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.
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.
