So, you list it in the "cons" column, but don't ding an otherwise outstanding game for it!

Conquest Frontier Wars, Dark Planet, just 2 off the top of my head.

Every RTS I've ever played has a skirmish mode that you can play out of the box.

Why can't some people understand that many others--like me--would have liked to see a campaign mode (which they would be free to ignore)? Not only is the lack of a campaign mode diappointing in itself, especially given the elaborate backstory created here, but a well designed campaign could have taken the place of the current poorly designed turorials. Sins has a high learning curve (at least for me) and more help here would have been appreciated (ditto for GalCv2--this is a general Stradock failing).

To be fair, most 4x's (at least that I can recall) don't have Campaigns. MoO2, SMAC, and Gal Civ1 all did not have campaign modes, at least not for Gal Civ1 without the expansion. Now, yes, Gal Civ 2 does have a campaign, but that imposes limits on your Tech and restricts you to a map size that you cannot really control. Which is fine, it's a perfectly acceptable way to handle the campaign, it's just...I don't know, slightly odd to me.


As this is a hybrid, but with more of a RTS feel, I can understand the desire for a campaign. As I stated before, I think they could have done something cool, like expanding outwards for each "mission" instead of having discreet stages. Kinda like SupCom did it, except SupCom would move to new maps. Not sure if I'm being clear or not. Start with a small sector of space, a few planets. After a certain event (defeating pirates or something), pull back to the whole Solar System, which suddenly has invaders on a few of the outer/inner planets. As you push them back and take the star, the game pulls back even further revealing another solar system linked by the stars. All of this could be intercut with "stages" and "missions" that require a certain event to happen in order to advance the story.

I think the scores that all mention the lack of a campaign and "ding" them for it are well within their rights. After all, Perfect Scores should mean Perfect games. It's something they missed. Not that I agree with the whole number rating thing, but I understand why Sins might lose out on that.

Frankly, I look forward to seeing how Ironclad handle a sequel or expansion with a storyline included (assuming they do this).

I found out about and bought SoaSE because of the xplay review. I agree with 4/5 review because while SoaSE is a great game its not perfect out of the box. The campaign would have been a nice way of combining the 4 tutorials and maybe explaining the backstory a bit more. They do touch on allot of positive aspects of the gameplay including its mod friendly architecture. A key selling point for me. Anyway I have had it for a bit under a week and love it. I cant wait to try out some MP games.

I agree with them. A campaign would have made this game even better.

It doesn't need to be a full badass campeign with evil story twists that keep you busy for 20 hours. It would have been enough to label the campaign "tutorial" and then have 4-5 larger tutorial missions that keep a player busy about 6 hours and tell an interesting story (prelude to the current war maybe?). Fun to learn the gameplay that way.

Oh and I agree with the poster above me:
The campaign should not be all about playing just like in sandbox mode.
What I'd love to see for example would be a solar system that is already divided between the forces in there, like 1/3 of the planets player controlled (and well developed) and the rest by the enemy AI.

Or TEC starts an assault on a vasari controlled system, meaning that TEC start with a MASSIVE fleet of 2000 supply but no planets and have to take the sytem before the vasari AI can build anything against that massive fleet.

Who is breathing life into these dead threads from Feb 27 2008...