I know. And I'm saying I disagree with their design strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex06
Printable View
I know. And I'm saying I disagree with their design strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex06
I feel that most of the negativity is directed towards Terran, which I believe is understandable given the way blizzard is taking this. However, I want to see how these changes play out. Who knows in a couple months they may scrap a few units and create new units just for balancing, we just never know with blizzard.
Yeah, true - now that we've all been thru the WoL process, it's hard to get all worked up about new stuff, changes, bad models, op units, etc - because in no time at all, it will change. Much of the OP stuff will get nerfed out, bad models (like the Warhound) will go by the wayside for ones more consistent each races' design, downright silly-looking attacks like the Viper 'grab' will get new, cool-looking animations, and so on. Wont do much for lively forum discussion, :) but at least we're not going into a tailspin with every new tidbit of news.
Oh Nicol Bolas, where art thou when we needest thee teh most.....? :)
.
I think he is still stalking around. He will probably get back when the HOTS beta kicks in! ;)Quote:
Oh Nicol Bolas, where art thou when we needest thee teh most.....?
we finally have more to talk about. david kim comments
i don't know about you squidy, but i don't like the reaper. hope he gets cut.Quote:
We tend to agree that Reapers can stand to see some improvement. We like the unit, but the problem previously was that Reapers with Nitro Packs were too effective versus zerg in the early game. Unfortunately, after losing their role in early-game harassment, Reapers haven’t proven to be a very powerful or useful unit at most stages of the game.
As we discussed at BlizzCon, we’re taking a hard look at the Reaper, and we’re experimenting with different options to see where Reapers can fit into the terran arsenal with Heart of the Swarm.
I have always said the Reaper was better off saved as an expansion unit. It was too niche for WoL. I won't miss it if it goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by mythology
Depending on the artist, art does indeed have a goal beyond the expression. Its kind of silly to make such a blanket statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
Every unit in the game is designed (art wise) to instantly communicate the core purpose of that unit. Each one has a unique silhouette so you aren't ever confused when playing the game. But even beyond that, each unit's design, color, and shape all are bent towards communicating what is actually happening in the game. The Maurader is bulky and his animation shows him lumbering around (not too slow, not too fast of a walk) Everything visually points to this unit as being powerful. The immortal's shield graphic looks tougher and thicker than the regular protoss shields. There are countless examples of art as having a goal in starcraft alone.
The goal isn't expressing alone. The ultimate goal is giving the player more information from which to make snap decisions.
While I disagree with you about art. I think your original point about Dustin's design philosophy of "the rule of cool." still stands.
All the visuals (unique silhouette, bulk, shield animation) serve a gameplay purpose and are thus design, not art. Creating the Thor as art, then trying to shoehorn it into a role as design, is what pisses me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotPowerade
I disagree. While it's hard to nail down what art is and isn't. Trust me... art is most definitely design. As an artist working at a game studio... We are given a very short description of the unit and its abilities/role. It's up to us to create it all from our heads. Unless you're calling art the end result and not the process? Anyone who doesn't design is not an artist. Anyone can can eat a tube of paint and throw up on a canvas. Not everyone can compose/design/architect/ a beautiful painting.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
Dictionary.com:
Design - to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.
But like I said before, the rule of cool point that you made still stands(just you're understanding of art is a bit off). Blizzard for sure has an idea of what's cool and tries to make it work instead of designing first and making it cool afterwards.
I'm a graphic designer with a background in advertising. I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about. If something is created to solve a problem, it is design, not art. Visual clarity of units and abilities is not art, it is design. Creating a "cool" looking unit is art, forcing it into the game is design. Most "so-called" art is in fact design because it was created to sell and thus solve the problem of the artist needing money, or to hand in for grading so some hipster can graduate high school. True art is impossibly rare, pure expression for the sake of expression.
The distinction between the meanings of the two words is as clear as the glass on the Louvre.
art is life.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
design is apart of art with the intention of the person behind it. cool is apart of the design process. design uses true art for the sake of expression.
i can see where your coming from demo cause i've done graphic designer work as well and the strictness of structure with marketing can be controlling in your perspective.
>_<Quote:
Originally Posted by mythology
I can't take you seriously if you're actually going to play the "life is art" card. I had hoped for a serious discussion, not hippie trolling.
I think the main problem here is that you're trying too hard to put everything into a box. But let's follow your definition out logically. For instance, If I'm designing a computer keyboard. I can choose to employ utilitarian styled sharp edges or elegant rounded curves at the four corners. Neither choice is wrong and neither choice is solving a problem. However If I choose to make the corners so sharp that I may cut myself on them then I would have a problem that I need to fix.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
So according to your definition my first attempt with sharp corners is not design but the second try is? Design is not always to solve a problem. Sometimes when designing you make a choice that is purely arbitrary. It's also hard to say what a "problem" is in a situation like this. The choice of color is another example of something which in many cases is arbitrary or chosen to push a certain mood.. Part of design is problem solving. But that cannot be its entirety.
I also think that your definition of art is far too exclusive when rather it should be inclusive. "Pure expression for the sake of expression." So it can only be art if I express my anger purely for the sake of communicating my anger? But the second I paint an image of a sunset to expand my ability to observe and knowledge of technique it is no longer art? We all have different reasons for doing things. Who are you to say what isn't art?
What if my problem with my painting is that it doesn't express exactly what I want it to express and I set out to solve that problem. According to your definition, am I creating art still or have I started designing?
Art isn't the "fluff" on the top. A huge part of art is the observation of the smallest details and understanding how to use them for a purpose. To communicate yes, but just for the sake of communicating. I think you have to go deeper still and ask what the purpose of communicating is. Why do it at all? Everyone will have a different reason.
Why am I posting here? Just for the sake of posting/communicating/expressing myself? No, to have a good conversation and largely for my own enjoyment actually.
For what its worth...
Was watching one of DeMuslim's very rare streams yesterday, and he was asked by someone in chat what he thought of the new HotS units/abilities - In short, he said "they will ruin the game." While he didn't mention anything specific, he really didn't seem to like any of it. However, he did mention that he hopes he is wrong.
Then I realized, have any pros had an opportunity to play the HotS multiplayer yet, and is Blizz seeking their input the way they did for the WoL Multiplayer?
I tried asking myself, but then his girlfriend got in there and literally took over the stream....oy
They have been playing it on Blizzcon. The guys that were there, and that created many topics about new units, said that they saw how MVP destroys NesTea with Shredders(how shocking). Also, I am pretty sure that majority of Pros that visited Blizzcon have tried it, and also Beta will begin soon(I hope). But I wouldn't take anything from DeMuslim too seriously. I mean, sure he is good player, but many good players are biased as f*ck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliban113
And new units will add a lot more diversity to the game, even though they will change a lot of them, since SC2 WoL alpha had some different units, or same that had different abilities and were different tier. They will get changed, and will get balanced in the end, I don't see how he can judge the units by few games in Alpha.. ;/
People always seem to forget that things can and absolutely will be changed if they don't work.
Professional players are naturally biased against changes. It's their job to perfect builds. New units ruin this. Of course they're going to hate the new units. Anyone remember all the hate for SC2 when it was first announced?
I think day9 scream sums up professional behavior/maturity-level perfectly well. :DQuote:
Professional players are naturally biased against changes.
-----
TBH, if the battle hellion is just a slower hellion, then that's fine with me (especially if changing between forms takes longer than a siege tank, and hopefully you can cancel a change in between forms; because I HATE MISCLICKS/KEYS, I always miss key siege mode because 'd' is so close to 'e', but anyway...). Maybe, the blue flame (damage boost) doesn't apply to the battle hellion? Also, battle hellion needs a better name. Like, I dunno, something-something-firebat?Quote:
Battle Hellion:
Couldn't agree more.Quote:
Shredder:
Personally, I think the warhound should be more connected to the Thor (tech-wise, or in applicability). The Thor, as it stands (on ridiculous, trash can, chicken legs), needs to be gotten rid of. Which makes sense, Raynor steals the Odin project and it never gets off its feet. The dominion looks at plans for a Thor, and never sees it as viable enough for mass production. The Odin is just one project they're working on and Mengsk can afford to say 'I don't care' hard enough that it doesn't become part of the monthly/weekly budget-renewal plan.Quote:
Warhound
Unless blizzard introduces an upgrade to cheapen Thor production or make it better protected against anti-massive/armor units (only slightly; so units like siege tanks still do major damage). Or better yet, give players a choice of defending against anti-massive/armor units or against light units (zerglings, zealots and the like). Either upgrade should be pretty expensive and late game.
I also think that they should return to letting SCVs construct a Thor and not just put together in a factory. Production from a factory still feels very schlocky (I had this opinion from pretty much day 1).
This is fine, as long as it remains available as an upgrade and not a change to the base unit.Quote:
BC Speed Boost:
As a Tier 3 tech unit, I think the BC should have many upgrades and should be able to swap weapon types for extra minerals/gas. It usually assumes something like late game, many expos, big map right? Lots of stuff for a small fleet of the things to destroy! Would be very fun, but of course, unviable in anything but late game. Still, having those upgrades available at the fusion core would be great and feel fleshy, if anything. Like a pair of fake titties hanging on your wall that you want to feel up only once in a while.
Bah, still doesn't make sense. The laws of physics disagree and this was Blizzard's original angle. Maybe, have the option of upgrading a single Thor to a super Thor (requires an scv to work on it for a bit? A bit like mutating with the zerg, only it requires an scv as well and the scv activates it, sorta like the ). That way, you can still mass Thors, but you can't mass super Thors.Quote:
Thor as a "superunit":
If it's an upgrade, fiiine. It probably works just like roaches, except reapers can't burrow and there's probably like 10 seconds of down time or something. Which would be fine in my book (that's usually how long it takes to get medevacs to fly across the map and over to them).Quote:
Reaper Regeneration:
Hey, guess what? If you're gonna write a review of something, you should make your opinions clear to everyone.Quote:
Carrier removal: FINALLY. This unit has been a broken burden for a decade. I could go into a huge post about it, but I think it's clear to everyone why its a good thing it's gone, so lets move on.
Personally, I don't think the carrier is broken. I see it as a sort of tank of the sky that does spread damage to air or ground. It's easy to counter, but it's also easy to get surprised. As a mid/late game unit, it doesn't seem to be all that aching for removal.
Uh huh.Quote:
Mothership removal: I approve. The Mothership was a missed oportunity. Too costly, too late. Huge target, weak spells. It was a glorified Arbiter, and it failed.
You also say 'everything should be synchronous to everything else; everything should be viable at all times in gameplay'. This was the theory that blizz went with (or strove for, whatever you want to call it), and it kinda detracted the game a bit (imo).
The arbiter is a great unit, albeit also expensive and late game. SC2 is more about faster play and doing something all the time. Which is kinda what BW was about too, but SC2 really takes the cake for 'just keep doing it until you win', so that effectively there is no late game, because all late game really is is just a battle for the expos that your opponent has already siezed or continual mineral line ambushes.
IMO, blizz should bring back the late game and bring it back in style. The game should change completely in late game. They can do it by introducing super units. They can do it by introducing upgrades that only appear with the final building. They can do both. It doesn't matter. But they should bring it back, because it would make the game feel more dynamic and make macro and defense a bit more worth it.
The mothership contributed towards the late game. The battlecruiser as well. The thor, not so much. The zerg have no late game, I don't think (though, haven't played zerg nearly enough to cover them yet).
I stopped reading after you said carriers aren't broken :O
I didn't say they weren't. I just said that it needs explanation for why they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilice
Hmmm - have not read all yet, and will update some thoughts, but just wanted to give a shoutout to m'seff on the fate of the Shredder... :) Was anybody worried, really?
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/483...4_11_2012#blog
Terran -
Warhound: Hmmm - actually thought this would have no trouble making it in
Anti air, 'spider mine': HA! - submitted this as a unit/ability idea back on the old forums. Pretty much just stationary, robot 'Scourge' (Was it a contest??) Still think it's an interesting idea. However, now that I've seen the game beyond the limited theorycrafting that originally spawned this idea, I'm wondering if it may be a bit tough on Zerg base raiding options. (?) We'll see, I guess.
Protoss -
Replicant: Originally held off on an opinion; if used as intended (which will never happen with any unit from here to eternity.) it could have been an interesting mechanic.
Tempest: Hmmm...."The tempest is currently a very long-ranged aerial siege weapon that can strike both air and ground targets." - Sounds eerily familiar somehow... :)
Zerg -
Swarm Host: Single best unit they have come up with for HotS. Very excited to see it's working out.
Viper: - While I do like the 'siphon minerals' notion, it seems like every time they try to work out these types of, 'replenish energy' mechanics, it always ends up back on the shelf. Minor point, but hope they do something with the, "abduct' animation - really silly looking right now.
Nydus options: Love this idea. Interested to see if its 'all of the above' or an 'A, B or C' choice type add-on.
Overseer: Im assuming the, 'grant detection' ability on the Viper is gone? While I thought it was a little too good, (detection on banelings that can move while burrowed?) I feel a backtrack to the Overseer is really not the way to go.
.