Sometimes people disagree, that doesn't necessarily mean either party is upset in the slightest.
"I agree it would be awesome to try the single player campain, but we won't be able to "improve" it by doing so. For the advertisement, I don"t know what is the most effective thing. "
In the same way that we can't change the multiplayer parts? I don't think you understand the point of a beta...or a forum for a game in general.
The assumption seems to be that being included in a beta should make you so grateful that you have no complaints, or that to enjoy a game you should have no complaints or ideas in how it should be improved.
I'm not sure what harbored these notions on these forums given the moderators seem fairly understanding but it's not an attitude that's for the long term benefit of the game.
Beyond bugs there is a lot of room for improvement in the multiplayer and I would like to think that we're not just playing a demo and that the dev team actually cares what it's fans have to say about it.
As it stands the multiplayer modes are rather bland and lifeless compared to almost any of there competitors, sup com manages to have the same zergy gameplay and feel far more strategic and engaging, what's the difference there?
The multiplayer campaign feels like a pointless skin for a series of skirmishs, map built units have little to no bearing on the outcome of battles played on the maps and the lack of even the most basic diplomacy or interaction with your empire really detracts from the experience. A lot of the joy in total war games is the organic storys that evolve about your generals, allys and culture as you play. All of that is sadly lacking here.
