GCP – Episode 96 - 07/20
Interview with Frictional Games - 07/14
GCP – Episode 95 - 07/13
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
StarCraft, with a “Two”Posted March 9, 2010, Comments (14) |
You may have heard about a beta that finally arrived. South Korea certainly did, much to their GNP’s dismay. Seriously people, it’s bigger than the second coming of Christ, or of the Giant Spaghetti Monster, if you float that way. It’s StarCraft II’s beta! But that doesn’t change that what lays before us is merely just StarCraft all over again.
That’s right folks, it’s StarCraft, so get over it. I see the “two” strapped to it, but if the beta is any indicator, the multiplayer remains firmly stuck in the original’s mindset. This is simultaneously great and horrible depending upon your stance. Now, I’m sure the singleplayer will have a wonderful and compellingly satisfactory narrative that’ll make the game a worthwhile investment for those who don’t give a damn about RTS multiplayer shenanigans, but for our purposes, this article is concerned entirely with the multiplayer portion of StarCraft II, as seen via the beta.
So StarCraft now with a “two,” is it a worthy multiplayer sequel? Does it deserve to exist? I suppose so, there’s an audience of millions who want it, and to them it delivers, but to everyone else? Well it’s a cold hard slap in the face. Oh sure – you can go on and say how it’s gone and given itself a wonderful new graphics engine, shiny physics and polygons with those oh-so-spiffy textures. That’s right: polygons in StarCraft, who’da thunk it?! And the new units! There are dozens of them, and clearly these units show how it’s more than your 13 year-old self’s StarCraft of 1998. But it is.
How? Well, the game focuses on the same areas of skill that StarCraft did – macro-management of an economy and knowing effective unit counters, all whilst micromanaging combat and scouting. All at the same time. Bow before the glorious APM (Actions Per Minute), and you’ll find your victor.
Giant air battles are all about huddling your units up into a ball. Just like in the original!
There is no streamlining for easy economy management, no auto-casting of your special abilities, no perma-unit build commands. Everything in StarCraft II is a deliberate action that you need to guide. Units under fire? There’s no auto-retreat or take cover command. If you were scouting or ordering your SCVs for some more starports, those units are already dead. The game is unrelenting and any mistake will cost you. Usually the game. But that’s StarCraft.
But there’s more! The launch of StarCraft II heralds the rebirth of Battle.net. And it’s perhaps Battle.net that showcases more changes to the game than anything in the game itself. For one, you have an online matchmaking system that simply works. That’s right – you click “Find Match” and within 30 seconds, you’re there. No fiddling with ports, no quibbling over routers and internet access, no checking your packets, it just functions.
I’ve utterly abandoned most recent RTS games simply because I can’t get into a match quickly. Waiting 20 minutes just to start playing a game is balls. Battle.net also added a lovely tournament system—divided into skill based divisions—which is a brilliant step forward to getting players of similar skill in a single match. These additions produce personal bouts of loud clapping; more titles need to make multiplayer components work, especially RTS games. Tragically, however, the matchmaking and ranking system appears to be the extent of innovation for StarCraft II.
Ahh resource raiding, it worked before, it works even better now!
I wouldn’t be bothered by an identical-nature of a sequel if it wasn’t for the huge strides that competitive RTS games have made in the time since StarCraft first graced us with its god-like presence. Relic showed us with Company of Heroes and Dawn of War how to end the turtling, how to get us to actively use our units to think about strategies for combat rather than merely worrying about our build orders and optimized economies.
Relic even went so far as to make combat units as tools for acquiring resources. And it’s not as though Blizzard showed us they weren’t afraid to mix it up with Warcraft III. Maybe that’s their desire – experiment with Warcraft, and then keep those legions of StarCraft fanatics happy with the exact same game as always. Perhaps that’s the root. The original StarCraft remains a top played RTS even now, hence the sequel should appeal to existing player-base. Right? So why are they even making a follow-up if so many people remain content to play the original? As for me, that goes to an entirely different place than where I want to end up.
So there you have it. StarCraft II is merely StarCraft. With a “two.” I assumed that after 12 years and numerous innovative additions to the RTS multiplayer genre, that maybe StarCraft II would take us in a new and compelling direction. Instead, the gameplay is ripped straight from the original. Which I’m not saying is bad; StarCraft is a good game.
But I do wonder why it took Blizzard over a decade to copy their own game. What Blizzard usually does best is collate ideas, toss them in the blender and make a nice gameplay smoothie with all your favorite up-to-date additions. Yet for StarCraft II, it looks like the multiplayer status quo, sadly, reigns supreme.
I too have mixed feelings about this game after watching many, many matches on Youtube. While the new units, graphics, and music are awesome. I wish I could see a FEW more extra features and I don’t mean 2 rally points on the CC. Autocasting would be lovely for certain units. However Dawn of War II is just as unforgiving in terms of micromanagement, losing a squad in a MP match usually means game over, but the difference being that your focus is shifted almost entirely to your units.
At the same time, the competative side in me loves the fast, balanced, and heavy multi-tasking aspects of this game. But every time I try to gain skills in any RTS I tend to get crushed by the majority of opponents I face. Unfortunately, as much as I may study build orders and counters, I’ll probably get many dicks slipped into my butt before finally getting fed up and dropping the MP game altogether only to pick it up a few months later only to be harshly reminded of why I stopped playing matches in the first place.
The mixed feelings are really there. When I get into a match of Starcraft II it is really great. However the game requires such a degree of focus to succeed at it that 75% of the time I just want to see stuff die, usually that means watching my own units die horrible, horrible (but sometimes lovely) deaths.
Almost all of my anticipation for the game stems from the map editor. Custom games are where the game’s longevity will be for me.
“There is no streamlining for easy economy management, no auto-casting of your special abilities…”
This is wrong. Waypointing improvements have been made for easier economy management over SC. There are also a few auto-casting special abilities (eg. zealot charge).
“There’s no auto-retreat or take cover command.”
I fail to see the benefit of a command that can be similarly produced with a single mouse click, especially in the context SC.
I personally couldn’t care less about the graphical improvements. In fact, I find the original more charming. However, the gameplay improvements make it more enjoyable to play. Blizzard doesn’t answer to innovation. They make good games regardless. They take great gameplay and make it better. That’s their legend. SCII is not CoH. It is not DoW. It is not WiC. It is not RoN. It’d have been a mistake for them to think otherwise and emulate the particular unique qualities any of those games have instead of building on what made SC so special.
SCII will be a huge success and will get great reviews from fans and critics. It’s too bad I won’t bring myself to buy an Acvtision game any time soon.
The pathing AI is still functionally brain dead for all practical purposes. Grab a group of 6 zealots and send them at a location. if there is a split in the map to that location the group will actually splinter in to seperate groups. What was the point of ordering a group move if they split up on their own? I don’t want to babysit basic move orders.
And yes there are some auto-cast abilities. Like Charge for Zealots, or Heal for Medivacs. But why not give more auto-cast options? The Queen’s spawn larva auto-cast. You always want to use it when its available anyways. It just mindless busy work. But then they made busy work for all the races. Protoss have to spam their Chrono Boost to equalize their unit build rates. The terrans at least have to make a strategic decisions (i.e. how to use Command Center’s abilities or to build lots of weaker units faster via reactors, or go tech lab and get more strategic options with better units.)
My key point was that they spent 12 years just to put out the same game. Warcraft III showed that Blizzard is willing to innovate in the genre. I wasn’t expecting the game to be like a Relic RTS, but I’d have thought that maybe they would poach some of their ideas.
The game is as superb as Starcraft was. It just feels to me like Blizzard is looking at Korea’s market and saying “We want them to all turn off Starcraft and turn on Starcraft II.” I personally don’t care for pandering to where the money is at its their call. That doesnt make it a bad game, it just breeds distrust in me.
I agree with this article. Alas blizzard’s main goal is to make money, not to make new and exciting games that revolutionize the RTS world. Starcraft 2 will be game of the year for many people, sadly.
I don’t have a problem with it being game of the year. It is unlikely to be mine but you never know singleplayer might be shockingly brilliant and address my concerns that the multiplayer is so decidedly 1999. Long as the game doesnt just turn into a tutorial fest for multiplayer matches, which doesnt seem to be the direction it is headed.
I’ve yet to play the beta, but I don’t really get your problem with it being pretty much the same game.
For me, I’ve pretty much quit playing RTS games because they quit being like Starcraft. I never was able to get into the Relic games all that much because, at that point, I’d just rather have the game be a turn based squad RPG. The changes they made just didn’t jell with what I liked about RTS games to begin with.
There aren’t developers making games like this anymore and I’m looking forward to finally having the kind of RTS I like make a return after so many years of just ignoring the genre entirely.
You may want something new and innovative, but I’ll be just fine with a better interface, new units and pathfinding that works. If it ain’t broke.
But I wonder if this is any different from all the nostalgic remakes we are seeing. With all kinds of downloadable and indie titles (like VVVVVV and Mega Man 9 & 10) hearkening back to the old days I don’t see this as a big surprise.
Thats interesting, because I’m not one for nostalgic remakes. If you don’t bring something new to the table then why are you even bothering? But thats my opinion and I can understand how people would see it differently. I like progress, usually.
The problem with gamers is that everyone assumes everything they play should be innovative in some way. This wasn’t the state of mind for gamers of the ’80s and early ’90s; if it was fun, it was good.
Maybe we’ve grown habitually to expect innovation around every corner. I think it’s just fine to have an occasional throwback to “the good ol’ days” every once in awhile.
It’s not like the great painters invented a new style of technique with every painting, is it?
Right. Back in the day we just wanted a fun game and, to me, Starcraft is fun so I have no problem with Starcraft II being more of the same.
And innovation is so overrated these days. No other medium demands this. People don’t knock Martin Scorsese because he isn’t reinventing the crime drama with every film he makes and a lot of times musicians are just pigeon holed into a specific style that has already been created by someone else years ago.
But for some reason innovation is seen as good in games and some of the most ambitious games ever made have also been some of the worst I’ve played.
I see where you’re going in spirit, but I disagree with your interpretation. In the 80s and early 90s, home computer gaming was almost *all* innovation, simply because practically nothing had been done yet. Every idea was a new idea, or at least, closer to being a new idea than an old one. Fun was paramount, but very few games were alike. Upcoming games usually had a twist because so many rapidly developing technologies and gameplay styles were colliding and experimenting with each other. It all encouraged boundary pushing in every direction. Now most of gaming is standardized in tech, look, and feel, and I see a lot of foot dragging when it comes to new ideas.
I’m thinking back … WAY BACK… to the C64 and my early days on a 286. The only games I can think of that could be put together and called “alike” are games from the same series, like Ultima, or games from a publisher that specialized in a genre, like SSI. Heck, even EA had a diverse lineup of offerings like Archon, MULE, and Dr J vs Larry Bird — the Madden, Sims, and Tiger Woods lines hadn’t been invented yet, so they had nothing else to stick to.
In a contemporary sense, Starcraft 2, in a way, IS innovative. Not that it brings anything to the table that hasn’t been done before, but rather that it brings something old to the land of the new.
Look at C&C 4. They tried something completely different, and for the most part, it sucks. Since around Warcraft III’s time, RTS games have moved further and further away from the original formula.
There are a massive group of people out there who are clamoring for an RTS made “the way RTSs should be”, i.e. going back to that original formula that works so well. Games used to be, I feel, more difficult and unforgiving than there are today. So many games these days work so hard to make things more simple for the player, to make things more accessible, more streamlined, and more balanced for the “noob”, but there’s nothing wrong with that. It makes games more accessible, and for a lot of people probably more enjoyable.
But there is a definite player base out there who likes a fierce challenge, who likes to learn and research complex intricacies such as build orders and hard counters and map control, etc. There are too few of those games available today, and Blizzard is looking to sate the hunger of those gamers who kind of like getting owned over and over again by a Korean, so they can post replays on forums and have their build orders picked apart and why they should have expo’d earlier/later.
SC2 is the only contemporary RTS which is going to cater to that market. While some may hate it, plenty are going to love it, and while the idea may be unoriginal, its actually filling an existing gap in the market.
I agree with Sam,
I’m glad they didn’t screw with the style of the game, because almost nobody makes strategy games like this anymore. It’s all, capture points for reinforcements, this and use battefield abilities, that.
Reading this article actually makes me more excited for the game. I’m elated to hear that it’s not trying to emulate the current generation of RTS which focus almost entirely on units.
Now this isn’t to say that innovation is bad. But there should be games for everyone. I’m perfectly happy that people are playing unit heavy games like WiC, but I don’t enjoy those games nearly as much as the classic, base building, tech tree climbing strategy game. complaining about the lack of innovation here would be like complaining if they put the planning phase back into Rainbow Six (which needs to happen, NOW).
I’ve never played StarCraft – would you say playing StarCraft II in its place will make up for it?