Grand Survey of Starcraft

[Undeadprotoss]

Hey guys, I've loved Starcraft ever since I was a little kid, but lately I've felt that SC2 doesn't deliver as well sa SC1 and BW had for me, so i informally interviewed several people I played and emailed a few other people about some of these questions comparing the original and BW to SC2, please feel free to answer as many as you want, or none at all, in any fashion you find appropriate (I posted a breakdown of the sentiments I felt I got plus my own opinon from before a day or so ago in the story forum regarding lore, but here is the full survey/interview) :
----------------------------------------------------

1. The art-style of SC2 has received some criticism, some of which say that the game's aesthetics too closely resemble that of World of Warcraft, being that they are cartoony and proportions are less realistic. In contrast to the original StarCraft which to many seemed more realistic, dark, and gritty. How do you feel about the game's art-style and aesthetics? And how do you feel they compare to StarCraft 1?

2. Many have criticized SC2's storyline as being of less quality than StarCraft 1's. How do you feel about the story and the characters in SC2? Do you think SC1's story was of similar quality, less quality, or better, and why?

3. Do you feel like SC2 delivers properly on fantasy and immersion? How would you compare that success or lack thereof to StarCraft 1?

4. Dustin Browder had envisioned SC2 to be a game for competitive e-sports (to my knowledge). Do you think that SC2 is a very high paced and stressful game? If so, do you think this scares off new players and makes casual play difficult? How would you compare the game-play now to StarCraft 1? Do you think that it is usually the case that the game comes down to 1 or 2 big battles, and then it being difficult to come back from that, if at all possible?

5. Is the same depth and change in meta-game there? Would you say that SC2 has more "mechanical depth" (microing units, learning to optimize build orders, becoming faster and more effective in executing commands) then "strategic depth" (having a variety of strategies that feel and play differently from one another, and having to change and tweak your play-style to overcome your opponent)

6. What are your major gripes about SC2 (if any)? What are your favorite parts of SC2?

7. What are your hopes for Legacy of the Void, are you concerned about it's direction?

8. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

-----------------------------New Questions*---------------------------
Do you feel that SC2 far too often comes down to a giant deathball of units versus another giant deathball? Would you rather it be more like Brood War with many smaller battles happening across the map?

Dustin Browder has said (to my knowledge) that the team wanted to design the game around cool units, rather than to have specific plans for all of the races. Do you feel that each race in SC2 has a distinct play style? Do you think this is better or worse from Brood War?

*these new questions were added in the last post on battle.net (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18719273722) and are thus not really "new" new, not that that's at all important, but yeet.

[Nissa]

Is there a purpose to this?

Uh, I think if you'll hang out here long enough, most of these questions should be answered. For my part, I'll just say this: "fantasy" is the absolute wrong word to use. I don't want a fantasy, but a true sci fi. That's the main difference between the two. SC1 was creepy, edgy scifi, and SC2 is weak fantasy.

[Undeadprotoss]

Is there a purpose to this?

Uh, I think if you'll hang out here long enough, most of these questions should be answered. For my part, I'll just say this: "fantasy" is the absolute wrong word to use. I don't want a fantasy, but a true sci fi. That's the main difference between the two. SC1 was creepy, edgy scifi, and SC2 is weak fantasy.

I meant fantasy as a very broad term, I think your last sentence really sums up the feeling I get with a lot of the story though, but when I say "fantasy" I literally mean anything imaginative. So in the context of that question, I'm basically asking if the universe feels compelling and interesting to you within SC2. Personally, I agree, I remember one person doing a review of HOTS described the original as "naturalist". A lot of different words/terms are used to try and jab at the general sentiment of course, but I think most fall under SC1 being more gritty, more realistic, less fantastical (here I mean to say that in SC1 so much of the story dealt with Earth, instead of now were thats largely minimized)

[Turalyon]

My one and biggest issue with Sc2 is how it's story is barely cogent on it's own. Everything else, like the artstyle etc., is up to debate and of varying individual subjective taste.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

1. One of my biggest complaints, the Terrans are somewhat passable on some occaisions but the Zerg and ESPECIALLY the Protoss are awful, especially the new "Protoss Ballz" they like to go for now
Sharp angles and actual points, rods and arches don't exist or something :/

2. The story is as bad as Transformers 2 with a carbon copy ripoff villain to boot.

3. Nope, they focused too much on LEGACY!! characters like Raynor and Kerrigan, RTS game stories should never be character focused

4. SC2's gameplay is way too volatile, not very fun (not even for scrubs like me who played against elite AI) too much focus on deathballs and tacked on clickity clacks, I also don't like snowballs (1 and done battles)

5.I'm sure there's a lot more focus on build orders rather than tactics or strategy, since positioning doesn't really matter all that much (except in TvT)

6. Gripes: Nearly everything, Favorite parts: The ability to change the game from the ground up, and map textures/doodads, extension mods

7.I hope the fucking games works on my PC, thanks patch 3.0! :D

8. I also want Arbiters in the campaign even if I can't play it.

9. Yes it does, almost always if the game lasts more than 5 minutes, and yes I'd rather have a multi pronged war with engagements, retreats, feignts, tricks, diversions etc.

10. Harassment is the coolest thing in all of StarCraft! D:D:D:DDDD:DD:D:D

[sandwich_bird]

1. SC2 Art style would be fine if it was for a new franchise but it really doesn't fit well with what was previously established. This was brought up by fans from the very beginning and Blizzard's response(aka, Samwise) was basically "we know it's different but... get used to it". I remember them trying very hard to convince us that a realistic approach was boring and that everything should be COOL (tm) instead. Sadly, I'm of the opinion that SC1 art direction was much better.

2. I don't even know where to start... Sc2 story would have been fine as a Saturday morning cartoon I guess... You can't take it seriously and it's complete garbage compared to SC1. BW story was a bit weaker but even then, it was nowhere close to the kind of bottom that SC2 hit. I honestly wrote better fan fiction when I was 12.

3. Again, you can't take sc2 seriously which gives it 0 immersion. Everything feels like a joke. Furthermore, the fact that the story is told in 3rd person instead of in 1st (like in SC1) didn't help in that regard.

4. The gameplay in SC2 is extremely volatile and boring. Games usually revolve around massing a ball of crap and throwing it against the enemy's ball of crap and whoever wins this engagement win the game. Some of the new mechanics obviously made the game easier to play compared to SC1 but I feel like SC2 is lot less forgiving.

5. Since the game is more volatile, I'd definitely say that we lost a lot in terms of micro management. The improved AI is definitely a plus though. Apart from that, I'd say that the 2 games are comparable. SC2 might offer a slightly wider range of possible strategies.

6. Downside: shitty story, bad music, bad sound effects, bad art style, volatile gameplay, no respect for SC1.
Upside: Fun and interesting mission design, fun party system/easy to play with friends.

7. My hope is that Allied command is fun and that they continue to have cool missions. Otherwise, well... I'd be delusional to hope for anything else.

[Undeadprotoss]

1. SC2 Art style would be fine if it was for a new franchise but it really doesn't fit well with what was previously established. This was brought up by fans from the very beginning and Blizzard's response(aka, Samwise) was basically "we know it's different but... get used to it". I remember them trying very hard to convince us that a realistic approach was boring and that everything should be COOL (tm) instead. Sadly, I'm of the opinion that SC1 art direction was much better.

2. I don't even know where to start... Sc2 story would have been fine as a Saturday morning cartoon I guess... You can't take it seriously and it's complete garbage compared to SC1. BW story was a bit weaker but even then, it was nowhere close to the kind of bottom that SC2 hit. I honestly wrote better fan fiction when I was 12.

3. Again, you can't take sc2 seriously which gives it 0 immersion. Everything feels like a joke. Furthermore, the fact that the story is told in 3rd person instead of in 1st (like in SC1) didn't help in that regard.

4. The gameplay in SC2 is extremely volatile and boring. Games usually revolve around massing a ball of crap and throwing it against the enemy's ball of crap and whoever wins this engagement win the game. Some of the new mechanics obviously made the game easier to play compared to SC1 but I feel like SC2 is lot less forgiving.

5. Since the game is more volatile, I'd definitely say that we lost a lot in terms of micro management. The improved AI is definitely a plus though. Apart from that, I'd say that the 2 games are comparable. SC2 might offer a slightly wider range of possible strategies.

6. Downside: shitty story, bad music, bad sound effects, bad art style, volatile gameplay, no respect for SC1.
Upside: Fun and interesting mission design, fun party system/easy to play with friends.

7. My hope is that Allied command is fun and that they continue to have cool missions. Otherwise, well... I'd be delusional to hope for anything else.



Honestly, I get the feeling, and I remember watching a HOTS interview with Chris Metzen where this came up, that the dev team reeaaalllly underestimates people's tolerance to sit through story and dialogue. Mertzen in that interview for example, specifically mentioned that he felt WC3 was too "top heavy" in terms of its story content (having a lot of cut-scenes, character interaction, etc). Thing is, and I really really have this problem in my life generally, you can't just assume anticancer things get communicated, you ABSOLUTELY MUST take the time to build up the characters and have them interact with one another, yeah sure they'll be a portion of people who don't care at all, but I feel like it needs to be made clear that most if not a very large people play the campaign for the story!

About the contunity with SC1, I agree, I think Blizzard really didn't want people who didn't play the original and BW to miss out, but the funny thing is, its often that dense, newly introduced background that draws people in to begin with. How many people played Warcraft games BEFORE wc3 and Frozen Throne? I know I didn;t, and even though i was a little kid at the time, it was just magical, and it drew me in.

With your point about the art direction, sounds, voice acting, etc. I also agree, I think part of that to be fair was the introduction of 3D modeling, which did pose a pretty unique challenge, but other than that, I think instead of focusing on what was amazing and passionate and wonderful about the universe, of what was hauntingly beautiful and bloody and mystical and epic about the original, a lot of time was developing the game without that interaction, and thus without the same level of methodical attention coupled with a shared vision that a smaller team had.

I feel like designing so much of the game around E-sports had a really bad impact on the game as well, but I don't think its fair to just assume how much of it was designed for E-sports, even though I do believe and recall hearing that, explicitly so, many facets of the game were made to fit that model, in fact, the new art style may be at least partially influenced by that, as I remember someone ( I think it was Chris Metzen) saying how the art direction would have units be flashy and bright and hyper-proportional so that they'd be easily distinguisable, but that can actually have the opposite effect, especially in an RTS, and especially in an RTS like Starcraft, where you have to be everywhere and once and often with a lot units, a wider color pallette can make formerly obvious distinctions too similar to immediately notice.

(Metzen interview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBSb9suA2lM start at 9:27 for that WC3 stuff) He also mentions about how they wanted to pull back a lot of story from the maps to better facilitate game play, and I think its a mistake honestly, its not a bad theory or anything, but in practice it hurts the universe and the experience as a whole imo.

[sandwich_bird]

Honestly, I get the feeling, and I remember watching a HOTS interview with Chris Metzen where this came up, that the dev team reeaaalllly underestimates people's tolerance to sit through story and dialogue. Mertzen in that interview for example, specifically mentioned that he felt WC3 was too "top heavy" in terms of its story content (having a lot of cut-scenes, character interaction, etc). Thing is, and I really really have this problem in my life generally, you can't just assume anticancer things get communicated, you ABSOLUTELY MUST take the time to build up the characters and have them interact with one another, yeah sure they'll be a portion of people who don't care at all, but I feel like it needs to be made clear that most if not a very large people play the campaign for the story!
I'd say that SC2 had more story content than SC1 with all the talks you could have and things you could do between missions. Plus, there were a lot more cut-scenes and such. The problem was just that this content was weak.




With your point about the art direction, sounds, voice acting, etc. I also agree, I think part of that to be fair was the introduction of 3D modeling, which did pose a pretty unique challenge, but other than that, I think instead of focusing on what was amazing and passionate and wonderful about the universe, of what was hauntingly beautiful and bloody and mystical and epic about the original, a lot of time was developing the game without that interaction, and thus without the same level of methodical attention coupled with a shared vision that a smaller team had.


SC1 was in 2d but technically used 3d models for sprites so it's debatable how much this should have affected the game. I totally agree that the vision was probably blurred due to a large team though.



I feel like designing so much of the game around E-sports had a really bad impact on the game as well, but I don't think its fair to just assume how much of it was designed for E-sports, even though I do believe and recall hearing that, explicitly so, many facets of the game were made to fit that model, in fact, the new art style may be at least partially influenced by that, as I remember someone ( I think it was Chris Metzen) saying how the art direction would have units be flashy and bright and hyper-proportional so that they'd be easily distinguisable, but that can actually have the opposite effect, especially in an RTS, and especially in an RTS like Starcraft, where you have to be everywhere and once and often with a lot units, a wider color pallette can make formerly obvious distinctions too similar to immediately notice.
I could see why they'd want to do it. E-sport was what kept Starcraft alive for so long after all. Focusing too much on e-sport is not smart though. I think games become e-sports instead of being made e-sports.

[Undeadprotoss]

I'd say that SC2 had more story content than SC1 with all the talks you could have and things you could do between missions. Plus, there were a lot more cut-scenes and such. The problem was just that this content was weak.




SC1 was in 2d but technically used 3d models for sprites so it's debatable how much this should have affected the game. I totally agree that the vision was probably blurred due to a large team though.


I could see why they'd want to do it. E-sport was what kept Starcraft alive for so long after all. Focusing too much on e-sport is not smart though. I think games become e-sports instead of being made e-sports.

SC2 definitely had a much, much higher amount of dialogue. problem was that because they were mostly optional conversations outside of the main story, so they couldn't have much essential exposition or plot detail. It'd be much better if there was a consistent realm for interactions with multiple characters like the SC1 mission briefings.

That is true though, didn't realize the sprites were 3D, to a degree though, whenever you render things in 3D its much eaiser to have it look cartoony, I remember one person comparing the SCV of SC2 to that of SC1, in that to be totally accurate you do need to show a much bulkier unit sometimes, he (maybe someone else but I'm not sure) also brought up zerglings, and how in SC1 their model was fairly slim, their body really was like a stick, its sometimes harder to pull that off in SC2.

I think maybe an idea thats going around now with some of the devs is that certain trade offs in terms of world-building, story, art, character development, etc are worth improvements in gameplay that are actually marginal sometimes. Like with Chris Metzen in that interview, sure people like to play and jump in the action, but is it really worth not putting in 1-3 extra minutes of dialogue and exposition between characters? It really isn't worth the trade off, people who play the campaign overwhelmingly care about the story/universe/etc to SOME degree, and its not as unbearable as it sounds to sit through just a few minutes of dialogue before a 20-40 minute mission. Seriously though, CHARACTER BANTER IS ENTERTAINING! ITS NOT TERRIBLE, PEOPLE LOVE THE CUTSCENES BLIZZ!

[sandwich_bird]

That is true though, didn't realize the sprites were 3D, to a degree though, whenever you render things in 3D its much eaiser to have it look cartoony, I remember one person comparing the SCV of SC2 to that of SC1, in that to be totally accurate you do need to show a much bulkier unit sometimes, he (maybe someone else but I'm not sure) also brought up zerglings, and how in SC1 their model was fairly slim, their body really was like a stick, its sometimes harder to pull that off in SC2.



Side note on this, if you want to see what SC2 would have looked like with the exact same art style, check this mod: http://www.moddb.com/mods/project-revolution

Obviously, blizzard would have been able to improve upon this and you have to remember that this is inside the wc3 engine so it's not perfect. I like it though.

[Undeadprotoss]

Side note on this, if you want to see what SC2 would have looked like with the exact same art style, check this mod: http://www.moddb.com/mods/project-revolution

Obviously, blizzard would have been able to improve upon this and you have to remember that this is inside the wc3 engine so it's not perfect. I like it though.

Hey sorry I didn't respond earlier, I saw it the day of but had to deal with a ton of toher stuff >.<.

I actually like it a lot, its obviously pretty bare-bones and it feels starnge without the physics engine, I think it resmbles to a degree what the really, really early Blizzard alpha version of SC2 was to the final game. I think there are a lot of new elements that probably should eb brought in to REALLY bring the universe to life and make things beyond amazing and atmospheric, like in the orignal SC.