No single player campaign?

Yeah I am really disappointed as well. I was really under the impression this was both Single and multiplayer.. ok I know it is Single player but this Skirmish only is sorta boring and I was expecting more for a game of 2008

there is coming a campaign for sure

I didn't realize people were that concerned over some cheesy, linear experience that is quickly forgotten after completion.

Campaigns in RTSs are boring crap anyway. I mean, did anyone sleep their way through the Supreme Commander campaigns? Snore. The World in Conflict campaign is hideously easy and has no bearing on multiplayer (actually being misleading as unit balance is slightly different).

I mean, I know some people compulsively play campaigns for the cutscenes or something, but honestly. Ever played the GC2 campaigns? Ugh. If a campaign existed, I would never use it. Imagine Sins with a typical 'bleed you units and tech' and 'apply arbritary limits' RTS campaign.

Every game of Sins is a campaign.

A campaign can be very fun for it self. Some just don't have the time to just PVP away. Also why did they bother with the inro if a campaign wasn't in the works
?

Don't sit there at your keyboard and degrade the rest of us because we want a campaign out of this game.

[quote Also why did they bother with the inro if a campaign wasn't in the works? [/quote]

Plenty of games have intros and no campaign.



Are we degrading you, or simply disagreeing on the point that a campaign will somehow make this game better?

No no, I'm reasonably sure a campaign is in the works. But Sins games, especially large one, are pretty epic. There was no campaign in pretty much any 4X game until very recently, and they've all (?) sucked. I never heard people complain that Civilisation or Master of Orion had no campaign...

Half the point of 4X games is that every game is a story. Every game is a campaign.

But hey, I won't complain if they make one.

You got me on that one Smellyterror. Master of Orion is a megaclassic in this genre. Most of the better RTS did have campains.

Dune 2
War Carft
Star Craft
Command& Conquer
Fallout Tactics


Also I would rather see this game be MORE successful. I know online PVP is big. I haven't PVP'ed with this one but I do play. I would hate to see this game end up like Dungeons and Dragon Online. Were they focused so hard on one type of crowd it lost too many members over time.

(DDO Focused on group play only and the game had little Solo content)

I am just saying why limit to PVP and add the extra feel.

But most of those games take place on small maps, with maybe two or more bases. I thought Fallout Tactics was considered decent at best.

Homeworld was another game series that resemblies this game in a small way which also included a campaign.

First, did you ever make your way through Homeworld's campaign? It really is a great story, same for Cataclysm. Second, did you play the original Ground Control? I enjoyed it's campaign quite a lot and am very upset that I lost the expansion while only being half-way through it.

The point being that not all RTS campaigns are boring crap, just a depressingly large number of them, especially recently.

Personally, I think I'd rather see them release tools to allow us to make our own campaigns. Not that I don't think they can make a good one - but I don't know if they can make a great one.

If they release the tools, there'll probably be dozens of average to poor campaigns, but also a handful of real gems.

I like that idea Brillig.

you suck Campians in a RTS game are EXECELEENT they pit you 4/10 and make it really easy or hard as all get out to win thats why ive playded RA2 all the time until this sucker came out and i gotta tell i hope the campian comes soon or a expiasion with a campgian comes out so we can have a better time playin it! anyway i do in-war campgains there are 5 galaxies!!! FIVE!!! ive alrdy destoroyed Luxema they shouldnt have broken a allaince just because i failed to protect thier homeplanet so i allied agasint their enemy and wiped them out!!!YAY lol NEVER ally with a TEC only ally with Advent or Vasari they will back you up! (just sayin)

MUST HAVE CAMPAIGN PLS!

Homeworld is another linear game, with trial and error missions. The only titles that resemble this game are EAW and Supreme Commander (marginally). BTW, what you like to see in campaign?

I guess that's the issue here: RTS games have campaigns, but 4x games DON'T (in general). They don't need them (IMO), because the nature of a 4x game is that it effectively creates a campaign every time you play.

Seriously, try "telling" a story as you go, perhaps get screenies and story text into a blog. Here's the expansion phase, peace and prosperity. Here's where we meet the neighbours. Here's the early friendship, then betrayal. Here are the early defeats. Here's where we had to abandon our colonies, and here's the heroic death of the flagship. Here's the desperate alliance, the comeback, the victory.

Most RTSes need a campaign because the "skirmish" is often bland, brief, and without challenge. It's just a (poor) trainer for multiplay. But Sins, like any 4x, is built around the sandbox game. That IS the story.

...but hey, this is also an RTS, and if people come along wanting an RTS campaign, then who am I to tell them they're wrong? Bring on the campaign. But if you look at the game more as a 4X you may find it's redundant.

A well done story doesn't have to be cheesy or forgettable. I am guessing they didn't put on in because the one they would have done would be cheesy and forgettable.

I'd like to think that Ironclad, the developer who produced something more than a run-of-the-mill RTS, would similarly be capable of producing something more than a run-of-the-mill single player campaign.

If someone puts a campaign in, that's fine-n-dandy, I really don't care. I just don't see the point for it in this type game. In most RTS', the campaign is merely an introductory to new units, and, with the exception of a few games, features a bland, cliched story. In the games that Paul gives examples as, most of the games take place on single maps. The games are generally map-by-map progression, with little in the way of player intervention or decision making. Homeworld's campaign, for instance, whilst being somewhat interesting, was purely a trial and error experience. How would this work in SINS? Would we be limited to attacking only certain planets, given marginal access to research topics, or forced to follow around certain characters? How would this be superior to the current format, which bestows upon you the freedom to do as you please? Secondly, to give a good story, they'd have to hire more actors, develop characters and the story more, etc. It's not something that can easily be added in a convenient patch. Again, I have no qualms with the idea of a campaign, I just don't see why people are so baffled by its absence. would similarly be capable of producing something more than a run-of-the-mill single player campaign. Yet it happens frequently.

Ironclad has stated, pretty officially, that they are considering creating and releasing a campaign as/in an expansion pack. Don't forget that the tutorials use a trigger system to walk you through learning, a system modular enough to expand into a campaign.

There is also something to be said for no campaign. Games like Star Wars Rebellion didn't have this, partly because you were expected to know what you were supposed to do: kill the Rebel scum! In Sins' case, this is a huge sandbox between factions and their own subfactions (multiple players/AIs of the same faction) where things are completely liquid, and not scripted.

I wanted a campaign too, because I'm primarily a singleplayer player. Sure, I fire it up on LAN from time to time--but that doesn't replace singleplayer in my mind.

And guys, please. How many Stardock sponsored, or made, games have been abandoned? There will be a great amount of development in the near future to improve AI, modding tools, and the overall game's features. Please, give them a chance. It's early in the lifespan of this game, and you aren't even listening to what they have already said. They aren't just going to jump and throw a campaign together to silence you. If they make a campaign, as I think they will, Ironclad will take its time and do it right.

Stardock, and by association Ironclad, has a reputation of doing right by its users. How about you users do right by them in return? These things have been argued about until blue in the face. There will be no resolution until people search the forums, read the FAQ, or until SD/IC announces the release of an expansion for the campaign.

Eh, to amplify on the point I made earlier, it takes more than good game design skills to make a good campaign. What makes a campaign really stand out is the story-telling involved, and that's a completely orthogonal skill-set to what most game designers have.

So just because they've put together a great game, it doesn't mean that they will necessarily do well by the campaign. There are all too many examples of good games with completely forgettable campaigns. Even GC2 (sorry, Brad!)

So rather than see a ho-hum campaign, I think they should release the tools to the community.

Yes, a well done campaign would be welcome.
No, I don't want it.

That's because a good campaign (a bad one would be pointless) requires a lot of time/resources from the developer, and I would rather see them spent on balancing/polishing SoaSE, expanding its list of features and diversification of its universe (yet keeping focused, quite preferably).
Sure, something like SoaSE's prologue would be great: telling a story behind the conflict(s) and how it unravels. That would be a very good inspiration to play - it always is for me.
But a mediocre campaign - which I'd play once and forget - would be a waste on a project like SoaSE. In my opinion.