|
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.
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.
|
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.
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!
But it's not acceptable to require an internet connection just to play single-player mode.
looking forward to this game - I am sure the population of south korea are as well ;)
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 =(
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
From what I saw you CAN play offline, but it will not save your profile.
The critz on these games are crazy but they still all play them.
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.