Hier der Ausschnitt aus dem Interview:
Eine Übersetzung spare ich mir mal, weil es nicht so sehr zentral auf Starcraft 2 abzielt. Aber ich werde es kurz zusammenfassen:How does Starcraft 2 fit into what you envision for the Starcraft series?
Wow. That was a really loaded answer. But I'm glad you addressed the issue, so I'll ask you what I've asked a couple other gamers; Does that mean that you see StarCraft the original remaining more relevant as an eSport than its sequel?
- iNcontrol: A very, very scary, and possibly terrible ending to what has dominated the last 10 years of my life. I say this not as a negative Nancy or someone who likes to be Chicken Little, but rather as someone who is faced with what they feel to be the sobering reality of the development thus far. I would like to justify this statement by saying that I think StarCraft was a mistake. The aspects of this game, the unmatchable balance and the depth that has kept it alive and well for 10 years was not intentional. That being said, they are now trying to make that which cannot be made, that is, an equal or possibly a greater version of the original. They cannot, and in trying to do so, they will create an abomination that will fall short. And the mere fact that it is not what SC was means that it will turn off the love a lot of SC loyalists have harbored for so many years. I'd like to add though, that I think a great game could be made. I think it could have SC as the name, and most of the qualities from the original, and I think it could be successful. I just think from what I see and hear now, it isn’t what is being done. But you know what? It’s early, and like with SC, the early stuff was completely different from the final product, and the final product was amazing. So there is hope!
What aspects of the development of the sequel that we’ve seen so far are of concern to you?
- iNcontrol: No. What is certain is that the moment SC2 is launched SC will drop off the face of the earth. All gamers, money, and attention will go to the biggest PC release since Diablo2. I think SC2 will bring in a new era of worldwide eSports. I think the market is on the brink of a massive growth and this title, will result in said growth.
So you feel that the addition of those mechanisms, MBS and auto-mining, will weaken the strategic integrity of the game?
- iNcontrol: A major cause for why SC has lasted this long, and is considered this great of a game is because it is uncharacteristically hard to master. Because of that difficulty, you have players that have achieved top of the world status by mastering micro as opposed to macro or vice versa. Or players balancing the two aspects on a lower level and still experiencing said credentials. That being said I feel SC2 is—wisely, in terms of marketing and economics—trying to be a less intimidating game that any person could go out and buy, and within a week be fairly competent in how it is played. While this is brilliant in terms of short term success in ratings and sales, it will destroy the possibility of a game like SC that will last 10 years and be played on stadium screens in front of thousands of screaming fans. Specifically, I am talking about auto-mining and Multiple Building Selection. These are devices that already exist in other titles and as such can be said to make the game far less complicated, more user friendly and consequently a less difficult and rewarding game to master.
We've held similar discussions and it has always led to an irrefutable point that I believe holds a lot of water. Would not MBS and Auto-mining in fact de-emphasize the importance of macro play styles and heavily emphasize play styles similar to those of Boxer and other "cheese" players that rely heavily on micro play styles to win?
- iNcontrol: Yes, and I have been engaged in month long debates on MBS and auto-mining and how they are not necessarily so bad. But frankly, that’s hog wash. There is a reason why every "top" SC player is against the idea of the computer Auto-Mining/MBS. There is a reason that the illegal hack that plagues Brood War these days comes equipped with Auto-Mining; it cheapens the experience and rewards the lazy or less skilled while flooding the gaming market, in terms of skill, with subpar players able to keep pace with what otherwise would be exceptionally skilled and gifted players. I find SC's attraction in that it is a terrible, terrible beast that requires hours upon hours or even years to master. But once you master it you are rewarded with the attention of a highly competitive fan base and an amazingly addictive level of activity.
How do you feel about the recent changes in the damage types from the complex forms we saw in the original to the more simplistic scheme set up in Starcraft 2. Do you feel this will influence gameplay at a professional level positively or negatively?
- iNcontrol: I think it would effectively demotivate any player from emphasizing macro for sure. If it’s done for you why bother? So to argue that it would create a "boxer-esque" influx is fine, but is that good? I don’t think so. WarCraft III is obviously a "micro" based game with very little in terms of macro. Call me an elitist but I have made my choice between the two games and would never make another. I feel any SC player would tell you the same. A game where both can be emphasized logically offers more depth than a game where only one aspect is emphasized, right? I mean, the mere fact you refer to "boxer" in a game where you could also refer to an iloveoov states the fact that SC is amazingly diverse.
You’re a Zerg player. How do you feel about Blizzard’s lack of information released about your chosen race?
- iNcontrol: Sure. I think the damage types were part of the "mistake" in blizzard's design that ended up being saving graces. Look at the original strategy guide released with SC. They recommended that you use Firebats against Terran and that you bunker your mineral line against raiding Scouts, etc. They had no idea. Part of SC's complexity and mystique is that it introduced a multitude of damage types that allowed for a game to evolve and always change in terms of counters or unit combinations. I think the simplification of damage types speaks towards blizzard's mentality with this game. They want a white washed version of SC that is pretty enough to be on screen but easy enough to where millions upon millions will buy it up and make it the most sold game in the history of PC while lasting only a couple years. That is, unless they do a "BroodWar Expansion”-esque move and essentially redo the game with an expansion.
The Protoss Mothership was a huge sticking point in the development of SC2 for a lot of fans and we all know about the flip flop Blizzard committed regarding the unit. Do you think the unit should’ve been further developed as a superunit? Why or why not?
- iNcontrol: Furious. I came to SC as a young buck solely because of the Zerg race. The style, units and animation all were to my fascination with that genre of aliens found in War Hammer 40k and also James Cameron's "Alien" movies. Right now we see the complete abuse of my race! They have been allegedly working on this game for multiple years and yet they have come up with a "version" of the Zergling and a "version" of a Nydus Canal? Wow, nice job. Two things that already existed you just tweaked around. It kind of adds more elements to my already mounting frustration with Blizzard's handling of my love child.
- iNcontrol: I think the idea of a Mothership in a game that already has a "superunit" like the carrier is ludicrous. It also stamps my assumptions that Blizzard's creativity has gone down the drain. The name, hell even the unit itself has already been done in other games! I think the unit shouldn’t exist as its function is already taken and balancing a game where one race has a super superunit is impossible.
iNcontrol hat keine Zweifel daran, dass Starcraft 2 ein großer Erfolg sein wird, er vermutet auch, dass das Spiel sehr dominant im eSports vertreten sein wird, aber in seinen Augen zerstört Starcraft 2 die "Vermächtnisse"/Tugenden von Starcraft 1. Er meint, dass es ein Spiel ist, dass vor allem für die breite Masse produziert wird und langfristig nicht genügend Potential hat um sich im eSports zu halten und nach 'einigen Jahren' untergehen wird. Er geht sogar soweit, dass er sagt, dass ein 'durchschnittlicher Spieler' schon nach einer Woche fast so gut spielen wird wie die Progamer.
Schuld daran seien vor allem die Neuerungen am Interface (siehe 1ter CR)
Diese Meinung möchte ich jetzt als Ausgangspunkt für eine neue Diskussion nehmen.
Wieviele Innovation verträgt Starcraft 2? Ist die Angst von vielen Progamern berechtigt, oder befürchten sie nur ihre erlernten Fähigkeiten nicht mehr in Starcraft 2 zum Einsatz bringen zu können? Gefährdet zuviel Innivation den Erfolg von Starcraft 2 oder ist es eher andersrum?
P.S.: Zu dem Thema gab es auch schon eine Umfrage, aber mittlerweile hat sich ja auch wieder viel getan, deswegen würde mich das nochmal interessieren.
