
StarCraft: The past, present and future - santaclaus
http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/6/9670176/starcraft-2-future-history-dlc-blizzard
======
padobson
Interaction design is a craft, and gaming is the subcategory of interaction
design that most often ventures into the world of art. But the thing that most
constrains the artform is this "little brother" mindset. Instead of waiting
for society to understand and comprehend the medium, those who craft video
games work to make their medium more like film or novels or music or other
"high" artforms.

So I get a little twitchy when a gaming website does a story about a franchise
like StarCraft and features the writing as the game changing aspect of it.
StarCraft is not great because it's a sci-fi game. Warcraft is not great
because it has ogres. Super Mario Brothers is not great because it has a
chubby Italian plumber.

Interaction design often requires some metaphor - some analogy to inspire your
first interaction with the system. The plumber, the ogre, the Zealot. But once
you push that first button, and the system responds, the analogy is no longer
the inspiration for delight, for frustration, for joy or pain. The interaction
itself becomes the driving factor. And the most perfectly crafted interactions
can inspire the full range of emotions without relying on a coherent plot,
orchestrated sound, or ten minutes of FMV.

And StarCraft is one of the greatest examples of this. I don't care what a
Zealot's motivation is, I only care about how much ground he can cover before
the Hydra destroys him. My pulse is rising because the HP of my units is
falling and my army is shrinking faster than my opponent's, not because I feel
bad that the Zealots didn't procure the glory their race yearns after.

If gaming is ever going to take its proper place in the pantheon of higher
artforms, it needs to stop acting like something it's not. Video games aren't
movies, and they never will be. I hope the video games industry figures this
out someday.

~~~
roymurdock
You're talking about two different types of games: Games of Sport vs. Games of
Immersion

The difference: Context

Starcraft multiplayer is a Game of Sport, where character and story are
nonexistent and mechanics/"interaction" are all that matters in a game of
chess completely removed from any context other than the tournament you are
playing in.

Switch over to campaign mode and the context becomes the story line and plot.
Sure, the game still relies on mechanics but you advance through different
scenarios where you meet new characters, form alliances, explore new worlds,
and even switch sides and play as a different race based on the plot of the
story. Solo play is a Game of Immersion.

The Dark Souls franchise has a good balance of the two. You advance across the
world (semi) linearly in a movie-like fashion, learning about the various NPCs
and lore of the world. You are also regularly invaded by other players, and
then the game becomes completely mechanics/interaction-based until one of you
wins the duel.

You're basically arguing that video games are/should be more like a football
game than a movie. They can span both forms of entertainment, and people will
choose to engage with one or the other based on personal preferences.

~~~
Konsyst
I would say that Dark Souls is still fundamentally driven by mechanics, as
most of the gameplay stems from you adapting to various enemies/AI patterns
and physically learning to overcome them, while the depth of the story is
mostly up to you to piece together.

~~~
roymurdock
Sure, you're right that good mechanics are a prerequisite to a good game. But
they're not everything. Driving to work every morning requires mechanical
mastery and adapting to various environmental factors, but I'm not masochistic
enough to call it a game :)

In real life: do you derive pleasure from understanding and mastering the
physical laws of the world, or from spending your time creating a mental
narrative for yourself and building emotional relationships with those around
you? Perhaps a combination of the two?

~~~
lispit
The Souls franchise became popular solely because it dared to provide
complicated mechanics and harsh trial-by-fire instruction in a time where the
vast majority of AAA games are dumbed-down handholdy themepark rides with all
of their edges filed off. The kind of people that play games only for their
stories would never have suffered through any Souls games if it weren't for
the massive hype that the "mechanical gamers" generated around it.

Likewise, Starcraft had a story, as did Command & Conquer. But one of those
games is played to this day, both in its original incarnation and its sequel,
on a massive scale that makes people question their definitions of the word
"sport." I don't think this author would have cared to write filler about the
story of Command & Conquer today.

~~~
talles
> complicated mechanics and harsh trial-by-fire instruction

Super Metroid anyone?

------
venomsnake
Blizzard's initial offerings were surprisingly dark and mature - both diablo,
warcraft I&II and starcraft. Only starcraft's tone has not been degraded much
so far (although the writing is weaker).

I guess legacy of the void concludes a chapter of the company history. They
are a e-sports company now. Their three latest games are gameplay driven with
barely any story at all. Overwatch, HoTS and HS.

Diablo III got a pass on its writing only because of the RMAH that was taking
all the ire. I am not sure why the writing declined so much beginning with
warcraft III - probably the gameplay requirements prevented the (extremely
talented) team of giving their best.

There is still great writing in Blizzard's games - but their last character I
cared about was Thorim in Storm Peaks (pre model change - while he was a huge
varkul). The writing in the ICC and Cataclysm main storyline was quite meh. It
just felt like the writers have written some amazing storyline then got their
leashes pulled and told to simplify and make absolutely understandable for a
lot younger audience.

~~~
cryoshon
Yeah, Blizzard had a gothic tone in a lot of their early games. Unfortunately,
they've replaced it with cartoony stuff for the most part. Writing wise
they've fallen a long way, but it doesn't matter.

Blizzard's primary success since their early games (pre-WoW) is understanding
and abusing the psychology of addiction and creating videogames around that
concept. They make ultra-streamlined (sometimes to the point of being nearly
featureless) and ultra-polished games which are usually super easy to approach
but tough to master. The writing is generally cartoony/poor, but the
moneymaking potential of each game is very large. They still produce some
winners, if you can get over the above.

~~~
tgb
Warcraft 2 was arguably their most cartoony pc game. Maybe excepting
heartstone. Writing probably peaked around Warcraft 3 but was pretty simple
pre-Starcraft. So I don't see nearly as much doom and gloom about the state of
blizzard as you do.

Except the music. The twangs of diablo 1, the perky tunes of Warcraft 2, the
terran theme of sc1...!

~~~
venomsnake
It was simple, but now is bad.

As a dutiful orc in the army I only needed for the warchief to tell me where
to hit hard.

Same with Diablo - the rudimentary story was simple and got the job just fine.

Also warcraft 2 had ships. Their lack from III was a crime.

With WCIII they tried to make an epic story - and it was just meh at best.
Pitching so hard Orc Jes .. I mean Thrall created such damage that the whole
Horde feeling is suffering to this day. I enlisted Horde to play Kharn and
instead got Roboute Guilliman

------
steckerbrett
It's unfortunate how much the original game has rotted, the online servers are
up but the program itself is becoming more are more unplayable. The OSX
versions have been dead for a long time, on windows it seems to be getting
harder and harder to run as well. The recent job posting hopefully indicate
they're interested in de-breaking them, couldn't care less for a HD remake,
just a version that actually works again.

Impressed that Blizzard still runs the IRC servers necessary for that part of
Battle.net though, far more modern games have lost all of their multiplayer
within a couple of years let alone two decades on. There's third party remakes
of the server daemons but you need a hacked up client to use them, or at least
you did last I looked a decade ago.

~~~
terda12
IMO, the game works great on Windows. I can't imagine playing games like SC2
or CSGO on OSX. It's just not economical for Blizzard to do an OSX port.

The game has been kinda dead for a while now, because it's so unaccessible to
the general population. Games like Dota and League of Legends have taken the
place of Starcraft 2 because it's pretty accessible to newbies yet offers a
very high skill ceiling for those who want to play competitively. Starcraft 2
is simply too difficult of a game - you have to micromanage not only whole
armies but also create new buildings and new units, looking for ways to boost
your economy, and micromanaging research, all at the same time. It's simply
too much to ask for a new player looking to break into the game.

Dota existed because players just wanted to play a single hero inside an RTS
game, and not have to control an army. The army is automated, there is no
research, and there is no building/economy to worry about. You simply control
one unit. Then League came and made it even more accessible to new players.
Starcraft just simply cannot compete with both of these games, it just takes
too much effort to even be remotely good at the game.

~~~
nemo44x
I played SC2 heavily when it came out and for some time after and I loved it.
But you're right - the game does not allow someone to be casual or even semi-
casual.

It is an unbelievably stressful game and you have to not only master all 3
races abilities but understand numerous and ever changing strategies around
them, have excellent macro skills and understand timings, etc. If you don't
keep up aggressively with practice and all these other things you'll simply
get slaughtered over and over. And although their rating system tries to pair
you up it has become harder and harder to find casual players.

I think it's one of the best games ever made and I love watching the top
players to this day even though I do not play any longer. But I wish they
could come out with a scaled down version with fewer units, easier macro and
certain rules in place to limit cheese play, etc. Have smart units or
something where different strategies can be used throughout a game and various
units will intelligently play a certain role of scouting, attacking,
defending, etc.

The truth is the game is amazing because of its difficulty and also unplayable
for most people for the same reason. I am not "gosu". I have a life and can't
play for hours every day - or every day for that matter.

~~~
Steko
SC2 needs a game mode where one player is run by 2 casuals.

~~~
tgb
Depending on what you mean, that is a feature of the new release: archon mode,
where two players have shared control of a single base. This was also a
feature of starcraft one but was never very popular. This time it should be
easier to use and find matches through matchmaking. The recent blizzcon had a
match between 4 pros in this mode, and the casters really couldn't keep up
with the side engagements that were happening. So it's even interesting from a
competitive scene as well.

~~~
Steko
Oh thanks for the info, I had no idea. Too absorbed in the Hearthstone
coverage I guess.

------
tylerpachal
I was just at the Legacy of the Void launch event at the Coex in Seoul. There
was one developer on hand who took questions from the crowd and tried to
answer them without giving away any spoilers. There were also a few show
matches between popular players, and a wedding for a former Broodwar pro
player; it was quite the event.

Even though other genres are a lot more popular than RTS is now, the packed
venue makes me optimistic about the future of the Starcraft franchise.

------
k__
Are there any scientific resources about how almost every mainstream success
is based on a rather "direct" copy of something that already existed?

Like here with WarCraft/StarCraft and Warhammer/Warhammer 40,000.

~~~
doppel
I would say it's 50/50 between Warhammer 40k and the Alien franchise when it
comes to StarCraft. Both StarCraft and WarCraft steals from a ton of other
franchises and glues them together, reaffirming the saying "Good artists
borrow, great artists steal!"

~~~
ucaetano
Actually, Starcraft is almost 90% Starship Troopers. From the armored
exoskeletons (why do you think there's a "Marauder" unit in the game?), to the
bug-like Zerg and the skinny-like Protoss.

------
greenleafjacob
I wish they went more into the history behind SC1 [1].

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0fV5KADifY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0fV5KADifY)

