I used to be one of those naysayers who felt that such mechanical restrictions were essential to make a game better, but I now think it depends. It depends on the vision set by the creators, by the audience they are catering to, the reach they expect. This would also imply that it is era-dependent, cos different generations will perceive difficulty differently.
Regarding today's game design paradigms, I feel that games such as SC2, aiming for the e-sports scene, having global reach and not just catering to a hardcore group of old schoolers (like me), have to at least fulfill these principles:
Be fun to watch (not just fun to play)
This is usually accomplished by giving the game strong "micro" potential. It enables the pros be able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the lower level players too. Let's admit it, we get hooked onto any game or sport when we see that awesome micro moment. Boxer got me into the SC scene when I watched his WCG play against Blackman (which by modern standards is so horrible to watch now). I'm aware that macro strategy is amazing, but that is something much more subtle and may require some prior experience to appreciate. I mean, how many games have you come across that is fun to play, but is just sleep-inducing to watch someone else play? It is probably the reason why Chess isn't as popular as some other games out there (mind you, I like Chess). Look at Football (or "Soccer"), Basketball, Hockey, Tennis, all rife with micro potential. I can't understand the popularity of Cricket and Golf though, so I'm not saying I'm definitely right with this.
I believe it can also be accomplished when the game has some degree of uncertainty. Part of why I think I prefer watching BW over SC2 is because of the suspense that comes from not being able to fully predict an outcome of a micro battle. In LoL (*gasp* I mentioned it!), sometimes you see fights that should have belonged to one team but a reversal happens. In a fighting game, someone blocks every single attack with surgical precision and counters, taking the game. Protoss makes an unlikely hold against a Zerg flood. Moments like these makes it all worth watching.
Be accessible
A game like Chess or StarCraft is really difficult, but with the right teacher and the right approach, the learning journey can be fun. If you make your game like Dwarf Fortress, don't expect people to get to the good parts before they leave the game. Good tutorial systems, well-written guides or community figures come in really well here. I'm not saying to make the game easy, as indicated in the next point...
Be impossible to humanly master, but not through "draconian" means
Tune the difficulty to match the targeted audiences' skill levels through playtesting. You can make a game difficult to play without resorting to "artificial", interface-limiting means, but resorting to adding more elements to keep track of, or rewarding/punishing certain styles for example. I wouldn't know all of the ways to do this since I'm not the ultimate authority on this subject. An e-sports game like SC2 has this a bit easier, since the opponent is your main difficulty, but you still can make the game too easy.
I think that Valve is the only game company I've seen (doesn't mean it's the only one) that seems to embrace these principles, even if it's a non-competitive single-player game. I also think that SC2 has done a great job so far, but there is always room for improvement.
Cause D.K. came from Warhammer like balance designer, and Warhammer and 100000 parts and addons are sucks, cause it's not strategy it's shit of elephant. People really work on SC: broodwar, now we see that blizzard only want money on brand names. They don't want create smth true, new, conceptual. Blizzard are dead for me.
Funny video but he's a bit ignorant. I've never liked you Jakatak. I always get the feeling you always post to get attention drawn towards yourself. Just my opinion of years of seeing you post around here.
The constraints aren't arbitrary in that they have an arbitrary impact on the game. Only selecting a subset of units or buildings forces a player to make a judgement call on where to place their focus. There may be many subtle implications of every constraint in the game that are important, but might be hard to realize at a passing glance.
I couldnt be arsed to play a game which would require a stupid amount of microing ur macro like bw if i have the chance to play sc2.
To win u need so many things: 1) startup strategy (bo) 2) efficient micro 3) efficient macro 4) scouting 5) harassment 6) decision making in clutch situations 7) long term strategy (unit composition) 8) army control (control-groups etc.)
The macro part is still quite demanding and like jak said: needing to spend more apm on trivial marco elements does actually add nothing to the gameplay.
fully agree
PS: some of the bw nostalgians will always be mad about this. nothing u can do
On April 29 2014 20:55 sluggaslamoo wrote: Well if we are going to compare and make fun of BW over SC2 (even though that horse was beaten to death)...
You could watch a "boring macro game" where two players just produce units and a-move them in BW and it would still be really interesting.
This is why SC2 shouldn't have MBS and "good pathing".
Flash had made so many units and spent so much time making units from barracks that he couldn't even stimhack them all SC2-style to the base, so they just marched on move command and still won because Flash's macro was just that good.
This is also the reason why smaller armies could win in BW more easily, because smaller armies were always more efficient as players would spend less time building units and more time microing and focusing on the battle.
But in that video it directly contradicts what you claim. So.....?
Anyway, the macro in that game is about even or slightly less than the macro in SC2 with regard to units popping out at the same time, which really tells us how easy macro has gotten. I think if a Terran can do that and outzerg a ZERG in brood war, there's no reason they can't do the same with the mule bonus in SC2. 8 raxes? Make 16 in sc2 with reactors and do the same thing, only this time on full stim because of 500 unit control groups.
Remember that chess has a severe mechanical restriction in that you're only allow to move one piece and then your opponent can move another before you can move again.
"arbitrary" restrictions like limited control groups and no such things as reactors are essentially similar to that chess restriction. Timers on unit production are another "arbitrary" restriction. So is building time, mining time, mineral cost, etc.
EPT
