Starcraft2Forum.org Exclusive Interview with iNcontrol

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=60

 

Wow. Kind of sobering, I guess, coming from a Starcraft pro to say that the sequel is going to fall short.

However, I still believe that Blizzard will do it right. Even if it takes a year extra - Starcraft II will be ready when it's ready. Not to discredit iNcontrol's opinions, but I think a different style of game is a good thing. It seems like he wants the skill he has playing the original Starcraft to easily transfer over to the new one. I don't think that should be possible. I'm glad there are going to be some new elements, even if it means a decrease in certain micro for macro. This way, everybody will have to play for hours to become skilled at the game - and pros would be no exception.

 

Yeah, i think hes really crying out loud, and some of his statements are just stupid.

 

Wow I have this amazing idea that will make the pros happy, make the normal players happy, make starcraft have huge sales, and last for 10 years. On/Off switch for automining and multiple building selection..

Now we need to all get Blizzard to read this post! I just solved the ultimate problem in theory! (I'm 321% positive it can be done though )

 

Not really. What version is SC2 supposed to be balanced around? MBS is a prerequisite for mechanics like the Protoss warp -in.

As a professional Player it would be surprising if he was pro-easy-UI, especially since he thinks that SC2 will completly and immeadiately replace SC:BW.
Despite what he said he doesn´t want tofight the UI, he already did that and won.
He wants the NEW Players to attempt that. The Players that played SC for 10 years could just continue to play as they were while new Players-competitors would be at a disatvantage.

Hardly anyone can answer objectivly (not that he was supposed to), take a look at his answer about the Zerg-he hates change. If Blzzard shipped SC2 as a graphical update with a new single player campaign but old units/mechanics/controls he would propaply be happy. He understands thats hardly propable, thats why he described SC as "accident" (I agree on that btw.)that can´t b recreated.
NO matter what SC2 won´t be SC and for thouse that worship SC as the perfect game SC can only "fail"
.

 

Yes hes just like: I want it so, and if they change it, I´m going to suicide.

 

Well I do kinda feel that making SC2 a game about micro and less macro is a bad thing. War3 is a good example, it has automining and MBS and all you can do is micro the units you've got. Only thing that I think would work is unlimited (or atleast more than 12) unit selection, as it would make it more fair for Zerg players.

 

Great Article Jonex owerup: you asked some great questions, and got some excellent responses, interested in journalism? (I would like to know what he mentioned about the ultralisks ^_^ , anyways...)
-----------------------------

I highly disagree with some of the above statements. I don't think he is whining, and completely against change. The makers of the game were also taken by surprise over the fact that the game exploded, and lasted as long as it did. It is insanely difficult to recreate something like that.

If you look at SC and SC:BW, you will see that there were a lot of unintended successes, the reverse would also be true just look at the mistakes.

The cinematics don't match with the units, Dark Templar were all made assassins because they didn't have the resources to diversify them. They used the same DT models for a cinematic, even though one of them was a HT (artanis I believe). Also look at the number of units which were neigh impossible to use, that would not have been completely intended.

Those are not the best examples, but they demonstrate the fact that Starcraft was not a completely polished, and utterly crafted success, from its inception. When iNcontrol cites the manuals descriptions of intended uses for units, that is great proof of the fact that Blizzard did not plan every aspect of how each unit could function.
Why else would Blizzard turn so openly to the community? Players found interesting and unexpected uses for units (look at the weird things the Pro's were able to do), and that made the game last. Had units only functioned as Blizzard intended, the game would have been, great, but less dynamic.

 

To all those who are like "it seems he just wants to still own when SC2 comes out"
I say: "It seems you just don't want to get rightfully owned like the newb you are (and yes, you are) when you start playing SC2"
Everyone wants a free fucking lunch.

 

i dont think automining and MBS will make it easier for the noobs...i mean cmon seriously, it wouldnt make a big difference.
i understand how he feels about all this, but lets go for a change. well not change everything. But yes, change is inevitable and change happens all around us.
if sc2 will have "big fight vrs big fights" and the similar micro/macro to sc1, then im happy!! how could you not get happy?! its a change! change from old stuff to new graphics and new units and new concept and new stratecgies and..etc etc..lol =]

and about his mothership comment...oaff...i dno what to say, i think his pissed off with the "superunit" concept. does that mean his pissed of with the thor aswell?? probably eh? so if zerg (his favourite race) gets a super unit...would he get pissed of for that? hmm..
i actually like the superunit concept..although...mothership is not really a superunit anymore, and thor is not really a superunit either. Mothership is a caster, Thor is a tanker...so, yeah..

anywyaz... nice interview, i liked it =]

 

i dont like this guy. i respect him as a pro but he is one example of a super fanboy as they say in b-net.

i like what im seeing in starcraft 2. and i can only say is just play scbw, and dontplay sc2 or better just think that sc2 didn't even existed. there. 8)

i like some korean pro bcoz they think starcraft 2 is going be great as they currently see it.

from what i see he only cares about the gameplay. he dont like the mothership. omg. IMO blizzard should not listen much to this guy.

lol

 

Well duh, if he wasn´t a super fanboy he wouldn´t play tournaments on a 10 year old game. I don´t disreagard his opinions on SC1 but it is easy to overvalue a pros opinion on SC2. They know as much about SC2 as "normals" do but they see it through "SC-tinted glasses".

 

bthe fanboy has far more meaning than just being a hardcore fan or player. what i heard and know, sc fanboys are those who wants only FEW changes in sc2, everything should be simialar to sc1. and i thought fanboys doesn't includes pros but only pro wannabe.

so for this guy being a pro gamer and a fanboy = super fanboy. i like the idea of him as one of the top pro gamer but the fact that he doesn't like what he see in sc2 at the moment and saying or should i say whining about the zergling and mothership makes me considering he is a pro player. and the plus that he dont like MBS, i think boxer doesnt have any problem with that he likes it.

and the fact that he is very much good at scbw makes him very loyal and believe that wverything in scbw was perfect.

but i for one believe that sc1 was NOT perfect in many ways (not only the gameplay but as well as other stuffs such as graphics and lore etc).

i dont want to play sc1.5 like the fanboys wants.

i love sc1 but i want sc2 NOT sc1.5. 8)

 

Don't forget everything this guy said is an opinion, he knows as much as we do.

But it is true on the Mothership thing, you don't need much creativity to think up a unit like that as countless others have done. Compared to the Thor in their first builds the Mothership owned it hands down with every little beam it unleashes being somewhat close to 80? whereas the Thor only has an attack of 27...

But I can see a slight problem with their development as the game seems to be heading in a rock-papers-scissors direction, now you may think thats great as the game utilizes every unit but thats the thing I think incontrol realized, cuz with every unit having an obvious counter it doesn't allow dynamics and new stratagies that you'd think to be impossible, possible.
Sc2 for like a year maybe will of course be full of new strategies since its a new game but on the long term, every unit has its purpose meaning not many new strategies can be spawned whereas sc1 had unintended dfiferences in units.
Just think, newbs to the game say Protoss are the best and Terran are hopeless, reason being? lack of knowledge and skill as we all know Zerg or Terran could own Protoss and vise versa.

I say to keep people happy Blizzard needs to go a little bit crazy with units and stats to make the amazing game sc1 is.

 

Well I´d like to know a alternate design sheme than RPS, or strong against that and weak against another. The only other sheme I can come up with would be cheap weak against expensve. Please elaborate.

Blizzards forte is refinement not innovation.

 

First, never minding what iNcontrol said, what is up with your questions Jon? They were very heavily colored with your own opinions and seriously ruined any sense of neutrality.

Take a look at the MBS question, the Zerg question, the Mothership question. Those don't sound like journalistic neutrality at all. Never mind that they were along the same lines that the interviewee was thinking. How about your comment at the end? I expect better than that. Let's not start making decisions for the readers!

--

Now getting on to the actual content. It sounds like this guy has two big things defining his opinion: fear and ignorance. He is completely unwilling to admit that StarCraft's UI is absolutely archaic in 2008, and will continue to be more and more dated as time passes. There have been advances in RTS UI that have seriously improved the way games are played. That he clings to them because he (erroneously, I hope) believes that the fact that he was able to overcome a broken system is the only thing that separates a newbie from a pro. MBS is not about catering to the new players. It is about cutting out the work so that there is more room for the game.

They're also giving hotkeys tabs that show the units that are in those control groups. Is the fact that players no longer have to memorize, on the fly, the contents of a number going to make the game more shallow, or is it going to free up brainspace for more important things, like understanding the intentions of the enemy, and planning out the best positions to hold battles? It is not as if Blizzard is cutting out one difficult thing and leaving the game the same. They are adding dozens of elements that will make the game much more complex.

They're adding a lot of things to think about on the macro scale that players never had to think about in SC1. Why are we not noticing these things? Has it dawned on nobody that the inclusion of cliff-scaling ground units will make base defense less of a game of "hold the choke?" Where you can have strong, agile ground units come in through a back door that is inaccessible to the units defending the main entrance on the other side of the base? Has nobody noticed that the reimagining of the Terran structure system will make them almost as versatile as the Zerg when it comes to rapid changes in strategy? His statements convince me that, perhaps, a lot of professionals don't deserve to have their positions as the representatives of their game. He loves the dated UI more than the game he's playing with it.

--

I find it absurd that he believes StarCraft's balance came as an accident. When the game was first released, it wasn't balanced. There were definitely sure-fire strategies that made other units obsolete. Why is StarCraft so balanced today? Because Blizzard released a million patches to make it that way. Because they released an expansion that acted specifically to kill the harder-to-address issues. Blizzard is not successful by accident. You don't get "no games that have flopped, ever" by accident. You get that by being incredibly good at what you do.

--

The thing that really takes the cake is his statement about the Zerg information. He seems to believe, along with quite a lot of people who are reading this, that Blizzard has been holding back the Zerg for any reason other than the fact that they can be used to generate hype in the future.

I am confidant that, at the time the game was announced, the Zerg were already playable. All of the old units they intend to keep had been tossed in, and some new units had been implemented (well, duh, we saw four Zerg units at WWI). It is not as hard as you seem to think it is (at least, for a company with the kind of skill and resources Blizzard has) to just spew new units(and structures), with animations, textures, sounds and everything.

Creating the UI for the Zerg is no different from creating the UI for the Terran and Protoss: they are the same thing! They just have different art! It's the same thing with the units, change up come models, some variables controlling range, attack rate, HP, damage, recovery rate... all stuff that would have to be in the engine already if you want to have Protoss units, and you have a different unit entirely. A Zerg unit. A different unit for an entirely different race! I imagine the Zerg are just as far along as the Protoss and Terran. They'd have to be, if they had any intention of balancing them against each other.

We're not seeing Zerg because Blizzard wants us to get our undies in a bundle going crazy in anticipation. Would you log in and check the forums, check SC2's website, as often as you do, hold the game in the front of your mind as you do, if you didn't have the tug of wonder at when the Zerg will be unveiled? No. See? They know what they're doing, 'cause they've already done it. It's not nice of them, certainly, but it is not a result of incompetence on their part.

 

I can understand where iNcontrol is coming from. A lot of SC pros have the exact same opinion as him. They just want an updated engine of SC. They want the old schooled AI. No offence, but they don't want to learn a complete new game. They want to dominate. But this is SC2 we are talking about, not SC1.5.

Many pros are complaining about the issue of MBS. They think it would noobify the game. What these people don't understand is that this is the year 2008. If Blizzard doesn't update the engine, casual gamers are going to complain. Game websites aren't going to give a good review for SC2 because of outdated engine. SC2 would be a laughing stock for its outdated engine. SC2 is not only for the pros/hardcore gamers. It's for everyone. That is why Blizzard is adding in a lot of game mechanics such as the Warp-ins and new unit abilities to compensate MBS. Blizzard is trying to shift the focus more into the battlefield. Just because Blizzard is adding in MBS doesn't mean the whole game would be a lot easier. No offense, but they have to pay attention to the whole aspect of the game. In SC1, if you implement MBS, it would certainly noobify the entire game. But this is SC2. Not SC1 or some SC1.5 that many pros are wanting. SC2 is a complete different game with new units/mechanics added to the game that was no where to be seen in SC1. These pros need to wake up and understand that just because MBS would noobify SC1 doesn't mean it would noobify SC2 because SC2 is a completely different game with added units and game mechanics.

Saying that SC1 cannot be remade in terms of balance is a pure bias opinion. SC1 wasn't balanced in day 1. It took numerous patch + expansion to have what SC1 was today. I am sure it would take quite a while for SC2 to be as balanced as SC1. It would take numerous patch + expansion to reach anywhere to a balanced stage.

 

10-Neon and Ych9 said it perfectly - I can't think of anything else to add.

 

First of all, I think its of extreme importance that readers realize that these are the opinions of a professional Starcraft player. My questions have nothing to do with those opinions, they are simply the method of conveyance to the reader.

Also, you might want to take into account my OWN stances on these issues:

1) The Mothership should be balanced and implemented as a Superunit.

2) MBS and Auto-Mining can and should be implemented in SC2.

HOWEVER, you must also realize that in asking these questions I am facilitating the development of a solidified opinion that can be presented to readers. The best way to do so is not to offer up a counter argument. The best method is to present supporting evidence for an argument which then facilitates the further development of that basic idea.

Just because I asked a question that could be, in a distant universe, interpreted as my support for a particular issue, does not mean that I indeed support that position.

You cannot deny that it is a defensible position (that MBS will emphasize micromanagement play styles). It's entirely possible that it may have that effect.

The idea is that I approach the subject in a neutral way and act as a "supporter" of the ideas expressed by the person being interviewed by offering supporting questions. Does that mean I agree with what he's saying? Of course not. But it's my job to make sure the meaning makes it to the reader without being tainted by my own opinion. Therefore there's three options:

1) Offer questions that are completely boring, neutral, and cannot be construed or interpreted in more than one way (What's your favorite unit?).

2) Offer supportive questions of what I have identified as the belief or opinion of the person being interviewed in order to offer a pure version of what they have to say.

3) Offer unsupportive or negative questions about the opinion I believe is being conveyed, which would in turn affect the way the reader views the opinion.

Furthermore, any comments or critiques I may have made in the article are purely based in vague suggestions about the quality of the person being interviewed. I stated that his opinion is one that Blizzard should considered because of his status in SC2 arena. Is that an incorrect statement? No. Blizzard should listen to his opinion because he clearly has a definitive understanding of the mechanics of the game.

Just as one scientist must listen to another, those of you who disagree with his opinion are required to consider his opinion because of his experience, whether you agree with it or not. Could my comments be construed as support? Of course. If that's what you're looking to find in my words, of course you can find that meaning.

But their true purpose is to present a clear and defined argument without the taint of my own person opinion.

So when you say I failed to offer journalistic neutrality, don't you really mean that I failed to disagree with him?

 

the global mod like ych9 ses it all. great.

when i say starcraft 1 is not completely perfect even now, is not the stats of units but rather the use of unit. mass dragoon is just imba, they are good at air and ground as well as hydra. and late game units and air units are only use often. and who uses the queen? ultralisk was still lacking in its use.

so in sc2 they are making all units usefull and balance such as the bc, now it can counter hordes of hydralish or dragoon(stalker) or marines with the plasma torpedo. in sc1 bc was not effective, they can easily be taken out by large number of units even tier 1 like hydralisk and marines specailly in mineral maps 200 pop which doesnt make sense. lol.

and why build scout if dragoon can get the job done. yes the ghost was kinda useless in sc1, they are mostly use just for fun. but in sc2 they are getting buff up.

i wont be adding anymore examples why i think scbw was not perfect. im tired. =p

so i think sc2 is improving everything lacking in sc1. so IMO sc2 will be better than sc1. if it wasn't for the NONE mbs and automining of sc1 approach, scbw isnt perfect or balance as everyone points out. yes i think without having mbs in scbw helps make it balance as well but it doesn't mean having mbs will make it not balance.

anyway MBS and automing will make sc2 better than sc1 in many ways.