248: A Master Craftsman

[Nalesnik]

John Funk, what league are you in the beta? (I'm near the bottom of bronze, I got the basics down, but still learning all the subtle aspects of the game)
Add me to friend's list, maybe we can have a match together sometime. =D
username+identifier: Nalesnik.nalez

 

[Shifty Tortoise]

How do you make a sequel to Starcraft?

Slowly, very very slowly

 

[John Funk]

John Funk, what league are you in the beta? (I'm near the bottom of bronze, I got the basics down, but still learning all the subtle aspects of the game)
Add me to friend's list, maybe we can have a match together sometime. =D
username+identifier: Nalesnik.nalez

I'm in Gold. I really, really shouldn't be.

CFTFunk.jaynez.

 

[Worgen]

well first you take a bunch of bad ideas and hackneyed plots and toss them in a big barrel and roll it down a hill then polish the outcome to a mirror shine

 

[paketep]

StarCraft 2 without LAN support is not StarCraft. I'll keep playing the old one. I don't need any facebook in it, thank you.

However, Activision has demostrated that they can put a turd in a box and sell millions with MW2. This will sell like crazy, despite lacking the single most important feature that put StarCraft where it is today.

 

[Tales of Golden Sun]

"one of the most famous and influential games of all time"

Ha.
Haha.
HAHAHAHA.

No seriously this is the first time I have ever heard of this game. People shouldn't make claims that don't hold truth.

 

[elvor0]

"one of the most famous and influential games of all time"

Ha.
Haha.
HAHAHAHA.

No seriously this is the first time I have ever heard of this game. People shouldn't make claims that don't hold truth.

Im...trying to decide wether this guy is taking the piss or not...

 

[Jared]

great article... youv'e got to hand it to them, blizzard knows EXACTLY how to approach and create games, and its awesome to see that they're doing the same with SC2

though i would like to know what new races the developers had in mind...

They do seem to break the mold that sequls sucks...SC2 looks like, when it is released, its going to be the RTS of the year, to be sure.

Its nice to see they didny change the old formula too much, just, altered it a little ^^

 

[John Funk]

"one of the most famous and influential games of all time"

Ha.
Haha.
HAHAHAHA.

No seriously this is the first time I have ever heard of this game. People shouldn't make claims that don't hold truth.

What?

If you're being serious, then that's nobody's fault but your own. It seriously boggles my mind that people haven't heard of StarCraft. That's like saying you haven't heard of Fallout, or Metal Gear Solid, or any other huge name in gaming.

 

[YurdleTheTurtle]

"one of the most famous and influential games of all time"

Ha.
Haha.
HAHAHAHA.

No seriously this is the first time I have ever heard of this game. People shouldn't make claims that don't hold truth.

Well, if you've never heard of Starcraft, you've been missing out on one of the biggest games since the last almost 12 years.

Also, just because you did not know about it, does not mean millions of other people also did not hear about it. The way you stated your claim that Funk was lying about Starcraft being popular/influential leads me to believe this is nothing more but a troll post. If you were speaking honestly, then that is sad ignorance.

---------

Great article, always intriguing to see what developers say. As I stated before I like the fact that they did experiment with stuff, even with some mechanics inspired by Relic's games. Even though they are not used in multiplayer, this certainly gives plenty of ammunition for the editor, so modders won't have to resort to weird things in order to do cover systems or other mechanics.

I'm still worried about that marketplace thing for custom maps though.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I'm still really surprised about the lack of LAN. LAN isn't just something for geeky house parties: LAN is often used at pro tournaments to ensure there is absolutely no lag. Even the Koreans with their astoundingly cheap and fast net will still experience the occasional lag spike while playing online. Really, what reason is there not to include it?

 

[Verus76]

The reason for not including LAN is obviously to curtail pirating of the game and nothing else. That said you can setup provate games on bnet for your LAN party but you will be dependent on the connection.

What I find strange about the beta is how little it differs from the first game. The second one is 99% the same as the first. But then again perhaps that is the winning concept.

 

[Grampy_bone]

Well it seems that according to Blizzard, you make a sequel to Starcraft by taking the exact same 12 year old gameplay, shuffling the units around, updating the graphics to 3D, and take out LAN.

BAM! Game of the Year!

 

[Grampy_bone]

The reason for not including LAN is obviously to curtail pirating of the game and nothing else. That said you can setup provate games on bnet for your LAN party but you will be dependent on the connection.

What I find strange about the beta is how little it differs from the first game. The second one is 99% the same as the first. But then again perhaps that is the winning concept.

You are wrong my friend. The reason LAN was taken out was to funnel people through Battlenet 2.0 so they could sell them crap. LAN will have no effect on pirating; the game is going to get pirated out the wazoo regardless.

 

[Grampy_bone]

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.

I tend to agree with Rack. Warcraft 3 tried something different from Warcraft 2; although a lot of fans weren't happy with those changes, which is why I suspect they chose to stick close to the original game with Starcraft 2.

But Starcraft 2 isn't just 'close' to the original, it's like the exact same game. If they had made Starcraft only a couple of years ago I could understand, but to change virtually nothing after 12 years? Even Diablo 2 had some pretty major changes from Diablo, and Diablo 3 seems set to revamp the formula once again. Starcraft 2 just seems lazy.

 

[John Funk]

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.

I tend to agree with Rack. Warcraft 3 tried something different from Warcraft 2; although a lot of fans weren't happy with those changes, which is why I suspect they chose to stick close to the original game with Starcraft 2.

But Starcraft 2 isn't just 'close' to the original, it's like the exact same game. If they had made Starcraft only a couple of years ago I could understand, but to change virtually nothing after 12 years? Even Diablo 2 had some pretty major changes from Diablo, and Diablo 3 seems set to revamp the formula once again. Starcraft 2 just seems lazy.

I'm actually very impressed by how precisely Blizzard nailed the balance they had to have. From the beta, it feels very much like StarCraft 1, but at the same time it's *not* like StarCraft 1. It's a strange mix between familiarity and "whoa, all these new abilities and units change it up entirely." It's considerably more different than I think many people give it credit for at first glance.

Also, I believe that SC2 won't get pirated as much as other games, just because you are actively getting an inferior product. The only benefit is that you get a hacked-in LAN, and get to play with the other few thousand people who pirate (where games can be hacked/cheated, etc). Whereas people who buy the game legitimately get the new and improved Battle.net, a much wider playerbase, a better browser for custom games, all the stat tracking, etc.

Unlike many other products with restrictive DRM, the pirate doesn't get the better copy of SC2. His copy is much worse.

 

[Deef]

I don't get it, this isn't news, it's just an advertisement for your article.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I'm actually very impressed by how precisely Blizzard nailed the balance they had to have. From the beta, it feels very much like StarCraft 1, but at the same time it's *not* like StarCraft 1. It's a strange mix between familiarity and "whoa, all these new abilities and units change it up entirely." It's considerably more different than I think many people give it credit for at first glance.

Also, I believe that SC2 won't get pirated as much as other games, just because you are actively getting an inferior product. The only benefit is that you get a hacked-in LAN, and get to play with the other few thousand people who pirate (where games can be hacked/cheated, etc). Whereas people who buy the game legitimately get the new and improved Battle.net, a much wider playerbase, a better browser for custom games, all the stat tracking, etc.

Unlike many other products with restrictive DRM, the pirate doesn't get the better copy of SC2. His copy is much worse.

Fair enough; I haven't had the chance to play the game very much. Maybe it's just because the last RTS game I played was Supreme Commander 2 with it's elegant research system, but I feel that Starcraft 2's resource and upgrade mechanics--which are totally unchanged from the original--are completely archaic and outdated. Couldn't they come up with something better than Building A + Building B + Building C = Unit D? I hate that I have to build structures whose only purpose is to unlock a unit. Yeah that's classic RTS, but I thought we were past that by now.

I don't think pirates care that they're getting an inferior product. Starcraft 2 will be a mega-hit therefore it will be mega-pirated. In theory the only reason to play MW2 is for the multiplayer and it still got pirated to high heaven. By comparison I'm sure Starcraft 2 will have a much more substantial single player campaign, and as you say they will hack-in LAN support and maybe even create pirate servers like they do with WoW.

 

[Credge]

Compared to Starcraft, SC2 is a masterpiece. But that's like saying that Michael Jordan is a better basketball player than some junior high football player.

I don't understand Starcrafts continued popularity. It's absolutely puzzling to me. It was a good game, especially for its time. I played it almost every day for a long, long time. My friends scratched "Big gay game" on the back of the disk because of how much it got played (I had to buy another copy, thanks assholes).

But, that sort of went away when WC3 came out... but WC3 is unrelated to why SC became crap quickly. It more has to do with how the game devolved from a "Oh, lets experiment and try lots of different strategies and compete with said strategies and have a lot of fun" to "WHO HAS THE BEST MICRO BECAUSE ALL STRATEGIES AND BUILD ORDERS ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL".

See, WC3 gave me the ability to actually use units that had interesting abilities. SC has like... three units with interesting abilities and most of them are high-tech flying units that you'll never get to play with because teching up to them is a waste as the enemy has either Muta-clumped, Tank rushed, or... sort of existed as the Protoss.

And this is sort of where I don't get why SC has continued to be popular. It's design is flawed primarily because the game puts extreme emphasis on micro instead of strategy and tactics. Anybody can make an RTS that requires intense micro. Just put the max number of units you can control at once to something small and introduce some 'mechanics' that each faction has that requires intense micro and you've got a 'great game'.

Luckily SC2 doesn't follow that formula and is more like WC3 but with more WC2 unit elements and then you put it in space and you have a game that's fun, but nothing to play for 12 years.

 

[elvor0]

-snip-

Methinks that's mainly because it hasn't been out long enough, give it enough time and due to its similarity to the original, Micro and Build orders will develop. That's because of the nature of the game, in that Starcraft is actually balanced, so certain build orders and strategies will come out on top, and it's like chess in that regard, certain openers and stuff are the norm in competitive chess (or so I am aware), then you play from there.

Starcrafts micro requires a MASSIVE amount of skill to play at high level, which is just the same as having good aim and stuff in an FPS, it's only because of the balance involved that you can play like that, RTS today all have massive imbalance, generally having a Overpowered side (Elves, Scrin, etc etc), which breaks the balance, meaning that if you play as that side you don't need micro at all because all your units just murder an entire army (murkwood archers I'm looking at you) I'm sure if you were to play WC3 at tourney level play there would be set build orders and strategies to use.