By Joneagle_X
Published: January 27, 2008
Email

Hey! Joneagle_X here with another interview with a top American StarCraft player: iNcontrol. I suppose it’s become a curiosity of mine to find out what pro players actually think about the upcoming sequel to a game they know so well. So far we’ve seen Gentho’s opinion and his optimism regarding the sequel. So my next step was to track down the top player on the American scene at the moment, who is iNcontrol. In case you’re unfamiliar with this year’s WCG tournament, iNcontrol won out in the North American tournament with decisive victories (the finals were held at Universal Studios in Orlando, FL). He then went on to represent the USA at the WCG Grand Finals in Seattle.

He and Nyoken participated in the Grand Finals but didn’t make it out of their respective groups. However, iNcontrol is still the reigning USA champion in the SC scene and has a real shot at next year’s WCG tour as well. What does he think of Starcraft II and its development? Read on and find out.

How did it feel to represent the USA team this year at the WCG Finals?

iNcontrol: It felt amazing. I feel like USA is one of the most densely skilled nations in SC and to qualify from the list of participants has been my most proud moment in relation to this game. I have spent so much time playing this game and organizing the National team for this game... to win it is simply a dream.

As well as some well-played victories, you’ve also experienced some pretty tough losses this year, but you showed a lot of tenacity at the tournament. How did you overcome some of the adversity that you’ve faced, both at this tournament and on your road to success as a pro gamer?

iNcontrol: SC is a game of adapting and recovering. No gamer that is enjoying any kind of success with this game just hopped into it and found themselves to be a natural. JulyZerg for instance used to be a barely above .500 gamer on WGT and would later become the top in the world for a period. It just goes to show you must have that drive to get better and continue to be anything worth mentioning in this game. For me it was just a matter of having fun and not expecting to win the entire thing, when I did it was truly a surprise and a delightful cap to an already worthwhile venture.

Nice. It's good to know that you have some of the same issues as lower-level players. I think we all sweat about the map rotations and the build orders that accompany them. But your calm in LAN play has certainly given you an advantage. I even read in an interview with GGL that your cat likes to disrupt you during games. What's scarier, facing a tough Korean opponent or dealing with the cat?

iNcontrol: I think that may have been a reference to when I was playing from my friend's house this summer, he has cats. Haha! Definitely scarier to have things like a cat destroy your chances in a game than your opponent. I have reached a point in my gaming where I feel I have at least a chance vs any opponent. Even if it is very slim. But with a Mom barking at you or a girlfriend nagging...

You’ve talked before about how you feel more at home during LAN play than in regular online matchups. How does that affect your preparation for these tournaments?

iNcontrol: When a lan like WCG comes up I get extremely excited. The traveling, the treatment and the fun of hanging out with friends I have "known" for years and share a passion with all kind of culminate into a wonderful distraction from the nerves... for me. Its not that way for everyone else! To prepare I dont do anything particularly different. I try and get my build orders hammered out and my map tendencies well versed so that I am comfortable but everything else is.. fairly natural for me I love the pressure and I bank on it dampering the play of the other player as it only serves as a motivation for me.

How does Starcraft 2 fit into what you envision for the Starcraft series?

iNcontrol: A very, very scary, and possibly terrible ending to what has dominated the last 10 years of my life. I say this not as a negative Nancy or someone who likes to be Chicken Little, but rather as someone who is faced with what they feel to be the sobering reality of the development thus far. I would like to justify this statement by saying that I think StarCraft was a mistake. The aspects of this game, the unmatchable balance and the depth that has kept it alive and well for 10 years was not intentional. That being said, they are now trying to make that which cannot be made, that is, an equal or possibly a greater version of the original. They cannot, and in trying to do so, they will create an abomination that will fall short. And the mere fact that it is not what SC was means that it will turn off the love a lot of SC loyalists have harbored for so many years. I'd like to add though, that I think a great game could be made. I think it could have SC as the name, and most of the qualities from the original, and I think it could be successful. I just think from what I see and hear now, it isn’t what is being done. But you know what? It’s early, and like with SC, the early stuff was completely different from the final product, and the final product was amazing. So there is hope!

Wow. That was a really loaded answer. But I'm glad you addressed the issue, so I'll ask you what I've asked a couple other gamers; Does that mean that you see StarCraft the original remaining more relevant as an eSport than its sequel?

iNcontrol: No. What is certain is that the moment SC2 is launched SC will drop off the face of the earth. All gamers, money, and attention will go to the biggest PC release since Diablo2. I think SC2 will bring in a new era of worldwide eSports. I think the market is on the brink of a massive growth and this title, will result in said growth.

What aspects of the development of the sequel that we’ve seen so far are of concern to you?

iNcontrol: A major cause for why SC has lasted this long, and is considered this great of a game is because it is uncharacteristically hard to master. Because of that difficulty, you have players that have achieved top of the world status by mastering micro as opposed to macro or vice versa. Or players balancing the two aspects on a lower level and still experiencing said credentials. That being said I feel SC2 is—wisely, in terms of marketing and economics—trying to be a less intimidating game that any person could go out and buy, and within a week be fairly competent in how it is played. While this is brilliant in terms of short term success in ratings and sales, it will destroy the possibility of a game like SC that will last 10 years and be played on stadium screens in front of thousands of screaming fans. Specifically, I am talking about auto-mining and Multiple Building Selection. These are devices that already exist in other titles and as such can be said to make the game far less complicated, more user friendly and consequently a less difficult and rewarding game to master.

So you feel that the addition of those mechanisms, MBS and auto-mining, will weaken the strategic integrity of the game?

iNcontrol: Yes, and I have been engaged in month long debates on MBS and auto-mining and how they are not necessarily so bad. But frankly, that’s hog wash. There is a reason why every "top" SC player is against the idea of the computer Auto-Mining/MBS. There is a reason that the illegal hack that plagues Brood War these days comes equipped with Auto-Mining; it cheapens the experience and rewards the lazy or less skilled while flooding the gaming market, in terms of skill, with subpar players able to keep pace with what otherwise would be exceptionally skilled and gifted players. I find SC's attraction in that it is a terrible, terrible beast that requires hours upon hours or even years to master. But once you master it you are rewarded with the attention of a highly competitive fan base and an amazingly addictive level of activity.

We've held similar discussions and it has always led to an irrefutable point that I believe holds a lot of water. Would not MBS and Auto-mining in fact de-emphasize the importance of macro play styles and heavily emphasize play styles similar to those of Boxer and other "cheese" players that rely heavily on micro play styles to win?

iNcontrol: I think it would effectively demotivate any player from emphasizing macro for sure. If it’s done for you why bother? So to argue that it would create a "boxer-esque" influx is fine, but is that good? I don’t think so. WarCraft III is obviously a "micro" based game with very little in terms of macro. Call me an elitist but I have made my choice between the two games and would never make another. I feel any SC player would tell you the same. A game where both can be emphasized logically offers more depth than a game where only one aspect is emphasized, right? I mean, the mere fact you refer to "boxer" in a game where you could also refer to an iloveoov states the fact that SC is amazingly diverse.

How do you feel about the recent changes in the damage types from the complex forms we saw in the original to the more simplistic scheme set up in Starcraft 2. Do you feel this will influence gameplay at a professional level positively or negatively?

iNcontrol: Sure. I think the damage types were part of the "mistake" in blizzard's design that ended up being saving graces. Look at the original strategy guide released with SC. They recommended that you use Firebats against Terran and that you bunker your mineral line against raiding Scouts, etc. They had no idea. Part of SC's complexity and mystique is that it introduced a multitude of damage types that allowed for a game to evolve and always change in terms of counters or unit combinations. I think the simplification of damage types speaks towards blizzard's mentality with this game. They want a white washed version of SC that is pretty enough to be on screen but easy enough to where millions upon millions will buy it up and make it the most sold game in the history of PC while lasting only a couple years. That is, unless they do a "BroodWar Expansion”-esque move and essentially redo the game with an expansion.

You’re a Zerg player. How do you feel about Blizzard’s lack of information released about your chosen race?

iNcontrol: Furious. I came to SC as a young buck solely because of the Zerg race. The style, units and animation all were to my fascination with that genre of aliens found in War Hammer 40k and also James Cameron's "Alien" movies. Right now we see the complete abuse of my race! They have been allegedly working on this game for multiple years and yet they have come up with a "version" of the Zergling and a "version" of a Nydus Canal? Wow, nice job. Two things that already existed you just tweaked around. It kind of adds more elements to my already mounting frustration with Blizzard's handling of my love child.

The Protoss Mothership was a huge sticking point in the development of SC2 for a lot of fans and we all know about the flip flop Blizzard committed regarding the unit. Do you think the unit should’ve been further developed as a superunit? Why or why not?

iNcontrol: I think the idea of a Mothership in a game that already has a "superunit" like the carrier is ludicrous. It also stamps my assumptions that Blizzard's creativity has gone down the drain. The name, hell even the unit itself has already been done in other games! I think the unit shouldn’t exist as its function is already taken and balancing a game where one race has a super superunit is impossible.

Straight from the mouth of the current USA champion. The Mothership is “impossible” to balance in its original form. We went on to discuss the close call he experienced versus lzgamer in the WCG finals, and the original lure of StarCraft’s Ultralisk, but the one thing that stuck with me from this interview was his obvious deep understanding of the game and its mechanics. Someone get the man a beta.

View Comments (0)