3 ms·

In my opinion SC is a gigantic missed opportunity by Blizzard. SC2 should have just been a Brood War remake, while at the same time advancing the single player

by proc0 3y ago

In my opinion SC is a gigantic missed opportunity by Blizzard. SC2 should have just been a Brood War remake, while at the same time advancing the single player campaign story. Balancing an RTS must be the hardest thing in game design, and they had achieved it only to start over with SC2 (after 10 years of sitting on it). Blizzard seems to always under-appreciate what they have made, at least since after the Activision merge.

dragontamer 3y ago
No modern gamer would have accepted the crappy movement of Dragoons and/or Goliaths. What's ironic is that by "fixing" all units to move gracefully, it seemingly made Starcraft2 more of a deathball-oriented game. In many ways, Starcraft is fun because many powerhouse units move so wonky and unreliably... negating "deathball" as a strategy. But no newbie would want to practice a game with such weird movement mechanics. We need to evolve past expert-knowledge just to move-and-shoot, and yet still achieve a high level of strategic thought. --------- I do think AoE2 is moving along that path however (!!). The new DLC (lol, yeah, DLC for a game released nearly 25 years ago) is pretty fun.
- proc0 3y ago
  They could have fixed those issues without reinventing the wheel. Additionally you can make the game more accessible by adding all kinds of game modes for people to learn from, without touching the high level functionality the pros depend on. I don't think it's hard to innovate in this area. Unfortunately most game companies don't see profit in a "proper" game, and instead chase after "games as a service" that optimize for in-game purchases, and having a product life that is meant to die once the cow has been milked. I think that is a missed opportunity (in hindsight though). Had Blizzard taken SC in a more chess-like direction, it could have easily spread as much as chess did. It's not that SC2 is bad, it's just a completely different game that is only building on top of the art and backstory of the previous one, when it could have been a greater success had they also built on top of the game design that was already tried and tested. I don't play AoE, but it seems that franchise is doing this to some extent, at least it doesn't seem to be reinventing their own wheel.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    Magic boxing and "weird movement" of Dragoons is what separated the n00bs from the pros. Spending hours of practice inside of Starcraft, memorizing the size of the magic box *IS* Starcraft:BW. IMO, its hellish kinds of unfun and I personally won't be subjecting myself to it today. (Though when I was younger, I had the pretense that I could get good enough at it and/or respected through this skill). Then sitting in Starcraft practice maps / UMS games to master each of these mouse-movements and finger-dexterity to be able to play at a competent level... nahhhhhh. Starcraft:BW is absolutely too much of a twitch-game, and too much strategy relies upon wonky micro-details that IMO, its a surprise that we ever called it a strategy game. Its closer to a mouse-driven fighting game, honestly. If you fix this wonky movement, you simply don't have Starcraft: Brood War anymore. Its so fundamental to the meta, and the mechanic is fundamental to Muta-harassment, Dragoon Dancing, Psi Storm micro, etc. etc. that its literally the core element of combat. ---------------- That's the primary difference between Dragoons (SC:BW) and Stalkers (SC2). Stalkers are smooth and easy to move (and also have a bit of blink-micro). Dragoons need the player to memorize the size of the magic-box to "Dragoon Dance" and effectively enter combat. ---------- I appreciate the engine-rewrite to SC2. There are *OTHER* problems Blizzard/Activision had that caused SC2 to collapse. But fixing the movement/magic boxing so that it was easier to have units move together and flock together is a *GOOD* thing. But there needed to be more deathball mitigations. Too many games turned into boring deathballs.
    - proc0 3y ago
      Interesting. I knew about the difficulties of the micro in BW but didn't think it would be the defining feature of the game like that. Maybe those elements can still be "fixed" while keeping the balance of the races, with same units and tech trees. At the very least I think it could be worked around in order to let new players enjoy the game as well, and maybe ramp up to using those advanced techniques. I think fighting games like Tekken, Street Fighter are good examples here. Tekken has largely remained the same game, with the same moves, with new features built on top. Every sequel is expected to maintain this transfer of the core "rules" (not necessarily mechanics) such that players can master their Tekken skills over decades. Also, you have SF6 adding a new "assisted" controls for new players. This allows a stepping stone for players to later reach the harder controls which are equivalent to the 300 APM micros in SC. RTS has to make a comeback. It's like a better version of chess, if only game companies would innovate the genre in that direction.

by proc0 3y ago

dragontamer 3y ago

No modern gamer would have accepted the crappy movement of Dragoons and/or Goliaths. What's ironic is that by "fixing" all units to move gracefully, it seemingly made Starcraft2 more of a deathball-oriented game. In many ways, Starcraft is fun because many powerhouse units move so wonky and unreliably... negating "deathball" as a strategy. But no newbie would want to practice a game with such weird movement mechanics. We need to evolve past expert-knowledge just to move-and-shoot, and yet still achieve a high level of strategic thought. --------- I do think AoE2 is moving along that path however (!!). The new DLC (lol, yeah, DLC for a game released nearly 25 years ago) is pretty fun.

proc0 3y ago
They could have fixed those issues without reinventing the wheel. Additionally you can make the game more accessible by adding all kinds of game modes for people to learn from, without touching the high level functionality the pros depend on. I don't think it's hard to innovate in this area. Unfortunately most game companies don't see profit in a "proper" game, and instead chase after "games as a service" that optimize for in-game purchases, and having a product life that is meant to die once the cow has been milked. I think that is a missed opportunity (in hindsight though). Had Blizzard taken SC in a more chess-like direction, it could have easily spread as much as chess did. It's not that SC2 is bad, it's just a completely different game that is only building on top of the art and backstory of the previous one, when it could have been a greater success had they also built on top of the game design that was already tried and tested. I don't play AoE, but it seems that franchise is doing this to some extent, at least it doesn't seem to be reinventing their own wheel.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Magic boxing and "weird movement" of Dragoons is what separated the n00bs from the pros. Spending hours of practice inside of Starcraft, memorizing the size of the magic box *IS* Starcraft:BW. IMO, its hellish kinds of unfun and I personally won't be subjecting myself to it today. (Though when I was younger, I had the pretense that I could get good enough at it and/or respected through this skill). Then sitting in Starcraft practice maps / UMS games to master each of these mouse-movements and finger-dexterity to be able to play at a competent level... nahhhhhh. Starcraft:BW is absolutely too much of a twitch-game, and too much strategy relies upon wonky micro-details that IMO, its a surprise that we ever called it a strategy game. Its closer to a mouse-driven fighting game, honestly. If you fix this wonky movement, you simply don't have Starcraft: Brood War anymore. Its so fundamental to the meta, and the mechanic is fundamental to Muta-harassment, Dragoon Dancing, Psi Storm micro, etc. etc. that its literally the core element of combat. ---------------- That's the primary difference between Dragoons (SC:BW) and Stalkers (SC2). Stalkers are smooth and easy to move (and also have a bit of blink-micro). Dragoons need the player to memorize the size of the magic-box to "Dragoon Dance" and effectively enter combat. ---------- I appreciate the engine-rewrite to SC2. There are *OTHER* problems Blizzard/Activision had that caused SC2 to collapse. But fixing the movement/magic boxing so that it was easier to have units move together and flock together is a *GOOD* thing. But there needed to be more deathball mitigations. Too many games turned into boring deathballs.
  - proc0 3y ago
    Interesting. I knew about the difficulties of the micro in BW but didn't think it would be the defining feature of the game like that. Maybe those elements can still be "fixed" while keeping the balance of the races, with same units and tech trees. At the very least I think it could be worked around in order to let new players enjoy the game as well, and maybe ramp up to using those advanced techniques. I think fighting games like Tekken, Street Fighter are good examples here. Tekken has largely remained the same game, with the same moves, with new features built on top. Every sequel is expected to maintain this transfer of the core "rules" (not necessarily mechanics) such that players can master their Tekken skills over decades. Also, you have SF6 adding a new "assisted" controls for new players. This allows a stepping stone for players to later reach the harder controls which are equivalent to the 300 APM micros in SC. RTS has to make a comeback. It's like a better version of chess, if only game companies would innovate the genre in that direction.