Blizzard Doesn't Care About Innovation for StarCraft II

[MetallicaRulez0]

As someone who never played SC1 but has played the bejesus out of the beta this year, I can confidently say that no innovation was necessary. SC2 is an AMAZING RTS. I always believe innovation just for the sake of innovation is pointless. Hell, look at the Wii. It may be more popular than God, but hardcore gamers flocked away from it in disgust.

 

[Delusibeta]

In other news, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, Blizzard will appeal the AO rating the South Koreans gave them, and Blizzard is likely to give Terran a buff over Protoss in the near future.

Any news on UK price of the Collector's Edition? Anyone? [/broken record]

 

[Gladion]

First thought: Yeah, why should they make an entirely different game and then slap the Starcraft-brand on it?
Second thought: Why make a new game if you don't intend to change anything... Maybe you just feel redundant of constantly making WoW-updates.

 

[Warstratigier]

I'd consider SCII more a renovation over innovation considering the key elements that make a completely different battlefield altogether.

 

[Richard Hannay]

First thought: Yeah, why should they make an entirely different game and then slap the Starcraft-brand on it?

To be honest, I was actually incredibly pumped for Ghost.

 

[Gladion]

First thought: Yeah, why should they make an entirely different game and then slap the Starcraft-brand on it?

To be honest, I was actually incredibly pumped for Ghost.

Same. I said something wrong, though: What I meant was "Why make something completely different to the original and then call it Starcraft 2.
With Ghost they pretty much made clear "this is something different, folks".

 

[Denamic]

Innovation sometimes leads to great things, sure, but it also usually fails.
Fans wants StarCraft, not an experiment.

 

[Namewithheld]

So, if I get this straight, multiplayer is the same but singleplayer has innovated.

So, casual players - like me - who are more interested in the story and having fun than anything else - like me - are going to get innovation and new stuff.

While pro players don't have their favorite mechanics spoiled...

That's actually really sensible and clever!

Wtg Blizzard.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

First thought: Yeah, why should they make an entirely different game and then slap the Starcraft-brand on it?

To be honest, I was actually incredibly pumped for Ghost.

Same. I said something wrong, though: What I meant was "Why make something completely different to the original and then call it Starcraft 2.
With Ghost they pretty much made clear "this is something different, folks".

Oh Ghost, all that you could've been... *sighs and lights a candle*

 

[Flames66]

Good for them. It's good that a company can make a new game in a series without having to completely redesign it. Several sequels to games I have liked have been so different that they may as well have had no relation at all.

 

[Nouw]

No wonder they never came up with fresh original unit types.

But more game-play wise, Blizzard doesn't want to risk-take with Star Craft 2. Maybe they fear releasing a crap game and BOOM! Blizzard's most anticipated game has failed.

 

[Ghored]

It's better to make a game innovative when it's going to make the game slightly better.
Starcraft doesn't need that right now.

 

[deth2munkies]

I would like to point out that the majority of people on this site are big Bio-Ware fans, yet in their entire existence, they've only really had 3 gameplay ideas, Baldur's Gate, KotOR, and Mass Effect. Everything else was just more of the same or a mix and match (for example, DA:O let you play KotOR style or zoom out for BG style play, but used the same mechanics as every other game).

Don't fix what isn't broken, merely improve upon your weaknesses. That's how sequels work, and I'm damn proud of what Blizz has done so far, despite not being a huge SC1 fan.

 

[Johnmw]

Starcraft II is a sequel. Had to be said, If people want a sequel then qhat they want is a polished version, with a few innovations, of the game they loved. If Starcraft II when and revolutionized itself (A la DOW2) it would leave more people feeling abandoned than it would joining the fold.

 

[Alar]

Mmmm, StarCraft II.

I think I understand why they're not trying to be super innovative. They know that the last system worked, and they're hoping to try to keep a system very similar to that. They've added things like destructible rocks, Xel'Naga watchtowers, and "macro" abilities like the Queen's inject larva, the Protoss Nexus's Chronoboost, and the Terran's plethora of abilities at their upgraded Command Center. While these don't drastically change the game, they are changes.

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. WarCraft II didn't introduce a hell of a lot more than WarCraft: Orcs vs. Humans had, and I still enjoyed it. The main differences really were the inclusion of the new resource Oil, naval and aerial combat, and hero units. WarCraft III continued on with this and added the ability to level up your heroes, give them items, and even revive them if they died (as well as other gameplay changes, like 'neutral hostile' creeps you had to fight on the map to get access to gold mines, neutral shops, fountains of healing/mana, etcetera).

I'm guessing that, if we ever see a StarCraft III, we're going to see some more changes to general mechanics. Innovation may not jump out and smack you in the face with Blizzard, but it's there... it's just very subtle.

EDIT: Did I mention I'm totally more into the idea of the campaign than I am the multiplayer? I've played the current multiplayer in the beta, and while fun, it is not the experience I'm looking for. I prefer campaigns and Use Map Settings maps/campaigns. Those are the -real- fun in StarCraft. And now that we have the Galaxy Editor, I'm sure we'll see tons of great new ones come out, as well as remakes of great old ones!