I don't understand how anyone could give this game a 5 star rating, especially considering the 10$ price.
It wasn't that good even at the time it was released (worth maybe a 7.5 / 10) ...
Just look at the ign review if you don't believe me:
http://uk.ign.com/articles/1998/11/26/sin

So, why all the 5 stars ? Granted it's not at Daikatana's low level, it's still not a great game. It's fun but hasn't aged well. The level design is pretty bland and can't compare to games like Quake II or Unreal. Half life came out shortly after it and was so much better the game's commercial failure isn't a surprise.

Do any of you honestly think this game deserve 5 stars ? I rated it a 3 in my review, would have rated it a 3.5 if i could, but imo it's not even worth 4.
This isn't a rant, i just find it odd so many people would rate it 5 stars and lead people to buying it when it's not really worh 10$.

Most GOG reviews in a nutshell: "This game was good back when I played it a decade ago since I only remember the good parts, five stars."

I haven't played this game for a long time nor have I purchased it yet. I just think it's silly to say all this but use a IGN review to further your point haha.

This goes a bit further than the typical GoG nostalgia, actually.

Doesn't anyone remember *why* SiN crashed and burned?

SiN was broken. It wasn't glitchy. It wasn't buggy. It was flat out BROKEN. By the time the game was finally actually playable it was too late.

It's not even a cult classic. This was a game that was trashed by the gaming community worse than any professional reviewer. It was their negative backlash and poor word of mouth that had SiN buried and pushed into obscurity, to the point that little has been done with the IP since. Gamers were disgusted with it's state at release after so much hype and anticipation.

Seeing it repeatedly rated 5 stars is like stepping into the twilight zone. I mean if you personally enjoyed it, that's fine, but calling it the last of the great old school shooters sort of absurd.

Im actually having a blast playing through again, even after all these years.

As for the state of the game, it runs fine, no problems at all. Sure, there are better games, but Sin i just about shooting people to face, it doesnt pretend to be anything else than a that and it does its job very well.

Sure, back in the day, it was mess, especialy the minutes long load times were ridiculous, but the patched version is a decent game.

Because opinions.

Do you always agree with professional game reviewers? I don't. There have been plenty of times when they would call games crap that I actually enjoyed. Others that they would praise as being "the best game evar" I found nothing special about. Now, the obvious: Reviews are subjected to personal taste and buying a game is always a gamble (this applies anywhere and not just GOG). The best judge is yourself. This applies to user reviews the same way. There are people who don't like Half-Life, as there are people who actually like Daikatana.

I take reviews with a grain of salt. I mostly look to reviews to find out what the game is about, and just how buggy it is. Beyond that I don't care about average ratings.

Most of that 'brokeness' has been fixed since. I didn't play the game at release, instead getting the gold edition a year or two later and it ran great for me then and it runs great for me now.

While it does have it's flaws I honestly enjoy it more than I enjoy Half-Life 1. Its quirky, doesn't take itself seriously and reminds me of Duke Nukem 3D. In many ways its what Duke Nukem Forever should have been.

Also from that IGN review:
"Sin is set up more like a platform game than it is an action game, with most of the emphasis lying on careful jumping from ledges and platforms than on accurate shooting and intelligent tactical movement."
Did the reviewer play past the third level because that has to be the greatest exaggeration I've ever seen.

I think the Gamespot review is much more balanced and it actually sounds like the reviewer played the game past the 3rd level: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/sin-review/1900-2533057/
"The fact is, at its core, this here's your run-of-the-mill shooter. Unless you think it's a unique or revolutionary development to find the machine gun before the shotgun, you'll traverse familiar territory most of the way through Sin. But who cares? This is the shooter made for diehard fans of the genre, and if that's you, you'll like it a lot. After all, Sin rewards your finely honed aim more than any other Quake-style shooter, and the more experienced you are with the genre, the more you'll enjoy its wisecracks and shooter community in-jokes. On top of that, the single-player game is rather long, and you'll always have the deathmatch mode when you're through."

This game gave me countless hours of single and multiplayer fun back in the day so yeah, for me the game is worth 5 stars.

OP is showing this game like it was worse than Daikatana when released. It was opposite. Like in many other games graphics card VSync off is medicine to load times. The game provided much more story, variety and interesting gameplay with better cutscenes and characters feeling alive than generic, boring, linear gameplay of overpraised Half Life. Not only that, SiN offered many features that were missing in HL1 and didn't had them only partially implemented to be many years after in HL2 lol. I never had chance to play it myself (who still remember Win98 to 2k era?) so I did fast playthrough on my friend's PC (because I had only PSX at home that time) and didn't noticed most of bugs people were shouting out loud nor the community was too disgusted with final product. They disliked occasional bugs, but appreciated game content.

That was due to all the bugs that resulted from the rushed release of the game. After they are fixed, it's as good as a game could get back then. If it wasn't for them, I think it could have easily earned a similar reputation of a cult classic on par with Half Life( another franchise which seems to have gone the way of SiN and may never get another game, most unfortunately).
And I'm saying all this as someone who purchased the original game when it came out and played for a while without patching it. The fact that I loved it so much in fact made all the bugs all the more frustrating for me.

Did you even read my message ? If so, reread it please.

As for the ign review, it's just that it reflected the general opinion.
http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/39787-sin/index.html
72% on gamerankings. There you go. 3.5/5

The game was extremely bugged at release, the level design is nowhere near QuakeII, Unreal or Half life level, the multiplayer had nothing special and while the game was decent, it wasn't great. So why 5 stars when there are much better games for the same price OR even cheaper ? That was my question. And yeah, i guess it's stupid nostalgia for most.
And no, i don't always agree with professional reviews. The review i gave it was based on my OWN experience of the game. If you've never played a fps, it might be worth buying. Else, i'd buy all the classic games before this one.

I guess i'm always bummed when i see honest reviews are getting downvoted and silly "WOW BEST GAME EVA!!!!1!" reviews get upvoted so much. When the review is argumented and expresses the honest opinion of someone who played the game, it is useful, don't downvote them. Even if you disagree.

You keep saying bad level design, but honestly I think thats one of the best things about SiN. All the alternate paths and secrets. One level allows you to break down a door with a bulldozer or blow open a side passage with fuel tanks. One level later in the game allows you to find a hidden geothermal plant, blow it up and cause a huge volcanic eruption which causes a level to be covered in lava that otherwise wouldn't. The expansion also features the ability to find clues about where to go changing the time of day and the order you visit missions.

You may not understand it, but yes a lot of people loved this game and it's expansion. I can try to explain it but you may never get it. Just like I'll never understand how someone could give Daikatana a 5 star rating, but I wont spend a long time trying to convince them that their opinion is wrong and that every professional game reviewer disagrees with them.

The only point I'll concede is that people shouldn't 'downvote' a review for being negative if its honest.

Deleted.

SiN has passion and guts and it shows in every design element of the game. I think it is fair to say it was among the very last classical shooters before the much more sophisticated and well-paced Half-Life changed FPS gaming forever. SiN is not a polished game, it is a relentless barrage of cool and shameless ideas that don't hold up under individual scrutiny but taken all together it is a crazy and intense experience. The cop cars seen on the ground outside the bank in the beginning of the game look spectacularly bad, no doubt, but with the comedic musical score and the stupidly loud and destructive turret section gameplay you kind of have to get caught up in the fantasy that all these things combined amount to. Bank robbers are blowing up cop cars below you as you sweep in with a chaingun mounted on a helicopter. You didn't actually see this kind of visceral action in games at the time. Shooters up until then were usually sci-fi affairs in more abstract locations with little sense of place and time.

It is a loud and dumb old school shooter where you used armour and HP to overcome your enemies rather than taking pot shots from cover, but it also did some things we would only see more frequently years later: Lots of interactiveness in the enrivonments (useable computers, destructible props) and a story that drives the action. Many people praise Half-Life for innovating those very same things but SiN actually did it around the same time.

SiN was the "look at me I have guns, boobs and explosions like you've never seen before!" while Half-Life was the "Hi guys, uh, we have this game we would like to show you. It is very immersive and a bit more serious than you are used to seeing". Half-Life was more competent in every design aspect, but I think SiN made up for it with how bold it was. It wanted to be loud but it also wanted to try new things. The fantasy that SiN provides is very enjoyable, but of course it does not compare to Half-Life's relative perfection in actually simulating it's world and it's dangers. SiN let me fantasise about being John R. Blade, but Half-Life actually let me be Gordon Freeman, if that makes any sense.

Two great games, one that marked the end of an era and the other marking the beginning of a new one.

From my point of view, without any nostalgia and playing a version that is not broken, the five star reviews are not too out there to be honest. SiN is not this revolutionary game or even innovative at all, but it is a first person shooter that has character that does things right. It didn't try to set new ground in the genre, it kind of acts as an evolved version Duke Nukem 3D considering its vocal protagonist and interactivity in the levels. Would I say it is an FPS that is extremely memorable? No, as much as I love SiN and it's ridiculous charm, it doesn't do much that will make me think about it constantly. I would say it is a fun little excursion for an empty weekend that one will remember a few hours of playing it, and move on to something more worthwhile once it is completed.