The game isn't innovative enough to be
called a sequel

There are those out there that argue that StarCraft II does not have lot of innovation to warrant it being designated a modern computer game.

The logic in this fails me, first this time around the game is fully rendered in 3D by one of the most creative and artistic gaming development teams ever assembled. Next there are a multitude of features and additions implemented into the game. Take for example the multi-tier terrain climbing units, or the new race specific features such as warp-in. The games graphic engine will take advantage of Direct X 10.


New multiplayer features such as on screen information for observers, spectators and commentators on Battlenet 2.0 will set a precedent for eSports ready games.

Ironically other 'modern' RTS games lack any major innovative game features, what seems to be the issue at heart here is people comparing StarCraft II to the original StarCraft. This is both the problem and the solution.

StarCraft is hands down the best RTS ever created. It has outsold every new RTS made to this day has out sold every new RTS made and 10 years later is still being played by millions worldwide. In Korea it is played as a professional sport with 3 major broadcasting channels dedicated to showing professional matches.

Why? Because of Starcraft's simplistic gameplay, tight game design and unrivaled competitive balance. Which begs that any sequel remain true to the original's roots, form and play. Which should Blizzard fix something that isn't broken? So for many SC2 being as close as possible to StarCraft is an essential element, and to a few SC2 must be totally different and unique as opposed to the original.

 

The game is going to cost 3 times as much
because of it being announced a trilogy

 

 
This is as illogical as it gets in this article... BlizzCon 2008 was when it was announced that Blizzard planned to expand on the rich story of the StarCraft II universe and wanted to offer gamers more in terms of missions, high quality cinematics and more. The only way to do that was to create the trilogy set.

The Terran campaign would be released first followed possibly a year later by the Zerg campaign and then another year for the Protoss campaign.
 
How anyone foresees buying a game a year for 3 years to equal that of one purchase on one day equaling an estimated $150 is beyond me. Seriously how many gamers have bought games with at least 2-3 sequels/expansions? Guild Wars is a prime example of a game having multiple expansion sets released 6 months apart

Not to mention World of WarCraft, with a couple of expansions thus far and a monthly service charge. With WoW the promise is more quality content, which is the identical promise StarCraft II makes.
 
As Blizzard was about to announce their plans at BlizzCon 08 they put up on big screens a keynote slide with a question they asked themselves. How to proceed with StarCraft II development:

 
a)  Keep it simple like the originals
b)  Full-out, more cinematics, more everything
c)  A mixture of both

 
They asked the thousands of fans that attended, which of these options did they prefer? It was a unanimous cry for choice B. More of everything, all out...

What followed displayed that the devs have their fingers on the pulse of the community at large and for the best intentions of the StarCraft franchise.

To allow for more time refining the story elements of the single-player as well as including more high-quality cut scene cinematics, as well as continued precise multiplayer balancing through the years, the game became a trilogy.
 
One fear is that each game would have to be purchased in order to stay competitive in multiplayer, the devs reiterated that this was not true.

Now an assumption, as with the original Broodwar expansion, those with the Terran sequel may possibly only be able to play others with that game, while eventually owning all 3 will open up your competitive play experience through out the next couple of years.

Back to raw math real quick, this past year I purchased approximately 10 games last year, only 1 of which I still play: Call of Duty 4. Now in the last 10 years there is only 1 game I still play, can anyone guess?

My money would have been better invested in 2 games purchased a year ago that I would still be playing now.

The criticism of the trilogy I feel does not truly stem from the cost of all 3 games put together, but rather a feeling that this was done only to extend Blizzard's bottom line instead of benefiting the players.

I find that to be a truly asinine assumption. Blizzard has one of the most dedicated and passionate game development teams in the industry and the most connected community management teams.

They care that people love their games and anything to improve their experience the better, thus the Trilogy was born.

Of the 3 biggest criticisms with the game, this is the one that has some basis to go on. I disagree with it, however can see how this new gameplay feature may scare the most hardcore competitive ICCUPer and ProGamer.

In the original game, the max unit selection was 12 per group and you could only select one building at a time. Thus not only do you have to be knowledgeable in the game to be competitive, you also need the physical dexterity to execute each tactical move with precision, timing and raw speed. This is the reason professional StarCraft players constantly move the mouse and make scv, drone and probe selections at blinding speed. This feverish action means the player does not have to "rev" up the mouse speed and timing once they meet their opponent in battle.

In StarCraft II one of the newest features to the series is multiple unit and building selection. Masses of units can be selected and controlled now and base management is eased with multiple units being built from multiple buildings in a few key strokes. Basically the player has slightly less base/expansion management to consider then the original.

This does not affect high level competitive professional play as the Micro/Macro balance still requires immense skill to execute. What this does however is give new players to the game a better chance at riding up the learning curve as they expand their attention and grow their experience with the many different segments of multiplayer gameplay: base management, scouting, harassment, feints, expanding, attacking, micro/macro etc etc... automine & MBS may also allow Professional players to create even more impressive combat strategies with more time to focus on their army management.

In the end, StarCraft II will be a HUGE improvement and innovative sequel to the best real time strategy game of all time. Gamers will enjoy a fuller and more immersive single player experience, the Starcraft universe will be a much richer and developed (for a possible mmo?) multiplayer balance this time around is key and will continue to be key for years. And the new game will be even friendlier for new players to enjoy.

GG.

 
Related Blog Posts:
StarCraft 2 to be a Trilogy! Terran, Zerg and Protoss Campaigns
StarCraft II, the greatest eSport the world has ever seen
StarCraft 2 Wings of Liberty (Terran Expansion) interview


Subscribe to STARFEEDER's RSS feed:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/starfeeder

And follow me on Twitter
http://twitter.com/starfeeder