Blizzard GDC: The Game Design of Starcraft II

On August 19 2011 00:13 Lom wrote:
wow, thanks so much for the link, thats pure gold for my current thesis

On August 19 2011 00:38 Demonace34 wrote:
The only problem I have with his thought on Skill is about Micromanagement. The spells that freeze and stop micro management make the game less enjoyable to watch. Fungal forcefield and concussive all make micro for the other person almost non-existent. Thanks for posting this though, lots of good stuff about game design in here.

On August 19 2011 02:30 aksfjh wrote:


You kidding me? Those forcefields, fungals, and getting caught in concussive shells is what can make the early game exciting. Those things make every second of the game important. Get out of position slightly? BAM! That's the end of that force and possibly the game changing event.

On August 19 2011 02:30 aksfjh wrote:


You kidding me? Those forcefields, fungals, and getting caught in concussive shells is what can make the early game exciting. Those things make every second of the game important. Get out of position slightly? BAM! That's the end of that force and possibly the game changing event.

On August 19 2011 03:23 Nagano wrote:
Watched the whole thing. What was surprising was how Blizzard brought in a guy (Browder) who actually knew nothing of BW's esport history to lead the design of its successor.

On August 19 2011 04:08 Kalent wrote:


I have to disagree. IMO, spells make the early game less exciting, esp. the micro battles. In bw, early game without spells made it extremely exciting to watch as the way the players used individual units was amazing. Early game micro was so precise and intense, whereas in SC2, the spells reduced that effect a bit. Esp. concussive shells as they just infinitely kite everything without much effort.

On August 19 2011 04:40 taLbuk wrote:


While I agree, you also have to remember individual unit's aren't even close of 1:1 to broodwar in terms of value, everything is just smaller and dies quicker, which takes a lot of emphasis off micro passed the 5 minutes mark unfortunately.

On August 19 2011 02:30 aksfjh wrote:


You kidding me? Those forcefields, fungals, and getting caught in concussive shells is what can make the early game exciting. Those things make every second of the game important. Get out of position slightly? BAM! That's the end of that force and possibly the game changing event.

On August 19 2011 06:25 surfinbird1 wrote:
It still baffles me that they brought him in. He apparently still thinks that Koreans are weird for liking Starcraft. First of all it's kinda racist how he talks about them and has he never heard of Counterstrike? Or Quake? Or Street Fighter? Or Warcraft 3? Esports isn't just big in Korea. We have professional players outside of Korea for more than a decade. I think this ignorance of the proscene, i.e. the dedication some people have and the effort some people are willing to put into competitive gaming is the root of some of the problems SC2 has, in my opinion. Maybe they just didn't realize/anticipate how professional players would abuse certain units/timings etc., or how well they would multitask, manage their economy and so on. And since when is micromanagement a dirty word in the RTS scene? I've never heard of that one.
Anyways, it's still very insightful even though I disagree with him on multiple issues. After all, he's the game designer and I'm just the (casual) player. Thanks for the link OP.

And since when is micromanagement a dirty word in the RTS scene? I've never heard of that one.

On August 19 2011 04:40 unit wrote:

idealy it wouldnt have the same ai :3

Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at events.digitallyspeaking.com.

On August 19 2011 07:41 andrewlt wrote:



SC2 didn't really improve upon the pathfinding AI of BW much. Most of what they did was reduce the collision size around units so they can squeeze in together. Units like the thor and ultralisk that have collision sizes larger than the BW dragoon are still dumb as hell.

On August 19 2011 02:30 aksfjh wrote:
You kidding me? Those forcefields, fungals, and getting caught in concussive shells is what can make the early game exciting. Those things make every second of the game important. Get out of position slightly? BAM! That's the end of that force and possibly the game changing event.

On August 19 2011 07:37 Nimic wrote:


Leaving all your other points aside, I found this sentence in particular kinda amusing.



I assume you're aware of his background? They didn't just pull some random guy off the street. I'd take his word over yours for what is considered what in the RTS scene.

On August 19 2011 10:38 Person4645 wrote:

I like how people didn't get the (I'm-hoping-to-be) joke.

But yeah, I liked that presentation. It definitely boosted my respect for Dustin Browder, even if I don't agree with him on things like "ladder maps for ladder players" and "dynamic unit movement = bad pathing." It seemed like he's learned a lot from the beginning of his SC2 designing career to now and is also eager to learn more.

On August 19 2011 06:25 surfinbird1 wrote:
It still baffles me that they brought him in. He apparently still thinks that Koreans are weird for liking Starcraft. First of all it's kinda racist how he talks about them and has he never heard of Counterstrike? Or Quake? Or Street Fighter? Or Warcraft 3? Esports isn't just big in Korea. We have professional players outside of Korea for more than a decade. I think this ignorance of the proscene, i.e. the dedication some people have and the effort some people are willing to put into competitive gaming is the root of some of the problems SC2 has, in my opinion. Maybe they just didn't realize/anticipate how professional players would abuse certain units/timings etc., or how well they would multitask, manage their economy and so on. And since when is micromanagement a dirty word in the RTS scene? I've never heard of that one.
Anyways, it's still very insightful even though I disagree with him on multiple issues. After all, he's the game designer and I'm just the (casual) player. Thanks for the link OP.

On August 19 2011 03:23 Nagano wrote:
Watched the whole thing. What was surprising was how Blizzard brought in a guy (Browder) who actually knew nothing of BW's esport history to lead the design of its successor.

On August 19 2011 09:21 emc wrote:
48 minutes in, dustin talks about how awesome it is that GSL is using their own maps instead of their own because he admits the blizzard maps aren't made for competitive play. Did I just blow your minds? Now maybe people will stop bitching about how they want blizzard ladder maps to be more competitive. Let's face it, Blizzard WANTS their ladder to appeal to EVERYONE, from bronze to high GM. So next time we see a ladder map pool change, let's get off our high horse and just accept what they are doing because it's clear that blizzard knows what they are doing and are actually encouraging the competitive community to branch out on their own.

Thought I'd just mention that.

On August 19 2011 19:25 Aldehyde wrote:


The problem is not that Blizzard is trying to appeal to everyone. It's that the ladder is pretty much the only place for new players to practice since they don't have any practice partners. If the ladder maps require you to play completely different from tournament maps and the ladder does not use tournament maps, new players will have big troubles getting really good.

This is the problem, I couldn't care less if they had a main ladder for everyone to play upon and then add another ladder where only tournament maps are played, that would be awesome, more than awesome.

In BW, as far as I understand, the ladder actually consisted of tournament maps (on ICCup and all the other pirate ladders). That's not the case in SC2.

So yeah, I will keep whining every time they add stupid maps like the new Abyssal Crater or whatever it's called, or the Searing Gorge.

On August 19 2011 19:41 RoyalCheese wrote:


Dustin made a really good point in the talk. He said something like this: "I'm mid diamond player and the gsl maps has 16 expansions. At that point, if i'm lower level player, games are won by hidden expansions and not by strategy, because i'm not effective at scouting." I found this really interesting, and i think he has a point. If they indeed try to make a ladder appealing for all skill levels, the choice of maps make a little more sense. I still wish there was a better way to choose maps you want to ladder on, though. Perheps instead of voting down maps you would vote up maps from current ladder + tournament maps.

On August 19 2011 19:56 Aldehyde wrote:


No, that doesn't make sense if what you want to do is to get better. Sure, if the ladder is only there to let everyone have fun, it may work well. That's my point, though, the ladder is the only place for new players to get good. So if the maps there are played in a completely different way than tournament maps, you can't learn how to play 'properly'. Meaning, you won't be able to compete in tourmanents.

You not knowing how to scout is not an excuse, that will just force you to become better by scouting it. That's what I mean. Add another ladder where you only cater to people who actually try to get good or make the one we have a good place to practice.

Voting up maps from a big pool of maps could also be a way to go about it, I guess. Perhaps with pre-set map pools like GSL, IEM and so on.

The way it is now, though, is actually terrible. Trying to cater to both the competitive players and the casual-just-for-fun players is just stupid.

On August 19 2011 19:41 RoyalCheese wrote:


Dustin made a really good point in the talk. He said something like this: "I'm mid diamond player and the gsl maps has 16 expansions. At that point, if i'm lower level player, games are won by hidden expansions and not by strategy, because i'm not effective at scouting." I found this really interesting, and i think he has a point. If they indeed try to make a ladder appealing for all skill levels, the choice of maps make a little more sense. I still wish there was a better way to choose maps you want to ladder on, though. Perheps instead of voting down maps you would vote up maps from current ladder + tournament maps.

On August 19 2011 21:43 Highways wrote:
Wait this wasn't last year's GDC?

Wasn't this from March 2011|

On August 19 2011 15:55 surfinbird1 wrote:


Hence, why I wrote the following paragraph. But still, I come from a WC3/BW background and in those micro is essential. Was it considered bad in Command&Conquer or Age of Empires or any other RTS game?

On August 19 2011 04:40 unit wrote:

idealy it wouldnt have the same ai :3

On August 20 2011 06:52 mufin wrote:

lol'd so hard at this part

On August 20 2011 06:58 ZenithM wrote:


Well you can laugh all you want, or maybe you could actually listen to what Browder was saying while showing that...

Because it was quite spot on.

On August 20 2011 06:58 ZenithM wrote:


Well you can laugh all you want, or maybe you could actually listen to what Browder was saying while showing that...

Because it was quite spot on.

On August 19 2011 04:36 Treadmill wrote:
Oh man. There's a bit where he talks about the goliath and more or less says that he thinks they maybe should've left in the goliath and not the Thor. Goliath as a multiplayer unit in HotS would make me soooo happy.

Really interesting video too, thanks for the link!

On August 20 2011 07:25 robih wrote:
awesome talk

the only thing where i was like "wtf?" was when he described the way wc3 and sc2 are played respectively.

he says wc3 is more about fighting and losing stuff and rebuilding it because the smaller armies are easier to rebuild. he also states that in sc2 people don't want to take fights, and run away from fights, which they realize are not winnable.

imho he totally described wc3 how sc2 is and the other way round.

it's way easier to rebuild a 200/200 armyin sc2 except you built it up from two base turteling like a madman.

also its a lot more common to not take fights or get away from fights in wc3 since there is a townportal.

last but not least you can't afford to "throw away armies" in wc3, since units are waaaaay more valuable than in sc2


i really thought he was messing up and describing the wrong game, but he even had it on his slides so i guess he was serious about it

On August 20 2011 07:25 robih wrote:
awesome talk

the only thing where i was like "wtf?" was when he described the way wc3 and sc2 are played respectively.

he says wc3 is more about fighting and losing stuff and rebuilding it because the smaller armies are easier to rebuild. he also states that in sc2 people don't want to take fights, and run away from fights, which they realize are not winnable.

imho he totally described wc3 how sc2 is and the other way round.

it's way easier to rebuild a 200/200 armyin sc2 except you built it up from two base turteling like a madman.

also its a lot more common to not take fights or get away from fights in wc3 since there is a townportal.

last but not least you can't afford to "throw away armies" in wc3, since units are waaaaay more valuable than in sc2


i really thought he was messing up and describing the wrong game, but he even had it on his slides so i guess he was serious about it

On August 20 2011 07:33 Joey Wheeler wrote:

He's saying micro takes skill and is fun to watch.

Forcefields:

1) are not fun to watch
2) do not encourage skill when movement is restricted

On August 20 2011 07:47 0neder wrote:
The point about the ladder maps is valid, but we're not talking micro here.
We're talking sending an SCV or two around the map every so often. Not that hard. Noobs can do it. Not a good reason to not have big maps.

One thing I don't think he believes is that SMALLER maps are harder for noobs. Once some average guy masters a timing, noobs are screwed no matter what. At least bigger maps feel psychologically safer since there's more space for everyone.

On August 20 2011 08:06 ZenithM wrote:


His real point was that there is various degrees of success for the same action, and that's what creates skill, not that throwing forcefields is a skillful act. For forcefields, it can be overlap, hole in the forcefield wall, letting too many/few units on one side, speed of the casting etc..., and you can have your own opinion about that, but I enjoy watching MC's forcefields, not so much random protoss' ones. That's what he meant by that part.

I think his point was clear, and his example quite relevant, albeit controversial.
He didn't say "OLOLOLOL I'm gonna spam my F key and show mah skillz, bitches."

The following is certainly off topic but:
It's quite clear that you can't do anything once forcefielded (or fungal growth'd, or caught by concussive shell or whatever...), I don't know if it's good design or not, but no pro A-move his fucking army against forcefields anymore, that's so 6 months ago. That's skill they acquired I guess, along with using some kind of tech to temper this spell's effect (burrow, medivacs, massive units)

On August 20 2011 16:25 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
The thing about warcraft 3 didn't make much sense to me. In wc3 you want to keep every unit alive as long as possible. In sc2 replacing units I think is much easier, and even often times you would not look at the battle but macro instead. Other than that it was a great presentation.

On August 21 2011 17:21 Energizer wrote:
I got a question; Whats the difference between designing a regular RTS (like starcraft) and making an E-Sport (starcraft 2)?

Honestly... does anyone really think people were designing the original starcraft to become an E-Sport? Or were they just designing a game that was fun to play.

On August 19 2011 05:15 Demonace34 wrote:


Go watch some of Tyler's Dragoon micro in his courage video early game v T. Getting caught by FF or concussive shells that early in SCII game and no amount of micro can get you out of that. The snowball effect is just too great for a 50/50 upgrade that early in my opinion.

I guess I'm just one of those people that want to play BW with better pathing and better graphics. Instead of complaining I guess I should just get used to it though.

On August 21 2011 18:27 hmmm... wrote:
i really liked the things dustin browder said but i still feel he doesn't do them enough justice. (for example, when he talks about the need to differentiate skill in an esports game, i still think smart casting and the 1-A syndrome are things that should have been taken out).

On August 21 2011 17:34 Galleon.frigate wrote:
I soooooo sad to hear that DB feels that e-sports and a mature story for the singleplayers are mutually exclusive...

I'm gald to hear the thuoghts about why the story was so hamfisted - I guess I'm hoping against hope that they re-evaluate their choice... it's a little jarring to imagine that felt that had to go action movie over the top in the plot department to make the characters stand out, and make the player feel for the characters in game...

He [mengsk] is not a hero. He did what he felt he had to do to unify humanity against its common enemies. However to get there he was willing to kill countless millions of people. He was a fanatic. Sort of like Stalin, think the end justifies the means. However he did unify humanity so that was a good thing, but only under a dictatorship. But everything is not black and white Thats whats good about SC1 stoyline, its more mature than SC2

On August 19 2011 15:55 surfinbird1 wrote:


Hence, why I wrote the following paragraph. But still, I come from a WC3/BW background and in those micro is essential. Was it considered bad in Command&Conquer or Age of Empires or any other RTS game?

On August 21 2011 17:11 pyaar wrote:


was thinking the same thing. you don't throw away units in wc3 like you do in sc(2)

On August 22 2011 05:35 Zeaket wrote:


in this case they were referring to the single player, not the multiplayer.

On August 20 2011 07:45 azarat wrote:


The point to take is that the gameplay of WC3 is designed around a specific paradigm, that of small armies with individually more valuable units, and an army management system that signals when you might want to attack. The metagame of WC3 might refine or change those basic principles because of current strategy, but its hard to argue that the game design does not include these elements.

SC2, on the other hand, relies on an economic management system that signals when to attack, with larger armies of less individually valuable units. Its no longer the size of the army which is the determining factor, its economics and its relationship with your and your opponent's army.

The difference in paradigms are illustrated in the distinct mechanics of WC3 and SC2. The individual Heroes are central to WC3 play and the way in which you engage and use your units. In SC2, its economics. Its no mistake that each race has distinct macro mechanics in SC2, because they allow for economic choices, and by extension, add variability to gameplay.

On August 21 2011 20:46 Sxcerino wrote:
OMG WE AGREEED NR20 THIS IS BULLSHIT


lololol