Civ 4 game IS the campaign. in this one you have 4~5 campaigns... just choose one of the large~ huge maps... the small maps are for short Multiplayer duels. I bet it will take longer to play a big map than most RTS campaigns would take.

this is not age of empires, stronghold or Middle earth... this is something new and different for once. thats the beauty of Sins... every time you play it will be different

Yes there is. There are CS and UT games with singleplayer maps, missions and a story.
I hope a campaign will be added.

Counter strike shipped with a single player story? LoL

To NottakenName. If you are saying Civilization is the campaign then you are mixing up what you are saying. Sins is the same as civ, only in space, RTS not turn based. Civ has no story or campaign nor does Sins. You make the story up as you go on. Plus Sins doesnt need a story or campaign, this game is too well polished in skirmish and multiplayer and stardock and ironclad has done a great job on it. For someone to criticize about it not having a campaign but saying civ has one does not know games from a horse's patoot.

I think I can shed some light on this issue. For some gamers (myself included), simply playing a game is not enough. Some of us require characters and settings that we can form some kind of attachment to. Without some kind of plot, a game like Sins (or virtually any other 4x game) has trouble holding our interest. While I realize that the game is designed around conquest for the sake of conquest, I prefer games in which I can hear the stories of the people involved in the conquest. This, I think, is what made Blizzard's RTS games so much fun for me.

That said, Sins does look to be one hell of a fun ride.

Wow, and you simply don't see ANY of your statement applying to Sins? Amazing.

O.K. So why doesn't that argument work for Sins?

"Sins doesn't need a storyline campaign because the game itself is the campaign. The whole premise is basically to take over the solar system, and that's all it needs to be."

I think that statement is essentially correct. The 4x genre, by it's very nature, does not really support storytelling. Stories are linear. It's impossible to script events in a game that is non-linear, short of arranging all the star systems in a straight line.

I personally am very happy with the game and how well thought out it is. However i am very much looking forward to seeing a story line come out of this. I have to say i am normally not much of a campaign guy but from the moment i read the lor i reallly was looking forward to playing the story out. it was a disapointment when i heard the devs were not going to have a campaign ready for release. I do TOTALLY understand why and agree with thier descision. However im still paciantly awaiting the day i can dive right into the amazing story that im sure will unfold one day.

lol so true, he basically described the situation with Sins thinking he was backing up his point but he just proved ours. People never cease to amaze me these days. Notakename if you do come back care to explain how this doesn't play to Sins just like in civ?

How I imagine it would work is that essentially objectives would be introduced into the skirmish game. So, for instance, your objective in one map might be to destroy an enemy's shipyards, or find an artifact at a particular planet, or defend an ally from a pirate raid, that sort of thing.

I think this thread is filled with needless flaming. Any game, whether 4X, shooter, or action game, is enhanced by a single player campaign simply because it is an outlet through which the developers can expand and progress a plot- If they choose not to take this route, it is certainly their prerogative.

4X games historically have a meta-plot that encompasses all the possibly player "race" choices, however, Stardock proved that having a campaign in the 4X genre can enhance general game and lore dynamics through Galactic Civilizations (if the developer so chooses).

I find Sins of a Solar Empire fun and immersive- I've played all three races now in varying map sizes, and I find it entertaining, polished, and well-paced. I've always wanted a Homeworld version of Master of Orion, or perhaps something reminiscent of Wing Commander Armada. Ironclad delivers.

However, I would not, absolutely would not, insist that adding a single player campaign would some how detract from the game- it would simply give the developers another outlet for A) Gradually immersing the player (the game has a very sharp learning curve), and Expanding or progressing the lore.

the skirmishes are great, smooth excellent game-play love it all.

i was just disappointed after reading the races descriptions and watching the intense intro movie to learn that i cant continue that storyline. what were the Vasari running from, will the advent get revenge and will the TEC survive? i would love to know how that plays out.

I would just hope something like - SINS 2.0 - campaign added

I think its great even without a campaign but I think that this game has the potential to have a good campaign. I was disappointed at first but after playing three skirmishes and currently trying to defeat the systems of war map it really doesn't need one to be fun. But once again it has the potential to have a great story. Part of the reason that I picked the Vasari as the race I prefer is because they have an interesting story. I'm someone who usually hates to play as aliens too. So I think this arguement could go either way really but I think it is great as is.

First, I think the game is challenging, and fun to play. It is disappointing, however, that the game has no campaign. A Homeworld/Starcraft mix with the background already established could be interesting. Ultimately, it feels like an incomplete game without the story and so few maps included. If they do release a campaign, I hope they don't expect those who already bought the game to spend additional money on what should have already been included.

well, I think the game is great as it is.
I'd rather see a game like sins, with strategy and choice, then a shallow game with a campaign like UaW.

Of course, I agree that the whole storyline seems a bit wasted without a campaign, but the game itself is great.

Very well said. A campaign would give you that feeling of history and background even when you are playing skirmishes. I mean I really felt that I hated the Drengin in Gal Civ. It would only add to what is already a good game.

One thing that a campaign does for most games is guide new players along the learning curve. The campaign is almost a demo in that respect. This game might benefit from having one.

Then again, I've never played any of the campaigns that have come with the various CIV expansions, nor did I bother with the campaigns in GalCiv...

I wonder if it would be possible for the devs to add, in a future patch, features enabling us to make campaigns more easily? For example, if anyone remembers playing the original X-Wing games, there was a tactical briefing before you started the mission where the commanders told you what to look out for, etc. And it was really easy to build mission briefings with a mission editor. It would be awesome if Stardock could build in some functionality so that if you make a map, you can have a pre-map tactical briefing that zooms into certain areas (e.g. "we believe the enemy has some key installations here...") before you start the map. Once the community gets the tools, some incredible stuff will come out.

Personally, I love the game as is, but campaigns are always fun - especially in co-op! I can already think of a hundred things I'd love to do narratively with this game.

Ten players isn't an MMO. That's not even FPS level of Multiplayer. Besides, this is pretty much a sandbox game. They will have campaign at a later date tho.

Disappointing? For me, it was more of a surprise, given that the meta-plot introduced in the opening movie sequences was much more detailed than I expected from a 4X game. But as I stated before, I opine that the absence of a campaign does not hurt the game- especially since it is not the centerpiece of this type of game, but rather, the inclusion of one may have made the game much more immersive.



Agreed, I tried playing a simple 1v1 game with the AI and got spanked over and over again because, well, I didn't know how to build capital ships and I made some very poor choices in the research tree. But in a way, it's what made this game even more fun- I wanted more and more to beat the incredible AI. And I did. Now...the hard switch. On or Off?





Indeed, I did a quick peruse of the dev chat and saw a quick mention of a possible campaign in the works. It just goes to show the quality of the devs and the publisher. Both are obviously dedicated to making a lasting, enjoyable presence with this game.

I'm so addicted.

I was also disappointed that there is no campaign (I thought I saw somewhere before I pre-ordered the game that there was supposed to be a campaign). Regardless I got addicted in Beta 2 and I'm amazed how good the game is at release.

After the intro video, I certainly expected a campaign button... but after playing the skirmish mode I'm not so bothered about it. Personally I rarely if ever play the campaign that comes with a game. Galciv 2 for instance, I think I played like 3 missions before I decided skirmish was more fun IMHO.

The game is extremely polished in most areas, and I'll take a game that isn't half-assed over one that's half-assed but full of features (even good ones) any day. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to play a game for over 30 hours now and not have one crash or hiccup.