The Need For Continuity

StarCraft 2 has always been a hot topic amongst gamers here on Teamliquid.
When Blizzard stopped negotiating with KeSPA it caused some stir among the community and we wondered what would happen now. While some dreaded the demise of esports, others saw a new beginning with another organization than (Wiki)

KeSPA leading the way. Some even turned to Economical theory to try to discern what might happen.

It’s not surprising that people have been discussing the ramifications of StarCraft 2 and Blizzard’s not-too-good relationship with KeSPA. After all, it could mean the end of StarCraft’s wide success as an esport. Amongst all of this, however, I can’t help but notice another trend. Fear.

People fear that StarCraft 2 won’t “feel” like StarCraft and won’t “be” StarCraft. This fear has brought the rather remarkable effect that whenever Blizzard announces a change from StarCraft 1, it’s bound to create a discussion, even if it’s such a thing as making the AI less buggy.

Being able to control the Dragoon despite it being a very buggy unit is one of the things that set the pros apart from the Slugbreaths and that has lead to a lot of very exiting moments in StarCraft 1.

We fear that StarCraft 2 won’t be as deep and as good as StarCraft 1 since it’s different from StarCraft 1. I am far from alone in making this observation, of course, and this year’s elaborate April’s fools joke is a great example of how strange this entire situation kind of is. Can you imagine any other game franchise where the fans would complain that the sequel was less buggy than its predecessor?

In a sense, this overzealous protectionism is one of the things that makes the StarCraft community so special. Gamers care so much about the game that the things that made the first game so deep and difficult are things we aren’t willing to throw away too easily, even if they happen to be bugs.

Concider this. If StarCraft 2 had totally different graphics, sound effects, music, names and so on and had been called something else, say Atrox 2, would we have been as interested in it as we are in StarCraft 2 even if the gameplay was identical? I doubt it.

SKELTON: one of few gamers who might be
as interested in a sequel to Atrox as a sequel to StarCraft.

Not only does the name Blizzard make us instantly know that the games will be good, but the name StarCraft makes us know that its in the StarCraft universe and with that comes a lot of expectations and a need. A need for continuity.

While most of us can agree on the fact that we don’t want StarCraft 2 to be just StarCraft 1 with better graphics, we can also agree that we do want StarCraft 2 to feel like a sequel to StarCraft 1. To sidetrack, this was one of my gripes with WarCraft III. It was a great game by its own right, but it just didn’t feel like a sequel to WarCraft II.

While an impressive game in its own right, did it really feel like a sequel to WarCraft II?

For StarCraft 2 to feel like a sequel to StarCraft 1 there is a need for continuity. We need things to be present in the sequel that was in the first game. While there technically isn’t anything stopping Blizzard from replacing the three combat basic units of StarCraft 1 (Zergling, Marine and Zealot) with three completely new units, they know that it would be a mistake to do so since it would cause unneeded controversy among the gamers. We would be in completely new waters and we wouldn’t like it.

This mixture of the familiar and the new will be crucial in making StarCraft 2 a true sequel and not just a remake with better graphics or a completely new game that has nothing to do with its predecessor.

Blizzard are of course aware of this nostalgia factor and that’s probably one of the reasons why they brought back (Wiki)

Lost Temple amongst all the new maps. New and old, hand in hand.

By adding familiar content to StarCraft 2, the new content won’t feel as alien.

So while adding some nostalgic content to StarCraft 2 is a good thing in order to make the game feel right, there is of course a limit. If everything is the same, nothing is new and a new game hasn’t really been made. While a lot of changes are subtle and take a trained eye to spot, one is easy to see. The maps.

If Lost Temple was brought to StarCraft 2, which other maps might follow the same pattern? Will professional maps be made that are replicas of StarCraft 1 hits or will we see new maps emerge that quench the need for the old to be replicated?

While some gamers wish to bring the old classics such as (Wiki)

Python back to StarCraft 2 (some have even started on this), others argue that StarCraft 1 maps should be left as StarCraft 1 maps.

As for me I am torn. While I am a nostalgic person by nature, I do see the importance of developing maps for StarCraft 2 independent of the ones made for StarCraft 1. StarCraft 2 has got different units and different tactics than its predecessor and that means that the maps will need to be different to reflect this. Despite this, there is however one map that I hope that Blizzard will remake for StarCraft 2.

Plains of Snow & baby!

Now, I know what a lot of you are thinking. “Plains of Snow? Why Plains of Snow?” and for good reason. It’s not the most original, influential nor balanced map in existence, so why have I singled out this map as my pick for a map I want to see in StarCraft 2? The answer is of course continuity.

You see, before Plains of Snow ’98 there was good ol’ Plains of Snow back in WarCraft 2.
+ Show Spoiler [Map image] +

When StarCraft was released, the map was remade and released as Plains of Snow '98 as a way to pay tribute to WarCraft 2. In fact, it was not the only map from WarCraft 2 to be remade for StarCraft. (Wiki)

Bridge to Bridge Combat & and (Wiki)

Friends ’98 are both remakes of classics.

However, when WarCraft III was released, the map Plains of Snow was once again brought to life.
+ Show Spoiler [Map image] +

As far as I know (though I am by no means “in the know” when it comes to WarCraft III maps) the other two maps listed previously, were not remade.

The fact that Plains of Snow was in WC2, SC and WC3 is for me reason enough to include it in SC2. You see, I am a collector and somebody who dislikes when continuity is skipped. For instance, in Magic: The Gathering, there are cards like Giant Growth that have been in the core sets of the game since the beginning.

Giant Growth, as seen in its first rendition (to the left)
and in it’s latest form (to the right)

And then there are cards like Llanowar Elves…

Llanowar Elves.

Llanowar Elves was first printed in Alpha and Beta, just like Giant Growth, and just like Giant Growth it was then continued to be released in the following core sets. In fact the list of core sets including Llanowar Elves is quite impressive:
Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, Revised, 4th Edition, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th as well as the newest edition ”Magic 2010”.
Notice anything missing? Yup. 8th Edition.

The fact that Llanowar Elves wasn’t included in 8th Edition meant that the otherwise intact line of continuity, going all the way back to August 5, 1993, was broken in 2003.

While this might not seem like it would affect much in terms of game play, it changed the way Magic felt and most of all it was annoying for a nostalgic person such as myself to see the continuity being broken. This is something I wish to avoid in StarCraft.

So in order to have a complete and unbroken line of continuity for Blizzard, Plains of Snow should once again be remade, for the sake of continuity.

/Slugbreath

The Need For Continuity

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming