What happened to the innovation?

[Pandonetho]

Perhaps, but the competitive scene is also wary about how these things can affect the balance of the map so I'm not so sure that lava maps would rise to popularity. It might, but there's no guarantee.

[Dale]

TL;DR version at bottom of post! Scroll Down.

Remember, when we say "innovation" we're talking about an industry-wide interpretation. We're not comparing Diablo 3 with Diablo 2, we're comparing it with every single RPG that came before. In that sense, very little of what we've seen so far is in any way innovative, as opposed to improvement.

Before we can seriously discuss this,
We need to get some definitions straight.

Improvement: Change within a game. (eg: Photon charge to Chrono boost.)
Innovation: Change within a franchise. (eg: WarCraft 2 to WarCraft 3.)
Pioneering: Change within an industry. (eg: Starcraft 1 changing RTS games.)
Progress: Enhancing a feature instead of changing it.
Can occur within a game, franchise, or industry.
(eg: Manual Casting to Smart-Cast / Single building selection to MBS)

I've made my case against innovation (as I've defined it above).

But clearly this thread is about why Starcraft 2 is not pioneering.
If that is the case, the simple answer is that pioneering is not a
requirement to make a successful game. Think about it, is the
fact that Starcraft 2 doesn't fundamentally change the landscape
of RTS games going to deter you from buying it?

Most gamers only require a game to be fun and engaging. If the beta
is any indication, then obviously Star 2 brings home the bread.

Besides, the Starcraft franchise has already made it's mark on the
evolution of RTS gaming.

You might argue that the legacy of the Starcraft franchise is that of
pioneering. And Star 2 doesn't live up to that legacy. I would disagree...
The legacy of the Starcraft franchise is not pioneering. The legacy
of Starcraft is that of speed, depth, and diversity. And Star 2
makes progress (as defined above) on all fronts.
Star 2 obviously lives up to the Starcraft legacy, IMHO.

WarCraft 2 wasn't 'broken,' and yet both StarCraft and WarCraft 3 are unquestionably superior games. Imagine if SC had decided to not fix what wasn't broken, and the Zerg could build every building off creep, their starting unit was a 40 HP Hydralisk, and the Archon and Lurker had circular AoE siege attacks in alternate forms, which required a separate upgrade to use.

Would you really have liked StarCraft just as much?

No. But that doesn't prove anything.

You're talking about gameplay mechanics, I'm talking about the
Starcraft "formula." The core aspects of Starcraft 1 were right
on target. These aspects being a fast, diverse, macro-focused
game with a lot of depth.

There's no reason to innovate here.
The formula works just fine.


TL;DR Version

1. Pioneering is not required to make a successful game.
Gamers only require a game to be fun and engaging.

2. The legacy of Starcraft lies not in pioneering but in its core aspects.
Those aspects being a fast, diverse, macro-focused game with a lot of depth.

3. There is no reason to innovate when it comes to the SC formula.

.

[Triceron]

The issue isn't whether it's a necessity or not. The issue is that the series has not been touched for more than a decade, and fans want to see this game progress the 3 unique races even further than anticipated.

I agree with the statement that pioneering is not required for success, but I don't agree with the sentiment that innovation is not needed. They started the ball rolling with some unique macro mechanics such as Warp In, Creep increasing movement speed and Terrans having supply depots that act as walls/doors. They could have easily pushed this aspect further even for multiplayer, but they played it safe.

Like others, I really do hope the expansions give them more room to make adjustments and push the 3 race dynamics even further. New units will be nice, but hopefully they'll make a dive into adding new mechanics as well. It's something we have to wait and see.

[pure.Wasted]

Before we can seriously discuss this,
We need to get some definitions straight.

Improvement: Change within a game. (eg: Photon charge to Chrono boost.)
Innovation: Change within a franchise. (eg: WarCraft 2 to WarCraft 3.)
Pioneering: Change within an industry. (eg: Starcraft 1 changing RTS games.)
Progress: Enhancing a feature instead of changing it.
Can occur within a game, franchise, or industry.
(eg: Manual Casting to Smart-Cast / Single building selection to MBS)

Those definitions are anything but "straight." Some micro-enthusiasts strongly disagree with Smart-Cast; for them, it's fixing what isn't broken, just what you said SC2 oughtn't be doing. Some macro-enthusiasts strongly disagree with MBS; for them, it's fixing what isn't broken.

What makes Chrono Boost an improvement? SC1 had no abilities cast by the main structures. SC1 had no macro-oriented abilities. And yet I agree that it isn't innovative, so obviously the problem is with your definition, which is far too vague and open to misinterpretation.

In fact, there is nothing more proper about your use of the word innovation, as opposed to the way I or Nicol or Gifted have been using it. Feel free to say 'pioneering' to my 'innovation,' but the argument is not changed by it.

But clearly this thread is about why Starcraft 2 is not pioneering.
If that is the case, the simple answer is that pioneering is not a
requirement to make a successful game. Think about it, is the
fact that Starcraft 2 doesn't fundamentally change the landscape
of RTS games going to deter you from buying it?

No, it's going to deter me from thinking that every aspect of the game was a must-own. I will (in all likelihood) love the single player and the custom games, and I will enjoy the multiplayer. But it WILL NOT be the reason I buy this game, and that I can say for a fact. If the two were sold separately, the single player would be a priority first and foremost, without a doubt.

SC1 has achieved legendary status as a milestone for what a game could do for its time. SC2's multiplayer may succeed, but it will not achieve that status. It's that simple. And if by your standards that's enough, good for you. My standards for Blizzard games -- and SC2 in particular -- are much higher.

2. The legacy of Starcraft lies not in pioneering but in its core aspects.
Those aspects being a fast, diverse, macro-focused game with a lot of depth.

You could not have it more backwards. Fast, diverse, macro-focused game with a lot of depth is its identity. Its legacy is precisely what you said it wasn't. There's a reason the Wiki category that lists the things we're talking about is specifically titled 'Legacy'.

Perhaps, but the competitive scene is also wary about how these things can affect the balance of the map so I'm not so sure that lava maps would rise to popularity. It might, but there's no guarantee.

Of course there's some chance it won't happen, but it's the pro scene that developed static Disruption Web areas, and Dark Swarm areas, and neutral buildings that block pathing. I seriously doubt they won't embrace everything this engine has to offer.

[flabortast]

Who knows maybe Blizzard seeing the error of their ways puts every innovative thing they do in SP into MP by HotS, reeling a new kind of pro player. Like we'll be playing SP and seethis really awesome mechanic, and we go: PUT THIS IN MP NAO!!!!!

[newcomplex]

Your really being completely obnoxious for someone who doesn't get either sides arguments...you ironically missed the point of my posts altogether, and probably his too, for someone who posted a post literally beating me over the head with " YOU DUN GET HIS POINT" .

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.

After your lengthy retreading of the entire thread, this isn't the problem. In fact, its clear this isn't the problem Nicol is talking about from the quotations you listed in your OWN POST.

In #168, where you conveniently ommit half of Nicols point, a paragraph and a halfs worth, towards a direct question of "what is it", he replies:

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. When videogame historians write the definitive history of videogames, I want SC2 to be listed as a "must play" game for every game designer working in the RTS genre.

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,

At this point, I am 100% aware of Nicols point. He wants SC2 to be innovative, no matter what. I'm saying that isn't nessicary at all, and actually counterproductive. That is our point of contention. Why on earth are you trying to identify Nichols central point for Nichol? I'm pretty sure he lays it pretty well above. He isn't fixating on units. Hes just saying "All units can be sacrificed". And in that, I agree with him, they can.

Now, when we get to your point, its a small fraction of his point. Our discussion is about innovation itself, we talk about art, quality, design philosophies. His point isn't limited to "units should change", and that point isn't what caused that analogy I drew.

By the time you call be out on the A or B thing, what we are arguing isn't some giant, spectacular overarching thing anymore. It is SPECIFICALLY about THORRS.. I don't understand what the point is quoting me out of context like that. What I am saying is that simply changing unit abilities in compliance with game mechanics does nothing in the long run to innovate. My point is that Nicol was fixating over a irrelevant detail (the Thorr), which didn't support the thesis he had given out earlier. (change anything to allow for innovation.

Let me explain.

Hes was fixating about a Thor change. The Thor change was not particularly innovative, in fact, thats the entire reason it was scrapped. Because of overlap. He said that it is siege tanks that restricted this, as an example of why "keeping things the same" can be destructive towards innovation".

I am saying that isn't even innovation, thats just reshuffling units.

Jesus christ, you COMPLETELY missed the point.

In order to change the game, we need to drastically change the the mechanics in order to make the game different. Like giving marines levels or something. And we need to change units (mechanics) to suit that of course.

Nicole is saying the SAME THING with the sole difference is that he likes to disregard the irrelevance between unit aesthetics and unit function. The only part we disagree on is that, and whether if it should actually be done or not.

Because, as previously established by Nicol himself, his point isn't a specific X, Y, Z affair, which you fallaciously assume it is. Its SC2 must be Innovative. That is his central thesis.

That is something I completely get. Your the one who has mistaken a sub-discussion about the logical irrelevance of a THOR CHANGE to somehow invalidate my entire argument, and say I have no idea what I am talking about.

To clarify, in case that was too rambly and full of madcats, in which I apologize, I first posted something random when i was board on like page #3. I then posted a cohesive thesis at like, page 11# about why its almost impossible to innovate SC2. You can read if if you want. Then, Nicole at first starts just deconstructing my posts without having a thesis at all, which isn't always that fruitful when you don't know your opponents argument.

Then, I ask Nicol to define his position. It is that SC2 needs to be innovative, (as well as omfgwtfbbq awesome, which we both agree on, but with differing approaches). Because, its the sequel to SC goddam one. He then goes onto say both why, to some extent, how, and why the why nots are invalid, and we argue or something.

Somewhere along the way, as a SIDE POINT, he talks about the idea that units need to change and we can't just put on a straight jacket or something. Apparently, this includes changing marines to melee, the very idea kinda baffles me.

I say that its pointless to just change units beyond for change impacts itself's sake (which in the case of melee marines, unarguably bad for lore if nothing else)

If we don't change mechanics,(which he isn't saying), then it isn't innovative, just change, with no positive beneift.

And if we do change mechanics, we don't need to change all the units because the games already different enough that we can retool them.

This is done inside the central argument of arguing whether changing mechanics at all for innovation is a good idea. We both agree more then just units have to change.

Somewhere along the way, he brings up "Well, changing units is innovation, and cites Thor". I say "Thor wasn't innovation...you need to change the game to get innovation", which I guess he agrees. It wasn't a big point on either sides, and my shallow a or b thing was a simplified example.

Then you come in, after we stop posting, and I lay down a wicked sick TL;DR about why innovation (his central thesis) is flawed, and say LOL U ARNT ARGUEINS THE RIGHT THING.

Seriously?

Once we get into Dune 2, your stance becomes even more invalid. First, you cite numerous references of Nicole (who isn't dead or something ok? you don't need to do that, he can tell us a point by himself, especially when we were just discussing it, and you seemed to have completely missed it)

And yeah, his point is SC1 is innovative. One in which he fails to back up in any way shape or form besides persona experience. How is me stating that
hes wrong fundamentally mean I don't get his argument? Especially when I, NOT HIM backs up my statement with evidence. (In which he stops contending the point)

In regards to Dune 2, if you have to refer to Wikipedia to affirm somebody elses point...it isn't even yours....why are you even bothering? And then, why do you imply that I couldn't read his earlier ramblings (besides the fact that I wasn't their), when I post a contradiction to it which I later BACK UP WITH EXAMPLE No, that wasn't his point. I can quote him, but I hope that doesn't detract from readability too much.

Not just names and sprites, but the basic gameplay of each side was different.

Not only were the names and spites different, which he stated, but the basic gameplay of the sides were completely different. They each had their own dynamic feeling, build orders, etc, identical to the way SC does. It isn't really fair to criticize the other units, because, all things considered, their ARE only, if memory serves, six or seven other units.

The basic gameplay for each side is not different, not any less different then SC was actually. Probably more because we didn't have progamers to give us a metagame lol. Each race has three, not two special units, out of a pool of ten, not including non-combative roles.

Dune 2 was really the only game thats etched in my mind, so guess I'm going to have to look on wiki, though I'm almost positive SC wasn't the first to have full differences races. it was like babies first RTS lol :P. Was six when I played that game in 1995 :P, and I read the novels like four times before I actually understood it like five years later lol.. and it hurts me your dissing the game based on information gleaned off WIKIPEDIA. Again, seriously? I mean, it simply isn't how you described it in the sense their was no depth between the races. The strategies were different enough, that, literally, a six year old could see it.

So at best, until i find it the quote which you said I "didn't get" is at best, 50% right. I don't think filling in the rest of the army is as innovative as thinking of the concept of dynamic, different races itself, (among other stuff like...an interface.)

..

...

..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominio...rm_Over_Gift_3

Games fatal flaw was proximity to SC release. SC criticized at release for ripping it off.

But wait theirs more. It had FOUR completely different races. Haha. And yeah. This is kind of funny. John Romero made it. lols.

I win prize?

And that was fast.

So now I guess its 100% wrong?

(Also, this thread is on the first page when you search innovations in RTS genre. Isn't that funny. And depressing. luls. Not even kidding)


Moreover, if these is your central point of contention, you have completely missed the point of me and Nicoles Discussion.

Point --> .
Your head--> [O]

Lets quote the TL;DR of justice: Which isn't much of a TL;DR anymore, only in relation to the rest of the thread.

--------------------------
Ultimate TL;DR of Truth and Justice:
--------------------------





-Innovation is not a merit in its own right, but rather, a positive effect born out of necessity. This is because innovation, in order to be meaningful, is either a)Solves a specific problem or b)Used to fulfill a certain design vision.

exampleA: X isn't working. We tried Y and Z, but they don't really fit our needs, it change/disrupts our game too much. It isn't good. We need to fix this with a unique solution. = Innovation.

exampleB: We're want to do X. But I can't do X with Y and Z. We're going to take a unique approach. = Innovation.

-As a result, one should never innovate just to innovate. If their isn't a problem, and their isn't a lack of solution, please, don't create a problem just so you can make your own solution. Its not good. If your game isn't good unless you purposely create problems to allow for innovation, just redesign your concept. Your free to not take the traditional approach, this isn't at all what I'm saying, if you feel like that taking the traditional approach would hurt your games vision (see exampleB). Innovation isn't good if its for its own sake.

For instance, making the player move in a FPS with his mouse and Aim with his keyboard, while never before done, and technically innovative, unless the name of your game is "Arctic Invasion of Russia while under the influence of Marijuana", (which may have other problems...), please, refrain.


-Back to Starcraft. It comes down to what you want the sequel to be. And what you want the sequel to be should be within reason of the original. At the very least, most can agree that it needs to remain in the same genre. In addition, terran marines don't get vibroblades replacing gauss rifles ok? ok. But seriously, in the case of starcraft 2, if you want starcraft 2 to:

SC1 took a simple idea, and did it really well. SC1 is utterly devoid of complex mechanics, and its units are entirely unilateral or bilateral, with the exception of a few unused casters.

If what I described sounded like a shallow game, at a first glance, it is, but complexity is achieved through the ways these simple functions interact with one another. To facilitate diverse and entertaining play, the game requires the player to split attention between micro and macro, both being 100% essential, and both in large amounts, though slightly uneven, more even then any other game. Moreover, the gameplay is defined as very fast paced, and units are representations, not literal simulation. The dynamics of the games strategy center around 3 distinct, balanced races in which's respective tiers serve as Parrnell of each other, and interact with each other and the other races, creating a metagame.

The factors in play are map control and information control, economic expansion, technical expansion, or military expansion, none through overtly complicated mechanics, but through interactions of basic mechanics like for instance, "build a building by a mineral patch to expand"

Finally, the game also needs to take place in the Starcraft lore,

(and, since I forgot to mention, an utterly engaging, relatively well written and uniquely told single player experience with fun missions, and a map editor that kept multiplayer alive for those who didn't like ladder)



If you do (Nicol Bolas, cough), then innovation is certainly needed. In small amounts. To you know, fix the problems that do not betray a generic solution. A warpgate here, a Mule their. Lets take out the units where we feel like they inhibit the dynamic of gameplay, are restricted in use, are uninteresting, or are just plain stupid, and of course, improve our original cast of units so they fulfill their roles better. Hey, lets move hydras to T2 and make them less of a staple unit, but keep their oomph and power. And don't forget, we got 30 missions per race now, with customizable units that stay with you through the game, a point and click interface in which you control a 3rd person character between missions and explore the game world and move the story, talk to people and click things to get funny quips or lore insights, and some smexy trademark blizzard cinematic in glorious HD as sprinkes or icing (but far from the core of the experience, for you QTE hatas)

If you don't. Well. You're in for some disappointment. Though it begs the question why did you like SC1 if the core philosophies themselves repulse you so much. Perhaps you should go play come C&C 4 if you like innovation, they got rid of bases.

That was a joke.

(And on that note, let C&C4 and Halo wars serve as a testament to why misguided innovation can suck monkey balls.)

Actually, seriously, play some Solium Infernum instead of SC2. God that games so fun. <3 their using of their limited development resources to illustrate beautifully imagined virtual cards instead of the classic indie low rez graphics. http://www.crypticcomet.com/games/SI..._Infernum.html. It is TBS though.

[Dale]

TL;DR version at bottom! Scroll down.

Those definitions are anything but "straight."

These definitions are a convention conjured
so people would know what I was referring to.
Clearly, they are not textbook definitions.

For those that don't know what I'm talking about,
please refer to my previous post...

Before we can seriously discuss this,
We need to get some definitions straight....

Some micro-enthusiasts strongly disagree with Smart-Cast; for them, it's fixing what isn't broken, just what you said SC2 oughtn't be doing. Some macro-enthusiasts strongly disagree with MBS; for them, it's fixing what isn't broken.

I would call those enthusiasts, at best, dim-witted.
Micro-management should be about using APM to
make intelligent moves, not redundant ones.

Single building selection is as much of a mindless APM sink
as manual casting. Both of these were clearly broken.
And now that they are fixed, it frees up APM to use on
actual strategy instead of busy work.

In a recent interview, a pro gamer said SC2 was about
who could think the fastest. To me, that's definitely
a step in the right direction.

What makes Chrono Boost an improvement? SC1 had no abilities cast by the main structures. SC1 had no macro-oriented abilities. And yet I agree that it isn't innovative, so obviously the problem is with your definition, which is far too vague and open to misinterpretation.

If you agree that Chrono Boost "isn't innovative,"
than what else could it be? It's an improvement.

If you're asking what makes Chrono Boost an improvement
over Proton Charge, I'd like to refer you to
"Proton Charge - The Potentially Game-Breaking Mechanic." by DemolitionSquid.

If you're unsure of my use of the word
"improvement," let me explain it this way:

Since the change from Proton Charge to Chrono Boost is occurring
within Starcraft 2, it is (by the conventional definitions) an improvement.

The change from having no macro mechanics in Starcraft 1
to having macro mechanics in Starcraft 2 is
(by the conventional definitions) an innovation.

The change from having races with similar units in Warcraft 2
(and virtually all other RTS games at the time) to having diverse
races in Starcraft 1 is (by the conventional definitions) pioneering.

If none of the above answers remedy your question,
then perhaps you're asking why Chrono Boost should exist at all.
This is off-topic, but these macro-mechanics exist so that the
game would remain macro-focused in the presence of MBS.

In fact, there is nothing more proper about your use of the word innovation, as opposed to the way I or Nicol or Gifted have been using it. Feel free to say 'pioneering' to my 'innovation,' but the argument is not changed by it.

Of course not. Like I said, those are not textbook definitions,
but conventional ones so people would know what I'm
talking about when I use those words.

You don't have to use them if you don't want to. Although
I would prefer you did, so we could stay on the same page.

No, it's going to deter me from thinking that every aspect of the game was a must-own. I will (in all likelihood) love the single player and the custom games, and I will enjoy the multiplayer. But it WILL NOT be the reason I buy this game, and that I can say for a fact.

I've highlighted all I need to know.

If the two were sold separately, the single player would be a priority first and foremost, without a doubt.

It's a good thing they're not sold separately.

SC1 has achieved legendary status as a milestone for what a game could do for its time. SC2's multiplayer may succeed, but it will not achieve that status. It's that simple. And if by your standards that's enough, good for you. My standards for Blizzard games -- and SC2 in particular -- are much higher.

The legendary status your talking about was achieved because
of SC1's impeccable racial balance despite racial diversity.
Starcraft 2 will most definitely achieve that.

You could not have it more backwards. Fast, diverse, macro-focused game with a lot of depth is its identity. Its legacy is precisely what you said it wasn't. There's a reason the Wiki category that lists the things we're talking about is specifically titled 'Legacy'.

According to the link, the legacy of Starcraft is it's success.
It's success is due to it's identity. And it's identity is that of a fast,
diverse, macro-focused game with a lot of depth.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."


TL;DR Version

1. The definitions are a convention so people would know
what I'm talking about when I use those words.

2. MBS and Smart-cast are a step forward.

3. Any way you look at it, Chrono Boost is an improvement.

4. If you're buying the game, you're contributing to it's success.

5. Starcraft's legendary status is because of balance despite diversity.

6. Starcraft 2 doesn't need to pioneer anything
to lives up to the legacy of Starcraft 1, IMHO.


.

[newcomplex]

Yo Pure.wasted...now look what you've made me do . You had to make invalidate all your posts....typeypetypedone?

The only thing I disagree with is the conclusion:

Emphasis mine. The design decision certainly "makes sense," but I can't help feeling disappointed. When I play the game, I love it. When I take a step back, I'm immediately wondering what the game could have been like if the designers hadn't been so scared of experimentation.

There is one important caveat that could render my argument moot. If it turns out that SC2 becomes a world-wide e-Sport that easily eclipses what SC1 has managed so far... I'll consider the designers' conservative tactics to have paid off. I'll still wonder "what if?" but, there's a certain bit of sense in their decisions as far as e-Sports are concerned. SC1 has done incredibly well... the single biggest obstacle in its expansion further is its poor, dated presentation. If with SC2 they manage to spark interest in the pro-graming scene across North America and Europe, I may be forced to change my tune. It won't change my opinion of the game itself, but I'll consider the lack of innovation a justifiable sacrifice in the name of getting e-Sports out there.

But until then, and until I get my hands on the single-player, all I have is SC1 that looks better, sounds (music, yes; voices, rarely) better, and doesn't feel out-of-date in 2010. It turns out that's not really enough.

Why is their this misconception among the casual/noncompetitive gaming community that a good competitive game is antithetical to a good game?

An e-sports scene does not require the game to be tailored to it. It requires a good multiplayer game. That is all. Starcraft is a RTS, and Starcraft is a multiplayer game (as well as a single player game)

Surely you don't mean to "innovate" the game outside of being a RTS and outside of being multiplayer right? Of course not. So, moving on. Would you agree that blizzard should strive to make a game that is going to be played years after its conception? That the game gets all the glory all the other blizzard games have gotten? That blizzard maintains ifs pitch perfect track record of releasing games that are nothing short of legacies?

Obviously, of course. Now, what makes a game an E-sport? Two things:
Depth and balance. What makes a game last for a long time? Depth and balance. Every single RTS since WC3 has lacked one or the either. Their has been no RTS since WC3 that has maintained either a strong long lasting playerbase, or E-sport status. The only way SC2 isn't going to be an RTS is if it sacrifices depth or balance.

When you sacrifice depth or balance, you sacrifice the longevity of the game itself. I guess you could argue that SC can stay alive based soley on the merit of custom games. And perhaps this is true. But by sacrificing Depth and balance, you are literally sacrificing multiplayer playability. Not at a high level elusively. At a low level as well.

A strategy was developed early on in C&C3 in which one of the races simply lost the game almost every single game to another race. The multiplayer started to die. When it was patched, more problems arose because of stupid design. By a year, you had almost no people playing official multiplayer. Is that what you want for SC2? A multiplayer that cannot be won by a race? Or do you just want gameplay that has no depth, the other crippling factor that kills E-sports. Even what I am guessing is a non-competitive gamer of SC2 wouldn't want a game that had no depth to its gameplay right?

Before you think such imbalance is implausible, think again. The current protoss is literally a 10 second nerf on its forge from losing every single game against marine/scv rush on 4 maps. Thankfully, blizzard knows why this is happening, how not to make it worse, and can fix it with various solutions.

Ten seconds though, is what separates Starcraft 2 from C&C3.

WarCraft 2 wasn't 'broken,' and yet both StarCraft and WarCraft 3 are unquestionably superior games. Imagine if SC had decided to not fix what wasn't broken, and the Zerg could build every building off creep, their starting unit was a 40 HP Hydralisk, and the Archon and Lurker had circular AoE siege attacks in alternate forms, which required a separate upgrade to use.

Would you really have liked StarCraft just as much?

Blind comparisons are blind. Beyond me refuting that racial mechanics were innovative. (Actually, they still are just because one other game implemented them, but not according to your definition I guess), read my tl;dr.

Innovations need purpose. SC1 needed distinction from WC series to meet fan expectations that this isn't warcraft in space, which the original alpha heavily resembled.

Hence, innovation. Deviating from standard design to fulfill a goal. (type b innovation according to my tl'dr) If SC1 is standard design, all deviations from SC1 are "extremely small innovations". Not INNOVATION, with capital letters. We would need INNOVATION! if their was a PROBLEM. Right now, their are people complaining that it feels toosimilar. But the overall feedback on the beta forums, is far from it. In fact, most criticism stems from it being too dissimilar to the original, lack of positional gameplay, hardcounters, etc, etc. (Not saying I agree, just pointing out). This isn't from any specific pool, most of this players come from WoW or WC3 as well as SC.

[pure.Wasted]

Sorry, Dale, I misread your definition of "Improvement." That's where the confusion came from. I'm perfectly happy to continue the discussion using your terms.

I've highlighted all I need to know.

It's a good thing they're not sold separately.

And if Blizzard packaged a piece of shit and sold it with the game, and everyone complained and whined but bought the game anyway (and threw out the shit), you'd consider that A-OK? Hey, as long as the game sells, what's the difference? My standards are higher than letting Blizzard get away with packaging a piece of shit with the game without at the very least stating my disappointment. Likewise, they are higher than letting Blizzard get away with a tried-and-true multiplayer experience without at the very least... stating my disappointment.

(Note: I'm an individual. The fact that I will buy the game for its single player and despite its tried-and-true multiplayer says NOTHING about those who don't care about single player one bit, and look for "pioneering" gameplay. What would you have highlighted in their answer, which would have been 'Yes'? I hope you don't need me to link the posts to this effect that have already gone up on the SC2 Beta Battle.net forums to prove such people exist.)

The legendary status your talking about was achieved because
of SC1's impeccable racial balance despite racial diversity.
Starcraft 2 will most definitely achieve that.

Dune 2 now shares in RTS history by having units that are actually different from one another (barely, and just 2 of them). It was the first game that ever did this. Are you suggesting that 8 years later, Dune 2000 would have been just as legendary for having 2 barely different units?

Pioneering is like a joke. It's only good the first time you see it. Then it's the same thing all over again.

According to the link, the legacy of Starcraft is it's success.

I'm not sure how you managed to read all those paragraphs and still missed the first sentence: "StarCraft's use of three distinct races is often credited for having revolutionized the real-time strategy genre."

What's the SC2 wiki-page going to read? StarCraft 2's use of... tedious macro mechanics? Roach micro? In what way does StarCraft 2 revolutionize the real-time strategy genre? Oh, it doesn't. So it's not a benchmark RTS, it's just another RTS that happens to be excellent and made by Blizzard. Now you say, that's fine, it will still get credit 100 years from now for being a "successful game" just like SC1 was. Except when you talk about RTS history, you don't talk about successful games. No one will bring up Age of Mythology. No one will bring up Red Alert 3. No one will bring up Sim City 2000. No one will ever bring up Cossacks: European Wars, which sold a third as many units as StarCraft! Because that game brought absolutely nothing new to the table. It was the gaming industry's equivalent of Ocean's Eleven. Perfectly serviceable, perfectly enjoyable, perfectly forgettable by those who do not have some personal attachment to it.

Guild Wars has sold more than half the units SC sold. You think anyone's going to remember it -- forget a hundred -- thirty years from now? Planetscape: Torment will have more of a legacy than Guild Wars, despite selling no more than a sixth of that total.

Your really being completely obnoxious for someone who doesn't get either sides arguments...you ironically missed the point of my posts altogether, and probably his too, for someone who posted a post literally beating me over the head with " YOU DUN GET HIS POINT" .

I'm also perfectly willing to wait on Nicol to judge whether I've understood his point correctly or not. We can continue the conversation then.

[newcomplex]

waits I'm not done yet.

Those definitions are anything but "straight." Some micro-enthusiasts strongly disagree with Smart-Cast; for them, it's fixing what isn't broken, just what you said SC2 oughtn't be doing. Some macro-enthusiasts strongly disagree with MBS; for them, it's fixing what isn't broken.

It isn't about what THEY think is broken, its about what BLIZZARD thinks is broken. Blizzard clearly saw a problem with a game with 12 unit limit in 2010. But by doing so, they get other problems. They felt no innovation was needed to solve them, standard solutions (balancing and race design) was enough.

What makes Chrono Boost an improvement? SC1 had no abilities cast by the main structures. SC1 had no macro-oriented abilities. And yet I agree that it isn't innovative, so obviously the problem is with your definition, which is far too vague and open to misinterpretation.

Nothing. Its the Occams razor. It solves the problem of lack of macro. Why not a more innovative solution? Like what? They had other ones, one was a twogas in which one gas just stopped working (sounds stupid right) and the other switched on every 40 seconds.

And before you say its cheap, its not. At all. SC1 has always been about strategically using your abilities in optimal time/place. Macro mechanics are an extension of that.

And objectively, you could say its a innovation, because no other game has solved economy complexity with active spells and abilities.

No, it's going to deter me from thinking that every aspect of the game was a must-own. I will (in all likelihood) love the single player and the custom games, and I will enjoy the multiplayer. But it WILL NOT be the reason I buy this game, and that I can say for a fact. If the two were sold separately, the single player would be a priority first and foremost, without a doubt.

That makes sense. "I like the singleplayer more then the multiplayer, the multiplayer is a bonus, so I demand blizzard to screw it up for the people who actually play for it as their sole reason". Oh yeah, and I'm not a on the fence guy either, I'll buy the game even if I have to indenture the rest of my life to Blizzard China.

oks. Compelling argument.

SC1 has achieved legendary status as a milestone for what a game could do for its time. SC2's multiplayer may succeed, but it will not achieve that status. It's that simple. And if by your standards that's enough, good for you. My standards for Blizzard games -- and SC2 in particular -- are much higher.

Once again, blind comparison. SC1 multiplayer achieved status because it was the first competitive RTS with good mechanics and balance. What do you want SC2's multiplayer to achieve status for? The 3rd competitive RTS or continuation of SC1's legacy? Which one sounds like a more promising niche? Or perhaps you mean better e-sport, in the same way Basketball is a better normal people sport then football? SC1 didn't get status because the game was so innovative, its because the game was so balanced and full of depth and had battle.net.

In fact, I'm going to say that Orcs and Humans 2 almost got SC fame. It was crippled by the fact that it didn't get normal battle.net p2p multiplayer until after starcraft came out. (Battlenet edition). And then, obviously, it had all these balance and bug issues. Then once this got fixed, blizzard introduced "fastest" to WC2, which apparently, WC2 is not balanced for, (zomg adding innovation), for no apparent reason, and then that screwed up the competitive scene. By the time everything got up and running, were looking at early 2000s with Starcraft esports in full swing.

Had WC2 actually came out before SC with interwebs, balanced, the lack of racial depth would have easily been counteracted with good ol fashion game design depth, and WC would have really stolen alot of SC e-sports light. Probably not all of it, but the only reason it wouldn't have been played into...well...now, is because blizzard was sleighted to release wc3. Maybe WoW would have never came out, and SC was never hugely successful, so we'd be getting WC4 now, and SC would be an MMO.

You could not have it more backwards. Fast, diverse, macro-focused game with a lot of depth is its identity. Its legacy is precisely what you said it wasn't. There's a reason the Wiki category that lists the things we're talking about is specifically titled 'Legacy'.

Confuse

I read that page and it says the legacy is for revolutionizing RTS balance (which, as I pointed out, is untrue, and for establishing an e-sport seen. Which is a direct result of what he said, not the 3 races thing it has going for it)

Of course there's some chance it won't happen, but it's the pro scene that developed static Disruption Web areas, and Dark Swarm areas, and neutral buildings that block pathing. I seriously doubt they won't embrace everything this engine has to offer.

Eh....oks. Those are static elements though. One of these things is not like the other. Of course, it can happen. Plausible too.\

What's the SC2 wiki-page going to read? StarCraft 2's use of... tedious macro mechanics? Roach micro? In what way does StarCraft 2 revolutionize the real-time strategy genre? Oh, it doesn't. So it's not a benchmark RTS, it's just another RTS that happens to be excellent and made by Blizzard. Now you say, that's fine, it will still get credit 100 years from now for being a "successful game" just like SC1 was. Except when you talk about RTS history, you don't talk about successful games. No one will bring up Age of Mythology. No one will bring up Red Alert 3. No one will bring up Sim City 2000. No one will ever bring up Cossacks: European Wars, which sold a third as many units as StarCraft! Because that game brought absolutely nothing new to the table. It was the gaming industry's equivalent of Ocean's Eleven. Perfectly serviceable, perfectly enjoyable, perfectly forgettable by those who do not have some personal attachment to it.

None of those games approached SC's level of financial success. So what did Halo innovate?

I'm also perfectly willing to wait on Nicol to judge whether I've understood his point correctly or not. We can continue the conversation then.

Whats their to understand. Its very clear from this quote.

Q:What do you want.

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. When videogame historians write the definitive history of videogames, I want SC2 to be listed as a "must play" game for every game designer working in the RTS genre.

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 no, what I said isn't missing his point. That is his point, word for word. especially when you write a long winded post about how I didn't get HIS point, then justify it with the most OT quote from five pages back about me positing a scenario involving a Thor, and me being RIGHT about something he said which was wrong.

I got every single one of his posts, and they don't make sense.

I don't see how none of you haven't gotten this very simple piece of logic.

Innovation=Good when solving problems, not creating them.

And Cossaks hasn't sold a third as many, considering SC has sold at least, at LEAST 20 million, if blizzards 2% sales revenue from outside of WoW, with +1% as we move back years is true.