Backstory Unimportant? I Don't Think So!

You've obviously never met a US Republican.

I'll stop that on that subject before I even start.

I love 40K, been playing it for over a decade, and am a huge Eldar fan (they are not decadent!). While I am completely against the devs wasting time on a standard campaign for Sins, I'll concede that you have a good point about backstory.

I listened to an interview with the guys from Ironclad, last night, and I've got renewed hope that they'll come through with a good way to give us immersive story without ruining the sandbox nature of the game.

In time, all shall come to accept the Unity.
By hook or by crook.

Not that I disagree with the notion that a story can add draw to the game but this struck me as the most important part of your post. It seems to me that if you're going to spend a day or two on the campaign in Soulstorm (which, to me was abysmal in the story/character department, even compared to Dark Crusade) before coming right back to Sins, then it stands to reason that gameplay 'is' more valuable to you in the long run than backstory.

Roughly equal, at least, since you spent nearly the same amount of money on both of them.

Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

Ahem.  I'm probably to the right of most Republicans.

Well, if that turns out to be the case, then you have a much stronger stomach for repeated skirmishes against easy AI's (on any difficulty) than I do. This time around, there are only three different scenarios - basic skirmish, take and hold skirmish, and the strongholds which aren't nearly as interesting or chatty as they were in DC.

I've never been big into the campaigns of RTS games. I'm not really sure why that is. However, I find the campaign experience to be much more important in action/FPS games. Backstory can play an important role in all games, yes, but it isn't absolutely required in my mind. There's a lot of give and take. You can trade backstory with other elements of making a successful game. When someone figures out how to create a persistent campaign that evolves over the course of your actions, then I might be more interested. Otherwise, I'm not really all that thrilled about having scripted situations ala Starcraft or Command and Conquer. At least in the better RTS and FPS games (Crysis, Far Cry, etc.) there are multiple ways to approach a given scenario. I like variety, challenge, and to feel like my actions are having a cumulative effect. That's something that sadly isn't present in most RTS games. It was very present in Rise of Nations (which is still my favorite RTS) with its conquer the world mode and Sins seems to follow a lot of the same elements that made that game so successful in my eyes.


That was the most uninformed, below the belt comment I've seen on these forums to date. There are bad people on both sides of the aisle.

Frogboy, would you mind sharing your views? =P I never think of a gamedeveloper/publisher as a republican, much less to the right of them.

Also, it was joking. I thought it was funny. I'd laugh if it was democrats in the place.

Anyone who played Homeworld quickly realized the value of a single player campaign. Im sorry but that was the best RTS campaign i have ever played through. To this day i will go back and play through it just for the epic scope and the epic feel of it. I was sad when i found this game had none of the epic feel that Homeworld had, and it wasn't that Homeworld was all that epic, it just felt epic because of both the story and the camera system. As cool as this game is, the ships, even the capital ships feel tiny. None of them feel like they are massive kilometers long ships. They may behave like it, but they quite frankly just done feel epic.



I find myself unamused. You make it sound as if there are no good republicans, and that all democrats can do no wrong. Charming.

Don't let me sour you on the expansion in general. Opinions will vary, of course, but I still think it's a quality game and there's plenty of skirmishing fun to be had.

But yes, the campaign isn't presented anywhere near as well as DC's (which, in gameplay terms, was iffy in its own right). There's very little character interaction (in fact, I don't remember any race-specific banter between the faction leaders. It was all just one leader or another doing their "let's do it, men!" thing), pretty much the same wargear and conditions for getting it, fewer and far less useful map bonuses, no persistent bases after combat, and only those three types of scenarios. At one point, my Eldar Farseer did her speech with the voice of a burly Imperial Guard commander so I'm guessing that a few bugs are loose as well.

Anyway, this is probably not the best place for a review of another game but, since you brought it up, I'm going to hope that it's somehow on-topic.

lets not get into politics ppl, this is just a game lets chill and talk bout the game , if u wanna get into political debates go to actual political forums. with that said i think that th backstory of a game is vastly important to that game, without one you can immerse urself in the game, in fact thats the one point where i think soase is lacking and i would really liek a campaign liek homeworld 2 or sumtin, speaking of homeworld 2 i played it today for the first time and its orgasmic

cant*

If you weren't one of them, you wouldn't have been offended. Get over it.

I think one part is that many people find the repetition tedious. Nearly every map, you build your power plants, your factory, tech up your tanks, and conquer in the same way. In an FPS it's much more dynamic in terms of presentation while still retaining the sense of accomplishment and persistence. Homeworld is one of the only FPS games to have captured both an engaging, dynamic campaign without repeating itself (ie: Starcraft's lousy campaign, 90% of the missions were just you vs. an AI with a big base), and retain persistence through the entire event.

All ppl asking for a campaign obviosly want a great campaign... Well, devs already said they didn't have time to make it. Period.

95% of most campaigns become dull quite fast imo. And usually it's just a exercise in dullness before in the final part they finally let you use all skills/units. I rather play skirmish than a so so campaign. If and when they do make a campaign, if any. It better be a great one they want to play themselfs. Otherwise i suggest they put that dev time into other parts of the game.

Like I said earlier, campaigns are nice, but they have to feel cumulative. In Rise of Nations you got bonuses in assets and research that built up over time. You weren't always doing a fresh start. You were also able to choose the way you approached taking over the world. That was by far my favorite approach to a single player campaign, although the individual missions themselves were disappointingly shallow unlike those you find in games like Command and Conquer, Starcraft, or others. When someone merges the cumulative aspects with the depth of other games, then that will truly be something special and worthy of playing through for me.


Get over yourself. I never said I was offended. I commented on the lack of wisdom behind such a comment and the inappropriateness of inserting politics into a non-politically oriented place. That includes your little picture as well as the original comment that started this. And if you really want to know, I left the left because of this sort of activity, and then I left the right too. As you might not imagine, having been on both sides of the aisle in the past has given me a rather unique point of view and lets me see the pros and cons of both sides. Being in McLean, VA gives me a rather up close and personal view on politics too. Take your political smut somewhere else where it belongs. There's enough websites, radio stations, and TV channels that cater to that stuff as it is. We don't need it on a games forum, especially one liner jabs.

I've found that a good story line can make up for poor gameplay. Final Fantasy 12 was a good example of this, although there were many bugs that were serious enough to cause me to lose a battle, the story kept me playing through till the end.

However, I have also found that good gamplay can make up for poor or non-existant storyline. Battlefield 2142 has very little storyline, but-the gameplay is such that I still played it alot, till the game got repetitive.

I think IC has some good gameplay, and some interesting backstory, allowing them to improve on either, which puts them in a good position for people like me.

While I would like playable story, I tend to think of sins like an old Choose Your Own Adventure book. Every game you play evolves its own story based on what little we do know. The Vasari are running like hell from something, need to prepare for the next retreat. The Advent have popped up after 1000 years in hiding and are pissed. The TEC was just there chillin when all this fell in their lap, and now must defend in a seemingly hopeless battle. It goes as it goes from there.

In the end
Vasari victory = natives subdued, free to keep running like hell when the whatever shows up
Advent Victory = Sucessfully extract revenge. Dunno what they would do from there, maybe mellow out a bit
TEC Victory = Home defended, life can go on as normal


KP

Additional SoaSE backstory... The Space Ponies VS The Galactic Empire





No one is perfect... for this you could be forgiven.

Most business people are right of center. Not because they embrace the Republican platform but because of economic freedom - the ability for individuals to enter into agreements without the government interfering as well as government confiscation of capital.  So to some of us, the left are the villains, just villains with good intentions.

As for the backstory, it is indeed very important to the Sins universe.

The Vasari, for example, would utteryl overwhelm the humans entirely if it weren't for the fact that the entire TEC is only dealing with a tiny fraction of of the remnants of the Vasari Empire which was a vast, VAST interstellar empire.

The exiling of what became the Advent really understates the turmoil going on in human society at the time of Sins of a Solar Empire.  Should humans intervene directly into their own evolution? It was a massive issue 1,000 years ago with the overwhelming majority believing that it was a dangerous path to take. If everyone began doing genetic modivications to themselves, you would have a massive arms race in ethically iffy genetic manipulation. 

Even within 1,000 years, the Advent are only human by the most generous terms. It isn't even known whether the Advent and humans (TEC) are still biologically compatible.

What I really like about the Sins backstory is that it is quite plausible in many respects.  One can imagine what will happen here on Earth within the next 1,000 years as we discover ways of modifying our own DNA and improving ourselves. We might be surprised how rapidly humans begin to chance, as a species, once we start modifying ourselves.

For example, did you know a huge chunk of our DNA is reserved for the sense of smell? But that DNA is currently unused, disabled due to a genetic mutation that occurred within the last few million years.  It wouldn't be that hard to turn it back on and suddenly you'd have humans who could smell as well as other types of mammals (I wouldn't want to have that done to me but to a new born, it would give them advantages).  There are all kinds of other traits that we can probably modify within the next 20 years that could have a massive impact on the future of society.

And so that issue finally came to a head in Sins of a Solar Empire's universe. Which direction were humans going to take? Unrestricted genetic and cybernetic modification? Or not?  The zealots that became the Advent were exiled into the deep reaches of space but didn't forget the wrongs (from their perspective).

I think you'll see the Sins story explored in great detail in future expansion packs and sequels.

I suggested a while back that we have a backstory contest, I think I'll bring it up again

I think the original poster was talking about the relative importance of backstory and gameplay in games in general, as well as in Sins.

Look at historical games: when people play historical games, there are those who just want to replay the historical battles, and those who want to play 'what if' scenarios. One of the more popular books of alternate history, The Guns of the South, is about what if time travellers bring modern weaponry into the civil war. Maybe that's blasphemy to some (I don't know). But to me, it was a fun idea, and it worked.

It's a game. That means that while it may not be your cup of tea, there are some who will want to explore alternate scenarios. And the game is moddable. That means that if some capable person wants to bring magic into the game, they will. Some people will want to play that (assuming it's well done), and some won't.

I've run into the same sort of perspective at gaming conventions. Board gamers (myself) tend to be very flexible as far as rules are concerned. To us, it's not about what was intended, it's about what is fun. Lots of people have their own custom rules for their favorite board games. However, when rpgers get together with the board gamers to play some not-so-serious board games, it's always the rpgers who are aghast at those with the custom rules.

Get over it. People are not asking to shove their 4X rules down your throat. They are just asking for the opportunity to play a game that they see as being more fun.



I hate getting off-topic, but that's a very simplistic view. That's the Libertarian view, not the Republican view. It's not even incompatible with the Democrat view. People always are good at imagining what other people think, but in this case, it doesn't line up with reality. (It would be like if I was to claim that Republicans are against personal rights, and Democrats are against the rights of corporations to engage in predatory practices, which I would never do).

Ah, politics is in the air… I can remember so much… I have worked for both Republicans and Democrats, at the same time no less..

One time I was working with a Democrat running for Governor of New Jersey while also campaigning for a Republican for the State Senate, A democrat for city council and a Republican for Mayor.. I had a very busy season that year…

Out come was:

Governor: Win - Was a very close race
State Senator: Win - Was a landslide reelection
City Council: Win - landslide
Mayor: Loss - landslide, for the other team.. (who BTW, I joined up with eight years later when she sat down with me for about 20 minutes and we ironed out our differences; I was mistaken about a major item of contention and when explained to me what really happened, along with the proof, I switched sides and never looked back!)

May I say, Frogboy, that I appreciate your involvement in this forum.

I think that Sins did an amazing job with the plot. Subtle, but amazing nonetheless.

Campaigns are for progressing the universe, not explaining it. For the backstory proper, it tends to be 1) cut scenes and 2) game manuals that do the heavy lifting. In both areas, Sins has high quality products. I've rarely if ever seen an introductory cinematic that was so rousing, and the presence of so much fluff in the manual fondly reminded me of the original Homeworld's manual.

But more than that, Sins of a Solar Empire expresses the atmosphere of the universe in the techs you research, and the comments your vessels make - both extremely subtle, but very enjoyable. The Vasari are spot-on-perfect in this regard. It isn't just that I'm researching population cap increase, I'm genetically engineering slave populations to breath sulfur fumes or press ganging merchant vessels into doing my bidding. And "We don't have time for this!" is so laughably sad each time I hear it.

Speaking of politics, here's a sneak peek of Stardock's next game: http://beta.politicalmachine.com/