What happened to the innovation?

[Nicol Bolas]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

[ArcherofAiur]

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.

[protoswarrior]

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

[SCpollo]

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

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.

[sandwich_bird]

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.

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.

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.

[SinsWage]

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.

[protoswarrior]

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!

[Nicol Bolas]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[SlickR]

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!