But hold on man...

Ok - would i love to have amazing SP campaign with rich story, as well as amazing send-box mode which is much better than your classic skirmish and great uber MP attached to it all???

Its no brainer really - YES i would

However there is soooooo many games out there which end up being trully half-baked due to the fact that devs/publishers try to squeeze everything in one product - so ultimately we end up with rushed MP and SP...

What IC did here, or at least it sounds like they have done that, is sorted out core gameplay mechanics and overall system, they have glued it to great MP aspect as well as provided us with yet to be seen uber SP mode which can be played in Co-Op... Sure it has no story attached to it but i rather have this approach than half baked product which surely would end up being if IC rushed to include everything...

I am sure i will have a great time on line and off line for at least a year and then dive into the story itself which will surely be much richer that way than if it was rushed and forced in this time around...

This is at least how i see the things - but ultimately lets wait for another few days and then talk objectively about everything since at the moment all we are doing is speculating...

I think, from all I've heard about the final release, it's going to be worthwhile even without a campaign. The current beta is so stripped of everything that it's a very bad judge for the sandbox mode.



Truth.

Actually, given the time left on the countdown I'd say we're way past feature lock -- all they have time for is bug-hunting. And, on top of that, let me point out that skirmish mode in this game has a lot more in it than most campaigns. We have in-game diplomacy of some kind, the bounty system, the new economic model they've promised us to go with the new diplomacy system, piracy, and devs only know what else they plan to throw in.

Yep.

Gonna be another beta for this supposed expansion?

Lol they probably won't make it so they won't have to deal with us again.

The required technical features for a good single player would be pretty advanced and completely dissimilar to the efforts made so far to make the game playable, stable, and engaging.

So I can completely understand the sandbox approach. Hell, that's all I ever played on Alpha Centauri, and that was freakin sweet.

However, we haven't seen the tutorial sequences since they've been revamped. It's still possible there's new mechanisms available to code missions based around how the tutorials interact with game elements. Let's just hope this section of the game is more script-based now rather than encoded direclty into the EXE and just start building our own missions/campaign... or at least try

A lot of game companies do their crunch time to get a lot done in the last month, hell they could even just put off the release instead of giving us Sandbox RTS.. And all that stuff you've explained, yeah I've played it all before, thats basically a skirmish in any space RTS I've played, it's nothing, it's what most companies make for people to play on the side, hence it is half baked, hell they already have the mechanics for a great game in, why stop half way?

Sure Sandbox might be good for SOME people for SOME time, maybe even most, but just you watch the community will be good and strong, at first, but as people get more and more bored with playing the same game they've before (Sins isn't the first of this Genre) it'll die off virtually instantaneously after a few months, 7-8.

It's a huge mistake releasing something with a few neat details, and no strive, purpose or real reason to play, people play RTS campaigns to get the feeling they've won, and now a days any of the RTS's without stats online, die off it's simple, Gamers are bored of running down the same corridor, just to run through another one. Yes I am aware there is no running or corridors in this game, it's a metaphor.

I really think your in the minority here Valaska. I love RTS, I have alot friends that play RTS, shit, Im officer of the RTS union on gamespot and I talk to people about RTS everyday of the week. Most people play games in general (espessly stratgy gamers, one that would be intrested in SINS) play to waste time and have fun, and do somthing mentally challenging. Not to get a meaningless sence of accomplishment, like a cutscen done all cheesy like. Take any RTS made in the last 4 years, that went gold or platnum...Any skirmish you play is undoubtedly going to be diferent then the last, unless mabey you specificly try to make it the same. Diferent factions, maps, abilitys, units, reserch, ect. Its not just walking down the same corridor as you put it. Its a different experience with a similer medium. Now sins has even more options, HUGE maps, HUGE research, and about 20 different ships per race. Play to have fun. It will be fun. Conquer planets, build diffetrent typs of fleets, experiment with research and diplomacy. You dont need a cutsceen for that to be fun, its going to be challenging, and asthsteticly pleasing.

Not saying that campaigns arent good if they're done right. They can really add alot to a game. But do you think RTS that are really good and have staying power and get 3x expantions and a sequel are made by people playing the SP over and over and over agin? No, its the MP and the skirmish modes.

Its like saying yeah chess is cool and all, but after like 5 games its like...man, same board , same pieces, they al move the same. This game lacks depth and stratagy. Cant we like, get a movie to play saying how great I am every time i win a match. Not quite....

No, they can't. They have a very specific window in which they must release -- they've already paid for the advertisement in that window, and unlike some companies (blizzard) they can't afford to delay like that. They'll release a rock-solid product (anyone who doubts that, think about GC / GC2 release quality) and they'll release it on time, of that I have no doubt, but they are way past the point that they can change what they're releasing.



Um, WTF are you talking about? All games go gold as a matter of course, but I have no clue what going platinum (that is what you mean, right?) would mean. Please note that games are not like music CD's: going gold refers to the "final copy" of the game CD going to manufacturer for reproduction, ergo going platinum can't have the same meaning (and ends up with no meaning) as a result.



Thats how blizzard does it

Good storylines that you want to replay. Which is (in part) why we don't have a storyline mode for this game, the devs didn't think they could do a quality campaign in this format.

and from even the few pictures the devs have released for us I doubt that the sandbox format will be "running down cooridor after cooridor".

Hey, im fine with the game not having a single player. the skirmish alone will keep me happy for years to come, not to mention next febuary. I reckon the devs have done a good thing in not rushing the game, and not putting a half-assed SP campaign in. Just think, they will have a whole year to create an awesome, not to mention imaganative, campaign; it will rock so much.

As a side note: what is a sandbox mode? ive only ever heard of the term from halo 3, where all of the objects you can place in a map are part of the games sandbox. is this the same for sins? as in you can place plannets and suns wherever you want? or is it just a solar system random generator?

sandbox being somthing that you can experement in. i think the sins one is just skirmish with so many things it is no longer able to be classed as skirmish you have random maps random planet attributes, enemy ai that will relate diferently to each other and give you diferent side missions to improve your standing with them each game, 3 races with their own abilities and research trees their own structures and super weapons so much is variable that there is every chance after playing one game another game will almost definatley never play the same again

one thing that i think needs inclusion though to round it off is random ai dificulty (ie you have your easy ,medium ,hard and Random buttons instead of just easy medium and hard)

I dunno Ron, it wouldn't hard to make a good campaign with what they have now, this engine could prolly make an amazingly interactive story line, and it's just a shame they don't even try.

Hell a story wouldn't be too hard to write based on the and anything would be fine, but I put it to you, name 3 RTS's that are still successful that have NO campaign, no story and nothing but multiplayer?

And sure it's fake achievements etc, but you're playing a damn game anyways get over yourself lol, you're wasting productive time one way or another, it feels good to have goals and accomplishments to work for not just going "Oh I wonder what planet they will attack first this time!".

In essence, a Skirmish is the same, every time, you attack and defend, at least stories and campaigns have little situational objectives, do such and such to gain such, explore this planet before the time limit expires to save and gain the support of a nearby fleet, blow up said asteroid before it takes out your planet, then do some plot twists like a general you've been working with goes after you and acquires a lot of funs somehow, and you find new allies in some sympathetic enemies and you end up in an unexpected position and then at one point you have to make a choice to re-make an enemy out of your new found enemy and get back with that rogue generals new radical political beliefs or try and fight what he's been doing, all the while being besieged on all sides by every species with either just you and your little buddy who was nothing but a splinter faction now fighting to re-impose itself in the universe, or join up with the psychotic general which gives you power and a large ally but an unpredictable dictator at the reins in which you have to watch your back constantly.

All that could be done on some simple timed events etc and some voice acting you don't even need CG even though CG really helps a game, why is C&C so popular? One o fthe biggest selling points are the live acted/good CG scenes and I don't care if you try and claim I am some sort of minority in the belief because I really doubt you have a group of RTS fans that say "Story is useless!" The only thing separating most RTS's is a story lol, they are the same thing over and over, people like the different story, settings and such, starcraft did so well because people really got into the back story because back then most of us were still weening off of Dial up but still it was hugely popular.

Even Hegemonia has cult following due to its story that would pick up the next one in an instance.

no we think your a minority in wanting THIS game to have a story mode the fact is they cant add a story mode they dont have time and the ycant extend the period on the 4th of feb they HAVE to release the game they cant afford not to ,am i right devs? and its not always the same attack and defend the devs have put in side missions and things which mean that sometimes you have to do other things i give no examples because i realy dont know what they are also i beleave that the way the map is set out how could you have levels? would it just be one huge map like in EAW and if so whats to stop you from going places you shouldent? also this isnt like any other rts iv ever played and i have played a fair few (not many space ones il admit but all the popular ones)

While i haven't played Sins at all, i feel that it's very similar to another RTS game that i know very well: Knights of Honor. KoH does not have a story but it's a 4x game in Real Time. The game is still played by many and does not suffer from not having a campaign. I don't believe that Sins will suffer from that either...(backstory for the races is very important though).

They aren't trying for release, true. But given the hue and cry thats going up about the lack of a story mode, watcha wanna bet that they add one in an expansion or something?

And while many of your points are accurate -- there should have been a story mode -- your totally missing one important point: its way, way too late. Thats not the kind of thing that can get thrown together quickly, we're talking about months of work to put together a trigger-driven engine, design the map(s), get voice acting done, write the actual story, and probably quite a bit else.

(Oh, and just let me point out: just adding "missions" to a regular game wouldn't add very much... when SD, and IC by extension, does something, they do it with style. They couldn't come up with a decent campaign approach, so instead they polished sandbox mode until it gleams to create Yarley's "emergent campaign" -- lets give that campaign a try before we totally dismiss it.)

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that people are saying we need a campaign to make the game more replayable? When in fact, Campaigns would be the only scripted thing in the entire game making it a one off thing. LOL

Anyway, Blair has said before that sins Skirmish isn't a standard skirmish. Why not wait and see till you make judgments.

Sins comes with over 25 scenario maps, plus random maps, plus a map designer in-game - all of which can be used in single-player or multiplayer. If people want to they can imagine those relate an epic campaign across the galaxy and it'll play out differently every time.

By everyone's comments here the Civilization series should have been one of the biggest bombs in gaming history because it's never had a campaign. But Civ IV has sold over 4 million units and almost nobody plays its multiplayer mode.

As Tristan said, give the final game a chance before rushing to judgement.

Zing!

yeah

Well in this case I believe your going to get your wish. Theres a big difference between some events and a full campaign. According to blair about a month ago he said there will be random events that happen throught the single player skirmishes. They also will illude to the lore of the game. Its not going to be the same experience as the beta. Also, that civ4 analagy is perfect. I play civ 4 alot, no campaign, just some scenarios and different maps. But its a unique experience each time.

One thing though Yarlen- Civ 4 does have 20+ races, that adds alot. However each of the races has the same tech tree (despite a feww different units, buildings and a semi-distinct look and feel) A big part of keeping Civ alive was the scenarios and mods. But definatly the "Official scenarios" like warlords. so if there is a scenario type aspect to SINS hence, more then just different maps, but different maps with different flavor, that could be better then a 1/2 ass campaign.

also yarlen in your own personall opinion as a gamer, (not as a sins dev)
what percentage of the final game are we experiencing in the beta4?

I think it would be a good idea for the devs to have a campagin in an expansion pack, because the game as it is, it is breaking new grounds for the blending of turn based 4x and RTS generes. It is more important that Ironclad does this right the first time by concentrating on just giving a sandbox mode. A story campaign can be given after the core game is flush out and delivered out the door.

ImperiumGalatica2 managed to get a great story in a 4X RTS style sandbox game,and it had more depth to the gameplay too,but that's another matter.

i think when they do eventually start to develop the camaign, it shouldnt be the same old 'you have objectives, go and do them before time runs out/before the enemy arrives', i think they should take a new approach alltogether. in other games, this has been tried before, and i quite enjoy it. instead of the scripted approach, make the story fully changeable. eg. you play as the newly formed TEC. your first objective is to rally the trader ships, and defend the stations which are being used to convert the trade ships. they suffer constant attacks from the vasari, which this early on in the campaign the vasari are MUCH stronger than the TEC. this could be balanced with the fact that the vasari ships are only scouts, so there are only a few of them, but they still can take out MANY TEC ships. anyway, say there is a certain number of TEC worlds in this particlar campaign map, each with a varied number of stations and ships in its orbit. some have more ships than others, and others have more stations (which are harder to defend, due to the fact that there are no local ships to help). the more you convert to the TEC, the more ships come under your control. but the player can make a decision. he can either convert the easyer ship populated worlds, which is the option that will help you the most in the short term; or he can convert the harder to defend station worlds, which dont give you many ships to begin with, but later on in the campaign you will get the benifit of more research stations (ie. more access up the tech tree) and ship production ect. so in short, the harder option will give you more ships later on.

this is just a small example of what could be done. this sort of decision making could be implied to many things, so that each campaign is different, even if the player tries to re-do it (ie. re-plays everything just like he did before) it would still be different, because the enemy attacks would be random (unlike homeworld 2, where they ALWAYS came from the same direction, no matter what)

but, as said above, you devs have made the right decision on planning a campaign in an expansion. develop your hearts out! do us proud in a years time! dont rush!