Re: What happened to the innovation?
Quote:
After your lengthy retreading of the entire thread, this isn't the problem. In fact, its clear this isn't the problem Nicol is talking about from the quotations you listed in your OWN POST.
Thanks for speaking for me, but I can do that myself.
There were no Grunts in SC1. There were no Archers, no Gryphon Riders, etc. The closest things you get are units that work similarly: Mutalisks might be considered a form of Gryphon Rider, Hydralisks might be considered Archers, Zealots could be looked on as Grunts. But even here, there are substantial changes.
Despite all of this, we can all agree that SC1 is the spiritual sequel to WC2. How can this be?
Because the developers of SC1 decided not to be tied down and bound to the specific units in WC2. They made a conscious and deliberate choice to make a game with something new and unprecedented. They made having 3 distinct and unique races the fundamental founding principle of every aspect of their game design.
That single idea permeated every aspect of StarCraft 1. Cloaking exists to allow more differentiation between races. High ground vs. low ground allows different races to differently interact with it. And so on. It was a single imperative that drove SC1 to be what it was: SC1's Prime Directive.
In order to put direct analogs to Grunts, Archers, and Gryphon Riders into SC1, they would have had to alter the tech trees. The tech trees between WC2 and SC1 would have had to remain relatively static. They made the deliberate decision not to keep these things static, because they would have been in violation of the Prime Directive.
Now, does that mean that SC1 didn't take ideas from WC2? Of course not. The SC1 resourcing model is essentially the inverse of the WC2 one, with a few modifications. The Zerg concept of evolving Hatcheries as part of its tech tree is exactly how the tree in WC2 worked. And so on. But SC1 never allowed itself to be bound to WC2's ideas, because that would have inhibited them from following through on the Prime Directive.
SC1 had a categorical imperative to its design. One that was very innovative for its time. SC2 does not. It has no imperative, no identity of its own save its reverence for SC1.
Reverence for the past is the surest way to achieve nothing substantial. The past is useful. The past has important lessons. But devout adherence to the past while blinding yourself to anything new is intellectual sloth.
See, the problem with having the same units as SC1 isn't that itself. Even SC1 had some concepts that had analogs in WC2. The problem is the reason why certain units were kept. Siege Tanks are kept, not because they're great units that offer great gameplay possibilities, and there were no better replacements that could offer more gameplay possibilities. Siege Tanks were kept because they're special. Because they're part of a set of units that Blizzard decided early on must stay. Why? Because they were "iconic" in SC1.
Worshiping icons is Idolatry, a mortal sin both in Christianity and in game design. Every element in a well-designed game exists for a specific purpose. It is designed to fit that purpose and no other purpose (unless it is also designed to fit that as well). If you are adding elements for reasons other than needing them to fit a specific purpose, then you are making bad design.
If the Siege Tank or Marine or whatever should be in SC2 because it makes sense for the gameplay, so be it. If you want to push positional play, and your testing shows that the Siege Tank is a great unit for doing that with the rest of the Terran race, that is perfectly legitimate. However, if you decide that it should stay for any other reason than the game design needs of this game, then it is a bad design decision.
And what are we left with? Nothing. SC2 had no identity of its own. It is the equivalent of a romhack of SC1. It may be a very fun romhack, but it has no categorical imperative. No Prime Directive. Nothing that shows the soul of game design. Nothing that distinguishes it from SC1.
See, the lack of innovation itself is a symptom of the real disease rotting at the core of SC2. Innovation was cut off at the knees when the decision was made to change as little as humanly possible about SC1's multiplayer. SC2 is a soulless remake of SC1, much like the many soulless remakes of things we don't need remade that litter the movie theaters. It is not a genuine sequel; it is what Halo is to FPS games: a well-executed regurgitation of what works.
Re: What happened to the innovation?
Are you serious Pure.wasted. That isn't how this works. So if I invent something, patent, can you claim credit for innovation because you were working on it the same time? Seriously? More to the point, War Wind was made TWO WHOLE YEARS before starcraft. It was a 1996 release. Starcraft was released in 1998
That sheer idea of that is hilarious. It makes no fucking sense at all, but I got more then just insults to show how utterly ridiculous the idea is, stop reading Wikipedia and pretending like you know what your talking about. development? Are you kidding me? More to the point, we don't get the current incarnation of starcraft until E3 97 (after both games had already hit the market)
The first graphical reveal of starcraft was in 1996 to my knowledge, at E3 1996. It may have come earlier, it doesn't matter at all. At the E3 release, were not given an extensive detail of the races.. This is what SC looked at E3 96.
http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/fea...rcraft1996.jpg
At this release, their were racial differences, slightly above what we see in Dune and WC. Every race had different units, but functionally, they operated very similarly. Their were slight stat differences, but for the most part, it was the same. The biggest was different abilities in like, its caster unit.
This is three months before War winds released, which gave us entirely nuanced races.
The game was sleighted for a late 96 release.
The game was delayed, because it was identical to WC2, answering your question.
Quote:
"By the last day of the show,I think Diablo was up on five monitors, and they had reduced Starcraft to one lone monitor." If the numbers didn't do all the talking, the fan reaction certainly did. Fans called the game names such as "Orcs in Space" or "Warcraft Goes Purple,"
-Steve Brevik, SC designer.
At this time, their was no distinction between the races other then graphics. Even the C&C series at this point had more difference then that presented to us in the graphic. Their was simply no reaction. It wasn't good. Hence, redesign.
Its not until 1997's E3
That we get the current, iconic version of Starcraft we know and love. Even if this WAS unique (which it clearly isn't as its 97 unveil date shows very well, it STILL would make more sense then what your suggesting. We see VERY CLEARLY here WHY blizzard did what they did, their was clearly a NEED to. And their was certainly a reason. A design vision behind it.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__...SC1_Alpha6.jpg
By this time, both the games I had mentioned had already came out, and no doubt, influenced developers.
So really Pure.wasted, you have no idea what your talking about.
Quote:
WarCraft 2 hadn't been surpassed. There was no need for StarCraft.
Sorry, I misread this. Though I have to say, its an understandable misread, because you were replying to a quote about WC3...
Quote:
WC2 going into WC3 needed drastic change because WC2, by the time of WC3, had been far far surpassed by other RTS's, including SC1. SC1, at the time of SC2, has never been surpassed once in any aspect other then being able to select more then twelve units, automining, and MBS.
That being said, the above quoted negative reaction answers that. WC had been surpassed, and their was no longer a market for orcs in space.
Quote:
Finally, an example that works! Honestly, I would argue that SC2 could still get away with re-inventing that mechanic, because of 2015's obscurity and the fact that no other RTSes have picked up on it since.
Their are literally like seven more. sigh....
As for Dominion, I guess I misremembered, I thought that came out in 97.
Quote:
Worshiping icons is Idolatry, a mortal sin both in Christianity and in game design. Every element in a well-designed game exists for a specific purpose. It is designed to fit that purpose and no other purpose (unless it is also designed to fit that as well). If you are adding elements for reasons other than needing them to fit a specific purpose, then you are making bad design.
-Nicol Bolas
<3. I would certainly agree with that, and its kind of nice to have you post instead of debating with the sheer lack of logic in Pure.wasted's position.
Every innovation has a purpose. If Sc2 should innovate, the innovation needs to be a direct result of a specific improvement of its design. Not innovating just to be unique.
Re: What happened to the innovation?
Dont we just love the text wall of death???? At least the one above has some pictures :P
I think that the main concern about innovation comes from the zergs. With one unit less, and no creative new units, here lays the problem. Maybe the Arbit... i mean the Mothership, and the Thor being a buffed up goliath. Other than that, its cool.
In fact, playing VS a hard AI (yes, on the cracked SC2), it plays almost the same as SC1 AI, while protoss and terrans use a lot more of tactics. I know that they are programmed, but you get an idea, since they are programmed by human players. Time will tell.
Re: What happened to the innovation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KadajSouba
Dont we just love the text wall of death???? At least the one above has some pictures :P
I think that the main concern about innovation comes from the zergs. With one unit less, and no creative new units, here lays the problem. Maybe the Arbit... i mean the Mothership, and the Thor being a buffed up goliath. Other than that, its cool.
In fact, playing VS a hard AI (yes, on the cracked SC2), it plays almost the same as SC1 AI, while protoss and terrans use a lot more of tactics. I know that they are programmed, but you get an idea, since they are programmed by human players. Time will tell.
Well the problem with zerg is the fact that every game plays pretty much the same way.
ZvP? Roaches/Hydras/Mutas
ZvZ? Roaches/Hydras/Mutas
ZvT? Roaches/Hydras/Mutas
Every time I play zerg, I simply use a fast expand build while massing roaches/hydras/mutas, and so far I have yet to lose a single game using that strat. There's just no real way to kill roaches that doesn't require forcing the opponent to rapidly tech into a hard counter. The only exception for this are mauraders, but then you can just switch to mutas and dominate that way.
I don't have a problem with the zerg having so many returning units, but I DO have a problem with the fact that they are boring to play. See, this is where I don't mind innovation, because now there's an actual problem that requires a solution. Hopefully it doesn't take too long either, because z is boring at the moment.
Re: What happened to the innovation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
Thanks for speaking for me, but I can do that myself.
There were no Grunts in SC1. There were no Archers, no Gryphon Riders, etc. The closest things you get are units that work similarly: Mutalisks might be considered a form of Gryphon Rider, Hydralisks might be considered Archers, Zealots could be looked on as Grunts. But even here, there are substantial changes.
Despite all of this, we can all agree that SC1 is the spiritual sequel to WC2. How can this be?
Because the developers of SC1 decided not to be tied down and bound to the specific units in WC2. They made a conscious and deliberate choice to make a game with something new and unprecedented. They made having 3 distinct and unique races the fundamental founding principle of every aspect of their game design.
That single idea permeated every aspect of StarCraft 1. Cloaking exists to allow more differentiation between races. High ground vs. low ground allows different races to differently interact with it. And so on. It was a single imperative that drove SC1 to be what it was: SC1's Prime Directive.
In order to put direct analogs to Grunts, Archers, and Gryphon Riders into SC1, they would have had to alter the tech trees. The tech trees between WC2 and SC1 would have had to remain relatively static. They made the deliberate decision not to keep these things static, because they would have been in violation of the Prime Directive.
Now, does that mean that SC1 didn't take ideas from WC2? Of course not. The SC1 resourcing model is essentially the inverse of the WC2 one, with a few modifications. The Zerg concept of evolving Hatcheries as part of its tech tree is exactly how the tree in WC2 worked. And so on. But SC1 never allowed itself to be bound to WC2's ideas, because that would have inhibited them from following through on the Prime Directive.
SC1 had a categorical imperative to its design. One that was very innovative for its time. SC2 does not. It has no imperative, no identity of its own save its reverence for SC1.
Reverence for the past is the surest way to achieve nothing substantial. The past is useful. The past has important lessons. But devout adherence to the past while blinding yourself to anything new is intellectual sloth.
See, the problem with having the same units as SC1 isn't that itself. Even SC1 had some concepts that had analogs in WC2. The problem is the reason why certain units were kept. Siege Tanks are kept, not because they're great units that offer great gameplay possibilities, and there were no better replacements that could offer more gameplay possibilities. Siege Tanks were kept because they're special. Because they're part of a set of units that Blizzard decided early on must stay. Why? Because they were "iconic" in SC1.
Worshiping icons is Idolatry, a mortal sin both in Christianity and in game design. Every element in a well-designed game exists for a specific purpose. It is designed to fit that purpose and no other purpose (unless it is also designed to fit that as well). If you are adding elements for reasons other than needing them to fit a specific purpose, then you are making bad design.
If the Siege Tank or Marine or whatever should be in SC2 because it makes sense for the gameplay, so be it. If you want to push positional play, and your testing shows that the Siege Tank is a great unit for doing that with the rest of the Terran race, that is perfectly legitimate. However, if you decide that it should stay for any other reason than the game design needs of this game, then it is a bad design decision.
And what are we left with? Nothing. SC2 had no identity of its own. It is the equivalent of a romhack of SC1. It may be a very fun romhack, but it has no categorical imperative. No Prime Directive. Nothing that shows the soul of game design. Nothing that distinguishes it from SC1.
See, the lack of innovation itself is a symptom of the real disease rotting at the core of SC2. Innovation was cut off at the knees when the decision was made to change as little as humanly possible about SC1's multiplayer. SC2 is a soulless remake of SC1, much like the many soulless remakes of things we don't need remade that litter the movie theaters. It is not a genuine sequel; it is what Halo is to FPS games: a well-executed regurgitation of what works.
"SC2 is just a really good SC1 clone" when it comes to multiplayer. This is what you are saying.
Well, the fact that there has been no SC1 clones for 10+ years makes the "really good" part still sound awesome no matter how bad you try to make it sound. "Rotting at the Core". Sheesh, so SC2b sucks for you doesn't it?
Re: What happened to the innovation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
don
"SC2 is just a really good SC1 clone" when it comes to multiplayer. This is what you are saying.
Well, the fact that there has been no SC1 clones for 10+ years makes the "really good" part still sound awesome no matter how bad you try to make it sound. "Rotting at the Core". Sheesh, so SC2b sucks for you doesn't it?
Heh, that's actually why I'm enjoying the beta so much. After playing so many Company of Heroes clones, it actually feels fresh to play SC2 even though the multiplayer technically isn't innovative. Even the newer RTSs coming out (Command and Conquer 4, Supreme Commander 2) are basically trying to downsize the game to cater to the Company of Heroes crowd, so Starcraft 2 is actually the most unique modern RTS out there so far. Almost like some kind of retro-innovation.
Re: What happened to the innovation?
That was a nice perspective, if a bit melodramatic. Sure there's a lack of innovation in multiplayer, but the game is still solid.
Worshipping idols? Uhhhh... yeah. Guess that makes Mario the devil.
But also wanted to hit on what Moradon said above. It is kinda curious that market saturation of certain types of games are making retro comebacks popular, like the 2D sidescrollers. Even GDC opened with a postmortem on Canabalt.
Re: What happened to the innovation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Triceron
That was a nice perspective, if a bit melodramatic. Sure there's a lack of innovation in multiplayer, but the game is still solid.
Worshipping idols? Uhhhh... yeah. Guess that makes Mario the devil.
But also wanted to hit on what Moradon said above. It is kinda curious that market saturation of certain types of games are making retro comebacks popular, like the 2D sidescrollers. Even GDC opened with a postmortem on Canabalt.
That's actually the perfect way to describe it. It's a retro comeback. RTS gamers have their fun with Company of Heroes and all of its imitators (which are still being pumped out), now it's finally time to return to the classics that everyone loves. And we even get a bonus in the forms of a revamped singleplayer, a super powerful editor, and what will most likely be the best online gaming service there is to offer.
There's no doubt in my mind that SC2 will be amazing, no matter how exaggerated people's complaints are.
Re: What happened to the innovation?
Here's an idea that seems to have been passed over, allow players (Terran ones anyway) to sell their resources for 'money'. This 'money' could then be used to either buy resources (at a greater cost than they could sell them for, say 25 credits/mineral to sell, 30 to buy, while gas would be 50 to sell and 65 to buy), or buy the WoL upgrades in the normal game.
Re: What happened to the innovation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Moradon
That's actually the perfect way to describe it. It's a retro comeback. RTS gamers have their fun with Company of Heroes and all of its imitators (which are still being pumped out), now it's finally time to return to the classics that everyone loves. And we even get a bonus in the forms of a revamped singleplayer, a super powerful editor, and what will most likely be the best online gaming service there is to offer.
There's no doubt in my mind that SC2 will be amazing, no matter how exaggerated people's complaints are.
I think the problem with this is that many, many, many, many people never left StarCraft. For them, they're going directly from StarCraft: Brood War to StarCraft 2. Worse, they demand the game to be a successor of the mechanics and yet they want more "innovation".
