IncGamers were invited once more to Blizzard HQ for a chat with the devs and a sneak peek on the progress of StarCraft II development. Blizzard naturally did not want us to cover multiplayer again, and gave us a very interesting look at the new single player mode and missions.
We have many new single player screenshots, new single player gameplay footage and a very thorough preview (released tomorrow) in addition to this interview where we talk to lead designer Dustin Browder, VP of creative development Chris Metzen and VP of game design Rob Pardo.
What's so exciting about StarCraft II's single player?
"Well, I think the biggest thing for us is the ability for you to choose missions as opposed to on a single rail right and the ability tocustomize your technology," Browder said to us. He thinks "those two things are the biggest things that allow the players to have a different gameplay experience then a lot of other RTS'es have given in the past."
In terms of single player aspects of RTS games, they are usually pretty linear and StarCraft II will try and change that. He said games that take you "straight on a rail" can be fun, "but its on a rail." With the added options for players, you can also choose just how much of the story and the universe you want to take part of. It "allows the players that are really fanatical about the lore to get very deep into the story," while at the same time giving gamers that just want to play the missions "the service level information and move on."
"It was more of a reaction to WarCraft III, honestly" Metzen, the loremaster of Blizzard, told us. WarCraft III and its expansion features a story that is very much embedded into the missions. It has alot of content, but also a completely linear progression. "So we took a few steps back looking as we built StarCraft II," he said. "We identified pretty early that we wanted the feel different." With a system where a player choose his own story "route", it's important that their context is not as immersed in the story. "We wanted the mission dynamics, the mission objectives and the amount of story happening to feel distinctly different from WarCraft III," which is why the team built the Story Mode.
Compared to StarCraft I and WarCraft III, Dustin thinks the big difference is the ingame cutscenes "to get a lot of details of the story we couldn't have done back in the day." The technology didn't exist back then "you either had to do a full pre-render or you had to do an 'in-mission cutscene' which didn't look very good," and was pretty limited. "There is a lot of background and a lot of action which we can see in these characters because we can do these ingame cutscenes. It gives us a lot more freedom to tell a lot more story then we ever could before."
So, how will the missions work in StarCraft II?
Browder said "I think I am most happy with the diversity of missions". All "-Craft" games [WarCraft, StarCraft] have had great diversity, but the team "makes sure that each mission is its own little mini game" in StarCraft II where each mission is unique. Browder said "each one of these mission could be a mechanic for a whole game but we make it just for one mission."
[Browder is quite excited talking about the game, talking really fast,waving his hands]. "We've got missions on lava worlds where you're fighting against rising lava all the time; we've got missions where you're stealing relics from Protoss; we've got hold-outs against the Zerg."
When picking missions, Blizzard don't want players to just pick between what race they should play: "Each mission should feel like its own custom experience," according to Browder, "that really gives you a chance to try out some new mechanics and play a crazy little mini-game each time you sit down to play a mission." There will always be "something that keeps you on your toes and keeps you thinking creatively and thinking differently when you come to each mission."
Our dear lead designer said the game is currently about 30 missions,which might change a little before release. 19 or 20 of those as part of the "critical path" of the story, but "that will also grow or shrink as we get closer to shipping and make more decisions."
"But we have a Battle Report screen I think is enabled in the build you are playing right now," he told us. It's a console on the Bridge in Story Mode "where you can see a whole list of the movies you have seen and a list of missions that you have played so you can play them at will. If you choose A we also put B in that list for you."
If you play these missions, they will not affect your continuity, but are there if you are curious of what happened in the other mission. "So you don't have to do like some "save game shenanigans," where you save, choose, play, load," he said.
The campaign is very individual, and because of this "there is no co-op campaign."
For the completionist who want to play all missions in their own continuity, "you could do it if you play the whole game twice and see everything," Dustin said, but most will likely just use the Battle Report console.
What was your thoughts behind the start of the campaign?
"It's a funky start right?" Metzen asked back. "It's a strange thing. We've always wanted to construct something that wasn't [a] typical video game intro," he said. "I wanted you to get a slow start in these characters."
Blizzard didn't want this story line to be "the same old same old thing," but as a top industry game developer expectations are always high, and it'sa fine line between doing somethign different and disappointing the fans who just want to blow things up.
Action components are very much needed. In either way Metzen told us "it's an experiment to start of a little slower. It has been interesting to see the reactions. A strange experiment, so we are still kind of: "Whoo, please work!", you know? But it has been a lot of fun."
So, what is this Story Mode then?
The Story Mode in StarCraft II is there to "pull a lot of character interactions out of the map experience and put them in their own space," according to Metzen who said the team wanted the game to have a bit of own sense of self: its own vibe. The intent from Blizzard is to give the space RTS "a little bit more retro than WarCraft III", which basically was a RPG in the shape of an RTS.
"It's a little more like adventure gaming to a degree," he told us."It's a little more ambient. You can click on objects and get information about the characters, the history, without it being this linear gameplay in front of you." Blizzard wanted to build a very different world that was attractive to the team. "So we are stilltrying to nail it in and figure it out."
The story mode in Wings of Liberty is either in a small bar on the desert planet Mar Sara (for the first three missions), or the interior of the massive spaceship Hyperion. This is "where you come in between missions to interact with characters, buy different technologies and make some choices about which mission you might want to take next," Browder explained. "One of the critical components of this space is that you can click on all of these characters and have conversations with these characters and learn a lot more about the StarCraft universe."
The original plans was for the Star Map on the Bridge of Hyperion to work as an encyclopaedia for all things related to StarCraft, but Blizzard is "doing a whole different UI for the planets," according to Dustin. Metzen explained the team "wanted the interface to be as clean as possible," and the team "pulled a little bit more away from the grinding 'Encyclopedia Galactica' idea. It just didn't take the shape that we were anticipating."
Blizzard feel "less is more" in this instance and the game "still got alot of lore based on the planets and their histories and their unique environments," according to Metzen. "There's some data there that gives you a sense of the context of each planet." Dustin also mentioned the interiors of Hyperion is full of people and objects to interact with for more background information.
Browder gave us a quick mention of all the Hyperion locations: "Now one of the first places you are probably going to go to when you come back to story mode from a mission is going to be the Armory. What you can do in the Armory is you can purchase different types of technologies to upgrade your units.
"Another place the players will often go to is the Cantina. In the Cantina there is lots of stuff you can do. This is a kind of storycentred kind of place. On of the most important things about this placeis this TV screen which gives you news reports. You can also come in here and buy mercenaries.
"Another location on the Hyperion that you might be visiting pretty frequently is the Lab. You can come here and see how your research is progressing. So you go out and you'll look for alien organisms that you have to find and collect. Once you find enough of them you'll unlock an upgrade.
"So once you're done with the Lab, the last place you're probably goingto go to is the Bridge. In the bridge we've got access to our mission selection. From here you can choose which kind of mission you want to do next. Between the Armory and this, this is the heart and soul of our story mode environment."
There is currently no way to undo tech choices, respecs if you will, and the team is currently discussing it. "There is all kinds of reason not to do respeccing," Browder told us. He don't want players feel they have to "respec" for every mission, but "at the same time, if you actually make a mistake you may want to get rid of it. So there is not a clear answer as to which way is better." The team is looking for somesort of clear answer. "So once we figure it out, we will go with it, but we are still debating it."
| Developer: | Blizzard Entertainment |
| Publisher: | Blizzard Entertainment |
| Release: | TBC |
User comments
He argued that if you add LAN to the equation, players can't get achievements or take part of Battle.net features, so it feels "a little bit dumb". There is also a lot of content "that really comes from Battle.net that we would have to duplicate again specifically for LAN."
I don't want any of this new BNet content.
Achievements are suited to RPGs, not games of skill. In my opinion, having achievements in SC2 feels a little "dumb". I hope they can be disabled.
Social networking etc (which is coming to BNet) is what facebook is for.
Those who want LAN will happily go without this new "content".
They are trying to paint "removing LAN" as "enabling great new BNet features". However, there is no reason why they can't have both. They are separate and independent. Blizzard have fully functional LAN code. They have demonstrated this at previous Blizzcon meetings.
It feels like they are stretching for any possible excuse for removing LAN, no matter how absurd.
The only plausible reasons for removing LAN are:
1) To attempt to reduce piracy.
2) To enable Blizzard to shut down competing starcraft matchmaking systems and competitions.
While removing LAN is bad enough, I wish they would simply state the real reasons for its removal, instead of trying to distract us. They clearly know by now this is an enormous issue.
As someone who values their privacy, thanks but no thanks, Blizzard. I don't want to surrender my personal information to you permanently just so I can play your game.
If I do play your game, it will be a pirated and cracked version that doesn't have these defects.
Lan was a big deal because of slow internet connections and the ability to easily play together in one place.
People complain "Blizz sucks because they removed Lan, now how are all of us who don't have internet supposed to play?"
No I don't have any statistics but I would guess that less than a percent of the people who own a strong enough computer that will be able to play Starcraft II don't have internet. If you can afford a $700 or more computer to play Starcraft II you can pay for internet.
I also understand there are those who live in rural areas with no land line broadband internet. There are still other ways to access the internet through there. (Satellite, etc.)
Also, people act like, without LAN you won't be able to play with your friends? Seriously? You can join a room in Bnet and play, simple.
Nearly everyone has internet these days, the days of Lan are dying, and are becoming wireless. You can still play with a large group of your friends, the only difference is its on Bnet.
The only true reason I can see people complain about Lan, is because they do pirate it, and use illegal ways to play the game.
Firstly, far more people with a SC2 capable computer will not have the Internet. I think your 1% should be at least 5%. But the other factor is people who sometimes do not have the Internet, ie those who take their PCs or laptops away from home.
Most organized LAN parties I have been to have deliberately prevented Internet access. My ex flatmate is on a fishing boat with no Internet, but most of them have laptops. I used to take the train to work with my friend. If we still did, now that we both have laptops, I bet we'd play against eachother.
Other reasons to worry about no offline LAN are:
1) If BNet goes down you can't play. Perhaps blizzard goes bankrupt, or maybe just a temporary server outage or power outage.
2) DRM is a moral issue. It's a fair use and consumer rights issue. Sellers of other commodities are not allowed to specify how they must be used. Laws can specify how commodities (eg guns) must be used, but manufacturers cannot. The worst they can do is invalidate your warranty. Internet authentication is a form of DRM.
3) Those that need or intend to use off-line LAN must now pirate or hack SC2.
However, I completely despise the idea of ever NEEDING internet to play a single player game. It's completely irrational to MAKE me create an account and connect to the internet to play a game by myself. The MOMENT I want to play with other people, fine, make me sign up and connect. But until then you don't need to hear from me. I should be able to buy a game off the shelf, install it, and play immediately without you getting involved. And personally I couldn't care less about achievements or added content most of the time because I just don't play online much these days and I REALLY couldn't care less about showing others how good or bad I am at the game.
I can understand the idea of wanting to try and protect the game, but it's just not going to happen. The game WILL be pirated and whether or not it's as good of an experience or not is beside the point. There are those scum that simply refuse to pay for anything. I agree that making a quality game is the answer. Thankfully for me though, those scum do exist. Because like almost every game I've played in recent years, I'll go buy the game off the shelf, never open it, go home, and find the pirated copy so I can play in peace without the crap that comes on the retail disc. I have 20 or 30 games from several years in a box never opened right now. Some simply for the INSERT CD crap. I've installed the game, skip the CD check please. It's been cracked more times than we can count. It will never work to stop piracy so just stop the charade.
Please for crying out loud... WHY is it easier and more pleasant for me as a law abiding money paying player to find and use the pirated version??? Why am I being punished for buying the game??? If this keeps up, one day I'll probably finally crack and skip the step where I give you money at all.
And WHY might you ask is this such a big point for ME? Well, I pre-ordered Half-Life2... The disc arrived on the day of release. I promptly installed it. AND COULD NOT PLAY THE GAME I BOUGHT AND INSTALLED FOR OVER 3 DAYS!!! Because they REQUIRED an internet connection to register just so I could play the frickin single player by myself and their registration was overloaded. This experience has repeated itself time and time again. So I no longer even attempt to play to the rules. Since the day I began buying the retail copy, but installing the cracked copy... I have never been denied the ability to play the game that I purchased.
And along with all of that... even those of us that have great broadband available find ourselves without internet from time to time. Especially maybe during storms or after storms, or during an ice storm or blizzard. And wouldn't it be nice to be able to play MY game at least BY MYSELF on a day where I'm stuck inside??? Well not if my internet is down. Son of a...!
I could forgive a ONE TIME activation. Like the windows activation doesn't bother me a bit. Or a timely re-activation (like for updates). But any more than that is simply un-acceptable and it's pointless as a piracy prevention because you're just not going to stop it. The pirates would pay thousands of dollars for equipment and software and spend thousands of hours to crack the game simply to say they did it and avoid paying the $50 for the game legit. It doesn't make any sense... well, to me, after the hell I've been put through with broken DRM and games that require an active net connection to play by myself...
I totally understand.
I will be buying SC2, and playing with friends on BNet. But I will also have the pirated version the moment it comes out so that I will never be denied the ability to play simply because my internet might be down at the moment. *sigh*
And dear lord someone tell me that they've fixed the chatbot spam in BNET?? I haven't been on BNET since Brood War because of that (and never being able to play with people because of some service issue or another). PLEASE tell me it's better now???
That was the best written comment I have ever seen. I too have been upset by all that rubbish, although it has never affected me thus-far I'm sure it will. Why buy a product when it is inferior to the "free" one?
Each time Blizzard comes with a new excuse for the lack of LAN, it is even more pathethic.
@aftermathmatical:
No, we can't. Our LAN parties don't have an internet connection. Never needed one, never should need one.
Which I think misses the point a tad. I understand that LAN is a fairly minor feature and probably goes unused for a lot of people, but I still love to see it, particularly as we're getting more and more computers that are compact but powerful. Internet is far more ubiquitous and we're probably not going to see a resurgence in LANs, but there's something that feels wonderfully social about LAN parties, and with laptops capable of flawlessly running modern games (and Eee PCs capable of running some older ones) it's still an option I like to see supported.
If BNet has been 'fixed' so that it is impossible to have spam bots, and if they've dedicated sufficient resources to the servers to overcome lag and service outages... then maybe we won't miss LAN... but I consider those all VERY big IFs.
I would be very shy as an organizer to put together a large StarCraft LAN party event knowing that my event could be totally shut down with the slightest glitch in BNet that day. Without LAN play as a fall-back, Murphy's law could rule the day and cause a great deal of headache.