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.
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.
Brood War was $40 (CAD) when it came out, had less missions than vanilla SC, only a handful of models (consider that there were very few unique NPC models) and came out 10+ years earlier. I loved the campaign and the story, but just the same I've only played it through fully once and was done. The rest of the time was spent in multiplayer and custom maps.
Expansion prices are standard to me, I don't see why they are a ripoff and what standard pricing model is being compared to here (free to plays? $20 games? $1 apps?), but compared to the pricing model that Blizzard has always used, it's actually cheaper now than it was 10 years ago.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium@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.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium@EternalWraith: Go
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.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumBrood War was $40 (CAD) when it came out, had less missions than vanilla SC, only a handful of models (consider that there were very few unique NPC models) and came out 10+ years earlier. I loved the campaign and the story, but just the same I've only played it through fully once and was done. The rest of the time was spent in multiplayer and custom maps.
Expansion prices are standard to me, I don't see why they are a ripoff and what standard pricing model is being compared to here (free to plays? $20 games? $1 apps?), but compared to the pricing model that Blizzard has always used, it's actually cheaper now than it was 10 years ago.