What happened to the innovation?

[pure.Wasted]

I'm curious as to what parts of my opinion you disagree with. I'm not trying to convince you in any way, but am rather curious to your view regarding the matter as it sounds like you disagree with me.

The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion:

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.

Emphasis mine. The design decision certainly "makes sense," but I can't help feeling disappointed. When I play the game, I love it. When I take a step back, I'm immediately wondering what the game could have been like if the designers hadn't been so scared of experimentation.

There is one important caveat that could render my argument moot. If it turns out that SC2 becomes a world-wide e-Sport that easily eclipses what SC1 has managed so far... I'll consider the designers' conservative tactics to have paid off. I'll still wonder "what if?" but, there's a certain bit of sense in their decisions as far as e-Sports are concerned. SC1 has done incredibly well... the single biggest obstacle in its expansion further is its poor, dated presentation. If with SC2 they manage to spark interest in the pro-graming scene across North America and Europe, I may be forced to change my tune. It won't change my opinion of the game itself, but I'll consider the lack of innovation a justifiable sacrifice in the name of getting e-Sports out there.

But until then, and until I get my hands on the single-player, all I have is SC1 that looks better, sounds (music, yes; voices, rarely) better, and doesn't feel out-of-date in 2010. It turns out that's not really enough.

[Dale]

(Random note: While I am VERY satisfied with SC2, I still have to agree that the innovation in the multiplayer aspect is not present like other aspects of the product. Consider diablo -> Diablo 2, Warcraft 1 -> Warcraft 2 -> Warcraft 3, you will see significant innovative changes between them. This isn't present in SC2 the multiplayer expirience in quite the same fashion, but the final product will shine it's innnovation in other ways, especially battle.net. That's my prediction...

I'm curious why you didn't include Diablo 3?
That game is making huge innovative leaps.
Some of which includes (but is not limited to):

1. Different gameplay mechanics for each class:
(Witchdoctor = Mana; Barbarian = Fury; Wizard = Instability)
2. Health/Mana Orbs instead of Potions.
3. Runes which change the nature of character ability.
4. Tabbed inventory.
5. The addition of rainbows and unicorns.

If you ask me, the reason Blizzard isn't innovating as much
with the Starcraft formula can be summed up as follows:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

That's not to say that Starcraft 1 was perfect.
But most of it's mistakes were in single player.

[pure.Wasted]

I'm curious why you didn't include Diablo 3?
That game is making huge innovative leaps.

Remember, when we say "innovation" we're talking about an industry-wide interpretation. We're not comparing Diablo 3 with Diablo 2, we're comparing it with every single RPG that came before. In that sense, very little of what we've seen so far is in any way innovative, as opposed to improvement.

1. Different gameplay mechanics for each class:
(Witchdoctor = Mana; Barbarian = Fury; Wizard = Instability)

World of WarCraft already has mana/energy/fury/runes. (I'm positive it wasn't the first, but it's the most relevant example I can think of)

2. Health/Mana Orbs instead of Potions.

Falls squarely in the category of 'improvement.' All it does is speed up the gameplay. It's not going to make people say, "Wow, RPGs will never be the same."

3. Runes which change the nature of character ability.

World of WarCraft has this.

4. Tabbed inventory.

Improvement, although I wouldn't be surprised if it's already been done somewhere, either.

If you ask me, the reason Blizzard isn't innovating as much
with the Starcraft formula can be summed up as follows:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

That's not to say that Starcraft 1 was perfect.
But most of it's mistakes were in single player.

WarCraft 2 wasn't 'broken,' and yet both StarCraft and WarCraft 3 are unquestionably superior games. Imagine if SC had decided to not fix what wasn't broken, and the Zerg could build every building off creep, their starting unit was a 40 HP Hydralisk, and the Archon and Lurker had circular AoE siege attacks in alternate forms, which required a separate upgrade to use.

Would you really have liked StarCraft just as much?

[Triceron]

Diablo3 isn't stable yet, and a lot of their ideas are untested and unplayed. While one can consider multiple methods of playstyles to be innovative, we have no clue how this all plays out as an actual game and whether this retains the same fun factor the previous two games captured.

I think one thing people should take close note of is Warcraft 3. While this is not a direct sequel to Starcraft, nor does it ask to be, it is still a proven example of what Blizzard can do when they innovate in an RTS. They added the fourth race, they added heroes, they changed the game completely and still kept the balance and core RTS mechanics that made the Warcraft series fun. SC2 tries to capture as much of the SC1 style of play as possible as not to alienate players as Warcraft 3 did in the competitive scene, which is perfectly acceptable.

So where has all the innovation gone? Singleplayer. I think we will be pleasantly surprised when we play the campaign and see how fresh the gameplay can be despite not having all the same options in multiplayer.

[Crazy_Jonny]

Diablo3 isn't stable yet, and a lot of their ideas are untested and unplayed. While one can consider multiple methods of playstyles to be innovative, we have no clue how this all plays out as an actual game and whether this retains the same fun factor the previous two games captured.

I think one thing people should take close note of is Warcraft 3. While this is not a direct sequel to Starcraft, nor does it ask to be, it is still a proven example of what Blizzard can do when they innovate in an RTS. They added the fourth race, they added heroes, they changed the game completely and still kept the balance and core RTS mechanics that made the Warcraft series fun. SC2 tries to capture as much of the SC1 style of play as possible as not to alienate players as Warcraft 3 did in the competitive scene, which is perfectly acceptable.

So where has all the innovation gone? Singleplayer. I think we will be pleasantly surprised when we play the campaign and see how fresh the gameplay can be despite not having all the same options in multiplayer.

Thank you, my thoughts exactly.

[Shadow Archon]

Starcraft II's main focus for innovating ideas seems to be geared for Single Player and the Galaxy Editor. I'm sure that it will change the way campaigns are done for RTS games, but we can't know that until it comes out.

So where has all the innovation gone? Singleplayer. I think we will be pleasantly surprised when we play the campaign and see how fresh the game play can be despite not having all the same options in multiplayer.

Ninjaed again........

[Crazy_Jonny]

Ninjaed again........

I have actually been saying that for a while too. What I like is how Triceron used WC3 as an example of the pros and cons of innovation, and why SC2 took its own route.

Unfortunately, I think some people just don't see the single player innovation as enough, which is a shame since thats where the innovation is in a lot of new games now. If I am disappointed by the single player then you'll be hearing from me, but right now it looks great.

[pure.Wasted]

For the record, I'm absolutely thrilled about all the genuine innovations in the StarCraft SP campaign, as well as the vast array of improvements they're making. However, I'm not sure that innovations in one aspect of the game will make up for a predictable experience in the other.

That said, I think Blizz haven't been presenting their game as well as they could be during the Beta. We've already glimpsed in the Single-Player non-random terrain-modification effects that will unquestionably make their way into ladder map design... such as rising lava every X interval of time. If a single Beta map had already taken advantage of that mechanic, that would have gone a long way toward making SC2 feel more fresh.

[Crazy_Jonny]

For the record, I'm absolutely thrilled about all the genuine innovations in the StarCraft SP campaign, as well as the vast array of improvements they're making. However, I'm not sure that innovations in one aspect of the game will make up for a predictable experience in the other.

That said, I think Blizz haven't been presenting their game as well as they could be during the Beta. We've already glimpsed in the Single-Player non-random terrain-modification effects that will unquestionably make their way into ladder map design... such as rising lava every X interval of time. If a single Beta map had already taken advantage of that mechanic, that would have gone a long way toward making SC2 feel more fresh.

Rising lava in ladder maps is something I think needs to be in the next Q&A or something. I doubt they would let that in ladder matches, but its worth asking.

[pure.Wasted]

Rising lava in ladder maps is something I think needs to be in the next Q&A or something. I doubt they would let that in ladder matches, but its worth asking.

Oh, I also doubt that Blizzard would add this in a ladder match... but Blizzard won't be the only ones influencing the ladder selection. Users will be making maps, Koreans will be making maps... and the Koreans have ALWAYS been more creative with map design than Blizzard.

Compare Blue Storm to anything that came packaged with SC1... and that's with StarEdit's limited tools, at that. One way or another, a lava level will make its way into competitive play at some point.