The Sonic Center
The Lounge => Gaming and Grazing => Topic started by: magnum12 on May 21, 2007, 05:14:55 pm
-
PC RTS fans rejoice. After 9 years of waiting, the king has returned. (Starcraft is considered to be the king of RTS by many RTS fans and is still a very popular game today.) Information about the game is here.
http://www.starcraft2.com/ Release date is unknown at this time.
-
Yes but some feel that they are doing too little to innovative the genre. Thoughts?
-
-The announcement is only 3 days old, so there's very little information on any new stuff Blizzard is adding at this time. There will probably be some innovations (Blizzard is known for adding some dynamic new feature to each chapter of their game series) as time progresses although the release date is only TBA at this time. At worst, as long as Blizzard improves the old recipie, they have very little to lose from "sticking to their guns". Sometimes (when a formula reaches a certain level of perfection) it is wisest to merely improve upon a great formula before completely reworking it. Even to this day, Starcraft is known as being the first and only RTS to have more than 2 radically different factions yet still have all of them be nearly perfectly balanced (no over powered race AND no unit ever becomes obselete). In this case, perfection is more important than innovation due to increased risk of screwing the forumla up for the worse.
-There is such a thing as over innovation. Take Sonic and the Secret Rings as a chief example. Sure, its nice that they attempted to innovate the way Sonic plays, but the innovation caused the game's biggest controls problems. SSR was a good game (way better than S06), but if Sonic Team used the on-rails level design, but instead used a traditional controller, most of the control problems would have either went away or been reduced.
-
Oh hey I announced this in the #soniccenter a few days ago >_> . Anyway, it's great news, but would be better if my PC could actaully run it. Hello free laptop from school.
-
First and foremost, from me this gets a FUCK YES!!!!!
...no unit ever becomes obselete)
Well, that's not true, since Queens and Devourers are apparently useless (and most games never get as far as things like Arbiters, Carriers etc.). But that's besides the point since the rest of your post is spot-on.
Basically, if they change a lot, people will bitch and whine about it; if they don't change much, people will bitch and whine about it. I'm just happy it's finally happening, and it's not like I even ever played online anyway (I actually really enjoy SC's single player campaigns...).
People complaining that the Protoss got loads of cool new shit but the other races got gypped make me lol, since it's obvious they just haven't revealed much about the others yet. From what's been shown, it looks like the Protoss's "thing" is going to be massive mobility (aircraft that can turn into pylons and the ability to warp in new units to ANYWHERE in the psionic matrix).
Also, what we've been shown looks overpowered somewhat (hello Mothership) compared to the kind of stuff we're used to. Balance is a top priority with Blizzard, so I can only assume that the other two races will get similarly OTT new units and abilities. Possibly kind of like how Guilty Gear supposedly achieves balance (from what I've read, basically just by making EVERY character broken).
-
-There is such a thing as over innovation.
You don't have to tell me twice.
In fact, forget I ever said anything. I've been a consistent advocate of tried-and-true. (and innovative tried-and-true) and I'm creatively formulatic.
Just that I've been reading this one blogger lately who's apparently obsessed with arbitrarily advancing every single aspect of gaming. (his idea of a new Pokemon game is an MMO with breeding and on a handheld with dual sticks)
He is disappointed with SC2 as it looks because to him it's appalling how little they changed the game. Whereas other games like Supreme Commander (which I never played >_>) have been trying to move the genre forward.
So I guess I'm just throwing that out there.
but if Sonic Team used the on-rails level design, but instead used a traditional controller, most of the control problems would have either went away or been reduced.
Oh you mean like Sonic Adventure 2?
Basically, if they change a lot, people will bitch and whine about it; if they don't change much, people will bitch and whine about it.
The two groups cancel each other out, wouldn't you say? I guess the best option for designers is to ignore everyone. And trust their instincts.
-
-Guilty Gear having everyone broken is only half of the method. Its more like the "meat on the bones". The other more important part is the "design skeleton" that attempts to prevent any form of abuse from happening. Its real hard to explain, so here's an article that talks about this in more detail. http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-2-a-detailed-example/
-Not quite like SA2 (along with S06 is a stinker because only 1/3 of the game is actually good). Just the exact same way SSR is played but just with a classic analog stick and buttons to make changing direction (going backwards), changing jump direction, and grinding less painful.
-
Now I hate Guilty Gear but I didn't realize how innovative the game was. That's an interesting article.
I gotta bookmark this site.
-
-Guilty Gear having everyone broken is only half of the method. Its more like the "meat on the bones". The other more important part is the "design skeleton" that attempts to prevent any form of abuse from happening. Its real hard to explain, so here's an article that talks about this in more detail. http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-2-a-detailed-example/
Oh yeah, I remember I read that article a long time ago! Good stuff.
Yeah, it'd be cool if an RTS were balanced like that, haha. Doubt it'll be the case to that extent (maybe not even at all, of course: I'm only speculating) with SC2, but I'm just going to wait and see.
-
That article you linked to made a lot of sense. Good stuff, as Crowbar said.
-
-Guilty Gear having everyone broken is only half of the method. Its more like the "meat on the bones". The other more important part is the "design skeleton" that attempts to prevent any form of abuse from happening. Its real hard to explain, so here's an article that talks about this in more detail. http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-2-a-detailed-example/
Oh yeah, I remember I read that article a long time ago! Good stuff.
Yeah, it'd be cool if an RTS were balanced like that, haha. Doubt it'll be the case to that extent (maybe not even at all, of course: I'm only speculating) with SC2, but I'm just going to wait and see.
That's a bad idea in RTS games. Just thought of something that could go wrong. My primary concern is that Blizzard might try to use the balance system they use in WC3. For those who are not familiar with WC3, that game uses a soft counter system as opposed to a hard counter system used in Star Craft or C&C. In a hard counter system, each unit has a unit type has types it is strong against and weak against. If an army is against an army that consists of stuff its weak against; unless army A has back up that counters the unit type army B is using, army A is basically screwed unless the player of army A has super human micro management skills (micro). In a soft counter system, the same rules apply but the weight of battle outcome is significantly changed in favor of micro. This results in counters only being effective if you have good micro or some form of immunity advantage. Army B has to work much harder to defeat army A even though it is supposed to have a considerable advantage on paper. Because of the inferior balance in WC3, Starcraft fans tend to mock the game by calling it "dance craft" (parody of unit dancing required to win even with proper counters) or click craft (parody of micro). By comparing these two systems, it becomes clear that hard counters are not only easier to balance, they also produce an inherently higher level of balance compared to soft counters in addition to placing more weight on scouting to keep tabs on what your opponent is doing so you can counter it.
-
Well, if you're putting it that way, given what we've seen in the videos so far it looks like, if anything, the counter system will be even harder than in SC1. For example, Immortals are near invincible against heavy units thanks to their special shields, but get ripped to shreds by large amounts of small arms fire.
-
That's good to know. The damage system must be like in the original SC. Concussive weapons (used by firebats, ghosts, and vultures) did 100% to small units, 50% against medium units (hydralisks, vultures) and 25% against large units (dragoons, guardians). Explosive weapons (hydralisks, dragoons, tanks) did 100% against large, 75% against medium, and 50% against small. From what you've said, there's probably a damage type system already in place. In this case, Immortals have their armor and weapon types to be a specialist anti-tank unit (like missile infantry in C&C).
-
Did you watch the videos? :( They actually have a specific forcefield that only activates when hit by attacks of a certain power (siege tanks being the example). This is not to say that there won't be a similar damage system to SC, just that it's not what's making the difference in this one specific case.
(I'm being very pedantic, I know, but I felt I should clarify this)
-
Just watched them.Dude, those were awesome. I see what you mean by special shields.
-
There can only be one thing said about this.
:O!
ps: Immortal >>>> Dragoon. I mean, seriously. Dual rifles are awesome compared to some silly eyeball cannon that shoots magic balls of exploding plasma at people.