What happened to the innovation?

[Lupino]

On the topic of innovation that isn't good:

What's ironic is that most of your responses are exactly the kind of criticisms raised in the OP.

StarCraft is ultimately a digital game.

The original was that. Why must the squeal be stuck with that legacy?

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?

All of which can be looked at when balancing the game prior to release. The point is to at least try to make the game better, not write it off before it gets a chance to prove itself.

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.

All of which just assumes a basic and flawed assumption. Why should we be that concerned about competitive play?

Now I know some people actually like that aspect, especially those getting payed to play, and some of that can and should be retained. But again that just goes back to the OP and Blizzard siding with the minority when it comes to rejecting ideas that, even if they made for a better game, can't be included because of the competitive community. Because unfortunately, there is a lot of money to be made in the competitive scene, which has colored their vision. Most people when they play games want to have fun, they're not out there to prove they're the best and they have APM over nine thousand! Hell, when the original game came out Blizzard didn't have the intention of creating an eSport, yet the competitive players adapted. And if they couldn't with a better SC2...they would still have the original.

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

It adds, as you say, dynamic. It encourages the user to take advantage of a strategic situation and make tough choices. "I could attack along the road and get there faster, but my opponent can see me coming sooner. Or I could attack through the forest and, while slowed down, hopefully surprise him." Unlike some other features, this is something that would be very intuitive and easily picked up by people; after all, just like in real life, climbing over rocks is slower than riding a bike over a paved road. And it's something the game already has, albeit in limited form (creep and cliff-climbers), without causing the end of the world.

And with destructible terrain, you can create some of this terrain features. Blow up a building, the rubble left behind still hinders your movement but at least now you can move over it. This could also be added with additional build features for each race, like Terrans setting up a line of futuristic dragon's teeth and whatnot.

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?

It's called variety, certain maps will encourage certain strategies, certain builds, something we already saw with the original. If you're looking for balance in, say, a tournament with multiple maps, then including a variety of maps with different features so that no one strategy is favored above others.

And if your game is so unbalanced that you need map homogenization, then your game kinda sucks. Especially for anyone who wants to think outside the box and create maps different from the tired predictable "cliffs and ramps" we're getting now.

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.

Which is why when your units are cloaked, you lose all sight of them...oh wait...

Besides, if there's a raging battle going on with bombs and pew-pew lasers flying about, the trees aren't going to be standing up for long anyways

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

Um, no, read what I said again. I never suggested that SC2 come out with a fourth race.

[Nicol Bolas]

I don't get it. Think about it realistically for a second. Terran with melee marines. How do you think the community would have reacted if blizzard announced it was giving marines swords?

How do you get from melee unit to "giving marines swords?" Or is your concept of melee weapons so limited that the only thing you can give them is swords?

All the things you've listed are flavors of a basic unit (and many of them don't even feel like basic units, esp #4, which is just as crucial). They still have basic roles which are predefined by being basic with the gameplay of Starcraft.

And yet, they're all undeniably not Marines. Well, except for #1 which is in fact a Marine. The point being that you can have many forms of a "basic unit" that are entirely viable and yet not be Marines. And those are just the ranged units I could come up with off the top of my head.

Do any of them enhance the game in any significant way? The ones you stated clearly don't, and the 4th one makes it worse lol.

It changes the dynamic of how Tier 1 works for the Terrans. You can't analyze the quality of such a change in a vacuum; it can only be seen in the context of the race as a whole.

#2 creates a weakness against air, thus allowing AtG units to punish a player who gets too many of these. It also allows you to make a more dedicated GtA unit or a stronger AtA unit. #3 creates a range vulnerability, allowing longer ranged units to kite them. Similary, it leaves a hole that can be filled with specialist units with longer range. #4 allows you to catch them off guard, in one form with the wrong units; even if form changing is fast, it is still something they need to pay attention to and can be used against them.

Huh? What are you talking about...the original form of the thor as in having to be built? No, that was scrapped because it was absurdly imbalanceable and OP.

The original form of the Thor with Barrage, a channeling ability that does lots of AoE damage to a specific area. Unlike Siege Tanks, the range isn't huge, and you must deliberately aim at targets. The Thor relied on its large well of Hp and armor to survive rather than long range like the ST.

Game awards hold far more weight then oscars because most games don't display the artistic merit that Oscars do not recognize. Hence, it boils solely into a entertainment perspective, which i think industry awards capture very well.

Both of these statements are 100% wrong, and they are the foundation of the reason why videogame awards are meaningless.

Games do have artistic merit; it's just that for most people, what constitutes "artistic merit" is storytelling, not game design. Game design is as much artistry as cinematography, music composition, and writing style.

Videogame awards ignore the artistic merits of game design in favor of, well let's be honest, popularity contests. And popularity is a measure of nothing of value.

The reason why rich CEO's are not paying you money for Game Design Documents are a testament to that.

Is that how you really think games are designed? That designers sit down and write some paper document that is then taken as the Bible for making that game?

To the extent that a game design document is used, it is only a starting point. Well at least, among decent developers. Paper design is the least important part of game design. Indeed, if you're going into an unknown game genre, paper design is not even the place to start.

Any idiot can write paper design. It takes skill to actually make gameplay, analyze it for faults, and fix those faults with more design changes to create a cohesive whole. You cannot learn how to do this by watching the end product of someone else's design. Just like you cannot learn to be a good writer simply by reading good writing. You must actually do the writing, or design.

But again that just goes back to the OP and Blizzard siding with the minority when it comes to rejecting ideas that, even if they made for a better game, can't be included because of the competitive community.

Why does your conception of "better game" include analog features like the ones mentioned?

Making a competitive game is not particularly restrictive in terms of game design. It prevents you from doing some things, but there is plenty that it still allows you to do. And this is depth that Blizzard has barely scratched the surface of.

Unlike some other features, this is something that would be very intuitive and easily picked up by people; after all, just like in real life, climbing over rocks is slower than riding a bike over a paved road.

That reminds me of an older game called Galactic Civilizations II. It's a TBS game, but it's very different in a very fundamental way from Civilization.

It hides the rules from you.

In Civilization, you know exactly what you're going to get if you work a certain square. The game tells you in its Civilopedia. And even if it didn't, the UI tells you when you put workers on a square. And putting workers on a square costs you nothing, so you can freely experiment with different arrangements.

In GalCivII, you generally know that putting more production buildings in a city (ie: planet) will make that city more productive. How much? Well, to know that, you have to deal with a few sliders. But it will be more productive than it was before. If you put more econ buildings on a planet, it will bring in more income than before. How much? Well, to know that, you would have to solve an equation that the game doesn't give you.

Ultimately, what this means is that you cannot develop an optimized build a priori. You must actually play the game and try stuff out. Is 10 econ buildings the right number before too much diminishing returns set in, or is it 12? How much population can a planet support before the number of happiness buildings take up too many squares for econ buildings to matter? Given a planet of size X, what is the right r

In Civ, you can read it in the Civileopedia. You can develop basic economic models without playing the game, and then play the game to test strategies of how to use that economy to win the game. In GalCivII, you basically have to explore the game as a scientist, creating charts and graphs of money income vs. population vs. tax rate, etc. You must do this just to figure out how to properly develop your civilization. Only after you know these things can you develop strategies for how to actually win with your properly developed civilization.

This is antithetical to competitive play. Not knowing what the result of an action is because of what your opponent may do is acceptable. Not knowing exactly what will happen because the game hides its rules from you is not. Not for any game that wants to have deep, competitive play.

Modern day board gamers have a lot of options available to them. Some are more abstract than others. But despite all of these more realistic games, Chess and Go are still king. Despite all of our modern attempts to make more concrete war simulations, not one of them has the depth and complexity of Chess and Go with their simple and abstract rules.

Abstraction and easily known rules are vital to creating deep, competitive games. Something that is "intuitive" isn't good enough; you need to know exactly what you're getting into.

It's called variety, certain maps will encourage certain strategies, certain builds, something we already saw with the original. If you're looking for balance in, say, a tournament with multiple maps, then including a variety of maps with different features so that no one strategy is favored above others.

As previously mentioned, by doing this you fundamentally limit what you can do with races and unit design. Each race must now be balanced against innumerable arrangements of terrain. So each race needs to have units that become equally strong with the various terrain. Otherwise it becomes impossible to have balanced maps for the various matchups.

How do you intend to do this while keeping races distinct?

And if your game is so unbalanced that you need map homogenization, then your game kinda sucks. Especially for anyone who wants to think outside the box and create maps different from the tired predictable "cliffs and ramps" we're getting now.

This is where you start getting into the difference between subtle and gross issues.

As homogeneous as StarCraft maps are on a gross level, they have a lot of subtle differences that change how you play on them. Desert Oasis may be a "tired predictable 'cliffs and ramps'" map, but it is very different in play from, say, Steppes of War. The distant natural expansion makes for a different playstyle; fast expands are much more easily punished than on Steppes of War. The distance between bases by land compared to air distance encourages and rewards using air units.

This is a subtle difference. It isn't a big, gameplay mechanics, easily understood different. It isn't something dramatic like lava popping onto the level every X seconds. To the lay person, Steppes of War is green and Desert Oasis is white. To someone who has to actually play on the map, they are very different and require different strategies.

However, subtle differences are less likely to create imbalances between different maps.

Besides, if there's a raging battle going on with bombs and pew-pew lasers flying about, the trees aren't going to be standing up for long anyways

And what if the battle involves Zerglings and Zealots? No bombs, no pew-pew lasers.

The odd thing, Lupino, is that you and newcomplex are in perfect agreement: you both believe that designing a competitive sequel to SC1 immediately puts you in a game design straightjacket, and the only way to be true to SC1 is to design SC1.5. The only difference you have is that you're perfectly fine with sacrificing competitive play and he (and I) is not.

[Crazy_Jonny]

It wasn't the first game with different sides. But it was the first game were each side was completely 100% unique. Not just names and sprites, but the basic gameplay of each side was different.

This had never been done in an RTS before.



Oh please. As interesting as the map editor is, it still isn't as powerful as the Unreal Engine. And I don't mean the modern U3 engine; I mean the original 1998 Unreal Engine. It could run StarCraft II (theoretically. Given sufficient processing power behind it).

Game engines that can make arbitrary types of games are a dime a dozen these days. It's interesting to see this kind of flexibility done in an RTS, but it's far from unusual or special.

First of all, wheres the proof? From what I've seen (in the Briefing Rooms) the SCII engine is plenty powerful.

Second, saying this kind of flexibility in an RTS is nothing special is bogus. Its not just what the engine is capable of, but how powerful tools are being implemented into the editor itself. Not to mention Blizzard is allowing modders to publish their work and possibly earn money for it. If there is another game that's allowed you to do that, let me know. The closest thing I can think of is the Source engine. But in this case, you don't need to download other programs to mod the game, its all done in SCII. This could make the mod community explode. How is that not innovative for an RTS?

As for the 3 races being different. Ok, they're not the twin races of WarCraft 2, 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. The 3 races idea gave the game lure, but I wouldn't say "oh, thats the reason its so popular!" But again, that's an opinion, just like saying "SCII isn't innovating" is an opinion.

You talked about wanting StarCraft II to make history, but why does it needs to innovate to make history? There's plenty of games that made history without innovating in the slightest. 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.

What I can conclude from all of this, you just expect too much.

[Triceron]

There's plenty of games that made history without innovating in the slightest. You got best sellers like Modern Warefare 2, GTA 4, Halflife 2, etc, probably nothing really new about them.

Don't forget the biggest one of them all - World of Warcraft. Definately not innovative, but still an incredible game that has shattered records left and right and pierced a global market that few other games could.

[Crazy_Jonny]

Don't forget the biggest one of them all - World of Warcraft. Definately not innovative, but still an incredible game that has shattered records left and right and pierced a global market that few other games could.

Ahhh, but Triceron, you forget a lot of us StarCraft fanboys hate WoW (kinda jk). We should not be comparing the two.

[Triceron]

And we like HL2, MW2, GTA4 etc? Right...

[Crazy_Jonny]

And we like HL2, MW2, GTA4 etc? Right...

LOL, maybe. Its just to convey my argument to StarCraft fans, using WoW might not be a good idea. I've just noticed a majority of people here don't like it, and I was poking some fun at the fact that you mentioned it, but I'm not trying to speak for everyone (sorry if you got the wrong idea). I used those games as examples because ... I don't know actually.

But back on topic, I'm not telling you what games you should like, WoW is a good example. StarCraft II will be successful for the same reason, global appeal. I mean, it will sell on the Blizzard name alone, but the fact that its highly competitive and the perfection of a genre helps a lot.

[newcomplex]

He would have to split up his forces to cover both bases due to his fast expand. My economy would be centered on taking out his CC. Either I go with Void rays, or use Warp Prisms and Warp Gates for some Zealot or DT rushing depending upon his build.

No, he wouldn't, considering 2 missile turrets would negate any attack until 3 void rays, or lifting off barraxes and making like, five marines.

Hes going to have 2 command centers with scanner sweep by the time you get DT's, DT's and Warp Prisms are from different trees. By the time you get both, he would have vikings up, literally containing you at your base by shooting anything that moves out.

Their simply is no way that terran would ever lose. Simply expanding while doing nothing but teching to vikings will bring up 2 viking (reactor swapping) at the same time you can bring up anything air, whether transport or void rays. Which would be fair if it werent for the fact that while hes doing this, he can have a second expo up.

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.

[newcomplex]

How do you get from melee unit to "giving marines swords?" Or is your concept of melee weapons so limited that the only thing you can give them is swords?

lol. 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?

And yet, they're all undeniably not Marines. Well, except for #1 which is in fact a Marine. The point being that you can have many forms of a "basic unit" that are entirely viable and yet not be Marines. And those are just the ranged units I could come up with off the top of my head


It changes the dynamic of how Tier 1 works for the Terrans. You can't analyze the quality of such a change in a vacuum; it can only be seen in the context of the race as a whole.

#2 creates a weakness against air, thus allowing AtG units to punish a player who gets too many of these. It also allows you to make a more dedicated GtA unit or a stronger AtA unit. #3 creates a range vulnerability, allowing longer ranged units to kite them. Similary, it leaves a hole that can be filled with specialist units with longer range. #4 allows you to catch them off guard, in one form with the wrong units; even if form changing is fast, it is still something they need to pay attention to and can be used against them.

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? Even if we changed the roles of EVERY SINGLE UNIT, keeping along with core SC philosophies, like none of those units would be heros or something, would we get something innovative?

I mean, I could see this argument coming from someone who says SC2 is innovative enough, it just needs more differences in flavor and strategy. In which case, yeah, sure, changing basic unit roles would solve that. What your argueing DOESNT EVEN MAKE SENSE from your position. And if the core mechanics were changed, why would we even need to get rid of such an iconic unit? Just change it completely while keeping it visually similar, this is sequel. You didn't see WC3 taking out grunts even though they work completely differently.

The original form of the Thor with Barrage, a channeling ability that does lots of AoE damage to a specific area. Unlike Siege Tanks, the range isn't huge, and you must deliberately aim at targets. The Thor relied on its large well of Hp and armor to survive rather than long range like the ST.

Ok then. I like the siege tank more then that, siege tanks are more fun. You don't. What on earth does this have to do with innovation? Was that Thor abilities removal what made SC2 not innovative? lolwut?

Is your argument

a)Starcraft 2 is not innovative enough, and game play needs to be changed
b)Starcraft 2 is innovative enough, but feels to similar to SC1, and we need to add in more new units.

I'm pretty sure it was a).

Both of these statements are 100% wrong, and they are the foundation of the reason why videogame awards are meaningless.

Games do have artistic merit; it's just that for most people, what constitutes "artistic merit" is storytelling, not game design. Game design is as much artistry as cinematography, music composition, and writing style.

Videogame awards ignore the artistic merits of game design in favor of, well let's be honest, popularity contests. And popularity is a measure of nothing of value.

ehm, Naivete doesn't look suite you Nicol. Popularity is the primary judge of what games get developed ok? Saying it means "Nothing" is just ignoring half the picture, video games as a business. Moreover, while the GDC may not be a good representation of "groundbreaking games", its a pretty good measure of how objectively mass consumable the game is, and how well polished its mechanical design is. Once again, you may not value them, I don't really value them (well, as much).

[Most Marketed]Games are not Art. Marketed games do not strive for the primarily emotional reaction to be anything other then what we associate with cheap C movies, thrills, screams, and "fun". Even the great Starcraft, did that illicit any emotional reactions beyond "fun"? Beyond amusement? Beyond competition? Beyond, occasionally, rage I guess? Did it intend to? Not really.

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? You look at the mechanics, and in order for the game to be art, they have to be an expression of...something..., and in, the reason why this conveniently placed 3 ft 5" crate isn't to express a parrelism in the landscape, it so the players can exploit it to dodge bullets. Even if some moments express something more then that, the entirety of the game needs to be centered around that, which basically none are for those few moments to justify

At best we can get stuff like Bioshock, which makes commentary on stuff like Objectivism, but really, they far far short of the goal of art. Would Transformers 2 be "art" (And please don't argue it is ;_; ) if they included a lutherian doctrine? Would Vacuum Cleaners be art if their logo was a Motif of Kiekgarde? (though it would be nice to have a Vacuum Cleaner spouting existential Motifs...lols)

I've read books that have drastically altered the way I perceive the world, and I'm not a emotional person, yet I have to admit, at least one movie has made me "cry" (more like teary eyed :P). Video games haven't, and most don't strive for this. Almost any definition of Art, any, you pick, video games fail at. Its a semantics debate, but even if you give me the definition, I can show you how video games fail at it, unless your definition is "everything is art", or something equally loony.

Their are some good games which are "artistic", I tend to like them. A very select few games can even be "art". "Good art" is video games is kind of one in a million, though I'm sure their are some examples of it.


-Also, please don't quote this a bajillion times, before, first give me a definition of Art you think is right. Just because making it can be a passion, a lifestyle, or just a mere hobby doesn't make it Art. My dad made (nondecorative) chairs...for fun. I wouldn't call that Art. Then advancing to the carpenter, carptentry generally isn't art. Perhaps a carptenter could use is carpentry skills to produce a some awesome elegant chair that is "art", and that would be art, but no, the everyday chairs he makes are not Art.

Is that how you really think games are designed? That designers sit down and write some paper document that is then taken as the Bible for making that game?

To the extent that a game design document is used, it is only a starting point. Well at least, among decent developers. Paper design is the least important part of game design. Indeed, if you're going into an unknown game genre, paper design is not even the place to start.

Any idiot can write paper design. It takes skill to actually make gameplay, analyze it for faults, and fix those faults with more design changes to create a cohesive whole. You cannot learn how to do this by watching the end product of someone else's design. Just like you cannot learn to be a good writer simply by reading good writing. You must actually do the writing, or design.

Once again, I'm so confuse. You just described my entire point, as a refutation. SO CONFUSE.

Yeah, "any idiot" can write a design on paper. Thats my point. When designing a game, you have so many other factors to consider for, that the Idea itself is among the least important. 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?

Those designers, of the aforementioned "Unimaginative, Derivative games" have qualities you do not. Let me tell you, it isn't the vision. Everyone has that. Everyone has amazing gameplay ideas that are amazingly awesome and never before done. Its the ability to compromise vision with scalability, to compromise innovation with playability, to compromise niche appeal with marketability. And I don't mean that those are bad, cynical values. Its about having a vision, which everyone has, and making it happen, which most cannot do. The testament to the thousands of 60's and 70's on metacritic, when looked at objectively, actually are pretty innovative, are a testament to that, as are the 80's and 90's which couldn't make enough money to keep the development studios alive.


I find it kind of funny how the % of my posts you quote becomes progressively smaller. Yeah, so we've already established that SC1 was not innovative. That WC1+2 was not innovative. That diablo 1+2 were not innovative. That WoW and WC3 were literally among the only games blizzard made which actually did things nobody had ever done before.

At the same time, you remember SC1. Good old Dune 2 is but a distance (nor nonexistent) memory. Right. How many people will remember your "innovative" rts ten years from now? How many people will be actively PLAYING starcraft 2? I guarantee you that the second will be greater then the first by magnitudes.

In the end, what are you contesting? That if SC1 isn't completely innovative.....

?

[newcomplex]

All of which just assumes a basic and flawed assumption. Why should we be that concerned about competitive play?

Starcraft 2 should be a MMORPG imo. Would make even more innovative.

~_~