Exported from SEA: Sc2 needs to change

In fear of a looming SEA forum shutdown i'll stick a backup copy over here

Firstly, I would like to state that I very much enjoy starcraft 2, which is a game that holds true to the original, however while this is quite beneficial in a number of regards, it ultimately holds itself back from being a game for this generation which succeeds upon its own merits. While it is true that blizzard is by no means milking their IP’s dry like a number of other developers, they certainly like to make their games on the dare I say conservative side of things.

Sure, this is partially good but also somewhat bad for the longevity of the starcraft universe. Starcraft 2 is keen in offering very little innovation over most previous blizzard games and tries its best to remain in the 1990’s when rts games were at their most popular. While this gives most fans a reason to like the game, it also rejects the possibility of embracing advancements (mechanically/ gameplay-wise) for the game.

Starcraft 2 does indeed bring a number of new mechanics/ units, but ultimately most have been controversial and even called badly designed, always bordering the line where it’s either under-powered or over-powered. The new mechanics while being a nice idea to raise the skill ceiling and differentiating a better macro player, also however lowers the skill floor for the new, floundering players, effectively this contributes to a game losing rather than attracting more players.

So what could this game have done? With technological improvements in gaming engines, it would’ve been feasible to overhaul the scope of individual games, new engines can facilitate larger scale battles, automatically operating economies and a shift to more strategic game whereby players could make macro decisions for actually enormous armies, not ones confined to the limit of 200 food points. The possibilities were endless for changes that could’ve made Starcarft 2 a game for THIS generation, not for the 1990’s.

It’s entirely logical to argue the difficulty in balancing a game with less constraints on a player, let alone accept change that deviates even slightly from the original formula, I’m not saying that there should be a complete overhaul of the mechanics or gameplay, but one that suits this decade, not the previous one, because all I see improvement that wouldn’t have been possible last decade are the graphics.

Finally, I would like to cast back to how Blizzard used to do things, with the Warcraft series. With each release, the game evolved significantly. Orcs and Humans was a game that set the foundation, it had your basic ground forces in a snug 4 unit selection. Warcraft 2 then built upon that allowing you to create, air and sea forces as well as a great deal of new mechanical improvements. Then Warcraft 3 came offering heroes and 4 races etc etc. The Warcraft franchise saw clear and significant changes that made each entry to the series completely different to play yet held true to basic RTS and Warcraft principles.

The constant developmental fear going out of a limb for change at the risk of pissing off the community has being one of the biggest bug bears for Blizzard and because of it a lot of the ‘new crowd’ that didn’t play the 1990’s RTS classics have extreme difficulties in getting into game like Starcraft 2 as a result.
04/08/2013 09:52 PMPosted by Haza
In fear of a looming SEA forum shutdown

haha good one
Adding on some major points made in the original thread if anyone is interested:

Alternate view on the cause of decline:
In my opinion, there are two factors that is discouraging new players from playing SCII. Firstly, it is the pressure of the game. SCII is one out of two of all the competitive games out there that only has 1v1 (the other being fighting game tournaments). Many people cannot take the pressure that they are the one in charge of the entire game, and if they lose its completely their fault. Meanwhile in games like Dota and LoL where teamwork is important, or even in shooter games like CS:Go and COD, casual players can just blame each other when they lose and don't care much about it. Also to think about it new players seem to be less competitive compared to previous gamers.

Next is the price tag. Remember that 129 SGD price tag when the game came out? Its very huge, compared to other competitive games. Dota 2 is free in a sense that you can get a free beta key from a friend, or buy from steam community store at USD 0.02 cents. CS:GO costs about 20 bucks, and goes down to 10 bucks during steam sales. LoL is free but there are micro transactions in game. Even COD doesn't cost that much, with the launch price being 70 SGD. While it has allowed Starcraft community to become much more royal and kid free compared to other games (ESPECIALLY LoL), it has also reduced the fan base significantly.

Then Rockstar comes out with Shakespearian poetry:
Stupid thread.

Other points:
It's a difficult matter to argue reasons for successful game (starcraft 1) to change

not impossible.

Sure they may have not all been for the better, but each title is different enough to have own title base off its own merits

but thats exactly what im saying.. the success of one didnt have anything to do with any of the others, other than the fact a person might have liked the previous game and play the next one.

I guess when new competition enters the RTS market then we can tell whether starcraft 2 had made the right decisions.

I agree.
what I wish they had is AoE (1 or 2 im not bothered) with as easy a UI as sc2, that would make it alot more strategic, because as far as my play goes its completely mechanics based because i find the UI so hard

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum