(SIGH) I should have been more specific. I was referencing to Supreme Commander. Really, before you took the time to make this laughable paragraph, did you consider that Starcraft isn't like Sins? Or do you recollect me saying "open ended RTS'"? I'm guessing not. I suggest you add your comments to that book as well.



Sounds like you have other issues, and I doubt a campaign is going to resolve them. Shouldn't those issues, which you complain about, come before a campaign?

Oh, and thanks for enlightening me.




Sorry, but I got my opinion from this topic and the fact that people took time to create post referencing to the lack of a campaign. Sorry, if "devastating" sounds too extreme.



My point relates to people complaining about it now, after realizing it isn't there and still requesting it be some added in some random patch or expansion. The forum is filled with such suggestions.



Which goes back to my other point, the game needed a better tutorial and manual.



1. I never said you did. People seem keep generalizing that I'm referencing to them. I'm not. If I did, you'd know.



What? I can't use devastation? Says who? I can exaggerate as I please. Why it offends you baffles me. I'll use devastation at my on discretion, particularly since I was being sarcastic in it's original usage. It appears I need to be more formal.

"on your first point, you didn't do any research, because their was never intended to be a "campaign" they were always intending to do it the 4x way."

Why not stick it on the box then? oh right after you buy the game and open your stuck with it, so free cash.


As far as MP goes if you have friends use IP and you can by pass IC online service if its causeing you problems with joining or hosting games for your friends.

Why not stick in on the box? What are you talking about? Can you name a single PC game released EVER that states what features it DOESN'T have?

"Sins of a Solar Empire: Epic 4x RTS game with no single player campaign!"
"Oblivion: Exciting single player game with no multiplayer!"
"Galactic Civilizations 2: Amazingly deep 4x in space with no multiplayer! Also, the campaign kind of stinks!"
"World of Warcraft: Epic online RPG with absolutely no single player component!"

It's your own fault if you don't research a game before buying it. The box a game comes in isn't going to tell you its entire life story. It's inherently designed to sell the product.

Devs,

Please don't ruin this title with a linear-15 mission-story-driven-single player campaign!!!!

Let us keep making the story in sandbox mode!

4x Forever!!!!!   

What an a@@hole. I have never had a problem playing ANY game online - except for this one. I do not have a router, nor do I use a firewall, and guess what, I still cannot host or join a game. All 20 online titles I have played in the last 6 months worked without effort. I expect Sins to do so too. It is a Sins problem, not a user problem.

Want a vibrant online community? Then you should be able to get multiplayer working without any hassles. When all four of my friends with Sins cannot hop on and get a game going (all experienced online players) there is something wrong with the system - that is a dev problem.

If you buy a game without finding out anything more about it than what's on the box, you have only yourself to blame if it turns out to lack a feature you find important.

If you still get the port warning and still have your ports setup right you will be able to host the game.

Story mode? ICKY!

I’ve spend hours of my life playing through the total wars series, and I think SINS reminds me a lot of it. I think they are very identical.

I really enjoy the “risk type” campaigns that a lot of games are drawing. If you play a story campaign, once you’re done, your done. You know what happens, so why play on.

But the “risk type: campaigns like in games like:

Star Wars, Empire at War
Total War Series
Dawn of War after the Dark Crusade expansion
Cossack Series
Sins of a Solar Empire
Many Others


:are absolutely fantastic. They leave a whole lot of replayability. It is never the same game twice.

I am willing to give up a story in all my future games if they present this “risk style” campaign. Kudos to the developers of this game.

Don’t make a singleplayer story, I for one, don’t need it.

Keep in mind folks that developer time is a resource. Every thing you add into a game has a cost.

Yeah, they could have added a campaign, but it would have meant one of a couple things

1) They don't have as much time to polish and perfect the MP game or worse, they make concessions on MP/skirmish gameplay for the sake of the campaign.

2) They spend a lot of extra time on the game. They lose money, 4x Games and Stardock are less able to fund their next game.


1 is unacceptable. 2 is acceptable IF adding a campaign would add a lot to the game. 4x decided that it would not add much to the game and that the time spent developing it would not be worth the benefit of having it.

I agree with most of the opinions of a previous poster (Melric), even though I have found some people (through this forum) with whom I can play ICO games without experiencing any problem : excellent host, no joining issues, no lag, no crashes, no save-game reload issues.

I base my agreement, then, on reading a lot of posts, on this forum, concerning the hosting and joining difficulties of (too) many users.

The fact that I have no problems with ICO cannot be generalized in any representative manner. Some critics, on this forum, belittle the problems of other users simply because they (and their little gang) have no problems.

Being called "lazy" (on another, router-related thread) and an "idiot" (on this thread) by self-appointed « experts » is not only distasteful, it misses the point :

It is not the paying customer's responsibility to "work" and be tech-"smart" to make a product function as promised by the manufacturer.

Like Melric said, many games offer a MP functionality, right out of the box, that does not require non-idiot work.

Three years ago, after installing and patching World of WarCraft, I could play on-line a few minutes later -- without any configuration of my router. In fact, I have had a router for 6½ years and Sins is the only game that has required me to configure that router!

I went to portforward.com, and I can then understand that some gamers might find their instructions too complicated : they are not "idiots" and "lazy" just because they don't find the portforward.com instructions that easy to implement.

An example. To get my internal IP address, I had to execute the cmd command in the start\run box. That opened the cmd32.exe box. There, I was told to enter ipconfig. Problem : the first line was already occupied by a C:\Documents and Settings\Jean-Paul> instruction. Where then could I insert ipconfig, on its own line ? I don't recall that portforward.com offered any tip to deal with such a situation. I then remembered my old DOS syntax : cd.. (a cd followed by two periods). So, I added cd.. after "Jean-Paul>". Pressed enter. I then got C:\Documents and Settings>. I repeated the cd.. trick to finally get C:\>. That's when I had to insert ipconfig, press enter, to obtain my internal IP address.

A normal gamer who has never had to use cd.. in DOS would then scratch his head : is he a "lazy" "idiot" because he does not know how to solve a DOS syntax problem? Some other types of snags can occur when you are trying to apply portforward.com's procedure.

I was lucky. I finally got my internal IP address. I did not try to define a "static IP address" following portforward.com's procedure : I gambled that the result I got after executing ipconfig was a static IP. I went into the router after following the instructions on the manufacturer's website, found the Port Forwarding tab, indicated 6000-6112 TCP >> my IP address on the first line -- and hoped for the best.

It was the very first time in 6½ years that I had to do that, and I really was not certain that it would work. Obviously, it did : I can join and play ICO games for hours (with a suitable host).

I have a full-time day job. In the evening, I don't have the time and energy to focus on router-configuration, and time to waste on ICO with unsuccessful attempts to host or join games. Other users have classes during the day and homework to do : they don't have any more time and energy to waste on doing "non-idiot work" to make the Sins MP function.

I consequently agree with what a previous poster (Melric) has stated :

« It is a Sins problem, not a user problem. [...It] is a dev problem. »

Before the forum "fan-boys" pounce on me, let me conclude by stressing that I enjoy Sins very much -- it is a masterpiece in its original genre. But I agree, in some measure, with the OP's criticism of the game's MP dimension.

@CyberMage

1. The argument that a user of a game shouldn't have to "learn" anything to use it ridiculous. You did have to "learn" to drive a car didn't you? What would you have said to someone complaining about not being able to drive, without recognizing the need to learn how?

2. Just because many games use "encapsulating/tunneling" techniques for their netcode to "bypass" NAT-devices doesn't make that some defacto standard. It is actually that much unsafer for your computer system, because traffic is handled much more "loosely" (loose NAT rules) which can only serve to increase a computer system's overall security-breach potential.

3. You didn't have to "cd..", the c:\windows\system32\ folder which contains the "ipconfig" file you were trying to run is included in the system's PATH statement allowing you to "execute" it from anywhere (any path location on your hard drive at the command-prompt will do), as will going to your "network connections" folder, right-clicking on your LAN adapter and "left-clicking" on STATUS.    No need for the command-prompt even.


the Monk

Games like SINS and other rts, 4x games are the kind of games that thrive on their OPEN ENDED approach to gameplay. We all know, that unless you are playing an RPG, all single player campaign games, be it FPS or whatever genre; are completely linear and "on rails" so to speak, as regards their basic gameplay. I know that I for one enjoy sins and it ilk for the shear free form experience they have to offer. No two games are ever the same in skirmish, multiplayer, whatever. I own many similar rts and 4x titles with single player campaigns such as Total War, Supreme Commander, etc and I have never played through the single player campaigns in any of them. I feel that their linear nature defeats the purpose of the game and hence instead i find much joy in skirmish, multiplayer etc. So I was glad when ironclad said there would be no campaign in Sins.

@ Eranikus

Thanks for your polite feedback relative to my (too) long post.

Some gamers have experienced no problems whatsoever connecting to the Blizzard servers, some others have.

Some gamers have experienced no problems whatsoever hosting and/or joining games on ICO, some others have.

The issue, on this forum, is that too many gamers (not all, not most : too many) are declaring that they're having technical problems with the Sins multiplayer, on-line process.

I concede to you that my problem with the cmd32.exe box might have been rare, but it was only a particular illustration of my point, which was that busy gamers are not "lazy" or "idiot" because they are having trouble configuring their router or a "static IP address".

All sorts of special snags can occur, when trying to execute portforward.com's instructions.

My conclusion agreed with a previous poster (Melric), whose opinion I restate in my own words :

It was Ironclad's job to develop and test an on-line MP system that would be readily and easily accessible to their average customers.

Perhaps they should have put this legal disclaimer on their game-box (and on the SDC advertisement) :

« Buyers beware. To play on-line, you might have to study the instructions given at www.portforward.com : Ironclad and Stardock are not responsible if your router prevents you from hosting and/or joining on-line games of Sins. »

Some hesitant consumers would then have said to themselves : "Oups. I'm a lazy idiot when it comes to tech stuff like that. I'm gonna pass on this one."