What happened to the innovation?

Quote:

---

A RTS which incorporates micromanagement and macro management elements together in a way where both our important, and inseparable from each other, its metagames depth compounded by distinctive, relatively balanced races that each had units design to both dis-correlate and to parallel the other races, in a entirely cohesive manner, where each component interacts with the whole to form depth through complex system.

SC2 strives to maintain these core philosophies. I sure hope you guys understand ideas don't linearly increase in quality in relation to how many people get payed to think of them. So, the SC2 design team (probably around ~05) was tasked with designing a game that recreates those principals, in practical, scalable manner.

---

So, what does any of that have to do with Marines, Zerglings, and Siege Tanks, as well as the SC1 tech trees that have been virtually untouched in SC2?

What is being argued here is not that these ideals are bad. What is being discussed is the specific implementation of those ideals.

Take the Mona Lisa. If you were asked to paint a sequel to the Mona Lisa, you could do it two ways.

1: You can distill the essence of the original down to its component constitutents, analyze its artistry, etc, and then create a painting of a different woman that uses the same techniques as the original, thereby creating a masterwork that is equivalent in effect, but on the surface different.

2: You can paint the Mona Lisa again: the same woman with a different expression on her face.

Both of them might be considered masterpieces. But one is new and brings its own unique quality to the table. It honors the original, but is not confined by it. The other, however much of a masterpiece it may be, is a rehash.

Quote:

---

The only way one could fit another race and maintain cohesive and structured racial dynamics would be to alter existing races so much that the play styles would be entirely unrecognizable.

---

But they already are unrecognizable. Zergs have cloaked attackers (admittedly they have to decloak to attack) that have high durability for their cost, Terrans aren't sitting around behind a Siege line anymore, and Protoss are popping around the map long before Arbiters show up.

This doesn't necessarily mean that there should be a fourth race. But don't go acting like SC2 didn't change anything intrinsic about the nature of each race.

Quote:

---

What they are forgetting is that SC1 was popularized by its different approach on abilities then say, Warcraft 2. Abilities were rare, costy things that had to be prepared, and conserved, as well as each being conceptually unique (quite different from spells in WC3) and intrinsic towards basic, universal, and easily identified functions (aoe damage, single target snipe, reveal, immobilize, etc etc. In that regard, the SC2 design team had limited space to work with. The certainly push the boundaries of this, with units like the viking.

---

No. The "basic, universal, and easily identified" abilities were the only abilities that were used. Cleverer things like Hallucinate, Ensnare, Parasite, anything on the Ghost, etc were simply not used.

I agree that StarCraft abilities tend to be atomic and direct, as they should be. However, that's no excuse for a failure of imagination to create other kinds of atomic and direct abilities.

Quote:

---

A cheap ranged basic unit is a integral part of the Terran racial dynamic, in relations to itself AND to the other two races. So, even if one were to replace a marine, one would need another cheap, ranged, basic unit. Why remove such an iconic unit for an utterly identical one?

---

First, besides the fact that the Terrans had such a unit in SC1, what makes you say that this is part of the Terran identity? That this is necessary for them to be Terran?

Second, who says it needs to be identical? There are many ways to approach a "cheap, ranged, basic unit" that don't instantly become Marine clones. Hell, replacing Stim with something else alone would go rather far towards making SC2 different.

Quote:

---

So queens got scrapped because nobody used them, or vultures got scrapped because they led to what blizzard perceived to be boring tank duels.

---

Third, when I think of the SC1 Terrans, I don't think Marines, or "cheap, ranged, basic unit". I think Siege Tanks and Spider Mines. As you put it, "boring tank duels." Blizzard seems to think that this is not something that should be encouraged, whether it is part of the Terran identity or not!

Thus, gameplay trumps identity.

Quote:

---

Name one other RTS that has innovated as much in terms of macro/micro management and balanced depth as well as SC2.

---

Name ones that honestly tried.

Quote:

---

WC2 was about making units and outmicroing your oppoent.

---

So you mean WC2 was about macroing (making units) and microing. Or does "making units" not fit into your definition of macro?

Quote:

---

Unless you want blizzard to redefine the roles of your races in SC2, completely and utterly, a 4th race isn't particularly viable.

---

1: They already did.

2: Who's asking for a fourth race? Are you even arguing with anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Name ones that honestly tried.

---

None. Thats the point. Starcraft 2 is already miles ahead of other RTS terms in terms of innovation because of the macro reform.

And because of new game mechanics like Protoss warp-in and Zerg Nydus Worm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattII

This isn't something that happened suddenly. The Tempest was a cry-out to the Carrier, and the return of the Carrier demonstrated either an unwillingness to experiment, or a desire to follow the path of least resistance.

---

QFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcomplex

Experimenting for experimenting sake is counterproductive. The tempest was scrapped because it was so similar to the carrier that it was pointless to ditch such an iconic unit for one that had a less suitable role (end game unit that only attacks ground, but is located in the air)

---

it attacked air and was filling in a role that protoss didnt have, an atg unit, now the protoss are struggling to find a role for the pheonix, and carriers can only be used if you mass them, which almost only happened in fastest maps, and that isnt strategy

The macro mechanics now are a joke apm sink. macro mechanics are focused on resources, why not spread the resources on the map out so it forces you to worry about them, how about add a third resource which allows you to acces more units and abilities but its harder to get?

thats macro mechanics, not wasting time clicking a button, i think they should make all the macro mechanics auto cast except for the mules, and have the mules cost gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Give me a SC2-style RTS engine, a team of 10, and 3 years to experiment, and I will.

---

Really? You'd need 10 guys and 3 years to make, not an actual game but simply a concept for one? Pretty ironic then that you would speak of intellectual bankruptcy. This basically prove my point though, there's not that many places for innovation in the RTS genre today and you'd have to search hard to find something that would work.

Quote:

---

Simply believing that something is impossible is the easiest and surest way to fail.

---

Didn't say it's impossible, my point is that it's not worth it.

Quote:

---

Again, WC3. Not limited by the "unclear boundaries imposed by making a successor." It seems to have worked out OK.

---

It was limited. Those boundaries do not affect only gameplay. You think they could implement spaceship battles in warcraft 4? Well you could but somehow it wouldn't feel right and this is why it's an unclear boundary. That's an example of what I mean.

In any case, warcraft 3 was still not that innovative if you compare it to other strategy games. Want heroes? Go look at Warlords Battlecry who was released before Warcraft 3 in 2000. In 2001 there was also another RTS which I own named Kohan who used leaders (heroes) for each companies that you have. You can also look at Kingdom Under Fire: A War of Heroes for another RTS really close to Warcraft 3 that was released in 2001. Also, it might not be an RTS but Heroes of Might and magic (and all his clone) is basically Warcraft 3 in turn based mode.

I posted about a 4th race somewhere in here, I think, but I wasn't asking for it or disappointed that there wasn't one, I just said it would be cool.

Maybe it was a different thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCpollo

QFT

it attacked air and was filling in a role that protoss didnt have, an atg unit, now the protoss are struggling to find a role for the pheonix, and carriers can only be used if you mass them, which almost only happened in fastest maps, and that isnt strategy

---

Er... Carriers have been used, map-willing, in many many PvT matchups. What are you talking about?

You basically hold off Terrans Tank/vult push with you own Zeal/Goon/DT or HT and tech to carriers "secretly" to cinch the win. That is so common. With recent maps, Arbiters have been more favored for their high mobility for teleporting, or for Stasising whole sections of tanks while having a cloaked Protoss army ravaging their surroundings, but that has not made Carriers obsolete.

It's just "the flavor" of the day right now to have Arbiters; carriers are a lot more micro intensive, and if you lose a lot of them, you could be in deep shit. But, carriers have been a staple for PvT in BW for the longest time!

Quote:

---

None. Thats the point. Starcraft 2 is already miles ahead of other RTS terms in terms of innovation because of the macro reform.

---

Blaiming someone for failing to do something that they're not trying to do is rather silly. Not ever RTS needs, wants, or should focus on macro. Mech Commander has zero macro, and it is still a fun, enjoyable game.

Quote:

---

it attacked air and was filling in a role that protoss didnt have, an atg unit, now the protoss are struggling to find a role for the pheonix, and carriers can only be used if you mass them, which almost only happened in fastest maps, and that isnt strategy

---

The only thing Tempests had going for them was the possibility that they were cheap (we don't actually know the price of them). Rather than being capital ship cost, maybe they could have been slightly more expensive than a Void Ray. It would have given the Protoss some AtG support.

The concern of course is that, because it shared the Carrier's style of attack, it might also have shared its critical mass issue. Possibly to the point where getting 10+ of them guaranteed victory, even against the air units that are supposed to be able to stop them.

Alternatively, the combination of Phoenix, Void Ray, and Tempest could have effectively been a game-breaking army. VRs take out the big enemy air that might be able to stop your Tempest fleet, while Overloading Phoenixes take out your light air. This leaves everything else to the Tempest battlegroup.

Quote:

---

You basically hold off Terrans Tank/vult push with you own Zeal/Goon/DT or HT and tech to carriers "secretly" to cinch the win.

---

Sure, two years ago. Right up until the Ultimate Weapon Flash started murdering Protosses who so much as thought about going for Carriers. Even on their favored map of Katrina.

Since then, Carriers are seen only slightly more often than Hydralisks are in ZvZ.

Most of the new ideas are just numbers. Xel'Naga Watchtower lets you see X units further. Its a number. Chrono boost allows you to build stuff faster Number. Some others are boring ideas that aren't that hard to come up with. Anybody could have thought of with cliff climbing, and people have been asking for a burrow/mover for years.

I'm not saying these ideas aren't cool. They're fun to use, but just don't hit the target. Warp-In hits the target. Square in the middle.

I wasn't there when the original hit the shelves (note the junior member-ness), but I've played enough RTS games to know that it was more than just an interesting gem, but was a milestone in the industry, for the thought in balancing that had gone into it, while keeping it a fun game.

SC2 will get a massive reception either way it goes. Even if its predecessor never existed, this game would win the market for the balancing BW never would have brought. But, the game itself won't change the worldwide conception of an RTS. SC1 brought to the table 3 separate ways to play a game, in 3 races equally balanced, and a different challenge for each. SC2 is quite the same, just mixing it up a bit.

I feel like a douche saying this, but Blizzard should have done to SC2 what Nintendo brought for the wii, and I don't mean make it a pussy game for the family, or play politics and promise stuff you'll never do. I mean changing the way one looks at games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandwich_bird

Really? You'd need 10 guys and 3 years to make, not an actual game but simply a concept for one? Pretty ironic then that you would speak of intellectual bankruptcy. This basically prove my point though, there's not that many places for innovation in the RTS genre today and you'd have to search hard to find something that would work.

Didn't say it's impossible, my point is that it's not worth it.




It was limited. Those boundaries do not affect only gameplay. You think they could implement spaceship battles in warcraft 4? Well you could but somehow it wouldn't feel right and this is why it's an unclear boundary. That's an example of what I mean.

In any case, warcraft 3 was still not that innovative if you compare it to other strategy games. Want heroes? Go look at Warlords Battlecry who was released before Warcraft 3 in 2000. In 2001 there was also another RTS which I own named Kohan who used leaders (heroes) for each companies that you have. You can also look at Kingdom Under Fire: A War of Heroes for another RTS really close to Warcraft 3 that was released in 2001. Also, it might not be an RTS but Heroes of Might and magic (and all his clone) is basically Warcraft 3 in turn based mode.

---

I am SlickR, and I approve of this message!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by protoswarrior

But, carriers have been a staple for PvT in BW for the longest time!

---

its people like you who hold the game back, although it may be a game breaking army, if u have enough of that air at thet stage, what does your opponent have

Quote:

---

Really? You'd need 10 guys and 3 years to make, not an actual game but simply a concept for one? Pretty ironic then that you would speak of intellectual bankruptcy. This basically prove my point though, there's not that many places for innovation in the RTS genre today and you'd have to search hard to find something that would work.

---

I've never made an RTS before. If you've never actually done something before, then you know nothing about how to make one.

Proper game design comes from understanding what you're making. As I have no experience with making RTS games, I would have to make several RTS games to be able to explore the space. And I would need a number of designers and testers around to make sure that the game is doing what I want it to do, rather than something else entirely.

Artists say that your first 1000 drawings will suck, so you should get them out of the way as fast as possible. The same goes here.

As for why it would take 60,000+ man hours to come up with good ideas, it's because I like to be sure an idea is good before I sign off on it. And the only way to be sure an idea works is by putting it into a game and seeing it work.

Quote:

---

Didn't say it's impossible, my point is that it's not worth it.

---

Yeah, screw you Shigeru Miyamoto! It's not worth it to create new and innovative gameplay. So let's go back and erase Donkey Kong from history!

This post-modern attitude that everything's been done, and the only stuff left is the hard stuff or whatever is absolutely negligent. And I would enjoy firing any game designer who ever expressed such a sentiment.

Blizzard chose not to be innovative. They set out specifically to not be innovative. They made the StarCraft II that they wanted to make.

They didn't make the StarCraft II that they had to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horror

Most of the new ideas are just numbers. Xel'Naga Watchtower lets you see X units further. Its a number. Chrono boost allows you to build stuff faster Number. Some others are boring ideas that aren't that hard to come up with. Anybody could have thought of with cliff climbing, and people have been asking for a burrow/mover for years.

I'm not saying these ideas aren't cool. They're fun to use, but just don't hit the target. Warp-In hits the target. Square in the middle.

I wasn't there when the original hit the shelves (note the junior member-ness), but I've played enough RTS games to know that it was more than just an interesting gem, but was a milestone in the industry, for the thought in balancing that had gone into it, while keeping it a fun game.

SC2 will get a massive reception either way it goes. Even if its predecessor never existed, this game would win the market for the balancing BW never would have brought. But, the game itself won't change the worldwide conception of an RTS. SC1 brought to the table 3 separate ways to play a game, in 3 races equally balanced, and a different challenge for each. SC2 is quite the same, just mixing it up a bit.

I feel like a douche saying this, but Blizzard should have done to SC2 what Nintendo brought for the wii, and I don't mean make it a pussy game for the family, or play politics and promise stuff you'll never do. I mean changing the way one looks at games.

---

Its easy to sit back at your chair in front of a computer and rant about how uncool something is, just because you lack the creativity to think for it yourself.

Why would Blizzard want to create something new? Isn't what new games are there for?
Old school, classics like SC1 need to be re-imagined, not reinvented and they need to stay true to the original.

Its absurd for Blizzard to copy a game like supreme commander for SC2 for many reasons:
1: Supreme commander(just an example) is far less popular, profitable and its not iconic at all.
2: Supreme commander is not a game of great balance or strategic depth. And I know because I've played it and have also seen, read and heard all the forum cries about low tier units vs high tier units.
3: Starcraft 2 is a unique game, Supreme commander is not, supreme commander races have the same roles for each race in different skin.
4: Starcraft 2 as it is would gain a lot more recognition, community approval, critics approval than if had changed completely.


Anyways I personallu think that SC2 has enough improvements over SC1 and over other RTS games to be the best.

1: What other RTS game has 3 unique and diverse races? I've played tons of RTS games in my life and I can say none. - This is part of the reason why I still love sc 12 years after release and why I'm looking forward to SC2.
All other RTS games have different races yes, but the core roles and mechanics of those units between races are same.
2: What other RTS games make use of passive or active abilities and spells. - I can count on my hand and I'm not ever sure i would manage to fill it. Only recently have RTS games been more open to skills and spells, otherwise it has always been just units and maybe one of two abilities that are in most cases not even part of a unit, like nuclear bomb or chemical bomb.
3: Great polish and detail. Of course this is done in a lot of RTS games, but its still a plus for blizzard anyways.

In the end I'm not saying I'm against innovation or more features, but that I'd rather have a deep, great balanced gameplay that simply works, rather that added "bonus carp" and silly gimmicks that don't make the gameplay better.

If there is a fun, interesting feature that compliments the gameplay well and can be balanced than I'm all for it.

But adding something like the ultralisk, transformer buildings for terran and stuff like that in SC2 just because its innovative and fun does not work.

I'd like to be able to do that in the editor, but its not right for the core game. First it will be almost impossible to balance, without breaking the whole gameplay style of SC2 just to balance those kind of units/features, its not supported by lore, it makes for a silly gameplay, considering SC2 aims at E-sports and competitive play and if people intend (korea and maybe other countries now with SC2) to live from it and get checks of 20.000 euros.

Quote:

---

Old school, classics like SC1 need to be re-imagined, not reinvented and they need to stay true to the original.

---

SC2 is not a reimagining of SC1. If it were, they would have reimagined a complete set of different units.

Furthermore, this kind of thinking leads to stagnation. A local minimum on the vector-field of all possible RTS design.

Quote:

---

Its absurd for Blizzard to copy a game like supreme commander for SC2 for many reasons:

---

Um, Horror wasn't talking about Supreme Commander. Who are you arguing with?

Quote:

---

4: Starcraft 2 as it is would gain a lot more recognition, community approval, critics approval than if had changed completely.

---

By this logic, the moment you achieve any real success, stop trying to improve. Just rehash everything ad-nausium until you bleed the community dry and they get bored and move on to something else.

That's Bobby Kotick logic; the logic of a soul-less vampire hoping to get something that works so that he can quickly drain it dry of anything approaching quality and run it into the ground. Not game designer logic. You never know if you can do something better unless you try. If more game designers thought like that, we'd still be playing Pac-Man, and StarCraft 1 would never have come about.

You seem to forget that SC1 was innovative. 3 unique races was a very innovative feature. And it was successful because of its innovation.

Who are you to say, "WC2 was different from WC1, but not innovative enough. SC1 is very successful and innovative. But that's the end of all useful innovation, so let's not bother to try anymore for SC2."

Quote:

---

Anyways I personallu think that SC2 has enough improvements over SC1 and over other RTS games to be the best.

---

Victory "by default" isn't exactly something to stand up and cheer for. If you're the only guy on the track, winning doesn't mean much.

Quote:

---

In the end I'm not saying I'm against innovation or more features

---

And yet, you just said exactly that. "Old school, classics like SC1 need to be re-imagined, not reinvented and they need to stay true to the original."

Quote:

---

But adding something like the ultralisk, transformer buildings for terran and stuff like that in SC2 just because its innovative and fun does not work.

---

Again, who exactly are you arguing with? FYI: Nobody's proposing this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

SC2 is not a reimagining of SC1. If it were, they would have reimagined a complete set of different units.

Furthermore, this kind of thinking leads to stagnation. A local minimum on the vector-field of all possible RTS design.



Um, Horror wasn't talking about Supreme Commander. Who are you arguing with?



By this logic, the moment you achieve any real success, stop trying to improve. Just rehash everything ad-nausium until you bleed the community dry and they get bored and move on to something else.

That's Bobby Kotick logic; the logic of a soul-less vampire hoping to get something that works so that he can quickly drain it dry of anything approaching quality and run it into the ground. Not game designer logic. You never know if you can do something better unless you try. If more game designers thought like that, we'd still be playing Pac-Man, and StarCraft 1 would never have come about.

You seem to forget that SC1 was innovative. 3 unique races was a very innovative feature. And it was successful because of its innovation.

Who are you to say, "WC2 was different from WC1, but not innovative enough. SC1 is very successful and innovative. But that's the end of all useful innovation, so let's not bother to try anymore for SC2."



Victory "by default" isn't exactly something to stand up and cheer for. If you're the only guy on the track, winning doesn't mean much.



And yet, you just said exactly that. "Old school, classics like SC1 need to be re-imagined, not reinvented and they need to stay true to the original."



Again, who exactly are you arguing with? FYI: Nobody's proposing this!

---

Bolas I'm not arguing with anyone, I'm giving my own personal views with few random examples.

What does innovation in RTS mean to you? Does it mean for every RTS game to have RPG elements? Does it mean every RTS game to have full map zoom-out feature?
The most innovative RTS game and I must say its not actually very innovative, but rather different and hasn't been done in so many years is RUSE from Ubisoft.
On top of my head i remember few games like it, namely panzers. There were of course few more I can't remember their names right now.

Starcraft 2 needs to stay familiar with Starcraft 1. If all of a sudden, the marine, siege tank, zealots, zerglings, ultralisks were gone, with all of the other new units that are currently in SC2, it just won't be Starcraft anymore.

Protoss for example have so many new units. Stalkers>dragoons, Immortals, phoenix>corsair, Voidray>scout, Colossus>reaver, sentry, mothership>arbiter.

And suficive to say these new units add new strategies, differ the two games apart and have different mechanics.

If all protoss units were new would that be the protoss race? In my view it won't, they would be better off introducing a new race that will replace protoss.

I think that the general new features like yellow minerals, xel'naga towers, destructible objects and general map design make up for new strategies and depth.
Race specific features like the queen, mules, chrono boost, cliff climbing/walking, burrowed movement, different damage output methods (voidray's increasing attack power, mothership 6x way attack, colossus sweep attack), warp-in, warp-gates, worm transportation method, vikings dual mode, etc... are all new and interesting features.

You can't have all units have some sort of special, cool feature, because it undermines the few units that already have it now and the coolness dissipates quickly.

Tiny Wall of Text incoming!

What I believe is a case of not understanding the term "Innovation". Innovation will be judged by the masses and not by the invidual people who followed it's original gameplay from the beginning. I will elaborate on this further below. One can say that SC2 will be known as innovative as they refined the way Macro and Micro are utilized, unfortunately, that's improvement and not innovation. Let's go forward with some VERY IMPORTANT facts.

1. Innovation can be seen by everyone... not just the people who look into it. This means that as you play the game, you see something new that hasn't been done before. EDIT: no matter what your history is with the game and it's IP

2. A lack of innovation is not a bad thing at all, it's not insulting, it won't steal your mother away. It's merely an identification of the circumstance and qualities regarding a product or service. By the same note, many people might want you to think that innovation is a good thing which is not the truth. Many times people innovate something that shouldn't be innovated and it's found to be a mistake later.

3. Innovation is subjective, not objective. So while the majority of people can view something as "Innovative", it's only considered innovative in the gaming industry if you choose to look at it from the scope of an industry and not an individual. For this reason, if it's "innovative" in the industry, the majority of major players in the industry have to be able to see it, such as critics, companies and consumer base.

----------------------------------------------------

With those out of the way, which I hate to say are less subjective than this discussion, I'd like to point out that there are two types of people in this conversation. Those who share their thoughts on the subject as an individual and those who try to predict how the industry will view it. EDIT: There is nothing better or worse in either view, it's just important to realize that you can get drastically different answers from the same data based on how you view it. While I personally LOVE the game, I view the multiplayer game itself will not be viewed as innovative to the industry. This is not a bad thing at all, because by direct design decision, they have chosen to be "true to the original" in terms of the multiplayer. This decision alone removes much of the opportunity to become innovative on an industry scale.

Imagine this, if Battle.net was in a 1.0 state, the innovation would be only recognized by a portion of people who has followed this game for 10 years.

If a person who didn't play a game of StarCraft since 9 years ago, and didn't know the existance of all of this "balance" or "Professional" or "eSports" stuff.. This is what they would see:

Other games: New units, New abilities, Major explosions, dirt and grime going everywhere, physics showing off like the destruction of buildings and the destruction of battle grounds objects, bodies flying away based on impacts, impact collision, cover, points of interest/capture, domination playstyles, up to 10-20 races, hero mechanics, MMORTS, persistent expirience per account, unlockable game content due to circumstances, UI improvements, capturable vision points, LOS blockage, game engine redesigns, destructable barriers, exclusion/exclusive macro/micro shifts and etc.

StarCraft II Multiplayer: New units, new abilities, capturable vision points, LOS blockage, game engine redesign.

This is NOT insulting SC2, I love it so much I want to make it my mistress and consider bringing a third child into this world if it has half the geneworks of StarCraft II. I love the game. But it doesn't change my view that the game is not innovative on an industry level. My view is that this is by design decision and is not a bad thing. Not innovative =/= not good. Innovative isn't always good and would have been disasterious (in my opinion) for this game's multiplayer aspects if it was made to be innovative.

EDIT: This becomes more obvious as you look at the decisions that made it not innovative. "We don't want things flying everywhere so you can easily identify units in battle". "We don't want to use too many physics, cause it can limit the number of systems that can play the game", "We are trying to limit the amount of battle field clutter cause it could impede the judgement of the person playing", "We don't want to add more than needed cause it can increase latency and decrease gameplay performance", "We don't want to include things like cover mechanics as we have decided to remove random number generations from StarCraft II". These all make sense for StarCraft II, but simultaneously reduce the level of innovation that the industry will view it as. This is a good thing in my eyes as they are design decisions that make sense.

Ultimately, the aspects of the game that are innovative are not the multiplayer gameplay itself. They are the aspect that surrounds it, the league system, the ability for anyone to feel like they can succeed in their own right, the single-player campaign's direction of RTS story telling, the change from a "RTS Map making module" to an "RTS(but not limited to RTS) data editor". These are the innovative things regarding StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. By design decision, "StarCraft II Multiplayer" is not innovative no matter how much you spin it... and on a personal view, not industry view, I will thank Blizzard every day for that decision because sometimes innovation does not equal success.

------------------------------

BONUS! On a different note about the macro mechanics, let me explain them to you in an industry view:

- One race has an ability to speed up unit/research production
- One race has an ability to make more units at once
- One race has an ability to get resources faster

Let me spin you a different example:

- One race has an ability that after 1 second, quickly damages an area with 75 damage, it can be dodged
- One race has an ability that instantly takes a group and immobilizes them, dealing damage slowly over time, it can not be dodged
- One race has an ability that slowly brings a missile to a group to deal massive damage if it hits, it can be ran from.

If you look at them without all the spin/esports angles, which is how the industry will view them, then that's what they are... abilities. Personally I understand how pivotal these three abilities are to the gameplay and balance... but honestly, that's how it's going to be viewed... 3 new abilities... which is something to expect in a sequel.. new abilities.

Not meaning to insult any opinions regarding this, I will state again, this is my idea of how the industry can view the "Macro mechanics". They're just new abilities to make each race more unique.

I'm not saying I expect people too... but if people agree with this post, please just toss out a "@Gifted QFT" to avoid the spam instead of quoting it. It'll save the pain of scrolling down the page.

In my point of view, SC2 would have some innovated stuff if it wasn't for SC1's e-sport success.

p/s: @Gifted QFT

I think the thing that people are missing is appropriate innovation for appropriate parts of the game. This is going off what weve seen so far but my guess is that Blizzard is going to innovate the $#!& out of the single player experience. I mean they have the huge Terran campaign and then 2 more. They will need to experiment with new things if for nothing else then nessesity.



For the multiplayer though the aim appears to stick with the foundamental principles of the esports experience while innovating through macro. And Gifted I respectfully disagree with you that the macro mechanics arnt innovation because they are "just" abilities. Abilities are game mechanics just like watchtowers, creep speed, resources etc... are mechanics.

@gifted: I don't even understand what you are talking about!
Industry view? what is that? person view? team view? critics view? individual view?

Whats it matter how you word it?

And yes people who haven't played sc1 and play sc2, won't go - oooo its innovative or its not innovative. They will go - oooo this is fun or oooo this is boring.
They will either like the SP, MP, both or none.

When we/I talk about innovation we/I talk in general understandable speech, not some "industry speech".

Fact of the matter is that SC2 is innovative enough and in specific fields, to be different yet feel similar to the original, to have different strategies, and yet few similar ones. To have enough new units and enough old units. And they've even chosen to change up old units and give them new abilities, upgrades, functions and/or roles.

And we both can agree that too much innovation in SC2 is a bad thing.
If some1 expects to play some who knows what innovative RTS, he better be prepared to wait 10 or so more years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I'm not ignoring it, I'm literally pointing out that Blizzard didn't scrap the Tempest because it was broken, or unfun, or didn't fit its niche, or that there was in fact anything wrong with it gameplay or mechanics-wise. Browder is straight up confirming it was removed because it "didn't FEEL right" and the Carrier was put back in for nostalgia. Its all connected man.

---

I think you're reading too much there, it didn't feel right AND there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit. That "and" is used because those are two different reasons.

I think that it wasn't feeling right when playing (by gameplay motives), otherwise wouldn't been scrapped so fast. Just like the soul hunter, that "was fun, but not fun enough".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

I think you're reading too much there, it didn't feel right AND there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit. That "and" is used because those are two different reasons.

I think that it wasn't feeling right when playing (by gameplay motives), otherwise wouldn't been scrapped so fast. Just like the soul hunter, that "was fun, but not fun enough".

---

Didn't we go over this? "Feel" and "working" are not synonyms. One implies an emotion, like nostalgia. The other implies a mechanical situation.

Its possible Browder did mean both were taken out because they "felt wrong," or because they both weren't "working." But that's not what he said, which is the only evidence anyone really has, and frankly it drifts in my favor.

I'm pretty sure they said the Tempest was removed due to the fact that it made the Protoss air force so rock-paper-scissors-y.

Tempest for light ground, Void Ray for big units, Phoenix for light air. I don't remember where I heard that, so it might not be true, but I remember reading that SOMEWHERE.

Oh well, I still like the Tempest anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

By this logic, the moment you achieve any real success, stop trying to improve. Just rehash everything ad-nausium until you bleed the community dry and they get bored and move on to something else.

That's Bobby Kotick logic; the logic of a soul-less vampire hoping to get something that works so that he can quickly drain it dry of anything approaching quality and run it into the ground. Not game designer logic. You never know if you can do something better unless you try. If more game designers thought like that, we'd still be playing Pac-Man, and StarCraft 1 would never have come about.

---

Enough of that Kotick; this is not what either of us we're talking about. There's an extremely large difference in quality between improving a title a little bit to release a new game every year and to actually take 4 years to improve and polish a working formula. Guitar Hero 2 vs Starcraft 2; do you see the difference?

Also, referring to the time period between pac-man and Starcraft to project how the industry should work today is ridiculous. The industry was completely new at that time. There was tons of ways to innovate.

Quote:

---

Victory "by default" isn't exactly something to stand up and cheer for. If you're the only guy on the track, winning doesn't mean much.

---

It is in the business world. In fact, you don't really want anyone else running with you.

Shit, 11 pages? That's a first. I'll try to get as many as I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWD

I reject this notion that somehow innovation negatively affects the pros nor do I believe that blizzard is avoiding changes because of this. Professional players are just as capable as adapting as anyone else. Innovation can only breath more live into competitive gaming by making the game even more interesting to watch. This idea that the pro's can screw up everything by refusing to adapt is just silly. They're going to play what people want to watch, period. If the public decides they enjoy watching StarCraft II more then that's what they'll play.

---

Blizzard has said it themselves that they are designing the game in part to meet the demands of the eSport community, and similarly we all remember the crying, especially coming from the "pro" community, about how MBS and automine would result in the game playing itself :rolleyes: I agree that true professionals wouldn't whine about how their memorized build orders aren't going to work anymore, and instead spend their time learning new skills to become better, but to think they have not had an impact on how the game is built is denialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

This innovation argument is just plain silly, especially when used in conjunction with the pulled out of thin air statistic of being at the expense of "everyone else."

---

It's very simple. Count how many Starcraft games were sold. Now count how many of those people who bought it actually take part in the competitive scene.

Here's a hint: It isn't 9.5 million.

The competitive player base has always been much smaller than the rest of the community; you don't see a million players out there trying to become the next Jaedong in their spare time. So when you do cater to the minority, you are by definition going to leave the rest of the population out to dry.



Gifted, I agree with you that other aspects of SC2 are innovative in comparison to multiplayer, but then my argument was directed at that difference in the first place. I also agree that simply doing something new, for the sake of newness, is not the way to go. By the same token, sticking to tradition just for the sake of tradition is equally bad. At some point stagnation really does set it, which is a big problem that other franchises have to deal with as well. There's a reason people make jokes about, for example, movie sequels being inferior to the original because all the creators did was try and copy-paste what they did before. The Empire Strikes Back was one of, if not the, best of the Star Wars movies not because it copied exactly what the first one did, but because it was different (OMG, the bad guys won?!).

Since so many people found it agreeable, let's return to terrain. As before, despite the added doodads, these maps are the same as ones we saw in the first game (and the doodads themselves are easy enough to copy as well). It's utterly predictable, and leads to predictable gameplay.

Instead of the same boring cliffs and ramps model, why not some real, honest-to-god three dimensional terrain? Hills, valleys, rolling plains, and a physics engine which supports smart use of it? If you get on top of a hill with your rifle, you have the advantage of being able to see and shoot farther, at the expense of exposing yourself to everyone else.

Instead of the same boring flat terrain model, why not difficult terrain? If you're driving on a smooth, paved surface, you can go faster than if you're driving across a rocky expanse. If there's a swamp you're trying to cross, it'll be easier if your unit hovers than if it has to slog its way through. We've seen part of this implemented for the Zerg regarding Creep, so just take the idea to its conclusion.

Instead of the same boring unalterable terrain, why not destructible terrain? Want to stop someone from crossing a bridge? Blow it up. Of course, you might need it later. And if you're not careful, your enemy could repair it and hit you from what you thought was a "secure" flank.

Any one of these ideas could be implemented to make the multiplayer experience more engaging, exciting, and thought-provoking to play, even if you still kept the grindfest "press button every 25 seconds" mechanics. The only reason we don't have something as cool as the visual of a Thor stomping through a forest, knocking aside trees and setting the bush on fire from his weapons, are the same reasons outlined earlier. Which is a shame, because unless you try to make something better, you never will, which even if you fail is still better than staying comfortably in a rut forever.

This thread made me laugh. I cbf reading the last 5 pages, as its all the same stuff over and over. Interesting how when I said the EXACT same thing as being expressed in this thread, (IE: SC2 = SC1. There's zero innovation!) a day earlier, all I got was "you're having a cry". Perhaps its because I said that I wouldnt not spend money on the game in its current form.

Fanboys cant see space for the stars/forest for the trees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceman_jkh

This thread made me laugh. I cbf reading the last 5 pages, as its all the same stuff over and over. Interesting how when I said the EXACT same thing as being expressed in this thread, (IE: SC2 = SC1. There's zero innovation!) a day earlier, all I got was "you're having a cry". Perhaps its because I said that I wouldnt not spend money on the game in its current form.

Fanboys cant see space for the stars/forest for the trees?

---

You are making too much out of yourself. No one cares if you buy the game or not, not even Blizzard.

SC2=SC1 with new and improved units, new and/or improved features, new mechanics, new strategies, new sounds, new music. - This is multiplayer.
The most innovative stuff will be in the single player campaign, and no matter how much "innovation" cries are made the multiplayer is as it is and I personally think its innovative enough and old school enough to attract people from all spectrum's.

If you want something really unique that's not been done, good luck finding it and msg me 10-20 years from now when you find it.

Quote:

---

What does innovation in RTS mean to you? Does it mean for every RTS game to have RPG elements? Does it mean every RTS game to have full map zoom-out feature?

---

Do you actually want an answer to that question, or do you just want to keep putting words into peoples mouths?

Adding RPG elements to an RTS was innovative. So was having 3 distinct races. So was having full map zoom-out.

The fact that these were innovative does not mean that every RTS game should have them.

Quote:

---

If all of a sudden, the marine, siege tank, zealots, zerglings, ultralisks were gone, with all of the other new units that are currently in SC2, it just won't be Starcraft anymore.

---

What does your definition of StarCraft require? Why is taking out Lurkers OK, but not Zerglings? Why is removing Devourers fine, but not Ultralisks? Why is removing Vultures acceptible, but not Siege Tanks?

Idolatry doesn't get you anywhere.

Quote:

---

Race specific features like [...] are all new and interesting features.

---

But none of them are sufficiently different to rise to the level of real innovation. The standard bearer for innovation is 3 unique races. In 1998, that was utterly without precedent; the most you had were 2 sides with a couple of unique units. 3 races that share almost nothing between them was unprecedented.

Point to something in SC2 that is equally unprecedented.

Quote:

---

Enough of that Kotick; this is not what either of us we're talking about. There's an extremely large difference in quality between improving a title a little bit to release a new game every year and to actually take 4 years to improve and polish a working formula. Guitar Hero 2 vs Starcraft 2; do you see the difference?

---

The only difference is timescale. Guitar Hero games come out multiple times a year. Starcraft games are less frequent.

But both show a complete unwillingness to do anything that isn't proven. Both show a lack of innovation and vision in their design. StarCraft may be milked much slower than Guitar Hero, but it's the same effect; it just takes longer.

Quote:

---

The industry was completely new at that time. There was tons of ways to innovate.

---

Again, the intellectual sloth. There still are tons of ways to innovate.

Quote:

---

It is in the business world. In fact, you don't really want anyone else running with you.

---

More Kotick logic. I care more about the art of videogame design than the business world.

On the topic of innovation that isn't good:

Quote:

---

Instead of the same boring cliffs and ramps model, why not some real, honest-to-god three dimensional terrain? Hills, valleys, rolling plains, and a physics engine which supports smart use of it? If you get on top of a hill with your rifle, you have the advantage of being able to see and shoot farther, at the expense of exposing yourself to everyone else.

---

StarCraft is ultimately a digital game. Positioning may be more analog than Chess or Go, but questions of how far a unit can shoot and such are very clearly defined. A unit can shoot X distance, period.

Once you start to fuzzy up issues of how far units can shoot, it becomes difficult to assess the cost-benefit of using things that increase firing range. For example, take your hill. How much farther does the Marine shoot? How far up the hill does he have to go to get that bonus? Is it a static bonus, or is it a gradual gradient (the farther up the hill you go, the more bonus you get)? If you have two hills next to each other, and two units are on top of their hills, do you still get a range bonus to hit the other guy?

If you cannot effectively know what is going to happen in a given situation, you cannot effectively play the game. It's the reason why table-top RPGs with simpler rules are better than table-top RPGs with highly complex rules that try to take into account as much of reality as possible.

Abstraction makes for better competitive games. Many people like fuzzy games, where you're not quite sure how much of an improvement you're going to get out of action X. But that isn't good for competitive play. And if you're making a competitive game, you need to do what is good for competitive play.

Quote:

---

Instead of the same boring flat terrain model, why not difficult terrain? If you're driving on a smooth, paved surface, you can go faster than if you're driving across a rocky expanse. If there's a swamp you're trying to cross, it'll be easier if your unit hovers than if it has to slog its way through. We've seen part of this implemented for the Zerg regarding Creep, so just take the idea to its conclusion.

---

What you have just said is the following:

1: Every unit has a locomotion mode.

2: There will be terrain features that improve or hinder movement based on locomotion modes.

This means that, for every movement-hindering terrain feature, there is a table that lists the various movement modes and how much it hinders/boost each one.

This is needless complexity. Even ignoring the fact that communicating information like this to the user is very difficult, what does this add?

Creep movement speed is interesting because you can create creep, and the enemy can attack your creep sources. This creates a dynamic, where the Zerg player wants to create Creep, while the opponent wants to destroy it.

Can you create swamps? Rough terrain? Can you pave terrain? Can you attack the thing paving the terrain to make it go away? Etc.

It also makes game balance very map dependent. With the right map, entire units become utterly useless, while others become very dangerous. If each race has different distributions of the various locomotion modes (some races may not even have access to certain modes), what would a map designer have to do to make a balanced map?

Quote:

---

The only reason we don't have something as cool as the visual of a Thor stomping through a forest, knocking aside trees and setting the bush on fire from his weapons, are the same reasons outlined earlier.

---

No, it isn't. It's just a bad idea. Have you ever seen a forest from above? You can't see things in a forest. Like your own units. That's why terrain doesn't have forests on it.

Quote:

---

@bolas: What does your definition of StarCraft require? Why is taking out Lurkers OK, but not Zerglings? Why is removing Devourers fine, but not Ultralisks? Why is removing Vultures acceptible, but not Siege Tanks?

Idolatry doesn't get you anywhere.

---

I'm not saying its okay or not. I would be fine if battlecruisers and siege tanks were removed, but other two units from SC1 like the firebat stayed and got improved.
Obviosly there is also a priority on who to keep and who to remove.
You can't remove the marine and siege tank, because they are the most iconic units, same goes foe zealots and zerglings.

Maybe SC2 could remove them but than add such units as the firebat in or whatever...

There's nothing wrong with pulling Marine, Zealot or Zergling, but you 'do' have to come up with something to replace them with, and even if you do replace them, what you've got now will probably look a lot like 2.0 versions of the units you've pulled (at least for the Terran and Zerg, replacing the Zealot might actually give you something like a down-graded version of the SC:G Vindicator).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Gifted I respectfully disagree with you that the macro mechanics arnt innovation because they are "just" abilities. Abilities are game mechanics just like watchtowers, creep speed, resources etc... are mechanics.

---

*nods* Indeed, while a person who is versed will know that they can be something that changes the fundementals of the game in terms of it's competitive nature, the overall public will merely mention it as each race having a race specific ability that helps further differentiates the race. Overall this is an improvement on an aspect that already existed. Recreating or defining a new aspect is what earns innovation from the industry.

Understand, I think this is a prime example of "personal innovation" (You think it's definately innovative) but not industry recognized innovation. (Critics won't praise them at the end of the day, these three abilities will not make it STAND OUT. Other aspects will.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupino

Gifted, I agree with you that other aspects of SC2 are innovative in comparison to multiplayer, but then my argument was directed at that difference in the first place. I also agree that simply doing something new, for the sake of newness, is not the way to go. By the same token, sticking to tradition just for the sake of tradition is equally bad. At some point stagnation really does set it, which is a big problem that other franchises have to deal with as well.

[...Additional information regarding Terran Innovation...]

---

While I agree with you completely about this, including the fact that stagnation can set in.. I believe that Blizzard completely hit the mark with innovation regarding the addictive league system and all the other aspects we won't see yet (Single-player, data editor, marketplace, etc)

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Multi-player, I think that a lack of innovation might not lead to stagnation due to the simple fact that this game is an anomaly in the industry. There is no other game that has garnered an eSport like this one. For that reason, development of it had to move forward with that in mind. Doing something drastic, like DoW1 -> DoW2, would have been devastating. From reading your point I suspect we're on the same page.

Regarding your ideas about innovative Terrains... I can agree that many of those ideas are innovative, and could still be added in expansions. ALSO, they could be added by means of the data editor into the Korean setups (which I suspect could happen like the original SC1) Why they aren't entered into this set of maps is up in the air, most likely to avoid confusion about distances. But ultimately, we'll see how it goes later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickR

You are making too much out of yourself. No one cares if you buy the game or not, not even Blizzard.

---

Blizzard dont make games for free. I realise that 1 person's choice will not make any difference to their financial success, nor do I want them not to make money. It wasnt a threat, it was simply a statement of fact.

Quote:

---

SC2=SC1 with new and improved units, new and/or improved features, new mechanics, new strategies, new sounds, new music. - This is multiplayer.
The most innovative stuff will be in the single player campaign, and no matter how much "innovation" cries are made the multiplayer is as it is and I personally think its innovative enough and old school enough to attract people from all spectrum's.

---

That statement is completely false. Show me honestly how DIFFERENT this is from its predecessor..its not THAT different. 3D =/= innovation, retention of substantial number of SC1 units =/= innovation...should I keep going? Get over yourself. Unfortunately, the latest patches have even been reducing what little innovation/difference there is. (yes, I can admit that there are some good aspect to SC2.. just not enough!). Single player innovation is just STORY TELLING. Sure, thats imagination and I'm sure itll be a great story, but thats not innovation. I'm not commenting on Battle.net, etc., as thats auxillary to SC2 gameplay, and not what I was discussing from the beginning.

Quote:

---

If you want something really unique that's not been done, good luck finding it and msg me 10-20 years from now when you find it.

---

Did you think about this before you wrote it?
SC2 development time ~ 12years. Therefore, by your comment, I'm in the perfect position to come to you and discuss INNOVATION. And what a suprise, here we are arguing about SC2 lack thereof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceman_jkh

That statement is completely false. Show me honestly how DIFFERENT this is from its predecessor..its not THAT different. 3D =/= innovation, retention of substantial number of SC1 units =/= innovation...should I keep going? Get over yourself. Unfortunately, the latest patches have even been reducing what little innovation/difference there is. (yes, I can admit that there are some good aspect to SC2.. just not enough!). Single player innovation is just STORY TELLING. Sure, thats imagination and I'm sure itll be a great story, but thats not innovation. I'm not commenting on Battle.net, etc., as thats auxillary to SC2 gameplay, and not what I was discussing from the beginning.

---

So Warp-in, Creep spread from Overlord and Creep-Tumors, movable defenses, bunker salvage, Lava Rise\Fall mechanic, Living Urban environment, High-yield minerals, finite gas, add-on versatility, MULE, Call down Supplies, Supply Depot submerge, Command Center five SCV capacity, Nydus Worm, Day\Night mechanic, Xel'naga towers, Single Player Tech Tree, Single Player Research, Cinematics for almost every mission, smart cast, shift commands and ect. are not innovative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Websters Dictionary

Something new; process of introducing something new

---

Because by this definition, all of these thing are innovative for Starcraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupino

Blizzard has said it themselves that they are designing the game in part to meet the demands of the eSport community, and similarly we all remember the crying, especially coming from the "pro" community, about how MBS and automine would result in the game playing itself :rolleyes: I agree that true professionals wouldn't whine about how their memorized build orders aren't going to work anymore, and instead spend their time learning new skills to become better, but to think they have not had an impact on how the game is built is denialism.

---

Sure, but that's not what I said. I never asserted that the game isn't being influenced by competitive players. Simply that such influences don't need to mean that Blizzard will make the game less innovative. The simple fact that they're putting so much emphasis on the competitive game is extremely innovative in and of it's self. There seems to be this notion that what is fun for pro players won't be fun for everyone else, and Blizzard is the first developer to reject this notion in it's game design.
________
Avandia Heart Attack

Quote:

---

So [...] are not innovative?

---

Many games have had smart cast for years. And "shift commands" were in SC1. Cinematics for every mission is standard for RTS games. In short, a lot of the stuff you're talking about falls into the "new for SC2" camp, not "new for RTS games".

None of it rises to the level of 3 unique races.

Quote:

---

Because by this definition, all of these thing are innovative for Starcraft.

---

By this definition, every single game is innovative, no matter how much of a retread it is.

Quote:

---

There seems to be this notion that what is fun for pro players won't be fun for everyone else, and Blizzard is the first developer to reject this notion in it's game design.

---

I don't see the rejection of this notion in Spawn Larva. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Many games have had smart cast for years.

---

Starcraft didn't.

Quote:

---

And "shift commands" were in SC1.

---

Starcraft 1 didn't have as complicated shift commands.

Quote:

---

Cinematics for every mission is standard for RTS games.

---

What RTS games have CG cinematics for every mission? Command and Conquer had actors giving you briefings, but they did not have unique cinematics for every level that involved story. The real actor briefings were innovative for C&C. Starcraft II will just have CG cinematics for every mission, mixing the Briefing and the old styled Starcraft cinematics into one. I'll note that I should have been more specific.

Quote:

---

In short, a lot of the stuff you're talking about falls into the "new for SC2" camp, not "new for RTS games".

---

Yes, that is what I was arguing. That there is innovation from SC2 over SC1. Iceman just thinks its Starcraft 1 in 3D when it is clearly not. I did not intend to argue new to the industry.

Quote:

---

None of it rises to the level of 3 unique races.

---

Chrono-Boost, MULE, and Spawn Larva don't accomplish this? Overlord creep drop, Pylon Warp in, Supply submerge don't as well? That quite makes each resource mechanic special and supply usage special.

Quote:

---

By this definition, every single game is innovative, no matter how much of a retread it is.

---

Im talking about the series Starcraft, not the RTS gaming industry. That is what the Single Player, B.net 2, new terrain features, new units, and Galaxy editor is for. Multiplayer might contain new(Completely new) units and new Terrain features later, but they do not right now.

Quote:

---

That there is innovation from SC2 over SC1.

---

There's new stuff in SC2. I would hardly call it "innovation", either compared to SC1 or compared to the rest of the genre. The most innovative difference you're going to get is the way that they turned disadvantages in SC1 into advantages in SC2.

Quote:

---

Chrono-Boost, MULE, and Spawn Larva don't accomplish this? Overlord creep drop, Pylon Warp in, Supply submerge don't as well? That quite makes each resource mechanic special and supply usage special.

---

You're kidding, right?

3 unique races was something unheard of in all of RTSs in 1998. It was an idea that was considered utterly ridiculous if you wanted a balanced game. Of course all races had to have almost the same thing; it was assumed that unique races were antithetical to having a balanced game.

People don't assume that anymore. Because of StarCraft.

Spawn Larva isn't going to paradigm shift the RTS medium. Creep Drop isn't going to make people think differently about RTS design.

When game designers 10 years from now look back to start making their next RTS, SC2 won't stick out as something specific that they should be looking at. And if they do look to it, it will only be because it is successful, not because of its gameplay.

Show me something in SC2 that people today think is impossible to do for an RTS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

There's new stuff in SC2. I would hardly call it "innovation", either compared to SC1 or compared to the rest of the genre. The most innovative difference you're going to get is the way that they turned disadvantages in SC1 into advantages in SC2.

---

Thats the thing. "Innovation" simply means new. I don't see any difference between new or Innovation, but I understand what you mean. Innovative is ground breaking new, while new is just new to the genre.

Quote:

---

You're kidding, right?.

---

Not what I meant. There are several things I think if implemented right can make SC2 absolutely new, but I know they will not be implemented due to horrendous balance issues and the fact its too big of a change. I meant that the mechanics further diversify the race. 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.

The Multiplayer could be innovative if the map would change over time or other things. On a lava planet, Part of the land on the map is melted by the lava, and the available land decreasing in size until there is no land left. Think Redstone except land sinks into it instead of lava rising over it. Other ideas would be:

A computer faction suddenly appearing on the map taking an expansion that was not taken.

Levels that are separated into multiple parts under ground, where one player starts on the third map tier, and the other statrs on the second or first. Special entrances would be the way to go to each one. You could not skip from the first one all the way to the third. This could be accomplished by toggling through the different floors using the mini-map and special entrances for your units. Other levels can be like this but can be platforms over land. Only Air units could switch tiers in this case.

A map that was completely destructible. Everything including resources to the land you walk on could be destroyed. I would have to expand on this idea.

Meteors that create expansions and change the map with their impacts, killing your units, causing geysers and minerals to be accessible.

Maps that have several storm cycles, where volcanoes erupt covering parts of the map in lava, and other such things. Earthquakes, Floods, Meteor showers, and the such.

A map that takes place under a Space battle. It would be covered in debris, and random ships and weapons would fall anywhere on the map, damaging or killing your units.

A Map where you play three maps at once. You toggle between each one. Certain points on the map let you switch between each. Very intense and I doubt people would like it. You would have three bases at the beginning.

Maps that have alterable features such as bridges, automated defenses, and the such that can be used using minerals and Vespene Gas in order to control. You have to have the worker bring the minerals and vespene to said device in order to activate it.

This are just some Ideas I have that I doubt will be implemented. I think this would be as innovative as the three race idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Archon

So Warp-in, Creep spread from Overlord and Creep-Tumors, movable defenses, bunker salvage, Lava Rise\Fall mechanic, Living Urban environment, High-yield minerals, finite gas, add-on versatility, MULE, Call down Supplies, Supply Depot submerge, Command Center five SCV capacity, Nydus Worm, Day\Night mechanic, Xel'naga towers, Single Player Tech Tree, Single Player Research, Cinematics for almost every mission, smart cast, shift commands and ect. are not innovative?

---

Just so we are clear, there is a big difference between innovation and rehashing an old idea in a new way. Innovation goes to the core of a mechanic/theme, its not just a slight tweak to something.

Innovative: Warp-in, Creep Spread, High Yield, MULE/Calldown, Terran add-ons.

Tweaks/old ideas: Nydus worm, submerge supply (from SC1 rax/Engbay gates), shift clicking, smart cast, creep tumor (works with ovi creep drop), bunker salvage, movable defenses.

Things that have nothing to do with innovating the way players play/races operate: Day\Night mechanic (does nothing except change graphics a little), Single Player Tech Tree, Single Player Research,

Quote:

---

Because by this definition, all of these thing are innovative for Starcraft.

---

*sigh*
By your use of that definition - which is grossly out of context - everything is innovative simply by the fact it's NEW. We both know that is a poor attempt at evidencing innovation.

Now we do have some innovative ideas from blizz, but compare that to the number of ideas/units/etc retained from SC1 with no/insignificant change (aka tweaks).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceman_jkh

*sigh*
By your use of that definition - which is grossly out of context - everything is innovative simply by the fact it's NEW. We both know that is a poor attempt at evidencing innovation.

Now we do have some innovative ideas from blizz, but compare that to the number of ideas/units/etc retained from SC1 with no/insignificant change (aka tweaks).

---

So what is your definition for Innovation? I have always considered innovation=new. Do you mean Ground-Breaking new?

Yes.

I mean, further racial differentiation, map/terrain deformation and access modification(not entirely new in RTSs per se), things which promote further strategic flexibility and creativity, etc.