What is the origin of the crappy singleplayer RTS campaign?

[Username]

Re: What is the origin of the crappy singleplayer RTS campai

So I realised - many years ago - that most RTS games (of those that I've played) are multiplayer games with crappy singleplayer campaigns attatched, and I merely took this as a given. So now I am wondering what the origins of the crappy singleplayer campaign are i.e. AOE, AOM, SC.

Are you kidding me? The Singleplayer campaign in Starcraft, Red alert and Age of Empires is awesome.

So much work has been put into AoE explaining the history of each battle, the weapons used, the tribes...

Starcraft just like red alert has a god story, fun videos...
The thing is that you probably dislike singleplayer campaigns or think they are to easy overall.

But no way, I think that Starcraft has nothing in multiplayer that it has in singleplayer. It's actually extremely simplistic with no diplomacy, only two resources, no real tactical debth as in the singleplayer campaigns and such. (I mean seriously, everyone start at a similiar location, everyone mass resources and then either mass units or rush early on and even worse everyone play on the fastest speed so there's no way to use Zerg queens, Science vessels or anything like this in any large number efficiently).

But luckily there was a good level editor so people have made some really fun and cool scenarios like IMPOSSIBLE X.



Also RTS AI isn't that bad to be honest. It has an inability to organise large attacks and that is it's biggest weakness (shown especially in Civ3). It's quite good at the early and mid-game stages IMO. But the AI is good at campaign scenarios because it has set parameters on how to work and act in that scenario (often has that at least). But to be frank the AoE AI on the hardest level is good even on random maps. Maybe I just suck - despite beating Civ 3 on diety (Island map) and demi god (normal map) where the AI basicly outright cheats massively.

 

[34thcell]

Sure the story is fine, but the gameplay is clearly not designed with varied objectives and story in mind, giving the impression of something tacked on, even if it is good, and I was merely asking for the origin of this in RTS games.

 

[cronicler]

Singleplayer campaigns, or to be more precise detailed engaging singleplayer campaigns require a lot of effort. You need to use different game modes like :small team combat inside a building; normal rts skirmish; ability to call units from a home base (or whatever) on some missions; some missions chained together like a scenario where you are attacked by overwhelming odds and you are going to loose this map and the next map and the next map but your aim is to slow the bastards enough so that the civs at the 4th map can evacuate etc.

All of this varierity require a "LOT" of effort and a lot of creativity. Instead You can just dump some skirmish maps, add a few scripted events and souce it with FMVs or in game cutscenes to call it SP.

Also don't forget that most of the gamer population want their games in bite sized pieces. Who cares about overall objectives and long games when there is a "HERE! NOW! AND I MEAN NOW!" game over there.

 

[Username]

Sure the story is fine, but the gameplay is clearly not designed with varied objectives and story in mind, giving the impression of something tacked on, even if it is good, and I was merely asking for the origin of this in RTS games.

How isn't it? And how is multiplayer better in any way except ofcourse for the free and (often) good human AI?

I mean the zerg campaign that I am playing again has this mission in which you may not allow any dark templars to escape (reach the end of the map), also the choke points are not easily accessible for you as you are on higher ground so you must race for troop transports (hive+upgraded overlord).

I can't think of any more inovative thing tbh without changing much of the game.

 

[Bofast]

How isn't it? And how is multiplayer better in any way except ofcourse for the free and (often) good human AI?

You didn't really mean to say that the people you play against are only artificially intelligent, did you?

I mean the zerg campaign that I am playing again has this mission in which you may not allow any dark templars to escape (reach the end of the map), also the choke points are not easily accessible for you as you are on higher ground so you must race for troop transports (hive+upgraded overlord).

If it's the campaign mission I think it is, then you have simple ramps down to the points you need to defend from your various outposts, and sending troops from one base to another via Nydus canals is pretty easy, seeing as how the canals are already constructed beforehand. Or, you could simply build flying troops and mass them above the beacons

Anyway, maybe they could include a 'Brain' in dish to play the strategy games against you, connected through a USB port, perhaps? Sure, it sucks in the beginning, but it learns as it goes

 

[Roflcore]

I would like to add a game to the list of rts games with an AI that don't suck:

Seven Kingdoms (note: the original game, not the shitty conquest remake or seven kingdom 2)

You might not remember this because it was not very popular. But I have to say, that game has the best AI I ever saw.
It is a bit unfair to compare because 7K does not really have lots of units, just war machines and warriors which get better over time. so the battle is not really about tactics, more about overall strategy. When and who to strike. Basically one has to make sure not to suffer too much casualties. If he does he is not strong enough to defend himself. This is why I was able to play the game for years (I also played MoO2 for years, but "hard" is beatable and "impossible" is just too much cheating to be fun).

So what makes the AI great? I don't really know, it just feels like playing with humans. The AI uses the spy features excessively, especially if you are weak, less if you have the greatest military power. They will beat you up and if you fall down they will continue kicking you with no mercy. Your allies will turn on you. Or not, there is really no pattern to it. A ally will help you in a battle, but you cannot be sure about it. And if he does, he might stab yon in the back next time. The AI also doesn't seem to cheat. It might know the entire map, but that is not really an advantage as in any other RTS game. It also happens that the AI just go broke or overextend itself just like a human.

All in all: Who ever wrote that AI should continue down that pass. MP still is more fun (if you have a nice opponent and not the casual "LOLO RUSH 4 mins game only!!1" gamer seen in any modern day rts) but the SP was just great.

If I remember correct the game did not have a campagne. only randomly generated maps and a bunch of interesting scenarios.

I think I am going to play it again..hope it runs under Windows 7

/e oh and I would like to add that I found the Starcraft SP boring. The story is nice but the cutscenes would have been enough I think. The campagne is just the same over and over again. Build a base, crush your opponents. Sometimes you have silly restrictions or the enemy has silly scripts. Not my cup of tea..

 

[gregor_y]

I think I am going to play it again..hope it runs under Windows 7

Dude if you talking about Seven Kingdoms well it dont work under win 7(at least under version 7100 ) i think you need XP to play this game if you run it somehow write how you did it...

MOO2 runs how ever under win 7 great

 

[Username]

How isn't it? And how is multiplayer better in any way except ofcourse for the free and (often) good human AI?

You didn't really mean to say that the people you play against are only artificially intelligent, did you?

I mean the zerg campaign that I am playing again has this mission in which you may not allow any dark templars to escape (reach the end of the map), also the choke points are not easily accessible for you as you are on higher ground so you must race for troop transports (hive+upgraded overlord).

If it's the campaign mission I think it is, then you have simple ramps down to the points you need to defend from your various outposts, and sending troops from one base to another via Nydus canals is pretty easy, seeing as how the canals are already constructed beforehand. Or, you could simply build flying troops and mass them above the beacons

Anyway, maybe they could include a 'Brain' in dish to play the strategy games against you, connected through a USB port, perhaps? Sure, it sucks in the beginning, but it learns as it goes

Yeah but considering they are attackign you all the time and that every resourcearea is guarded by a small or large base it ain't really that simple. But still, tell me how would you make 30 scenarios so that each of them was completely unique?

And I still don't get how multiplayer is any better.

 

[Roflcore]

I think I am going to play it again..hope it runs under Windows 7

Dude if you talking about Seven Kingdoms well it dont work under win 7(at least under version 7100 ) i think you need XP to play this game if you run it somehow write how you did it...

MOO2 runs how ever under win 7 great

I have 7100 but I still will try. What about VM? So far every game worked for me with that