A View From The Road: The StarCraft Dilemma
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Bravo John! Exactly what I was thinking. Innovations is an overused term these days. Why change something that was so good in the first place?
Also, I find the new units to be innovation enough. Nydus worms and Reapers to be very interesting new changes to basic their respective races..
Also, I find the new units to be innovation enough. Nydus worms and Reapers to be very interesting new changes to basic their respective races..
One area to explore is how Blizzard as a company approaches a game. Did they innovate with the original SC? Did any WC title innovate? Blizzard's strength is in polished, user friendly experiences with a lot of depth. Easy to pick up, difficult to master. I'm not sure they are a company you look to for innovation but rather the source for refinement.
Depth can kill. Keep adding depth with every iteration, and pretty soon a game is just too dang complicated to appeal to anyone new. The base becomes insular. I think making small tweaks and minor adjustments is the way to go.
I was actually worried that they were changing TOO MUCH when I saw the battle report videos. At the time I thought, "Holy cow! They changed everything! This is a whole new game!" (It wasn't - they were just showing off the new stuff and ignoring the same stuff, which made the changes feel more radical than they were.)
Still, I won't be there on launch day. As someone who played only single-player and LAN, I want to see how well those things work before I dive in.
I was actually worried that they were changing TOO MUCH when I saw the battle report videos. At the time I thought, "Holy cow! They changed everything! This is a whole new game!" (It wasn't - they were just showing off the new stuff and ignoring the same stuff, which made the changes feel more radical than they were.)
Still, I won't be there on launch day. As someone who played only single-player and LAN, I want to see how well those things work before I dive in.
Great article. I agree mostly with what you said. Blizzard did the smart thing by not just ripping off of newer RTS titles like dawn of war or company of heroes. Some may argue that if you make a new RTS they have to have cover systems and area control and etc because that's what is hot these days. However that is pure and simple bullshit. If Dawn of War and Company of Heroes were chocolate chip cookies with caramel inside, Starcraft 2 is a yummy butter cookie. Just because everything these days has caramel and chocolate in it does NOT mean that every cookie going forward has to be chocolate and caramel. Let Starcraft be Starcraft, If you don't like it then don't buy it or play it.
I LAN'd a ton back in the day, but to be perfectly honest I haven't experienced any significant lag at all while playing on Battle.net (to be fair, I'm hardly a pro). Tonight we'll be doing a 2v2 from Chez Escape, and while that's hardly a stress test of any sort, if it holds up then I think the game might manage just fine without traditional LAN. Though I do want to hear more about the direct-enabled pseudo-LAN they have for tournaments and the like.Shamus Young said:
Agreed. Sequels would be better if they just stick to the original, fix only what needs fixing, offer new content, and update to new technology. Dawn of War 2 is a good example of how NOT to do a sequel. Not that it is a terrible game and not that it should not have been made, but it should have been called something else. Kudos to Blizzard for not making the same mistake.
That said, not offering camera rotation and better zoom seems a little behind-the-times. I'll leave commentary on the whole LAN/Battlenet 2.0 issue to Shamus.
That said, not offering camera rotation and better zoom seems a little behind-the-times. I'll leave commentary on the whole LAN/Battlenet 2.0 issue to Shamus.
Just finished downloading the client to watch replays; loving every minute of SC2.
When I think of great sequel games, I think of Jedi Knight II and Half Life 2; both of them perfectly captured their original games, updated their engines and streamlined the gameplay successfully.
Bad sequels I can think of are numerous.
Two games that I love, but are terrible sequels are the games that should have been expansion packs; games that are just slight upgrades to the original
Culprits of this are Left 4 Dead 2 and Jedi Knight 3: Jedi Academy, games that should have been left to develop more on their own instead of relying on slightly upgraded versions of the same engine and using resources from the original game.
When I think of great sequel games, I think of Jedi Knight II and Half Life 2; both of them perfectly captured their original games, updated their engines and streamlined the gameplay successfully.
Bad sequels I can think of are numerous.
Two games that I love, but are terrible sequels are the games that should have been expansion packs; games that are just slight upgrades to the original
Culprits of this are Left 4 Dead 2 and Jedi Knight 3: Jedi Academy, games that should have been left to develop more on their own instead of relying on slightly upgraded versions of the same engine and using resources from the original game.
Just ran Starcraft 2 for the first time and looked at some replays (that's all you can do right know if you aren't in the beta as it hasn't been cracked yet).
Opening up the game for the first time was a magical feeling, like I just couldn't believe it was real.
Opening up the game for the first time was a magical feeling, like I just couldn't believe it was real.
Wait wait wait wait wait wait......how are you running SC2..if you arent in the beta? This has now gone into boggle my mind category.
Yah, I want to know that too!Deofuta said:
Nah, I'm afraid I disagree. I'm the kind of guy that does want innovation, especially in RTSs. I played on Command and Conquer 3, and was fairly annoyed that after all this time, very little had actually changed. If the game is too much like the original, why make the sequel at all? Why should I pay good money for what is essentially the same game again? People probably won't be impressed by something similar to a decade old product, especially when they have played every other strategy game which has copied its style since then. It will just feel like a recycled experience.
Well I just watch videos uploaded by people on youtube. Some of them actually give good commentary and teach me strategies I would have never thought of in the first place.Deofuta said:
Thanks for the article, I totally agree. I have seen some good series go to Crapville because they tryied too hard to be innovative.
Mortal Kombat. 1,2 and 3 were good and all similar, but 4 was utter garbage because they had to radically change a working formula. The violent fatalities don't hold up the gameplay without a intuitive control scheme and balanced characters. The ones after 4 were not much better because they were so gimmicky and the combos were all about juggling. Mortal Kombat/DC was suprisingly refreshing because they went back to the basics.
And how many good 2D games became crap going to 3D?
Flashback was great, but then Fade To Black destroyed my love.
Sonic the Hedgehog?
Megaman X7 flirted with 3D and it sucked. X8 said screw 3D and it worked out pretty well.
Mortal Kombat. 1,2 and 3 were good and all similar, but 4 was utter garbage because they had to radically change a working formula. The violent fatalities don't hold up the gameplay without a intuitive control scheme and balanced characters. The ones after 4 were not much better because they were so gimmicky and the combos were all about juggling. Mortal Kombat/DC was suprisingly refreshing because they went back to the basics.
And how many good 2D games became crap going to 3D?
Flashback was great, but then Fade To Black destroyed my love.
Sonic the Hedgehog?
Megaman X7 flirted with 3D and it sucked. X8 said screw 3D and it worked out pretty well.
I'm totally with you. Polish and shine is a what sequels are for, maybe a bit of tweak for battle systems and mechanics, but otherwise, we know the original and how good it was, and we want another--maybe a little extra, maybe a little better, but hey--we know what we're gonna get. Major innovations aren't for every title, and there's quite a few that have been worse off for innovation. Tweaks are good, but re-creation is not.
Funk, would you agree with me when I say that Starcraft 2 plays nothing like the first, while playing exactly the same?John Funk said:
I was a fairly competent player in the first game. But when I started playing the beta, I felt like I was playing a whole new game. I felt as though none of my strategies would apply anymore.
Did you feel the same way?