Contents
The Design of StarCraft II
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [11]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Crystal Dynamics
Sr. Level Designer
 
Gargantuan Studios
Lead World Designer
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [6]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [48]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
 
Designing Games Is About Matching Personalities [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  The Design of StarCraft II
by Chris Remo
23 comments
Share RSS
 
 
October 26, 2009 Article Start Page 1 of 3 Next
 

Dustin Browder's game development career stretches back more than 15 years, to when he worked at Activision on games like MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries, then moved to Westwood Pacific (eventually merged into Electronic Arts Los Angeles) to work for six years on numerous real-time strategy games, mainly in the Command & Conquer series.

In 2005, he joined Blizzard as the lead designer of the feverishly-anticipated StarCraft II -- and now he's back at Activision, in a sense, with last year's Vivendi/Activision merger.

Advertisement

Gamasutra recently sat down with Browder to discuss the inevitable difficulties that come with updating a 10-year-old game while trying to steadfastly avoid feature creep -- and why even after more than half a decade making RTS games, he still wasn't fully prepared for a lead design role at Blizzard.

With StarCraft II, you've said you're trying to avoid making a game that is significantly more complex than StarCraft, even as many individual elements change. How do you make the call as to what stays and what goes?

DB: It's just really tough. We have to make these calls on a daily basis. There were for a long time, and there's still a little bit of it, big debates on the team as to what is enough and what is not enough. What is too much?

We just walked the line, and we look at stuff that we sort of feel is core to the experience: "This is a defining element of the Zerg. We have to have the creep. It's defining." Or, "Siege tanks are a defining element for the Terrans." Then we look at elements where we'll say, "This was fun. We love these things. The fans have obviously been using them. Vultures and spider mines are huge -- but they're not defining elements. You could live without them. I can imagine the Terran army without these things."

So it's a combination of conceptual elements and mechanics. Where we think we can do better, we'll try do better. Stuff that we feel conceptually is not necessary, we'll remove. We've always felt that solo play and Battle.net were the areas where we could really do some stuff that was crazy, that was new and really interesting. And multiplayer really needed to harken to the game's legacy, while at the same time creating enough strategies so you don't think, "Well, I've played this game for ten years, guys. What are you giving me here?"

We want to have enough that it's still fresh. I think we're walking the line pretty well right now.

Even between the single-player and the multiplayer, there have been design differences that mean there are discrepancies in terms of what units are available.

DB: Totally.

Do you worry about that being unintuitive, especially for people who are new to StarCraft?

DB: Not really. We did for a little bit, but then we looked back at our previous games and realized that our solo campaigns have never prepared anybody for an online experience at all. That never worked, right? We always sort of touted it that way -- "It's going to prepare you" -- but it never really did.

Looking back at that, we feel that never really works anyway. This lets us make a much more compelling solo play experience. It can run free and be its own gameplay experience with all kinds of units and all kinds of upgrades, which wouldn't have been possible if we'd restricted ourselves to only the multiplayer set, because the multiplayer wants to become small.

It wants to be reasonable. It wants to be enough that you can keep everything in your head -- so not only do I know what I can do next, but I know what you can do next, and I can play the game in my head a little bit before we actually engage.

You want that sense of there being a very limited number of opening moves in chess, and then a larger set of second moves, and so on.

DB: Yeah. And how many moves can I think ahead of you? That's determining whether I can win or not. So the multiplayer experience needs to be really tight, while the solo play experience doesn't have to be that tight in that sense.

But if we restricted ourselves to the multiplayer units [in single-player], we would ultimately lose a lot of gameplay. We've got a lot of tools that we're going to use -- our challenge mode, like our tutorials, like our improved score screen and improved replay screens -- all to try to help players make that transition from solo play to multiplayer so they can acquire the right skills, instead of leaning on something that never really worked with to begin with.

 
Article Start Page 1 of 3 Next
 
Comments

Rocket Man
profile image
A LOT of people DON'T have an internet connection, or at least a decent one. A lot of people are still on dial-up. It's nice of Blizzard to integrate a lot of online functionality. It's NOT nice of Blizzard to FORCE it on us. If there are people doing real damage to the PC, that's Blizzard and Infinity Ward trying to make us all dance to their tune, towards the golden DLC pay-for-extra-content land.

Thank god I'm not liking at all the battle reports. Each one that gets released looks like less strategy and more frenzied micro. Don't know about the single player, and won't know anyway if the "you MUST be in B.Net" stance doesn't change.

Simon Fraser
profile image
Well, YOU obviously have an internet connection.
It's pretty much mandatory for gaming these days. Even most console games have day one patches.

Interesting article. It would be pretty amazing if blizzard actually managed to start releasing their games faster!

Snake Link Sonic
profile image
I'm more curious to see how the game uses its various tools to overcome the fact that it doesn't have such an advantage now (i.e. Blizzard's track record for making games that will run on basically anything). StarCraft has more competition now and multiplayer might be the hook it needs to effectively supplant its predecessor. I personally don't favor linking multi & single-player experiences (in any way), but I know I'm the type of gamer that's simply being swept along now, along with the wave of things like X-Box Live and World of Warcraft (both of which Browder mentions himself).

Al Tenhundfeld
profile image
I agree the internet is ubiquitous enough that it's acceptable to require internet connectivity for initial activation (within a week or two). And it's acceptable to require a connection if I choose to get new content, patches, etc.

But it's not acceptable to require an internet connection just to play single-player mode.

Nick Kinsman
profile image
... Does anyone else feel like this article more or less completely avoided design topics? Look at the article regarding the design iterations of Shadow Complex and you actually learned something. This ... this ... told me nothing?

J R
profile image
Rocket Man - who would have a pc powerful enough to run this game and still be using dial up? It's like criticising blizzard for not supporting ancient video cards

looking forward to this game - I am sure the population of south korea are as well ;)

Andrew Hopper
profile image
@Nick

They are talking about macro level conceptual stuff, which is important, but yeah, it would be more interesting to see more of what goes into making SC balanced or specifics on resouce management vs. unit management and the like. He talks about what the WANT to do, but don't say anything about what they actually do =(

Bart Stewart
profile image
I would also have liked to hear more about design tradeoffs, but overall it was an interesting personal take on joining a group working on a highly anticipated sequel... even if it did make Blizzard sound rather like a cult. :)

But I too was disturbed by the oblique generalities offered up instead of directly answering the question regarding forcible linkage of the single-player and multiplayer experiences.

"Certainly, looking at what other companies have done, and looking at Xbox Live, which is just a blast to play on, you see another example there of someone who's fairly successfully integrated the whole experience in a really positive way. We hope to accomplish that as well."

It's hard to read this as anything but a Marketing-driven customer-control tactic. Citing supposed advantages of a "fully-integrated" experience fails to directly explain why someone who would happily pay to play a focused single-player game should be forced to accept an unnecessary online requirement.

"Good for Activision" doesn't imply "good for customers," no matter how it's spun.

Jonathon Walsh
profile image
"Good for Activision" doesn't imply "good for customers," no matter how it's spun.

Well said. In both this and in the case of MW the marketing spin just hand waves over the fact that there doesn't have to be a trade-off and the two can co-exist. It's perfectly reasonable to have a large integrated online component AND support for playing offline. It would also be perfectly reasonable to have matchmaking AND dedicated servers (and no it wouldn't ruin the community, no dedicated servers is what does that).

Hélder Gomes Filho
profile image
@J R

Don't forget that you can go to a PC store, buy a powerfull PC and bring it back, but you cannot force your nearest ISP to bring cables or radio towers to near your house. Neither you can force the mountain blocking the sattelite out of the way... And so on.

I am deeply disappointed with Blizzard, I plan to if I ever get Starcraft II (even if I buy a legal copy) to wait for a crack to be released, so I can play without internet, I dislike the idea of not onwing something that I bought, if I have to be online and checked on the blizzard servers to play SP, this mean that I am getting a service, not a product, and I don't want a service. If I wanted I would be playing WoW

Vincent Gallant
profile image
I agree with about everything Hélder said. I will add that if you want to play in a place where you don't have any Internet access (while travelling for example) and you want to play, you're screwed. It removes freedom to the consumer.

Also, I think that forcing multiplayer interaction into a game can become very annoying. Most of the time, I don't care to know that someone else is playing when I play a singleplayer game. I want to delve in it's universe and be immersed, not be reminded repetitively while playing that someone else has completed a certain mission. It can be nice features if it's optional, not if it's forced.

Chris Proctor
profile image
Anyone who thinks Blizzard is in this for a quick extra buck out of its customers isn't thinking straight.

Every Blizzard game is incredible value for money, in terms of dollars per hour or any other measure you can think of. Everyone knows this is going to be a game you buy now (well, buy when Blizzard's bloody well ready ;-) ) and will still be playing in two years.

Kevin Kissell
profile image
I like a good single player RTS game. Like to turn up the level to crazy to try and beat the computer. Never got to into the multiplayer realm with live players, however the RTS games do provide the atmsophere to have wonderful multiplayer games. Never did player StarCraft, but did like Total anihalation by Cave Dog. They were the first to have real 3D RTS game. Played so much the cd wore out. I will try WarCraft II...mayb.

Paopao Saul
profile image
I think that companies like Blizzard and EA believe that they have hit critical mass with these games, like SC2 and MW2. They are betting that tons of people will buy these games despite the public outcry, so they are putting stuff like online authentication etc. in there because they can. Had SC and MW been moderate successes (maybe just 1M each) instead of genre-defining, I don't believe they would push for such drastic authentication schemes and 'enhanced integration'.

As for Blizzard basically saying that every PC nowadays comes with an internet connection, that's illogical. Having a PC with internet capabilities is not the same as having a PC AND having an internet connection. Even if that previous statement were true, it is still impractical for them to force users to connect to a remote server for authentication, after registration, just to play an SP game, or even an MP game, where your opponent is on the other side of the room.

Hélder Gomes Filho
profile image
I agree with Saul (but the part that MW2 is from EA...)

Paopao Saul
profile image
Oh oops, I was reading Bowder's interview above and saw EA. Mixed it up with Activision (as the publisher for MW2).

John Trauger
profile image
I suspect they don't KNOW how to balance the game and have been painted into a corner by pre-release hype. Naturally, not even Blizzard can be that honest.

Without going into detail analysis, which I don't have time for, What I've read online sounds like they instuted a mishmash of "cool" new features creating a game balance nightmare. Since they announced some of the worse offenders, they can't very well pull the plug. I can see looking at editing the force structure of various sides, to try to find a reasonable gradient of inter-side playability that isn't balanced on a swordblade between "you get pwned" and "pwn everyone else."

Soyombo Enkhtor
profile image
You all know that you CAN play this game offline right? Its not mandatory. People should do a better job of informing themselves. The only bummer is lack of LAN but there is probably something in the works since e-sports can't function without LAN.

Hélder Gomes Filho
profile image
@Soyombo

From what I saw you CAN play offline, but it will not save your profile.

Andre Gagne
profile image
Sounds a bit like they're milking the WoW crowd.

J R
profile image
I hope SC2 will be a traditional base building RTS like SC1, and they don't take the path relic did with Dawn of War. The first Dawn of War was a tradtional RTS but the second was more of a small scale tactical game with rpg overtones, similar to company of heroes. I'm surprised they got away with calling it a straight sequel.

Arjen Meijer
profile image
"Make great movies, and we'll come." my own words pointed out to myself :)

The critz on these games are crazy but they still all play them.

Soyombo Enkhtor
profile image
@Helder

You won't be able to save in the "cloud" on a remote battle.net server. You can still save your game on your local machine.


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment