Dustin Browder..

[ChimTheGrim21]

Pic:
http://www.blizzplanet.com/content/blizzcon/blizzcon-2007/dustin-browder.jpg

This guy is I believe, the leader designer, of SCII. He used to be a Command & Conquer designer. I don't know this for a fact, but I am willing to wager that some of the ill-received concepts are his ideas. After having played the game C&C:Tiberian Sun, I can bet the Mothership was all his idea (1 unit limit was also in Tiberian Sun). I can imagine Thor being approved by him, but I'd like someone to ask him personally.

We need to know more about this guy... SC II is more than just a sequel. Its THE sequel to the greatest RTS game of all time.

[AJ]

He is the lead designer for SC2.

Short list of games he's been involved in:

World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade (2007), Blizzard Entertainment Inc.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth II (2006), Electronic Arts, Inc.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth (2004), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Generals (2003), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Generals - Zero Hour (2003), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge (2001), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Dominion Wars (2001), Simon & Schuster Interactive
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 (2000), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 (Collector's Edition) (2000), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Dark Reign 2 (2000), Activision Publishing, Inc.
Battlezone (1998), Activision, Inc.
Vigilante 8 (1998), Activision, Inc.
Heavy Gear (1997), Activision, Inc.
MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries (1996), Activision, Inc.
MechWarrior 2: Ghost Bear's Legacy (1995), Activision, Inc.

He's also a really great guy who's trying to mix things up a bit in the SC world, which I can't hold against him, so try not to hold a grudge against him for not solely upgrading the graphics engine and pushing out a remake of SC:BW.

[3Vee]

It's hard to say what is and isn't somebody's idea: unit count limits have been around for a while (read, at least since the original Homeworld), so it's not totally out there to throw it at a new SC game. Most of us here agree that it doesn't fit well with SC, but there are advocates of the Mothership.

Obviously in some sense he would have been "approving" stuff, but I doubt even a lead designer could railroad through a unit the rest of the team hated. Just something to think about.

[ChimTheGrim21]

Blizzard has stated that they've argued about what stays and goes. I imagine that this guy, being lead designer, is a big contributer to that. I also forgot to mention the idea of unlimited unit selection no doubt being his idea. It was in the C&C games, and it just makes sense that he was the reason they decided to have it in SC2--which is good or bad depending on how you view it.

[TitanWing]

World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade (2007), Blizzard Entertainment Inc.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth II (2006), Electronic Arts, Inc.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth (2004), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Generals (2003), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Generals - Zero Hour (2003), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge (2001), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Dominion Wars (2001), Simon & Schuster Interactive
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 (2000), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 (Collector's Edition) (2000), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Dark Reign 2 (2000), Activision Publishing, Inc.
Battlezone (1998), Activision, Inc.
Vigilante 8 (1998), Activision, Inc.
Heavy Gear (1997), Activision, Inc.
MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries (1996), Activision, Inc.
MechWarrior 2: Ghost Bear's Legacy (1995), Activision, Inc.
That list shows where a lot of SC2's more controversial features and changes are coming from such as MechWarrior and C&C. Fortunately, he's not trying to bring BFME's heroes > everything shit into SC2.

[Protogod]

Wow, after seeing the list of game browder made i'm terrified for SC2 once again.

Can we get a non-phialure running the show?

[Skydragon222]

protogod you are being a little narrow minded. ok let me take that back A LOT narrow minded.

some of the games on the list are prime examples of the RTS genre.

Command and conquer zero hour was a beautiful piece of work

Also lets not forget there are other RTS's on the list. This guy obviously has a lot of experience. Have you even tried some of the games on that list.

Look just because he didn't run the original doesn't make hima failure.

[Protogod]

Heavy gear and zero hour are good. yuri's revenge is kinda cool, but meh.

WoW is bad, i was disappointed by MW2, RA2 was a decent series (somewaht) but between RA2 and ZH its such a big diffeerence that im gonna have to say the good innovation wasnt from him, given that he was in both.

Lord of the rings was all flash, no substance.

[TitanWing]

BFME was a joke when it came to balance. I have the game.

[ChimTheGrim21]

yea.. I think balance is the key concern (Ex: Thor, Mothership). Also, another concern is the roles of every unit not being overlapped by another unit. For Example, why do we need 2 different supreme capital ships in the Protoss arsenal? What was wrong with the carrier being the main badass of the Protoss?

Another concern is making both units of the same role equally usefull. Is anyone going to make carriers anymore if 6 motherships is better than 8 carriers? It just seems to over complicate things that don't need to be. And why would motherships get 4 abilities (just like a hero in warcraft3)? I am for having a role-specific unit that is a "caster" that can cast and not attack.

[Protogod]

Browder is a dunce. Nice guy, visionary, w/e you wanna call him, if he cant produce solid games, I don't want him running sc2 & that's all i care about.

Show me a video of Browder pwning nubs in SC:BW and I'll feel better. Until then he's just another Bnet nobody to me.

[ChimTheGrim21]

I'm gonna have to agree with Protogod on this one. This guy hasn't proved himself to take the head spot of SC2. I would rather it be Rob Pardo or even the guy who did Warcraft 3 (3 races would be easier to balance).

[TitanWing]

Too bad the old Blizzard guys in Flagship Studios couldn't do it.

[Anoiktos]

Excuse my vehemence in the following paragraph. I feel strongly about the sort of ... criticism SCII is getting from rabid fanboys and cautious cynics alike.

Too bad the old Blizzard guys in Flagship Studios couldn't do it.
Having played HG:L, I think this comment shows a huge, huge hole in all of your arguments.

Blizzard is a much different company than EA. One might even say it is the polar opposite. HG:L is a wonderfully entertaining game with an awesome concept and good execution as well as nice graphics.

Nevertheless, even its graphics aren't as polished as a Blizzard game, nor especially is its balance. Diablo II shone as only a Blizzard game does, as only these games have done. It is Blizzard - the company - that, due to its reputation (for woe unto whomever harms that reputation) releases only games that shine as they do. You'll note WCIII and WOW didn't shine quite as well as SC, debate that perhaps Diablo didn't shine as well as starcraft. Yet two things made starcraft more than any other RTS - for there have been ones as balanced (TA), and ones more visually pleasing (Dawn of War).

First, it had battle.net behind it. It had a play system where it was easy to find people to play with, easy to load games, required no separate client, functioned essentially without a hitch in almost every instance. Look at any non-blizzard RTS nowadays and you'll find the same shit: laggy servers, horrible game screens, long loads, and crappy editors.

It is not any single developer that makes the game, and so I believe the inclusion of this Dustin Browder to be uniformly good. The game is still a Blizzard game, the developers are still both pressured to maintain the quality of the first Starcraft and to make it new and exciting. The developers still have no requirement as to a release date, for Blizzard releases games when they are ready.

Yes, people will be angry that SCII isn't the original starcraft. People would be angry if SCII was a direct port of SC, as well, first because they'd whine that it's a waste of money, or that Blizzard should have done more, and second because they'd say Blizzard changed things even if they didn't. People are assholes.

Besides, I don't want to shell out another fifty bucks for Starcraft. I want Starcraft II. Epic battles, continued storyline, familiar characters, balanced RTS. I want to feel the awe of fast-paced, massive wars between factions, where blood litters the ground as I look back and realize that army of zerglings was just a distraction, for my SCV line has been destroyed by a squad of mutalisks.

But I don't want the same game. And I don't think anyone else does, either. After all, we already have StarCraft.

I do not know whether StarCraft II will exceed the splendor of its predecessor. I do not know whether it will be as stylish, as polished, as 'perfect' as the pedestal we seem to put StarCraft on. I do not know whether I will enjoy the melee, nor whether I will find the playstyle of any of the races appealing. I do not know whether I will like all the units.

I do know, however, four things about StarCraft II that make me one hundred percent sure that I will buy it, come hell or highwater:

1. It will be polished. I will be able to see my reflection in its shine.
2. It will eventually be balanced. I will not have to sit idly by as my preferred race is dragged into the dust by an overwhelming flavor-of-the-month.
3. It will continue the storyline, and I will finally know what happened to my old friends after I left them.
4. It will have Battle.Net. I will not have to sit in a waiting room for hours to get anywhere, nor scream in irritation as my game takes hours to load for no apparent reason. Hackers will be dealt with as only Blizzard knows how.
5. It will have a world editor more powerful than WarCraft III's, where I can flesh out my own ideas and see those of others, battle in ways Blizzard never could have imagined while the fan community looks on in awe and goes and makes something even more impressive.

If, after all this, you still think one single developer who has led design teams for over ten games is unqualified to contribute to StarCraft II, then there is no helping you. The gaming industry as we know it is barely older than us younglings (and I speak as someone almost twenty-two years old, a fourth of my life gone already), and you naysay someone who has essentially been through all of it and released several commendable games as unworthy?

[Protogod]

If, after all this, you still think one single developer who has led design teams for over ten games is unqualified to contribute to StarCraft II, then there is no helping you. The gaming industry as we know it is barely older than us younglings (and I speak as someone almost twenty-two years old, a fourth of my life gone already), and you naysay someone who has essentially been through all of it and released several commendable games as unworthy?
I'm about to blow your argument out of the water- Yes.

I think that just because someone has 10 games under their belt that it doesnt make them instantly qualified for a head seat at what SHOULD be the greatest game thusfar. Terribly sorry that I dont think quantity or Blizzard's own reputation transfers into Browder's personal worth.

Your argument is focused on making us feel a sense of pride for blizzard and it's game, rather than making points to defend Browder. I, for one, can quite clearly see through this charade.

[Anoiktos]

My point is not that Browder's personal worth is or isn't greater than anything else, though I'm frankly surprised people without any experience making, publicizing, or selling games can criticize someone in such a blanketed manner, but that Browder is:

1. A breath of possibly musty, possibly fresh air
2. Likely to have a very difficult time destroying an effort that is really the product of many people, and not one. Both the mothership and the Thor, in my opinion, were at the very least interesting ideas, as opposed to the exact same stuff we've already seen or played with.

Frankly, to say that Browder can singlehandedly ruin 'what should be the greatest game of all time', an effort contributed to by many people, and not just one, under a company that isn't EA, that isn't always pushing for a sooner deadline and has a precedent of pushing back games when they aren't ready, is silly. If SC2 is going to be ruined, I'll be very surprised if it isn't by a combination of:

1. Fans whining about everything because it isn't the same
2. Fans whining about everything because it isn't different
3. Fans whining that release isn't perfectly balanced (was SC1's release perfectly balanced? I think not.)
4. The advent of BGH-ish money maps
5. The dev team as a whole not doing as well as they should have.

Should we blame you, protogod, and only you, if Warboards goes down? If an article has an ambiguous statement that people get angry about and take both ways? If someone posts something offensive?

The last thing he worked on - Burning Crusade - was, in my opinion, far better an expansion than any I've ever seen for an MMO. It revitalized the game - until I hit 70 again - adding interesting zones, and while it didn't fix end-game completely, it made it a lot better than the 40-man-fest of before, and added interesting five and ten-man bosses. 60-70 on both my characters was much more fun than 1-60.

So no - no, I don't think Browder should get either all the credit for debatable successes, (aren't all successes debatable? I've heard people debate that SC was horrible compared to TA) or all of the blame for debatable failures. Not when you take into account the team, the company, and the publisher. Hell, what 'good' games has EA published recently? The Sims?

[ChimTheGrim21]

He's the lead designer. I'm not sure how much power that gives him, but I bet he has some sort of say in what stays and what goes.

I know Blizzard's track record very well. I have played since Warcraft1, and since 2002 I've been playing Warcraft 3--And I love it. I just don't want more Warcraft3 cheese-style gameplay going around in SC2. In the original Starcraft, the game was awesome because of the importance of each unit (and the simplicity that came with a low amount of units per race, and skills per unit). Skilled players know how to move a vulture to kill a few marines by itself, or serveral zerglings(not upgraded) by itself. This shows how each unit is unique and has an important role. In Warcraft III, it felt like units took a half century to perish. This is something that seems to be carrying over already with the increase in hit points Tanks and other units seem to be getting. Another example of Warcraft3 style being implemented into SC2 is the amount of abilities each unit seems to be getting. Why does the Mothership need 4 skills? And how many skills are the High Templar going to have now? Why does the ghost need EMP? So I can lose a Nexus in a single nuke? I just don't want the game to be as unforgiving as Warcraft 3.

Let me remind you, the people invovled in a project are the product. Just look at the Super Smash Bros. series. The guy who was the head designer of SSB Melee quit Nintendo, yet Nintendo made a deal with him to get him back for SSB Brawl. The importance of a single person does matter, especially as lead designer.

That said I'll give Browder a chance, but if the beta version is full of warcraft3 cheese then I'm going to have a major head-ache.

[AJ]

I find it very hard to even read through most of your arguments, having met and talked with the man.

He has an extremely deep understanding of the fanbase for SC, the desire of the community to see a faithful sequel to the game, but also isn't blind to the ideas of mixing up what you all have come to expect.

This isn't about making SC:BW 2, it's SCII. It's a whole new beast. It's 10 years since SC was released! We need to as a community recognize this isn't going to be SC running on the War3 engine, this is an entirely new game continuing the saga.

Look at the massive differences between War2 and War3. For all the criticism War3 has received, good/bad, it wasn't just a sequel. I think you'll find that no decision made on the SC2 game itself is made solely by Dustin. He accepts huge amounts of input from his whole team, and it's his job to help make the final call. He isn't simply sitting in his office plotting how to best turn the SC franchise into C&C.

Nor is it fair for you to say he is. Because nothing is farther from the truth. Nor is Rob Pardo or anyone else as readily qualified to make this game. Dustin is a great producer, a great visionary, and a great leader. He has the experience in the RTS world to make SC2 work, and the knowledge and experience in gaming to make it last. You take cheap shots at Blizzard and undermine your own influence by tagging him with the things you do.

[ChimTheGrim21]

Personally, I don't feel as though I've taken any cheap shots towards Blizzard (maybe you weren't talking to me). I've always loved their work, doubt I will ever stop playing their games. But that doesn't stop me from having a constructive opinion even though I cannot explain ever bit of my arguement to perfection.

I've watched a video interview with David and another top developer of SC2 a while back. And I feel like he has good intentions and he wants to do his best for sure, but I get the feeling that he is missing some key aspects of what makes SC.... SC! The game is not about each unit having an ability to use. It is about having a unit that has different and balanced damage, movement speeds, and roles. Most units with 3 skills in SC1 were castor units (Queen, Vessel, Templar..) that couldn't even attack. Yet in SC2 it already feels like each unit has a special ability (that they really don't even need) and certain units like the mothership seem to be as strong as a carrier except add extra 4 abilities that are very useful.

That said, this is just talk. The game looks sweet and I know I'll play it.

[3Vee]

The game is not about each unit having an ability to use. It is about having a unit that has different and balanced damage, movement speeds, and roles. Most units with 3 skills in SC1 were castor units (Queen, Vessel, Templar..) that couldn't even attack. Yet in SC2 it already feels like each unit has a special ability (that they really don't even need) and certain units like the mothership seem to be as strong as a carrier except add extra 4 abilities that are very useful.

There are a couple things you're missing. First of all, you're overstating the case: I think your impression is the result of Blizz showing off the flashy stuff. Even in VODs or whatever of current SC stuff, massive storming, or the perfectly executed ultra'ling-under-dark-swarm assault, or ridiculous numbers of lockdowns at once are the flashiest, often most memorable things. But when it comes down to it, there hasn't been a big increase in number of abilities in SC2.

Let's look at the Protoss: they have one big thing, the new warp-in tech. Blizzard's used this idea perfectly, applying it to cannons, gateways, and the phase prism (replacing the shuttle). It adds a strategic element, but you can tell it requires good micro to use correctly, nevermind getting the strategy right in the first place. It's also apparently replaced the arbiter's recall.

So, discounting the Phase Prism for now, as that's merely part of the Protoss warp-tech change, the 'Toss have two new units "with abilities": the Stalker and the Phoenix. Both are somewhat micro-intensive, but add a new strategic element as well. On the other hand, apparently the only "main" caster is still the Templar. (Don't worry, I'll get to the mothership.) Blizzard kept the main caster that was really useful - and iconic - in SC, scrapped the other casters, and added abilities to a couple other units.

This would be evidence of the second point: Yes, SC2 casting is built to a (slightly) different paradigm: main caster + a few units with abilities. As has been pointed out, this isn't a problem. SC2 is a new game. If Blizzard wants to try something different from the main-secondary caster pattern of SC:BW (Templar-DA/Arbiter; SV-Ghost/Medic; Defiler-Queen), and they can make it work, there's no reason for them not to, except the opinion of die-hard SC purists who are not their main market.

Besides, it's not like the idea is totally new. Consider the Zerg model, esp. in SC:BW. The Zerg have a main caster (Defiler), a secondary caster (Queen) which was almost never used. But then they have a bunch of units with odd abilities: all ground units burrow, Lurkers attack while burrowed, mutas have to mutate to get more advanced units, etc. If anything, this paradigm - especially combined with the Zerg's cheap units - makes the Zerg fun to watch, fun to play. It's a little micro-heavy, but it leads to a lot of attacking play, while the relatively simple Zerg macro makes strategic moves and expanding fairly simple. So if you want my opinion, Blizzard's looking to copy that - to some extent - onto the other races, make the game a little faster. Which I'm fine with, especially as it's a new game.

Finally, I want to mention the mothership a minute. The mothership is a radical departure from the SC model - but it looks right now like Blizz has no idea what to do with it. The "superunit" concept almost fit within the Protoss model, but it didn't really fit the game so they first nerfed it, and most people don't seem to like that so much. I'd predict it doesn't make the game, at least beyond the campaign, at this point, but that's pretty much speculation. But I can't justify basing any arguments on the current state of the M'Ship in the game - especially since the 'Toss seem fairly complete without it.

Sorry for the tome, but it's sort of a complicated argument.

[Protogod]

I find it very hard to even read through most of your arguments, having met and talked with the man. Your personal opinion of this guy's character does not phase me in the slightest. It is completely unrelated to his ability to make a good game.

Nor is it fair for you to say he is. Because nothing is farther from the truth. Nor is Rob Pardo or anyone else as readily qualified to make this game. You would tell me that someone whose managed to make maybe 3 good games out of his career of like 17 games is worthy of SC2? Hardly. I want someone I can trust making my game. Dustin is a great producer, a great visionary, and a great leader. He has the experience in the RTS world to make SC2 work, and the knowledge and experience in gaming to make it last. Bull. He has experience, but it is hardly experience that we can see put into his work. His games all appear lame. His experience is primarily in screwing up games, not making classics. You take cheap shots at Blizzard and undermine your own influence by tagging him with the things you do.
If blizzard is so fickle as to ignore its fans simply because they dont like what they hear, then they arent the blizzard I loved.

[Anoiktos]

You would tell me that someone whose managed to make maybe 3 good games out of his career of like 17 games is worthy of SC2? Hardly. I want someone I can trust making my game.
Name a developer who's made over fifteen games who's never made a dud.

If you can't do that, name one who's made over fifteen who's only made duds half the time.

Once you've done that, randomly ask someone else whether they also agree that that many of his games were good or bad.

"You can please everyone some of the time, and someone all of the time, but you can't please everyone all of the time".

[AJ]

Show me you know a bit about the industry, and name a developer better suited for the job, rather than simply proclaiming the inability for Dustin to do his job.