What happened to the innovation?

[Shadow Archon]

There's a big difference between completely removing half the game (base building for CnC) and simply asking for a few new units and abilities. Our demands are NOT unreasonable.

A. Im only warning that the game should not be too changed.

B. I am not fond of eletricmole's idea about base defense.

[sandwich_bird]

Innovation... The more this world progress, the less you can use this term in a discussion regarding intellectual properties in the entertainment business. SC2 multiplayer is as innovative as it can get because the developers decided to stick with an old philosophy of rts design and honestly, it was the right choice to make. Reinvent the wheel completely or improve their current game in every way possible? There’s barely any place left for “reinventing the wheel” with a RTS and there’s definitely even less space left to create something new while having to loosely follow the unclear boundaries created by the first Starcrat and the expectations of the gamers interested in the sequel.

And so they did all they can to move this game into this generation. Nothing in SC2 is really innovative compared to what other games did; I’ll give you that, but hell, its one hell of a jump if you compare SC1 to SC2 multiplayer. Xel Naga watch towers, yellow minerals, macro mechanics, destructible rocks, new graphic engine, new buildings, new units, dual gas, improved UI, all new matchmaking system, probably the strongest “easy to use” map editor out there, a new platform that let you connect SC2 to all the future Blizzard games, etc etc etc. You know what? We’re not even done yet! Two more expansions are gonna jump in after that; bringing even more content to what’s already there. That doesn’t end there; they’re not even freaking done doing the game. Sure this is beta and yes it’s probably vaguely around 90% done but the product is still not finish. I really smell new abilities coming this way (to the infestor and mothership, they’re not done yet with those 2 I’m 99.9% sure) but of course this is just speculation.

Still, you dare question innovation? What do you expect of a sequel? What is supposed to be a sequel? Is it not keeping core elements that supported the old titles while bringing them to the next level? Is this not what Blizzard did? Do you guys really want a sequel or a completely new game?

[MattII]

This isn't something that happened suddenly. The Tempest was a cry-out to the Carrier, and the return of the Carrier demonstrated either an unwillingness to experiment, or a desire to follow the path of least resistance.

[newcomplex]

lol new race.

Starcraft was groundbreak because its central focus was three races that simultaneously parallel and distincted from each other, and was relatively balanced. WC3 allowed for new race because the Human and Orc races were identical, a unfeasible design due to the expectations they set up for themselves. So they got to create a blank slate, and recreate the original philosophy of SC for 4 races instead of three.

SC2 already has three distinguished races that set the BAR for distinguished races. It would be impossible to create a 4th race unless the original 3 were distorted to a form no longer recognizable, or if they gave up their core philosophy that made SC1 a success.

SC2 aims for a balance of Macro and Micro. Can i say that no RTS since the original starcraft has achieved this?

This isn't something that happened suddenly. The Tempest was a cry-out to the Carrier, and the return of the Carrier demonstrated either an unwillingness to experiment, or a desire to follow the path of least resistance.

Experimenting for experimenting sake is counterproductive. The tempest was scrapped because it was so similar to the carrier that it was pointless to ditch such an iconic unit for one that had a less suitable role (end game unit that only attacks ground, but is located in the air)


If blizzard adds too many micro spells, the game loses its movement based micro and becomes to similar to the spectator unfriendly WC3. Macro games in general are just boring and uncompetitive, so they need to retain micro and harassing. The original SC formula was probably so perfect that they had no reason to change was didn't need to be fixed.

[Aldrius]

Experimenting for experimenting sake is counterproductive.

No it isn't. lol. Especially in that case. Making a unit more strategically viable and giving it a weakness is hardly a bad idea.

The tempest was scrapped because it was so similar to the carrier that it was pointless to ditch such an iconic unit for one that had a less suitable role (end game unit that only attacks ground, but is located in the air)

It seems kinda pointless to correct this now, but the Tempest did NOT only attack ground. And having played the game now, I can safely say it would probably have been a much more fun unit than the Carrier is. But ah well.

[MattII]

The tempest was scrapped because it was so similar to the carrier...

That was as I understand it, part of the reason, yes. I noted the similarity when I said it was a cry-out to the Carrier.

(end game unit that only attacks ground, but is located in the air)

Um, completely wring, it could attack anything, but its shield didn't activate against air attacks.

[Triceron]

I still think it'd be awesome if this game had subfaction style tech branches. It's present in many other games, and can be moderately balanced given that the branching happens after a certain point in the game, either hitting a certain tier or tech point.

Exclusive tech could make things more interesting in certain matchups. This could be in the form of unlocking a new unit, upgrades for early tier units, or a new active ability to use on command.

An example of this could be having Lurker evolution tech -or- Roach Acid Spores attack -or- Infestor Disease ability. Stuff like this would be packaged up into a 'talent tree' or sorts, letting you customize your army. Again, this could be later tier stuff so it doesn't blow up early-mid game balance.

[Rake]

Blizzard never inovates. They simply take what has worked in the past, whether for themselves or for others, and polish it with awsome. So if there is no innovation compared with SC1, then blame the other developers.

[Norfindel]

They added a lot of freshness, but it's a sequel, what do you expected? A completely different game?

I agree about the terrain stuff, however. They could had made things like bridges and ramps that can be activated or not, or can be destroyed/rebuilt, but they only put what the community had already done by itself: destructible stuff. The only real map innovation are the Xel'Naga watchtowers, and high-yield minerals.

[pokerface]

Just wanted to say, the game is 100% different from the first, only mineral hunting is the same, If your looking for a mechanics change, then it wouldn't be called SCII, it would be called R.U.S.E. Beta a real time strategy game, with all new mechanics from SCI.

But you did make a point. like the Maps, but people will make great new maps... so .....that fixes that....