What happened to the innovation?

[Maul]

SC2 from what I've gathered so far from watching the high level games, it feels like StarCraft, but it's different (not better, not worse.) This is a great result in my opinion.

As for when the final product ships, it's going to be much more polished and a whole world of new content will become available. Single player, more b.net features, being able to play more than just melee battles, the map editor and heaps more we probably don't know yet.

A lot of people no doubt have been nervous about how StarCraft 2 will end up, but for me personally I think they're advancing in the right direction.

As for the terrain point in the OP, it was only in the last couple of years where pro-maps that featured destructible objects (power generators) and different sized ramps. That being said they have introduced some cool new ideas with the Xel'Naga watch towers and certain areas being hidden, i.e. bushes and steam exhausts. There may even be more to come as the game is not yet finished, but even if Blizzard have no more ideas themselves, no doubt fans will come up with some pretty cool ideas with the extremely powerful map editor and if they're great they'll no doubt be reproduced.

[Moradon]

Starcraft 2 has plenty of innovation, it's just that all of it is going into the singleplayer, map editor, and Bnet rather than the multiplayer game itself.

I don't know why so many people have a problem with it. If anything, keeping innovation into everything else was the best move Blizzard could have done. People who claim to be casuals keep whining over SC2 not having innovation, but then again, how often do casuals play the multiplayer portion of Blizzard RTSs anyway? Out of all the casuals that exist, I can almost 100% guarantee that most of them spent most of their gaming time in the single player and custom games rather than the multiplayer.

The biggest example of this is Warcraft 3. WC3 was very innovative, but that didn't stop casuals from abandoning it almost entirely just to play DotA. Custom is always preferable to skirmish if you're a casual, and I don't really see that changing in SC2 considering that the map editor is going to be a lot more powerful.

So I don't really see this so-called "lack of innovation" that's supposedly going to hurt SC2. If you're a casual, then there's plenty of innovation in the form of single player and custom games, and if you're a hardcore, then you don't have to worry about the core game changing too much in the multiplayer skirmish. Although I'm sure reviewers are going to bitch about it anyway, I still expect all of them to be playing SC2 for years to come.

[Norfindel]

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.

Or maybe because the unit wasn't working out. We didn't really seen any real game played with this unit. It didn't last so long.

[DemolitionSquid]

Or maybe because the unit wasn't working out. We didn't really seen any real game played with this unit. It didn't last so long.

As per Browder:
"The Tempest didn't feel right and that there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit."

So all we know is they claim that somehow they felt there was something wrong with the Tempest, but would never give specifics, and that they in fact brought back the stupid broken Carrier because of nostalgia.

Intellectual bankruptcy wins again!

[Raisk]

Stopped reading here:

I'm sure Blizz's single player maps will inspire a lot of incredible community maps and raise the bar

This! My god the potential that will be unleashed on the consumer with the Galaxy Editor will be immense! Sure the game itself may lack innovation in multiplayer, but as others have said in this thread, the innovation will come in other fields than ladder play, which is being designed to be competitive and balanced. The UMS maps we'll see should add a whole new depth of gameplay.

I wonder how much different the final product will be from the original WoL release. I just hope to God they add new units and don't just bring the Lurker back in HotS.

[Norfindel]

Demo why are you ignoring the part about "The Tempest didn't feel right"?
Of course they don't gave specifics! When did they give specifics about unit removals?

[ArcherofAiur]

simply asking for a few new units and abilities.

New Macro Units! New Macro Buildings! New Macro Abilities! Improving the fundamental infrastructure of the game!
This was stuff more ambitious than Blizzard has ever done before. Stuff other developers didnt even have the balls to do. You missed the biggest innovation in the RTS genre just cause it wasnt a cool new fighting unit.

[Nicol Bolas]

There’s barely any place left for “reinventing the wheel” with a RTS

Speaking of intellectual bankruptcy, there it is in its most raw, naked form. The unfailing belief that there's nothing new, that it's all been done, so we shouldn't bother to try.

SC2 aims for a balance of Macro and Micro. Can i say that no RTS since the original starcraft has achieved this?

Considering the emphasis on macro in SC1, I'd say that not even the original StarCraft achieved this.

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)

Yeah, we can't have a Tier 3 unit that attacks only ground. Like those Guardians. And Brood Lords. Wait, what was your point again?

Oh, and FYI: The Tempest could attack both air and ground. The gimmick with the Tempest was that its shields only worked on ground attackers, so it was vulnerable to air attacks. It could fight back, but it didn't have nearly as much health (something like the inverse of the Carrier: 300 shields, 150 Hp).

I still think it'd be awesome if this game had subfaction style tech branches. It's present in many other games, and can be moderately balanced given that the branching happens after a certain point in the game, either hitting a certain tier or tech point.

This is probably the most effective way for Blizzard to go if they want to add new units to SC2 in expansions. But balancing the game this way is hell; you're basically creating sub-races that must be balanced against both one another and others. It would turn 3 races into 6 races.

Plus, if the balance isn't right, then what you will have is a reduction back to 3 races once the correct path is determined.

If your looking for a mechanics change, then it wouldn't be called SCII

WarCraft 3 was a major mechanics change for the WarCraft series. So it's not like Blizzard hasn't tried before.

New Macro Units! New Macro Buildings! New Macro Abilities! Improving the fundamental infrastructure of the game!

Except that it doesn't improve anything. In several cases, it's just as bad as having to put workers on minerals.

[Mutiny]

As per Browder:
"The Tempest didn't feel right and that there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit."

Yet they kept the Tempest's model. :|

[Shadow Archon]

Yet they kept the Tempest's model. :|

Which is good. I have no problems with it. Whats wrong with it?