How much extra work would it have been to make a campaign mode?

I dunno, but in my opinion it was effort better spent on adding features and polish to the sandbox.

I've owned GalCiv II for a while now, got each expansion as it came out, tried a lot of mods... and never played through the actual campaign.

Eh, its more like they've gotten "trained" to think of games as story telling mediums in their own right -- a good thing in some ways, because they can be, even if not all games do so. (games really need to get "mainline" respect as a story telling medium...)

I'd be the first to admit GalCiv2's campaign wasn't very good. (Actually, probably more like the three hundred thousanth, but that's beside the point).

But the idea is not all campaigns are like the way you guys just described them. One thing I liked about BFME I was that in the campaign you could choose your missions, which led you to a different set of choices. You also brought your forces along with you (if you lost a bunch of units in one mission, you needed to rebuild). And the 'tech tree' of 'powers' did not reset in each mission.

Why is there this tendency to compare GalCivII to SoaSE? Just because one campaign was bad, another one will be? And furthermore, why should you guys object to having a campaign if you are not going to play it anyway?

Making a campaign isn't a continuous process. Once it's made, it's finished. On the other hand, creating a game is much more like a continous process, with constant updating. Sure, in the short run, Sins might have not been released for another month or two.

But in the long run, they could focus any expansions or updates mainly for skirmish and multiplayer.



Also, not including a campaign for a game that starts out with a pretty cool story (and not telling it any other way) would be like not having a story in the first place. And to you guys (the multiplayer/skirmish people) you wouldn't care because the story isn't even part of the game to you!


You are missing the point. In Civilization, there is no story. Sure, there are the scenarios, but there's really no story in those either.
On the other hand, a game that gave us a story very far back in the developmental stages would seem like a game to have a campaign included. So yes, I think of games as story-telling mediums, but only when they have a story!


Sorry for the super-long rant, but I doubt many people will even read down to this apology.

Whose objecting?

Saying they made a good decision is not the same thing as saying I'd object to having made the opposite. I wouldn't have liked it, but oh well.



So you want your campaign now, and the skirmish / multiplayer features later. Whereas we got our skirmish / multiplayer now, and you're getting your campaign later. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Sure, GC2 had a suck single player story, but then the other half of the influence, Homeworld, had a fantastic storyline.

I'd see SOASE having one storyline for each race. The Advent finding and reclaiming their world of origin and forcing peace with the TEC, the Varari getting enough resources to pull out and continue their journay or find out whatever it is they're running from. The TEC surviving the Vasari and Advent onslaught to resume their civilization. Then you can throw in a fourth storyline of all three races being forced to cooperate with each other against whatever has been following the Vasari.

I dunno, campaigns were good back in the days of the westwood made cnc games, but really, I dont need campaigns to enjoy my games. I've been roleplaying my RTS games for quite some time now. Even in multiplayer, I've roleplayed games like CnC generals and earth 2150/2160 with other people. So long as it's done effectively, it brings a whole new level of enjoyment to an otherwise bland game. Too many RTS's now a days are all about rush rush rush, end game in 3 minutes. I say, whats the point in that? To get another tick mark in your stats screen? Whats more fun? Playing the game or getting a tick mark? Seems pretty one sided to me. I have to say I love SoaSE because of its length and depth of play (not to mention the engine...drool). I am personally glad that they setup the storyline the way they did. Giving us a basis for the rest of the story and letting us fill in the rest the way we see fit. It makes the game far more fun, especially in MP. (I have to admit, I havent play MP in this game yet, but as soon as the semester is done, I'll be sitting on my butt for 3 weeks straight). So I say kudos to the devs!

I would just like to know what the Vasari are running from, as far as story goes. The rest is pretty self-explanatory to me.

Of course, elaboration in the future would be very, very welcome.

Hello All.

I agree with both sides here, but being an "old" gamer, lover of RPG, a story line once started, as the intro to this game gives us, needs some kind of more "meat", either for just the enjoyment of the story (like Halo as some one mentionned, or Mass Efffect), whatever type of play is involves gives me some more enjoyment.

I am certain once I get the hang of the interface and play against other, it will be great, but at the same time, I have a very "loner" streak and just love a good immersive story line whatever the type of game it is.

DEVS: My hat off to you all for this game... Let us know a bit more of the story whatever way you want too