Sins part ll » Forum Post by spaceman63

Am I the only RTS player on Earth that regards linear, "story based" lead-you-by-the-nose campaigns in RTS games as boring, pointless, and unplayable? I mean, add a metamap campaign or some other kind of higher level strategic layer and I'm interested, but I can't imagine bothering to play through a story campaign in a game like this. Strategy games simply aren't good story telling devices IMO.

Oh, and you should be appealing to Ironclad. Stardock may be an unusually involved publisher but they didn't develop the game and won't be developing the expansion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Campaign mode? How would that do anything but dumb this game down? This game can go 1000 different directions based on your actions and the actions of the AI depending on it's settings. I don't want to be limited to some goofy storyline and then be unable to complete it or have to re-do scenarios that take hours to complete because I didn't expand fast enough or an overly aggressive AI happened to expand out faster in one direction and took the planet that is the point of that scenario etc..

This is a dynamic strategy game, similar to chess in a lot of regards. You couldn't have a campaign for chess because there are literally millions of possible outcomes, likewise with this there are so many ways to accomplish a victory or get spanked in defeat it would be nearly impossible to create a campaign that wouldn't completely suck or fail, or both.

Just say no to campaigns.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Am I the only RTS player on Earth that regards linear, "story based" lead-you-by-the-nose campaigns in RTS games as boring, pointless, and unplayable?

Much as I enjoyed Blizzard's campaigns, no. You're not. Very few RTS titles (World in Conflict being the only one in my recent memory) put enough effort into getting a campaign 'right'.

I wouldn't argue with seeing a campaign but I can't imagine it'll add more than a day or two of play-time to a game that I'm already going to be playing for at least a few months. In my case, that's quite a bit of programming effort for a pretty slim return.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Am I the only RTS player on Earth that regards linear, "story based" lead-you-by-the-nose campaigns in RTS games as boring, pointless, and unplayable? I mean, add a metamap campaign or some other kind of higher level strategic layer and I'm interested, but I can't imagine bothering to play through a story campaign in a game like this. Strategy games simply aren't good story telling devices IMO.

Campaign mode? How would that do anything but dumb this game down? This game can go 1000 different directions based on your actions and the actions of the AI depending on it's settings. I don't want to be limited to some goofy storyline and then be unable to complete it or have to re-do scenarios that take hours to complete because I didn't expand fast enough or an overly aggressive AI happened to expand out faster in one direction and took the planet that is the point of that scenario etc..This is a dynamic strategy game, similar to chess in a lot of regards. You couldn't have a campaign for chess because there are literally millions of possible outcomes, likewise with this there are so many ways to accomplish a victory or get spanked in defeat it would be nearly impossible to create a campaign that wouldn't completely suck or fail, or both.Just say no to campaigns.

Wow, just wow. A player brings his suggestions and wish list for the expansion, and all you can do is flame him??

I would love for sins to have a good story campaign. Why? Because I like to play good story campaigns. If you don't like them, just fu** off and leave those who do like it have their fun, ignore the campaign option and continue to play skirmish or multi. Stop beind so damn arrogant.

And lol Napalm, there only TWO outcomes in chess, either you win or you lose. How you do either of those is another thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Tridus

Join Date 03/2008

+110

People are interested in a campaign mode because there's a story to tell in this game, and who doesn't like a good story?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The reason there's no campaign now is because Ironclad didn't want to half-ass one, and developing a great campaign would not have been possible in the time frame they had.

In short, when we do get one I would bet a lot of money it will be well done

Successfully updated karma reason!

Am I the only RTS player on Earth that regards linear, "story based" lead-you-by-the-nose campaigns in RTS games as boring, pointless, and unplayable? I mean, add a metamap campaign or some other kind of higher level strategic layer and I'm interested, but I can't imagine bothering to play through a story campaign in a game like this. Strategy games simply aren't good story telling devices IMO.Campaign mode? How would that do anything but dumb this game down? This game can go 1000 different directions based on your actions and the actions of the AI depending on it's settings. I don't want to be limited to some goofy storyline and then be unable to complete it or have to re-do scenarios that take hours to complete because I didn't expand fast enough or an overly aggressive AI happened to expand out faster in one direction and took the planet that is the point of that scenario etc..This is a dynamic strategy game, similar to chess in a lot of regards. You couldn't have a campaign for chess because there are literally millions of possible outcomes, likewise with this there are so many ways to accomplish a victory or get spanked in defeat it would be nearly impossible to create a campaign that wouldn't completely suck or fail, or both.Just say no to campaigns.Wow, just wow. A player brings his suggestions and wish list for the expansion, and all you can do is flame him??I would love for sins to have a good story campaign. Why? Because I like to play good story campaigns. If you don't like them, just fu** off and leave those who do like it have their fun, ignore the campaign option and continue to play skirmish or multi. Stop beind so damn arrogant.And lol Napalm, there only TWO outcomes in chess, either you win or you lose. How you do either of those is another thing.

I wasn't flaming, I was venturing my opinion on this suggestion. And while there is only a win or lose in chess, how you get there is accomplished in many many different ways, much like this game.

I don't like the campaign model for a game like this, because it would have to have artificial limiters on it to keep you 'in the story'. Much like Heroes Of Might And Magic, with their campaigns, I hated those things because you would end up on a linear map or with limited troops just to tell the story.

That's why I never played the scenarios there, and don't see the need for them here. I think Ironclad went through the decision making process and tossed the campaign model for that reason.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If they do they could try and make it like Emperor: Battle For Dune or Rise of Legends. You can choose from the galactic map the sector you want to start in then have a few missions in there then allow the player to choose a new sector. Like how forces can get moved around to deal with surfacing threats. Only the player chooses where to start and where to go from there.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ironclad has already stated that they want to do a campaign, but have some unique ideas of how to do it so it's done right (since they don't like tradition RTS campaigns), and they plan to put it in an expansion. Case closed.

More here:

Ironclad Interview

-HM

Successfully updated karma reason!

Case closed.

I wish

In every thread about a campaign that pops up some of us make Ironclad's plans/reasoning known, but people just read over it and keep debating the issue

Successfully updated karma reason!

Single player games are just plain boring to me. When I purchase a game it is a MUST that it has a lot of players online. With Sins, I never have to wait longer than a few minutes to start a game. It's great.

I enjoy the thrill of playing against live human intelligence. Solitaire games are not for me.

The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat is just 1000% better when it's against a live human opponent.

I stopped playing solitaire video games back with the original Sony Playstation 1999.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Single player games are just plain boring to me. When I purchase a game it is a MUST that it has a lot of players online. With Sins, I never have to wait longer than a few minutes to start a game. It's great.I enjoy the thrill of playing against live human intelligence. Solitaire games are not for me.The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat is just 1000% better when it's against a live human opponent.I stopped playing solitaire video games back with the original Sony Playstation 1999.

Well, you are not forced to play the campaign, now are you?
Some few others (like me) love campaign and lore ( if done correctly) and i could name a alot ( well atleast from what i have played) RTS's with great campaigns.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would find a small campaign for each faction leading up to where the game currently begins interesting. It could help to deepen the lore part of the experience. Nothing majot just simply a lead in to where the game is at. I can't see a full game campaign truely working here, but some small campaign story lines for the factions could be interesting.

As well as for adding any future races.

I think they could be nice ways to tell a greter sized story. Perhaps that is the eventual intent, I dunno.

Either way I would see them mainly as a bonus, and not something that is actually lacking from a fun game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What truly sucks unless playing MP is the lack of even the simplest of objectives other than, "destroy the npc's". No conquest objectives, build rewards, nothing at all. Even in MP there aren't any real objectives other than, "destroy all players" which usually involves spawn rushing the opponent with the cheapest tactics possible because interplanetary defenses are laughable. Gauss Guns, supposed anti-fleet platforms that can't insta-wreck a missile frig or seige frigate? Hangars with fighters incapable of close orbit manuevers -apparently nobody thought to put guns on the side or area affect bombs for damage or antimatter disruption.

The range of capital weapons is pretty short and pretty ineffective vs anything smaller than capital ship or structure. Improved damage to frigates and cruisers with secondary weapons is a must.

-campaign... A "METAL FATIGUE" type campaign for each race would be very cool, but would require a DEV with a conscience and regret for having released the game in it's decidedly boring state.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Am I the only RTS player on Earth that regards linear, "story based" lead-you-by-the-nose campaigns in RTS games as boring, pointless, and unplayable? (1)

Strategy games simply aren't good story telling devices IMO. (2)

(1) I would have disagreed with you 100 times over had I not played through the Battle for Middle Earth II campaign. Just thinking about it makes me want to hurl. Playing the 'sandbox' mode is tons of fun usually, but the single player campaign is just... it cripples the game as a whole, in my opinion. It goes so far bad that it actually un-teaches you to play the game, all the while waxing 'neo-dramatic'.

(2) I think they CAN be. For example, Starcraft and Warcraft (III) have deep and complex story lines with real characters and (mostly) interesting conflicts. These two also use story elements and mission goals to 'teach' you certain aspects of the game, like microing a specific unit or something. So they're a double-good thing. Games like Age of Empires have their own sort of appeal in that you can make 'historical' campaigns with them.

Command and Conquer has always been very weak in story line, though I definitely liked Red Alert II. However, they have a lot of flair in their single player game so it keeps it at least interesting.

If you're resorting to chug up a plot from the black depths, then you're better off just making a really kickass sandbox. I thought the Galciv II campaign was mediocre at BEST, for example. However, the sandbox game makes it basically negligible because it is enormous in its depth, basically accounting for the whole game.

As to whether or not Sins should have a story-line 'campaign' - well I think if it's gonna be something GOOD then go for it. You really have to have a Blizzard mentality with those kinds of things - if it rubs you the wrong way, trash it. Whether or not people admit it, I think they'd rather have no fleshed out story line than an afterthought or a poorly-developed one.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ironclad has already stated that they want to do a campaign, but have some unique ideas of how to do it so it's done right (since they don't like tradition RTS campaigns), and they plan to put it in an expansion. Case closed.More here:Ironclad Interview-HM

That's actually pretty encouraging. It'll be interesting to see what exactly they have in mind.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Whether or not people admit it, I think they'd rather have no fleshed out story line than an afterthought or a poorly-developed one.

Oh, I'll admit it in a heartbeat. If you're going to half-ass a campaign (I'm looking at you, Soulstorm), I say just take that extra time and add some more features to the general skirmish/multiplayer game instead. Odds are, you'll get a lot more bang for your buck from players in that department.

If there's one thing I can't stand when it comes to gaming, it's wasted or half-realized features. Poorly designed campaigns actively hinder my interest in a game, even if the general modes are a blast. They keep me focused on what the game 'should' have rather than what it 'does' have.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Story based 1p campaigns are so useful for dumbing down the learning curve.. it is so much easier to learn a game if you only have to figure out 1 or 2 units at a time, and where they fit into the grand scheme of things, likewise where to find stuff on the tech trees, etc.
The way it is now, it's here's the game, install, register, update, play a couple 1p games, go online and start getting pwned.. try to host your own game, realize that you need to do something called port forwarding.. call in your 8 year old kid to help you.. realize it is beyond them too, and so you go back to playing something else.. 200k copies bought, 200 players in the lobby on the average means that 1/1000 people are actually playing

(well playing online anyhow)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree that RTS game campaigns tend to often be a little too linear but I do think that there is a really great story to be told from this game. Ironclad is trying to figure out some way of having a non-linear campaign so that they can break the mold a little. I think we should give them some time and see what they come up with for the expansion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't think they should have put a single player campaign in just to have one. But maybe the tutorials could have told the story.

Tutorial: TEC drives back Vasari invasion, you have to learn how to move your broken fleet to fight the new advent menece. Or whatever.

I would rather the developers not waste their time on a story line that is not going to just blow my mind. Homeworld's story campaign is a good example. It was pathetic and drew the developers away from improving the game mechanics.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I value everyone's opinion on the single player campaign issue and I can see why some gamers think that a single player campaign is wrong for sins, but I also agree with 1veovis1 and other gamers suggestions about short campaigns for bringing out the flavor of who each faction is. Of course I do love skirmishes and the harder the better because there is where you get bloodied before going up against some of you multiplayer gods, therefore if not a short single player campaign than at least a good fist full of skirmishes. I played Homeworld 1,2 and Nexus for a long time just because of their skirmishes before I struggled with getting on line and playing and I know that going online against other gamers is the ultimate way to play because even the best AI will never be able to replace the human ability to think out of the box in any given situation. But all you gamers beware because I have a chilling feeling that Iron Clad is going to listen to you and come at you with even a better sins, so beware!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

They seem to be completely behind this game and I would not be at all surprised if they plan on making a series out of this if everything goes well. Basically this game was a way for them to lay down the ground-work. It's a great game but (single-player included or not) I think there are going to be some expansion packs coming down the road that will include all kinds of features they didn't have time to put in for this game. If they do come up with an innovative way to weave in single-player like they said in the interview that would be cool because there's some good story in there. If they don't come out with one then that means it would have been garbage and you don't want it anyway.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I guess a game like this can't be all things to all people.

There seems to be enough people interested in a SP campaign, that i'm sure the devs will try to meet those expectations in a way that will not hinder sales of the game.

That being said, for those of us who have no interest in replaying linear, glorified tutorial "stories", we simply won't play them. And that will be that.

Which is shortsighted i think, because a sandbox style game like this needs a SP campaign as much as a game like MoO2 did. Which is to say, not at all.

What the game needs are more strategic options to win the game. Having a backstory in a strategy game is "nice", but it's not the meat of a strategy game experience. It doesn't depend upon it. The story in a strategy game is merely icing on the cake.

A good strategy game depends upon providing a variety of strategic options to replay the game with. Otherwise, story or not, it will get boring for players. Again, if I want to experience a great story in a pc game, there are already plenty of adventure/RPG games out there devoted to doing that.

When it comes to strategy games, i want strategy and lots of it. Sucking time and resources away from improving the strategic options in this game for a non-replayable campaign is a mis-step.

Improving the game mechanics and adding new strategic features also caters to both the competitive online players as well as the solo players. The same cannot be said of a linear, SP campaign.

Oh well. Regardless of what folks like me think, the SP campaign is coming anyway. So there's nothing else i can do but vent about it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just don't see the joy in playing against an AI when you can play against real people.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just don't see the joy in playing against an AI when you can play against real people.

I guess you don't see the joy in reading a book about a murder mystery instead of joining the local police either. 'Single player' is not equivalent to 'single player campaign.' Campaigns can be enjoyable for the story, the characters, and the interaction between the two and the player.

Also you have to consider that not all people want competition when they play. They want to make their own story with their own characters, and they might not want to restrict themselves to using only optimal solutions (as you would against a human player). After years of competitive gaming in several different games (and genres), I painfully learned this fact.

Successfully updated karma reason!