What happened to the innovation?

[pure.Wasted]

Except that you haven't given a single innovative idea yet. All of your ideas either already exist in other RTSs or are just a feature from an RTS turned up to 11. Changing maps isn't new, but apparently you just want to take the "change terrain" idea and make it more important. It's not a bad feature, but it's not really innovative.

How many times am I going to need to ask for proof of your claims? You're telling me Idea X isn't innovative. That means you know it's been done before. Great! Just tell me where and we'll move the argument along!

I already handed to you on a silver platter the opportunity to make me look like a bumbling fool by providing specific proof of all three of my ideas having been done already in the RTS genre, and forcing me (by my own promise, no less!) to come up with six new ones. You've failed to take me up on this challenge.

I can only assume that is because you have no actual evidence to your claims that these suggestions are not innovative, other than your gut telling you they aren't, or something. This is an argument, not a kindergarten shouting match ("I was first!" "No I was first!" "No I was!" "No I was!"). You're gonna have to do a lot better than that, or seriously reconsider why you're taking that position to begin with.

Well here's the thing about game ideas. It's pretty clear that your idea is essentially "terrain change beefed up", but the problem with beefing up certain aspects of the game is that it changes the way the game is played, and that's not always for the better.

What made WC3 different was that Blizzard took the hero concept and gave it a dose of steroids. Whereas before heroes were just slightly stronger units, heroes in WC3 were central parts of your entire army.

WC3 did not innovate "heroes," because the term "hero" means absolutely nothing without context. It innovated bridging the gap between the RTS and RPG genres, and its very specific heroes were RPG characters that leveled up, gained new abilities, and used items. This was largely unprecedented, and in NO WAY whatsoever is defined as 'giving the standard RTS version of heroes steroids.'

Did it work into making a good game? Yes, very much. But did it work into making a good competitive game? No, not at all. Warcraft 3's pro-scene isn't terrible, but it doesn't even hold a candle to what Starcraft 1 has. And the reason why this happened is because the beefed up hero concept ended up lowering the skill ceiling.

It wasn't the beefed up hero concept by itself. There were many decisions that went into the making of WarCraft 3 that were not conductive to competitive gaming, heroes being far, far from the top of its problems. If we took out every single random element in WC3's gameplay (including creep item drops), the game would become much, much more competitive in an instant. Heroes or no heroes.

There's a very big chance that your beefed up terrain change idea would have the same negative impact on SC2 that heroes had on WC3.

Is there a chance of it? Absolutely. Is there a chance that over six years they would have come up with a solution? Absolutely.

There was a chance that 3 unique races with completely different units wouldn't work. Huge, huge chance. More possibility of that than it working, in fact. They made it work. It seems to me with more experience behind their backs, Blizz would be capable of taking on another challenge.

I've explained to you the answer three times. Four times really.

Innovation is good when It brings you towards something. In Dunes 2's case, differences between races accomplished the design decision of creating three races that paralleled the way the three distinct factions interacted within the Dune universe.

You have a very specific point towards Dunes innovations. The point being to have three distinct races, you have to create gameplay differences among them. The innovation is bringing you from point A (single races) to point B (different races)

They're actually not distinct races at all. They're distinct factions. There had already been games up till that point that got away with having distinct races with identical units (WC1, for one), so it seems pretty radical a step to jump on factions within a race, which ought to be more similar than races in general, and make them unique.

Sounds like they could easily have gotten away with identical units, if WC1 did just a year earlier. Sounds like innovation for the sake of innovation to me.

[newcomplex]

There was a chance that 3 unique races with completely different units wouldn't work. Huge, huge chance. More possibility of that than it working, in fact. They made it work. It seems to me with more experience behind their backs, Blizz would be capable of taking on another challenge.

lol. Thats entirely different because 3 distinct races is scalable. Oh, this doesn't work, we'll just make them more alike.

Now, SC2, is not as scalable because making them more alike is NOT AN OPTION because of the expectations set by the predecessor.

They're actually not distinct races at all. They're distinct factions. There had already been games up till that point that got away with having distinct races with identical units (WC1, for one), so it seems pretty radical a step to jump on factions within a race, which ought to be more similar than races in general, and make them unique.

Sounds like they could easily have gotten away with identical units, if WC1 did just a year earlier. Sounds like innovation for the sake of innovation to me.

It isn't about "The path to least resistance to make MONEY", its about "The path to least resistance to ACHIEVE YOUR DESIGN GOALS".

The design goals was that EACH FACTION BE SEPARATE. The design goal for Portals was that THEIR WERE PORTALS.

Your fixating on the solving problems role of innovation, which wasn't as present in Dune2. The design goal itself can lend its way to innovation.

I'm not saying that the design goal can't be unique, thats fine. The design goal is a point. What I'm saying is once you've already AT THE DESIGN GOAL, and their are no problems, Don't INNOVATE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF INNOVATING.


Actually, not even bad developers do that. Bad developers just realize their games a contrived piece of crap, a problem, and solve it with pointless mechanics. That's a stupid point, because the point isn't well intergrated with central design philosophies, not a nonexistent one.

No developer follows your mentality because it makes no sense. Nicol had a far more cohesive argument then you, hes saying that innovation is needed because SC2 needs to be worthy of its predecessor, a game that innovated(debatable).

I can't even argue why the reason why you think SC2 should innovate is stupid because you fundamentally lack a reason, because you think Innovation is a inherent GOOD regardless of what it actually DOES. So innovation in your mind is like chocolate, and asking why starcraft 2 needs innovation is like asking why starcraft 2 needs chocolate, it needs no justification.

We need to dispel that ridiculous, irrational belief first.

[pure.Wasted]

lol. Thats entirely different because 3 distinct races is scalable. Oh, this doesn't work, we'll just make them more alike.

Now, SC2, is not as scalable because making them more alike is NOT AN OPTION because of the expectations set by the predecessor.

How about this? "If terrain modification doesn't work after 2 years of working on it, we'll scrap it." Pretty scalable to me, and no less destructive to their efforts to innovate than scaling back on years of work on 3 unique races would have been.

Hell, they didn't even try it for two months.

It isn't about "The path to least resistance to make MONEY", its about "The path to least resistance to ACHIEVE YOUR DESIGN GOALS".

The design goals was that EACH FACTION BE SEPARATE. The design goal for Portals was that THEIR WERE PORTALS.

Your fixating on the solving problems role of innovation, which wasn't as present in Dune2. The design goal itself can lend its way to innovation.

I'm not saying that the design goal can't be unique, thats fine. The design goal is a point. What I'm saying is once you've already AT THE DESIGN GOAL, and their are no problems, Don't INNOVATE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF INNOVATING.

Then I disagree with Blizzard's design goal. How complicated was that? Their design goals should have been 1) to make the gameplay feel as fresh and different as possible as a competitive game would have allowed (because fresh and different, as long as the result is also GOOD, is never bad) and 2) live up to SC1's legacy as a benchmark game. They failed to try. To me, the gameplay feels conceptually dated and boring. You can call it innovation for the sake of innovation, but I call it innovation for the sake of living up to the weighty title it has the good fortune to be sequel to.

[Triceron]

That's monkeys-on-typewriters logic. You can't seriously believe that is an acceptable standard for game design.

The issue was never that games couldn't make dynamic races balanced. Games were doing it all the time on a 2's basis, and after SC's popularity, it was pushed to 3+. While some examples of games do not share the same fine-tuned balance that SC had, it was due to Blizzard's persistent patching, fanbase and pro player support that lead up to those circumstances.

And that relates to my next point. The reason why the 3 race dynamic worked and was so balanced is because they worked on that formula over the span of 4-5 years after the game was released.

If they were to throw in as many innovative features as they did when SC1 first came out, then the game wouldn't be as balanced as it is now. Consider that for the past 2-3 years, all they have been focusing on has been balancing the 10+ new units and the new features added to SC2. For your percieved idea of SC2 to fly, you would have to play it in 2017, when the game is at its height of balance.

What we're getting right now is actually a pretty good indication that SC2 is more or less ready for the market. The game is there, despite some much needed polish and a few missing elements. This is far beyond what SC1 was when it was first released in terms of balance.

[Moradon]

Why influenced by SC2 alone? There are so many other RTS out there that are already breaking the standards of RTS and pushing the boundaries of what could and can be, which further influence other games. Why must SC2, which positions itself to retain the classic feel of SC1, be the catalyst upon which future games will evolve gameplay on?

If anything, I think games like Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander are already opening doors to many possible outcomes for the genre.

It seems like you're concerned that Starcraft itself must pioneer a new level of gameplay to be fun, but disregard the potential causality of creating a game that alienates itself from its predecessor.

Warcraft 3 was not a favourable experience for many hardcore War2 players, who stuck to War2 or moved on to SC and stayed with it. Even now, there are those who don't consider Warcraft 3, despite its innovative gameplay, to trump SC. How can we say that SC2 with more innovative gameplay mechanics simply be the right and better choice? We can't. That is why SC2 is what it is in its current state.

How many times am I going to need to ask for proof of your claims? You're telling me Idea X isn't innovative. That means you know it's been done before. Great! Just tell me where and we'll move the argument along!

I already handed to you on a silver platter the opportunity to make me look like a bumbling fool by providing specific proof of all three of my ideas having been done already in the RTS genre, and forcing me (by my own promise, no less!) to come up with six new ones. You've failed to take me up on this challenge.

I can only assume that is because you have no actual evidence to your claims that these suggestions are not innovative, other than your gut telling you they aren't, or something. This is an argument, not a kindergarten shouting match ("I was first!" "No I was first!" "No I was!" "No I was!"). You're gonna have to do a lot better than that, or seriously reconsider why you're taking that position to begin with.





WC3 did not innovate "heroes," because the term "hero" means absolutely nothing without context. It innovated bridging the gap between the RTS and RPG genres, and its very specific heroes were RPG characters that leveled up, gained new abilities, and used items. This was largely unprecedented, and in NO WAY whatsoever is defined as 'giving the standard RTS version of heroes steroids.'



It wasn't the beefed up hero concept by itself. There were many decisions that went into the making of WarCraft 3 that were not conductive to competitive gaming, heroes being far, far from the top of its problems. If we took out every single random element in WC3's gameplay (including creep item drops), the game would become much, much more competitive in an instant. Heroes or no heroes.



Is there a chance of it? Absolutely. Is there a chance that over six years they would have come up with a solution? Absolutely.

There was a chance that 3 unique races with completely different units wouldn't work. Huge, huge chance. More possibility of that than it working, in fact. They made it work. It seems to me with more experience behind their backs, Blizz would be capable of taking on another challenge.



They're actually not distinct races at all. They're distinct factions. There had already been games up till that point that got away with having distinct races with identical units (WC1, for one), so it seems pretty radical a step to jump on factions within a race, which ought to be more similar than races in general, and make them unique.

Sounds like they could easily have gotten away with identical units, if WC1 did just a year earlier. Sounds like innovation for the sake of innovation to me.

Except my goal isn't to make you look like a bumbling fool. It's just to show you that innovation is incredibly hard to define, and that it's pointless to obsess over being the first to do something.

You mention things like destructible bridges? WC3 and CoH had that. There you go, there's your example. You want areas where terrain impacts you negatively, SC1 had that in the form of cliff cover. There you go, another example.

But I honestly don't give a crap about engaging into a pissing contest over innovation because the definition of innovation keeps changing every other post. Now it seems that as long you take a certain concept and beef it up, it still counts as innovation since you count WC3 heroes as something completely new. Going by that logic, I might as well say Xel'Naga watch towers are innovative because no other RTS to my knowledge has neutral towers that you can capture. It's just dumb.

The REAL point I'm trying to make is that increasing the importance of certain features has a negative effect on balance. WC3 has less competitive quality BECAUSE of the importance of heroes. You mention "many decisions" that hurt WC3's competability, but don't actually mention anything other than random items or creeps. While fixing random items will help WC3's competitive quality, I can guarantee you that it won't be dramatic. You still have the problems of the fact that the game is built around small, high HP armies where heroes can control the tides of the game. That's the important part here: in order for heroes to be important, every other aspect of the game MUST be downplayed in order to make it happen. Theoretically I could make a WC3 with more focus on armies and less RPG elements, but then heroes wouldn't be important anymore would they?

That's why I don't really like your terrain change idea. It terrain becomes more important, the basic logic of balance dictates that everything else must become less important as a result, and that's something I don't want for SC2. Will it increase strategy regarding terrain? Yes, but it also makes everything else weaker as the result. It's no different than giving Marines 400 HP in order to increase the amount of Marine strategies while having the side-effect of making every other strategy less important. Can you balance a game around 400 HP, tier1 Marines? Yes, but more than likely it would require changing the entire pace of the game in a way that wouldn't be good for e-sports.

Just because balance is possible doesn't mean that the game is still fun. I'm sure that Blizzard can balance a game around super-terrain, but I strongly doubt that a super-terrain game is as much fun as one that's focused on something else, just like how WC3 can be balanced around heroes/items/creeps, but it makes for a less competitive game as a result.

[pure.Wasted]

That's monkeys-on-typewriters logic. You can't seriously believe that is an acceptable standard for game design.

And yet, believe it or not, that's actually how Blizzard comes up with ideas for StarCraft 2 units and game mechanics. That's precisely how they got to Warp-In. Someone came in and said, "Hey guys, wouldn't it be really cool if the Protoss could do this?"

I'm saying, "Hey guys, wouldn't it be really cool if players could modify the terrain in-game?" And "Hey guys, wouldn't it be really cool if the map itself was predictably dynamic?" And those were my suggestions without a roundtable meeting with experienced game designers, they were just off the top of my head in ten minutes.

P.S. did you just compare Blizzard developers innovating the RTS genre to monkeys trying to write Shakespeare? In your opinion, the likelihood of either is close enough for you to feel the comparison is warranted? Personally, if I were a Blizzard employee reading this, I'd be really insulted.

And that relates to my next point. The reason why the 3 race dynamic worked and was so balanced is because they worked on that formula over the span of 4-5 years after the game was released.

If they were to throw in as many innovative features as they did when SC1 first came out, then the game wouldn't be as balanced as it is now. Consider that for the past 2-3 years, all they have been focusing on has been balancing the 10+ new units and the new features added to SC2. For your percieved idea of SC2 to fly, you would have to play it in 2017, when the game is at its height of balance.

We're not getting the final version of SC2 until Void ships. Everything up to Void is just preamble. This just the the pre-game show. It's only a few patches after Void that we'll really have the final game, so what does it matter if they'd have to patch other things in the meantime, too? Everything is still going to be a big mess two years from now (at BEST) when Void ships. If not four years from now.

You mention things like destructible bridges? WC3 and CoH had that. There you go, there's your example. You want areas where terrain impacts you negatively, SC1 had that in the form of cliff cover. There you go, another example.

I did not mention "things like destructible bridges." I mentioned "players actively redesigning the map by the tools at their race's disposal. Bridges, ramps, artificial line of sight blockers, artificial high ground, artificial low ground." In a "competitive environment" -- as in, multiplayer. Again, for clarity, because you guys seem to have a problem with that: "redesigning the map." Not throwing down one bridge. Not destroying one bridge that was already on the map. "Redesigning the map."

It's time to find those adequate precedents, which you said existed, and I'm not going to stop asking for in every single one of my posts until you admit publicly that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about when you mentioned their existence.

The REAL point I'm trying to make is that increasing the importance of certain features has a negative effect on balance. WC3 has less competitive quality BECAUSE of the importance of heroes. You mention "many decisions" that hurt WC3's competability, but don't actually mention anything other than random items or creeps.

I was hoping that your knowledge of the RTS industry, or at least WarCraft 3, would carry the point home. I guess you don't know as much as you've led me to believe. WarCraft 3's randomness alludes primarily to its random attack damage values system, along with random creep item spawns. Neither of these are in any way necessitated by the inclusion of Heroes, yet both tremendously hurt the game in the competitive scene.

Oh, the BM just got Boots of Speed on his first creeps, did he? That could be game right there. Oh, he got Cloak of Shadows? Well, that's pretty useless on a hero that can turn invisible and move. But if it just so happens that the HU attacks at night and the BM's mana is running out... ...when the entire game is built on chance, what you end up with is a crapshoot that can be steered one way or another.

That does not a competitive game make. Neither random attack values nor random item drops were required by the concept of Heroes. The game was hampered not by innovation, but by poor design decisions. There are many others that had nothing to do with randomness, but I don't really think I need to go on at this point.

That's why I don't really like your terrain change idea. It terrain becomes more important, the basic logic of balance dictates that everything else must become less important as a result, and that's something I don't want for SC2. Will it increase strategy regarding terrain? Yes, but it also makes everything else weaker as the result. It's no different than giving Marines 400 HP in order to increase the amount of Marine strategies while having the side-effect of making every other strategy less important. Can you balance a game around 400 HP, tier1 Marines? Yes, but more than likely it would require changing the entire pace of the game in a way that wouldn't be good for e-sports.

Why in the world would a passage opening up a backdoor to an enemy base slow down the game?

[SlickR]

@pure.wasted:
2) live up to SC1's legacy as a benchmark game. They failed to try. To me, the gameplay feels conceptually dated and boring. You can call it innovation for the sake of innovation, but I call it innovation for the sake of living up to the weighty title it has the good fortune to be sequel to.

There are other games pure, try C&C4, supreme commander 2, DOW2, total war or whatever.

Or if you really don't want to, you would have fun with the SP campaign, which is where most of the innovation is.

Don't force yourself to like a game, that's not suited to your style.
I don't like many games and I just don't A) track them B) play them C) bother to talk about them.

[newcomplex]

How about this? "If terrain modification doesn't work after 2 years of working on it, we'll scrap it." Pretty scalable to me, and no less destructive to their efforts to innovate than scaling back on years of work on 3 unique races would have been.

Hell, they didn't even try it for two months.

Ok, this one was ACTUALLY a misunderstanding, I got confused and thought you were talking to me on the subject of five races, which isn't scalable.

Then I disagree with Blizzard's design goal. How complicated was that? Their design goal should have been to make the gameplay feel as fresh and different as possible as a competitive game would have allowed. They failed to try.

Awesome. Now that you have a point, at least I can argue with it.

and....

Its a stupid design goal.

Lets establish that as far as the scope of Blizzard games go, they're about fun, and competition and some cinematic/lore/immersion minors. We can reach consensus of that right? Blizzards main goals isn't to try and express the anguish of being a fellow human being through the medium of video games? ok.

Their main goal also isn't to try and push ahead the industry. Perhaps its a awesome side effect, but not really considered.

Now, competitive multiplayer games are primarily fun through gameplay. Oh stuff like graphics and explosions help, but gameplay is the central focus. Right? Right. No arguments their. Nobody seriously plays comp multiplayer for the...lore? Or to try and build the biggest and coolest base. Well, I guess some people at copper do. Which is depressing. But really, at the center, its gameplay.

Now, the central focus of multiplayer games is gameplay, and the central focus of gameplay in gameplay, not just in blizzard games, but most games is fun.

Still on agreement?

Ok, time for innovation. Now, we can agree that Chess is a multiplayer game. It has crap graphics, but its a multiplayer game, and follows similar philosophies to computer multiplayer games. It also has remained unchanged for four hundred years, and people clearly play it. Counterstrike and starcraft have remained unchanged in...Seven years, and people still play them. A minor achievement, but potent never the less as far as video games go. Now, other games are not as often played for as long, without having their MP killed by sequels.

Why are they not? Lack of depth. Imbalance is a cause of lack of depth, but not the only one (imbalance encourages uniform playstyles)

So far, still in agreement...hope so.

Longevity and distinction among Multiplayer games are a direct result of Depth in play.

BUT WAI. IM WRONG?

Note solely a result of Depth in play.

Accessibility. Tic Tac Toe has withstood the test of time, and probably existed since man figured out how to draw lines in the dirt with a stick...or something. The game is also clearly broken and imbalanced towards the starting player, and lacks any depth. But the game is absurdly accessible.

Innovation as you describe it, is "to achieve difference from other games". That, in multiplayer games falls under the realm of accessibility, and how popular a multiplayer game is a balance between accessibility and depth. What your so called "innovation" does is it creates obvious distinctions for your game, so a new player, who doesn't care about Depth, is immediately drawn in because the game is "shiny", or has so called "innovative" mechanics.

He'll continue to play until he has reached the point where he loses interest as a result of lack of depth. In other words, innovation, a subset of accessibility, draws them in, and balance, a subset of depth, keeps them their.

So, the ultimate question is: Does Starcraft 2 need it. When your central design goal is making the game different through innovation, you are potentially (not certainly) sacrificing depth to increase accessibility, and its a risky play.

And it doesn't

First of all, it is a sequel, and sequels sacrifice accessibility for depth, because they already HAVE people liking the game. It just needs to improve.

Second, the game has no competitors. No other game released recently resembles the way Starcraft 2 plays, eve though it innovates little over its twelve year old predecessor.

Then, the game has other selling points, OTHER POINTS OF ACCESSIBILITY, beyond multiplayer innovation. The single player is innovative, hence, allows easy innovation without hurting MP balance. And custom games for those who just don't like ladder.

Lastly, the people who are core fans of the series do not want blizzard to prize accessibility over depth to the point where it hurts depth. In fact, blizzards own motto is to prize accessibility as much as possible WITHOUT hurting depth, or "easy to play, hard to master".

2) live up to SC1's legacy as a benchmark game. They failed to try. To me, the gameplay feels conceptually dated and boring. You can call it innovation for the sake of innovation, but I call it innovation for the sake of living up to the weighty title it has the good fortune to be sequel to.

This is a concession that SC1 original (multiplayer) gameplay is boring. This means you just never really liked SC1's (multiplayer) gameplay.

So what your demand for innovation becomes is a demand for change in a series sequel because you personally did not enjoy SC1 multiplayer.

[Triceron]

You're finding fault in a game that never aimed to break standards, despite having done it in the past. I'm guessing New Super Mario bros is fail because it's not in 3D.

[Gifted]

@Newcomplex: Alright man... I figured you'd do what you did, so let's keep this simple. You quoted this and sent me links to other posts

@newcomplex: I find it funny, after reading your newest posts, you seem to care more about playing down other people's points than constructing one for you to stand on sir. I don't mean disrespect to you, but I think much of the frustrated tone has originated from you throughout this entire thread. If no other posts existed... and you had 2 paragraphs to simply say "Hey, here's my side on this deal about StarCraft II and innovation".. what would you say?

The last line was the most important line of the entire quote, the one that said "If no other posts existed". That includes your own sir. Would you like to try the 2 paragraph idea? Or should I assume you'd rather not. I'm trying to understand your side more, this is the easiest method to cut all the side information out and just "explain your side".

Think of it this way, I'm looking for the main idea... not the essay.