Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**TerranUp16** · 07-11-2010, 10:42 AM

Under the Microscope by Saracen

As you guys have probably noticed from the number of posts on these forums that link to TeamLiquid posts... TeamLiquid is a great site that provokes interesting discussions that often go well beyond its jurisdiction of StarCraft. The above article is yet another contribution from TeamLiquid.

Before I give my response (I gave a bit of one in the thread, but I wasn't too interested in getting into it with the StarCraft 2 fanboys), I want to link to a few other posts in the thread that have some good, worthwhile addendums:

Hmk, so now my response, xD

I think, to tackle this, you need to consider StarCraft. It is a game that was released in 1998, it came as Blizzard's third RTS, its first outside the WarCraft universe, and the first RTS from any developer that really tried to put forth truly asymmetric factions. Actually, if we go back and look at a lot of its features, "for the day" I think they were quite modern and pretty good- you've got accuracy for units attacking up high-ground, a vision system that is impacted by cliffs and doodads, acceleration (as opposed to just a simple move speed), advanced GUI mechanics (the "Magic Box" was no mistake- it was a designed attempt to have units react to the player's orders in an intuitive fashion), unit-attacks (consider the Protoss Carrier and Reaver, as well as Vulture Spider Mines), and a damage and armor type system.

Regardless of all those things, StarCraft's singleplayer campaigns were great for their time, and are still great in many ways (actually, StarCraft's Terran campaign I can vouch is a damn great story even in novelized format, xD), an element that was forming into a trademark of Blizzard's. StarCraft also introduced some proper UMS support (compared to WarCraft 2's severely hacked-in UMS; of course, not like StarCraft didn't require quite a bit of hacking on the tool side for a lot of what most of us are familiar with as StarCraft UMS). Those two elements alone could have (and, well, to be quite honest did) driven the game to great heights. At a bare minimum, they provided the foundation for interest in StarCraft's multiplayer offerings (as did its usage of Battle.net- Blizzard's first RTS game to do so; WarCraft 2 Battle.net Edition was released after StarCraft).

So with all of this, we consider what in the world happened to make StarCraft skyrocket to being the greatest competitive eSport of all-time. My first contention is that the units were designed to fulfill roles for their faction. They weren't designed to counter other units or even to be "balanced". In the process of filling their roles, they naturally countered other units, in some cases drastically so. StarCraft never made any apologies for this. In fact, some of StarCraft's unit and ability designs are so unapologetic that one must ask if the game was ever designed for MP at all or if the intent all along was to make the player feel awesome controlling each of the factions in the SP campaigns and against SP bots and whatnot. That sounds somewhat preposterous and certainly patches and Brood War do show us that Blizzard cared for MP, but I think it's a valid path of inquiry nonetheless (what I wouldn't give for a documentary on the making of Brood War; I've heard the usual scraps here and there about piecing it together on napkins at the local diner, but nothing that gets into the depths of game design).

The natural outcome of such harsh and unforgiving design is that the game is... well, harsh and unforgiving to play, if you're playing to win. Competitive players play to win. By definition, they do whatever it takes to win within the confines of the ruleset given to them. When StarCraft's multiplayer community first began forming, I'd imagine that StarCraft's interface (by which I am going beyond just the GUI here and including unit response and etc as well) was quite shiny (Age of Empires 2 allowed you to select more units, but other than that I tended to find StarCraft's GUI more functional and StarCraft unit responsiveness was way better than Age of Empires 2's) and so there'd be no greener grass. As competitive players moved in to exploit the game's every flaw, they found a game that required a considerable amount of skill and practice to leverage winning strategies. As the linked article basically goes on to state, those are the pillars required for competitive play.

So while that brings us back to the article, I think it's worth pointing out that StarCraft didn't try to make itself tough to play. There are quite a few things the game probably didn't try to do yet proved exceedingly well at doing. I think Blizzard legitimately tried to put forth a state-of-the-art RTS, and they did. But state-of-the-art in 1998 was not ideal. The GUI limitations, pathfinding, and "bugs" (Mutalisk stacking is commonly cited, but I'd prefer to cite Reaver Scarabs and Vulture Spider Mines here) made the game harder to play, therefore requiring more practice and skill for players to excel at it. These were inflative to the game's depth.

Now looking to the present. StarCraft is an incredibly simple RTS. Comparing its combat systems and other under-the-hood systems to Company of Heroes' or Dawn of War 2's is like comparing my desktop computer to an Apple II. So now that we are in the present, we'd like our computers- and our RTS games- to have all the nice amenities of the present. Blizzard knows that eSports is great and all, but how many of you reading this still play StarCraft 1v1, on ICCUP or anything? Probably not many. But how many of you own StarCraft? I'll bet quite a crapton more hands just went up. As mentioned before, while StarCraft's legacy will be that of one of the greatest eSports of all-time, StarCraft itself is more than just an eSport. Blizzard knows that and wants to cater to that- they want to make a game with an appealing campaign and a game that anyone can sit down and enjoy.

But that's a problem for StarCraft 2. In the process of making StarCraft 2 enjoyable for the average RTS gamer, Blizzard needs to modernize the game's interface. No doubt many of you heard the outrage over StarCraft 2 having MBS (Multiple Building Selection), Automine, and Unlimited Selection. I know I did, and originally I scoffed at those crying fits about it. I don't know if I'd say I was wrong to scoff. I don't know if I say that I still scoff. But what I do know is that there was something to those concerns. And that something is that StarCraft's skill requirements and rewards are propped up by those interface limitations (and those are just three of many that Blizzard has screwed with). As I said before, the game is damn simple at its core. Since the Beta started, a lot of friends of mine, many who either never played RTS games or who played barely any or never took any seriously, got interested in SC2 and decided to pick-up the beta. First-hand, I helped many of my friends learn the game, and they enjoy it a fair bit. And most of them are in Diamond league now (not from constant cheesing or anything stupid like that either). However, teaching those same friends other strategy games, such as Dawn of War 2, proved a completely different beast and still does. Bluntly, Dawn of War 2 is more complex than StarCraft 2 by a long shot (despite that much of the RTS community considers DoW 2 to be just the kind of RTS that is too simple or "over-simplified").

So when Blizzard pulled the rug of age out from underneath StarCraft's interface, they yanked out a lot more complexity and depth than they bargained for. They made the game fun and playable for a "new generation", but for proper competitive gamers, much of the challenge was taken out. Furthermore, as the article that spurred this topic highlights, they ran into the issue that with interface improvements increasing the reliability of spells, attacks, etc... they found that Overpowered Thing A counter Overpowered Thing B if Overpowered Thing C doesn't interfere and all of this is decided by player skill and awareness... is actually a big issue. As the article goes on to note, Blizzard has indeed basically sliced out the vast majority of the most exciting situations in Brood War.

Up to here, I completely agree with the article. Brood War is exciting to play and incredibly exciting to watch because you can *see* the skill required and the skill in action, and the effects of that skill are drastic. As well, nifty micro is appreciable and there is constant tension with it- microing a Shuttle/Reaver harass against a Terran is a process with HUGE risk/reward. The Protoss stands to kill SCVs, snipe Siege Tank and other units (preventing the Terran from mounting a deadly early push and allowing the 'toss to expand), and just all-around do a lot of damage. At the same time, if the Reaver is dropped within range of a Siege Tank in Siege Mode, it is going to be toast. Likewise, if the Reaver is dropped on a Spider Mine, if a Turret or Goliath or etc manages to put the Shuttle in a dangerous position, etc... Basically, the Reaver and Shuttle aren't immune, but nor is anything that's going to kill it, and it's a battle of micro on both sides. Also notable is the conflict of Vultures versus Dragoons. If Vultures attack-move against Dragoons, they're not going to do much. But then, Vultures just attack-moving against Zealots doesn't work amazingly either. However, it is known and assumed that a Vulture can kite an infinite amount of Zealots- Reapers and Hellions fit the bill in StarCraft 2. However, Reapers and Hellions shy very far away the second that something like a Stalker comes up, because there just isn't anything they CAN do against such a unit. Vultures, on the other hand, hate Dragoons similarly. However, Vultures have Spider Mines, and they can use these to be as much a threat to Dragoons as any other unit.

StarCraft also has a notable, yet acceptable amount of randomness. Scarabs glitch out constantly, and can semi-reliably be avoided by the opponent if the opponent has his/her units move away from the Scarab as quickly as possible. In return for this bugginess, when they hit they're absolutely devastating, thus Protoss players put up with it. For a spectator though, watching the Scarab make its slow, wobbly way towards a line of Drones as the Drones desperately run for their lives and wondering whether it's going to hit or not... There's no parallel in SC2. Likewise, Spider Mines help protect Terran mech lines from Zealots and can generally thin Protoss ranks. However, Spider Mines can lock onto a target for quite a distance and follow that target, with the mine following in tow. In practice, this is called "Mine Dragging", and it's a constant source of pain for Terran players as Zealots and other units often manage to drag mines directly into lines of Siege Tanks, evaporating them with their own weaponry. "Zealot Bombing" is another common technique, where the Protoss player uses a Shuttle to drop Zealots on top of Siege Tanks and trigger nearby Mines to come in and blow them up- proper martyrs they are. On a less spectator-gasping note, there is also high-ground advantage, where units on low-ground have a percentage chance to miss when attacking uphill. Blizzard actually singled this mechanic out as being randomness and stated that randomness is a bad thing for a competitive game. However, many top Brood War players (yes, even Korean pros) state just the opposite. It's an acceptable amount of randomness because they still know what will usually happen, and attacking uphill is always a risk- simple as that. If you attack from low-ground, you're taking a risk, and it may or may not pay off. Cheese is quite similar there. Anyway, there is a pretty good consensus among top-level SC2 players that bringing back the old high-ground advantage would be an improvement.

Right, so again, all of that I agree with. Where I disagree is with the conclusion of the article, that it is the sophistication of the engine that dooms SC2. Blizzard introduced "macro mechanics" for all three races as a method of offsetting MBS, automine, etc... (basically, forcing players to put more APM into macro) and it has worked. I'm no fan of the mechanics as I think a couple of them are rather poorly designed and integrated and have a net negative impact on gameplay and are, in part, responsible for force composition > micro. Nonetheless, their success in what they set out to do does indicate that developers have the power to design athletic complexity into their games. Of course, when we stop and think about it that way, I don't think we need the macro mechanics example. And to be quite blunt, from a technology standpoint, Blizzard *COULD* recreate SC1's mechanics and etc in an instant with a modern engine if they wanted to.

Where I take this discussion to then as I conclude that ultimately this is not the fault of modernization, but rather of the developer, is the importance of knowing from where your game gets its depth. StarCraft's competitive success is as much about cunning tactics as it is about a swift mouse hand. For StarCraft 2 to have the same depth that StarCraft had if StarCraft 2 is to modernize its interface, StarCraft 2 must either find new methods of challenging players' mouse hands, or it must shift more of its emphasis towards tactical/strategic depth. Right now, StarCraft 2 doesn't seem like it will satisfy on either front.

But as mentioned, this goes beyond StarCraft 2. I feel it's really important for developers to look at and understand where there game's depth is coming from, and for this I want to pull two other examples- Plants v Zombies and Revenge of the Titans.

I'll start with the latter before someone goes, "That TV series?". No, it's an indie tower defense game. Disclaimer that I have only played the demo. Anyway, Revenge of the Titans actually treats player attention as a resource. Resources are collected by the player manually clicking on the Refinery, structures are all individually, manually-placed (that's not atypical for a tower defense though), and all weapons need to be manually reloaded (which, yeah; also consider that you'll want to preemptively reload many of those so you're constantly watching them), etc... The game has tech paths that unlock better weapons, towers, etc... and also ones that can automate processes. Basically, you can direct research points towards having the computer do stuff for you, because the game is designed such that even if you play like a pro StarCraft player, your APM should still be lacking. Of course, the better your skill, the less you'll need to invest in automation (if at all).

Plants v Zombies is then like a simpler Revenge of the Titans (yes PvZ came first). It's very simple, very straightforward, and it shouldn't stress any hardcore gamer's APM. But, basically, it shifts from the game being purely about designing your defense layout to also testing your mouse athleticism while you do that. But PvZ only tries to cater to casual gamers and wants everyone to be able to accomplish the task, so the difficulty is tailored as such.

Both those games are notable for recognizing that they want to expand their depth in that area, and they do that. On the flip side, games like Company of Heroes don't care about APM and put in plenty of automation to help- it's all about positioning and strategy. But that's fine because they bulwark that incredibly well.