What happened to the innovation?

[Iceman_jkh]

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

Blizzard dont make games for free. I realise that 1 person's choice will not make any difference to their financial success, nor do I want them not to make money. It wasnt a threat, it was simply a statement of fact.

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.

That statement is completely false. Show me honestly how DIFFERENT this is from its predecessor..its not THAT different. 3D =/= innovation, retention of substantial number of SC1 units =/= innovation...should I keep going? Get over yourself. Unfortunately, the latest patches have even been reducing what little innovation/difference there is. (yes, I can admit that there are some good aspect to SC2.. just not enough!). Single player innovation is just STORY TELLING. Sure, thats imagination and I'm sure itll be a great story, but thats not innovation. I'm not commenting on Battle.net, etc., as thats auxillary to SC2 gameplay, and not what I was discussing from the beginning.

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.

Did you think about this before you wrote it?
SC2 development time ~ 12years. Therefore, by your comment, I'm in the perfect position to come to you and discuss INNOVATION. And what a suprise, here we are arguing about SC2 lack thereof.

[Shadow Archon]

That statement is completely false. Show me honestly how DIFFERENT this is from its predecessor..its not THAT different. 3D =/= innovation, retention of substantial number of SC1 units =/= innovation...should I keep going? Get over yourself. Unfortunately, the latest patches have even been reducing what little innovation/difference there is. (yes, I can admit that there are some good aspect to SC2.. just not enough!). Single player innovation is just STORY TELLING. Sure, thats imagination and I'm sure itll be a great story, but thats not innovation. I'm not commenting on Battle.net, etc., as thats auxillary to SC2 gameplay, and not what I was discussing from the beginning.

So Warp-in, Creep spread from Overlord and Creep-Tumors, movable defenses, bunker salvage, Lava Rise\Fall mechanic, Living Urban environment, High-yield minerals, finite gas, add-on versatility, MULE, Call down Supplies, Supply Depot submerge, Command Center five SCV capacity, Nydus Worm, Day\Night mechanic, Xel'naga towers, Single Player Tech Tree, Single Player Research, Cinematics for almost every mission, smart cast, shift commands and ect. are not innovative?

Something new; process of introducing something new

Because by this definition, all of these thing are innovative for Starcraft.

[TWD]

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.

Sure, but that's not what I said. I never asserted that the game isn't being influenced by competitive players. Simply that such influences don't need to mean that Blizzard will make the game less innovative. The simple fact that they're putting so much emphasis on the competitive game is extremely innovative in and of it's self. There seems to be this notion that what is fun for pro players won't be fun for everyone else, and Blizzard is the first developer to reject this notion in it's game design.
________
Avandia Heart Attack

[Nicol Bolas]

So [...] are not innovative?

Many games have had smart cast for years. And "shift commands" were in SC1. Cinematics for every mission is standard for RTS games. In short, a lot of the stuff you're talking about falls into the "new for SC2" camp, not "new for RTS games".

None of it rises to the level of 3 unique races.

Because by this definition, all of these thing are innovative for Starcraft.

By this definition, every single game is innovative, no matter how much of a retread it is.

There seems to be this notion that what is fun for pro players won't be fun for everyone else, and Blizzard is the first developer to reject this notion in it's game design.

I don't see the rejection of this notion in Spawn Larva. Sorry.

[Shadow Archon]

Many games have had smart cast for years.

Starcraft didn't.

And "shift commands" were in SC1.

Starcraft 1 didn't have as complicated shift commands.

Cinematics for every mission is standard for RTS games.

What RTS games have CG cinematics for every mission? Command and Conquer had actors giving you briefings, but they did not have unique cinematics for every level that involved story. The real actor briefings were innovative for C&C. Starcraft II will just have CG cinematics for every mission, mixing the Briefing and the old styled Starcraft cinematics into one. I'll note that I should have been more specific.

In short, a lot of the stuff you're talking about falls into the "new for SC2" camp, not "new for RTS games".

Yes, that is what I was arguing. That there is innovation from SC2 over SC1. Iceman just thinks its Starcraft 1 in 3D when it is clearly not. I did not intend to argue new to the industry.

None of it rises to the level of 3 unique races.

Chrono-Boost, MULE, and Spawn Larva don't accomplish this? Overlord creep drop, Pylon Warp in, Supply submerge don't as well? That quite makes each resource mechanic special and supply usage special.

By this definition, every single game is innovative, no matter how much of a retread it is.

Im talking about the series Starcraft, not the RTS gaming industry. That is what the Single Player, B.net 2, new terrain features, new units, and Galaxy editor is for. Multiplayer might contain new(Completely new) units and new Terrain features later, but they do not right now.

[Nicol Bolas]

That there is innovation from SC2 over SC1.

There's new stuff in SC2. I would hardly call it "innovation", either compared to SC1 or compared to the rest of the genre. The most innovative difference you're going to get is the way that they turned disadvantages in SC1 into advantages in SC2.

Chrono-Boost, MULE, and Spawn Larva don't accomplish this? Overlord creep drop, Pylon Warp in, Supply submerge don't as well? That quite makes each resource mechanic special and supply usage special.

You're kidding, right?

3 unique races was something unheard of in all of RTSs in 1998. It was an idea that was considered utterly ridiculous if you wanted a balanced game. Of course all races had to have almost the same thing; it was assumed that unique races were antithetical to having a balanced game.

People don't assume that anymore. Because of StarCraft.

Spawn Larva isn't going to paradigm shift the RTS medium. Creep Drop isn't going to make people think differently about RTS design.

When game designers 10 years from now look back to start making their next RTS, SC2 won't stick out as something specific that they should be looking at. And if they do look to it, it will only be because it is successful, not because of its gameplay.

Show me something in SC2 that people today think is impossible to do for an RTS.

[Shadow Archon]

There's new stuff in SC2. I would hardly call it "innovation", either compared to SC1 or compared to the rest of the genre. The most innovative difference you're going to get is the way that they turned disadvantages in SC1 into advantages in SC2.

Thats the thing. "Innovation" simply means new. I don't see any difference between new or Innovation, but I understand what you mean. Innovative is ground breaking new, while new is just new to the genre.

You're kidding, right?.

Not what I meant. There are several things I think if implemented right can make SC2 absolutely new, but I know they will not be implemented due to horrendous balance issues and the fact its too big of a change. I meant that the mechanics further diversify the race. I did not understand that you were implying the "the level of 3 unique races" as the main thing for Starcraft 1, Which is why Starcraft 1 was such a huge success. The main innovative things I see for SC2 is the single player, the terrain, and the Galaxy Editor.

The Multiplayer could be innovative if the map would change over time or other things. On a lava planet, Part of the land on the map is melted by the lava, and the available land decreasing in size until there is no land left. Think Redstone except land sinks into it instead of lava rising over it. Other ideas would be:

A computer faction suddenly appearing on the map taking an expansion that was not taken.

Levels that are separated into multiple parts under ground, where one player starts on the third map tier, and the other statrs on the second or first. Special entrances would be the way to go to each one. You could not skip from the first one all the way to the third. This could be accomplished by toggling through the different floors using the mini-map and special entrances for your units. Other levels can be like this but can be platforms over land. Only Air units could switch tiers in this case.

A map that was completely destructible. Everything including resources to the land you walk on could be destroyed. I would have to expand on this idea.

Meteors that create expansions and change the map with their impacts, killing your units, causing geysers and minerals to be accessible.

Maps that have several storm cycles, where volcanoes erupt covering parts of the map in lava, and other such things. Earthquakes, Floods, Meteor showers, and the such.

A map that takes place under a Space battle. It would be covered in debris, and random ships and weapons would fall anywhere on the map, damaging or killing your units.

A Map where you play three maps at once. You toggle between each one. Certain points on the map let you switch between each. Very intense and I doubt people would like it. You would have three bases at the beginning.

Maps that have alterable features such as bridges, automated defenses, and the such that can be used using minerals and Vespene Gas in order to control. You have to have the worker bring the minerals and vespene to said device in order to activate it.

This are just some Ideas I have that I doubt will be implemented. I think this would be as innovative as the three race idea.

[Iceman_jkh]

So Warp-in, Creep spread from Overlord and Creep-Tumors, movable defenses, bunker salvage, Lava Rise\Fall mechanic, Living Urban environment, High-yield minerals, finite gas, add-on versatility, MULE, Call down Supplies, Supply Depot submerge, Command Center five SCV capacity, Nydus Worm, Day\Night mechanic, Xel'naga towers, Single Player Tech Tree, Single Player Research, Cinematics for almost every mission, smart cast, shift commands and ect. are not innovative?

Just so we are clear, there is a big difference between innovation and rehashing an old idea in a new way. Innovation goes to the core of a mechanic/theme, its not just a slight tweak to something.

Innovative: Warp-in, Creep Spread, High Yield, MULE/Calldown, Terran add-ons.

Tweaks/old ideas: Nydus worm, submerge supply (from SC1 rax/Engbay gates), shift clicking, smart cast, creep tumor (works with ovi creep drop), bunker salvage, movable defenses.

Things that have nothing to do with innovating the way players play/races operate: Day\Night mechanic (does nothing except change graphics a little), Single Player Tech Tree, Single Player Research,

Because by this definition, all of these thing are innovative for Starcraft.

*sigh*
By your use of that definition - which is grossly out of context - everything is innovative simply by the fact it's NEW. We both know that is a poor attempt at evidencing innovation.

Now we do have some innovative ideas from blizz, but compare that to the number of ideas/units/etc retained from SC1 with no/insignificant change (aka tweaks).

[Shadow Archon]

*sigh*
By your use of that definition - which is grossly out of context - everything is innovative simply by the fact it's NEW. We both know that is a poor attempt at evidencing innovation.

Now we do have some innovative ideas from blizz, but compare that to the number of ideas/units/etc retained from SC1 with no/insignificant change (aka tweaks).

So what is your definition for Innovation? I have always considered innovation=new. Do you mean Ground-Breaking new?

[Iceman_jkh]

Yes.

I mean, further racial differentiation, map/terrain deformation and access modification(not entirely new in RTSs per se), things which promote further strategic flexibility and creativity, etc.