next »

[xix]

Although SC2 looks like it will be a solid entry into the series, the one thing that I wish Blizzard would take advantage of, watch out for the buzzword, is verticality. What we can assume so far is that the game is essentially SC in 3D with more units and probably a slicker interface. And that's sad because in the third dimension we're presented with more opportunities to do interesting things:

What if we were to have another layer of sky (I know there was an RTS to do this before, but bare with me) where certain units can hang out for short periods of time. The camera, because it's now 3D, could pan out and show this layer seemlessly.

Rotations, camera control, etc. etc. etc. I know Blizzard wants to standardize the game and have every computer essentially run everything blah blah blah... but what good is 3D if we can't see it from the angle that its best at?

Huge, huge battles! Everything so far is centered around the small scale skirmish. As far as RTS games go, SC fell on the more intimate side, and SC2 looks like it will fall into the same mold as well. Again, more angles, pans, zooms to show scale. Michaelangelo made his David several times larger than the average man to accentuate his beauty. Let's see some aliens fighting it out on huge battlefields.

Scale scale scale!

I could go on with this list, but the point is this: there is a lot Blizzard can do to take advantage of their new move into 3D. It feels like Starcraft 2 is 3D because people expect them to do it that way instead of Starcraft 2 being 3D because its new features need it to be 3D.

[Radix]

What if we were to have another layer of sky (I know there was an RTS to do this before, but bare with me) where certain units can hang out for short periods of time.

I assume you're talking about Metal Fatigue. That was a great game in every respect except for the multilayered battlefield. And I can't say I agree with making major changes to gameplay in order to show off a camera system.

[xix]

The advantage of 3D is that you can show data in relationships (lines) as opposed to strictly data (dots). "Showing off the camera system" really isn't what I was going for as much as I was going for taking advantage of 3D. Scaling, rotating, and whatnot are the best ways I can think of taking advantage of 3D models.

[Radix]

The gameplay is essentially two-dimensional. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see what the graphics capability should have to do with that, and strongly disagree with the suggestion that gameplay should be altered merely because three dimensions makes it possible to display certain things.

Huge, huge battles! Everything so far is centered around the small scale skirmish. As far as RTS games go, SC fell on the more intimate side, and SC2 looks like it will fall into the same mold as well.

For another example, this. SC did indeed fall on the intimate side, because maintaining and rebuilding a flexible, manageable army and micromanaging ("dancing") them in combat was a major part of the game. Larger armies would simplify this, making micro impractical and rapidly retooling your force to counter an enemy--a major part of SC gameplay--impossible. Not to mention that the maps would need to consist of large patches of dirt rather than varied terrain and interesting doodads (another part of StarCraft's charm) in order to accommodate larger armies rather than small specialised platoons. In the case of the map design too, intimacy is a great thing.

Angling, panning, zooming: this I have no problem with. No reason not to take advantage of the shift to 3D in a way that doesn't turn the game into a completely different game just for the sake of it. I'd love to be able to get in close of my battles, just so long as I'm not getting in close over big patches of empty grass during a yawnworthy clash between five hundred of one type of dude and five hundred of another type of dude standing in clumps and cycling animations at one another, as opposed to a much more interesting fight between smaller combined forces in which the players take an active role.
Admittedly however this would be fairly superfluous, since the standard top-down view is the ideal one for serious players managing units.

I could go on with this list, but the point is this: there is a lot Blizzard can do to take advantage of their new move into 3D. It feels like Starcraft 2 is 3D because people expect them to do it that way instead of Starcraft 2 being 3D because its new features need it to be 3D.

Where would you get the idea that this isn't or should not be the case? The original was limited by its technology at the time (though there were other RTSs around the time that utilised 3D in some way, I believe, but the SC engine was probably months older by that point) and used prerendered 3D units. The sequel could be displayed in high-res ASCII for all I care.
Again, I apologise if I'm misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you're wanting a completely different game here, because that's what the changes you're suggesting would result in. Nothing wrong with that, and I'd be happy for Blizzard to bring something out along those lines in the future. But there would be a whole lot of people very disappointed if such a thing was released with the StarCraft brand on it.

[xix]

To me, Starcraft is pretty much one of those games that's perfect. It's like SMB3 or Super Turbo or Chess. There's not much you can do to make it that much better. So when Blizzard has to make a sequel to perfection, I kind of imagine them taking full advantage of whatever new things they decide to add to a great game. That's why I presented ideas that change the game radically.

I mean, it's going to be in 3D, so take advantage of that fact. Whenever I move onto new media as an artist I don't just make the same thing in a spiffy new way, I make the same thing taking advantage of the attributes of the new media. How about this:

2D is a flat, boring canvas; 3D has new bumps and ridges and texture. There's art there that needs to be tapped. Please, please do it.

As a side note: the original Starcraft looked exactly like Warcraft II in space. They made a major revision and then we got what has turned into Korea's national sport. The new Starcraft looks exactly like Warcraft III in space.

[Radix]

Fair enough, but what you're describing isn't exactly a sequel and nor is it really anything that hasn't been done in other RTSs. No reason it can't be made, and I'm sure it would find a market, but making a radically different game and labelling it StarCraft is something that was always a concern. Certainly for myself, and I'm sure not only that I'm not alone in this but also that Blizzard did market research. I'm also fairly sure they've been experimenting for some time, so it's quite possible they've given all these things a try and ended up rejecting them. But as you say, you're approaching this from the persepective of an artist. It's quite another thing from a design an marketing perspective.

Consider this: Warcraft in space became StarCraft. Should StarCraft in three dimensions really be StarCraft II, or should it become a new franchise with distinct gameplay? There's still an incredible market for the game that's being made.

2D is a flat, boring canvas

Blasphemer.

[Inane]

2D is a flat, boring canvas; 3D has new bumps and ridges and texture. There's art there that needs to be tapped. Please, please do it.

This is usually the point where I grab a rifle and shake it up and down, while going "WROAAAAHHHHWROWROWROWRO!"

Blasphemer!

[xix]

2D is a flat, boring canvas; 3D has new bumps and ridges and texture. There's art there that needs to be tapped. Please, please do it.

This is usually the point where I grab a rifle and shake it up and down, while going "WROAAAAHHHHWROWROWROWRO!"

Blasphemer!

God, I hate gamers.

[Radix]

Yeah! Fuck you, Audience!

[Alec]

Yeah! Fuck you, Audience!

rofl

[Inane]

Love you too, Xix.

[xix]

I'm just being honest. I really hate gamers. Seriously. There's something about gamers that make them think that they're king shit. How many movie-goers are self described watchers? There are a lot of people who consider themselves avid readers, but, hell, they're not the ones who are the most well read nor are they the ones who are the most literate. At best they'll say something like, "I am an English professor". Gamers, on the other hand, exist on this other realm where they seem to relish in their status of a gameplayer. It's like it defines them.

I'm much more of a fan of the casual gamer. The one who games as much as he watches sports with friends, reads books, plays the occasional game of find the snake in the bed with significant or less significant others. Normal people have so much more interesting things to say about games. I mean, if we were talking about art I'd say, "fuck those elitist snobs" too.

To be fair, and fairly defensive, too, I don't think the majority of "gamers" and the kind of gamers I'm talking about. There are only a few of the bad eggs, but they exist very loudly on the internet and elsewhere. And they annoy me because they prop up this world that's really silly and foolish. Games are part of life, life isn't just something you do inbetween gaming.

[Bezzy]

I've worked mainly in 3D. I found that although it's possible to present 3D in more approachable ways than most currently do, it's still a noticeable barrier for player interpretation. Extra processing goes on in the brain to cope with scene recognition. People like to think in planes. They break 3D space down that way - into surfaces intersecting.

If you're working in pure 2D, the processing power used to interpret a scene can be used to make more elaborate game play dynamics. So as far as 2D vs. 3D goes, it's really just down to balancing the player's ability to percieve the game space, and doing more interesting stuff with the game.

I tried to do both at once with K - complex abstract scoring systems, at high speed in a 3D world... It was a confusing mess.

Adding more and more complexity to a game, especially a 3D game, is more likely to turn your game as clear as a puddle of mud.

[xix]

When movies stopped just showing things and started being things, they started being interesting. 2D, for the most part, exists to show. Things exist relative to each other. They are here or there, and sometimes beind here and there. Never, not once, does the player exist within the game world. 3D is completely the opposite. It brings the self into the equation and, even if we are not aware, we are intimately tied to the gameworld. The position of the camera doesn't merely show, it evokes emotion. Zooming in shows intimate details, zooming out shows the broad scope. It's very literal, yeah, but it's also very emotive.

Right now I'm playing this game called Granado Espada. It's an MMO where you control 3 characters at once: it feels a lot like Warcraft 3's hero system. When you start you are zoomed in looking at your cool characters taking down mob after mob. But its scalability really changes the perspective. When you join a squad with other teams you start to zoom out. You want to see the whole picture, and the whole picture isn't just your little squad. No longer are you just your team, but you start feeling the comradery of war. Join a guild and now you feel as though you are conquering the world. That the camera can swing and move, zoom in and out, it mimics a lot of the feelings I'm feeling myself. And that's something.

Imagine playing the original Starcraft, but change it just a little bit. Disregarding pixelization issues, imagine if the player could zoom in and out. When they are scouting, they'd zoom way out to scope out the surroundings. When they are moving a small stealth squad into enemy territory they'd zoom in to micromanage encounters. Would it change the game dramatically? Maybe. Maybe it'd bring a sense of intimacy with your units. A new way of understanding war.

I'm sure those are higher aspirations than Blizzard is aiming for in RTS Sport 2008, but I can still hope.

[Alec]

I think the version of the gamer only really exists online. (and is maybe perpetuated by some magazines) Its probably because a lot of gamers are immature men that you see a lot of chest thumping and "fake macho" bullshit. Deep down inside they're probably scared little puppies.

As for 2D vs. 3D, now we have the technology to do both, so its a style. There should be enough room in the universe for all types of visual styles for games.

I'd like to see more games done in differing styles. Like a game that looks like U-Head coming out in the mainstream would be sweet. Games that aren't afraid to be bold with their style.

One of the most disappointing games stylistically was Prey... it looked exactly like Quake 4. (which looked an awful lot like Doom 3) That game had the potential to look very different.

[xix]

YOu can call it style if you want, but you're just avoiding the subject. 2D games with 3D graphics are underachieving snots.

[Alec]

Is it that time of the month already?

[Radix]

Y'know we can probably make games with four or like twelve dimensional geometry and some really trippy play mechanics. Doesn't mean they'd be any fun to play. Doesn't mean the choice not to do so is anything other than a choice.