Was the single-player campaign cut to appease Turkey?

[Fomin]

Insurgency Sandstorm was originally supposed to include single-player and coop about a Kurdish PKK fighter in Iraq. Was this nixed to appease Turkey?

https://pixeljudge.com/news/insurgency-sandstorm-revealed-has-a-single-player-campaign/

CoD Modern Warfare actually did this except that they changed it to a fictional country and made the bad guys the Russians (which doesn't make any sense since the Kurds have been fighting Turkey and its Sunni extremist allies NOT the Russians in real life.)

https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/7e74c047-82a5-4692-93b1-a186f36a0a8c

Did this game get the Activision treatment to appease an authoritarian foreign government?

[aG| Wardog]

No. They cancelled it because they weren't going to have it ready alongside the multiplayer in time for release, or at least to allow them to put more work into the multiplayer, which is the meat of the game.

I'd have preferred if they just delayed the game so everything was able to be done, but it's a bit late for that now.

[LazyAmerican]

Just didn't have the resources available to make that happen I'm guessing....a shame as it would've complimented this game wonderfully.

[Fomin]

Originally posted by Wardog:

No. They cancelled it because they weren't going to have it ready alongside the multiplayer in time for release, or at least to allow them to put more work into the multiplayer, which is the meat of the game.

I'd have preferred if they just delayed the game so everything was able to be done, but it's a bit late for that now.

I'm not saying you are wrong but if that were the case, why not release the campaign as DLC? It definitely could be laziness/overwork but after seeing how Activision has bent over backwards to appease both China and Turkey (the latest CoD takes a rebel faction inspired by the Kurdish PYD and puts them in a fictional country where the Russians rather than the Turks and their allies are the villains) it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there was a political component at work here.

I hope you are right because we already get enough bland, empty games from Ubisoft, Activision, etc.

[aG| Wardog]

Originally posted by Zidane:

Originally posted by Wardog:

No. They cancelled it because they weren't going to have it ready alongside the multiplayer in time for release, or at least to allow them to put more work into the multiplayer, which is the meat of the game.

I'd have preferred if they just delayed the game so everything was able to be done, but it's a bit late for that now.

I'm not saying you are wrong but if that were the case, why not release the campaign as DLC? It definitely could be laziness/overwork but after seeing how Activision has bent over backwards to appease both China and Turkey (the latest CoD takes a rebel faction inspired by the Kurdish PYD and puts them in a fictional country where the Russians rather than the Turks and their allies are the villains) it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there was a political component at work here.

I hope you are right because we already get enough bland, empty games from Ubisoft, Activision, etc.

It's what the devs said themselves, and I'm sure that if they can do it, we'll get the campaign eventually.

They still have to get the multiplayer working properly first, with the optimisation issues and such that still exist.

[[ACPL] Jon]

More like

*Kurdish fighter in Syria

hm?

[Fomin]

Originally posted by ACPL Jon:

More like

*Kurdish fighter in Syria

hm?

The article I linked said Iraq but the war in northern Syria had the same belligerents so it wouldn't be that different.

[Metal Head]

This arcticle is from 2017.

I dont care about any campain. There is no point to wasting resources on 6 hours campain when you can use this resources to make the Multiplayer a masterpiece with thousands of hours of fun experience.

[Fomin]

Originally posted by Metal Head:

This arcticle is from 2017.

I dont care about any campain. There is no point to wasting resources on 6 hours campain when you can use this resources to make the Multiplayer a masterpiece with thousands of hours of fun experience.

The multiplayer will eventually become infested with aimbots, die for lack of active players, or die from a lack of players because it is infested with aimbots. If there is no single-player, the game will have no value when that happens.

[SSIXS]

Originally posted by Zidane:

The multiplayer will eventually become infested with aimbots, die for lack of active players, or die from a lack of players because it is infested with aimbots. If there is no single-player, the game will have no value when that happens.

I've yet to see anything that suggests multiplayer "will eventually become infested with aimbots". What evidence do you have that supports this?

There's already single-player in the game, you can play the modes/maps against bots all by yourself.

[Go_Coup]

I doubt it. They could have just changed the names or something.
I was willing to pay for it as DLC, but it seems they're more interested in trying to be an e-sport, despite having abandoned the players who did play Competitive. There's clearly some problems with management.

[Fomin]

Originally posted by SSIXS:

Originally posted by Zidane:

The multiplayer will eventually become infested with aimbots, die for lack of active players, or die from a lack of players because it is infested with aimbots. If there is no single-player, the game will have no value when that happens.

I've yet to see anything that suggests multiplayer "will eventually become infested with aimbots". What evidence do you have that supports this?

That's generally the nature of PVP games on PC so unless this game has some very unique measures to both stop cheating AND make people continue playing it, it is probably going to become hack-infested and die in that order. On a related note, Dirty Bomb and Battleborn are both dead or soon to be dead now... Battleborn actually had more content than this game but since the devs decided that they only cared about multiplayer, they are simply killing the game rather than selling it as single-player/coop.

BTW, there are lots of posts in the discussions for this game complaining about aimbots and the lack of anticheat. Does this game have anticheat? I saw someone asking about that a year ago and the post was never answered.

Originally posted by SSIXS:

There's already single-player in the game, you can play the modes/maps against bots all by yourself.

That sounds genuinely awful. I probably have literally a thousand games in my library that are more fun than playing a botmatch with no story.

[aG| Wardog]

Originally posted by SSIXS:

Originally posted by Zidane:

The multiplayer will eventually become infested with aimbots, die for lack of active players, or die from a lack of players because it is infested with aimbots. If there is no single-player, the game will have no value when that happens.

I've yet to see anything that suggests multiplayer "will eventually become infested with aimbots". What evidence do you have that supports this?

There's already single-player in the game, you can play the modes/maps against bots all by yourself.

Literally any other multiplayer FPS is proof that cheating will end up being a problem once the game gets old.

I'd love to see a campaign with the gameplay the game has though. It'd be pretty punishing, considering how quickly you go down, and that's something I'd love to see.

[SSIXS]

Originally posted by Zidane:

Originally posted by SSIXS:

I've yet to see anything that suggests multiplayer "will eventually become infested with aimbots". What evidence do you have that supports this?

That's generally the nature of PVP games on PC so unless this game has some very unique measures to both stop cheating AND make people continue playing it, it is probably going to become hack-infested and die in that order. On a related note, Dirty Bomb and Battleborn are both dead or soon to be dead now... Battleborn actually had more content than this game but since the devs decided that they only cared about multiplayer, they are simply killing the game rather than selling it as single-player/coop.

BTW, there are lots of posts in the discussions for this game complaining about aimbots and the lack of anticheat. Does this game have anticheat? I saw someone asking about that a year ago and the post was never answered.

Originally posted by SSIXS:

There's already single-player in the game, you can play the modes/maps against bots all by yourself.

That sounds genuinely awful. I probably have literally a thousand games in my library that are more fun than playing a botmatch with no story.

The previous game in the Insurgency series hasn't become overly infested with aimbots and died... and it's 5 years old now.

Now I'm certainly not saying that Sandstorm won't have any cheaters, as there's realistically no such thing as a currently populated multiplayer fps game that is 100% cheat free... it's just not reasonably possible. I'm not sure this game is popular enough to attract an over-abundance of cheaters though, except for maybe free weekends.

Sandstorm does in fact have an anti-cheat... Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC), and there are community server admins that can kick/ban anyone at their discretion. So essentially 2 options to combat cheaters on community servers.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on bot-matches, though I would personally find them more entertaining (mainly due to the various maps/modes that can be played again and again) than a campaign with a "story" that is "on rails" and offers repetitive play that wouldn't draw me in to replay it more than a couple times.

[Fomin]

Originally posted by SSIXS:

Originally posted by Zidane:

That's generally the nature of PVP games on PC so unless this game has some very unique measures to both stop cheating AND make people continue playing it, it is probably going to become hack-infested and die in that order. On a related note, Dirty Bomb and Battleborn are both dead or soon to be dead now... Battleborn actually had more content than this game but since the devs decided that they only cared about multiplayer, they are simply killing the game rather than selling it as single-player/coop.

BTW, there are lots of posts in the discussions for this game complaining about aimbots and the lack of anticheat. Does this game have anticheat? I saw someone asking about that a year ago and the post was never answered.



That sounds genuinely awful. I probably have literally a thousand games in my library that are more fun than playing a botmatch with no story.

The previous game in the Insurgency series hasn't become overly infested with aimbots and died... and it's 5 years old now.

Now I'm certainly not saying that Sandstorm won't have any cheaters, as there's realistically no such thing as a currently populated multiplayer fps game that is 100% cheat free... it's just not reasonably possible. I'm not sure this game is popular enough to attract an over-abundance of cheaters though, except for maybe free weekends.

Sandstorm does in fact have an anti-cheat... Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC), and there are community server admins that can kick/ban anyone at their discretion. So essentially 2 options to combat cheaters on community servers.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on bot-matches, though I would personally find them more entertaining (mainly due to the various maps/modes that can be played again and again) than a campaign with a "story" that is "on rails" and offers repetitive play that wouldn't draw me in to replay it more than a couple times.

Thanks for the info about EAC. As for the other stuff, I disagree with you but I respect your opinion. Merry Christmas!

[Fomin]

Originally posted by Wardog:

Originally posted by SSIXS:

I've yet to see anything that suggests multiplayer "will eventually become infested with aimbots". What evidence do you have that supports this?

There's already single-player in the game, you can play the modes/maps against bots all by yourself.

Literally any other multiplayer FPS is proof that cheating will end up being a problem once the game gets old.

I'd love to see a campaign with the gameplay the game has though. It'd be pretty punishing, considering how quickly you go down, and that's something I'd love to see.

My thoughts exactly. Most campaigns are too obviously unrealistic and turn the player into a bullet-sponge. Most are also utterly devoid of an interesting story to avoid controversy. The concept for single-player coop that this originally had sounded awesome... really sad to see the devs go the BLOPS 4 route with regards to campaign.

https://pixeljudge.com/news/insurgency-sandstorm-revealed-has-a-single-player-campaign/