GOG keys for backers are on the way! We just have to wait a little bit.

Yes, because what I'm asking for is for it to be stated in bold that this game is not, in fact, and a pink car, a singing banana, nor an sea bird flavoured albatross.

I'm talking about a very basic information here. Like the Battlefront situation I've described. I'm really not being unreasonble, you're just trying to make it look that way by changing the issue into some weird hyperbole.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about a "proper single player campaign". I said so before, I'm just not writing it in full every time I say "campaign". The story is something important to me, and I like it when there is one, but it's not indespensable. Basically: X-Com is designed with single player experience in mind first and formost. As are the Total War games for example. Armello simply isn't, even though the option exists. You can run in any kind of shoes, but that does not mean galoshes are designed for running the marathon.

EDIT: I think this is where I'll end this and depart the thread. Apparently I'm stepping on some toes, since despite my best attempts to be level headed and polite I'm getting downvoted like crazy, and the last thing I want is to make this bring more negativity to the forum.

Armello's been on the "Upcoming" tab on the GOG.com front page for MANY months. Unfortunately not all of the upcoming things get put there, but they're getting better at it.

It is begging the question to assume the information about the campaign is basic. Basic, standard, normal... whichever word we use does not really matter. We disagree whether campaign existence (or type) must be part of the basic, standard, normal information to be disclosed for this game, and strategy games in general :) Not that I see anything wrong when that info is available, to the contrary, the more information the better! Also I'm not saying you're unreasonable as in crazy, but yes, I do think you are being unreasonable, as in it is reasonable to not have information about lack of a campaign. :)

I know, here's a nice example. Do you think all single player games should say explicitly: No multiplayer. To me the desire for information, and the disclosure obligation make these similar demands. Having the information is good, demanding it be disclosed universally isn't. Game descriptions are marketing - a game without campaign, a game without multiplayer, almost by definition will want to focus on other aspects - the ones thay actually have. This is not intended to deceive by omission, it's just intended to seduce by what is actually present. And for objective descriptions of the games we have games journalism to rely on... Hehehehe... yes, that was a joke. ;)

Anyway I'm really not sure what you mean by a proper single player campaign. Honestly. Your including XCom in that bucket dumbfounds me, especially with the insistence on story. If it's more about single player focus of a narrative / story I kind of see better what you are getting at, but then the word campaign seems to me misleading in that context. Civ has exactly the same kind of narrative focus as something like XCom, and the only reason someone would call Xcom a campaign but not Civ is IMO the fact it is a sequence of military missions. Ergo the canonical meaning of campaign would be the one being used, not anything to do with game structure.

Sorry to see you go, the way different opinions get kind of mobbed is so frustrating to me. See you in the other thread I guess, in some weeks time or something. It was interesting so far. Thanks Breja.

You're still mischaracterizing the game, and then saying that GOG did not give you all the information you wanted by wanting GOG to say this is, in fact, not a single-player game because there is no campaign mode. Just because the game plays the same regardless of the opponent being AI or living people does not make single player an afterthought. Even if you are playing with no AI opponents and all living people, you're still playing against the computer as the king.

GOG's description is 100% accurate. Why do you include this game in a different category than the games that are like Civilization? Do you think that Civ A Call to Power is misrepresented by GOG by stating that it is a single player game? Do you think of playing against "bots" when playing a game like that, and that single player must have been an afterthought? Where do you even get that from? I can understand if it was an FPS but it's a strategy game, that type of thinking makes no sense for the genre.
Including Xcom makes no sense, because the original Xcom has the same amount of story as Armello does.

Is there no hotseat play? Kind of a deal breaker when it comes to a boardgame for me at least.

[EDIT] It seems that since you can do stuff during your opponent's turn they couldn't implement hotseat. That's understandable then.

I was planning to buy it and was really interested in it until I found out it offered no LAN multiplayer support. Then I lost all interest in it frankly.

Logging in and creating an online account in order to play a game with someone sitting in the same room next to me is something that I won't do. Call me old fashioned.

Asking for openness about the content of entertainment isn't unreasonable.

I think it's pretty clear what's being asked for - we want to know if the game was designed with single players in mind or not, if there's something to do besides playing with other people. That's an important part of the purchasing decision for people.
+1 No LAN and no single player campaign means most of my uses for this go straight out the window.

Why does GOG keep releasing a lot of account-locked games lately? Just having bots for single player games isn't really enough. It counts technically as DRM-free and not online-dependent, but if the only thing to do offline is fight bots then the bots had better be really, really good.

Yes, it did get clearer. It was a pity Breja was / felt mobbed out of the conversation. So thanks for stepping in.
I still disagree though. You're not asking for openess in general - which I'd have no problem with.

You're implying, and even stating outright, that the actual description for this game is not "open" enough (I'd say clear / transparent rather), due it not saying something like: "This was not designed with single player in mind." or "No campaign mode."

I have a problem with this because:

1 - I don't think this is an ethical requirement at all - if such disclaimer would be there I would be fine, if it isn't there I'm also fine. Your desire is fine, but your demand isn't. It's just a another example of consumer entitlement going too far I think, and I'm much more of a caveat emptor advocate. No one lied to you, no one intentionally misled you, you have enough available information to make an informed decision about buying Armello as it is. And you can go interview Armello's creators about its design intent if you want - I expect they will be quite happy with the attention and interest. I'd suggest you ask though, rather than assume you already know the answers ;)

2 - I further kind of disagree with the characterization that Armello is not "designed with single players in mind" and the discussion with Breja was precisely about trying to understand what he meant by that for a strategy game. Or rather, it was about the "campaign" description, because if you say single player focus I do understand better what is meant, but then I have to assume you also think Civ is not "designed with single players in mind".

Which is a fine subjective opinion, can even be objectively supported (for example a lot of changes between Civ 3 ad Civ 4 were demonstrably driven by MP focused balance considerations and testing feedback - Paradox grand strategy games would be an even better example) BUT despite all that, it's an opinion that IMO goes way over the line to say that the existence of multiplayer, or of design tradeoffs where multiplayer was privileged are equivalent to NOT being designed with single players in mind.

Basically it's possible for something to be both for multiplayer and single player. You guys seem guilty here of black and white thinking.

Hey all!

I'm a producer and community manager over at League of Geeks working on Armello :)

^^ Check out our latest Kickstarter update if you backed Armello :) Send us a request and we'll put you on the list!

You're reading an awful lot into my post that simply isn't there.

For one thing, you seem to have conflated my asking for more information before purchasing with calling the developers unethical for not providing that information. Huh? That's really reaching.

For another, you flat out make up a bunch of stuff about what is single-player/multi-player focused and then call it my opinion. That's not my opinion, and you don't have any grounds on which to think it is. That might be your opinion, which would explain why your stand on the issue of complete descriptions and multiplayer/singleplayer. But it's very odd to have you so completely project your opinion onto other people.

If this is your standard arguing tactic, I can see why Breja felt like s/he was getting shouted down. I'm not seeing a way to keep talking with you, because you're only hearing the strawman you set up to disagree with.

I am not reading a lot into your post, I'm using the context of the discussion. Why do you think I am putting words in your mouth? Just say what you agree or disagree... this isn't personal. Or wasn't...

Because for someone that seems to be having a problem with assumptions the ones you just did cut a bit deeper than a discussion about single player games and their marketing. For example where did anyone say Breja was shouted down? He mentioned being downrepped, hence I used mobbed. Where did the assumption I was a part of shouting him down come from? And it's hugely hyperbolic to even use the expression "shouting down" in a forum where I can't prevent you from posting whatever you want... even if I post IN ALL CAPS...


Whatever, I have thick skin :)

On the actual discussion, if you think Armello isn't a single player focused game, and you think this should be disclaimed * then what I posted as objections to that hold - I think Armello is designed with single player in mind **, and I think even if it wasn't, you are not entitled to such disclaimer... ***

If you don't think anything about Armello, then please clarify what you are arguing for.


* You, earlier: "we want to know if the game was designed with single players in mind or not"
** Not absolutely obviously, but just the fact it has AI proves some design went into SP functionalities...
*** I already said if such information is provided = Great! and that your desire for the information also = Fine!

Those cinematics... :O
Just blew me away and this is getting a high place on the wishlist right away!