Single Player Campaign Survey

We're collecting some single-player data and would be interested to know people's preferred type of campaign.
Without getting too much into every possible variation, pick between two types:
1. Linear, story-based campaigns. Think StarCraft, Command & Conquer. You essentially play a role in a story, told via cutscenes/FMVs. It's usually linear and heavily scripted, delivering a more controlled experience at the expense of replayability (i.e. it's largely the same every time).
2. "Conquer the Map." Played more like a Risk game, with less story, characters, and/or cutscenes/FMVs. Think the Total War series, Rise of Nations, certain Dawn of War campaigns. It's less scripted and more open-ended, with more random elements, but less of a handcrafted experience.
If your first thought to this question is, "LOL, who plays campaigns?" you can move on, nothing to see here. And if you post in this thread with any variation of this message, you'll get hit with a banhammer. Seriously. This is not a thread to debate whether an RTS should have a campaign; it's for people who like campaigns.|||A good linear story is always great. (Halo Wars single player was amazing) But then again an open-ended experience is always fun.
My vote goes for Linear, story-based campaigns. For me single player in any game is experiencing a story thats being told through the eyes of different characters. I dont want to be worrying about what territory I attack next or why wont the Mogols accept my peace offer. (They didnt BTW... jerks)|||I'd definitely love a great campaign story set in the world of Kings & Castles..
It's been a long time, since I've played an RTS with a story that I cared for and if I don't care for story, I'll jump straight to the multiplayer aspect of the game :)
So yeah, aiming for a great story for the campaign is definitely something I'd prefer!|||Voted for metamap campaign:
I think the replayability value is too good to pass up, also if they are done right they can be every bit as polished as linear campaigns. There are options such as random objectives (they don't have to be straightfoward skirmishes), area bonuses, small scripted side missions etc.
My personal preference as far as stories go would be to focus less on individual characters and more on the grand scale of things. In the original supcom the ACU pilot never said anything, nobody even referenced what their gender was, this helped move thoughts from "This is the guy that I am controlling" to "This is the guy that I am". When other characters said "you" in supcom1, they were talking to the player, in supcom2 they were talking to Maddox/Kael/Brackman.|||I like Rise of Legend's style, so map conquering. Keep asking us questions, we'll be glad to answer.|||I went with the open-ended campaign because it can give you more replay. Also, I havent seen a good risk type map done since Rise of Nations.
However, I would like to point out that you can have a story even with that. Look at Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space. There are story lines that I have yet to see in the game. When you make the generator, you can make it make certain features, such as a choke point that both sides have to fight through (see Legend of Galactic Heroes) that exists in all games. Finding them can cause quest lines to open up that give you a bonus of some kind in later fights. Actually RoN had something like this also, if you played the Cold War campaign, you knew that the korean war would always happen, but depending on how you fought it, it could change the rest of the game completely. If you have ever played the Gundam: Federation vs Zeon PS2 game, you can see another way to have a meta game that changes based on the player's actions.
So yeah, I would love a meta-game map (since it could also be expanded to multiplayer), but that does not mean it had to skimp on a plot line. You just have to make the plot be have hooks that the player can choose to follow or not.|||I personally think a linear, story based campaign is very important. However, it would be nice to see an additional "Conquer the World" mode, where the gameplay is based upon the world map and taking over each of the territories/provinces/areas. However, I would not like this if it was made at the expense of a good single player campaign.|||I like linear. I had a great time with Halo Wars. If you can make an interesting story I am all for it.|||MisterCheif|||Well Command and Conquer wasn't fully linear, there were parts where you could choose where to attack and lead you into a small branch of the story which would come back to the main plot. I think it would be best for a linear story with some side objectives which would change future missions. So if you help a certain city defeat a local enemy, that city would give assistance later on in the story. It adds replayability to the campaign while still maintaining the central story mostly unchanged, it just makes the campaign easier/harder to do.
I would like the player character to have limited backstory though. It's just my opinion, but playing as another character makes the whole story feel a bit distant, like those choices wouldn't be the choices I would make if I was in the character's place.
On an unrelated note to K-Lord, the player's gender was referred to in the original SupCom. At the end of the UEF campaign, Gen. Clarke tells Riley, "No, he did," referring to the player's actions defending Black Sun. In the Cybran campaign, Brackman refers to the player as, "my boy." In the Aeon campaign, the post-mission debriefings refer to the player as "she."|||I'd prefer a mixing of the two styles. A linear campaign with a defined progression of the story, yet with the ability to various territories on the way. For instance, say "Mission 2" of the campaign required you to assume control over three neighboring territories before the great uprising can begin (or whatever). These three territories are integral to the plot and each requires capturing, yet there is no pressing issue on which gets captured first. So say for instance, one territory is a shipping port for the region, another is a castle stronghold, and the last is a major source of food for the region. Allowing the player to choose which mission they'd like to do first (maybe with some sort of reward for each successful mission, if your story has such elements) gives the player the sense that they're in charge, yet also that they're not just randomly conquering the world in a random order.
Though if you can't make such a campaign, I'd prefer a linear one.
I'm also not voting due to having a slightly different opinion on the "ideal" campaign structure.|||It’s great to see GPG taking advice from the players.
Personally, I’ve never been able to get into a linear RTS campaign, stories etc in RTS just don’t hold my imagination. I much prefer the Total War approach which is much better for gameplay, not to mention re-playability.|||I'm going to partially agree with x-cubed (and solar) here. story-based, but split into distinctive chapters, where the player has more control over which missions within that chapter they play first.
This is straight out of Westwood's C&C series, actually, where in each region you were, you could choose the order in which you did certain missions, and sometimes they had repercussions down the line. (tiberian sun, red alert 2)
Looking at the story from a RPG perspective (particularly the witcher) having decisions you make early in the game affect middle and late-game outcomes would definitely add a certain amount of unpredictability and replayability. All the while keeping a good, strong story.
The gameplay of k&C is still going to be there if you focus on story or not, and i would rather have an interesting story than a risk-type game.|||if GPG were to follow the linear path, might I suggest that they make it story driven, not character driven.
what I liked about the Sup1/FA campaigns was that the player was the commander in the story. unlike in Sup2 where the player played as a pre-defined character. personally, I think the absence of a character allows the player to insert themselves into the story. I can't help but look at other well-done campaigns (mainly FPS, but the concept is applicable in RTS). look at Halo and the Half-Life series; sure, in Half-Life we're playing as Freeman, and we know what he looks like, but we never hear his voice. there's an element of him that is conveniently missing, and i'm willing to bet that most people think that if Freeman spoke; he'd sound exactly like them.
then take the Halo trilogy. Bungie hides the protagonist's face. when he takes off his helmet the camera always pans away. what does the Master Chief look like? he looks like you. his lack of any sort of name, other than rank - read the books, his name is actually John; the most generic and unassuming male name possible - adds to this.
both games tell a story, but the story isn't about the character.
CNC is another example, there's a lot of story, and some character development - but it's not the player's character. since i've only ever played the CNC95 campaign to completion, I can't really comment too much here.|||I agree with BM. What FA did with the campaign was pretty cool, as it made YOU the main character.
I would like to see both. It's great to have a story, characters, and plot, but also to be able to play the game multiple times. What I found lacking in Supcom 2 campaign, although I really did enjoy it, was that you weren't playing against AIs. They didn't rebuild, they didn't act against you, and only got controlled more powerful. I would love to see it similar to Supcom, except with AI characters. Like I would have loved to see on the 4th Cybran mission both of your friends building up, building experimentals, and trying to defend themselves, and not have you as the only entity.
What I'm trying to say is it's nice to have both competent friends AND enemies. I don't do the multiplayer much, so I miss not playing against people, especially when the story is scripted.
Also, I would much prefer something like FA in what they did to expand. Supcom 2 tried more to be like the first campaign, where you gradually were given tech and more flexibility as time went on. This really dragged things out. I would much prefer it like FA, where you had all the essentials unlocked, with a couple pretty cool units added on as time went on.
Thanks for putting effort in your campaigns. I really did enjoy the Supcom2 one, and am looking forward to this one as well.|||First of all this is awesome... feedback is key!
Second, I'd have to say Linear...
Yet, I know it's not in the option, but can we intergrate the two? I mean, if it's even possible, to get a story-line with options (all leading to one end) but each option has immense consequences, so instead of a heavily scripted campain it comes over as it's scripted but with an option every time a battle has to happen.
I understand this is a massive task and there's a huge amount of work to be done with this, but I think it'll bring a unique role playing RTS that brings emotion into the game; where decisions are important and not just either/or kind of thing.
Bring a... "Catch22" kind of feeling to it. Brings frustration but it becomes intreging. Then again, how about fusing both and having some options not so important and others extremely!
Just a suggestion, that's what I'd like to see!
Steve
EDIT: Easy, Medium, and Hard should be in there too... the games that have no choice... I didn't like.
EDIT: EDIT: When making a choice there should be no option to go back and have the oppertunity to take it again fulfilling the nessesary requirements. Makes your decision final. Also you can have a choice of the ending by a desicion (one of four choices) and having different versions of a game with the expansion. Gives it a great sense on continuity.|||Actually,
I like the Risk campaign mode. Very well done for example in Rise of Legends, or even in Universe at War. It starts with a strong regulated campaign and later on, you have the world map and you can choose.|||I wonder if we can't have both at the same time. Have you ever played Emperor: Battle for Dune?
Westwood basically had a large map of the planet (Dune) with several territories, each representing a map. Many missions would be 'conquer the map' or territory defense (I'd probably make that optional). But you would get scripted missions as well that would develop the story and give you bonuses like an alliance with a neutral faction. The campaign had a nice story and high replayability.
Scripted missions could unlock legendary units and important spells for the king, advancing the story at the same time. Regular missions (basically skirmish games against the AI) would give you bonuses like more starting resources, free scout units, extra builders, more mana, shorter cooldowns...
You would have to find a way to make the regular missions worth a players time or they might start to feel like grinding. Maybe a short introduction video in the game engine and something like a tempel or neutral monsters that can be recruited.|||I don't see why you can't have a good, intresting story with the "conquer the world" mechanic. look at Rise of legends, it had a good story and that mechanic. but if I have to choose, I vote risk style campaign. I just love conquering the world.|||Good that you mention it, Rise of Legends had a great campaign too!|||For a game about being a king and conquering your enemies, a risk-style conquer everything campaign sounds like it would be better. Just make sure that you do have some story elements and a lot of well-presented backstory to keep us interested. :)|||I voted scripted because it more closely matches what I like.
I liked the Original C&C / RA campaign modes. They were good fun.
TibSun onwards they were crap.
I'm not sure about the Supcom2 story. It was OK, but I never really identified with the character I was playing.
Maybe because in C&C/RA you were essentially anonymous. You were playing as yourself and that is the reason why I liked it more.
It could also be that it was around 15 years ago now, and I've now changed my views since then.
It would be nice to make some choices. In C&C you had a map, and cyou were sequentially taking control of different areas and you had a choice of which area you wanted to tackle next.
It would be fantastic to have situations, where the decisions you make, have consequneces in the story, or if you lose a mission, its not the end of the game, but it will effect the story and how you play the rest of the game.|||As many now has mentioned, the fact that the story featured a nameless character was the best part about it all in vanilla and FA and the small change to supcom2, changed so much.. I didn't even notice that THAT was the fact that I didn't get more into the story.. I was spoken for already, even if I didn't play the game myself..
Just thought I'd add that's what I'm looking for aswell.. Not just a story, but a story where everyone can be the hero, not just control a named hero who speaks for himself, but lets us make the decisions and what missions to complete, yet still advancing a scripted story..|||Definetaly the second option. It's so easy to have fun in that kind of game whereas a linear experience always seems so limited and often not very well done. Conquering the world across a large map with individual provinces armies and what not is the best kind of campaign in my opinion, and i would really like to see it in K&C.|||Not that the supcom 2 campaign was bad (it was actually pretty good), but i liked the origional supcom (and FA) campaign style better... (insert what BulletMagnet said here). I liked how there was a linear story and it always ended the same way, but it wasnt character driven.