A 4th race argument doesn't make sense in the slightest outside of a custom map scenario. I've argued this point many times on different forums in the past, and it's always brought down to one fundamental point - You don't understand Starcraft if you want a 4th race.
A 4th race is highly idealistic and difficult to argue against. People have an idea in their mind of something shiny and new. They're bored seeing the same 3 races. They run with ideas and think 'Yeah! That'd be great to add!'. It's all an illusion though, and it's a case of 'the grass is greener on the other side', simply wanting something that doesn't exist. I can't argue with whatever image of a perfectly balanced 4th race you have visualized in your mind, so I won't.
This is incomparable to Warcraft because War3 doesn't have a strong asynchronous balance model. Each faction contains units parallel to each other, and gameplay draws upon a Rock Paper Scissors model. This is the type of game that you could add 5+ races to and still be fairly balanced, because the strategy was focused on Hero use and micro rather than unit composition. Keep in mind that Warcraft 3 was originally designed with 6 races until they cut 2 in development.
The reality is that the 3 races are more than enough depth to keep the game interesting due to the strategic depth that exists between each of the matchups. This is what allowed SC1 to be so popular for so long. It's not about adding more, it's about adding what's needed to keep gameplay interesting. The current 3 offer enough depth for you not need more races, you simply aren't investing the time to learn or master the game - a 4th race isn't going to fix that.
I was going to reply to that, but the fact that some of you think Starcraft 2 has strategic depth..Well...Yea.
Dawn of War the first RTS has so many races. All felt unique, fun, and viable. Granted some things were unbalanced but thats another point. Thats a game with lore and strategy I can get immersed in.
Blizzard cant think out of the box and be original anymore. Jump on the bandwagon to defend them because neither can you, and so make whatever excuses to try and prove a point.
There are those who play SC2 for fun, and those who play SC2 for competition, almost like a sport.
Let's look at soccer. The rules of soccer have been the same for I have no idea how long. Sure, they change once in a while, depending on age, location, funding, etc etc. But in general, the rules stay the same. This allows for the game to remain consistently competitive. However...
Let's look at recess soccer. A game where there are no rules. Play with 4 balls? Why not. 3 nets, 3 teams? Awesome! No out-of-bounds? Sweet! Super fun, but likely unbalanced, unprofessional, and far too dynamic.
But still, tons of people play soccer in these ways. Adding a 4th race will mess with competitive gameplay way, way too much, right? In the same way that adding a 3rd goal will totally screw up soccer, right? Well...
No, not really. Not at all, actually. I remember back when they first changed the jungle in LoL, not so long ago. It was an outrage for a week. Then people got used to it.
In video games, there is ONE version of the game you can play. Everyone plays the same SC2. It's not like soccer, where there is no "owner". If some country decides soccer should have 3 goals, well, good luck to them. It's not going to catch on.
But sometimes change is for the good, is it not? Not always, but sometimes. A 4th race would be very, very possible to implement. And it would be awesome. New ways to play the game, new directions to take the story in, and a more dynamic system.
There is only so much you can do to the Terran, Zerg, and Protoss.
One thing that I would say, is that the 4th race shouldn't be in latter, at least not until it is fully balanced with the other races. But honestly... The only reason why adding a 4th race seems so out of the question, is because Starcraft has had 3 for so long. Break out of that mindset, and a lot of opportunities present themselves.
Unfortunately, there are other issues with adding a fourth race. It would screw with the balance majorly, and would likely get added in with just half-assed lore which would piss lots of people off.
That said, there is something that they could do which would not require too much extra balancing and would be lore friendly. That being, adding different factions for each race, like Dominion and UED for Terrans, and the Tal'Darim for Protoss, and different Zerg broods which could maybe each have a special unit or two and some perks. Might not work too well, but it could be fun and add some variety.
For example, you guys like to buy those shooting games EVER YEAR claiming that it is better than the one before...saying it for the past 5 years. And then I heard theres like a lot of expansion packs for that too?
As for me, I don't play a gazillion video games like you guys, and that the only game I will be playing is sc2.
+1! Talk about thinking what I am thinking. People, especially in the US tend to havce a whole case or box of games. Aka they buy 1 game, change it in a few months, suck at every game they play. I for one played SCBW 2-3 years in the 90s, 2 years of Diablo 2 LoD, and here it comes: almost 8 years of War3 and 2010 - now: SC2.
I do not need other games - what if I have more real life besides a job - gf, other interests, something to save my eyes from monitors (at least from a while), why would I need endless games like WoW... or 5 games to complete?
Like in War3, I've been into 1v1 melee all the time, that's how you can become good at least to not be so sucking. Whenever I felt like doing something else, I was always using the editor. The trend continued in SC2. Tthat plus playing melee with much better than me mates is enough, 1 GAME, I didn't even need D3 although was gonna buy it but I don't think I am missing much, (I sometimes give too little to my playing from using the editor more times lately)
That said, there is something that they could do which would not require too much extra balancing and would be lore friendly. That being, adding different factions for each race, like Dominion and UED for Terrans, and the Tal'Darim for Protoss, and different Zerg broods which could maybe each have a special unit or two and some perks. Might not work too well, but it could be fun and add some variety.
Like CnC Kanes Wrath. It actually worked well in that game As you say, adds some variety and its fun.
What I liked about Wc3 is just the amount of openings you can go with in terms of hero and following with army comp.
Starcraft 2 gets very boring, You basically have specific units designed for use only against a particular race instead of being useful in a variety of situations. Like Mech for Zerg, Bio for Toss. Only.
I was going to reply to that, but the fact that some of you think Starcraft 2 has strategic depth..Well...Yea.
Dawn of War the first RTS has so many races. All felt unique, fun, and viable. Granted some things were unbalanced but thats another point. Thats a game with lore and strategy I can get immersed in.
Blizzard cant think out of the box and be original anymore. Jump on the bandwagon to defend them because neither can you, and so make whatever excuses to try and prove a point.
Alright, where is your evidence that SC2 has no strategic depth? Why are there a multitude of viable builds for each matchup? Why is there a high skill ceiling? Why do new strategies emerge and become popular every couple months? Why does the metagame shift all the time? No strategic depth, right?
Starcraft 2 gets very boring, You basically have specific units designed for use only against a particular race instead of being useful in a variety of situations. Like Mech for Zerg, Bio for Toss. Only.
I can say this about any RTS ever made. But if you genuinely feel that it's a problem, good luck fixing it by adding a whole new race to the mix for no apparent reason.
Ask yourself the following question: do you really think that Blizzard would be incapable of adding a fourth race to the game without making it generally worse?
Right, didn't think so. Now ask yourself the following question: what new content is HOTS adding that we will actually experience as new? Right! A (probably damn good) single-player experience and a couple of new units per race in multiplay.
Next and last step: project this answer to the question onto other Strategy games that have expansions. Imagine WarCraft 3 started off with 4 playable races but just the Human campaign included, and that The Frozen Throne had included the new units it has and the Undead campaign. Imagine C&C3: Kane's Wrath adding a NOD campaign and 6 new units. Imagine the Age of Empires II expansion adding just one campaign with a race already in the game and 2 new units per race. Imagine Yuri's revenge adding just a Soviet campaign and 3 new units for both sides. Imagine Brood War adding 1 new campaign instead of 3. I could keep going.
There's literally virtually no comparison. At best HOTS is comparable to the Civilization 5 expansion - it seems meager to every other game I can compare it with, and I've really been trying. Try it, let me know if you have more succes.
well if brood war had gave us only one campagin that would have been bad, but keep in mind that the amount of missions in wol was near to the whole campaign of starcraft 1 (as i remember it was even more) and hots will give more missions than bw did so actually you will have at least two time longer campaign with all the three game.
A 4th race belongs in single player and custom maps. In general I could care less, but ladder needs to have tight balance between 3 races (yes, that is the magic number).
Let's not forget about custom games! Custom games, in my opinion, is what makes SC2 so awesome. Think about it, you can make Call of Duty, you can make Halo, you can make Age of Empires, anything you want! It's like having one game that allows you to play all the others! Getting bored of playing ladder games all day? Then find a custom game and get good at it. Squadron Tower Defense kept me going for awhile (Though I wish the Oceanic builder would be finished), and now Colonial Line Wars has my attention. Then, if you feel that custom games are getting old, or you see your ladder rank in the 20's or 30's, go play some more ladder games. My point is, unless you spend hours upon hours on starcraft each day, (Even then, if you play competitavley, you need to), it shouldn't get boring. Then people say there aren't any good custom games. HoTS will have a feature that allows you to play all games from all servers around the world. You could also spend some time making a game. That's fun too.
Campaign-wise shouldn't you count how many hours it is and its pacing instead of how many races you play? It seems pretty irrelevant. I'm still doubtful about the pricing though, don't get me wrong.
Eh, honestly it just feels wrong and incomplete. Every other RTS with SP I've played offered campaigns for each of major races. I think that's how it's been from the beginning of time, and playing through them gave a nice insight into their universes and feeling of completion and closure upon finishing those games. Closure feels compelling and rewarding. It can leave a cliffhanger, but by that time you're usually satisfied, you feel like game gave you everything it had to offer.
But WoL left me irritated and with a feeling of cheapness. "Ya, sorry pal, the business suits demand there to be two more expansions and we can't pull off three coherent conflicts - so we'll just do one race at a time justifying it that the story is just too epic to be told in a single 20h playtime." After which they went on to fill WoL with barely relevant filler missions :D
They stepped away from proven model to replace it with their own lousy worse-executed thing.
@OP Getting hots because I like new toys in form of all the lovely assets it'll provide. Plus I'm sure that campaign will be fun to play (if you're cheese resistant).
I was going to reply to that, but the fact that some of you think Starcraft 2 has strategic depth..Well...Yea.
Dawn of War the first RTS has so many races. All felt unique, fun, and viable. Granted some things were unbalanced but thats another point. Thats a game with lore and strategy I can get immersed in.
It's true DoW is immersive, way more than SC2... It's true it's unbalanced as well, which shows it's probably not a good idea to add too many races if you want a game to be competitive. SC2 has asymetric gameplay, DoW doesn't... which makes it even harder to add a 4th race! Basically, DoW is all about positioning (finding cover, holding strategic points,...), SC2 and TFT on the other hand are all about the army composition (training units fast and finding the proper counter to the opponent's army). I like both Blizzard games and DoW but let's be honest here, if I have to watch pro players having a duel I'd rather watch them play SC2. DoW has slower, longer games, and the issue of a game does not rely on as many factors as in SC2 or TFT. It's basically like comparing chess (DoW) and poker (SC2).
They stepped away from proven model to replace it with their own lousy worse-executed thing.
Funny you'd say that... Usually people complain that big companies are not taking any risk and doing shitty games that look exactly the same as the game going by the same name from last year... Resident Evil, Splinter Cell, Call of Duty, etc... There are almost too many to count! Right now Blizzard is taking a risk at not providing something that every player would expect, and you're still not OK with it. And people wonder why Blizzard won't listen to them? Talk about fanboys... You can't please them all, because none of them ever agrees on what the perfect game would be. It's generally a good advice NOT to listen to fanboys and lead your game in a completely new, unexpected direction, because they will complain either way. Basically, listen to what they say so you know what you should and shouldn't do.
Yeah, you're right. I'm glad blizzard are trying new things. Splitting single story over three parts to tell it over 6 years is awesome. And the new things they made up in D3 were amazing. Can't wait to see what other new things blizz will implement into their next games. Their new b-net service was a revolution!
I wish I was an easily impressed kid like I was 10 years ago, then I could I could honestly marvel at their innovations and creativity, instead I'm now a grumpy man who can't shake off the feeling that blizz aren't trying new things, they're desperately rejecting their old designs. Burn the past, reinvent the future!
lead your game in a completely new, unexpected direction
For some reason this fragment reminded me of C&C4.. completely new and unexpected direction. *sigh*
Trying new things is good, how else can we move forward. But I would appreciate if those new things didn't suck. Sorry for subjectivity and bad taste that doesn't approve new things that use my cherished attachments as testing grounds.
Well, boredom isn't a good gauge of strategic depth. I find chess boring to watch, but I respect that the game does have a high level of strategy.
What you're asking for are gimmicks to make the game more interesting to you. I've played around with the idea of wanting subfactions for each race, 4th/5th race ideas and such myself, but once I figured how the game actually worked I realized a lot of those ideas get in the way of the actual gameplay design and I realized why Starcraft players are so fanatic about balance. It becomes less about 'Make more reapers because I like jetpacks' and more about 'Make reapers because the enemy main is unprotected'.
I'm fine with having different viewpoints on the subject, but really, your boredom of certain matchups doesn't make Starcraft 2 any less strategic.
Yeah, you're right. I'm glad blizzard are trying new things. Splitting single story over three parts to tell it over 6 years is awesome. And the new things they made up in D3 were amazing. Can't wait to see what other new things blizz will implement into their next games. Their new b-net service was a revolution!
Isn't it obvious what's next? Auction House: The Game! Instead of wasting your time grinding to get expensive loot, you can skip the middleman and just give all your money to Blizzard right from the get-go! ;D
Yet, they tried. No doubt it's a matter of tastes, but they have done something that no other video games company would have. I'm kind of bored of reading people saying "Blizzard is not what it used to be", as far as I'm concerned I enjoyed D3 and it does not "suck". I have no issue with splitting SC2 in 3 games either, and yet I'm one of the first to complain when games are offering DLCs no longer than a week after their release (SF4 is worth $120 of DLCs... no comment...)!
Of course Blizzard does bad choices once in a while, and one may think they tend to do it a lot lately, but from what I know about the company, it's pretty much all about waiting. Their games are not that good when they come out, it's only after years of feedback that they can start changing it and making it better. In the meantime, fanboys will whine and complain... If you want to see for yourself, just compare the vanilla version of WoW and what it has become now. It's pretty much like night and day! Comparing the vanilla SC to its expansion is like night and day as well, so you should expect SC2 to be what it's supposed to be when the last expansion will be released. Bored of waiting? Then play other games, there are more than enough to fill your needs.
Yeah, it’s the matter of taste. My expectations were too high thus I’m still feeling a bit sad. And as someone who knows what goes into creating games you’re annoyed by all the ungratefulness that goes around.
Of course Blizzard does bad choices once in a while, and one may think they tend to do it a lot lately, but from what I know about the company, it's pretty much all about waiting. Their games are not that good when they come out, it's only after years of feedback that they can start changing it and making it better.
Something feels wrong with this. Blizz aren't small isolated group of people making games. They're a big company with many talented people in a world where computer games are a pretty common for of entertainment. I would imagine that they understand what makes a compelling experience. I would also hope that they build upon knowledge gained from their previous titles, seeing as they stood the test of time. And yet.. I just don't understand what happens inside there. SC2 and D3 were in development for years, I thought it was enough time to make breathtaking games mesmerizing me in every way. And yet they were just bare bones at launch. Poor naive me, right?
I'm not bored of waiting, I'm just bitter from realization that that what once was "blizzard" quality is now "meh, at least graphics are pretty".
I was about to give a long answer but I misclicked... In a nutshell: Big companies think that DLCs and F2P games are the new business model. They found their gold mine and will keep exploiting it until players stop being fooled. Which means they're also getting lazy. Blizzard is no exception unfortunately, and the reason behind this is you need an awful lot of money to make AAA games. When they don't sell (especially because of fanboys reviewing the game and saying it's bullshit), the company is forced to find a solution. Blizzard made its auction house, which you may not like but is still apart from the usual business models (F2P, DLCs and such). Anyway, in my opinion Ubisoft is the "least lazy" of them all. They're taking risks with new projects (Watch Dogs, anyone?) yet keeping their blockbusters alive to please their fans (even if it doesn't work, they try). But Blizzard can't afford doing the same because they don't have as much staff as Ubisoft does. As dumb as it sounds, it's mainly a matter of manpower above all else. Their games may not be as astonishing as what the bigger companies can do now, but at least it has its own identity and plays smoothly. As long as it's fun (and don't tell me SC2 is not), I'm good.
This x 1000.
@Gradius12: Go
I was going to reply to that, but the fact that some of you think Starcraft 2 has strategic depth..Well...Yea.
Dawn of War the first RTS has so many races. All felt unique, fun, and viable. Granted some things were unbalanced but thats another point. Thats a game with lore and strategy I can get immersed in.
Blizzard cant think out of the box and be original anymore. Jump on the bandwagon to defend them because neither can you, and so make whatever excuses to try and prove a point.
My thoughts:
There are those who play SC2 for fun, and those who play SC2 for competition, almost like a sport.
Let's look at soccer. The rules of soccer have been the same for I have no idea how long. Sure, they change once in a while, depending on age, location, funding, etc etc. But in general, the rules stay the same. This allows for the game to remain consistently competitive. However...
Let's look at recess soccer. A game where there are no rules. Play with 4 balls? Why not. 3 nets, 3 teams? Awesome! No out-of-bounds? Sweet! Super fun, but likely unbalanced, unprofessional, and far too dynamic.
But still, tons of people play soccer in these ways. Adding a 4th race will mess with competitive gameplay way, way too much, right? In the same way that adding a 3rd goal will totally screw up soccer, right? Well...
No, not really. Not at all, actually. I remember back when they first changed the jungle in LoL, not so long ago. It was an outrage for a week. Then people got used to it.
In video games, there is ONE version of the game you can play. Everyone plays the same SC2. It's not like soccer, where there is no "owner". If some country decides soccer should have 3 goals, well, good luck to them. It's not going to catch on.
But sometimes change is for the good, is it not? Not always, but sometimes. A 4th race would be very, very possible to implement. And it would be awesome. New ways to play the game, new directions to take the story in, and a more dynamic system.
There is only so much you can do to the Terran, Zerg, and Protoss.
One thing that I would say, is that the 4th race shouldn't be in latter, at least not until it is fully balanced with the other races. But honestly... The only reason why adding a 4th race seems so out of the question, is because Starcraft has had 3 for so long. Break out of that mindset, and a lot of opportunities present themselves.
Great to be back and part of the community again!
@TacoManStan: Go
Unfortunately, there are other issues with adding a fourth race. It would screw with the balance majorly, and would likely get added in with just half-assed lore which would piss lots of people off.
That said, there is something that they could do which would not require too much extra balancing and would be lore friendly. That being, adding different factions for each race, like Dominion and UED for Terrans, and the Tal'Darim for Protoss, and different Zerg broods which could maybe each have a special unit or two and some perks. Might not work too well, but it could be fun and add some variety.
+1! Talk about thinking what I am thinking. People, especially in the US tend to havce a whole case or box of games. Aka they buy 1 game, change it in a few months, suck at every game they play. I for one played SCBW 2-3 years in the 90s, 2 years of Diablo 2 LoD, and here it comes: almost 8 years of War3 and 2010 - now: SC2.
I do not need other games - what if I have more real life besides a job - gf, other interests, something to save my eyes from monitors (at least from a while), why would I need endless games like WoW... or 5 games to complete?
Like in War3, I've been into 1v1 melee all the time, that's how you can become good at least to not be so sucking. Whenever I felt like doing something else, I was always using the editor. The trend continued in SC2. Tthat plus playing melee with much better than me mates is enough, 1 GAME, I didn't even need D3 although was gonna buy it but I don't think I am missing much, (I sometimes give too little to my playing from using the editor more times lately)
Like CnC Kanes Wrath. It actually worked well in that game As you say, adds some variety and its fun.
What I liked about Wc3 is just the amount of openings you can go with in terms of hero and following with army comp.
Starcraft 2 gets very boring, You basically have specific units designed for use only against a particular race instead of being useful in a variety of situations. Like Mech for Zerg, Bio for Toss. Only.
Alright, where is your evidence that SC2 has no strategic depth? Why are there a multitude of viable builds for each matchup? Why is there a high skill ceiling? Why do new strategies emerge and become popular every couple months? Why does the metagame shift all the time? No strategic depth, right?
I can say this about any RTS ever made. But if you genuinely feel that it's a problem, good luck fixing it by adding a whole new race to the mix for no apparent reason.
You guys are missing the point.
Ask yourself the following question: do you really think that Blizzard would be incapable of adding a fourth race to the game without making it generally worse?
Right, didn't think so. Now ask yourself the following question: what new content is HOTS adding that we will actually experience as new? Right! A (probably damn good) single-player experience and a couple of new units per race in multiplay.
Next and last step: project this answer to the question onto other Strategy games that have expansions. Imagine WarCraft 3 started off with 4 playable races but just the Human campaign included, and that The Frozen Throne had included the new units it has and the Undead campaign. Imagine C&C3: Kane's Wrath adding a NOD campaign and 6 new units. Imagine the Age of Empires II expansion adding just one campaign with a race already in the game and 2 new units per race. Imagine Yuri's revenge adding just a Soviet campaign and 3 new units for both sides. Imagine Brood War adding 1 new campaign instead of 3. I could keep going.
There's literally virtually no comparison. At best HOTS is comparable to the Civilization 5 expansion - it seems meager to every other game I can compare it with, and I've really been trying. Try it, let me know if you have more succes.
@Mozared: Go
well if brood war had gave us only one campagin that would have been bad, but keep in mind that the amount of missions in wol was near to the whole campaign of starcraft 1 (as i remember it was even more) and hots will give more missions than bw did so actually you will have at least two time longer campaign with all the three game.
A 4th race belongs in single player and custom maps. In general I could care less, but ladder needs to have tight balance between 3 races (yes, that is the magic number).
Let's not forget about custom games! Custom games, in my opinion, is what makes SC2 so awesome. Think about it, you can make Call of Duty, you can make Halo, you can make Age of Empires, anything you want! It's like having one game that allows you to play all the others! Getting bored of playing ladder games all day? Then find a custom game and get good at it. Squadron Tower Defense kept me going for awhile (Though I wish the Oceanic builder would be finished), and now Colonial Line Wars has my attention. Then, if you feel that custom games are getting old, or you see your ladder rank in the 20's or 30's, go play some more ladder games. My point is, unless you spend hours upon hours on starcraft each day, (Even then, if you play competitavley, you need to), it shouldn't get boring. Then people say there aren't any good custom games. HoTS will have a feature that allows you to play all games from all servers around the world. You could also spend some time making a game. That's fun too.
@Mozared: Go
Campaign-wise shouldn't you count how many hours it is and its pacing instead of how many races you play? It seems pretty irrelevant. I'm still doubtful about the pricing though, don't get me wrong.
@SheogorathSC: Go
Eh, honestly it just feels wrong and incomplete. Every other RTS with SP I've played offered campaigns for each of major races. I think that's how it's been from the beginning of time, and playing through them gave a nice insight into their universes and feeling of completion and closure upon finishing those games. Closure feels compelling and rewarding. It can leave a cliffhanger, but by that time you're usually satisfied, you feel like game gave you everything it had to offer.
But WoL left me irritated and with a feeling of cheapness. "Ya, sorry pal, the business suits demand there to be two more expansions and we can't pull off three coherent conflicts - so we'll just do one race at a time justifying it that the story is just too epic to be told in a single 20h playtime." After which they went on to fill WoL with barely relevant filler missions :D
They stepped away from proven model to replace it with their own lousy worse-executed thing.
@OP Getting hots because I like new toys in form of all the lovely assets it'll provide. Plus I'm sure that campaign will be fun to play (if you're cheese resistant).
It's true DoW is immersive, way more than SC2... It's true it's unbalanced as well, which shows it's probably not a good idea to add too many races if you want a game to be competitive. SC2 has asymetric gameplay, DoW doesn't... which makes it even harder to add a 4th race! Basically, DoW is all about positioning (finding cover, holding strategic points,...), SC2 and TFT on the other hand are all about the army composition (training units fast and finding the proper counter to the opponent's army). I like both Blizzard games and DoW but let's be honest here, if I have to watch pro players having a duel I'd rather watch them play SC2. DoW has slower, longer games, and the issue of a game does not rely on as many factors as in SC2 or TFT. It's basically like comparing chess (DoW) and poker (SC2).
Funny you'd say that... Usually people complain that big companies are not taking any risk and doing shitty games that look exactly the same as the game going by the same name from last year... Resident Evil, Splinter Cell, Call of Duty, etc... There are almost too many to count! Right now Blizzard is taking a risk at not providing something that every player would expect, and you're still not OK with it. And people wonder why Blizzard won't listen to them? Talk about fanboys... You can't please them all, because none of them ever agrees on what the perfect game would be. It's generally a good advice NOT to listen to fanboys and lead your game in a completely new, unexpected direction, because they will complain either way. Basically, listen to what they say so you know what you should and shouldn't do.
@ZealNaga: Go
Yeah, you're right. I'm glad blizzard are trying new things. Splitting single story over three parts to tell it over 6 years is awesome. And the new things they made up in D3 were amazing. Can't wait to see what other new things blizz will implement into their next games. Their new b-net service was a revolution!
I wish I was an easily impressed kid like I was 10 years ago, then I could I could honestly marvel at their innovations and creativity, instead I'm now a grumpy man who can't shake off the feeling that blizz aren't trying new things, they're desperately rejecting their old designs. Burn the past, reinvent the future!
Edit:
For some reason this fragment reminded me of C&C4.. completely new and unexpected direction. *sigh* Trying new things is good, how else can we move forward. But I would appreciate if those new things didn't suck. Sorry for subjectivity and bad taste that doesn't approve new things that use my cherished attachments as testing grounds.
@EternalWraith: Go
Well, boredom isn't a good gauge of strategic depth. I find chess boring to watch, but I respect that the game does have a high level of strategy.
What you're asking for are gimmicks to make the game more interesting to you. I've played around with the idea of wanting subfactions for each race, 4th/5th race ideas and such myself, but once I figured how the game actually worked I realized a lot of those ideas get in the way of the actual gameplay design and I realized why Starcraft players are so fanatic about balance. It becomes less about 'Make more reapers because I like jetpacks' and more about 'Make reapers because the enemy main is unprotected'.
I'm fine with having different viewpoints on the subject, but really, your boredom of certain matchups doesn't make Starcraft 2 any less strategic.
Isn't it obvious what's next? Auction House: The Game! Instead of wasting your time grinding to get expensive loot, you can skip the middleman and just give all your money to Blizzard right from the get-go! ;D
@DuckyTheDuck: Go
Yet, they tried. No doubt it's a matter of tastes, but they have done something that no other video games company would have. I'm kind of bored of reading people saying "Blizzard is not what it used to be", as far as I'm concerned I enjoyed D3 and it does not "suck". I have no issue with splitting SC2 in 3 games either, and yet I'm one of the first to complain when games are offering DLCs no longer than a week after their release (SF4 is worth $120 of DLCs... no comment...)!
Of course Blizzard does bad choices once in a while, and one may think they tend to do it a lot lately, but from what I know about the company, it's pretty much all about waiting. Their games are not that good when they come out, it's only after years of feedback that they can start changing it and making it better. In the meantime, fanboys will whine and complain... If you want to see for yourself, just compare the vanilla version of WoW and what it has become now. It's pretty much like night and day! Comparing the vanilla SC to its expansion is like night and day as well, so you should expect SC2 to be what it's supposed to be when the last expansion will be released. Bored of waiting? Then play other games, there are more than enough to fill your needs.
@ZealNaga: Go
Yeah, it’s the matter of taste. My expectations were too high thus I’m still feeling a bit sad. And as someone who knows what goes into creating games you’re annoyed by all the ungratefulness that goes around.
Something feels wrong with this. Blizz aren't small isolated group of people making games. They're a big company with many talented people in a world where computer games are a pretty common for of entertainment. I would imagine that they understand what makes a compelling experience. I would also hope that they build upon knowledge gained from their previous titles, seeing as they stood the test of time. And yet.. I just don't understand what happens inside there. SC2 and D3 were in development for years, I thought it was enough time to make breathtaking games mesmerizing me in every way. And yet they were just bare bones at launch. Poor naive me, right?
I'm not bored of waiting, I'm just bitter from realization that that what once was "blizzard" quality is now "meh, at least graphics are pretty".
I was about to give a long answer but I misclicked... In a nutshell: Big companies think that DLCs and F2P games are the new business model. They found their gold mine and will keep exploiting it until players stop being fooled. Which means they're also getting lazy. Blizzard is no exception unfortunately, and the reason behind this is you need an awful lot of money to make AAA games. When they don't sell (especially because of fanboys reviewing the game and saying it's bullshit), the company is forced to find a solution. Blizzard made its auction house, which you may not like but is still apart from the usual business models (F2P, DLCs and such). Anyway, in my opinion Ubisoft is the "least lazy" of them all. They're taking risks with new projects (Watch Dogs, anyone?) yet keeping their blockbusters alive to please their fans (even if it doesn't work, they try). But Blizzard can't afford doing the same because they don't have as much staff as Ubisoft does. As dumb as it sounds, it's mainly a matter of manpower above all else. Their games may not be as astonishing as what the bigger companies can do now, but at least it has its own identity and plays smoothly. As long as it's fun (and don't tell me SC2 is not), I'm good.