What happened to the innovation?

[SlickR]

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?



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

I agree. If someone does not think the above writen features/mechanics/whatever aren't innovations that I don't know what innovation is.
Can we really make car 2.0? is that not going to be innovation or will it be.

@Iceman_jkh:
Is it not innovation going from old pneumatic brakes to disk brakes to carbon based brakes? - they are still brakes, they have the same function to brake, but they are still innovation right? - If you say no, that means all mankind is in illusion and stupid because we think that's innovation, when by your standard its actually not.

Same goes for SC2 in some of its features, while others are completely new.
I personally haven't seen any units move while burrowed in other RTS games.
I haven't seen any warp-in mechanics in other RTS games, I haven't seen anything resembling spreading creep in any other RTS games, I haven't seen anything resembling add-on versatility mechanics in any other RTS games.

Please tell me which games specifically have those and other features and than tell me those aren't innovative.

Some of the stuff is probably done in other games/rts in a similar fashion, but its still different in SC2 and its still innovation over SC1.

[don]

I know this is often used derogatorily but "StarCraft v1.5" is EXACTLY what I wanted. No other RTS, even with all the innovations made since SCBW, had captured me the way SC has.

Word.

Imagine they never made WC3. Instead they made SC2 around that time. But, instead of what they are doing now, they put all WC3 innovations into that SC2. State of the art DX8 graphics, 4 unique and completely balanced races, unique heroes per race, an upkeep system for a deeper game economy, Micro-heavy gameplay, unique harvesting methods per race etc. And suppose they made that SC2 a great and balanced game.

Lets imagine that "that SC2" did not suck to be fair. "That SC2" was a great new innovative game. Maybe the new all-time best RTS. It surpassed SCBW because of its innovation.

Even if "that SC2" was "better" and "innovated" above SC1, there would be a group of people who would hate it. These are the people that would still once in a while fire up that old BroodWar executable to experience that old SCBW Gameplay. These are the people who would hate "that SC2".

These people would be wishing that Blizzard just did the following.

1. Made this "new SC2" WC3 or something... put off SC2 for a while.
2. Port SCBW 1:1 to to 3D at first. Stay true to the old game.
3. Improve the UI.
4. Think that UI improvements softened the game --so they make up new mechanics to spice things up. Macro mechanics or something.
5. Polish it up for a few years. Replace/rename some units.
6. Maybe split up the story of "that SC2" into 3 games because each race campaign was not epic enough in "that SC2".
7. Release BETA around 2009 or 2010.
8. Make it SC 1.5! I want my old SC back!

:P

See? Arent you all glad that we are not wishing the above? That we actually are getting sweet sweet SC 1.5?

[DemolitionSquid]

I did not want SC 1.5. I wanted SC2. Thus, I am disappointed.

[don]

I did not want SC 1.5. I wanted SC2. Thus, I am disappointed.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being "SC2 boycott mode" how disappointed are you?
I mean we got SC 1.5 now, maybe SC 1.8 by end of beta.. Are you really that disappointed?

What if SC 2.0 is really Heart of the Swarm not Wings of Liberty? Blizz could be holding back on this "innovation" stuff for later..

[Shadow Archon]

What if SC 2.0 is really Heart of the Swarm not Wings of Liberty? Blizz could be holding back on this "innovation" stuff for later..

Nah, seeing whats possible with some map ideas, there is plenty of potentiality for there to be innovative designs for WoL. I know that the Single Player will be different, so that is a plus.

[TheEconomist]

I did not want SC 1.5. I wanted SC2. Thus, I am disappointed.

For clarification, I consider a whole "sequel point" the difference between WarCraft 2/StarCraft and WarCraft 3. I do think StarCraft 2 need to be improved in many areas and it has not yet lived up to its potential. But, again, this is beta. I assume that after all the patches and expansions are out, the mechanics will be fully fleshed out and the game will be everything we hoped for.

@don: That's one of the best posts I've ever read on the internet. I can't believe what I'm seeing.

[Triceron]

There really isn't anything we can do.

If they made SC2 as in brand spanking new and innovative, then I would assume it would be akin to how they revamped Warcraft series into an 'innovative RTS' by throwing in the hero system, which worked out great for what it was. Of course it wasn't what macro RTS purists would've liked, but SC2 would probably turn into something more like Supreme Commander with more of a macro focus.

The only other option is if Blizzard creates another mode of gameplay for SC2 that changes the game completely from being SC1.5. That would be splitting up the community, for better or for worse. Then again a simple map like DOTA ended up splitting up the War3 community, but will Blizzard be willing to officially back this sort of thing?

[newcomplex]

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.

That isn't the principal that resulted in many of the core units being retained, that principal is why very few core mechanics in SC2 have been changed, which is why their is no cover system, why food is still at 200, why your screen is still so small. I never implied thats the reason why T1 units remain the same.

T1 units remain the same because the purpose they fulfill is central to the race as a whole. T1 need a light ranged unit which is extremely versatile, that defined terran. So if we took out the marine, we would need a ranged attack anyway, with relatively low health and low damage, which begs the question why don't we use marines, iconic to Starcraft.

In regards to your analogy, thats exactly the point. If someone painted a different women influenced heavily by the Mona Lisa's subtle style, it would be a great painting, but it couldn't be called a "Mona Lisa", it would be "inspired by the Mona Lisa". Well, Starcraft 2, a sequel, shouldn't be INSPIRED by the original. That doesn't make sense. It should be a continuation of the original.

But they already are unrecognizable. Zergs have cloaked attackers

You mean lurkers?

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.

It changed the races, but not in relation to each other. Terran are still the least mobile race, they are still the best at turtling, they are still the race that relies on a positional advantage above all else, and their strength is still in versatility. Zerg still rely on early game strength allowing a fast expansion, they are still the most mobile race. Their characteristics still include having the most versatility in its tech.

I could go on, but in order to create space for a 4th race, we would need to change these racial characteristics. If zerg have zerglings, terran marines, and protoss zealots, what would the 4th race get?

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.

Um...nukes are identifiable? Lockdown isn't identifiable? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s6UG1HQ5qE?

Parasite isn't identifiable? It is perhaps the most identifiable skill in the entire goddam game, you cast it, something dies, and two broodlings pop out. A person with no knowledge of video games could tell you what it just did.

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.

What? Thats exactly what starcraft 2 did, with abilities like Force Field, Vortex, Feedback (giant lightning bolt makes ghost explode), Heat Seeking missile... Levitate...blink... Auto-turret...of course, their are also some less well done ones, particularly things like auto-turret, but overall, it was a very good dynamic.

Starcraft 2 added plenty of new abilities. However, all abilities added should with that original philosophy, with few exceptions.

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?

wut? If terran had any melee that was actually usable and balanced, so many things would change. They would gain a stronger early game presence, and hence, combined with their strong production capabilities in relation to protoss, would play akin to zerg, encouraging fast expansion, with less reliance on tech. Terran mech would revolve around supplementing your basic unit rather then complimenting your basic unit, creating a overlap with just going bio with medics. Positional play would be less stressed.

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.

Their are many ways to approach it, but how many of them would actually result in something innovative rather then a reskin of the marine? Stim packs are late game scalability, but require the support of later tech (vacs). If we removed late game scalability, the new unit would have to be compensated with increased early game power, which would cause the terran to be expansion and rush oriented. Moreover, it would be almost impossible to balance a t1 ranged unit that cost no gas and was extremely powerful.

The result would be the creation of an ability, though flavored differently from a stimpack, would fulfill an identical function without the iconic marine behind it.

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!

Really....siege tanks are still in the game you know, so that makes no sense. So unless you want to argue that out of all the units, "spider mines" represent the terran race best as whole, which is absurd, their isn't much of a point.

Thus, gameplay trumps identity.

Of course. Identity is still important, so gameplay should be changed while considering identity. Hence why the Siege tank is still in the game, despite being changed.

Name ones that honestly tried.

None...so...?

So you mean WC2 was about macroing (making units) and microing. Or does "making units" not fit into your definition of macro?

Making units as in "deciding what units to make", which is neither macro nor micro, it is strategy.

1: They already did.

First you argue about how the races are completely different from SC1, then you argue how they contain too many similarities. wat? No, they clearly didn't. Look at each races strengths(in relations to each other), they are identical to the first game.

2: Who's asking for a fourth race? Are you even arguing with anyone?

..
Besides being suggested IN THE ORIGINAL POST, it was reiterated throughout the thread...


What are you even arguing Nicol Bolas, other then that I am incapable of being right? I mean, don't you agree with the Thesis that the masses expectations of drastic innovation in SC2 are completely unreasonable due to core philosophies that made SC1 awesome, and are expected of in SC2?

I mean, you posted a huge wall of text trying to argue with me, but are you trying to argue that Heroes could fit in Starcraft 2? That cover mechanics, or other recent "innovations" in RTS micro could be successfully implemented in SC2? That the Terran marine should/could be replaced with a melee unit? That SC2 needs more "innovative" mechanics, and by "innovative", I mean extremely obscure?

Are you actually arguing for any of those things? Because if your not, I don't understand why your deconstructing my post trying to point out flaws. Do you actually have anything your arguing for besides "x poster is completely wrong"? Do you think SC2 is not innovative enough, and do you actually have a specific area in mind in that regard?

Its much easier to argue when you don't actually have a point. The majority of your post is verbatim, the fact remains that SC2 is among the only games to have a delicate balance between macro and micro, which is non-conducive to recent "advancements" in RTS like a cover system, while the units and races themselves should bear semblance to the original. (Are you arguing that the "zerg" of starcraft 2 bears absolutely no resemblance to the SC1 zerg? Which would be weird because you spend the second half describing how the races have too many similar units.)

[Asfastasican]

Don't fix what isn't broken. Leave innovation to franchises like C&C and Supreme Commander while they try to emulate the success of Starcraft. In the mean time, let's enjoy Starcraft 2 and be thankful for it?

[Shadow Archon]

Don't fix what isn't broken. Leave innovation to franchises like C&C and Supreme Commander while they try to emulate the success of Starcraft. In the mean time, let's enjoy Starcraft 2 and be thankful for it?

There is no need for fixing, but there is always room for improvement. More innovative maps would be nice.