What happened to the innovation?

[Shadow Archon]

Seriously could we stop talking about this? I mean, this can be tested quite easily on the scrap station map with both players agreeing no attacks via ground route or taking expansions.

Than test it.

[Nicol Bolas]

But in this case, you don't need to download other programs to mod the game, its all done in SCII.

Again, Unreal Engine v 1.0. It game with UnrealEd, which included everything you needed to make terrain and even write UnrealScript.

but you can basically pick out a unit in every race and find a similar purpose between it and a unit from the other races, or, find a purpose a unit needs to fill, and pick a unit from each race to fulfill it. They're different, but it's not any more special than, say, putting 4 races in WC3.

You're ignoring the difference between "similar" and "same". One of them requires direct equality: 2.0 == 2.0. The other does not. As similar as 2.1 and 2.0 may be, they are not the same. You can't replace Dragoons with Marines and expect the Protoss race to function or the game balance to work.

And remember: innovation is all about context. WC3 didn't exist when SC1 came out, so how many different races it used doesn't change who did it first.

You got best sellers like Modern Warefare 2, GTA 4, Halflife 2, etc, probably nothing really new about them. But they're considered some of the best games of this generation.

I know you didn't just put HL2 in that list. Physics, much? Gravity Gun; that's new and innovative.

And no, MW2 and GTA4 are not considered some of the best game of this generation. MW2 will quickly be forgotten for MW3 or whatever. GTA 4 has already been forgotten.

HL2? Not so much. For all of MW2's political commentary or GTA 4's... whatever, HL2 will still be seen as a watershed, while those two are simply decent games.

This is what I'm talking about. Yeah, we can give them whatever. Stun Batons, Tazers, Vibroblades, Fusion torches...the thing is it would be bullshit. Stop it please. Is marines getting Vibroblades going to illicit a better reponse?

In one sentence, you say "we can give them whatever," and in another you speak of a specific melee weapon. Which is it?

I'm confuse. Your point is that Starcraft 2 isn't innovative at all, and should be innovative right? Now changing marines from x basic role to y basic role, has that suddenly made the game play innovative?

You're confusing the part with the whole.

New units do not necessarily make it innovative. But keeping the old units will necessarily not make it innovative; it makes real innovation impossible.

Popularity is the primary judge of what games get developed ok?

Bobby Kotick logic does not apply here. I care nothing for the market issues or financing or who pays for game development or what games they pay for. I'm discussing game design.

Also, Blizzard can make whatever the hell they want. They're flush with cash, and they don't have to follow what's popular or the market or whatever. Neither do companies like Valve, BioWare (who's sales are dwarfed by LCDs like MW2), etc.

Even if we look at it from a pre-modernist/modernist perspective, and Art is solely an expression of the creator, requiring nothing from the viewer (or user in this case), what exactly are the programmers expressing. What exactly does this level design express?

A deep and abiding understanding of how to create simple rules that interact to create complex behavior. The specifics can tell you about the thought processes behind the team that created it.

For example, take Braid. Ignoring the story, what we have here is someone who is dealing with time. Moving it forward, moving it backwards, stopping it, etc. That says something about the person responsible for the game. It says something about looking at a world divorced from linear temporal progression.

Take a Mario game. What you have here is ostensibly a game about getting to the end. But it isn't really; it's about the journey. About exploration. About finding things along the way. It's about the idea that anything could be anywhere, so you should look to the unexpected to find answers.

You think your the only one who has the intellectual brilliance to produce amazing games, and the people making MW2 are just unimaginative dweebs who want money?

I think the second point is spot on, but then, I'm not much of a CoD player.

Its the ability to compromise vision with scalability, to compromise innovation with playability, to compromise niche appeal with marketability.

"You admire this man, this William Wallace. Uncompromising men are easy to admire. He has courage; so does a dog. But it is exactly the ability to *compromise* that makes a man noble."

You might recall that this quote, in context, is being spoken by a villian, evil scum willing to sell out his own countrymen for 30 pieces of silver, and that the entire theme of the movie is that being uncompromising is a virtue.

I'm with Wallace: being too willing to compromise your principles is the easiest and fastest way to selling out and achieve mediocrity. Compromise may lead to marketability, but it will never lead to greatness.

Conceding defeat without even showing up to fight is the surest way to lose. Even the lowliest scrub SC1 player knows that you only GG when the game is actually lost, and not before.

How many people will be actively PLAYING starcraft 2? I guarantee you that the second will be greater then the first by magnitudes.

Only because of the echoes of SC1. Only because of the franchise. Not because of anything that SC2 itself did.

[newcomplex]

In one sentence, you say "we can give them whatever," and in another you speak of a specific melee weapon. Which is it?

...It doesn't matter? Melee weapon+Terran basic unit=Absurd. No chainsaws either, the game already has enough thematic issues in terms of similarity with WH40k lol.

You're confusing the part with the whole.

New units do not necessarily make it innovative. But keeping the old units will necessarily not make it innovative; it makes real innovation impossible.

The units themselves don't matter, I can make a collosus function like a siege tank for all that matters. Even if I completely reworked the gameplay, unless I go to the point where the Terran no longer has a ranged unit as its basic unit, or no longer has units, both which would be absurd, the Marine will suffice. Even if it is no longer functionally identical or close to marine, its still should be kept because this is Starcraft 2, and as long as the Marine is ranged, it'll be fine, we can give him whatever and explain it with "upgraded" tech.

Bobby Kotick logic does not apply here. I care nothing for the market issues or financing or who pays for game development or what games they pay for. I'm discussing game design.

They are not mutually exclusive. Being a good game designer is about working with limited resources and other constraints.

Also, Blizzard can make whatever the hell they want. They're flush with cash, and they don't have to follow what's popular or the market or whatever. Neither do companies like Valve, BioWare (who's sales are dwarfed by LCDs like MW2), etc.

No, blizzard "couldn't" make whatever they wanted. Even if we assume they are completely autonomous, which, to be fair, is pretty likely, Blizzard is not one guy lol. I don't know how many people their design team consists of. 15-20 people, each with their own "visions" don't make a cohesive game together. Working as part of a team is about compromise. Without getting into a discussion about morality, life is about compromising what you want with what society demands. If you don't want to compromise, go fund your own studio, go get your own investors, and go make your own game. Otherwise, compromising is as much part of the game development process as anything, which is one of the factors which impedes its status as art.

"You admire this man, this William Wallace. Uncompromising men are easy to admire. He has courage; so does a dog. But it is exactly the ability to *compromise* that makes a man noble."

You might recall that this quote, in context, is being spoken by a villian, evil scum willing to sell out his own countrymen for 30 pieces of silver, and that the entire theme of the movie is that being uncompromising is a virtue.

I'm with Wallace: being too willing to compromise your principles is the easiest and fastest way to selling out and achieve mediocrity. Compromise may lead to marketability, but it will never lead to greatness.

Conceding defeat without even showing up to fight is the surest way to lose. Even the lowliest scrub SC1 player knows that you only GG when the game is actually lost, and not before.

It isn't about compromising principals. Its about the fact that your vision simply does not correlate to good design. Its the reason why we PAY DEVELOPERS to sit in small desks and essentially, at the heart of it, brainstorm and analyze about games, something were doing for free.

Think of it this way. I assume your not extremely proficient at drawing right? If you are, pretend that you aren't. Now, when you think of something cool in your head, like a marine, when you visualize the marine doing something awesome, it certainly is fucking awesome right? SO COOL. Now, put that down on paper, trace the the mental image you have. You'll realize its utter shit. It looks bad. A similar concept applies. In your head, concepts work. In practice, whether in organization, cohesion, practicality, coherency, completeness, and more cynical aspects like peer review, design meetings, game pitches, QA, production deadlines and budgets, and ultimately, the PLAYERS MINDS,they do not.

Game design is about translating your vision into something that works in real life. I don't think any of us have a lack of ideas. But getting those ideas to work.

Only because of the echoes of SC1. Only because of the franchise. Not because of anything that SC2 itself did.

Really? If SC1 didn't exist, SC2 would be hailed as a ground breaker because we wouldn't have gotten vaguely balanced races since WC3, which had no macro. Its not like balanced micro/macro fast paced RTS been done to death, its only been done once, twelve years ago.


Quote wars have such a tendency to get off topic. Starcraft 2 is a sequel, and as a sequel, it should continue the trends of the predecessor. SC1 took a simple idea, and did it really well. SC1 is utterly devoid of complex mechanics, and its units are entirely unilateral or bilateral, with the exception of a few unused casters.

If what I described sounded like a shallow game, at a first glance, it is, but complexity is achieved through the ways these simple functions interact with one another. To facilitate diverse and entertaining play, the game requires the player to split attention between micro and macro, both being 100% essential, and both in large amounts, though slightly uneven, more even then any other game. Moreover, the gameplay is defined as very fast paced, and units are representations, not literal simulation. The dynamics of the games strategy center around 3 distinct, balanced races in which's respective tiers serve as Parrnell of each other, and interact with each other and the other races, creating a metagame.

The factors in play are map control and information control, economic expansion, technical expansion, or military expansion, none through overtly complicated mechanics, but through interactions of basic mechanics like for instance, "build a building by a mineral patch to expand"

Finally, the game also needs to take place in the Starcraft lore, or something vaguely resembling it. (As in no marines with melee weapons as their primary method of combat)

A LOT of those elements are missing from WC2, a game that is defined by less constraints, which is why WC3 was able to change so much. Micro oriented game is far more easier to add more features in then a "near balance between micro and macro".

But when you ask for innovation, its a fallacy, a naval battle game that plays similar to starcraft, while unique, isn't objectively more innovative then its current incarnation. Remember, innovating for innovations sake is stupid. Their is 20x more to game design then "thinking of mechanics nobodies ever though of before". It has to be cohesive towards the game.

If I would sum up the fundamentals of starcraft, without any specifics what so ever, these would be it. The resultant game can still be vastly different, I could construct a 2d space battle game with those mechanics. But to what end? I could make a new mineral system, but to what end? Innovation has to improve the game within these constraints, without breaking too many of them. Innovation for innovations sake, that makes a game worse, for no reason other then to innovate, is just the most terrible design you could do.

[Crazy_Jonny]

Again, Unreal Engine v 1.0. It game with UnrealEd, which included everything you needed to make terrain and even write UnrealScript.

Fair enough. I still believe the editor and map publishing feature will be innovative in terms of RTSs. Take it for what you will.

You're ignoring the difference between "similar" and "same". One of them requires direct equality: 2.0 == 2.0. The other does not. As similar as 2.1 and 2.0 may be, they are not the same. You can't replace Dragoons with Marines and expect the Protoss race to function or the game balance to work.

I'm aware of the differences between those units. My point was that each race has a unit that fills a similar purpose. What made SC different was the places some of these units were on the tech tree, how different the spell casters were, all the various counters. But that's not inventing anything (IMO), thats just expanding on something briefly touched upon, but not really polished in games prior.

And remember: innovation is all about context. WC3 didn't exist when SC1 came out, so how many different races it used doesn't change who did it first.

StarCraft didn't do the different races thing first. They expanded on it, with different lore, graphics, and tech placement. The basics are the same. Perhaps you can go as far as to say the zerg race is innovative for the larva mecanics, but thats about it.

I know you didn't just put HL2 in that list. Physics, much? Gravity Gun; that's new and innovative.

I like Half Life 2, so don't feel too insulted its on that list. I didn't really put too much thought into the games I mentioned, I was just giving an example of popular games that came out recently, off the top of my head, that are not too different from their predecessors.

Aside from the gravity gun, Half life 2 is similar to Half life 1 in every way. SCII has a completely revamped single player mode, new unit producing mechanics, physics, matchmaking, etc. Don't you think that can at least equate to the feature that is the gravity gun on an innovative level?

And no, MW2 and GTA4 are not considered some of the best game of this generation. MW2 will quickly be forgotten for MW3 or whatever. GTA 4 has already been forgotten.

By critics they are, and thats why they sell well. I'm not a big CoD fan myself, and I found GTA4 somewhat disappointing, but still satisfying.

HL2? Not so much. For all of MW2's political commentary or GTA 4's... whatever, HL2 will still be seen as a watershed, while those two are simply decent games.

Half Life 2 and StarCraft II I consider to be very similar games on different genres, and I like both. But what exactly makes Half Life 2 so innovative? Without the gravity gun, its almost the same game. Just like in SC2 if you take out Warp Gates, Nydus Network, and the new addon system, its the same. What made HL2 popular IMO was the awesome story telling, and mod capabilities with the Source Engine. Gee, thats a similar argument I made with SCII a page or two back. I consider both these games to innovate equally, and are both well polished games with lots of fan service.

New units do not necessarily make it innovative. But keeping the old units will necessarily not make it innovative; it makes real innovation impossible.

There's a difference between keeping characters and keeping units. The marines have shields now, zealots can charge, and zerglings morph into banelings. Alot of the returning units I've seen need to be used a little differently to be effective.

But enough about just units. When we're talking innovation, I assume you mean changing the game mechanics. Your talking about not SCII, gathering minerals and gas - but maybe something entirely different like DoWII.

Now to achieve the goals you stated:

What do I want? I want innovation on the level of 3 unique races. I want SC2 to be seen as a watershed moment in gaming history, on par with how SC1 is seen. When videogame historians write the definitive history of videogames, I want SC2 to be listed as a "must play" game for every game designer working in the RTS genre.

Why does the game need to innovate any more than it already has to make history? The 3 races ARE more different. Different resource gathering and units production methods. Different story modes. Different technology options. Its obvious the expansions are gonna have new units. Its been made clear the expansions will have unique single player experiences. How can they be more different?

If the best argument is 'not enough new units', I just can't see that justifying changing the familiar characters of SCI, unless YOU have an idea of what the game should be like. Otherwise, use a new IP for innovation. SCII shouldn't be the platform for completely changing game mechanics, because the way the game is, it's already perfect for competitive play and e-sports, which is SCII main objective according to the development team. It's meant to be the "ultimate competitive RTS". In my eyes, they've done that.

Only because of the echoes of SC1. Only because of the franchise. Not because of anything that SC2 itself did.

Then whats the point of sequels? Thats why they're here, right? To continue the fame of the original and those fans of the original will tell newcomers about it, and they become interested in the series. You make that sound like a bad thing.

I normally don't throw walls of text at people, but I'm dumbfounded as to why this occurs to you to speak of during beta phase? You've followed the game for a long time with us, and knew what you were getting. Seriously, I think you just got over hyped and am trying to figure out a reason SCII isn't up to your standards, and the worst you can find is, its not new enough. I wasn't expecting innovation, I was expecting a sequel. I got it, I'm happy. Apparently people expected more than that. Guess Blizzard fans are a tough crowd.

[Nicol Bolas]

...It doesn't matter? Melee weapon+Terran basic unit=Absurd. No chainsaws either, the game already has enough thematic issues in terms of similarity with WH40k lol.

1: I don't see the logic there. Why is it absurd for the basic Terran unit to be melee?

2: Again, you bring up specific weapons when, just two sentences before you say it doesn't matter.

They are not mutually exclusive. Being a good game designer is about working with limited resources and other constraints.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. Hence Blizzard, Valve, etc.

However, they can work at cross-purposes. And when they do oppose one another, one of them needs to win and the other needs to lose.

One of the things brought up in this review of Star Trek V is the issue of compromise. Shatner wanted to make a movie about finding God. The studio wanted a comedic romp like ST IV. The result of attempting to compromise these two things? Perhaps the worst Star Trek movie ever. Something has to be ascendant.

It's hard to argue the case that the market realities for SC2 required a lack of innovation. That you could not create a competitive game that retained much of the essential essence of SC1 play (fast speed, macro-focus with some micro possibilities, 3 unique races etc) while being innovative in terms of game design (a resourcing model and macro that is not actually busywork, etc). After all, this is Blizzard; they've got plenty of money to spend on this and almost complete autonomy. Not to mention a legion of fanbois that will buy whatever they make simply because it has their name on it.

The market realities that allow for experimentation really don't get better than that. The hardcore SC1 community could not possibly have gotten more up in arms than it got throughout the development of SC2. Furthermore, they're competitive gamers; they may grudgingly accept different mechanics and so forth, but they will accept them. And lastly, game reviewers are perfectly willing to low-ball a sequel for not being different enough; if the echoed refrain from reviewers is "StarCraft in 3D", that's going to turn off a lot of the lay person.

Now, when you think of something cool in your head, like a marine, when you visualize the marine doing something awesome, it certainly is fucking awesome right? SO COOL. Now, put that down on paper, trace the the mental image you have. You'll realize its utter shit. It looks bad. A similar concept applies.

Before this can continue, we must analyze why the drawing that I put down on paper is "utter shit."

It's because I can't draw. It isn't because what I have in my mind is bad. It's because I lack the ability to properly take the image in my brain and transcribe it to paper. It's like having a broken printer trying to print out a great work of literature. It's still a great work of literature even if the printer prints out garbage. You simply need a printer that works.

Now that we understand the analogy you're actually making (likely unlike the one you intended to make), let us continue:

In your head, concepts work. In practice, whether in organization, cohesion, practicality, coherency, completeness, and more cynical aspects like peer review, design meetings, game pitches, QA, production deadlines and budgets, and ultimately, the PLAYERS MINDS,they do not.

If any of these things are allowed to affect the vision for the project, then they are not good game designers. Just like I'm not a good artist because I allow my lack of experience and skill at drawing get between the idea in my head and what gets put on paper.

You have to be willing to accept when an idea simply isn't working. But that is a problem of concept, not execution. The purpose of the process of design is ultimately to filter out the ideas that don't work and make sure that all of the ideas that do work are built into a single, cohesive whole.

Innovative ideas that do not work for the game in question are bad ideas. However, you should not assume that innovative ideas are themselves bad, or bad for the game in question. That path leads to idolatry (copying the past because it worked then) and intellectual sloth.

Aside from the gravity gun, Half life 2 is similar to Half life 1 in every way.

Aside from the gravity gun. And the storyline. And the setting (ie: large and vast areas, not cooped up in a single building). And half the characters. And the physics-based gameplay. And the section of the game when you control Antlions.

So really, they're similar in that they star the same "character" and are FPS's.

By critics they are, and thats why they sell well.

No it isn't; critics don't sell game. Or else Psychonauts and every other highly acclaimed but poor selling game would have sold more than MW2.

Then whats the point of sequels? Thats why they're here, right? To continue the fame of the original and those fans of the original will tell newcomers about it, and they become interested in the series.

If that's all a sequel is to you, then all sequels are just a marketing stunt designed to unfairly separate you from your money. A way of re-routing around your normal cynicism at seeing something new by cloaking it in something you're familiar with.

You've followed the game for a long time with us, and knew what you were getting. Seriously, I think you just got over hyped and am trying to figure out a reason SCII isn't up to your standards, and the worst you can find is, its not new enough.

You misunderstand. I knew what SC2 was from the very first video, when they showed a similar tech tree with similar units. And yes, I accepted it.

What I refuse to accept is the asinine notion that this is somehow correct or that SC2 is somehow better for it. That intellectual sloth is a good thing and even an attempt to innovate is wrong.

[Crazy_Jonny]

Aside from the gravity gun. And the storyline. And the setting (ie: large and vast areas, not cooped up in a single building). And half the characters. And the physics-based gameplay. And the section of the game when you control Antlions.

The physics in Halflife 2 were impressive, yes, but I wouldn't really call it revolutionary. The rest you talked about isn't really gameplay related, more graphics related. I love that you could see facial expressions, and that the AI was improved too. But again, those are improvements, not innovations.

If StarCraft II's story sucks Ill get back to you on that. Using the story elements as a pro for HL2 and not SC2 isn't fair.

No it isn't; critics don't sell game. Or else Psychonauts and every other highly acclaimed but poor selling game would have sold more than MW2.

I honestly can't argue with that. I guess a little dumb luck helps. The game market is a little hard to predict.

If that's all a sequel is to you, then all sequels are just a marketing stunt designed to unfairly separate you from your money. A way of re-routing around your normal cynicism at seeing something new by cloaking it in something you're familiar with.

You misunderstand. I knew what SC2 was from the very first video, when they showed a similar tech tree with similar units. And yes, I accepted it.

What I refuse to accept is the asinine notion that this is somehow correct or that SC2 is somehow better for it. That intellectual sloth is a good thing and even an attempt to innovate is wrong.

I'm sorry if I sounded a little bitter before about the sequel thing. I made it sound like I was lowering my expectations, and thats not how I want you to look at it. Innovation doesn't always mean a better game. Sometimes it could actually ruin a game, if they try something that hasn't been done, people could get afraid and end up hating it. Innovation has high risk and high reward. They didn't want to take that chance with SCII, seeing how SCI already carried the responsibility of being the platform for competitive play. That's why I respect the direction the game has taken.

Now could the game stay competitive and balanced while innovating, probably. But I guarantee it would take a lot longer to balance out, and I don't think I want to think about Blizzard going back to the drawing board at this point and re-gutting the core elements of the game just to be innovative. This is also why I think WCIII got patched so much, because its gameplay was very different to other RTSs, and as the first of its kind, it was harder to balance.

StarCraft III, who knows? But at this point, I'm just looking forward to this game. So the idea of someone talking about how this game isn't innovative enough is a little maddening, to me. But by all means, if someone has an awesome idea to post around here for SCII, that would make the opposing argument more convincing. Your argument is that it should innovate for the sake of innovating, and I think thats the wrong way to look at it.

[newcomplex]

1: I don't see the logic there. Why is it absurd for the basic Terran unit to be melee?

2: Again, you bring up specific weapons when, just two sentences before you say it doesn't matter.

....It is absurd for the basic terran unit to be melee because it is completely inconsistent with how terran is portrayed in SC1, and how their technology is portrayed.

I mention specifics because their is not a single melee weapon conceivable that you could give to a marine, and would not be utter absurdity. Look, if you want to argue that marines would make any sense with a melee weapon, give me an example. Their are none.

More to the point, what are you even argueing? Again, are you arguing that marines should have melee weapons? That giving terran marines melee weapons would be in any way shape or form help make starcraft more innovative?

No, they are not mutually exclusive. Hence Blizzard, Valve, etc.

However, they can work at cross-purposes. And when they do oppose one another, one of them needs to win and the other needs to lose.

One of the things brought up in this review of Star Trek V is the issue of compromise. Shatner wanted to make a movie about finding God. The studio wanted a comedic romp like ST IV. The result of attempting to compromise these two things? Perhaps the worst Star Trek movie ever. Something has to be ascendant.

And as a counter point, I'm going to bring up every single game made by a major studio created in the past ten years that didn't suck as why compromise is necessary, and produces good games. This isn't about selling out, this isn't a cynical viewpoint. This is about sitting down at a desk and realizing how the idea in your head isn't scaleable, or isn't workable, or having a chat with a fellow designer just as enthusiastic about the game and him saying "this sucks".

Pretend for a second, that you were on the same design team as me. You thought that Starcraft 2 needed to be a real time first person action RTS hybrid craziness that was TEH MOST INNOVATIVE GAME EVA. You got macro mechanics by playing an SCV and playing a mining minigame like in mass effect while micromanaging armies. You could equip your marines with items you got from researching xel naga artifacts which you can socket with runes. And I said thats bullshit (is it not? lol). Believe it or not, you can't expect everyone to share your views, and your views aren't always going to be whats best for the game, not just as a franchise, but as a creative product.

Are you going to quit your job and go independent? We have to come upon a mutual consensus after all. Are you going to remain stubborn, unwilling to move, while the rest of the team lacks cohesive design direction because your stubborn ling in love with your own idea? Or are you going to compromise, and maybe remove the SCV mining minigame in favor of an energy bar in which you can decide every 30 seconds for intel on the enemy or some fast minerals.

Or during playtesting, all the testers couldn't figure out how to combine the Almonu artifact onto the Plk-32 gause pistols, but you don't want to baby your players with Tutorials, this isn't WoW dammit, this is a hardcore RTS. What are you going to do?

Your idea of game development is absurdly Naive.

It's hard to argue the case that the market realities for SC2 required a lack of innovation. That you could not create a competitive game that retained much of the essential essence of SC1 play (fast speed, macro-focus with some micro possibilities, 3 unique races etc) while being innovative in terms of game design (a resourcing model and macro that is not actually busywork, etc). After all, this is Blizzard; they've got plenty of money to spend on this and almost complete autonomy. Not to mention a legion of fanbois that will buy whatever they make simply because it has their name on it.

I'm not arguing that the market realities for Starcraft prevented innovation. I'm not even argueing its the market realities that always prevents innovation, I'd say thats the LAST cause that prevents innovation. I'm arguing that the design of Starcraft itself is not conducive to innovation.

Just because market realities is among the factors against innovation doesn't mean that its the ONLY reason,

Starcraft is designed towards occams razor. The simplest solution to fulfill a role should be the one that is implemented. Their are no complex roles. I could sum up almost every single units role in a sentence, while I could not sum up the exact role of a footman because WC3, by comparison, features complex roles.

In this case, the worker model is fine. You already have a the most optimal solution for what you want to do. Why on earth would you change it other then "change for changes sake"". Look

The market realities that allow for experimentation really don't get better than that. The hardcore SC1 community could not possibly have gotten more up in arms than it got throughout the development of SC2. Furthermore, they're competitive gamers; they may grudgingly accept different mechanics and so forth, but they will accept them. And lastly, game reviewers are perfectly willing to low-ball a sequel for not being different enough; if the echoed refrain from reviewers is "StarCraft in 3D", that's going to turn off a lot of the lay person.

Explain to me the gameplay differences between twelve years of advancement in the FPS genre from half life and CS, and the difference between SC1 and SC2.

...

I think I could get more from SC1->SC2.

If any of these things are allowed to affect the vision for the project, then they are not good game designers. Just like I'm not a good artist because I allow my lack of experience and skill at drawing get between the idea in my head and what gets put on paper.

You have to be willing to accept when an idea simply isn't working. But that is a problem of concept, not execution. The purpose of the process of design is ultimately to filter out the ideas that don't work and make sure that all of the ideas that do work are built into a single, cohesive whole.

Innovative ideas that do not work for the game in question are bad ideas. However, you should not assume that innovative ideas are themselves bad, or bad for the game in question. That path leads to idolatry (copying the past because it worked then) and intellectual sloth.

Innovation is something thats good only when you use it in a way to direct gameplay(or something else relevant) towards a more meaningful level. Innovating just to be innovative is the most stupid thing you can do, it means your design isn't solid enough to be of merit without entirely pointless innovations. Explain to me what exactly needs innovation in SC2 given the goals for SC2 previously layed out. And before you say macro mechanics, please, don't, beause macro mechanics themselves are relatively innovative. Name one game which used active spells for resource and defensive role management, which incorporates strategic choice into the equation (well, the queen needs more choice).

No it isn't; critics don't sell game. Or else Psychonauts and every other highly acclaimed but poor selling game would have sold more than MW2.

Why is everything you say so polarized? Critics do sell games, they are just not the only factor, unless you mean to say the hundreds of mainstream game reviewing sites, which review every single game and gets hundreds of thousands of readers a day, several million over a month, does not make an influence at all on the sales of the game? They may not be the leading factor, word of mouth is, but that doesn't mean they aren't a considerable factor. Unless you mean that game reviews serve no purpose other then entertainment value, and I don't mean for you, for the masses.

If that's all a sequel is to you, then all sequels are just a marketing stunt designed to unfairly separate you from your money. A way of re-routing around your normal cynicism at seeing something new by cloaking it in something you're familiar with.

A marketing stunt? Under that logic, everythings just a marketing stun to seperate me from my money. I want a starcraft 2. Blizzard gave me a starcraft 2. Not only that, but I get the impression that their working hard to give me the SC2 I wanted, and except for the games lag (which, if anything, would be the best application for innovative design right now), and balancing issues, the core mechanics of the game are really where I want it to be. In fact, while originally dismayed by the lack of Chat channels, their new system, "group chats", actually sound more appealing. (and is zomg innovative). Has it ever occurred to you that I want a starcraft 2 that at least vaguely resembles the original starcraft 1? At the very least, I expect my marines not to be melee units.

You misunderstand. I knew what SC2 was from the very first video, when they showed a similar tech tree with similar units. And yes, I accepted it.

What I refuse to accept is the asinine notion that this is somehow correct or that SC2 is somehow better for it. That intellectual sloth is a good thing and even an attempt to innovate is wrong.

ohs? Attempt to innovate WHAT? Completely scrap buildings, resources, and gun wield marines just so your game is unique? To what purpose does this innovation serve.

That isn't even INNOVATION.

Innovation is a unique way to (better) solve a problem. WHAT PROBLEMS ARE YOU SOLVING?.

What is even more problematic and utterly absurd is how you simultaneously view SC2 should strive to remain identical to the core dynamics as the original game, while at the same time, innovate as much as they possible can? Now, I don't mean "improve" the core system with innovation, but completely tear it down so you can redo it in a "innovative" manner? That is the most utterly pointless use of innovation. Your using innovation to create problems to things you've already solved? What?

So if the building macro system was really good in starcraft 1, rather then make it better with small touchups like warp gates or submersible supply depots or cool stuff like the new reactor/tech lab system (btw name another RTS that lets you do anything resembling those, bonus points if you can do it), which is how "innovation" is suppose to work, using unique mechanics or processes to solve or improve a situation. It is has to be conducive to some awesome underlying goal, or vision. If your suggesting such drastic innovations, you need to understand that that means one out of two things. That

A)The current system just isn't working. We have a problem, its big, and we feel that their our either no solutions we know to fix it, or that the solutions in place simply are not optimal, and were losing our original vision
(an apotheosis of the game that can exist only in our minds).

LETS BRAINSTORM DUNNUHUNUHUHN...and after numerous iterations of suggestions by different designers, all innovative, and compromise between them, they get something that has produced someone that is hopefully both innovative, and actually solves the problem.

b)That the current design philosophies are wrong. No, we don't want a competitive RTS et etc etc we want a action adventure hybrid RPGRTS in which you can pilot SCVs on top of command centers to build auto turrets while you play space invaders to defend a battle cruiser against wraiths (YUS MICRO) and sell the valuable xel naga artifacts they drop on the Protoss Bazaar (auction house). And obviously, in order to achieve this vision, we need a lot of innovation, like the motion tracking vitality sense which measures room temperature.

I'm pretty sure its neither.


Starcraft 2 isn't even that derivative. RTS has never really revisited blizzards format, and some of the mechanics, at face value, feel completely different then modern RTS, such as simplistic abilities with greater depth and a richer macro game.

[newcomplex]

--------------------------
Ultimate TL;DR of Truth and Justice:
--------------------------





-Innovation is not a merit in its own right, but rather, a positive effect born out of necessity. This is because innovation, in order to be meaningful, is either a)Solves a specific problem or b)Used to fulfill a certain design vision.

exampleA: X isn't working. We tried Y and Z, but they don't really fit our needs, it change/disrupts our game too much. It isn't good. We need to fix this with a unique solution. = Innovation.

exampleB: We're want to do X. But I can't do X with Y and Z. We're going to take a unique approach. = Innovation.

-As a result, one should never innovate just to innovate. If their isn't a problem, and their isn't a lack of solution, please, don't create a problem just so you can make your own solution. Its not good. If your game isn't good unless you purposely create problems to allow for innovation, just redesign your concept. Your free to not take the traditional approach, this isn't at all what I'm saying, if you feel like that taking the traditional approach would hurt your games vision (see exampleB). Innovation isn't good if its for its own sake.

For instance, making the player move in a FPS with his mouse and Aim with his keyboard, while never before done, and technically innovative, unless the name of your game is "Arctic Invasion of Russia while under the influence of Marijuana", (which may have other problems...), please, refrain.


-Back to Starcraft. It comes down to what you want the sequel to be. And what you want the sequel to be should be within reason of the original. At the very least, most can agree that it needs to remain in the same genre. In addition, terran marines don't get vibroblades replacing gauss rifles ok? ok. But seriously, in the case of starcraft 2, if you want starcraft 2 to:

SC1 took a simple idea, and did it really well. SC1 is utterly devoid of complex mechanics, and its units are entirely unilateral or bilateral, with the exception of a few unused casters.

If what I described sounded like a shallow game, at a first glance, it is, but complexity is achieved through the ways these simple functions interact with one another. To facilitate diverse and entertaining play, the game requires the player to split attention between micro and macro, both being 100% essential, and both in large amounts, though slightly uneven, more even then any other game. Moreover, the gameplay is defined as very fast paced, and units are representations, not literal simulation. The dynamics of the games strategy center around 3 distinct, balanced races in which's respective tiers serve as Parrnell of each other, and interact with each other and the other races, creating a metagame.

The factors in play are map control and information control, economic expansion, technical expansion, or military expansion, none through overtly complicated mechanics, but through interactions of basic mechanics like for instance, "build a building by a mineral patch to expand"

Finally, the game also needs to take place in the Starcraft lore,

(and, since I forgot to mention, an utterly engaging, relatively well written and uniquely told single player experience with fun missions, and a map editor that kept multiplayer alive for those who didn't like ladder)



If you do (Nicol Bolas, cough), then innovation is certainly needed. In small amounts. To you know, fix the problems that do not betray a generic solution. A warpgate here, a Mule their. Lets take out the units where we feel like they inhibit the dynamic of gameplay, are restricted in use, are uninteresting, or are just plain stupid, and of course, improve our original cast of units so they fulfill their roles better. Hey, lets move hydras to T2 and make them less of a staple unit, but keep their oomph and power. And don't forget, we got 30 missions per race now, with customizable units that stay with you through the game, a point and click interface in which you control a 3rd person character between missions and explore the game world and move the story, talk to people and click things to get funny quips or lore insights, and some smexy trademark blizzard cinematic in glorious HD as sprinkes or icing (but far from the core of the experience, for you QTE hatas)

If you don't. Well. You're in for some disappointment. Though it begs the question why did you like SC1 if the core philosophies themselves repulse you so much. Perhaps you should go play come C&C 4 if you like innovation, they got rid of bases.

That was a joke.

(And on that note, let C&C4 and Halo wars serve as a testament to why misguided innovation can suck monkey balls.)

Actually, seriously, play some Solium Infernum instead of SC2. God that games so fun. <3 their using of their limited development resources to illustrate beautifully imagined virtual cards instead of the classic indie low rez graphics. http://www.crypticcomet.com/games/SI..._Infernum.html. It is TBS though.

[Shadow Archon]

1: I don't see the logic there. Why is it absurd for the basic Terran unit to be melee?

Terrans do not have a method to make melee weapons actually useful and have them be used in a competent manner on the battlefield, unlike the Protoss and the Zerg. Any Terran melee fighter will die cruelly by the hands of a Protoss Zealot and by Zerg soldiers. Not only would they be forsaking a history back on earth where ranged weapons have the advantage over melee weapons, they would also be stating that they are incompetent in military, which we already have examples of. Doing this would be such a lore fuck-up. Not only that, they would be giving up clear advantages on the battlefield, such as shooting from a cliff or bunker.

[newcomplex]

Terrans do not have a method to make melee weapons actually useful and have them be used in a competent manner on the battlefield, unlike the Protoss and the Zerg. Any Terran melee fighter will die cruelly by the hands of a Protoss Zealot and by Zerg soldiers. Not only would they be forsaking a history back on earth where ranged weapons have the advantage over melee weapons, they would also be stating that they are incompetent in military, which we already have examples of. Doing this would be such a lore fuck-up. Not only that, they would be giving up clear advantages on the battlefield, such as shooting from a cliff or bunker.

I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the surrealism of arguing for melee weapons on marines :/...its so absurd in so many angles...does not compute.