panning the camera around, and if you want specific info on each topic you’ll need to zoom in and double click on each one in turn. It looks slick, but feels clunky in practice; and the recorded dialogue and barks are, almost without exception, thoroughly unpleasant to have to listen to.
//Sights (not so much) on the stars
The most memorable aspect of Sword of the Stars is, ultimately, its modesty. Kerberos are a small Canadian developer made up of some of the bods responsible for Homeworld: Cataclysm and would seem to be well aware of their own limits. While Sword of the Stars doesn’t necessarily feel cheap, there’s an economy to its design and aesthetic that suggests it was made on a comparatively small budget, and the game seems to focus primarily on things the developers felt they could do extremely well, at the expense of additional features. Like I said, modest. You could otherwise term this as “a total lack of serious ambition,” if you wanted to be especially mean and uncharitable, but to do so would be strikingly unfair.
The biggest problem with Sword of the Stars is that I honestly can’t recommend you actually spend money on this package, despite the game’s merits. There are two reasons for this, and their names are Galactic Civilizations 2 and Sins of a Solar Empire. If you call yourself a fan of the 4X space strategy genre and have not to date sampled either of those titles, you shouldn’t even be glancing in Sword of the Stars’ direction. Both out-do Kerberos’ effort by a country mile. If you own either, or both, then you’ll know they provide a theoretically endless amount of play for your money, and I’ve yet to become bored or exhausted by either title in the long time that I’ve owned them.
If you find yourself in the unlikely situation of having played those games to death, and still find your thirst for intergalactic exploration and conflict has yet to be adequately slaked, then by all means consider Sword of the Stars (and the expansions to Galactic Civilizations and Sins of a Solar Empire while you’re at it). Its’s modest execution, though possessing some interesting aspects, just doesn’t pack enough punch to really trouble the competition. While playing it was at times a very enjoyable experience, every now and then it made me pine for some of Gal Civ’s lunatic diplomacy or Sins’ majestic bombast. While both cost more than Sword of the Stars, each delivers a deeper, more complex experience. But if that’s likely to intimidate you, or you’re looking for an easier introduction to the genre, then this might just be the package for you.
6/10
I can’t help but totally disagree with your review, especially the end where you compare SotS to Galciv2 and SoaSE. I own all 3 of these titles and all the expansions for all 3.
While I find them all entertaining I find GalCiv2 to totally lack any meaningful combat, which SotS excels at (though you failed to mention). The pace of SoaSE can be tediously slow on all but the smallest maps with game speeds turned all the way up and again the combat is unfulfilling, due to the static nature of the ship positioning. All in all I find SotS to be the best of the 3 as it does not lack in any area significantly, while both GC2 and SoaSE could use a combat overhaul at the very least.
SoaSE has better graphics than SotS and GC2 has a more indepth Diplomacy system than SotS, but the diplo and graphics in SotS are by no means cheap or inadequate in any way.
I bought GC2 and its expansions, I bought SoaSE and Entrenchment, I bought SotS, its first expansion BoB, the Collector’s Edition (w/SotS & BoB), the second expansion AMoC, and SotS:UC (w/SotS, BoB, & AMoC). Lets tally shall we?
GC2 & exp: 1 time each
SoaSE & Entrenchment: 1 time each
SotS: 3 times
BoB: 3 times
AMoC: 2 times
All 3 are good games, but SotS wins hands down in my book.
I second Rob’s disagreement with your review. The combat in SotS just -feels- right. Even if the tactical options on the battlefield are somewhat limited, half the work is done by designing your ships and creating your fleet. The AI adapts pretty well to your strategies, so you’ll have to constantly rethink and improve upon your game. To me, this feels very rewarding… yet you don’t mention the combat at all.
I like Resolution, I really do, but this review is a let-down, sorry. (Not because it doesn’t share my opinion, but because it’s missing a key component of the reviewed game.)
I haven’t played Sword of the Stars, so I can’t comment on whether or not I think the combat mechanics – or the fact that they “feel right” – are totally key. But I think it’s important to remember that, sometimes, something one person loves about a game may be barely worth talking about for someone else.
Glad you like us, though. That makes us feel all speshul. :)
I own both the entire Gal Civ trio, and Sins with Entrenchment. That said I haven’t played either since I got Sots. About the only thing I agree with in this review is that there needs to be details on tech on mouseover not just on double click.
In every other way thsi review is wrong. In terms of replayability, the randomized tech trees, varied play styles of the races and actual 3d map make this game much more replayable over Gal Civ or Sins. For instance you can build your ships in Gal Civ but the weapons are pretty meaningless rock paper scissors, and in Sins the ships are standardized. In Sots, you make a ship from sections each with a specific purpose that you then inhabit with whatever weapons will fit in the various mounts. Tons of variety and replayability.
The various weapons actually effect the course of the battles which are realtime with pause and include the ability to target the enemy ships specific polygons to shoot off their turrets or damage their engines if you choose. The variety of weapons means you can do everything from fleets of stand off torpedo destroyers to fast recharge beamers for close in knife fighting.
At the strategic level, the game seems more balanced to me then in Gal Civ because for instance, in Gal civ it was a no brainer to set up trade routes and there was no real downside to it, whereas in Sots it takes a LOT of cash and time to build a trade fleet that you then have to protect from raiders, and that doing trade directly impacts on your ship production.
While the graphics are not as finnessed as in Sins, Sots graphics serve their purpose well, are bright and lively and have nice touches, like when the ai fleet takes over the ships have a roving red eye like cylons.
I never heard of Sword of the Stars until recently but if you liked Gal Civ or Sins of the solar empire then I encourage you to spend the money and buy it or at least try the Demo, you won’t regret it. And the score should be 89% not 69%.
I’ve found that SoTS is one of the most engrossing games I’ve ever played. Sure, there can be a pretty steep learning curve, especially as one adjusts to the fully 3D strategy map. I think my favorite feature of SoTS would have to be the fact that there is no rock-paper-scissor combat in the classical sense. In SinS you have missile ships, close range brawlers, carriers and support ships. Rock, Paper and Scissor (and support ships). This can be a lot of fun. I prefer more depth. You can make your own ships in SoTS and each tech has several different ways to counter it.
The AI in SoTS is pretty honking great. It will eventually adapt to the weapons you are using if it has appropriate tech and will design and field ships around what its facing (this takes time). It will always try to win, and balances its use of resources quite nicely.
The tech tree is SoTS is also something unusual in that rather than just having techs that upgrade a weapon (lasers 1, 2 and 3, shields 1, 2 and 3) it tries very hard to make each new tech look and fell different. Sure, its got energy cannons 1, 2 and 3 called Plasma, Fusion and Anti-Matter and it even CALLS its shields Mk. 1, 2, 3 and 4 but for the most part each tech really does feel different. Different GFX, SFX and stats.
Combat is massively real time. Each individual weapon has its own turret that is individually rendered and each and every shot screen has its path calculated. If you can move out of the way, you can dodge incoming fire. Your turrets can be shot off, now ships can be boarded by specialty craft and taken over for the duration of a battle. Combat fleet sizes are LIMITED (unlike SinS) to the level of your CnC ships (specialty section) while strategic fleet strength is unlimited (unlike SinS). Bigger CnC gives you more command points. each destroyer used 2 CP, each Cruiser 6, and each dreadnought uses 18. This makes the player choose what formation and type of ship he or she uses for each engagement. If you outnumber your opponent by sufficient numbers you get bonus CP and may get additional ships on the field. Your CNC ship is hugely important in combat, as any replacements for destroyed ships will ‘warp in’ near it, and when its alive you can rearrange your reinforcements list to pick what ship comes next, etc.
The graphics are full of detail, every bit the equal to SinS if you zoom in and look for them. In smallest class of ship (the 30 meter long destroyer) the Human Standard command section, you can actually see the two pilots moving back and forth. Looking through human cruiser and dreadnought windows you can see work stations. Planets have moving atmospheres (when applicable) and the weapons effects themselves are awesome. Recent upgrades to the Strategic map and starfield background in tactical only enhance the beauty of this game.
The newest Ulitmate Edition has all the earlier content included and makes way for the newest (FREE Expansion – UNLIKE SinS) which for a planned 8.99 USD includes many new ship sections, new weapons, advanced drone fighters, and is the last planned expansion (that we are aware of) as the team moves more resources into other projects. I have no doubt that SoTS will continue to get some debugging support with its newest expansion, however. The Kerberos team has provided the single most superior customer experience I’ve ever had in this industry, with all their continued FREE support for their game, time taken to converse with their players on the boards and just making themselves available for questions. NO OTHER COMPANY HAS EVER COME CLOSE to this level of support and dedication.
The game is VERY complex. It can be picked up and played quickly as for the most part the UI is very user friendly (once you learn the tabs, just like any 4x UI), but as you learn more and more (visit the forums, ask questions) about the game the real depth becomes startlingly apparent. For example, each weapon has a maximum range, as well as an OPTIMUM range. It will be weaker closer than optimum, as well as farther then optimum. The game is set up to be very MACROmanagement based, not micromanagement based like MoO II was. It has much more in common with the original Master of Orion, than with its predecessor MoO II: Battle at Antares. Colony management is almost non-existant, diplomacy is just now starting to be more than “we’re at war, we’re at peace, we’re allies) in the latest expansion. Trade can be somewhat annoying to get started, but functions completely off the grid once you build your freighters.
The manual is pretty obtuse, IMO and I frequently find the tech descriptions to be vague (I’m assuming this was intentional in many cases as the dev. team tried to keep players from creating spreadsheets of the ‘ultimate tech combo that wins everything’ that they say they hate. In that regard they have succeeded admirably. For any tactic or weapon, there are several perfectly viable ways of countering it. However, sometimes it can be frustrating as you need to go online and ask other players where something is, or how to use something.
If you have questions or want other opinions than mine, please visit the [url=http://www.kerberos-productions.com/forum/index.php][b]Keberos Productions Forums[/b][/url]. For the most part, we’re nice, sane people and we love answering questions and helping out new players. (just don’t feed the Zanzabar – he tends to bite). :lol:
//patton
While we positively encourage discussion of articles and the related games here at Resolution, I feel it important to point out that our reviews are based on the impressions of a single person – an experienced and fair individual, but an individual nevertheless. As our ‘about’ page says, had a given game been reviewed by a different writer, the tone and mark could have been considerably different, and we try to be self-aware in our transparency about this.
We are always trying to understand our audience and their likes and dislikes so that we can continue to report in a way that gels with the site’s readership, but we will not profess to agree with people on all accounts. As far as the review being “wrong” is concerned, I try to meticulously fact-check every article that appears on the site, and given the response to this one both here and around the internet I have done so multiple times. I cannot see anything that is objectively incorrect about Barry’s write-up. It’s all down to personal preference.
Indeed, it’s worth noting that Barry and I spent a significant amount of time discussing how to present his feelings about the comparison with other examples of the genre. Usually, we try to avoid directly comparing games, as we see little value in deciding what “the best” is. But Barry felt it to be relevant here, as a fan of the genre, and with it being the sort of package release that often leads people to consider trying out a style of game they may not be too familiar with. As such, his argument – and I think it’s pretty clear from the text – is that if you’re into the genre and have played Sins and GalCiv, this is worth checking out: perhaps not in the same league, but decent fun nonetheless. If you’re new to the genre, there are better entry points in his opinion.
If you already own and enjoy the game, then the review really isn’t catered towards you. We write reviews on the basis of consumer advice. We have a whole separate section of the site dedicated to revisiting games and critiquing them in more depth, and if there’s enough demand then we may return to Sword of the Stars at a later date. Drop us a line (contact details on the ‘About’ page) if you’d like us to do this, and we’ll see what happens.
Finally, bear in mind that while 69% may be considered a poor mark by certain publications, it is in the higher echelons of “a game we think is pretty good if you’re into this sort of thing” on our scale. Thank you all for reading, and we hope you’ll continue to do so.
@Lewis: “As far as the review being “wrong” is concerned, I try to meticulously fact-check every article that appears on the site, and given the response to this one both here and around the internet I have done so multiple times. I cannot see anything that is objectively incorrect about Barry’s write-up.”
There might not be anything incorrect about it, but it is objectively incomplete – and that is not down to personal preferrence in a supposely professional review.It does not in any way go into the combat aspect, the main focus of the game.
Lewis:
To be fair, you write that your evaluation was not an attempt to decide which was best and just write your (and your reviewer’s) impressions, and compare it to the 2 other major titles but that’s NOT what was written. It clearly states that if you don’t have SoASE or GalCiv, you shouldn’t even be looking at SoTS and should instead buy those games. Thats a pretty bold statement against a game that supposedly ranks pretty high on your “a game we think is pretty good if you’re into this sort of thing” scale as you state. There seems to be no regard for those “who are into this sort of thing” only a regard for people who are into Sins and GalCiv.
They are different games, with different areas of interest and focus and each game is targeted to a specific type of 4x gamer. I’ve played Sins and GalCiv. I didn’t like either.
As to correct information Vs. incorrect, for the most part I agree and there isn’t much that is patently wrong. The AI in SoTS however is much better than people give it credit for. This isn’t always obvious as it has to handle many more choices in combat. Each of the major types of weapons has several viable counters rendering it effectively useless, or mitigating it’s effectiveness to a point where it is no longer truly cost effective in combat. The AI must always evaluate its weapon choices when designing new ships and it does a bang up job with what it has.
Its sometimes less than optimal performance (in my experience) seems to be a direct result of the lack of the rock / paper / scissor style of combat that makes me such a fan of this game.
If your person likes those other games more than SoTS, so be it. He (or she) isn’t alone on that account. Many people I know have tried SoTS and disliked it, preferring Sins or GalCiv. That’s fine.
I’m simply stating MY opinions, and providing counter points that happen to disagree with the reviewer’s. That certainly doesn’t mean I am correct.
And that’s the sort of discussion we positively encourage :)
I also totally disagree with you. I’ve never played Galciv2 but I have played Sins of a Solar Empire and I can say that it PALES in comparison to this game, pales epicly. Theres so much more customization in this game, the galaxies are…well bigger. Systems in SoSE don’t feel like systems. There are no rotating turrets at all (yep folks, although I don’t own entrencment, at least in the normal one the gun just magically fired in the direction it needed to).
Combat in SoSE doesn’t feel solid at all. I personally though that SoSE was a pretty mediocre game.
A friend told me about SoTS, so I went and got the ultimate collection and ANY off of steam and I can honestly say I absolutely love the game. Now, it does have a steep learning curve and the tutorial videos are kinda…lacking, but it has an interactive tutorial now. All the races seem rather nicely balanced, each having its strength and weaknesses. The voice acting for some races was kinda bad but meh, it doesn’t ruin the game for me, it doesn’t even scratch it. The randomized tech tree was an amazingly awesome idea (although it does sometimes bite you in the ass, when you manage to not get biome colonizers or FKING POINT DEFENSE).
Combat feels so much more solid, and the things each race says when you order them to attack someone seems to fit, for instance, one of the Liir things (a pacifistic-ish race) is “We do what we must” which seems like something they would say.
Theres so much more variety in SoTS, especially since most of the ships in SoSE have forward facing guns with a distinct lack of any interesting animation. Also, SoTS has several interesting commands in tactical combat, i mean sure, you don’t have THAT many options but unless you have a LOT of ships you cant really just blob people to death if they know what theyre doing. Anyway, as I was saying, you can choose face target, face heading, or broadside for ship orientation, and you can choose retreat, normal, close to range, pursue, and my favorite: Standoff (although this is kind of useless since I play as Liir and their ships are slow near planets, which is where most combat occurs) but its useful for torpedo destroyers and the like.
While there are only 3 ship classes theres so much you can do with them, swapping out the modules and whatnot it makes up for it. (3 Sections, engine, mission, and command).
They were also creative with the drive systems that each race uses, which is a huge plus for me. I was especially intrigued with the Liir’s short-range teleportation drives. While everyone else uses reaction drives, so they keep going (and have to turn around and burn their engines, while they keep going) which makes them MUCH slower to turn around (yes, if you shoot off the engine secton a ship will keep going and might crash into antoher ship/planet) The grand menaces are both fun and bad to encounter. I would give SoTS a 9/10. I just wrote a badly punctuated review. Yay.