Starcraft 2 wins Wired.com's vaporware award

[spychi]

*curious look to spychi*

yup those are very similar reaction at Blizzard, so I don't really know why *you look curious at me*
I remember when I was asking random employees about the singleplayer while I was playing, they saw my enthusiasm and they were really happy with it and surprised, but when I was talking about multiplayer/macro mechanics I've got some very serious answers without the laughter, it was very diffrent

[Operatoring]

There will be improments. The Protoss mechanic is being reworked right now. We just have to keep giving our feedback to make the macro system as innovative and fun as it can possibly be.

I LOL'd.

lol well if the Reinvention of Macro fails then Starcraft 2 really wont add anything truly innovative to the RTS genre. Still will be a sick game though.

Blizzard isn't known for reinventing the wheel or innovative gameplay. What they do is take what works and make it better.

[GnaReffotsirk]

It would be an error to uphold a narrow point of view regarding Blizzard's motivations, being these as the measure with which the company's moves gets executed. We however on the receiving end of the system, which is Blizzard as it is making SC2, has one very apparent reaction: Frustration. Dealing with it comes harder as expectations rise within the apparently very limited room where the game is supposed to emerge from, and make a statement in.

Their lack of breakthroughs comes into conflict with the effort of justifying their "campaign" (so to speak) of making "the best RTS ever" -- whatever that means to them exactly, and thus, in a business sense, falls into the category of "experimentation" rather than "creating THE product."

And so, the difficulty that rises between us and Blizzard is centered around what we may call, "the idea of the current endeavor". Meaning, we expect Blizzard to deliver based on what they project they're doing, while on their end, their activity is rather not supportive to the "image" they're showing to keep people as close as possible.

Is it their fault? No. Is it ours? Not really.

We care about the delays because we were drawn to want the product. The desire for the product is based on a success previously owned by Blizzard over another product that had years of cycles of changes and community-based development. And so we get some kind of itch, that blizzards seems to be trying to "be the community" when the actual community that will develop the product as it did with SC:BW already exists and is ready to dive in and "make the product" which is SC2.

This is only one side of the image though, and with that, a sense of this "vileness" can be felt -- in some way or another, for reasons that our minds somehow knows "we can do this as we did with SC:BW", yet Blizzard is somehow shutting out that "process" from the current development phase, which seems to have taken too long, taking too long, and may take too long, making this "phase" were are in seems to be an irrational state of affairs.

it seems wrong, because it seems it's being stunted. It seems terribly wrong, because it seems forced. It seems terribly, terribly wrong because we're already getting battle reports.

Ergo, "Let's have it Blizzard, and let us, maybe, help you through beta."

... maybe, just maybe.

[ArcherofAiur]

I LOL'd.


Blizzard isn't known for reinventing the wheel or innovative gameplay. What they do is take what works and make it better.

Blizzard is known for working at something till they get it right. In the spirit of edisons famous quote innovation isnt so much about luck as it is persistence.

[newcomplex]

I LOL'd.


Blizzard isn't known for reinventing the wheel or innovative gameplay. What they do is take what works and make it better.

Can't think of any big name dev that is known for innovation except valve.

And valve only works because they get to get cash off steam.

[Triceron]

Relic Entertainment.

If not limited to PC, what about Nintendo?

[MaybeNextTime]

Relic Entertainment.

If not limited to PC, what about Nintendo?

They're innovating as much as Blizzard - they're just recycling ideas from less known games, that's all.

[deadlyhazard]

I think what disappoints me the most is that they said there won't be as much variety as Warcraft 3, a game that came out years ago. I'm talking about numbers of tilesets and model variations.

My main joy with Blizzard games is variety. It doesn't sound like it is going to outdo the previous RTS after seven years .

[deadlyhazard]

I think that while we have compatible conversations, we may be on different pages

I will first agree that the multiplayer in terms of importance is what they'll be focusing on (Be that UMS or the melee itself, that's up in the air... we'll see how that goes when we start seeing content patches in the game itself) But in terms of the enthusiasm that I'm seeing, I just get the feeling from those I'm discussing with that they can't wait for us to see the singleplayer.

*thinks* In other words:
- If Jack Doe had a choice, he's rather watch my reactions and impressions regarding the singleplayer campaign.. he's really passionate/impressed with it.
- If Jack Doe had a priority given to him of what's the most important thing to pull off right, it would be multiplayer.

*curious look to spychi*

Yeah. Multiplayer definitely seems to be the focus for Starcraft 2. I'm still looking forward to the singleplayer campaign the most :P. I can't wait for the 'Star Fox Style' planetary selection system for progression.

[don]

I think what disappoints me the most is that they said there won't be as much variety as Warcraft 3, a game that came out years ago. I'm talking about numbers of tilesets and model variations.

My main joy with Blizzard games is variety. It doesn't sound like it is going to outdo the previous RTS after seven years .

WC3 did have 4 races + creeps.. maybe by the 2nd expansion, unit and tileset variety will be at TFT level?

Xel'Naga and UED races maybe?