What happened to the innovation?

[pure.Wasted]

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.

Such imbalance is not only not implausible, it is likely. What IS implausible is that it would not be possible to refine and balance such ideas over some six years of production.

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.

And Dune 2? Why did it need for two of its units to be different from one another across races? And WarCraft 3? Why did it need to have RPG elements in the gameplay?

Note, unless you can come up with an explanation for Dune's pioneering, we're stuck in a hypothetical 1992-X, which continues on where no different units across races were invented. No WarCraft 2. No StarCraft. No WarCraft 3. No StarCraft 2. Because that's what Dune 2's pioneering for the sake of pioneering brought about. Still think they made a mistake?

I read that page and it says the legacy is for revolutionizing RTS balance (which, as I pointed out, is untrue

You attempted to point out. I've already explained why you failed miserably.


P.S. I'd really like to stop arguing with you until Nicol can clear up whether my interpretation of his argument was or was not correct, if you don't mind. That seems kind of important to me, so I don't want to detour away.

[newcomplex]

Such imbalance is not only not implausible, it is likely. What IS implausible is that it would not be possible to refine and balance such ideas over some six years of production.

That's why SC needed balance patches six years after production right?

And not small patches either. Like, if these patches weren't made, esports would have died. Four that year actually, because those balance patches needed balance patches.

And Dune 2? Why did it need for two of its units to be different from one another across races? And WarCraft 3? Why did it need to have RPG elements in the gameplay?

Note, unless you can come up with an explanation for Dune's pioneering, we're stuck in a hypothetical 1992-X, which continues on where no different units across races were invented. No WarCraft 2. No StarCraft. No WarCraft 3. No StarCraft 2. Because that's what Dune 2's pioneering for the sake of pioneering brought about. Still think they made a mistake?

First of all, Heroes aren't innovation. I mean, I guess I could buy it, but not after you just diss diablo 3 for not being innovative, I guess giving you harsh standards of innovation. In which Heroes aren't.

Its really simple really. Its in my tl;dr. Either they help you fulfill your design direction for your game, or they help you fill a gap in that design (a problem). They take you places or they solve things. They don't exist just to exist, and when they do, its a bad thing for your game. Look at the Fable series lols, so much innovation and so much stupid. Oh herp derp all this stuff I can never have done before contributed absolutely nothing and doesn't make this game any less of a piece of shit because they were never integrated into the design, and actually did anything. We can also look at bad Iphone games which aren't fun despite innovation.

I can tell you what they didn't do. They didn't design a game a turn based strategy, played it, thought it was the best game ever, but realized it didn't move the industry forward. So they decided to turn it into a RTS.

I can also tell you when they set out to make an RTS, they weren't thinking "LETS BE INNOVATIVE GAIS". No, they braindstormed an awesome, cohesive concept in their heads, and along the way, they became innovative mechanics.

You attempted to point out. I've already explained why you failed miserably.

So uhm, between Dune 2 and that other RTS I mentioned which had 4 unique races, how exactly is it untrue? (and despite its innovation, I forgot 20 minutes after searching for lol) Actually, it did revolutionize RTS balance in the same way Halo revolutionized FPS's. IE: Not innovatively.

P.S. I'd really like to stop arguing with you until Nicol can clear up whether my interpretation of his argument was or was not correct, if you don't mind. That seems kind of important to me, so I don't want to detour away.

No, I don't mind, its just that I don't understand why you would even go and bother trying to clarify someone elses thoughts when they're scattered acriss 17 odd pages in giant chunks of quotation bashing (and I typed up a reply) before realizing letting people speak for themselves was the better idea.

[pure.Wasted]

That's why SC needed balance patches six years after production right?

And not small patches either. Like, if these patches weren't made, esports would have died. Four that year actually, because those balance patches needed balance patches.

SC needed balance patches because 1) it was Blizz's third RTS total, 2) it was anyone's first RTS with completely different races and units, and 3) it was the first truly massively competitive RTS. They lacked the experience they have now. They were not designing StarCraft to be played at a competitive level, hence the post-release patches actually did many of the same things that the SC2 crew has been doing since pre-Alpha.

SC2 on the other hand is Blizz's fifth RTS (+2 expansions that taught Blizz many valuable lessons), introduces no completely different races (although they now would know how to deal with this challenge IF it had come up), and was prepared for competitive play from the start.

In short, SC2 should be exponentially easier to balance when they've taken such pains to make it play similar to its predecessor.

Besides, the game will be changed COMPLETELY by both of its expansions (see: BW, TFT). That means we won't see what the game is meant to look like until 3 years from now, pioneering or no pioneering. Major balance patches will be required no matter what... that they would have been somehow "more" major is far less significant at that point.

First of all, Heroes aren't innovation. I mean, I guess I could buy it, but not after you just diss diablo 3 for not being innovative, I guess giving you harsh standards of innovation. In which Heroes aren't.

Nowhere did I say that heroes are innovation. I said that if we remove Dune 2's innovation for the sake of innovation, we remove radically different units in RTSes. That completely cancels the progression from Dune 2>WC2>SC>SC2 (I would argue that WC3's units were actually more similar than SC's). A point you've completely failed to address.

I read your TL;DR. Three times now. Nowhere does it justify Dune 2 revolutionizing the RTS genre by setting the stage for what StarCraft would do 6 years later.

No, I don't mind, its just that I don't understand why you would even go and bother trying to clarify someone elses thoughts when they're scattered acriss 17 odd pages in giant chunks of quotation bashing (and I typed up a reply) before realizing letting people speak for themselves was the better idea.

Because my aim was to point out that you seemed physically incapable of understanding Nicol when he was allowed to speak for himself, due to your demonstrably consistent disregard for the content of his posts.

[Triceron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Wind

Came after Warcraft 2, a definate War2 clone but it really separated itself for having 4 unique races. Never really played it myself, but the distinct races were the big kick.

Diverse races became less of a unique thing after SC popularized it. There were many games before and after its release that had distinct races as a feature, but then can we really consider this innovation or pioneering?

If we're talking about innovative RTS in general, what about games like Battle Realms, Ground Control and Total Annhilation? It all boils down to the same point. They're not Starcraft.

SC2 IS Starcraft, and that's the most important thing we're getting out of its multiplayer, despite it's 'lack of innovation'.

[pure.Wasted]

Diverse races became less of a unique thing after SC popularized it. There were many games before and after its release that had distinct races as a feature, but then can we really consider this innovation or pioneering?

Who's credited for the breakthroughs provided by the theory of evolution? Charles Darwin or the Greek philosopher Anaximander? Now, this credit wouldn't be entirely fair if it was stolen... but in many similar cases, the original discoverer is simply too obscure, and his knowledge was never shared before the discovery was made for the masses.

Not a single critical review is linked to from its wikipedia page. Even if the game is not as obscure as I'm led to believe and Blizzard were actually aware of it's existence, StarCraft's alpha was already finished months before War Wind came out. And although SC's alpha is far from the refined game we've come to love, its units are just as distinct. As far as the mass public is concerned, StarCraft's different races were a pioneering step for RTS games. As far as Blizzard was concerned whilst making it StarCraft's different races were a pioneering step for RTS games.

Semantically, they MIGHT not have been the first (IF War Wind entered production first; I don't know). As far as this discussion is concerned, they may as well have been.

If we're talking about innovative RTS in general, what about games like Battle Realms, Ground Control and Total Annhilation? It all boils down to the same point. They're not Starcraft.

And? Sorry, I don't see the point you're trying to make.

[Moradon]

Threads like these only serve to prove why I'm sick of the whole innovation debate. This entire thing is just is silly contest to argue what is innovative, what is not, over and over again. I honestly can't see anyone at Blizzard taking anything of value out of this thread.

And what makes it funny is that nobody is going to care about innovation when the game actually comes out. Innovation is what I like to call a "pre-release" complaint. Before a game comes out, all people can care about are two things: innovation, and graphics. If the game is perceived as lacking in either of these two areas, it gets bashed to hell and back by the press and public alike. And yet time and time again, the game comes out, gets rave reviews, and becomes a massive commercial success.

Changes in a sequel don't always have to revolutionize the genre. In fact almost all of Blizzard games revolutionized not by doing something completely different, but simply by doing it well. Starcraft gets the credit for unique races not because they were the first, but simply because they did it the best. Same goes for Warcraft 3 and its map editor, and WoW with its casual-friendliness. Starcraft 2 will be no different.

[pure.Wasted]

Starcraft gets the credit for unique races not because they were the first, but simply because they did it the best.

No, no, they were pretty much the first.

[Moradon]

No, no, they were pretty much the first.

War Wind already disproves this statement. And no, "Who cares, that game is obscure" is not a valid response. I'm not trying to diminish Starcraft here, but let's not be dishonest.

[pure.Wasted]

War Wind already disproves this statement. And no, "Who cares, that game is obscure" is not a valid response. I'm not trying to diminish Starcraft here, but let's not be dishonest.

Did you even read my post?

StarCraft alpha was complete and presented before War Wind was published. StarCraft alpha may have been STARTED before War Wind's. War Wind is too obscure for us to know the truth.

In either case, it is clear that given War Wind's obscurity, Blizzard would have at the LEAST not been aware of it before the game was published. As far as they were concerned, they were innovating for the sake of innovation.

[Triceron]

Definately not obscure if you were following RTS games during the time that Starcraft was in development.

While War Wind didn't garner wide success, it was more likely due to its graphics, which looked more like Warcraft 2, than other RTS games that featured rendered sprites.

So no, Starcraft was not the first to do it. It was simply the one that did it right.