Most of those things are going mainly to single player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman_jkh
Printable View
Most of those things are going mainly to single player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman_jkh
I strongly disagree. You are talking about scripted sequences (perhaps). And thats not to say any of those things you claim will even exist in SP at all. I'm not talking about story telling and setting mood!!!
I'm talking about things hardcoded into the GUI, game mechanics, giving players types of choices, terrain features, unit abilities, etc.
Not making players go "oooh... I didnt see that twist" or "It was awesome playing that ghost sniping mission in first person view". Granted the latter would be awesome, but thats NOT what I am discussing WRT innovative strategy ideas.
Uh, wrong. Redstone's lava mechanic does change the map, gives the player more strategic options, and is at set intervals. It is not simply a scripted set of sequences, and they already will give the player the ability to do that in the editor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceman_jkh
Well, I'm not of the opinion that StarCraft I's single-player was anything resembling quality. The terrain wasn't particularly innovative, since its contemporaries had similar features. And Total Annihilation was more mod-friendly than the Galaxy Editor.Quote:
I did not understand that you were implying the "the level of 3 unique races" as the main thing for Starcraft 1, Which is why Starcraft 1 was such a huge success. The main innovative things I see for SC2 is the single player, the terrain, and the Galaxy Editor.
And I didn't say that 3 unique races is what made SC1 successful. It is the fundamental gameplay difference between it and its contemporaries.
Nor should they be. These are all one-off gimmicks that would never be useful in any competitive game. For example, killing off units just because they were in a randomly determined location? That's BS and it is the absolute kiss of death for any competitive game.Quote:
This are just some Ideas I have that I doubt will be implemented.
You don't see Chess games where some douchebag gets to walk up to the board and snatch a piece off just because. You can't have a competitive game with that kind of nonsense in it.
Does Starcraft have to be Chess? Real life combat situations would have something like that, your troops dieing by random causes. There can be maps where it will be like chess, but innovative maps like these would grant some wild cards for playing. You don't know whats going to happen so its going to make it an exciting game. The map itself is against the players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
You asked this:
If they implement that, I think it would be innovative. Something doesn't have to be competitive to be innovative.Quote:
Show me something in SC2 that people today think is impossible to do for an RTS.
One Rather unique feature about SC1 was the sight system, where you weren't allowed to see up cliffs (the fact that cliffs were meant to be 3-Dish was pretty unique in itself at the time I suspect).
Yes, Starcraft has to be Chess. Unless it's Go. One of them.Quote:
Does Starcraft have to be Chess?
The Final Fantasy series is well known for being essentially a string of games that have little to nothing in common. But they do have a few things in common. For one, they're all RPGs. They may all have wildly different battle engines, storyline emphasis, rampant stupidity, etc. But they're still demonstrably RPGs.
The whole idea of being true to the original means creating the same effect as the original but with different pieces. StarCraft is a competitive game; that is a vital part of what it is. If you're breaking the competitive aspect of the game, then you are not being true to the original, and thus you have no basis in calling it a sequel.
Yes, it does. But StarCraft is not a simulation of real life combat situations. It is not intended to be. Thus, making it into that is making StarCraft into something it very much is not.Quote:
Real life combat situations would have something like that, your troops dieing by random causes.
True. But it does have to be competitive to be StarCraft.Quote:
Something doesn't have to be competitive to be innovative.
There's a difference between a good game mechanic, and a game mechanic that belongs in this game. This is true whether we're talking about StarCraft, Portal, Final Fantasy, or Mass Effect. There is that which makes sense within the confines of designing this specific game, and there is that which does not make sense. That which works against the purpose of the game.
Take Super Mario World romhacks. I'm sure you're at least passingly familiar with the Super Kaizo World romhack, which introduces rampant death into every corner of the game. These are interesting design elements. Maybe even innovative.
But they don't belong in a Mario game. Exploration is what a Mario game is about. Finding the way to run on top of the world and being rewarded with a Warp Zone, for example. Kuribo's shoe in SMB3 is another example. If you try something interesting and different, you're usually rewarded for your efforts.
Being unceremoniously and repeatedly killed for attempting to explore is anathematic to that fundamental purpose. Making a level so linear that if you do not follow a particular path pixel-perfectly you will die is diametrically opposed to the idea of exploration.
It's like taking a BioWare RPG and taking out all the dialog options. This may work in a Final Fantasy game, but that's not why you're playing a BioWare RPG, now is it?
That's why I believe that RTS games need more diversity. There should be games that have the stuff you're talking about (well, some of it. Nobody wants realism that randomly kills off their units. That's not fun or good game design). But they do not belong in this game.
So it can't have both types of maps? There were certain custom maps that would kill units in a particular area. It can't have competitiveness and uniqueness? Heck, you can have two ladders, ones with regular maps, and ones with these wacky maps. Two entirely different strategies would be implemented on these ladders.
I like both things. They are both Mario, just as different features. There are the original that rewards exploring and there is the others that kill you for exploring. Both make Mario innovative to me.Quote:
Take Super Mario World romhacks. I'm sure you're at least passingly familiar with the Super Kaizo World romhack, which introduces rampant death into every corner of the game. These are interesting design elements. Maybe even innovative.
But they don't belong in a Mario game. Exploration is what a Mario game is about. Finding the way to run on top of the world and being rewarded with a Warp Zone, for example. Kuribo's shoe in SMB3 is another example. If you try something interesting and different, you're usually rewarded for your efforts.
Being unceremoniously and repeatedly killed for attempting to explore is anathematic to that fundamental purpose. Making a level so linear that if you do not follow a particular path pixel-perfectly you will die is diametrically opposed to the idea of exploration.
This is quite different. Your taking out the fundamental things about, cutting out the choices in the gameplay that changes your character. Its a real far cry from one single map that will only affect games played on it. That affects the whole god damn game. How are they similar?Quote:
It's like taking a BioWare RPG and taking out all the dialog options. This may work in a Final Fantasy game, but that's not why you're playing a BioWare RPG, now is it?
If you don't want to play the map, than don't. You have the choice if such a map is created. Its just one series of map, not the entire game. You act as if it would kill it, which it wouldn't.Quote:
That's why I believe that RTS games need more diversity. There should be games that have the stuff you're talking about (well, some of it. Nobody wants realism that randomly kills off their units. That's not fun or good game design). But they do not belong in this game.
Not too me. I felt that regular multiplayer, BGH, and the wackiness of some Custom maps(Torrasque of doom respawn) were all Starcraft. Each one is a different flavor that is Starcraft. Starcraft is not one beverage, it is a drink stand offering many sodas.Quote:
True. But it does have to be competitive to be StarCraft.
Thats why it would be a special map. You(from previous posts) don't consider BGHs to be Starcraft. I do. This would be one of those maps where you would have to change your strategies drastically to accommodate the map. Don't like it, Don't play it. Like it, play it.Quote:
Yes, it does. But StarCraft is not a simulation of real life combat situations. It is not intended to be. Thus, making it into that is making StarCraft into something it very much is not.
Regular maps will be in the game, so there will be competitive maps. I have the right to call it special and true to the original because of giving me the option of trying to play it different, while it still retains Starcraft elements in other maps.Quote:
The whole idea of being true to the original means creating the same effect as the original but with different pieces. StarCraft is a competitive game; that is a vital part of what it is. If you're breaking the competitive aspect of the game, then you are not being true to the original, and thus you have no basis in calling it a sequel.
What about the other features I suggested, such as the tier system map, map decreasing over time, and the bridge\defense building maps? How do these get rid of the competitiveness?
Fun is an emotion. If a unit is not fun to use, it gets modified or removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
I know this is often used derogatorily but "StarCraft v1.5" is EXACTLY what I wanted. No other RTS, even with all the innovations made since SCBW, had captured me the way SC has.