PDA

View Full Version : Blizzard and Starcraft II: Decisionmaking Dilemma


Protogod
07-17-2008, 12:17 AM
Blizzard and Starcraft II: Decisionmaking Dilemma
A Critical Essay By: E.S. "Protogod," Senior Content Editor of Starcraft.org

Allow me to begin this essay by explaining what prompted its creation."That is [something] of a disappointment... Having the Queen build defensive structures was making the game more unique... But anyway, Blizzard knows best." (ZeratulStukov) This quote is the most recent of many which perpetuate an age-old myth - the myth that because Blizzard Entertainment has produced good games in the past that it is guaranteed to make the correct decision on its own in the development of Starcraft II.

Of major game developers, Blizzard is, historically, among the more reliable of game companies. They have a large budget, incentive to maintain their title, and belief in taking their time to make games right. These are all admirable traits, but in regards to decision making itself, I can't help but feel that some of the ideas aren't fully fleshed out before being implemented or removed from SC2. In my own opinion, I would like to see Blizzard start making some more tasteful and well-conceived ideas.

Points of contention include the Zerg Queen, Multiple Building Selection (as outlined in my previous Essay (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=596424&postcount=51),) and not only the Thor, but all decisions surrounding it.

To backtrack, my mention of "more tasteful ideas" refers to those decisions pertaining to the Thor and how to handle it's release. Regardless of my own ill-feelings for the Thor, I think that it's safe to call Blizzard's handling of the problem a fiasco at worst, and at best, distasteful. Thats not to say that I liked the concept at all, far from it, but what's more important is how mismanaged the new ideas seem to be, and how out of sync the press is with the development of SC2. Take, for example, the original announcement of Starcraft II. On the very first day we saw the Protoss Mothership. Shortly after the internet was flooded with "Will all 3 races have superunits?" type questions. Blizzard's swift and clear answer was "No. This is a dynamic designed for the Protoss, and the other races have no such 'Ultimate' units." Yet, a month or so later, images and descriptions of the Thor are leaked from a Swedish Magazine. Bravo. The fact that the Thor was so readily available after these (continuing) statements from Blizzard all but robs SC2 Dev's of their credibility, which has kept me wary of all changes since then. Not to mention the fact that the Zerg Queen was still on its way to the limelight. Instead of being a "solely Protoss dynamic" each race has gone through it's trial "Ultimate unit."

Maintaining focus on the long-since impertinent Thor issue, allow me to highlight its developmental stages (a response from Blizzard to growing criticism of the unit itself.) It originated as a superunit, turned into a slightly nerfed unit to facilitate micro, turned into an anti-air unit, turned into a nerfed anti-ground unit, and turned back into an anti-air unit. Each one of these changes was a result of criticisms of the Thor ranging from the fact that it's a superunit, to the fact that it's role overlapped with Battlecruisers and Siege Tanks, to the fact that it became simply unnecessary. However, by the time these cries were resonating within the community, the Thor was already posted on SC2.com, and Blizzard was in a bad position. Rather than scrapping the unit at any point, Blizzard opted to save face by simply subjecting it to change after change until it disappeared in obscurity with the release of the Zerg and Medivac Dropship.

I have nothing to say to Blizzard's PR team, whom I find to be disrespectful - an insult to my intelligence.

This also isn't to say that I want Blizzard to just listen to everything the fans say on the forums. God knows some sites like battle.net forums are crawling with the unskilled, inexperienced, and flat-out stupid. A good example of this is the Zerg Queen. The Queen was an excellent solution to a problem plaguing SC2's production - balancing micro, macro, and skill in general in a new and exciting way. This is the (mismanaged) issue which culminated in the creation of my first essay (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=596424&postcount=51), which I won't reiterate at this time. The Queen was a necessary, but not overpowered unit in its original role. It constructed unique base defenses and could cast spells (the latter is still available) to defend one's base. Then there was the option of further upgrading the Queen or working more on one's units (which is ironically still present.)
However, static defenses were a point of contention, and in the end, drones reclaimed the ability to create them. This largely nerfed the Queen & its use, while leaving the originally supposed "flaw" that caused fans to demand change (the original flaw being the need to choose between Queen upgrades and units. Currently there is still the need to decide, but the more stacked answer is to invest in units, which makes for a poor dynamic.)

Finally, and most recently, Blizzard's solution to the originality vs skill issue comes in the form of a new Vespine Geyser dynamic. With this new change, players will start with 2 geysers (600 gas each) and be expected to pay minerals to replenish them. Not only is this dynamic wholly illogical (especially from a realism standpoint) but it is a change that affects the quintessential Starcraft experience (as MBS did in my other article (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=596424&postcount=51).) Changes in Starcraft 2 should be fairly great and different, however Blizzard walks a fine line changing different aspects of the game and changing what the game is (its soul, if you will.) The former is a necessity, and the latter is unacceptable.

As a whole, Blizzard makes decent games. However, Blizzard has no divine inspiration to guide their Devs, and it is beginning to show. Their choices are questionable, and in increasingly noticeable ways. I'm hoping Blizz can address this gross mismanagement of contention within the community. I'm hoping Blizz can address their PR woes. And most of all, I'm hoping Blizz can produce a Starcraft II that was worth waiting 10 years for.

DoctorZettabyte
07-17-2008, 12:26 AM
A very well-written essay. I've not been following SC2 all that closely, but this has indeed intrigued me. I may have to start paying more attention soon. :-)

Alas, I can't help but feel that Starcraft 2 will meet the same fate as Asheron's Call. The original will outlast, outperform, and literally outdo the successor. A sad outlook indeed.

Again, a very good essay, Protogod. Welcome to the Consortium. I hope to see more at some point, hopefully sooner than later.

-DocZetta

SilverCrusader
07-17-2008, 1:14 AM
A very well-written essay. I've not been following SC2 all that closely, but this has indeed intrigued me. I may have to start paying more attention soon. :-)

Alas, I can't help but feel that Starcraft 2 will meet the same fate as Asheron's Call. The original will outlast, outperform, and literally outdo the successor. A sad outlook indeed.

Again, a very good essay, Protogod. Welcome to the consortium. I hope to see more at some point, hopefully sooner than later.

-DocZetta
What I would say has already been said, in a better, more mature way.

Magmaniac
07-17-2008, 1:27 AM
I 100% support this essay. Every word.

DarkMirror
07-17-2008, 1:42 AM
Yeah, as do I, although at no point do I remember the Thor being an actual "You can only have one at a time" super unit, just a rather stacked one.

Protogod
07-17-2008, 1:47 AM
The fact that it was top tier tech, required an SCV to specially build one, and raped everything made it comparable to a superunit.

HazzaDaShiz
07-17-2008, 2:44 AM
I definitely agree with what you're saying.
The thing is, I sometimes have trouble deciding where the line is between giving Blizzard time to make changes themselves (like for me, the lighting in D3 will take time, it's barely been announced) or telling Blizzard that there's something they need to do (the super units).

Super units, though this may be somewhat cliché, are too much like 'hero' units from W3. They are basically units that you can't go without. Have them and you will beat someone who doesn't.

Starcraft is all about unit diversity, finding new strategies to defeat existing strategies. A game that requires something to win is a game that doesn't play well.

I don't mind the Thor because it seems like Terran style Ultralisk, though most likely much more powerful. I think that it should be simply a high tier unit with strong attacks, but not a super-uber-awesome powerful unit that rapes everything.

Same for the Mothership and the Zerg Queen. Motherships would be the centre of most serious Protoss fleets, and the Zerg Queen would become a must for base defense. I disliked the concept of having the Queen build defenses, it seemed 'wrong'. I could've become used to that, yes, but now it is redundant, as that was it's main role.

Basically, if one race gets a super unit, the other's pretty much have to have as well. And I hate that. I want a strategic game, not a 'beat the crap out of everything with your super unit guarded by other units' game.

Then again, I haven't played any demos, so I have no experience with what I'm talking about, so please feel free to correct me.

masterofhobbiton
07-17-2008, 3:03 AM
Comment/Rebuttal time:


Of major game developers, Blizzard is, historically, among the more reliable of game companies.

I'm still looking for my SCG and Warcraft Adventures. ;)

To backtrack, my mention of "more tasteful ideas" refers to those decisions pertaining to the Thor and how to handle it's release. Regardless of my own ill-feelings for the Thor, I think that it's safe to call Blizzard's handling of the problem a fiasco at worst, and at best, distasteful. Thats not to say that I liked the concept at all, far from it, but what's more important is how mismanaged the new ideas seem to be, and how out of sync the press is with the development of SC2. Take, for example, the original announcement of Starcraft II. On the very first day we saw the Protoss Mothership. Shortly after the internet was flooded with "Will all 3 races have superunits?" type questions. Blizzard's swift and clear answer was "No. This is a dynamic designed for the Protoss, and the other races have no such 'Ultimate' units." Yet, a month or so later, images and descriptions of the Thor are leaked from a Swedish Magazine. Bravo. The fact that the Thor was so readily available after these (continuing) statements from Blizzard all but robs SC2 Dev's of their credibility, which has kept me wary of all changes since then. Not to mention the fact that the Zerg Queen was still on its way to the limelight. Instead of being a "solely Protoss dynamic" each race has gone through it's trial "Ultimate unit."

I think it's somewhat laughable to say, "Hey, the developers told us something about the game a few times, but then they changed their minds! Good god! These people make me sick!" Maybe that's not what you're trying to say, but it sounds rather like it. Why would you think that a developer's statements about a game far before it's release would remain credible months later? Maybe them having a change of heart robbed them of something, but I don't really see that they could be expected to be credible when they're still in such conceptual stages.

Maintaining focus on the long-since impertinent Thor issue, allow me to highlight its developmental stages (a response from Blizzard to growing criticism of the unit itself.) It originated as a superunit, turned into a slightly nerfed unit to facilitate micro, turned into an anti-air unit, turned into a nerfed anti-ground unit, and turned back into an anti-air unit. Each one of these changes was a result of criticisms of the Thor ranging from the fact that it's a superunit, to the fact that it's role overlapped with Battlecruisers and Siege Tanks, to the fact that it became simply unnecessary. However, by the time these cries were resonating within the community, the Thor was already posted on SC2.com, and Blizzard was in a bad position. Rather than scrapping the unit at any point, Blizzard opted to save face by simply subjecting it to change after change until it disappeared in obscurity with the release of the Zerg and Medivac Dropship.

I have nothing to say to Blizzard's PR team, whom I find to be disrespectful - an insult to my intelligence.

I agree that the Thor being on the website turned into a fiasco. However, in the early days, the site was updated with a new unit every week or so. It seemed as if the plan was to put all the current information on the site, and then keep updating and adding to it as developement continued, which is how it should have been. It only turned into a mess to be covered up when they started only adding things to the site on a monthly basis, and only when the unit was pretty secure in it's position. My issue is that they refuse to update the site, with the reaper's mines for instance. But I believe that this makes the team stupid, not insulting.

This also isn't to say that I want Blizzard to just listen to everything the fans say on the forums. God knows some sites like battle.net forums are crawling with the unskilled, inexperienced, and flat-out stupid. A good example of this is the Zerg Queen. The Queen was an excellent solution to a problem plaguing SC2's production - balancing micro, macro, and skill in general in a new and exciting way. This is the (mismanaged) issue which culminated in the creation of my first essay (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=596424&postcount=51), which I won't reiterate at this time. The Queen was a necessary, but not overpowered unit in its original role. It constructed unique base defenses and could cast spells (the latter is still available) to defend one's base. Then there was the option of further upgrading the Queen or working more on one's units (which is ironically still present.)
However, static defenses were a point of contention, and in the end, drones reclaimed the ability to create them. This largely nerfed the Queen & its use, while leaving the originally supposed "flaw" that caused fans to demand change (the original flaw being the need to choose between Queen upgrades and units. Currently there is still the need to decide, but the more stacked answer is to invest in units, which makes for a poor dynamic.)

If you don't want blizz to listen to random complaints, then what is this topic for exactly? An editorial, of sorts? It seems the sort of thread that you would lock, if it were written by someone else, who hadn't used proper punctuation and stuff.;)

About the Queen, I like the mobile turrets, it was a feature that was underused in the night elves (because it was useless) but one that I would like to see more of. I agree that they should pursue the original idea more, the queen should have a vital position in base defense; you should be required to keep a queen in your base. I almost think that the zerg should start out with a queen in addition to drones, except that that would provide an unfair protection against rushes (unless they made it have no attack...).... Anyway, you have valid points here.

Finally, and most recently, Blizzard's solution to the originality vs skill issue comes in the form of a new Vespine Geyser dynamic. With this new change, players will start with 2 geysers (600 gas each) and be expected to pay minerals to replenish them. Not only is this dynamic wholly illogical (especially from a realism standpoint) but it is a change that affects the quintessential Starcraft experience (as MBS did in my other article (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=596424&postcount=51).) Changes in Starcraft 2 should be fairly great and different, however Blizzard walks a fine line changing different aspects of the game and changing what the game is (its soul, if you will.) The former is a necessity, and the latter is unacceptable.

I don't much like this either. The 2 geysers is kind of lame, because it facilitates a lack of expansion.

As a whole, Blizzard makes decent games. However, Blizzard has no divine inspiration to guide their Devs, and it is beginning to show. Their choices are questionable, and in increasingly noticeable ways. I'm hoping Blizz can address this gross mismanagement of contention within the community. I'm hoping Blizz can address their PR woes. And most of all, I'm hoping Blizz can produce a Starcraft II that was worth waiting 10 years for.

You had BW to tide you over. :P

The problem for me is that Ghost was intended to be released in 2003. And it got delayed. And delayed. And delayed. And cancelled. SC was meant to be a franchise; a world, not a serial. Everything went downhill after 2003.

3Vee
07-17-2008, 10:16 AM
So, I'm wondering something: we know the game is still in or just barely out of an alpha stage. Do you think (along with other PR problems), Blizzard made a mistake by releasing too much information too early? And/or not emphasizing enough on the official site the "current build" state of any information released? Because that's what I'm inclined to think is the biggest problem: the sc2.com site presents the information in too "finished" a format.

Eivind
07-17-2008, 1:58 PM
^I was thinking the same thing. It seems that the proccess length is looked at differently between Blizzard itself and the fans.

On one side I love to finally see how this game is working out, but on the other, it's not that fun when many of the units are unfinished and when some of them may actually be scrapped entirely.

Still, at least they listen.

Protogod
07-17-2008, 2:36 PM
If you don't want blizz to listen to random complaints, then what is this topic for exactly? An editorial, of sorts? It seems the sort of thread that you would lock, if it were written by someone else, who hadn't used proper punctuation and stuff.


Yes, exactly. This is why I have a problem with your "rebuttal." Because you werent even aware of the fact that this is an editorial, nor that we have a usergroup devoted to writing editorials of this sort.

The fact that you are uninformed from the get-go undermines alot of your responses, although I never intended for each individual complaint to be a fully fleshed out article in and of itself. Just examples.

This is an editorial centering around Blizzard's shortcomings with PR and Press releases, which we all pretty much agree on.

So, I'm wondering something: we know the game is still in or just barely out of an alpha stage. Do you think (along with other PR problems), Blizzard made a mistake by releasing too much information too early? And/or not emphasizing enough on the official site the "current build" state of any information released? Because that's what I'm inclined to think is the biggest problem: the sc2.com site presents the information in too "finished" a format.

Yes, very much so. I feel that it wasnt an instant foul for blizzard to have released this much information this early, however if that is the case, they need to follow up and maintain that level of scrutiny (which they have not.)'


The fact that what they post on their site appears as final is something I have a problem with, and has caused troubles (as I mentioned with the Thor.)

All in all, they have done a poor job of maintaining any reliable level of press.

Ktan
07-17-2008, 3:59 PM
Part of the problem with the Thor for me was the 'lack of conviction'. It seems like an idea they'd just thrown out there and then they stuck to it too rigidly. The way it's developed seems very much to echo this idea. Blizzard never actually seemed to plan out the Thor very well. If they'd have an actual role for it planned from the start, and had the balls to stick with it, then maybe they wouldn't have had the fudge that makes it seem like a superfluous extra. Blizzard seem to have tried to give it many different roles to try and make it 'fit in' and then forgetting that these new roles made it clash with something else. It brings nothing new to the table, and it's useless, but in some strange gambit to cement it, they posted it on the website even when it's clearly not finished. they've shown Medics too, and a few other things that will probably end up on the cutting room floor in the end. This smacks of a lack of planning an attempt to appease all comers that may well make the game a total fudge of ideas.

Also, the 'experimental' procedures don't seem to actually be adding much to the game. MBS doesn't actually add any tactical scope. I'm not going to discuss merits or drawbacks other than the fact that adding it as a new feature as if it justifiably makes the game new isn't going to fly. It's one piddly feature that doesn't actually take the game to any new level. This gas mechanic does the same thing. It smacks of trying to be 'too clever'. A lot of the most 'innovative' things in games I can think of are simply geared towards making the game seem more realistic. I would, at this point, call to the stand Company of Heroes, by Relic, which added all sorts of fancy physics mumbo jumbo on top of the already fresh strategic points system from DoW. DoW II in turn seems to be taking these realistic ideas further, with 'true' unit LoS (your units can't see it, you can't see it) and personalised soldiers. Some of the features aren't popular with the older DoW fans, but it doesn't change the fact Relic are clearly trying to revitalise the genre (even altering the way bases are built, shock horror!). On the other hand, Blizzard are simply re-treading it. This would be ok if the game acknowledged it was a nostalgia trip, but no-one wants it to be a nostalgia trip, and it's not even being marketed as on. Blizzard are forgetting the lesson they learnt from WarCraft II; although the last game worked well, making fundamental changes can really pay dividends, such as the three asymmetrical race mechanic over the two identi-kit races that plagued RTS for some time.

So I'm inclined t say, bearing in mind what 3vee has said, yes, they are showing too much too early. I actually think Blizzard should be more definite in its decisions, and stop arsing around trying to appease every single fan. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omlette.

In my opinion, Blizzard should perhaps go back to the drawing board (keeping the units though and the story, which I'm sure will be fantastic) and think 'what can we do that's fun, interesting and quite new'. If they think the idea is good enough, they should run with it and sell it to the fans. Surely if they think it's actually a good idea, it shouldn't be that hard to sell? You don't have to ruin StarCraft to do this. In fact, a lot of the 'soul' of the game for me seemed to be in the units and the lore that permeated the game anyway, as opposed the the mechanical nitty gritty. Blizzard are adding a few new things, like destructible doodads (hopefully comparable to proper buildings) but I wonder if they are holding back because they don't want to go 'too far'. It seems what things they are trying to do to recreate the 'fast-paced gameplay (TM)' of SC I are forced and stilted.

I feel this view is perhaps exemplified by the way the jibbed the role of the Queen, which added something new to the SC formula, simply because of a very group of vocal fans. If Blizzard had stuck to their guns, the Queen might have actually kept its interesting flavour. Now it's just a slightly stabby unit that works better on creep, or something like that?

LDawgg
07-17-2008, 6:24 PM
As for the essay itself, I may have had a problem with the way Protogod said that certain things Blizzard did, and is doing, are unneceptable and how other things need to be done. This bothered me a little only because Starcraft 2 is Blizzards game, not yours, they do have the right to change whatever they want to make their game their way. But the way Protogod tied up the editorial made it all very exeptable. To make a Starcraft 2 worth waiting ten years for, they Do need to do certain things, and certain things ARE unacceptable. Starcraft was more than an average Rts, and if Starcraft 2 is going to be anything more than the salad of averge games out there, Blizzard would do well to take a leaf out of Protogods book.

Dem0nS1ayer
07-17-2008, 8:28 PM
I agree with you, Proto. Starcraft is mostly about how well you can micro/macro, not how many super units you can create to totally rape your opponent. I think the mothership should go, the queen should stay, and the thor should be changed a bit to make it less crazy,