Bored of SC2

[Iceman_jkh]

Reading your other posts in these forums, I get that you don't like SC2, it isn't attractive to you. That is ok, everyone got their own taste and opinion, but one thing that I don't understand is why are you still posting here when you actually don't care about the game?

For that exact reason... because I care about the game. Like many of you, I have waited 12 years for the successor to one of the most brilliant, creative and (hate to use the word) innovative games of that decade. I'm not here arguing, suggesting ideas, mechanics and tweaks because I have no concern.

[Moradon]

Heh, Gifted's post reminds me of what I've always used to say about SC2: "If you want innovation in SC2, then you aren't going to find it in the multiplayer skirmish, but rather the singleplayer, Battlenet, and Galaxy Editor."

I know it might seem rude, but I really can't understand why so many people want innovation in skirmish multiplayer. The thing about RTSs is that they're ALWAYS going to be a niche genre simply because they are so demanding and competitive. No amount of innovation can change that, and Blizzard made it blatantly clear that they very much want SC2 to be demanding.

There's plenty of innovation in SC2 outside the skirmish mode, and that's what most casual players are going to be playing anyway. Casuals generally don't play skirmish mode because it's super demanding, so they'll usually gravitate to singleplayer or custom games, and those two features have PLENTY of innovation. It's not about Blizzard being lazy, they're just being smart about which type of people their game features should be catered to. Skirmish mode is generally played by hardcores, and hardcores generally don't want excessive innovation, and that's what they got.

[pure.Wasted]

Out of curiosity, Moradon -- 20 years from now SC3 comes out. How differently should it be?

[newcomplex]

"Playing against AI"

.....

....
...

..

=_=

This is so stupid. SC2 is about competitive play, playing against AI is intrinsically not competitive. Depth is created through interaction with a complex system of simple mechanics, that arises out of competitive play, out of "playing to win", something AI play does not stipulate. Depth has never been created through mechanical complexity, nor should it be. Games like Homeworld, primarily SP games contain mechanical complexity, static complexity that remains unchanging. SC2 is not Homeworld, it is not about mechanical complexity. The entirety of SC2 multiplayer is lost when your not playing in a competitive enviroment save the mechanical aspect, its intentionally least complex and compelling part.


edit:

owies I spilled (splashed?) energy drink in my EYE. wtf how does that happen :*(

[TheEconomist]

StarCraft 2 will be the perfection of the mechanics. StarCraft 3 will be the one that needs innovation; not 2.

There's still more than can be done to better the mechanics in the original. StarCraft 2 will do just that. Once that's full fleshed out, Blizzard will move on to something else.

[pure.Wasted]

StarCraft 2 will be the perfection of the mechanics. StarCraft 3 will be the one that needs innovation; not 2.

There's still more than can be done to better the mechanics in the original. StarCraft 2 will do just that. Once that's full fleshed out, Blizzard will move on to something else.

Few in 1998 would have said that SC1's mechanics were in need of serious revamp. By 2030, I'm sure there'll be plenty of mechanics in SC2 that seem outdated (let alone the macro ones) and a re-"perfection of the mechanics" will be just as justified.

[Moradon]

Out of curiosity, Moradon -- 20 years from now SC3 comes out. How differently should it be?

Depends on how the technology evolves and whether it's applicable to SC's gameplay or not. If technology suddenly provided us with a high-quality virtual reality simulator, then I would definitely want it in the custom games at least. Whether it would fit into the skirmish mode itself is a tougher manner. I really can't say for sure.

[newcomplex]

Yes.. TOO similar.

You are a moron.

Wolf3d - No pitch control
Doom - Multiplayer
Q - Pitch control
CounterStrike - New Gameplay, (semi) realism (single life/round)
CoD - weapon carry limit (more realism), squad control
Halo - vehicles
Crisis - damage thresholds, power suit, interactive environs.

Obviously the list doesnt list the pioneers in the field. These are just some examples. Your argument is rubbish. Those games were all innovations on previous generations. SC2 is not an innovation on SC1 at present. Sure its got a better UI, and some neat mechanics, but its still essentially the SAME.

Not that its easy to do, but add things like deforming terrain, bridges, caves, underground, etc. That would open up a plethora of possibilities AND be innovative! No one wants a different genre, we dont want SC2 = homeworld or something like that, but so far, nothing inspires.

"Weapon carry limit" or "Pitch" is not something that is innately innovative to anyone but a close follower of the genre. Nothing, nothing in that list is indicative of any degree of change except "Vehicles", "Multiplayer" and "realism".

Going by your definition of change, SC2 has it. Unlimited unit selection, macro mechanics, MBS, all dynamic shifts in gameplay from its predecessor.

----



Also I don't think theres going to be a SC3.

[Crazy_Jonny]

Few in 1998 would have said that SC1's mechanics were in need of serious revamp. By 2030, I'm sure there'll be plenty of mechanics in SC2 that seem outdated (let alone the macro ones) and a re-"perfection of the mechanics" will be just as justified.

I beg to differ. When I was a n00b to SC, a few of my first complaints had to do with with the unit pathing and why workers couldn't automatically go to other mineral fields sometimes. I still love the game, but never denied it could be better.

Sure, in 98, people didn't suggest revamps because they didn't look for those problems. There was no hype back then. SCI didn't intend on being a national e-sport, just a very unique and well polished RTS.
StarCraft 2 does intend on being a national e-sport, thus re-vamps are necessary, but not too extreme.

If they decide to return to the SC Universe one day after the trilogy, its going to have to be something different, or else SC2 would be considered a failure. SCI wasn't trying to perfect, thus is isn't a failure.

[Cathon]

For that exact reason... because I care about the game. Like many of you, I have waited 12 years for the successor to one of the most brilliant, creative and (hate to use the word) innovative games of that decade. I'm not here arguing, suggesting ideas, mechanics and tweaks because I have no concern.

I've always found Blizzard to be one of the less innovative game companies around. What they do that makes them so popular is that take a good look and what works, what doesn't, and incorporate or cut accordingly, not stick blindly to a designing philosophy and punish players for it.

In my opinion, this is why WoW was so immensely more popular than any MMO before it in history. It actually never did anything really ground breaking or new, but it did alot of things really, really well. Many other studios try to beat WoW in one category, but once players realize it's a one trick pony, the shiny gloss fades and they move on.

StarCraft 1 was actually considered a step back in innovation by some because WC2 had Air, ground, and Naval units, whereas SC only had the two former. I remember Total Annihilation also came out in the same time period which put more of an emphasis on having larger armies and was in 3D, and also incoporated physics relatively well. While some of this was cool-sounding and all, did it really improve gameplay for the player? Blizzard continued to succeed after the launch, but the studio behind TA was... not so successful.