• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Do singleplayer campaigns in the RTS genre matter to you?

  • I care about them, they're my primary interest

    Votes: 539 93.9%
  • They're not important, but I'll play them

    Votes: 26 4.5%
  • I don't care about them, I only play RTS for the multiplayer

    Votes: 9 1.6%

  • Total voters
    574

Kaim Argonar

Member
Dec 8, 2017
2,273
I mostly play them for the campaigns.

But outlets and publishers are probably not interested in them because single player campaigns have a start and an end. Can't be written about or monetized for years the same way multiplayer can.
 

Ginta

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,141
But what about MOBAs, do people play ot foron the campaign? /s

I wish the RTS genre wasn't as dead as it is, I'm craving for a good one right nownow.
 

cowbanana

Member
Feb 2, 2018
13,724
a Socialist Utopia
RTS is all about the campaign for me. It's the only reason I play them. I couldn't care less about the multiplayer.

A shame that the genre is pretty much dead. It used to be one of my favorites years ago.
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
They're very important to my enjoyment, as a way to enjoy the game when I don't feel up to or the interest in playing competitive multiplayer. Co-op modes are a fucking blessing too, and there's a reason they do so much for a game's health (sup, SC2). Competitive tunnel vision is ultimately damaging to the genre and people's interest in the long run.
 

Natasha Kerensky

Alt Account
Banned
Jul 18, 2019
262
Praha, CZ
RTS is all about the campaign for me. It's the only reason I play them. I couldn't care less about the multiplayer.

A shame that the genre is pretty much dead. It used to be one of my favorites years ago.

at least there is a new Age of Empires being made by Relic, then there's Age of Empire 2 Definitive Edition, then there's Warcraft 3 Reforged, then there's Command & Conquer Remaster, then there's Homeworld 3.
 

lazygecko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,628
The original Command and Conquer had secret dinosaur missions.

In Yuri's Revenge Soviet campaign, you steal a time machine in the first mission but accidentally go back too far and have to survive a gauntlet of dinosaurs before you can travel again to the intended time.

Later you go through a maze of laser-firing Moai statues on Easter Island, and then go to the moon (where you can't gather resources or train infantry).

They're very important to my enjoyment, as a way to enjoy the game when I don't feel up to or the interest in playing competitive multiplayer. Co-op modes are a fucking blessing too, and there's a reason they do so much for a game's health (sup, SC2). Competitive tunnel vision is ultimately damaging to the genre and people's interest in the long run.

Fighting games are pretty much as daunting and inaccessible to the average player with their insular competitive scenes. Mortal Kombat managed to become bigger than ever thanks to putting effort into a fun accessible story mode anyone can get invested in. I think Street Fighter 5 turned into a case study of just how misguided it can be to release your game pandering exclusively to the esports demographic at the expense of the more "casual" stuff.

I believe the same dynamics very much hold true for RTS.
 
Last edited:

Uzzy

Gabe’s little helper
Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,238
Hull, UK
In Yuri's Revenge Soviet campaign, you steal a time machine in the first mission but accidentally go back too far and have to survive a gauntlet of dinosaurs before you can travel again to the intended time.

Later you go through a maze of laser-firing Moai statues on Easter Island, and then go to the moon (where you can't gather resources or train infantry).

Also that. I forgot just how wacky the Soviet campaign was for a moment, and have been properly admonished!
 

Baalzebup

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,713
Oh yes. While I don't completely dismiss the MP aspects and have indeed become a quite avid follower of high level competitive SC2, I'm generally all about that single player campaign goodness. I'd literally never put any money into an RTS that was MP only.
 

Arex

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,510
Indonesia
Absolutely, I only play the single player in RTS games, don't give a fuck on multiplayer. I assume RTS isn't as popular now because the devs are chasing the multiplayer money and the single and multi/competitive players don't crossover much really.
 

FlintSpace

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
2,817
Campaign is all that matters to me.

The multiplayer scene in RTS' are usually too hard. You need to dedicate un-fun amount of time to git gud.
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Nov 3, 2017
28,055
Single player campaign brings in the crowd.

Multiplayer is what keeps them from leaving.

That said while I do care about the story in games like Warcraft and Starcraft, I don't know if I actually like experiencing them in the form of an RTS.
 

Nephrahim

Member
Jun 9, 2018
291
Multiplayer in RTS games is super stressful. IT's just too exhausting. In shooters you tend to have tons of downtime between rounds, while you're dead. Even in games MOBAs you get "Downtime" in when you're just running to and from places on the map or just laning without significant opposition.

Every second you're not doing like two and a half actions in an RTS is wasted time your opponent can use to get ahead of you.
 

raketenrolf

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,216
Germany
My experience in doing online MP in RTS is that everybody just tries to rush you and that's not how I enjoy my RTS so if the game doesn't have a SP campaign, I am not even considering buying it. Only online MP in an RTS that I enjoyed was WC3 and that because of mods/custom maps.

I loved playing MP on local network though AGES ago with my cousin. Like C&C2, Age of Empires etc.
 

Shoichi

Member
Jan 10, 2018
10,462
Definitely.

Warcraft, Starcraft, C&C Red Alert all I loved playing the campaign. The comedy in C&C Red Alert was so good

It's fun knowing about units and what they are about. MP is fun but it's more a side thing
 

Nerun

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,276
I'm old and I need a decent campaign to be interested in any RTS or nearly any game at all (with some exceptions). I miss games like Dune, Warcraft, Starcraft, C&C, etc. The campaign for They Are Billions was really bad though and the genre itself is pretty dead, besides Remaster/Remakes for Warcraft 3 and C&C 1 and Red Alert coming up, at least something...
 

LapinLopLuna

Member
Oct 29, 2017
54
I've never played an RTS Multiplayer. Only campaign and against bots. Mostly Starcraft, Dawn of War and Stronghold
 

Natasha Kerensky

Alt Account
Banned
Jul 18, 2019
262
Praha, CZ
Multiplayer in RTS games is super stressful. IT's just too exhausting. In shooters you tend to have tons of downtime between rounds, while you're dead. Even in games MOBAs you get "Downtime" in when you're just running to and from places on the map or just laning without significant opposition.

Every second you're not doing like two and a half actions in an RTS is wasted time your opponent can use to get ahead of you.

i feel like i will have a heart attack when I play multiplayer RTS. It's so stressful
 

UnluckyKate

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,553
Dawn of War 2 is a must play campaing with character progression rpg skills and loot with equipments. its a must.
 

Type422

Member
Nov 28, 2017
374
Yep, campaign only for me. I really love RTS but I'm just so bad at them. It's okay against normal AI but literally every other human being would destroy me :D
 

ArkkAngel007

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
5,001
My preference is the same as most in this thread. I just can't compete at a competitive level, despite having grown up on the genre, and often the things I enjoy most are lost in the efficient and lean strategies that are necessary.
 

SCB360

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,639
Yep, I don't wanna play MP, I like the power fantasy of commanding a great giant army more against a evil regime(or Star Wars GA is a good example of both)
 

Gradon

Saw the truth behind the copied door
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,475
UK
RTS campaigns are paramount. Unquestionably.

I loved multiplayer in RTS games too but their competitive strategies are totally lost on me, I like to think and take my time.
A lot of C&C multiplayer was tank rushing as early as possible. I didn't like that at all.
 

CMDBob

Member
Oct 25, 2017
105
Sheffield
Single player and Skirmish/CompStomps are what I love best about RTS. I grew up on a diet of C&C, Homeworld and Dawn of War, and the campaigns were the best bits of them, along with the skirmish modes. The cutscenes, the plot, they're what I love about RTS games. Multiplayer is way too stressful.
 

Jakisthe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,586
Absolutely. I can't play the likes of Starcraft 2 online to save my life (as much as I love GSL), but that campaign was something else.
 

Akai

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,047
I enjoy the Singleplayer Campaigns, but also PvE and co-op modes, way more than I do MP in RTS games these day.

That has mainly to do with the fact that I'm just too lazy to learn all those build orders in MP and/or how to react to certain build orders. Playing RTS MP games is really not as easy than lets say booting up any shooter and playing that instead. Depending on the game, it can be very complex and require a lot of dedication.
 

Keasar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,724
Umeå, Sweden
Still waiting for the sequel to one of the best RTS campaigns ever:

World-in-Conflict-672x372.jpg


Dammit Massive, why you go only-shooty on all us suddenly? :(
 

SuikerBrood

Member
Jan 21, 2018
15,490
I'm kinda surprised by the results. The RTS genre has been alive (StarCraft, Age of Empires 2, Warcraft 3) because of the online communities and multiplayer aspects of it all. It's what draws me in too.

I like the campaigns. I play them at launch. But the longevity is in the multiplayer experience. Be it from custom made games (TD's, DotA, RPG's, etc.) or versus multiplayer.

Playing Age of Empires 2 and 3 on LAN-parties must be in my top 3 gaming memories.
 

Remo Williams

Self-requested ban
Banned
Jan 13, 2018
4,769
It's pretty much all I play, so yeah. I haven't played an RTS multiplayer match since the first Red Alert.
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
BTW, folks answering option A should really download SC2 and play the co-op mode. Has the perks of a singleplayer progression system, maps, all with friends. I've sunk a lot of time into it!
 

Blairbat

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,101
Sacramento, California
If a Real-Time-Strategy game does not have a campaign I will not bother with it. I won't bother with it if it has a short campaign either because 99% of the time after I am done with the single-player I am done with the game. StarCraft is the only exception as I really like all the fun custom multiplayer maps you can play online which I consider as multiplayer.
 

Plotinus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
348
Gonna say the same thing I said in a C&C thread a while back:

The death of the RTS genre still makes me kinda mad. I think RTSes are in the same position survival horror was a decade ago or so: they didn't actually lose popularity. There was no legitimate reason to decide they were dead. At worst, there was a bit of a glut, but at no point did people stop wanting to buy them and play them. But some executives in suits somewhere decided they were dead, and then it became the received wisdom, and here we are.

But it's worse than that, because while survival horror was revived by the efforts of indie developers, when it comes to RTSes, indie developers keep revisiting the genre in frustrating ways that are never going to appeal to the (relative) mass market of people who bought Warcraft 3 and Rise of Nations in droves.

So we have Grey Goo, whose developers for some reason decided to make insanely hard even on the "normal" difficulty setting, with poor tutorializing and a difficulty curve like a brick wall. (Oh, and they titled it "Grey Goo," one of the least appealing video game titles I've ever heard, and yes, I know what grey goo is, it's still a hilariously awful name.)

And then we have They Are Billions, which has made the astonishing decision to make it impossible to save, in a game where levels last 1.5 hours and all your careful planning can be ruined at the 11th hour by one tiny oversight or misunderstanding of the map. Because that's fun and appealing to the average player who might be mildly interested in a new RTS experience.

Then we have a smattering of RTS indie games, like Planetary Annihilation, which are laser-focused on becoming competitive multiplayer experiences and thus completely neglect their campaigns, skirmishes, enemy AI, and other single player features, leaving them either bare-bones or outright terrible. Because why court the millions of people who miss RTS campaigns and aren't being served at all, when you could instead try to compete head-on with League of Legends, DOTA, AutoChess, and Starcraft 2? I mean, look at those poll results! Why appeal to 95% of your audience and make a lot of money when you could appeal to 5% of your audience and fail spectacularly to make a mountain of money?

I just don't get it. Is there really not a single indie developer who wants to make a traditional, single-player (and/or co-op), base-building RTS, with good tutorials and well-explained mechanics, campaigns, robust skirmish settings, and difficulty settings pitched at the average player rather than superfans? I understand wanting to do something different, but literally no one is doing this. One of the most popular subgenres, with hundreds of entries from 1995-2005, is absolutely and totally dead, with the sole exception, kinda, of Starcraft 2? I just don't get it.
 

Xater

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,907
Germany
The campaigns are the main appeal to me. Coop skirmishes or something similar are also cool. I just can't compete in these games online. The difference between a good player and me is like worlds apart. I lack the skillsetr and also the time to get there.
 

Mentalist

Member
Mar 14, 2019
18,040
Gonna say the same thing I said in a C&C thread a while back:

The death of the RTS genre still makes me kinda mad. I think RTSes are in the same position survival horror was a decade ago or so: they didn't actually lose popularity. There was no legitimate reason to decide they were dead. At worst, there was a bit of a glut, but at no point did people stop wanting to buy them and play them. But some executives in suits somewhere decided they were dead, and then it became the received wisdom, and here we are.

But it's worse than that, because while survival horror was revived by the efforts of indie developers, when it comes to RTSes, indie developers keep revisiting the genre in frustrating ways that are never going to appeal to the (relative) mass market of people who bought Warcraft 3 and Rise of Nations in droves.

So we have Grey Goo, whose developers for some reason decided to make insanely hard even on the "normal" difficulty setting, with poor tutorializing and a difficulty curve like a brick wall. (Oh, and they titled it "Grey Goo," one of the least appealing video game titles I've ever heard, and yes, I know what grey goo is, it's still a hilariously awful name.)

And then we have They Are Billions, which has made the astonishing decision to make it impossible to save, in a game where levels last 1.5 hours and all your careful planning can be ruined at the 11th hour by one tiny oversight or misunderstanding of the map. Because that's fun and appealing to the average player who might be mildly interested in a new RTS experience.

Then we have a smattering of RTS indie games, like Planetary Annihilation, which are laser-focused on becoming competitive multiplayer experiences and thus completely neglect their campaigns, skirmishes, enemy AI, and other single player features, leaving them either bare-bones or outright terrible. Because why court the millions of people who miss RTS campaigns and aren't being served at all, when you could instead try to compete head-on with League of Legends, DOTA, AutoChess, and Starcraft 2? I mean, look at those poll results! Why appeal to 95% of your audience and make a lot of money when you could appeal to 5% of your audience and fail spectacularly to make a mountain of money?

I just don't get it. Is there really not a single indie developer who wants to make a traditional, single-player (and/or co-op), base-building RTS, with good tutorials and well-explained mechanics, campaigns, robust skirmish settings, and difficulty settings pitched at the average player rather than superfans? I understand wanting to do something different, but literally no one is doing this. One of the most popular subgenres, with hundreds of entries from 1995-2005, is absolutely and totally dead, with the sole exception, kinda, of Starcraft 2? I just don't get it.
SpellForce. Remains tremendously underrated ever since the initial release.
It's a WarCraft III clone in all the good ways.
 

karnage10

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,508
Portugal
I'm kinda surprised by the results. The RTS genre has been alive (StarCraft, Age of Empires 2, Warcraft 3) because of the online communities and multiplayer aspects of it all. It's what draws me in too.

I like the campaigns. I play them at launch. But the longevity is in the multiplayer experience. Be it from custom made games (TD's, DotA, RPG's, etc.) or versus multiplayer.

Playing Age of Empires 2 and 3 on LAN-parties must be in my top 3 gaming memories.
i am not. Might be anedoctal evidence but all my friends that play strategy games are like me. We play the SP, it ends we move to a new game.
Playing RTS (or most strategy games really) requires a lot of effort to understand how to min-max. Min-max is not fun to a LOt of people.
"roleplaying" and trying new strategies where you are not bound to an extremely high skill level is where the fun is at.
 

Fall Damage

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,062
I did play a good amount of custom StarCraft and Warcraft III maps back in the day but the campaigns are why I fell in love with those games and the rts genre. I don't think I've touched multiplayer in any other rts game and I've played quite a few. A good single player mode is all that I care about.
 

SuikerBrood

Member
Jan 21, 2018
15,490
i am not. Might be anedoctal evidence but all my friends that play strategy games are like me. We play the SP, it ends we move to a new game.
Playing RTS (or most strategy games really) requires a lot of effort to understand how to min-max. Min-max is not fun to a LOt of people.
"roleplaying" and trying new strategies where you are not bound to an extremely high skill level is where the fun is at.

Yeah, I understand a lot of people only play campaign, or mostly play the campaigns, but the longevity of RTS games comes from the online/multiplayer component.

I'm fairly sure those 10k concurrent users playing Age of Empires 2HD these days are mostly multiplayer people. I didn't expect most people on era to play rts games for multiplayer. But didn't expect this outcome either.
 

chrominance

Sky Van Gogh
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,651
I don't necessarily need a campaign to enjoy an RTS--the vast majority of my time in Red Alert 2 was probably spent in AI skirmishes and Generals Zero Hour had that cool commander gauntlet thing, where you choose a commander and then fought all the other commanders in 1v1 AI battles. I agree that these modes have staying power long after you're done with the campaign.

Butt I have zero interest in online competitive multiplayer against human opponents. It's just not what I come to RTS games for. You want to throw in a bunch of neat AI vs. player modes, I'm in.