What happened to the innovation?

[DemolitionSquid]

I think you're reading too much there, it didn't feel right AND there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit. That "and" is used because those are two different reasons.

I think that it wasn't feeling right when playing (by gameplay motives), otherwise wouldn't been scrapped so fast. Just like the soul hunter, that "was fun, but not fun enough".

Didn't we go over this? "Feel" and "working" are not synonyms. One implies an emotion, like nostalgia. The other implies a mechanical situation.

Its possible Browder did mean both were taken out because they "felt wrong," or because they both weren't "working." But that's not what he said, which is the only evidence anyone really has, and frankly it drifts in my favor.

[Aldrius]

I'm pretty sure they said the Tempest was removed due to the fact that it made the Protoss air force so rock-paper-scissors-y.

Tempest for light ground, Void Ray for big units, Phoenix for light air. I don't remember where I heard that, so it might not be true, but I remember reading that SOMEWHERE.

Oh well, I still like the Tempest anyway.

[sandwich_bird]

By this logic, the moment you achieve any real success, stop trying to improve. Just rehash everything ad-nausium until you bleed the community dry and they get bored and move on to something else.

That's Bobby Kotick logic; the logic of a soul-less vampire hoping to get something that works so that he can quickly drain it dry of anything approaching quality and run it into the ground. Not game designer logic. You never know if you can do something better unless you try. If more game designers thought like that, we'd still be playing Pac-Man, and StarCraft 1 would never have come about.

Enough of that Kotick; this is not what either of us we're talking about. There's an extremely large difference in quality between improving a title a little bit to release a new game every year and to actually take 4 years to improve and polish a working formula. Guitar Hero 2 vs Starcraft 2; do you see the difference?

Also, referring to the time period between pac-man and Starcraft to project how the industry should work today is ridiculous. The industry was completely new at that time. There was tons of ways to innovate.

Victory "by default" isn't exactly something to stand up and cheer for. If you're the only guy on the track, winning doesn't mean much.

It is in the business world. In fact, you don't really want anyone else running with you.

[Lupino]

Shit, 11 pages? That's a first. I'll try to get as many as I can.

I reject this notion that somehow innovation negatively affects the pros nor do I believe that blizzard is avoiding changes because of this. Professional players are just as capable as adapting as anyone else. Innovation can only breath more live into competitive gaming by making the game even more interesting to watch. This idea that the pro's can screw up everything by refusing to adapt is just silly. They're going to play what people want to watch, period. If the public decides they enjoy watching StarCraft II more then that's what they'll play.

Blizzard has said it themselves that they are designing the game in part to meet the demands of the eSport community, and similarly we all remember the crying, especially coming from the "pro" community, about how MBS and automine would result in the game playing itself I agree that true professionals wouldn't whine about how their memorized build orders aren't going to work anymore, and instead spend their time learning new skills to become better, but to think they have not had an impact on how the game is built is denialism.

This innovation argument is just plain silly, especially when used in conjunction with the pulled out of thin air statistic of being at the expense of "everyone else."

It's very simple. Count how many Starcraft games were sold. Now count how many of those people who bought it actually take part in the competitive scene.

Here's a hint: It isn't 9.5 million.

The competitive player base has always been much smaller than the rest of the community; you don't see a million players out there trying to become the next Jaedong in their spare time. So when you do cater to the minority, you are by definition going to leave the rest of the population out to dry.



Gifted, I agree with you that other aspects of SC2 are innovative in comparison to multiplayer, but then my argument was directed at that difference in the first place. I also agree that simply doing something new, for the sake of newness, is not the way to go. By the same token, sticking to tradition just for the sake of tradition is equally bad. At some point stagnation really does set it, which is a big problem that other franchises have to deal with as well. There's a reason people make jokes about, for example, movie sequels being inferior to the original because all the creators did was try and copy-paste what they did before. The Empire Strikes Back was one of, if not the, best of the Star Wars movies not because it copied exactly what the first one did, but because it was different (OMG, the bad guys won?!).

Since so many people found it agreeable, let's return to terrain. As before, despite the added doodads, these maps are the same as ones we saw in the first game (and the doodads themselves are easy enough to copy as well). It's utterly predictable, and leads to predictable gameplay.

Instead of the same boring cliffs and ramps model, why not some real, honest-to-god three dimensional terrain? Hills, valleys, rolling plains, and a physics engine which supports smart use of it? If you get on top of a hill with your rifle, you have the advantage of being able to see and shoot farther, at the expense of exposing yourself to everyone else.

Instead of the same boring flat terrain model, why not difficult terrain? If you're driving on a smooth, paved surface, you can go faster than if you're driving across a rocky expanse. If there's a swamp you're trying to cross, it'll be easier if your unit hovers than if it has to slog its way through. We've seen part of this implemented for the Zerg regarding Creep, so just take the idea to its conclusion.

Instead of the same boring unalterable terrain, why not destructible terrain? Want to stop someone from crossing a bridge? Blow it up. Of course, you might need it later. And if you're not careful, your enemy could repair it and hit you from what you thought was a "secure" flank.

Any one of these ideas could be implemented to make the multiplayer experience more engaging, exciting, and thought-provoking to play, even if you still kept the grindfest "press button every 25 seconds" mechanics. The only reason we don't have something as cool as the visual of a Thor stomping through a forest, knocking aside trees and setting the bush on fire from his weapons, are the same reasons outlined earlier. Which is a shame, because unless you try to make something better, you never will, which even if you fail is still better than staying comfortably in a rut forever.

[Iceman_jkh]

This thread made me laugh. I cbf reading the last 5 pages, as its all the same stuff over and over. Interesting how when I said the EXACT same thing as being expressed in this thread, (IE: SC2 = SC1. There's zero innovation!) a day earlier, all I got was "you're having a cry". Perhaps its because I said that I wouldnt not spend money on the game in its current form.

Fanboys cant see space for the stars/forest for the trees?

[SlickR]

This thread made me laugh. I cbf reading the last 5 pages, as its all the same stuff over and over. Interesting how when I said the EXACT same thing as being expressed in this thread, (IE: SC2 = SC1. There's zero innovation!) a day earlier, all I got was "you're having a cry". Perhaps its because I said that I wouldnt not spend money on the game in its current form.

Fanboys cant see space for the stars/forest for the trees?

You are making too much out of yourself. No one cares if you buy the game or not, not even Blizzard.

SC2=SC1 with new and improved units, new and/or improved features, new mechanics, new strategies, new sounds, new music. - This is multiplayer.
The most innovative stuff will be in the single player campaign, and no matter how much "innovation" cries are made the multiplayer is as it is and I personally think its innovative enough and old school enough to attract people from all spectrum's.

If you want something really unique that's not been done, good luck finding it and msg me 10-20 years from now when you find it.

[Nicol Bolas]

What does innovation in RTS mean to you? Does it mean for every RTS game to have RPG elements? Does it mean every RTS game to have full map zoom-out feature?

Do you actually want an answer to that question, or do you just want to keep putting words into peoples mouths?

Adding RPG elements to an RTS was innovative. So was having 3 distinct races. So was having full map zoom-out.

The fact that these were innovative does not mean that every RTS game should have them.

If all of a sudden, the marine, siege tank, zealots, zerglings, ultralisks were gone, with all of the other new units that are currently in SC2, it just won't be Starcraft anymore.

What does your definition of StarCraft require? Why is taking out Lurkers OK, but not Zerglings? Why is removing Devourers fine, but not Ultralisks? Why is removing Vultures acceptible, but not Siege Tanks?

Idolatry doesn't get you anywhere.

Race specific features like [...] are all new and interesting features.

But none of them are sufficiently different to rise to the level of real innovation. The standard bearer for innovation is 3 unique races. In 1998, that was utterly without precedent; the most you had were 2 sides with a couple of unique units. 3 races that share almost nothing between them was unprecedented.

Point to something in SC2 that is equally unprecedented.

Enough of that Kotick; this is not what either of us we're talking about. There's an extremely large difference in quality between improving a title a little bit to release a new game every year and to actually take 4 years to improve and polish a working formula. Guitar Hero 2 vs Starcraft 2; do you see the difference?

The only difference is timescale. Guitar Hero games come out multiple times a year. Starcraft games are less frequent.

But both show a complete unwillingness to do anything that isn't proven. Both show a lack of innovation and vision in their design. StarCraft may be milked much slower than Guitar Hero, but it's the same effect; it just takes longer.

The industry was completely new at that time. There was tons of ways to innovate.

Again, the intellectual sloth. There still are tons of ways to innovate.

It is in the business world. In fact, you don't really want anyone else running with you.

More Kotick logic. I care more about the art of videogame design than the business world.

On the topic of innovation that isn't good:

Instead of the same boring cliffs and ramps model, why not some real, honest-to-god three dimensional terrain? Hills, valleys, rolling plains, and a physics engine which supports smart use of it? If you get on top of a hill with your rifle, you have the advantage of being able to see and shoot farther, at the expense of exposing yourself to everyone else.

StarCraft is ultimately a digital game. Positioning may be more analog than Chess or Go, but questions of how far a unit can shoot and such are very clearly defined. A unit can shoot X distance, period.

Once you start to fuzzy up issues of how far units can shoot, it becomes difficult to assess the cost-benefit of using things that increase firing range. For example, take your hill. How much farther does the Marine shoot? How far up the hill does he have to go to get that bonus? Is it a static bonus, or is it a gradual gradient (the farther up the hill you go, the more bonus you get)? If you have two hills next to each other, and two units are on top of their hills, do you still get a range bonus to hit the other guy?

If you cannot effectively know what is going to happen in a given situation, you cannot effectively play the game. It's the reason why table-top RPGs with simpler rules are better than table-top RPGs with highly complex rules that try to take into account as much of reality as possible.

Abstraction makes for better competitive games. Many people like fuzzy games, where you're not quite sure how much of an improvement you're going to get out of action X. But that isn't good for competitive play. And if you're making a competitive game, you need to do what is good for competitive play.

Instead of the same boring flat terrain model, why not difficult terrain? If you're driving on a smooth, paved surface, you can go faster than if you're driving across a rocky expanse. If there's a swamp you're trying to cross, it'll be easier if your unit hovers than if it has to slog its way through. We've seen part of this implemented for the Zerg regarding Creep, so just take the idea to its conclusion.

What you have just said is the following:

1: Every unit has a locomotion mode.

2: There will be terrain features that improve or hinder movement based on locomotion modes.

This means that, for every movement-hindering terrain feature, there is a table that lists the various movement modes and how much it hinders/boost each one.

This is needless complexity. Even ignoring the fact that communicating information like this to the user is very difficult, what does this add?

Creep movement speed is interesting because you can create creep, and the enemy can attack your creep sources. This creates a dynamic, where the Zerg player wants to create Creep, while the opponent wants to destroy it.

Can you create swamps? Rough terrain? Can you pave terrain? Can you attack the thing paving the terrain to make it go away? Etc.

It also makes game balance very map dependent. With the right map, entire units become utterly useless, while others become very dangerous. If each race has different distributions of the various locomotion modes (some races may not even have access to certain modes), what would a map designer have to do to make a balanced map?

The only reason we don't have something as cool as the visual of a Thor stomping through a forest, knocking aside trees and setting the bush on fire from his weapons, are the same reasons outlined earlier.

No, it isn't. It's just a bad idea. Have you ever seen a forest from above? You can't see things in a forest. Like your own units. That's why terrain doesn't have forests on it.

[SlickR]

@bolas: What does your definition of StarCraft require? Why is taking out Lurkers OK, but not Zerglings? Why is removing Devourers fine, but not Ultralisks? Why is removing Vultures acceptible, but not Siege Tanks?

Idolatry doesn't get you anywhere.

I'm not saying its okay or not. I would be fine if battlecruisers and siege tanks were removed, but other two units from SC1 like the firebat stayed and got improved.
Obviosly there is also a priority on who to keep and who to remove.
You can't remove the marine and siege tank, because they are the most iconic units, same goes foe zealots and zerglings.

Maybe SC2 could remove them but than add such units as the firebat in or whatever...

[MattII]

There's nothing wrong with pulling Marine, Zealot or Zergling, but you 'do' have to come up with something to replace them with, and even if you do replace them, what you've got now will probably look a lot like 2.0 versions of the units you've pulled (at least for the Terran and Zerg, replacing the Zealot might actually give you something like a down-graded version of the SC:G Vindicator).

[Gifted]

Gifted I respectfully disagree with you that the macro mechanics arnt innovation because they are "just" abilities. Abilities are game mechanics just like watchtowers, creep speed, resources etc... are mechanics.

*nods* Indeed, while a person who is versed will know that they can be something that changes the fundementals of the game in terms of it's competitive nature, the overall public will merely mention it as each race having a race specific ability that helps further differentiates the race. Overall this is an improvement on an aspect that already existed. Recreating or defining a new aspect is what earns innovation from the industry.

Understand, I think this is a prime example of "personal innovation" (You think it's definately innovative) but not industry recognized innovation. (Critics won't praise them at the end of the day, these three abilities will not make it STAND OUT. Other aspects will.)

Gifted, I agree with you that other aspects of SC2 are innovative in comparison to multiplayer, but then my argument was directed at that difference in the first place. I also agree that simply doing something new, for the sake of newness, is not the way to go. By the same token, sticking to tradition just for the sake of tradition is equally bad. At some point stagnation really does set it, which is a big problem that other franchises have to deal with as well.

[...Additional information regarding Terran Innovation...]

While I agree with you completely about this, including the fact that stagnation can set in.. I believe that Blizzard completely hit the mark with innovation regarding the addictive league system and all the other aspects we won't see yet (Single-player, data editor, marketplace, etc)

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Multi-player, I think that a lack of innovation might not lead to stagnation due to the simple fact that this game is an anomaly in the industry. There is no other game that has garnered an eSport like this one. For that reason, development of it had to move forward with that in mind. Doing something drastic, like DoW1 -> DoW2, would have been devastating. From reading your point I suspect we're on the same page.

Regarding your ideas about innovative Terrains... I can agree that many of those ideas are innovative, and could still be added in expansions. ALSO, they could be added by means of the data editor into the Korean setups (which I suspect could happen like the original SC1) Why they aren't entered into this set of maps is up in the air, most likely to avoid confusion about distances. But ultimately, we'll see how it goes later on.