I'll shmaplefle your shclagorglymorg!
Okay, so, I've been considering making a game for a few months now. I've looked through lots of things, and have determine the bulk of my knowledge in games is under these 4 categories.
(TBoI = The Binding of Isaac)
Over the past 5 or so years, these are the types of games I've been playing. Me being hyper-critical and looking into details, I've been able to come across a lot of knowledge for these. So I'm curious, out of these which do you all think I could do the best?
As a bonus, here is a teaser of some of my knowledge explaining why I don't think Larva Inject in StarCraft II is a good mechanic.
Okay, so please keep in mind these are my opinions. Blizzard has no intention of messing with Macro Mechanics again, this much is obvious, but i never really got to say my opinion on the subject. So let's just keep this to fun and games.
I'm posting this here because hopefully this is a lot less bias than traditional General Chat (God I hope so anyway). This is copy/pasted from another thread though.
So, let's take the time to explain why Larva Inject is a bad mechanic the way it stands (The idea itself can work and StarBow is proof of this). It's a bit of an in-depth reason and it takes more than just saying "because it's useless clicks" but that is a glaring issue. The biggest issue, however, is fundamentally it does not fit Zerg's identity. The main problems as to why Larva Inject is the way it is seem purely due to a lack of understanding of the source material.
When we look at a lot of mechanics in BW, we see a lot of them have an underlining theme. They don't just require player input to work effectively. They take decision making. Simply pressing buttons that you have to press did not do everything for you like Larva Inject or MULEs do, you had to know what you were doing.
That is, the things that weren't purely technical limitations of the game such as selecting 12 units or 1 building at a time or the very small amount of the map shown on the screen at one time which were there not as a design choice, or at least not purely as a design choice, but because it was left-over code from WC2 that they did not have the time or interest to change.
What are examples of this claim? Let's look at how Zerg is different from BW to SC2 in terms of macro. Hatcheries were slowly added on over the course of a game, usually maxing out at 6 to 8. But there is a choice in this, the choice to either tech or throw down another Hatchery. It wasn't uncommon for a Zerg to skip an expansion or macro hatch and instead go purely for quick tech in hopes of tech-smashing the opponent (A tactic very common in the C&C series, as well). This element can be reflected into both Terran and Protoss, though it wasn't as viable.
But why does Larva Inject provide no tactical or strategic importance like this and why is this more important than what Larva Inject does? Larva Inject boils down to being a limiting factor for Zerg. Unlike macro hatches, which were a heavy investment and could be chosen against, Queen Larva Inject has neither of these factors going for it. Instead, it is a requirement to effectively play the race as well as results in numerous units being rendered cost and/or supply inefficient, which is the exact opposite of what Zerg's original identity was. The majority of units were generally efficient in either cost or supply or both, but because they were so cheap, and stats being addressed accordingly to this cheapness, they were still dealt with even in huge numbers. Why is this important when we look at SC2, though? It's a different game, after all. The answer to that is simple. We cannot exceed the predecessor if we do not understand why the predecessor worked. When we can understand this, we can understand how to make a sequel that is different and make it work. This is something that Larva Inject completely fails on.
Larva Inject is a complete misunderstanding of what made Zerg work in the previous installment. Zerg did not work because they could produce tons of units really quickly. Zerg worked because they had highly cost-efficient units that could be produced kind of quickly. Larva Inject, contrarily in SC2, fails at this entirely by producing units too fast and making too many at one time. This resulting in units having to be toned down, which gives a wealth of other problems. Look at how StarBow's Larva Inject works. It is significantly better design wise because it slowly trickles in Larva. It has a bonus for having a lot less maintenance. As well, the Queen has an ability that increases the construction speed of buildings, breaking the second-biggest problem with macro hatches in SC2 - they take too long to build. So you could choose to go with Larva Injects, or make more Macro Hatches. (The other problem with Macro Hatches in SC2 is fixed as well but it's fixed by completely rebuilding the game from the ground-up, it cannot be bandaided easily though I won't say it's impossible.)
Larva Inject has no tactical or strategic purpose. It serves as a dump to raise the difficulty floor, which is something that should be as low as possible, and actually lowers the difficulty ceiling, something that should be as high as possible (Or at least with my understanding of an E-Sport which I will admit is lacking compared to actual game design). The complete removal of Larva Inject, as well as some buffs to Macro Hatches and rebalancing across the board for Zerg units (Totally not hard to do as long as you got the right picture in mind), would see Zerg being more Zergy and less death bally. There would be more time to focus on multiple points across the map as a Zerg.
So, the main points here:
1. Larva Inject is more of a hindrance than beneficial.
2. The way Larva Inject works is a clear misinterpretation of Zerg's identity. (There is absolutely NO reason to change their identity. You can change up all their mechanics all you want, hell you could even remove Larva and Zerg could still work, but changing their identity is something that should never be touched. You'd be better off making a new race.)
3. Larva Inject is pointless clicks, it makes a hard entry-point barrier but makes Zerg easier than BW once you get the hang of it, which is the exact-opposite of what Blizzard and the community as a whole wants.
4. Remove the Baneling, Widow Mine, and Disruptor.
Well, even though I tried as hard as possible to make it descriptive and objective, this is still rather weak and bias. But it should still at least get the point across. I have no hopes Blizzard will actually fix these issues that I see, but at least it is good knowledge to pass on for the future.
No blogs were found matching the criteria specified. We suggest you try the blog list with no filter applied, to browse all available.Join now to share your own content, and encourage our community to get involved and engaged.
An adventure is an exciting or unusual experience. It may also be a bold, usually risky undertaking, with an uncertain outcome.
This is a group for 3rd generation gamers, the 3rd generation is known for being the time of the nes, sega master system, and the atari 7800. this is...
This is a group for everyone who lives 16 bit games, the 16 bit era is known for being the end of the side scroling era and the begining of 3d with games...
The 501st Legion, also known as the 501st Battalion during the Clone Wars and later known as "Vader's Fist" and the Five Hundred and First, was an elite...
This is a group for all people who love or grew up with these 5th gen games. the 5th gen is also known as the 32-64 bit era and is the time of the atari...
The 6th gen is the 128-bit era, this is the time of the ps2, xbox, game cube and sega dreamcast, there was apperintly another console called the XaviXPort...
This is a Adventure Time group were everyone can enjoy Adventure Time without struggle!
For all fans of Age of Empires & Age of Mythology!
No groups were found matching the criteria specified. We suggest you try the group list with no filter applied, to browse all available. Start a group and help us achieve our mission of showcasing the best content from all developers.