SiN is not worth 5 stars in my mind, but an easy 4. Yes, I distinctly recall the game being nigh unplayable when released, but the patches fixed all of that.

To me, the open level design (lots of little things to interact with), the variety of enemies, the awesome might of the guns (especially the shotgun), the quirky humor and B-movie storyline, all of it screams fun. And you know what? It is! It's goofy, explosive fun.

GreasyDogMeat said it best when comparing the game to Duke3d. It's an old-fashioned ego-shooter that is, at its core, simple guilty pleasure.

I do sympathize with the OP's comments that GOG's reviews tend toward the fanboy-ish, but I'd also make the case that the last time anyone was swayed by a GOG review was sometime back in 2011. :P

Yeah, i'm not trying to be negative towards people that liked it. I said it, i liked it myself when i played it...
But even at the time there were much better alternatives and nowadays, paying 10$ for this game is just not worth it, unless you have played all the other (better imo) games there are out there.
What i feel is wrong is that with all those great reviews, 5 stars and all... it might get people to buy the game expecting a cult classic.

And yeah, again, it's a fun game that has issues but it doesn't deserve 5 stars. Unless you're not comparing it to any other game and just talking about game experience (and that might be my issue with these reviews).

Well... thats kind of the issue here. I gave the game 5 stars. I completely consider it a cult classic and I think it was better than most shooters of the time, including Half-Life.

As far as price goes, It is a very long experience, especially with the expansion pack which is EXTREMELY difficult to get a copy of today. So yeah, to me it was worth $10.

This is what I meant previously with the Daikatana reference. I can't convince you that the game is worth 5 stars and $10... the only thing I can try and convince you of is that "I" consider it an awesome classic that is worth the 5 stars and $10.

This is what is important, people. No review can ever hope to be so purely objective that no trace of the reviewer's bias cannot be seen. Me? I like a review to be flavorful. I can read a review and go "Man, all the reasons this guy hates this game sound like reasons I might like it" or find that a reviewer's positives would be marks in my negatives column.

Just state why you liked or disliked a game. You can say it's not as good as XXX or better than YYY, but if the reader doesn't have enough experience with either XXX or YYY it will prove meaningless.

Its not the best FPS ever. But dont let the infamous version 1.00 spoil your opinion, it was patched (soon after release, but still too late).

We shouldnt forget that SiN let you sneak in some levels, and we re talking about 1998 shooter, which came out BEFORE Thief. Also, you use camers (I admit, DN3D did that first), and computers, which was insane at that time. And still is. Nowadays, you dont even get to open doors!
After that, I cant remember any FPS that would allow you to do that, apart from Deus Ex, but thats not an FPS, is it?
Then there are multiple paths in levels, again, unique feature in FPS.

As was pointed out, SiN had heart. In my oppinion, Half-Life is overrated, while excellent game, it is basicaly just an FPS with briliant execution, but all you do is go forward and shoot things.

Not in SiN though and for that it deserves respect.

To be honest I dont remember the sp portion of the game but i do remember that I played this mp a lot.

I agree with the OP though wether people should like a game or not is their own prerogative.
Personally I don't care if the game had bugs when it was new as most of it has been patched, to be honest I was one of the people that suffered from the bugs in this game back in 1998 but I have played other buggy games that were a lot more fun.
Someone called Daikatana which I find a good comparison with this game, it is a somewhat old schoolish shooter of which after a few levels you ask yourself why haven't I reached the end of the game yet, which never is a good thing.
Though maybe I'm not the right person to ask because the old school shooters that I like I can count on two (maybe three) fingers.
I've given up on writing reviews myself because for some reason gog's review system doesn't accept mine.

I think the package itself, which includes both the 1.11 version of the game and the rare Wages of Sin expansion pack are well worth the price, which unlike the 1.12 Steam version, isn't censored and feels genuine. Def worth 10 bucks considering how hard it is to get the expansion pack working in the first place and how well this version works on modern systems. Regarding the reviews and scores for the game, I'm sure there are many people who have their reasons for giving a game a particular score. It's all objective and influenced by their own and bias and experiences.


If you let it bother you, then that's really not good for your mental health, fellah ;) No point in stressing out over what other people's opinion about a 10+ year old game is on the Internet.


I don't know if I'd really give this 5 stars, but I did consider it. The game is very unique in terms of all the different mechanics, branching paths and interactivity it has and I'd consider it to be what Duke Nukem Forever should've been. It certainly has its issues in terms of balance with some later enemies in the game (the regular bullet sponges and the dreaded snipers) and some outstanding bugs, but they're not horrible or ruin the experience for me. It's old school and to be honest, I'd gladly shell out 10 bucks for this than 99% of modern shooters these days. SiN was pretty revolutionary for its time, including positional damage system, a diverse and varible AI FSMs , something which was very much present in games at the time, though SiN's AI model was overshadowed by Half Life's. The game also had multiple different approaches to a situation (ie, Stealth vs. Rambo), something which was done better in Deus Ex, but hasn't been seen in shooters that often these days, which is a shame.

I appreciate it for what it is, which is a difficult old school shooter than emphasizes on environmental interactivity, variety and just pure fun and storytelling. If that's a selling point for someone out there, there's a good chance they'll give that that person would rate it highly.

Wow. I guess someone's angry...
My point remains the same, this game doesn't deserve anything more than 3 stars and that's counting the nostalgia effect, else i'd have said 2. Now, you see, your insults had no effect, i'm not even angry at you, i just don't care and hope my reply will make you think about the uselessness of insulting people you don't know.
Cheers.

You must have a really sad life to have to insult people over the internet to get a bit happier. I wish you would enjoy more happiness in your life so that you don't need to do that anymore.

I played this as a kid without the internet, so I had no idea it was hated or 'broken.'

I rented it from the local game shop and would play through the first few levels over and over, just like Quake etc. The level of destruction and dismemberment was pretty amazing in the pre-Soldier of Fortune era.

Honestly, I can't see why anyone wouldn't like it if they are a fan of 90s shooters.

I really enjoyed it back in the day and I still get fun out of it today well worth it especially with the discounted price currently.

I can safely say it's not a great game, or at least, it doesn't deserve the 5 stars rating that everyone seem to give. The game is very very hard (though it's not why it's bad) but it's hard in an unfair way, with some snipers chopping down half your health in one shot. It's not particularly pretty, the story is not particularly great either and the game suffers from some horrible gameplay bugs and mistakes that make it very hard to enjoy it.
That being said, I can understand why people seem to like it that much, there are some very good ideas in that game, like the different ways to finish a given level and the nifty little mecanics with the interactivity which would show the way to greater games like Deus Ex or System Shock 2

Sure, the original SiN game wasn't that great (although the expansion was MUCH better). But it still had some really cool stuff that most FPS games lack:

- Just about everything is destructible. Not just a few objects, you can literally take a room full of stuff and leave it completely demolished.

- A protagonist with a personality who frequently comments on the situation at hand

- Supporting characters with over-the-top personalities that make the game fun in a campy sort of way

- Fun stealth sections. It's more nuanced than typical stealth in that the goal is not to avoid being spotted, but rather when you are spotted to neutralize the guards and scientists before they can reach the alarm. And if the alarm is sounded, try to turn it off at a terminal before you are shredded. Really fun stuff.

- It has fists, which allow you to have a lot of fun by engaging in fistfights with the guards rather than standard shooting. Makes you feel really powerful to take down a squadron of heavily armed guards using just your fists.

I just finished playing SiN Episodes: Emergence on Steam to complete the series, and to my great dismay they got every single one of the things I listed above wrong. That episode was much more polished and I'm sure the OP would consider it a "better" game, but it didn't have the stuff that made SiN stand out. I couldn't believe how they neutered the characters of Blade and JC, and got rid of destructibility, stealth and fists. If your looking for a HL2-type experience with SinTek logos plastered everywhere, check it out, but otherwise skip it.

It seems like this franchise has been cursed to always be mediocre: either by trying to cram in too much stuff (original) or not enough (emergence). Only Wages of Sin rose above that level of mediocrity IMO.

My impressions so far as a first-time player...

It's a strange one. I was expecting something akin to Duke 3D, but as it's made using the Quake II engine, it feels a lot more like that game to me, as far as the gunplay is concerned at least. So SiN is pretty much (barring Serious Sam) the last of the fast-paced, OTT '80s action film style games with the smart arse-hero. That said, it also has a little (tiny) element of - dare I say? Realism? ;) and by that, I mean the localised hits to body parts incl. headshots! It seems as much a 'goodbye' to old school corridor shooters as a 'hello' to the (at the time) upcoming cover based FPS. It even has a turret section LOL :O

This duel identity made it difficult for me to settle into a rhythm at first; I was playing it like I would Duke and taking damage all the time. I've discovered that run and gun and circle strafing works in some situations, while others require a bit of forethought and caution because (like the irritating trend in modern shooters) the instant you peek out from cover you immediately get hit by aimbot-like enemies. Only sometimes, mind.

Re: "Bland level design".
I understand that point. However, so far it's only the location settings (backdrops) that I view as being relatively 'mundane' and unimaginative, thematically at least. The level design in gameplay and layout terms is pretty good. I especially enjoy the destructible environments.

Though I like how 'physics-y' Blade handles, at first I hated the skatey, inertia-laden strafing because, coupled with awkward aiming, it made it tricky to aim and often caused me to overdo it when entering and exiting cover. Some mouse tweaks later and after learning to use the slower crouched-strafe more often, it all clicked into place :)

- The graphical effects and colours are nice. Nothing else to say there.

- Audio: Music can be okay-ish in small doses; voice acting is suitably bad but gets away with it; all part of the charm :) . Is that last statement a copout? Maybe :P

There are only three I don't like:
1. Arguably, most enemies take too many hits to kill. e.g. Shotgun at point blank range sometimes takes two shots to kill an enemy meaning you'll take damage in between shots unless you plan. This can be particularly problematic in some of the ambush set pieces where avoiding some damage is next to impossible.
2. Vehicles. Though optional, these seem like an afterthought and handle like shopping trolleys.
3. Forced stealth section. Why, just why.

I got SiN for £2:49. While it has flaws, it's a great game for what it is and well worth the sale price. It's a balls to the wall shooter and shouldn't really be compared to Half-Life. All things considered (price, fun, it's era and age) I'll go with saying it's slightly underrated overall. Or at least underappreciated; I had barely heard of it until I saw it in the sale.

That was too long. Apologies, and please spare a thought for my poor keyboard :D