What happened to the innovation?

[newcomplex]

@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
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.

I gave you the main idea in that post after my quotewall...

I can't make it simpler then this:

Innovation needs point. That point needs to be good. SC2 is at a point where innovation doesn't have a point, or it wouldn't be a good one.

SC2 design goals was to create a sequel of SC2 keeping in lines with its original philosophies, and along the way, only lateral improvement, not genre changing innovation, was needed, and the core design philosophies, obviously being similar to SC1, also did not require genre changing innovations.

[SlickR]

Lets establish that as far as the scope of Blizzard games go, they are about fun, 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.

fixed for better readability.

[newcomplex]

fixed for better readability.

thank you? :P

[Gifted]

I gave you the main idea in that post after my quotewall...

I can't make it simpler then this:

Innovation needs point. That point needs to be good. SC2 is at a point where innovation doesn't have a point, or it wouldn't be a good one.

SC2 design goals was to create a sequel of SC2 keeping in lines with its original philosophies, and along the way, only lateral improvement, not genre changing innovation, was needed, and the core design philosophies, obviously being similar to SC1, also did not require genre changing innovations.

Thank you, now that you've said that.....


.... why are you going out of your way to put an argumentative tone in your posts? And before you defend against it, your most recent one back to Pure.Wasted started with "Awesome. Now that you have a point, at least I can argue with it."...

He holds an opinion that's just as valuable as yours, even if you disagree with it and hold a different one of your own. There's nothing right or wrong about yours or his.. they're opinions.

[newcomplex]

Thank you, now that you've said that.....


.... why are you going out of your way to put an argumentative tone in your posts? And before you defend against it, your most recent one back to Pure.Wasted started with "Awesome. Now that you have a point, at least I can argue with it."...

He holds an opinion that's just as valuable as yours, even if you disagree with it and hold a different one of your own. There's nothing right or wrong about yours or his.. they're opinions.

He wasn't giving a position I could argue with. An analogy would be like if we were to argue whether Pope benedict was good or bad, when he holds the belief that all people governing the church are chosen by god, and thus, must be good.

If he holds that innovation, regardless of reason, is an intrinsic good, how can I say that innovation isn't good in starcraft?

[agentheart]

He wasn't giving a position I could argue with. An analogy would be like if we were to argue whether Pope benedict was good or bad, when he holds the belief that all people governing the church are chosen by god, and thus, must be good.

If he holds that innovation, regardless of reason, is an intrinsic good, how can I say that innovation isn't good in starcraft?

WTF???

[pure.Wasted]

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

I've already said in this thread that I disagreed with Blizzard's design decision. This is not something new; just because you have selective reading abilities doesn't mean I'm not being clear, or haven't been clear for the last X-many pages. Check out Post #221 (at the very least) for a very explicit statement to the same effect.

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.

Why is this hypothetical player finding a lack of depth in a game that is like SC2 but with in-game terrain modifications? If anything, the game has become exponentially deeper.

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.

Let me ask you a question back: why did Blizzard implement MBS and smart-cast? 12 years ago no one complained that there was no MBS, right? No one complained that there wasn't smart-cast. And yet 12 years later, that's just not enough. I can play StarCraft 1 without MBS and without smart-cast and enjoy it, and yet I want MBS and smart-cast in my SC2, don't I?

Apply on larger scale. I can enjoy SC1 for what it is. "What it is" is remarkable for a game released 12 years ago. "What it is" with new graphics is nothing special for a game released today.

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.

I don't know, I've sort of come to expect bigger things from Blizzard than Nintendo. Last time I checked out the Wii, it had completely wasted all available opportunities to do something interesting with the gameplay made possible by the Wii remote. So... yeah.

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.

Thanks, but my choices in gaming are far too selective for these games. Anything below the level of polish I've come to expect from Blizzard/2K/Rockstar/Bioware/etc usually just doesn't cut it. That's what growing up on Blizzard games does to ya.

[newcomplex]

I've already said in this thread that I disagreed with Blizzard's design decision. This is not something new; just because you have selective reading abilities doesn't mean I'm not being clear, or haven't been clear for the last X-many pages. Check out Post #221 (at the very least) for a very explicit statement to the same effect.

Well of course I got you disagreed with blizzards design decisions, who else would you be disagreeing with, Square Enix's design decisions?

The point is you conceded the absurd notion that innovation itself is intrinsically good, and grounded it to the purpose and quality of the design principals behind it.

Before that, we couldn't even argue about Starcraft. We could argue about how silly your perception of innovation.

Why is this hypothetical player finding a lack of depth in a game that is like SC2 but with in-game terrain modifications? If anything, the game has become exponentially deeper.

He isn't, if the mechanic is well implemented.

In game terrain modifications already exist anyway, in starcraft, and in other places and are hardly innovative.

It only becomes innovative once it plays a core part in starcrafts gameplay. At this point, we've had to completely throw out SC1s core gameplay just to make the game more accessible to people who don't like SC1's core gameplay. What have we gained here?

Let me ask you a question back: why did Blizzard implement MBS and smart-cast? 12 years ago no one complained that there was no MBS, right? No one complained that there wasn't smart-cast.

And yet 12 years later, that's just not enough. I can play StarCraft 1 without MBS and without smart-cast and enjoy it, and yet I want MBS and smart-cast in my SC2, don't I?

People did complain, not on release, but when people try and play the game for the first time now, they think ifs unplayable, mainly because of twelve unit limit, manual mining, and lack of mbs. The depth in the gameplay however, was perfectly fine. Nobody couldn't play it because the gameplay was "like pacman, way too simple".

Apply on larger scale. I can enjoy SC1 for what it is. "What it is" is remarkable for a game released 12 years ago. "What it is" with new graphics is nothing special for a game released today.

I can enjoy SC1 for "what it is" too, a remarkable RTS game released twelve years ago that has literally not been close to being approached as far as gameplay depth goes since its release except by another game made by the same company (wc3).

WC2 going into WC3 needed drastic change because WC2, by the time of WC3, had been far far surpassed by other RTS's, including SC1. SC1, at the time of SC2, has never been surpassed once in any aspect other then being able to select more then twelve units, automining, and MBS.

Thanks, but my choices in gaming are far too selective for these games. Anything below the level of polish I've come to expect from Blizzard/2K/Rockstar/Bioware/etc usually just doesn't cut it. That's what growing up on Blizzard games does to ya.

And the only reason their games are able to be the quality that they are is that they sacrifice innovation for polish, or retrospectively, don't innovate in favor of polish.

And 2k sucks. In all possible ways. Since like, twelve years ago after they made SS.

[pure.Wasted]

In game terrain modifications already exist anyway, in starcraft, and in other places and are hardly innovative.

No, "in-game terrain modifications including bridges, ramps, line of sight blockers, and artificial high/low/ground" do not exist in StarCraft. No, these things do not exist anywhere else. I just covered this same freaking ground with Moradon for about 20 posts, and he failed to produce a single game that came anywhere NEAR what I'm talking about. If you had read my posts, you would already know that I've asked numerous times to be proven wrong, and have seen nothing. If you'd read my posts, you'd know how irritated I was by these vague "these games exist" statements, and would have started off with specific examples instead of generalities.

I came in this thread accusing you of not reading peoples' posts. All you've done so far is proven me right on numerous occasions. I am genuinely, honestly offended by this preventable waste of my time.

It only becomes innovative once it plays a core part in starcrafts gameplay. At this point, we've had to completely throw out SC1s core gameplay just to make the game more accessible to people who don't like SC1's core gameplay. What have we gained here?

If we've succeeded, we've created a game that is both true to SC and brings something brand-new for the franchise, and the RTS genre at large. It will go down in history as one of the most influential RTS games of all time for its gameplay.

If we've failed, we have a 'failed' experiment not far from what we got with WarCraft 3 (except take out all the randomness gibberish, and the game actually becomes playable competitively).

Yes, it's a risk. Just like SC1 was a risk. But risks pay off big. SC2 should have been an opportunity to challenge themselves, THE game that Blizzard has been getting itself ready to make for the last 15 years. In some ways, it definitely is. As far as multiplayer gameplay is concerned, however...

WC2 going into WC3 needed drastic change because WC2, by the time of WC3, had been far far surpassed by other RTS's, including SC1. SC1, at the time of SC2, has never been surpassed once in any aspect other then being able to select more then twelve units, automining, and MBS.

WarCraft 2 hadn't been surpassed. There was no need for StarCraft. Blizzard just up and decided that what they had wasn't good enough. That's what they should have up and decided with SC2, as well.

And ladies and gentlemen the post of the THREAD:

And the only reason their games are able to be the quality that they are is that they sacrifice innovation for polish, or retrospectively, don't innovate in favor of polish.

You might have missed it, but at this point in the thread we're actually all just about in agreement that SC1 innovated completely unique races. Proving, once again, that you do not read the posts in the discussion (posts ~#240-252). I'm sorry, NC, that's just one misunderstanding too many. If you can't do me the simple courtesy of taking the time to read my posts, I'm not going to take the time to respond to yours. There's just nothing in it for me other than frustration.

[Moradon]

No, "in-game terrain modifications including bridges, ramps, line of sight blockers, and artificial high/low/ground" do not exist in StarCraft. No, these things do not exist anywhere else. I just covered this same freaking ground with Moradon for about 20 posts, and he failed to produce a single game that came anywhere NEAR what I'm talking about. If you had read my posts, you would already know that I've asked numerous times to be proven wrong, and have seen nothing. If you'd read my posts, you'd know how irritated I was by these vague "these games exist" statements, and would have started off with specific examples instead of generalities.

What the hell? I already gave you examples in a previous post. CoH has bridges. SC1 has ramps and high/low ground. If you what you really mean is "RTS game that has all of these things at once", then no such game exists.

...actually scratch that. I'm wrong.

Wait a minute, actually one does exist. It's called Starcraft 2.