Making every race have the same resource needs and, from the looks of it, no or very little difference in buildings still counts, even if they're still different on the BF. All part of trying to make the game all about the battles at the expense of the adv. map. The differences between factions should exist on both.
And why do people keep insisting on balance so much, except Starcraft no other strategy game has ever lasted as an e-sport. Tehy should just give us a very good editor and hope someone makes a dota for the game (as in a killer mod, not something with the same gameplay).
What dodging? You can still have significant economic differences between factions with just 4 resource types. Unique buildings can also factor into that, depending on exactly what they do. We still don't know what the shape of the magic system is and the status of adventure map spells.
Hell, you can have economic differences between factions with every factor identical except the following - Necromancy, Resurrection spell access, and a vanilla might army. One can outstrip the opponent in terms of unit growth, one can maintain no casualties, the other hand has to constantly bleed units on the way to victory. Everything else being equal, the three factions are obviously very different on the economic scale based even on something as tangential as skill and spell access. Now consider potential differences in structure costs (dwelling cost ratios, mage guild cost, fort cost, special buildings cost, economy building costs). You just need a little imagination and a willingness to cut out clutter to make space for more varied and interesting economy differentiators.
As for the balance question, well, you think its fun to have to ban factions or heroes? You think its fun to have entire strategies and gameplay styles (that were probably intended by teh developers in the first place to boot) rendered worthless based on a minor technicality that it is impossible to win with them? You think crap like Deleb and Conflux was fun
? A balanced game tends to have more gameplay options and variety than an unbalanced one.
Ah yes, the old time excuse... kinda hard to take when they're talking about the Blizzard standard.
But the real problem with that excuse is that it also justifies only having 2 factions, because it frees up time to fix bugs etc... it's not a "we don't have the time, so shut up" excuse, it's a "sorry, we hope you forgive us for not having the time" one...
And it's nice to know that you think adding new options for spending resources is padding without bothering to consider the actual effects on gameplay they might have.
Ah, yes, reality
. That stupid, lazy excuse people use. Whatever those crazy things think of next? Food, water, and air?! Oh, those vagabonds, those scoundrels!
The situation is not a black and white situation as you are trying to reduce it to. They don't want to make a 2 faction game. They want to do more, they want to do something complex. But then, that nasty thing, reality kicks in, and you have to balance making the game complex with making the game playable.
And thanks for telling me what I have or have not considered. Because obviously, me arguing that a 4 resource system is not a change that should be viewed in vacuum nor it should automatically be branded as "bad," or me pointing out that there are alternatives to bring the same relevant effect in a more elegant and interesting manner is not thinking about it. Thanks a lot.
You where either saying something but meaning another thing or you're dodging the issue. Making a game for the art means ignoring the market appeal issue and doing it for it's own sake (which can easily backfire, just look at Brutal Legend), and you originally said that some companies do some games for the pay-check so they can do that... but lately there aren't many examples of that.
Repeat after me. Mass appeal does NOT invalidate art. Designing a game so more people enjoy it is NOT selling out. Game developers tend to go into the business because they want to make games they believe are going to be fun for other people to play. To brand any design decision made to make the game more appealing and enjoyable to more people as a "cash grab" is insulting the game designer without any true rational basis or proof. I've seen this insipid argument leveled against so many great game developers now that it hurts to read it.
The developer has two elementary objectives in designing a game. Making a game to their vision and ensuring that the game keeps their development ability functional to fulfill that vision. They can make the game appeal only to a select minority of elitist hardcore or they can make a game that appeals to, at the very least, hell of a lot more people as well as some of that select minority. In both cases they are doing art. In both cases they are creating something that elicits an emotional response from a group of people. You cannot objectively assign one group's preferences as more important than the other. You can, however, objectively point out that one of those options leads to the developer crashing and burning, to sacrifice themselves for the ego for an ultimately small and inconsequential number of people. The same people who go "Alas, true art is thankless and it demands suffering!" and subsequently move on to the next example of "true art."
Rather cold, don't you think, oh person of refined taste for fine arts?
Look, it's clear that you prefer games that are well done to games that are designed with elementary psychological tricks to have mass appeal. But, please, do not succumb to the "all or nothing" absurdity. A game developer can easily have an artistic vision of what his game should be that is not incompatible with mass appeal.
korea and sc2 stuff
No. Either your understanding of the multiplayer scene of SC is flat out wrong, or you aren't making it clear through your statements that you understand it. Starcraft 2 has significant problems in terms of story-telling department, certain mutliplayer design decisions that threaten the future of the game as a spectator sport, and the fiasco that is Blizzard's hilariously unfinished and unpolished Battle.net 2.0; but they are independent of the decision to appeal to both the classic fanbase and newcomers.
And to be honest, from what I played in SC2's single player, the only real gripe is lack of storyline substance. The campaign was superb
in terms of gameplay and pacing; I felt it blew campaigns of other RTS offerings such as World in Conflict, Dawn of series, CnC series, Supreme Commander, etc. out of the water.