"Muta"lisks that don't mutate

[pure.Wasted]

If names have no reference, let's just start calling them, "Unit 1, 2, 3," and so-on.

Names *need* to convey meaning, or they're pointless.
Good lord this is a frustrating argument. I give up.

You're both right and wrong.

When a universe is still in the process of being created, it's important for names to convey something... to be clear, evocative, memorable. The first time someone ever hears "Ultralisk," they think, "Wow, this thing has to be ultra-something to deserve that name." The name and the concept are two separate things that come together to form its identity.

Now what we have with SC2 is a universe that's no longer in the process of being created. It's in the process of being added to. That means there's plenty of things in it that we already recognize instantly. Names and concepts are no longer separateable. We don't ever think of actual ghosts when we hear "Ghost." The word has lots its original association and gained a new one within the context of StarCraft. The same is true of the name "Mutalisk." The unit's appearance is now inseparable from it.

[AegisKHAOS]

In fact, until this thread, I never even connected 'muta' with mutation when I first played SC. My issues with losing the mutalisk's ability to mutate into another units was purely for gameplay reasons, otherwise the name 'mutalisk' was simply for a little worm thing with wings that shoot stuff that bounce. :P It no longer able to mutate into something like a Swram Guardian or Broodlord, I otherwise care not, nor will I lose any sleep over.

[SinsWage]

Why? A single-player RTS has very, very different needs from a competitive multiplayer RTS. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they are almost diametrically opposed to one another; that feeding the needs of one necessarily removes you from the needs of another.

A level-based single-player game needs to constantly be giving you new things. New units, new enemy units, new combat situations, etc. And over the course of 25+ missions, it's very hard to do that with just 12 units per side. Not without making everything very samey. Each level in a single-player game needs to have its own unique identity and its own unique characteristics. It needs to serve the overall needs of the flow of the game at that point.

Limiting yourself to what works for multiplayer won't get this done. And shoving a bunch of single-player units into competitive multiplayer isn't a good way to make a competitive game.

Exhibit A

[Nicol Bolas]

Exhibit A

You may not have played SC1's singleplayer in a while, so you may not remember this. But it was not the same as the multiplayer.

There were "hero" units that were different from standard multiplayer units. There were even fairly unique units and abilities, like the SCV+Psi Emitter that could mind-control loose Zerg units by touching them. Most missions did not give you access to all units. Indeed, the critical lack of certain units were distinct and specific challenges imposed on certain levels. There were installation missions where there weren't even bases to build units in. And so on.

And most important of all, the game still could have worked better if the singleplayer team had the ability to build new units out of whole cloth.

In the SC1 installation missions, imagine being able to take a unit more designed for the task rather than just Marines. Units with special abilities or that can take advantage of cover, or various other micro tasks that aren't useful in multiplayer but would make for an interesting singleplayer experience. Or a Ghost unit with abilities designed around being in an installation rather than in the field of battle (representing different weapon loadouts).

[MattII]

You may not have played SC1's campaigns in a while, so you may not remember this. But it was not the same as the standard play.

Fixed. It always gets me annoyed that people seem to regard the campaign as all there is to single-player mode.

[Blazur]

In the 4 years since brood wars the Zerg have actually de-evolved in many ways.

- Hydras can no longer evolve to lurkers.
- Mutalisks can no longer evolve into anything.
- The queen is now a grounded unit without the ability to fly.
- Overlords lost innate detection.
- Burrow takes longer in the evolutionary chain of events to become available.

[Nicol Bolas]

Fixed. It always gets me annoyed that people seem to regard the campaign as all there is to single-player mode.

What else was there to single-player? Outside of user-created maps, which itself requires internet access.

In the 4 years since brood wars the Zerg have actually de-evolved in many ways.

Really? Let's see:

- Hydras can no longer evolve to lurkers.

They also do more than 2x the damage to certain units for a rather modest cost increase.

- The queen is now a grounded unit without the ability to fly.

And is also able to catalyze the creation of Larva, the backbone of the Zerg. A far more vital role and function than merely flying.

- Overlords lost innate detection.

And gained the ability to both dispense Creep and become a detector.

- Burrow takes longer in the evolutionary chain of events to become available.

So that two units can move while burrowed.

Losing abilities that the environment deems useless to gain more useful abilities is the entire point of evolution. The fish-like ancestors of all land vertebrates lost their ability to breathe water too; does that constitute "de-evolution"?

And as an aside, there's no such thing as "de-evolution" because evolution doesn't have a goal or destination. It isn't trying to do anything, so there is no "forwards" or "backwards".

[warrior6]

Is it just me or are the respones missing the larger point of the post?

MUTAlisk.

It doesn't mutate, which is very dumb.

"HYDRA"lisk

it only has 1 head instead of multiple like a hydra...thats dumb.

"marines"

are also part of the general army infantry. when in fact they are suppose to be closely coordinated with the navy and seperate from the army.

[Blazur]

Losing abilities that the environment deems useless to gain more useful abilities is the entire point of evolution. The fish-like ancestors of all land vertebrates lost their ability to breathe water too; does that constitute "de-evolution"?

And as an aside, there's no such thing as "de-evolution" because evolution doesn't have a goal or destination. It isn't trying to do anything, so there is no "forwards" or "backwards".

Oh Christ, lighten up...will ya? It wasn't meant as a serious post. But my point still stands, the race has devolved in the ways I outlined.

[MattII]

What else was there to single-player? Outside of user-created maps, which itself requires internet access.

Well you can't tell me that all the 11+ million players (based on the number of copies sold) play online, what about those who only had dialup? Besides, a ton of maps shipped with the game anyway so you wouldn't necessarily need internet access the whole time,or really at all.