EPTI'm gonna divide this blog into two segments: a part for people without a key, and a part for people with a key.
Most of the discussion thus far about SC2 has sucked, so I'm hoping to show what valuable criticism looks like.
Anyway, the top part of this blog is praise for SC2. Here, I'm writing for people without a key, and especially people without a key who are skeptical.
The bottom part of the blog is for people with a key and who have had a chance to develop some thoughts about SC2B. I'm mostly gonna be talking about elements of the game and what I'd like to see discussed. Basically, this is what I'd write if I could write to Blizzard.
Praise: SC2 IS GOOD
For non-SC2 Beta players:
That's definitely the most important thing to say. I was REALLY skeptical starting with the announcement a few eons ago, and I became more skeptical every day for a few eternities until I finally played it. And then I was more skeptical.
But finally, after just shy of a thousand games, I'm happy to say that I think the game is very good and although SC2's quality does not yet boggle the mind the way that BW did, the elements are there. I have definitely not felt so good about any RTS before or since BW. SC2 is the first game I've played with the potential to boast the same qualities that make BW the best game ever.
To really appreciate SC2, you've gotta play it. I hope Blizzard gives out more beta keys because the game is REALLY good and it's absolutely impossible to feel how good it is until you've played it.
Thoughts/Criticism for SC2B
First of all, before even discussing units, I think it's worth discussing the AI and the UI. The roles of the UI and the AI should be fleshed out and determined first because they're fundamental to everything else.
UI: I agree with Blizzard's decision to optimize the UI in SC2 for a variety of reasons.
1) I think it's essential to the game's marketability.
2) I don't subscribe the argument that we should artificially enforce inefficiencies just because there were inefficiencies in BW. I grant that UI inefficiencies in BW defined some aspects of gameplay, but I don't think that means we should force that same inefficiency on SC2 (automining, single building select, etc.).
3) All told, I think a game with better UI, and better AI, and that still preserves the strategic diversity of BW and the mechanical learning curve of BW is a true succesor and a very good game. (I refrain from saying better here, so I'll just stick with "successor.")
AI: AI seems more controversial.
1) Auto-surround: ???. Good bad or indifferent this is probably here to stay, but I'm not sure it's a good thing.
2) AI fuckups: ???. Some stuff seems deliberately engineered to fuck with the AI. e.g. Broodlords and the Sentry's Force Field ability. Some of this shit really makes the AI go wild, and I think just how much the AI should be fucked with is an important question.
3) Auto-targetting workers/casters that are in battle: ???. This is another HUGE question that hasn't received a great deal of attention. In BW there are a LOT of instances where using workers to fuck up the AI of attacking units (because workers/casters were prioritized behind fighting units). SCV/probe/drone walls were a big deal. As were medic walls. But now workers are auto-targetted when they are fighting as are some spell casters (infestors). This seems like it deserves a lot of attention.
High ground: Already discussed quite a bit, but something definitely needs to be done here. It's essential to creating more strategic options.
Unit balance: Difficult to comment on unit balance at this point.
There are still a lot of controversial opinions concerning balance elements in BW, and so I think it's safe to say that many initial impressions about SC2 balance are completely wrong and will evolve as more knowledge develops. Naturally there are some things that are obviously imbalanced, and so can be repaired right away, but the vast majority of complaining is TOTALLY misguided (unavoidable probably).
Ball v Ball: Or the lack of matchup flavor where armies are concerned.
Where's the distinct flavor of each matchup? Seems to me that a lot of focus has been given to macro mechanics and stuff that deals largely with buildings and not enough attention has been devoted to developing interesting unit abilities and interplay amongst unit abilities. I think the introduction of all the macro mechanics is a great thing, but it needs to be complemented by the same variety of unit abilities and micro interplay that we had in BW.
Defense and Static Defenses:
1) Static defenses: Need to find a MUCH larger role some kinda way. I grant that static defenses are "tributes to the stupidity of man" (and maybe that's why zerg stuff gets to uproot and walk around) but stupidity or not, they need to be effective enough to be intimidating and useful. If something that can't move is only as good (or not even as good) as something that can move, why would you have the thing that can't move? This is especially important given the new macro mechanics which allow unit production to occur so much more quickly (whereas in BW sometimes static defenses were a good option simply because you couldn't get units there but you had the resources and needed defense).
(same thing about air: ceteris paribus, why use the thing that can't fly?)
2) Defense:
With the AI improvements in terms of melee units and to a lesser extent ranged units, some of the advantage that great formations offered in BW is negated in SC2. Frankly, playing SC2 makes it feel even worse than, though. Maybe it's the map size, maybe it's the AI, maybe it's the lack of high-ground advantage, maybe it's the weakness of static defenses; maybe it's because workers are auto-targeted in battle; maybe it's a lack of situationally appropriate defensive abilities or the reduced value of defensive micro. It's probably a combination of all these things. Whatever it is, there REALLY needs to be something done to make base/expansion defense more viable. Adding a more prominent defensive aspect would make HUGE strides in creating strategic depth and opening more possibilities. There are already a LOT of aggressive plays and mechanics that have been developed, but there needs to be yin as well as yang.
