Another Starcraft II Post
Something has been bugging me about Starcraft II, and since it hasn't stopped bugging me, I'll bring it up now: The Protoss Mothership.
The demo is all good fun up to the point when the Mothership arrives. The protoss are kicking butt with new weapons that are in their racial character. The sounds are there, the environment is there. Units are designed to counter one another.
Then the Mothership shows up, and it's a hero unit. It doesn't level (as far as we know), so Starcraft two is not "unbuyable" as rmcdougall put it. It does, however, have a unit cap of 1 imposed upon it that is completely divorced from the rest of the game's unit cap/balancing system. It doesn't just cost a lot of minerals and psi and time to build, it has a hard-coded limit of 1. This is the only thing in the demo that didn't look like Starcraft.
Some have told me that the unit is ripped directly from C&C 3, but that isn't what bothers me. I do not forbid designers from borrowing good elements from other games. What does bother me is that buildable hero units in multiplayer are not a Starcraft thing. I've played strategy games based on heroes and enjoyed them; the feeling of an awesomely powerful leader of your army going into battle has merit. What it does not have is any connection to the feeling I have when I'm playing Starcraft. Starcraft games don't depend on special units to make individual battles important. The player is put within a hair of defeat from the beginning, and in the right situation, any marine or mutalisk can turn out to be your hero, saving you in a clutch situation.
At this point, I would like to officially implore Blizzard to abandon the hero unit as an element of Starcraft II. Please, Blizzard, either eliminate the limit of 1 Mothership at a time or get rid of the unit entirely. The game can be balanced without this unstarcraftism.
9 comments:
Just 'cause it doesn't automatically jive doesn't mean it can't...kind of jive. Y'know, like Super Mario 2 (Doki Doki Panic) or Adventure of Link. Different...but awesome.
(Disclaimer: I suck at FPS games and I haven't played Warcraft III)
Hmmm, I don't know if I agree. First, beyond the fact that nothing about the game, including the "One Mothership" cap, is set in stone, you really can't tell how it will affect gameplay until you have actually played it. We don't even know if it will be in multiplayer, though my guess is that it will be. Second, Blizzard, and only Blizzard for better or worse, determines what Starcraft is and isn't. There has only really been one game in the series, which isn't enough to determine what fits in a franchise and what doesn't anyway. Third, you said before that you didn't want a game that was too similar to the original, yet you seem to be criticizing the only significant difference we have seen thus far. I applaud them for having the balls to change the formula, however slightly. Fourth, it isn't a hero unit unless it has an actual name, in my opinion. While one marine may save your bacon in one encounter, you aren't going to take special care of him in the future. He is still just a nameless, expendable unit that you have no stake in. Besides, there is nothing we have heard about building a second Mothership if the first is destroyed. Fifth, everything I have read thus far points to it being a "Science Vessel" with no actual attack capabilities. This would force players to pay special attention to it to use it effectively, which could make it an interesting addition. Sixth, there is nothing saying these units will be depended upon to make individual battles important. Hell, I doubt they will see much play, especially in exciting, close games or between decent players. Seventh, if they do end up breaking the game, being unfun, or whatever, Blizzard will patch it until they fit. I doubt the Mothership will be so completely overpowered as to automatically turn the tide, or remove strategy.
So I guess what I'm saying is give the Mothership a chance. While the game certainly can be balanced without these units, I'd rather see what Blizzard can do with them. Who knows, they might end up totally sucking, or they might be what propels the sequel past the original.
Also, Pkadden, I think you meant RTS.
I DID mean RTS, but I suppose the fact also stands that I suck at FPS games too.
SUPER-BAD.
When my brothers and I were designing a board game, we had a name for rules that didn’t fit into the overall scheme of a cohesive rule set and were made strictly to prevent one strategy that would be unfair. We called them “no-doing-that-thing rules” and we strove to avoid them because they were inelegant. Starcraft has a very good, cohesive system for balancing units and keeping all units on the same plane. Other games take other approaches, but they have no obligation to be Starcraft, so more power to them if it works. However, the cap of one Mothership is a no-doing-that-thing rule that doesn’t fit into Starcraft. If having more than one Mothership presents problem, the designers need more than a band-aid the make the problem go away.
“First, beyond the fact that nothing about the game, including the "One Mothership" cap, is set in stone, you really can't tell how it will affect gameplay until you have actually played it. We don't even know if it will be in multiplayer, though my guess is that it will be.”
It should be obvious that my post necessarily assume that this is not set in stone, since I am trying to change it. How could anyone think I was ignoring the fact that I am basing all of my statements on? I also think we can make reasoned judgments about how something will affect gameplay and the feel of the game, and we can certainly tell how such a unit would affect the principles of the game.
“Second, Blizzard, and only Blizzard for better or worse, determines what Starcraft is and isn't. There has only really been one game in the series, which isn't enough to determine what fits in a franchise and what doesn't anyway.”
I think this statement is categorically false. Consider the extreme: Blizzard declares that Starcraft is a type of soccer. Or a slightly less extreme case: Starcraft is a puzzle game, or an FPS. Blizzard didn’t try to claim that Starcraft: Ghost was Starcraft. It was a shooter in the Starcraft universe, and nothing Blizzard said could have changed that even if they had tried to do so.
Because we have experience with Starcraft, we are all qualified to determine to what degree something is or isn’t Starcraft. We can use this expertise when evaluating a Starcraft mod or clone, meaningfully saying, “This is Starcraft” or “This is not Starcraft.” The word “Starcraft” left Blizzard’s hands the day the first game was released. If you feel that they don’t have to honor the accepted meaning of the word, that’s your opinion, but it doesn’t mean that we cannot have a notion of what honoring the meaning would consist of.
“Third, you said before that you didn't want a game that was too similar to the original, yet you seem to be criticizing the only significant difference we have seen thus far. I applaud them for having the balls to change the formula, however slightly.”
A list of significant differences I have either applauded or not criticized:
-Ground units that can climb cliffs
-The ability to select any number of units at once
-The ability of the Protoss to create units near any of their pylons
-Turrets can shoot at some ground units.
I have also mentioned other possible significant changes I would approve of entirely.
“Fourth, it isn't a hero unit unless it has an actual name, in my opinion.”
So if they changed possibly a single .txt file so that the Mothership’s name became Nak-P’tala, then she would be a hero, but now she isn’t? That really doesn’t seem like a difference worth bringing up. If you think that a unit can be mechanically identical to a hero without being a hero, then this is just an insignificant semantic distinction.
Furthermore, I reject your semantics in this case. Under the view of heroes you propose, I could alter Battle for Middle Earth, changing every instance of the word “Aragorn” to “Mighty Warrior,” and legitimately call the result a mod in which heroes have been removed. I don’t buy it.
“While one marine may save your bacon in one encounter, you aren't going to take special care of him in the future. He is still just a nameless, expendable unit that you have no stake in.”
He is an expendable unit that I have no stake in if and only if he is not in a strategically important position. If he’s the second marine to pop out, you know I have a huge stake in him. Unless you mean a more emotional attachment, in which case the absence can be explained by the fact that I am playing Starcraft rather than an RPG. Don’t tell me it doesn’t have to be strategy-focused to be Starcraft. I have set the minimum way higher than that.
“Besides, there is nothing we have heard about building a second Mothership if the first is destroyed.”
Logically, you are correct. The exact words from the demo are: “You are only allowed a single Mothership at one time.” This is logically consistent with the statement: “You are only allowed a single Mothership over the course of one game.” However, conversational norms dictate that Blizzard would not have worded the statement in the manner they did unless players were allowed to have two Motherships at two different times.
If they did make it a one-per-game limit, I wouldn’t like that either.
“Fifth, everything I have read thus far points to it being a "Science Vessel" with no actual attack capabilities. This would force players to pay special attention to it to use it effectively, which could make it an interesting addition.”
But more interesting that a science vessel? Why? I don’t see what this has to do with the artificial limit of one.
“Sixth, there is nothing saying these units will be depended upon to make individual battles important. Hell, I doubt they will see much play, especially in exciting, close games or between decent players.”
Then there would be even less reason to limit people to building only one.
“Seventh, if they do end up breaking the game, being unfun, or whatever, Blizzard will patch it until they fit.”
Yes, but I think you agree with me that they shoot for a working, fun game right off the bat rather than throw shit against the wall and sort through it later. My request that Blizzard not use this game element was not a request that they not try any new things; it was a request that they not release things in Starcraft II that aren’t Starcraftian in nature.
“So I guess what I'm saying is give the Mothership a chance. While the game certainly can be balanced without these units, I'd rather see what Blizzard can do with them. Who knows, they might end up totally sucking, or they might be what propels the sequel past the original.”
Give the Mothership a chance? Sure. Give a no-doing-that-thing rule a chance? No. Give hero units a chance? Never. Also, you keep referring to hero units in the plural. I’m hoping they aren’t experimenting with others, and I think my hope fits with Blizzard’s statement that they are trying to make the races play even more differently than they do in Brood War.
This was originally going to be a another long rebuttal, but it is not worth defending a decision I didn't make. Escpecially because I would rather have the ability to make multiple. The few points I will address:
I apologize for the redundant and unnecessary reminder of the game being unfinished, I just feel it bears mentioning in any preview.
Starcraft is a lot of things to a lot of people and since everyone will not be able to agree on what is and isn't kosher, it falls to Blizzard, the original creator, to determine. The accepted meaning varies too widely and any single person's opinion doesn't matter. As much as I don't like some aspects of newer Splinter Cell titles, I can't declare them "Not Splinter Cell."
The rest of the changes are mostly extensions of things that are already in Starcraft. I believe the Mothership limit to be the only truly significant change we've seen.
About the heroes: what I had thought I had typed was "name and story significance." To me, they can't exist outside of a campaign. That lone marine must reamin expendable; the player should not have an emotional stake in a unit if they are trying to win.
I never said they would be more interesting than Science Vessels. I merely meant that "Magic" based units are interesting.
Also, where did "Don’t tell me it doesn’t have to be strategy-focused to be Starcraft." come from? I don't believe I ever said that.
Seriously you guys: I think I like Adventure of Link a lot. I mean, I also hate it, too.
I am very confused.
I tried to refute your argument, only to be told that I had not properly identified your argument. The points I tied to the Mothership were merely unrelated points of interest.
So please, if you want to discuss this, post at least one reason why the limit of one Mothership is a good thing. Don't put anything in the post that you do not consider a reason why the limit is a good thing, or I will be confused (intentionally confusing me qualifies as "being mean" under Naked Gamer bylaws).
Yeah, you're right. I went about commenting on something you weren't really addressing. Truth be told, I don't have any evidence or reasoning as to why the limit is a good thing. However, the reverse is also true and I feel as though it is just too early to make any judgements about it. Didn't mean to confuse you.
I, like dbrodeur, have a gut reaction against seemingly inelegant rules like a limit of 1 Mothership.
However, although it has been a negative in the past, I believe that A) if anyone can do it, Blizzard can, and B) it doens't neccessarily have to be a negative.
The LOTR RTS had hero units, but they weren't the main characters. They were like, Lieutenants in the larger war, so you felt that you had brought something special to the battle, but not heart-broken if it died. And, of course, you could only have 1 of each hero.
This wasn't perfect or anything, but it worked. A hero unit had fun abilities that could turn the tide of a battle, but could definitely be killed. Think, if you build 1 High Templar, and go attack with several zealots, a few dragoons, and that 1 templar, you'll have something of an attachment to him. A slightly exaggerated form of that wouldn't be bad, except for the feeling of "Hey, why can't I build another one of these?"
Post a Comment