Starcraft 2 Innovations

[TerranReaper]

*snip*

Diplomacy? Really? Do you know the Starcraft universe at all? You talking about redneck humans, racist aliens and creatures that can only talk via grunting and you want a diplomacy section? You should play Brood War(The expansion to the first game) so you can see how diplomacy works in the SC universe.

On the contrary, if you played the Zerg campaign in Brood War, you can see the Protoss, the Terran (Albeit just being Raynor and some other Terran faction) and the Zerg working together (Hesitantly, but still working together).

 

[Infinatex]

It's SC1 on drugs. If you liked the first, this game is the same but better in every way.

Well put, I'm glad they didn't put some new gimmick in it.

 

[oliveira8]

*snip*

I meant NPC. My bad!

Yes but you missing the point. In SC you have plenty of units with unique roles and unique powers. Powers which you have to micromanage during combat.

You have air units, ground units and vehicle units that you need to juggle in attacking and defense. And there's like 3 to 6 different air units, several ground units and more vehicle units. Not to mention that each of the 3 races has it's own way of playing. Protoss are powerhouses, Zerg win by numbers and Terrans are calculating. You have to know which units work best for each situation. It's like chess. Why don't you go change chess! Oh what's that? It doesn't need change? Well why the hell they keep releasing chess games then? No innovation no nothing! Bah! Chess blows.

Anyway.

Morale wouldn't work in a game like this. Again if you actually played the game it would see how useless this "improvement" is. You in a battle you have to make sure your units don't die, you have to manage your units unique skills and you have to pay attention to what your enemy is doing, so you can counter attack. You want to add another factor into this.

Again, take in account that SC is one of the most busiest RTS in the market. It has to be extremely challenging and newbie friendly at the same time. Adding more crap on top of what already exists, you either make it to challenging or not newbie friendly. Which kind fucks things up. Also how do you add morale to a hive mind race and "You have to kill every one of us, if you want to win!" race? First you have a race that shows no fear or remorse and the others are just to stubborn to give up.

SC ISN'T DoW or CoM or TW. It's a different type of RTS. It's an extremely fast RTS game.

You don't even play the game! How can you suggest that they improve the game, when the only thing you know about it, is that it's in space and the name of the races. Seriously, don't go around asking for improvements, when you have no idea how the game plays in the first place.

Also why make a new one?

To tell a new story. I don't know where you live, but these days, some video games have this thing called "story" and some companies make it quite important.
It's the continuation of the story. The same way The Empire Strikes Back is the follow up of New Hope.

Again when SC came out it was near perfect in gameplay. Why do you want to add more stuff, useless stuff while we at it, is mind blogging. That stuff you call "improvements" ADDS NOTHING to the game.

 

[oliveira8]

*snip*

Diplomacy? Really? Do you know the Starcraft universe at all? You talking about redneck humans, racist aliens and creatures that can only talk via grunting and you want a diplomacy section? You should play Brood War(The expansion to the first game) so you can see how diplomacy works in the SC universe.

On the contrary, if you played the Zerg campaign in Brood War, you can see the Protoss, the Terran (Albeit just being Raynor and some other Terran faction) and the Zerg working together (Hesitantly, but still working together).

But that was for lore reasons.(You can also see how that worked out in the end. ^^) Not gameplay.

In SC everyone's is out to get everyone, and sometimes some factions pair up to kill another faction, but the end result is that one of the allied factions was going to betray the other allied factions and probably join their enemies later on, to gang on their previous allies.

 

[Weaver]

There is basically no innovation, despite what blizzard designers want to tell you. Adding a unit that shoots things in a line and having select units be able to jump up and down cliffs is not innovation.

 

[acosn]

Most of the changes are at the meta-game level.

Unless you actually played SC1's single player fairly often you won't care in the least.

For someone like me who did, its a welcome change.

 

[Enigmers]

It's been more streamlined - you can nw choose more than 12 units in one go (much, much more), you can select multiple buildings, you can set a rally point to a mineral field or vespene geyser so your peons will start mining as soon as they're built, the Zerg Hatchery can have separate rally points for workers and for non-worker units. In general I find there are more units with special abilities now and the focus is placed more towards micromanaging your battles and less towards managing your workers. On the whole, it feels a lot like SC1, but more convenient (I can't say "Easier" as your opponent also has the same advantages.)

This is strictly multiplayer - the single-player is a different can of worms (a very delicious can of worms).

By the way, I tried the Dawn of War demo and disliked it, but I found DoW2 a lot of fun. Am I a bad person?

P.S. Hi, TerranReaper!

 

[Rednog]

Well, the most annoying thing about SC1 was the drudgery.
Want to build marines out of 8 barracks? You gotta click each barracks.
Although,that was less annoying than control groups being of a limited size.
Sure, using multiple hotkeys helps with controlling the units, but if I want to assign my 20 zealots to the same hotkey, and use my other hotkeys for spellcasters, why can't I?

So they fixed that stuff.
Some people have said that made the game more n00b friendly, but they have put in more macro mechanics to use your actions-per-minute on.
Spawn larva, chrono boost, M.U.L.E. ...

Anyhow, I really like the improved controls.
You can select multiple buildings and assign them to a hotkey, then set all their rally points simultaneously.
Wanna build 4 marines, 2 medics, and 2 marauders? Press your hotkey, then E,E,D,D,A,A,A,A.
(oops, you don't get medics in multiplayer .. yet)
You can rally workers directly to mineral patches (or your gas harvesting building), so you don't have to manually issue a mining order every time.

Also, there are little things with the controls that are very neat, which takes some getting used to.
For instance, if you want to make your 15 stalkers blink up a cliff (assuming you have vision), you could ..
(Hold shift for the whole thing) A-move to below the cliff, B and select the top of the cliff, move a few steps past the cliff edge, then A-move further in.
Doesn't take much time, and your stalkers will do stuff that looks like something that requires 300 APM to do in SC1.

There will never be medics in multiplayer, the medivac takes pretty much the same roll as a ground medic and has more uses (though more expensive).

 

[Warped_Ghost]

To be honest innovation is low on the gameplay but the story put a very new and very interesting look to playing a RTS campaign.I'm still playing the campaign but its awesome so far.

 

[Enigmers]

Tea Alligator, you have some good ideas. I don't think they should be put into Starcraft, but exist as their own sci-fi game. (I play a board game called Twilight Imperium, and before you ask there is no relevance to glittery teenagers with raging hormones pretending to be vampires). In Twilight Imperium, there is a lot of diplomacy between players, as well as invasion of planets, building of ships, voting on political bills, trading between players, and so forth. A deep space game (like Civ 4 in space) would be brilliant. (Is that what Sins of a Solar Empire is? I've never played it.)

 

[TerranReaper]

By the way, I tried the Dawn of War demo and disliked it, but I found DoW2 a lot of fun. Am I a bad person?

Yes, you are. =P

*snip*

Diplomacy? Really? Do you know the Starcraft universe at all? You talking about redneck humans, racist aliens and creatures that can only talk via grunting and you want a diplomacy section? You should play Brood War(The expansion to the first game) so you can see how diplomacy works in the SC universe.

On the contrary, if you played the Zerg campaign in Brood War, you can see the Protoss, the Terran (Albeit just being Raynor and some other Terran faction) and the Zerg working together (Hesitantly, but still working together).

But that was for lore reasons.(You can also see how that worked out in the end. ^^) Not gameplay.

In SC everyone's is out to get everyone, and sometimes some factions pair up to kill another faction, but the end result is that one of the allied factions was going to betray the other allied factions and probably join their enemies later on, to gang on their previous allies.

If lore is irrelevant, then diplomacy isn't really an issue then. Hell, you have team games where the different races are on one team and you have FFAs where people team up (Temporarily anyways) against other people. Of course, you can't expect diplomacy in one vs ones, but I think you get the point.

 

[Fidelias]

Well, I've only played Starcraft 2, not one, so I'll just talk about 2.
Don't buy the game if your just getting it for the gameplay. There's a couple of cool units and the gameplay works very nicely, but it's the same thing as almost every other rts out there.

The only REAL innovation they made was with the campaign, which is awesome so far. It's nothing special when compared to shooters or rpg's, but it's probably the best rts campaign I have ever played. The main character is pretty cool, and most importantly, feels like a human being. There are a few really cool missions that you actually have to choose to side between two factions, and I found it hard to actually make a decision.

So in my opinion, if you're purchasing it based on gameplay and multiplayer, don't. It's not really special there. But if you're looking forward to playing through an amazing story with interesting characters, then it's definitely worth it.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Now, I'm not bitching or anything like that. I have yet to buy Starcraft 2, so I'm asking you guys who already have. Has anything changed since SC1? Is it still traditional RTS style gameplay, or have there been changes like cover systems added?

And, have any good custom maps been made yet?

Besides the new units (including the very fun Massive units), buildings, and a revamped damage system, the things that have actually changed are thus:

1. The story and atmosphere has been changed and very much improved from the first game. Instead of most of the game's story taking place in video chat things with some sprinkles of CGI cutscenes, everything is done in more face to face conversations. While on your ship (and the bar at the beginning of the game), you can click on characters, objects, TVs, or what ever get highlighted when you move your mouse over it. All of these are there to give deeper view of the characters, provide some really funny humor, or both.

2. In the story (not the mulitplayer) between missions you can buy upgrades for your troops. They range from the things seen in the multiplayer, like combat shields, stimpacks, concesive shells, so on, so forth. However, a lot of these don't appear in the multiplayer, can be really fun, and you don't have to buy the upgrades in the mission. You bought combat shield in the ship, your marines will have that shield strapped to their arm the second you build one.

3. Terrain has been made much less an issue. There is no water or anything that directly effects damage done (in relation to the terrain). That being said, their are two major changes. One, is adding of high smoke or grass that, while not impeading movement in anyway, you can't see or shoot in or our of it unless you have sight on the other side of the grass. High ground has also been revamped. If you don't have sight for a cliff (if you don't have allied units up their or have an air unit floating above it) the guys on top of the ledge can shoot you, but you can't shoot them.

4. Xelnaga (or however you spell it) watch towers are now sprinkled all over the maps. When one of your units walks next to it, a wide area will be revealed. These are put near important choke points, so holding these can give you lots of advanced warning.

5. Destructable rocks have been added that are put in certain choke points, blocking off expansions, or the entrances of expansions. To go through these on the ground, or build bases when these are blocking it, you have to destroy the rocks. Of course, at times it is best to not destroy them since they are a natrual barrier, so destorying them may not always be the best.

5. Gold, or high yield minerals have been added. These give 7 minerals per trip instead of 5 that normal patches give. These minerals patches are put in the middle of the maps, often with rocks on top of them, and are hard to hold.

 

[Mozared]

The innovation in SC2 is in anything but the actual gameplay. The strategy and all, is like posters have mentioned, StarCraft on drugs. It feels to me, mostly, as if I'm playing what C&C3: Tiberium Wars would have been if it was actually good.

What's innovative is the fact that the story is unique, and presented in a unique and absolutely awesome way. We've seen this "when you're not on a mission you're actually conversating with folks" before in other games (Mass Effect comes to mind), but not quite in this way.

And, of course, the engine/galaxy editor, which allows you to make your own goddamn GAMES within a game. And I'm not kidding - the editor is so powerful it allows you to do things that we used to call mods before it was released.

 

[Ertol]

I'll sum it up in a few words, they added a few extra things like gold, high yeild minerals, watch towers, and a few other things, but the overall idea is still the same. It's like any game with a 2 added onto the end, same basic concept, with some new things added to justify making a second one.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

*snip*

I meant NPC. My bad!

Yes but you missing the point. In SC you have plenty of units with unique roles and unique powers. Powers which you have to micromanage during combat.

You have air units, ground units and vehicle units that you need to juggle in attacking and defense. And there's like 3 to 6 different air units, several ground units and more vehicle units. Not to mention that each of the 3 races has it's own way of playing. Protoss are powerhouses, Zerg win by numbers and Terrans are calculating. You have to know which units work best for each situation. It's like chess. Why don't you go change chess! Oh what's that? It doesn't need change? Well why the hell they keep releasing chess games then? No innovation no nothing! Bah! Chess blows.

Anyway.

Morale wouldn't work in a game like this. Again if you actually played the game it would see how useless this "improvement" is. You in a battle you have to make sure your units don't die, you have to manage your units unique skills and you have to pay attention to what your enemy is doing, so you can counter attack. You want to add another factor into this.

Again, take in account that SC is one of the most busiest RTS in the market. It has to be extremely challenging and newbie friendly at the same time. Adding more crap on top of what already exists, you either make it to challenging or not newbie friendly. Which kind fucks things up. Also how do you add morale to a hive mind race and "You have to kill every one of us, if you want to win!" race? First you have a race that shows no fear or remorse and the others are just to stubborn to give up.

SC ISN'T DoW or CoM or TW. It's a different type of RTS. It's an extremely fast RTS game.

You don't even play the game! How can you suggest that they improve the game, when the only thing you know about it, is that it's in space and the name of the races. Seriously, don't go around asking for improvements, when you have no idea how the game plays in the first place.

Also why make a new one?

To tell a new story. I don't know where you live, but these days, some video games have this thing called "story" and some companies make it quite important.
It's the continuation of the story. The same way The Empire Strikes Back is the follow up of New Hope.

Again when SC came out it was near perfect in gameplay. Why do you want to add more stuff, useless stuff while we at it, is mind blogging. That stuff you call "improvements" ADDS NOTHING to the game.

I'm not quite sure what to say to this. I HAVE played the game. I don't think I can stress this enough. I have played the game and I know how the gameplay works, just not the lore as I've never played the campaign.

I understand that Starcraft is fast paced, and I understand how much is going on. Starcraft is definetely NOT the busiest RTS in the market (unless if you mean client base). Zerg wouldn't have morale for that reason, though everyone else would.

Frankly though, you're misunderstanding me. I am not trying to clone Starcraft and it's gameplay. That's dull and unimaginative. Instead, I'm trying to create a kind of gameplay never done before (and if it has please show me this game!).

All of my statements are in bold.

Drones would have to be considerably cheaper, but harvest resources slower, or something - I agree. As for marines - yeah. I'm not sure how to handle them. I personally prefer the drop-pod style production, but I don't know the lore.

Well, zerg have their chiton armor or whatever that also slopes, so there is that, but yeah they'd absolutely need to be able to be crippled. I don't see protoss being all that dificult, as it only adds shield on. These would effectively just be a buffer before they would act like Terran tanks.

Certainly most diplomacy games will rarely work, but I think it should be kept as an option for LAN games, where I find they work awesomely. Large LANned AoE matches are a lot of fun, especially with resources bouncing around and stuff. The ability to add trade treaties to that would be great, if you ask me.

To handle running out of grenades and ammo and such and not wanting to have to run around manually looking for it, why not add a supply depo sort of building! Hey! There already is one! Make it both add to population, and... you could just tell your marine to walk inside and then right click on a crate of ammo and grenades and he'd automatically take some. This would encourage forward bases and outposts, rather than just turtling (which probably doesn't happen to much in comp I'd assume, but it happens whenever I try to play any RTS with somebody).

It certainly would be a challenge yes, but if it succeded, it would be like nothing ever before. I think that's worth it, but that's just me. Lol - you're the one who asked.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

To handle running out of grenades and ammo and such and not wanting to have to run around manually looking for it, why not add a supply depo sort of building!

While I don't think this "feature" would improve the inherent gameplay of StarCraft, I would point out that other games have made use of expendible resources before in a fashion that could concievably work (both by relic incidentally). In Company of Heroes, ammunition was a "resource" that could be collected much like fuel or requisition. Many special attacks (hand grenades, calliope barrages, etc) drew from this pool in addition to having a cooldown. In Dawn of War II the solution to the problem was to give such attacks a cooldown AND draw from the energy pool of the unit and it works well enough.

Truth be told, I don't think any of the suggestions posited in this thread would result in a better game of StarCraft. They might yield an interesting game set in the StarCraft universe however.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

To handle running out of grenades and ammo and such and not wanting to have to run around manually looking for it, why not add a supply depo sort of building!

While I don't think this "feature" would improve the inherent gameplay of StarCraft, I would point out that other games have made use of expendible resources before in a fashion that could concievably work (both by relic incidentally). In Company of Heroes, ammunition was a "resource" that could be collected much like fuel or requisition. Many special attacks (hand grenades, calliope barrages, etc) drew from this pool in addition to having a cooldown. In Dawn of War II the solution to the problem was to give such attacks a cooldown AND draw from the energy pool of the unit and it works well enough.

Truth be told, I don't think any of the suggestions posited in this thread would result in a better game of StarCraft. They might yield an interesting game set in the StarCraft universe however.

I was more talking about ammo how it's done in Men of War, where it's more contained within a unit rather than merely a global source, presumably teleported into the ammo pouches of your men. I don't understand that last bit, unless you mean that a different game wouldn't be a good clone, but it would be a good different game, to which I respond "Well, umm. Yeah."

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I was more talking about ammo how it's done in Men of War, where it's more contained within a unit rather than merely a global source, presumably teleported into the ammo pouches of your men. I don't understand that last bit, unless you mean that a different game wouldn't be a good clone, but it would be a good different game, to which I respond "Well, umm. Yeah."

This is precisely my point I suppose. StarCraft, more than most any franchise on the PC, has a legacy. It has expectations from the fans. The people who are legitimately going nuts about the game are not doing so because of a bold new take on the game but rather because it retains most of the familiar trappings of the game of old. These are the sort of people who would almost certainly refuse to purchase the game if it went in a bold new direction.

I'm not saying that one could not make an excellent game using the features and functions found in other RTS franchises while retaining much of the spirit of StarCraft. It's just that the result would not be what the fans really wanted. To be perfectly honest, I would love to play a version of the game where I controlled marines and zerglings at the squad level rather than as individual pieces of cannon fodder, where maneuver is more important than efficient build order and whatnot. But I can also recognize that StarCraft II was not a game built for me but rather the legions of people who have played it's predecessor consistently for more than a decade. Perhaps the modding community will leverage the excellent tools provided to do the sort of thing many in this thread seem to want.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

I was more talking about ammo how it's done in Men of War, where it's more contained within a unit rather than merely a global source, presumably teleported into the ammo pouches of your men. I don't understand that last bit, unless you mean that a different game wouldn't be a good clone, but it would be a good different game, to which I respond "Well, umm. Yeah."

This is precisely my point I suppose. StarCraft, more than most any franchise on the PC, has a legacy. It has expectations from the fans. The people who are legitimately going nuts about the game are not doing so because of a bold new take on the game but rather because it retains most of the familiar trappings of the game of old. These are the sort of people who would almost certainly refuse to purchase the game if it went in a bold new direction.

I'm not saying that one could not make an excellent game using the features and functions found in other RTS franchises while retaining much of the spirit of StarCraft. It's just that the result would not be what the fans really wanted. To be perfectly honest, I would love to play a version of the game where I controlled marines and zerglings at the squad level rather than as individual pieces of cannon fodder, where maneuver is more important than efficient build order and whatnot. But I can also recognize that StarCraft II was not a game built for me but rather the legions of people who have played it's predecessor consistently for more than a decade. Perhaps the modding community will leverage the excellent tools provided to do the sort of thing many in this thread seem to want.

I can't really speak for the fans, but I certainly don't have that mindset. I'd expect TF3 to be just a fresh as TF2, Men of War 2 to take Men of War to entirely new levels, Starwars Battlefront 3 (let's all take a moment to mourn Pandemic) to not just be SW:BF2 with better graphics and a few new doodads. I guess thats just me, but I agree that Blizzard at least thinks that fans are like that, and wants to make money.