It's not a bad score, granted, but reading the review text where the game was given enthusiastic praise and only minor, qualified criticism (i.e. "Even if you're a big fan of single-player RTS campaigns you shouldn't get discouraged by the lack of one in Sins. There's still plenty of game here to enjoy.") it just struck me as odd that the score was anything but a 9 or 10. Was it really worth dinging it 2 points because of no campaign?
Even with a fully-fleshed out single-player campaign I would not consider Sins a 10 game. Here's the thing about reviews of any kind be it movies, music, games, food or whatever; it's one person's opinion. It's always important to remember that. My proclivities for the things I like to see in games don't align with everyone and that's why we include the sections near the end of the reviews about "Where I'm Coming From." It kind of forces us to come clean if we're reviewing a game in a genre we're not completely familiar with or don't tend to favor. I'm more of an RTS guy than a turn-based guy and I think the review and the score reflect that.
Are these seriously the minimum specs for the game ROFL. Who came up with that? That is like 10x better than my PC
You may be looking at the specs I listed in the review. Those aren't the minimum specs required for Sins those are the specs of the computer I used to review it. We put that in there so people can see what is driving our experience of the game. It's not really necessary for a game like Sins but it comes up for games like Call of Duty 4 and Crysis.
