248: A Master Craftsman

[Chasmodius]

I'm not big on multiplayer, personally, so I would be interested to hear more of the single-player campaign. If not details, then at least some idea of how they approached it. I mean, the original had an actually compelling (love that word) story with enough characterization to make us care just a little bit; so how are they going to create something "completely fresh and new for the series with the solo campaign?" Hmmm... I for one, would not be upset if they managed to make it into something of a "choose your own adventure" (tm) where we actually get to make overall strategic or story decisions between or even during missions. That's the only way I could see them advancing storytelling for RTS titles, but they may well have more imagination than I.

 

[Chasmodius]

wars could be made with Starcraft, instead of sending youngsters to death for no reason. At least one could say those zerglings died for the country.

Sure, except then Korea would quickly come to the fore as the pre-eminent world super-power. So of course the US might argue that we should fight wars with Basketball instead, and Canada would argue for Hockey, etc. We'd probably have to settle for soccer (football) as the international standard, which would put South America and Europe in power. All in all, not going to happen, but it would be interesting!

 

[Kiithid]

wars could be made with Starcraft, instead of sending youngsters to death for no reason. At least one could say those zerglings died for the country.

Sure, except then Korea would quickly come to the fore as the pre-eminent world super-power. So of course the US might argue that we should fight wars with Basketball instead, and Canada would argue for Hockey, etc. We'd probably have to settle for soccer (football) as the international standard, which would put South America and Europe in power. All in all, not going to happen, but it would be interesting!

Settle for Peggle then, may the best marble drop country win.

 

[Sillyiggy]

Also, all this talk about the lack of LAN overshadows the BIG thing I love about Blizzard RTS's.

I love creating custom maps. No other company (as far as I know) has given so many tools to the fans to create content. There hasn't been much talk about it unfortunately. I love making maps to share with hundreds of people (getting their feedback, adoration, hate, etc.) Back with Frozen Throne I made a few that proved somewhat popular, maybe because I would actually make tournaments for my custom games.

I can't wait until I actually start creating content to share. I also enjoying playing what other people make especially when you find the rare gems. I already have ideas in the noggin' that must be released on the unsuspecting public.

 

[Summerspeak]

Very interesting article on blizzard I must say.
This RTS (Starcraft 2) is what I have been looking forward to getting for some time now.

 

[acosn]

Wow, the escapist dedicated an entire article to silencing old curmudgeons like myself.
Hats off to you, sirs (and ladies).

As an afterthought, what does it really say about the RTS genre when the most expected title of the genre is primarily based on game mechanics that are more than 10 years old. Quick someone make some comparison with old wine and quality!

The comparison between old wine and quality holds true here because the original concept isn't actually broken.

I don't grasp how people can insist that the game needs a cover system when that lends itself to smaller games. It'd work in WC3 before it worked in SC2. It works in CoH and DOW but not SC2. You're trying to put something in the game that just isn't needed.

In all honesty if Blizzard did decide to do something like that they'd likely make a whole new IP to do it. People are coming to SC2 with a lot of expectations, but throwing them for an unnecessary loop by making it very much not SC would be a huge problem.



If nothing else if you really want to be that anal about SC2 not having some random feature you want it's easy enough to add it through the map editor.

 

[samsonguy920]

If you like Campaign, then I don't see the possible advantage to not being able to play if your net is down.

You don't need to be online to play Campaign, there's an offline "Guest" mode. You just won't earn achievements or get the cool stuff like painting your own emblems on your SCVs.

That suits me, as I'm not an achievement whore, and emblems only make more sense in multiplayer.

I thought I heard them say that you can only save your progress through the campaign if you connect to Battle.net. Maybe I heard wrong. I'll dig around for the article.

Edit: Hrm. I can't actually seem to find the article. I remember hearing about it working like Uplay: you log in, and all progress is saved to the cloud, not your computer. I've found plenty of mentions of cloud storage capability when I googled about just now, but none seemed to say whether it was optional or whether it was compulsory. I found a mention on a blizzard website "can be saved online" or something like that, which implies that it's optional, but I'm still concerned that it's going to be compulsory. If anyone on Escapist ever gets a chance to ask, I'd appreciate a clarification <3

I'm almost positive that they said (at Blizzcon, perhaps?) playing as a guest would only rob you of the integrated Battle.net features like friends, stat tracking, achievements and decals. But you can still play the Campaign all the way through - it's just MEANT to be played while you're logged in.

Yes, but on a cold blizzardy night when all the lines but power get knocked down, you can warm up your pylons and play some Starcraft 2. Unlike that other company that-shall-not-be-named-in-this-thread.

wars could be made with Starcraft, instead of sending youngsters to death for no reason. At least one could say those zerglings died for the country.

Sure, except then Korea would quickly come to the fore as the pre-eminent world super-power. So of course the US might argue that we should fight wars with Basketball instead, and Canada would argue for Hockey, etc. We'd probably have to settle for soccer (football) as the international standard, which would put South America and Europe in power. All in all, not going to happen, but it would be interesting!

My vote would be for Griffball. If not that, then dodgeball.

 

[YurdleTheTurtle]

Also, all this talk about the lack of LAN overshadows the BIG thing I love about Blizzard RTS's.

I love creating custom maps. No other company (as far as I know) has given so many tools to the fans to create content. There hasn't been much talk about it unfortunately. I love making maps to share with hundreds of people (getting their feedback, adoration, hate, etc.) Back with Frozen Throne I made a few that proved somewhat popular, maybe because I would actually make tournaments for my custom games.

I can't wait until I actually start creating content to share. I also enjoying playing what other people make especially when you find the rare gems. I already have ideas in the noggin' that must be released on the unsuspecting public.

Very true. As Browder mentioned, the community can do some amazing things once the game is good enough to keep them going. So far Blizzard RTS games have done an great job of giving tools to the users and letting them spring forth creations. It's a genius idea and I don't understand why some other companies don't do this.

What's really interesting though is that they're taking the editor a step further, and this interview also reveals they've got more tricks up their sleeves. Perhaps those cancelled ideas will make it into the editor. We've already seen a third person shooter custom game demonstrated, and now there might actually be compatibility for a cover system and stuff.

There's only one problem: Didn't they say they were planning on a "marketplace" of some sorts on Bnet? The best thing about custom maps/mods was the fact that it was all free and made by fans, for fans. If a marketplace is introduced, sure, people will compete for money, but this could be problematic as many do not want to pay for what is supposed to be free stuff by the community.

As for the connected experience: A tad lame. You should be able to play the single player and unlock stuff without having to connect. At least you can still play single player offline. Taking out LAN also kind of sucks since people love options. While currently I'm not particularly affected by these issues, in the near future when I got to university, this could very well blow up in my face. Here's hoping the campaign will be amazing.

 

[RandV80]

I'm not big on multiplayer, personally, so I would be interested to hear more of the single-player campaign. If not details, then at least some idea of how they approached it. I mean, the original had an actually compelling (love that word) story with enough characterization to make us care just a little bit; so how are they going to create something "completely fresh and new for the series with the solo campaign?" Hmmm... I for one, would not be upset if they managed to make it into something of a "choose your own adventure" (tm) where we actually get to make overall strategic or story decisions between or even during missions. That's the only way I could see them advancing storytelling for RTS titles, but they may well have more imagination than I.

Well you're in luck. I don't have the link but if you go digging that's exactly what they're doing, a sort of 'choose your own adventure' thing. First of all the units scrapped from multi-player, like medics & firebats will all be there, and oyu can upgrade and overpower them through the campaign, you'll also be able to hire mercenary units for missions, and finally you'll have some sort of good/liberator vs evil/mercenary decisions that you balance through the course of the game. I don't have the article/interview handy but if you dig around for it you should be able to find it.

 

[Rack]

It seems like Blizzard had two sets of goals for SC2.

Make SC2 as good as possible vs make SC2 as faithful to the original as possible

and

Make SC2 as easy to play as possible vs lay down the foundations for charging for multiplayer.

In neither case were they trying to make SC2 as good as it could be.

 

[Zeriercahl]

Starcraft 2 has been my most wanted game for a long time now.

But I am confused. Isn't LAN just a bunch of computers in the same room/house connecting directly? Why would there not be an option for this?

With Starcraft, I always went on Battle.net and played with friends/strangers. Then there was one time my internet was down. I had a friend over and we played a LAN game together. Why not include this feature? It seems easy to just have it there as an option.
I agree with Sillyiggy. If there is no LAN option people will create some kind of mod to play Starcraft 2 with LAN. Not a pirated version or anything like that, just a program that runs with Starcraft to provide this feature, like PenguinPlug. Well, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Like I said, I'm confused.

 

[John Funk]

It seems like Blizzard had two sets of goals for SC2.

Make SC2 as good as possible vs make SC2 as faithful to the original as possible

and

Make SC2 as easy to play as possible vs lay down the foundations for charging for multiplayer.

In neither case were they trying to make SC2 as good as it could be.

I'm curious how you came away with both of these from the interview, since that wasn't the impression I came away with at all. SC2 is faithful to the original because they were trying to make it good.

 

[Galad]

While I haven't spent much time with either of those, I've had the impression that Diablo I and Warcraft II have been mearly the first notable games of their kind, the trailblazers in, respectively, the amusingly called "third person looter" sub-genre of RPGs, and in RTSs(with RPG elements). And its their successors that flesh out the whole sub genres, pave the way for later, different and more modern games and are in fact the "influential and beloved classics"..

 

[Killerbunny001]

Am I the only one thinking that it is strange for a game designer to refer to his title as "product" ?

Great article by the way, Blizz sure know their stuff.

 

[Rack]

It seems like Blizzard had two sets of goals for SC2.

Make SC2 as good as possible vs make SC2 as faithful to the original as possible

and

Make SC2 as easy to play as possible vs lay down the foundations for charging for multiplayer.

In neither case were they trying to make SC2 as good as it could be.

I'm curious how you came away with both of these from the interview, since that wasn't the impression I came away with at all. SC2 is faithful to the original because they were trying to make it good.

That would be an inevitable conclusion if you think Starcraft was so perfect it is literally synonymous with good but right from the off their goal was to "Hearken to the legacy of the original..." or "What makes StarCraft, StarCraft?"

12 years on if Blizzard were going to make the best RTS they possibly could they'd do well to start from a clean slate and then take all of the ideas that have worked best over the years, refine them and come up with something fresh and original. Instead they've taken Starcraft in its entirety as a base and that hasn't left them in a position to improve any of the core elements.

 

[John Funk]

It seems like Blizzard had two sets of goals for SC2.

Make SC2 as good as possible vs make SC2 as faithful to the original as possible

and

Make SC2 as easy to play as possible vs lay down the foundations for charging for multiplayer.

In neither case were they trying to make SC2 as good as it could be.

I'm curious how you came away with both of these from the interview, since that wasn't the impression I came away with at all. SC2 is faithful to the original because they were trying to make it good.

That would be an inevitable conclusion if you think Starcraft was so perfect it is literally synonymous with good but right from the off their goal was to "Hearken to the legacy of the original..." or "What makes StarCraft, StarCraft?"

12 years on if Blizzard were going to make the best RTS they possibly could they'd do well to start from a clean slate and then take all of the ideas that have worked best over the years, refine them and come up with something fresh and original. Instead they've taken Starcraft in its entirety as a base and that hasn't left them in a position to improve any of the core elements.

I don't think that's true at all. First, I think that they HAD to use the original as a base because they were doing a sequel. Sequels are for refinements - you want a a better version of the original, that preserves what worked and does new stuff. Save huge redesigns for new IP.

They were trying to make the best game like StarCraft that they could - like Dustin said, there isn't one huge continuum for RTS design. What works in one game might work in another; StarCraft is a different type of game than, say, CoH or SupCom or Total War.

 

[Rack]

I don't think that's true at all. First, I think that they HAD to use the original as a base because they were doing a sequel. Sequels are for refinements - you want a a better version of the original, that preserves what worked and does new stuff. Save huge redesigns for new IP.

They were trying to make the best game like StarCraft that they could - like Dustin said, there isn't one huge continuum for RTS design. What works in one game might work in another; StarCraft is a different type of game than, say, CoH or SupCom or Total War.

Warcraft III didn't take Warcraft II as a base, so I don't see why Starcraft II had to. Other than that they were trying to make the best game like Starcraft that they could, which is really a restrictive consideration to have to make. It seems like for better or worse they've stuck to it rather bullishly.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

Surpassing one of the most beloved games of all time - and getting the diehard community to let its baby go - is a task of Herculean proportions, and nobody knows that better than Blizzard. Still, as the company once noted on its official StarCraft II FAQ, it's been in this position before. Warcraft II was an influential and beloved classic; Blizzard made Warcraft III and WoW. Diablo practically defined the dungeon-crawler, and Blizzard surpassed it with Diablo II. The developers have bested themselves before - why not now?

^That's why I thought it should have been between Blizzard and Valve at the end of that March Mayhem. I mean Blizzard has hit the mark pretty much every time.