Most of the beta tests follow what Rym was suggesting. There is typically little or no tutorial information and they use the things that players fumble on in order to create initial or better versions of their tutorials and how to play the games. When I was beta testing Planetside, there were NO instructions in the game other than what your keybinds were. As beta progressed and more people entered the game, they tweaked the game to assist players. For example, by the time the game was in full release, they had a system where you gained experience and were able to view a pop-up game window with descriptions of new things you were looking at or using, and training rooms where you could test out all of the equipment and vehicles.
Often times, tutorials are added after all the beta phases in a final form because MOST of the people who sign up for beta already know about the game and have a basic understanding of the game. How many people sign up for a beta have NO CLUE what they're signing up for? There was no tutorial or single player practice mode in the beta of Heroes of Newerth because they knew almost everyone signing up for beta would have some passing knowledge of how to play DoTA.
Most of the game industry follows this idea, where they assume most of their testers have some basic set of knowledge that they will use to help them better the game being tested. Hence, no tutorial. Blizzard is assuming Starcraft 2 is going to be played in beta by Starcraft players and that what an early look. Your feedback to Blizzard should be "Hey, I have no clue how to use the units properly because there are no descriptions in game or anywhere else.", in which case, if people are having the same problem as you are, they will adjust it in the final release.
You can do games for the hardcore audience and make bank, if your costs are low, like the NS guys. But big budget games, that doesn't really make money. Even when it does make money, it doesn't make as much money as you could be making.
Super Street Fighter IV, a hardcore game that was just released, as sold over a million worldwide. That's pretty damn good. But compare that to Wii Fit which has sold over 20 million worldwide, and that includes an overpriced accessory. It also probably cost a fraction of what it cost to develop SSFIV because it's not in HD, and has no fancy graphics or anything. It mostly reuses the Miis, so it's even easier. All the hard work was designing the accessory hardware, which is also a very simple device with a large markup. Wii Fit alone probably made as much money for Nintendo as probably every Capcom game combined in the same year.
Yes, you are right. The way Blizzard is beta-ing SC2 is the way that most game companies do it. But all those game companies are not making mad fucking bank. Apple and Nintendo are eating their lunches and raping their mothers.
What's disappointing is that Blizzard should know this. They do it right with WoW, of all things. I think the reason for their success with WoW is that they came into the genre, instead of inventing it. Thus, they rethought and polished everyone else's mistakes just enough to be the best. With RTS, they invented it. The mistakes are their own. They've got an existing userbase in the Korean market especially, who will freak the fuck out over any revolutionary changes. They could make some sort of miracle if they did the same repolishing they did to the MMORPG to the RTS.
It's the same problem that Marvel and DC comics have. They could make mad bank if they went for it, stopped pandering to fanboys, and made comics for normal every day people and sold them in the grocery store. Blizzard could make so much more bank if they gave the finger to the SC fanboys, and made an RTS that was as accessible as WoW.
I know were all nerds and geeks, and we like getting our stuff that is only for nerds and geeks that real people can't handle. But if you're a company, and you want to score, you have to give all the nerds the finger. What do Apple and Nintendo have in common? Giving nerds the finger. Why do Marvel superhero movies make bank while comics don't? The movies are made without any consideration for nerds. You know what? Nerds love it anyway! They still buy Apple and Nintendo stuff, and they love Marvel superhero movies. Nerds love you no matter what you do. Business lesson number one. Never do what fanboys want, ever. Remember, that's how Tribes 2 died?
They could make some sort of miracle if they did the same repolishing they did to the MMORPG to the RTS.
I am only following you half way. What "polishing" are you referring to exactly? If you are referencing the fact that there is not yet a tutorial, then I highly disagree. The tutorial is basically the first few levels of the campaign, which is not included because that is not what Blizz wants to beta test. The primary purpose is to test the new Bnet system and balance. There is no need to include a tutorial, i.e. levels from the campaign, for this purpose. Furthermore, units are constantly being added/removed/changed anyway so what would be the point in putting work into the tutorial when it would have to be constantly changed. I highly doubt not having a tutorial in the beta stage would affect their sales much at all, especially when the majority of the beta testers have already bought the game.
Don't worry guys, when I make it into the industry sometime in the next 10 years, I'll change it so that betas come with tutorials or a help section.
Whereas I will go in the exact opposite direction and only make games that have no tutorials or manuals at all. Also all of my games will have no alphas, betas, or any kind of testing whatsoever. And every product will be perfect.
Don't worry guys, when I make it into the industry sometime in the next 10 years, I'll change it so that betas come with tutorials or a help section.
Whereas I will go in the exact opposite direction and only make games that have no tutorials or manuals at all. Also all of my games will have no alphas, betas, or any kind of testing whatsoever. And every product will be perfect.
People who want to pirate the game will still pirate the game. It will be hacked and it will still sell a million copies. Put up, shut up, and don't complain too loudly. What's done is done.
The issue posed is severe limitations on the functionality of the game.
The problem is, if you go the piracy route, you might be able to get some of that missing functionality (although probably not all of it), but then you're cutting yourself off from a big part of the community. Unless the end result is that the pirated SC2 community dominates the non-pirated community, or that Blizzard puts in the functionality that ought to be there, this is bad news.
Normally I would be on the side of "Open, open, open! Make it all open!" but working at Blizzard, it gives me a unique perspective. Let me first clarify, I'm a mid level underling and have no decision making ability within the company.
The stripping of functionality is something that has been happening for years and shows no sign of slowing down. Apple is a (shining?) example of this and proves that if you capture enough of the market, you can be profitable all the while stripping away more and more function in the name of user experience and control. I'm not an apologist for the people who sustain my living but I do understand where they are coming from.
If the pirate community ends up being larger than the official community, you can bet your asses something legal and not nice will be done about it. Even if it gets the that point, Blizzard has somewhat successfully defended a similar position with the classic Battle.Net. http://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd
You know as much as other people bitch, if the game is fun and/or good. I buy it. I don't care about the other features as much. Will I be able to play it online with my friends. Yes. Who cares!
There's no doubting that Warlords: Battlecry held a special place in computer gamer's hearts when it was released almost four years ago. A strong community has generated due to Battlecry's reputation for depth of game-play and sheer amount of replayability. Warlords Battlecry III is the kind of sequel that doesn't try to reinvent the wheel, instead it adds a lot of new features, spells, and units into an already well established design.
Set once again in the land of Etheria, the massive Campaign mode transports you into the ever-changing continent known as Keshan, where allies become enemies and provinces are disrupted, captured, and ruled through the ceaseless struggle for dominance and control. As I said, the gameplay mechanics remain similar to those of previous games. Battlecry III has four resources that you collect - Gold, Stone, Metal and Crystals. As you accumulate resources, you can purchase buildings, upgrades, armies, etc. Meanwhile the enemy is constantly trying to slow you down by sending troops in to destroy you. Also you'll have to keep an eye on the map to prevent enemy heroes from walking up and seizing your resource locations from under your nose. Enemy AI is not bad, as is usually expected with a Warlords product, but the pathfinding is a bit worse than Warlors Battlecry II. In most of all missions, the sole aim is to build up your armies and flatten the enemy. As you complete missions, other cities on the map open up to you, and you can travel between districts, making friends or enemies, shopping for magical items and recruiting mercenaries. The campaign is claimed to be non-linear and dynamic. Actually, there's a critical path of scenarios you must complete and then a number of side scenarios. You can do them in a few different orders, but the scenarios you see today will be the same you see tomorrow.
Warlords Battlecry III features 5 new races (for a total of 16 playable races). There are the Plaguelords (a group of monstrous and twisted creatures specializing in disease), the snakelike Ssrathi, from the southern Jungles with their priests and dinosaurs; and the insectoid Swarm - servants of the Lord of Famine. The old Human side has also been split into two separate races - Knights and Empire. Knights are all about cavalry and upgrades for cavalry, while the Empire not only have the massive War Elephant, but also have the ability to instantly hire mercenaries when required. Each race has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages that requires you to take a different tack with each one.
Like the other games in the series, Battlecry III has a strong focus on developing a single character - a hero. The heroes are upgradeable units that level up with combat experience and can carry magical treasure located in chests. The ability to level up heroes from within the game gives the game much more of an RPG feel, because you are constantly watching the XP bar, and playing to get that next level. Besides, you can take your hero into skirmish battles where he will continue to gain levels and acquire items and retinue. Heroes have 130 different spells that they can cast. These are divided into 13 spheres of magic. Most hero classes can specialize in 1 or 2 spheres of magic, though some classes like the Archmage can learn more. The 13 spheres cover everything from Necromancy, Pyromancy and Summoning, to Healing, Divination and Illusion.
The weakest part of the game is multiplayer component. I had numerous problems connecting to Enlight's matchmaking service. There is an option for direct TCP/IP games, but the disconnect rate is frustratingly high. Besides, the Internet play requires one person to set up as host, and then distribute his IP address to the other players. So, if you plan to buy the game with the intent of battling it out over the Internet or a LAN, you're probably going to find Battlecry III a major disappointment.
Overall, there's a lot of quality content in the game - a massive campaign, customizable skirmish battles, a random map generator, and a scenario editor. For players who have enjoyed the previous two games in the series, Warlords Battlecry III should be a good choice as well as Infinite Interactive hasn't changed the basic gameplay much. However, if you're a longtime Battlecry player hoping for a revolutionary improvement, Warlords Battlecry III will be a disappointment.
I tend to agree with this review, and seeing as I have not played the first two games, I don't have the bitchy moany-ness abuot the lack of graphical improvment.
People who want to pirate the game will still pirate the game. It will be hacked and it will still sell a million copies.
It probably won't be hacked. Sure, you'll be able to play single player, but it's damn near impossible to pirate StarCraft 1 with online play to this day.
I tend to agree with both Rym and Scott. Rym is correct in saying that spending a large amount of time and energy to build a tutorial that is going to need to be rebuilt in record time just before the game's actual launch is stupid. At the same time, a Manual is often not enough.
There is a happy medium, which R.U.S.E. used for their beta. When the beta went public there was a 6 minute long video posted in the beta forums by the RUSE team which described the basic gameplay and UI of the game. It's a relatively easy thing to do that can make a huge difference to the accessibility of the game.
Here's another vote for Company of Heroes as one of the great RTSs in recent history. I ran a 74 episode long video and (separate) audio podcast about the game. I'm also very much looking forward to the new Men of War expansion which focuses on improving the multiplayer almost exclusively (balance and gameplay).
There is a happy medium, which R.U.S.E. used for their beta. When the beta went public there was a 6 minute long video posted in the beta forums by the RUSE team which described the basic gameplay and UI of the game. It's a relatively easy thing to do that can make a huge difference to the accessibility of the game.
It probably won't be hacked. Sure, you'll be able to play single player, but it's damn near impossible to pirate StarCraft 1 with online play to this day.
There are multiple sites such as Garena that can let you play online.
I've always been fascinated by the idea of simulations of modern warfare, especially on a command and control level, but I've never actually enjoyed playing them (just not a sim guy).
Comments
Most of the beta tests follow what Rym was suggesting. There is typically little or no tutorial information and they use the things that players fumble on in order to create initial or better versions of their tutorials and how to play the games. When I was beta testing Planetside, there were NO instructions in the game other than what your keybinds were. As beta progressed and more people entered the game, they tweaked the game to assist players. For example, by the time the game was in full release, they had a system where you gained experience and were able to view a pop-up game window with descriptions of new things you were looking at or using, and training rooms where you could test out all of the equipment and vehicles.
Often times, tutorials are added after all the beta phases in a final form because MOST of the people who sign up for beta already know about the game and have a basic understanding of the game. How many people sign up for a beta have NO CLUE what they're signing up for? There was no tutorial or single player practice mode in the beta of Heroes of Newerth because they knew almost everyone signing up for beta would have some passing knowledge of how to play DoTA.
Most of the game industry follows this idea, where they assume most of their testers have some basic set of knowledge that they will use to help them better the game being tested. Hence, no tutorial. Blizzard is assuming Starcraft 2 is going to be played in beta by Starcraft players and that what an early look. Your feedback to Blizzard should be "Hey, I have no clue how to use the units properly because there are no descriptions in game or anywhere else.", in which case, if people are having the same problem as you are, they will adjust it in the final release.
You know Capcom, who I keep saying is the one gaming company that is kicking ass above all others? Their profits are way the fuck down. http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/07/capcom-calls-earnings-sluggish-over-last-fiscal-year/
You can do games for the hardcore audience and make bank, if your costs are low, like the NS guys. But big budget games, that doesn't really make money. Even when it does make money, it doesn't make as much money as you could be making.
Super Street Fighter IV, a hardcore game that was just released, as sold over a million worldwide. That's pretty damn good. But compare that to Wii Fit which has sold over 20 million worldwide, and that includes an overpriced accessory. It also probably cost a fraction of what it cost to develop SSFIV because it's not in HD, and has no fancy graphics or anything. It mostly reuses the Miis, so it's even easier. All the hard work was designing the accessory hardware, which is also a very simple device with a large markup. Wii Fit alone probably made as much money for Nintendo as probably every Capcom game combined in the same year.
Yes, you are right. The way Blizzard is beta-ing SC2 is the way that most game companies do it. But all those game companies are not making mad fucking bank. Apple and Nintendo are eating their lunches and raping their mothers.
What's disappointing is that Blizzard should know this. They do it right with WoW, of all things. I think the reason for their success with WoW is that they came into the genre, instead of inventing it. Thus, they rethought and polished everyone else's mistakes just enough to be the best. With RTS, they invented it. The mistakes are their own. They've got an existing userbase in the Korean market especially, who will freak the fuck out over any revolutionary changes. They could make some sort of miracle if they did the same repolishing they did to the MMORPG to the RTS.
It's the same problem that Marvel and DC comics have. They could make mad bank if they went for it, stopped pandering to fanboys, and made comics for normal every day people and sold them in the grocery store. Blizzard could make so much more bank if they gave the finger to the SC fanboys, and made an RTS that was as accessible as WoW.
I know were all nerds and geeks, and we like getting our stuff that is only for nerds and geeks that real people can't handle. But if you're a company, and you want to score, you have to give all the nerds the finger. What do Apple and Nintendo have in common? Giving nerds the finger. Why do Marvel superhero movies make bank while comics don't? The movies are made without any consideration for nerds. You know what? Nerds love it anyway! They still buy Apple and Nintendo stuff, and they love Marvel superhero movies. Nerds love you no matter what you do. Business lesson number one. Never do what fanboys want, ever. Remember, that's how Tribes 2 died?
The problem is, if you go the piracy route, you might be able to get some of that missing functionality (although probably not all of it), but then you're cutting yourself off from a big part of the community. Unless the end result is that the pirated SC2 community dominates the non-pirated community, or that Blizzard puts in the functionality that ought to be there, this is bad news.
The stripping of functionality is something that has been happening for years and shows no sign of slowing down. Apple is a (shining?) example of this and proves that if you capture enough of the market, you can be profitable all the while stripping away more and more function in the name of user experience and control. I'm not an apologist for the people who sustain my living but I do understand where they are coming from.
If the pirate community ends up being larger than the official community, you can bet your asses something legal and not nice will be done about it. Even if it gets the that point, Blizzard has somewhat successfully defended a similar position with the classic Battle.Net.
http://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd
I tend to agree with both Rym and Scott. Rym is correct in saying that spending a large amount of time and energy to build a tutorial that is going to need to be rebuilt in record time just before the game's actual launch is stupid. At the same time, a Manual is often not enough.
There is a happy medium, which R.U.S.E. used for their beta. When the beta went public there was a 6 minute long video posted in the beta forums by the RUSE team which described the basic gameplay and UI of the game. It's a relatively easy thing to do that can make a huge difference to the accessibility of the game.
Here's another vote for Company of Heroes as one of the great RTSs in recent history. I ran a 74 episode long video and (separate) audio podcast about the game. I'm also very much looking forward to the new Men of War expansion which focuses on improving the multiplayer almost exclusively (balance and gameplay).
Do a Lets Play. I'd subscribe.