Single Player Campaign

[Borreh]

Well yeah, but the topic was about SP. .

Change that emoticon or I will feel guilty and sad

[Golan2781]

Nah, I think the SP would still be less diverse. Each mission fills the same role as a MP round, and different objective types are equivalent to MP game modes. I think the number of variations and diversity per round for each game mode with a thinking person or team as the opposition will always be greater than the fixed opposition of SP missions, even if there were different objectives for each.

Point is, no game modes reflecting the variety of SP mission goals exist. There's usually just one mode, some games have perhaps 3 to 4, but missions can have dozens of different setup. A very important factor is also that the SP can have an asymmetric setup, something that doesn't really work in MP.

[Kyang]

Point is, no game modes reflecting the variety of SP mission goals exist. There's usually just one mode, some games have perhaps 3 to 4, but missions can have dozens of different setup. A very important factor is also that the SP can have an asymmetric setup, something that doesn't really work in MP.

Well, in that case one could think of it as an MP match just being a broken up SP mission.

Actually, it's not like a single MP match has to be restricted to a single objective either. For example in an MP match on Killzone 3, the objectives change fluidly, between matches. I guess that would work better on

I think the restrictions on map symmetry would depend on the game mode. I haven't thought about specifically which game modes would work though. I notice that FPS MP maps aren't really symmetrical. Still, I acknowledge that there are obvious differences in those maps compared to SP ones too.

[Golan2781]

The dynamic of MP matches happens on another level compared to the dynamic of proper SP missions. An RTS usually doesn't have any MP objectives besides "kill the enemy"; what little secondary points of interest a game such as C&C offers, like garrisons or tech structures, has an impact largely on tactics. This doesn't correspond to the variety of SP missions, where you can have infiltration, scouting, defense, escort, rescue, mining, support objectives.
Of course, technically speaking you do escort units in MP, you scout, but that's mostly just background noise for a few high-profile tactics - like rushing, for example.

Of course an MP RTS doesn't have to be restricted to a single game type - it usually is, though. While it doesn't really matter much how many SP players prefer mission X over mission Y for the game itself, in MP you quickly risk fracturing the playerbase.

[Kyang]

The dynamic of MP matches happens on another level compared to the dynamic oroper SP missions. An RTS usually doesn't have any MP objectives besides "kill the enemy"; what little secondary points of interest a game such as C&C offers, like garrisons or tech structures, has an impact largely on tactics. This doesn't correspond to the variety of SP missions, where you can have infiltration, scouting, defense, escort, rescue, mining, support objectives.
Of course, technically speaking you do escort units in MP, you scout, but that's mostly just background noise for a few high-profile tactics - like rushing, for example.

Of course an MP RTS doesn't have to be restricted to a single game type - it usually is, though. While it doesn't really matter much how many SP players prefer mission X over mission Y for the game itself, in MP you quickly risk fracturing the playerbase.

I think you understand, so I'm going to summarize my thoughts, now that I've refined them a bit.

My mindset here is that a MP match is just a SP mission, except online with other people. The traditional MP game mode is basically a deathmatch 1v1 or otherwise, but it doesn't have to be. Primary objectives in SP missions like scouting, defense, escort, would be the game-modes of MP.

And a SP mission that includes multiple objectives can be matched by an MP mission, if each MP match actually fluidly shifted between game modes aka objectives, as they were completed as opposed to ending after each objective is met, and requiring the player to hunt for another match.

So when I look at all the traits of SP and MP, and see the equivalences, then the only real difference is the fact that one is against AI and the other against People. So I think of course the people vs people scenario is going to result in a wider variety of methods to complete of each objective/game-mode.

I have no solution for a fractured player base. Seems to me some game modes will always be favored over others.

[Zocom7]

The much harder and challenging part is to see if whether Bioware/Victory Games can create a story campaign for each faction to be epic as similar to a Call of Duty game. That's what I am hoping for.

[Frankaz]

The much harder and challenging part is to see if whether Bioware/Victory Games can create a story campaign for each faction to be epic as similar to a Call of Duty game. That's what I am hoping for.

As long as it's something that is challenging, unlike the past 3 games (RA3/RA3UR/C&C4), Campaigns on those 3 were far too easy.

[StormWolf]

As long as it's something that is challenging, unlike the past 3 games (RA3/RA3UR/C&C4), Campaigns on those 3 were far too easy.

Probably due to the fact that with each game there were less and less missions to do.
RA3 - 9 Missions Each
Uprising - 3/4 Mission Each
C&C - Around 6 Each

[Frankaz]

So... this section seems a little dead these days. Is this new fangled game actually going to have a single player campaign?

[Kyang]

So... this section seems a little dead these days. Is this new fangled game actually going to have a single player campaign?

Not at launch.