What happened to the innovation?

[Chameleon]

This is my first post ever on these forums, so I'll try to keep it short and sweet.... but first off...

@Gifted QFT!!! @Gifted QFT!!! (I had to look up what QFT means...)

Tiny Wall of Text incoming!

3. Innovation is subjective, not objective. So while the majority of people can view something as "Innovative", it's only considered innovative in the gaming industry if you choose to look at it from the scope of an industry and not an individual. For this reason, if it's "innovative" in the industry, the majority of major players in the industry have to be able to see it, such as critics, companies and consumer base.[/INDENT]
----------------------------------------------------

If a person who didn't play a game of StarCraft since 9 years ago, and didn't know the existance of all of this "balance" or "Professional" or "eSports" stuff..

This is NOT insulting SC2, I love it so much I want to make it my mistress and consider bringing a third child into this world if it has half the geneworks of StarCraft II. I love the game. But it doesn't change my view that the game is not innovative on an industry level. My view is that this is by design decision and is not a bad thing. Not innovative =/= not good. Innovative isn't always good and would have been disasterious (in my opinion) for this game's multiplayer aspects if it was made to be innovative.

I decided to quote the stuff I thought was particularly pertinent to me. I heard that they were coming out with Starcraft 2 about eight months ago, and before then, hadn't played Starcraft for... oh... about nine years.

The measure of the games' success will be its sales (duh). There are many many many MANY more of people like me, who are not hardcore (I only stumbled upon this site while watching SCLegacy replays on Youtube [yay!]). This game looks SO AWESOME to me, but I am, admittedly, terrified by how hard-core some people are--I just have to remember, that's the minority, even in the multi-player arena. I can't wait to buy this game, waste tons of time on it initially, then get back to my life. The way it is set up now LOOKS LIKE (I don't have Beta) it will be PERFECT for that--perfect for me--and perfect for the majority of future Starcraft 2 players.

[n00bonicPlague]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Gifted. Innovation is relative. Compared to other franchises, SC2 isn't very innovative at all. Compared to SC1, SC2 is about as innovative as it can be while still being a sequel. And, yes — there are like x^x ways (or something obscenely huge like that) to combine existing things to innovate "newer" things, but the limits to how far these can be taken have always been the same old subjective limits: established lore, personal attachment, and suspension of disbelief. So keep in mind that until you convince everyone beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything they know is wrong, you're not gonna get anywhere fast.

[MattII]

I don't think it's quite as innovative as it could be, I mean, didn't the Colossus used to get +2 armour for every upgrade (or was it shields)?

[SinsWage]

Hah, internet fail for me. I thought QFT meant Quit F@#$ing talking.

[Caliban113]

I used to think it was Quit F'n trolling.

[Crazy_Jonny]

I don't think it's quite as innovative as it could be, I mean, didn't the Colossus used to get +2 armour for every upgrade (or was it shields)?

Little details like that isn't innovation.

To me, innovation is changing the very foundations of the game, not just a few units or the stats on a unit. Something like a new infestation ability - that would make the game more unique, but not innovative.

Innovation is scrapping the minerals and gas, and putting something else like:

to build an army, you need to solve puzzles, and play sims with the protoss to unlock new technologies.
or
To advance the zerg, you need to place bets on zergling races.

Both of which can probably be done in the editor now that I think about it...

[MattII]

Innovation is scrapping the minerals and gas, and putting something else like:

to build an army, you need to solve puzzles, and play sims with the protoss to unlock new technologies.
or
To advance the zerg, you need to place bets on zergling races.

Okay then: BCs don't cost you anything, but you're only allowed one per Starport, and before you can get them you have to pass a test (a simulated battle) to prove you're competent enough to be allowed to command such prestigious vessels. The outcome of the test decides not only if you're allowed to use BCs, but how many you're allowed to use (if you keep over over 75% of your forces - 4, 50-75% - 3, 25-50% - 2, 0-25% - 1, if you lose - 0). If you want to produce more than you're allowed you have to take the test again, but it grows harder each time.

On another point, I would mind trying to do away with Supply Depots a bit (they're boring enough that making walls out of them is the only use they have, apart from, obviously, providing supply), by making it so that all production buildings provide 10 supply.

I wouldn't mind changing the Protoss a bit as well: Instead of providing an AoE psi radius, each pylon now produces 6 'power points' for buildings within say 12 spaces. Tech buildings require 1 power, but production buildings require 2. This wouldn't affect warp-in of course, since although buildings would no longer rely on psi, that'd be no reason to scrap the the psi-field for Warp In. You could also modify warp-in of course, instead of allowing the Warp-Gate to produce units anywhere, allow it to warp ground units (except the Colossus) from its own location to the target location, and allow the Stargate to do the same thing for air units and the Colossus.

[Crazy_Jonny]

Okay then: BCs don't cost you anything, but you're only allowed one per Starport, and before you can get them you have to pass a test (a simulated battle) to prove you're competent enough to be allowed to command such prestigious vessels. The outcome of the test decides not only if you're allowed to use BCs, but how many you're allowed to use (if you keep over over 75% of your forces - 4, 50-75% - 3, 25-50% - 2, 0-25% - 1, if you lose - 0). If you want to produce more than you're allowed you have to take the test again, but it grows harder each time.

On another point, I would mind trying to do away with Supply Depots a bit (they're boring enough that making walls out of them is the only use they have, apart from, obviously, providing supply), by making it so that all production buildings provide 10 supply.

I wouldn't mind changing the Protoss a bit as well: Instead of providing an AoE psi radius, each pylon now produces 6 'power points' for buildings within say 12 spaces. Tech buildings require 1 power, but production buildings require 2. This wouldn't affect warp-in of course, since although buildings would no longer rely on psi, that'd be no reason to scrap the the psi-field for Warp In. You could also modify warp-in of course, instead of allowing the Warp-Gate to produce units anywhere, allow it to warp ground units (except the Colossus) from its own location to the target location, and allow the Stargate to do the same thing for air units and the Colossus.

Now you got it.

The battlecruiser idea was on the same level as my idea, something that could work in a custom map.

The idea for the Terran production building was pretty interesting. It would make the bunkers the primary wall building again. I think the submerging supply depot mechanics (as cool as it is) was a direct response to the pros using it for walls so much (it wasn't originally meant to do that).

And I see how the Protoss could benefit from the warpgate idea, because it would still give gateways a purpose.


So yeah, you got the right idea. Again, the reason I think Blizzard didnt get too different with SC2 was to play it safe with pro-gamers, and ensure SC2 could be the ultimate competitive arena for RTS, instead of taking a risk with entirely new basics for an established system; a system where there's still potential to expand (StarCraft I wasn't perfect ok). One of the big things I'm actually looking forward to is the unit pathing. Its the one thing that I didn't like in SC1. StarCraft 2 will actually challenge people the right way, while keeping all the cool stuff like the insane abilities, new units, lore, etc. The custom maps were also half of the reason I played SC for so long, and seeing the potential of this new map editor is something I know that's gonna keep me coming back.

[pure.Wasted]

For my starting post in this thread, I'd just like to draw some attention at the marked stupidity and lack of reading comprehension that Nicol has been forced to deal with for the last God knows how many posts (with the sort of patience that would make Gandhi proud).

First, on the topic of SC1's innovation:

Post #94, NB says

You seem to forget that SC1 was innovative. 3 unique races was a very innovative feature. And it was successful because of its innovation.

Post #107, NB says

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.

Post #151, NB says

SC1 owes a lot of its mechanics to WC2. However, the addition of 3 almost entirely unique races is what separates it from WC2. So on the one hand, SC1 stayed true to the mechanics of WC2. But on the other, it branched out into new territory without betraying those mechanics.

Post #168, NB says

What do I want? I want innovation on the level of 3 unique races. I want SC2 to be seen as a watershed moment in gaming history, on par with how SC1 is seen.

Starting to get a pretty clear picture, right? StarCraft innovated with 3 unique races each of which brought completely different units to the table -- not just a few, but ALL with the exception of the Shuttle and the Dropship.

Post #179, Newcomplex says

Even the original starcraft innovated nothing. All it did was doing it well, and balanced. Good design, not innovation. In fact, I can't name a single innovative feature of starcraft thats a testament to innovative design, not quality production principals.

I'd say "bolded for emphasis" but the bold is actually NC's own. I only kept it in because it marks Newcomplex's inability to read what Nicol has actually been saying for the length of the entire argument.

NB clarifies what made SC1 innovative:

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.

Post #182, Newcomplex seems to have actually read Nicol's clarification and attempts to explain why SC1 is not as innovative as NB claims:

Dune 2

Having not played it in ages, I decided to look it up on wikipedia and see if this argument actually holds up. Here's what the wiki has to say on the subject:

House Harkonnen may be able to construct their Devastator tanks with heavy armor and ordnance but cannot build the similarly impressive Atreides Sonic Tank. The Ordos have access to the Deviator - a specialized tank firing a nerve gas that switches the allegiance of targeted units to Ordos for a limited period of time. The three Houses also are restricted in their production capabilities - House Ordos cannot build Atreides-style trikes, instead making the faster "Raider" trikes, while House Harkonnen constructs heavier but more expensive quad bikes.

So let me get this straight. The entire army is identical except for two units which display slight differences among the races. Like the Dropship/Shuttle, the only non-unique unit in SC1, except for their only 'unique' units. Or... like exactly what Nicol HAD JUST FINISHED SAYING SC1 was superior to. I see.

Now, I'm not going to take this away from Dune 2. It is perhaps the first time ANY different units, no matter how slight the differences, appeared in an RTS. If so, it is indeed an innovative moment in RTS history. So when I say that this doesn't come close to what SC1 did just 6 years later, I'm not minimizing Dune's accomplishment. Far from it. I'm merely saying that you demonstrate absolutely NO understanding of just how unprecedented StarCraft 1's multiplayer was at its time... and how underwhelmingly predictable SC2's is for its. If you still can't see the difference, just take my word for it. I promise I'm not yanking your chain.

But wait, that's not all! The "I'm-not-actually-reading-the-posts-of-the-person-I'm-arguing-with!" continues! Now on the topic of just why the hell is Nicol arguing about getting new units to begin with?

Post #151, NB says

I don't agree that the "core philosophies that made SC1 awesome" are such a straight-jacket that the only viable SC2 you could possibly get is one that retains 40% of the SC1 units.

Post #168, NB says

I want innovation on the level of 3 unique races. [...] If that requires scrapping every unit in SC1 and starting over, so be it. If that requires altering the tech trees of all of the races, so be it. If that requires replacing the basic resourcing mechanism in favor of something else, so be it.

Post #180, NB clarifies

You are the one who mistakenly believes that the only way for the Terrans to be called Terrans is for their first attack unit to have a ranged attack that can hit any target, ground or flying. I don't believe this, so the question is not a matter of discussion. [...] You're focusing too much on "needs different units" and not enough on "needs more innovation." The reason to scrap all units and start over with a completely new set is that keeping old units inhibits innovation. It makes it more difficult to come up with different ways to make each race assume its characteristics.

Again, a pretty clear picture has emerged, hasn't it? Nicol doesn't want new units for the sake of new units (under most circumstances they fundamentally change nothing), he disapproves of the notion that "some units must stay, exactly as they were" because that necessarily prevents game-sweeping changes.

In post #199, NC is once again confused

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? [...]

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).

It wasn't A). It wasn't B). It wasn't even on your list. If, by the time SC2 has been (hypothetically) thoroughly reworked with some genuine genre-defying innovations in mind, the Marine can still be the primary Terran infantry unit... there's no inherent reason it shouldn't, or couldn't, be. The problem is not the same units. The problem is when the same units bring nothing new to the game, or, on a grander-scale, when you are so focused on having the same units (Marines, Siege Tanks) that play similarly, that the entire game cannot help but play similarly around them.

Playing SC1 was a markedly different experience from playing any other RTS that had ever come before. Playing SC2 is not a markedly different experience from playing SC1, even though there is more than a ten year gap between the two.

Those who were proud of Blizzard's accomplishment with SC1's multiplayer as a genre-making milestone have nothing to be proud of with SC2. It is yet another RTS. It is a good one, maybe even an excellent one. But just one of many.

NC, I don't mean to sound insulting. All I'm trying to demonstrate is that there was never a hope of you understanding the points being made, as you are literally not paying attention to the posts that contain them. You've gone on for pages missing the fundamental reasons for why a certain argument was being made, when those reasons were laid out up-front at the out-set and repeated many times over in the interim. You should take a note from Gifted, who laid out a clear and solid (if entirely subjective) anti-innovation argument back on page 5. I respectfully disagree with his position, because like Nicol, a lot of SC1's charm for me was in how bold and audacious it was. 'Audacious' is about the last word that could possibly be used to describe SC2's multiplayer. Safe? Conservative? Tried-and-true? Yeah, I'd settle for those.

[Gifted]

Pure.Wasted, I was going to reply to your list of conversation (which is interesting as it was nice to look back at the overall conversation on the level you showed.) You couldn't have painted it as clear as it was done there.

However, I missed the portion regarding Dune 2's innovation in comparison to SC1 -> SC2's comparison. I'll read that up as I'm sure I'll have an interesting view on the matter.

You should take a note from Gifted, who laid out a clear and solid (if entirely subjective) anti-innovation argument back on page 2 or 3. I respectfully disagree with his position, because like Nicol, a lot of SC1's charm for me was in how bold and audacious it was. 'Audacious' is about the last word that could possibly be used to describe SC2's multiplayer. Safe? Conservative? Tried-and-true? Yeah, I'd settle for those.

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.

EDIT: I read up a bit of the posts I read and now I see what brought Pure.Wasted to come forward and try to clean up the confusion. Yeah, it makes sense why you did that now. I'm going to keep my educated opinion to myself on the matter as much of it has been debated already on the thread.