spaceman63 spaceman63

Sins part ll

Sins part ll

  SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN PLEASE!!, This has got to be the number 1 gripe because Stardock came up with one hell of  a game, I love the graphics and most everything about the game and being played in real time shows that Stardock is thinking big time. The opening story and background is very interesting, the Vasari being of an elitist older race should have way more advance technology then the humans, however, humans what we lack in tech stuff, we more than make up ignoring the odds and winning by any means nessasary and having a single player campaign will let us gain a more in depth knowledge of the game, so make it tough!

I think most of the gamers have very great ideas such as orbital battle stations, planetary defenses i.e nukes and or heavy partical beams, boarding parties, cap ships that really move and act like the big beast that they are( maybe some eye candy too such as moving turrets on the ships as well as ships showing battle damage scorched hulls )

Now that the humans are fully engaged in a war for survival against a more advanced race as well as aggressive pirates, their ships should start looking more and more like true ships of war! ;) 

Bigger gravity well is a must which can play a part  in the battle by effecting the way a ship can fight or run, the bigger the planet the more gravity it has, space itself is dangerous such as dense dust clouds that can damage hulls at high speeds or high rads from a unstable sun.

I have no doubt that Stardock is listening and that they are going to hit another home run with the next level of Sins

33,222 views 29 replies
Reply #26 Top
Homeworld's story campaign is a good example. It was pathetic and drew the developers away from improving the game mechanics.
End of quote



ROFL.

IMO, a (any) strategy game without a story is just a screen with a bunch of pretty things with stats moving aroud. Having a good story is never a bad thing for any game.

And sometimes playing against an AI is more fun than playing against another player.........
Reply #27 Top
I like the thought of a campaign, I don't see why it have people here who think it's some kind of zero sum game; the devs won't make a campaign *instead* of improving the game in general, they just want to make the game as good and as appealing as possible. You can choose difficulty, pirate activity, team dynamics and soon, a campaign. Haven't seen anyone say developing AI is a waste of team resourses because they always play online!

I can't see the above linked interview or whatever at the moment, but a non-linear campaign mode would be great. Maybe something where outcomes on previous maps affects what you start with next, or trying to take over a massive space 'quadrant' or some such. Something which can at some point involve amassing a huge invasion fleet and conquering an entire enemy system of systems from the first planet onwards. Attacking overstretched supply lines. Slaughtering trillions!

Sick

Sounds rather ambitious though, a completely different kind of game even.
Reply #28 Top

IMO, a (any) strategy game without a story is just a screen with a bunch of pretty things with stats moving aroud. Having a good story is never a bad thing for any game.
End of quote


Problem is, most of the time they forget the "good story" part. Blizzard is really good at making their campaigns more of an "interactive movie" than anything else, but most other companies don't quite seem to have the idea. When they do, thats when we will accept the "old" format campaigns.
Reply #29 Top
Part of what made the command and conquer stories so good was that they were more of a cheesy b movie / story mode. If Ironclad can make a blizzard-esque or a Westwood Studios type story or if they can come up with something new and equally thrilling, then I want to see it. Otherwise, I want them to add enjoyable content instead. I would rather be disappointed with no story than disgusted with a bad one.