Hands On: StarCraft 2

For PC

Precious few games exhibit the kind of refined balance, complexity and versatility to be played competitively by full-time professionals, and only one has had the staying power to be played in stadiums at full capacity - and broadcast on television to millions more - twelve years after its release.

» Click here to see video.

Since 1998 Blizzard's sci-fi real-time strategy title StarCraft has more closely resembled a sport than a videogame. For many it's a form of entertainment that is as enjoyable to watch being played by talented practitioners as it is to participate in oneself.

The Korean StarCraft circuit has seasons, teams, corporate sponsors, match statistics, commentary and a zealous fanbase. Professionals such as Lim Yo-Hwan earn more than half a million New Zealand dollars annually - that's the sort of paycheck an All Black has to sign to a European club to earn. Interestingly, it also happens to be more than Blizzard President Mike Morhaime earns before bonuses.

It should be no surprise then that StarCraft II is both highly-anticipated and that its current multiplayer beta can be an ongoing lesson in gaming humility.

The original's competitive nature is built into the very bones of StarCraft II. Battle.Net 2.0, the online portal through which the multiplayer is accessed, ranks players into leagues and ladders before hosting small tournaments for the top ranked players in each.

 

It dissects matches click by click, unit by unit, and offers replays so that players can analyse their opponent's gameplay in detail.

Yes, StarCraft II is an evolution of the original title. No, it's not simply a graphical update. The difference between the two is akin to evaluating two models of the same car: They're aesthetically very similar but should you pop the hood the differences will become more apparent.

At its core it's still a base-building strategy title in which players construct and assemble units with a mind to destroy their opponent's base. But comparisons with other real-time strategy titles begin to fray around about here. Players have three factions to choose from: The pioneering human Terrans, the xenomorphic alien Zerg and technologically-advanced alien society, the Protoss.

Each faction is built and played in a different style and each has its relative strengths and weaknesses. It means that players must intrinsically understand all three factions before seeing perennial success online.
 
Perhaps more so than other real-time strategy titles, StarCraft II is a cerebral joust between the players. Blindly accumulating forces and marching them across the map will almost always end poorly. It's a game where performing reconnaissance on the enemy's base, evaluating their position, determining their strategy and responding by building the correct opposing units is essential.

A good round of StarCraft II is as much about the small skirmishes in the opening minutes of play as it is about the violent base assault that closes it.

It requires meticulous management skills on behalf of the player - adjusting minor details such as where units are standing, what abilities they use, and when, can determine the outcome of a game in seconds.

All of this can sound like a significant barrier to entry for those who haven't invested the last twelve years rote-learning build orders, but we do believe that Warcraft III players should be able to hit the ground running.

None of us at Gameplanet would presume to call ourselves "good" at StarCraft II (although we would stress again that the benchmark for "good" in a game that can be played professionally is set that much higher) which means that in the beta, we often play the role of a lone confused probe cast amongst the hungry Ultralisks.

We do expect the full release to be a slightly different affair. First of all, the volume of players old and new, and Battle.Net 2.0's clearly robust matchmaking system, should pair inductees to the series at their own level.

As accounts are tied to game codes, there won't be as much account rebooting (wherein veteran players create a new account and play beginners in order to inflate their win/loss ratio).

Secondly, the five-tiered AI will allow players to upskill without losing face playing against more seasoned players. (Currently the beta only includes Very Easy AI which helpfully allows players to grasp build order changes in a non-competitive environment but provides absolutely no challenge.)

Thirdly, comprehensive post-match statistics and a replay feature which can be viewed from your opponent's perspective clearly show you exactly where things went wrong. It's a system you can quickly learn from.

Finally, the in-game UI and automated AI are much friendlier than in the predecessor. Worker units will instantly fan out around a mineral field instead of stacking on a single cluster. Units can move through buildings and path better than before.

New functions such as setting worker rally points on resources strip out some of the more menial micromanagement. A vastly improved grouping system creates tabs when traditional grouping capacity is met.

As to the beta itself: Many players aren't getting past second base (pun absolutely intended) or one expansion - an additional resource-gathering hub - before the match is decided. To that end, we're not often seeing the full diversity of units on offer.

Early gameplay is much faster. It's now more feasible to begin researching unit upgrades before starting an expansion and players can survive much longer before needing to do so.
 
Three faction-specific abilities have largely contributed to this pace: Zerg larvae injection (an additional four larvae courtesy of a Queen, now recruited directly from the Hive), the Terran M.U.L.E. (an enhanced resource gatherer dropped directly onto a mineral field), and the Protoss chrono boost (an ability that reduces the build timer on selected units and research).

While a great number of players are still using traditional StarCraft strategies with a small sampling of new units thrown in the mix, some of the fundamentals have changed. For example, due to their warp gate ability the Protoss are now much more efficient at "rushing" the opposition early on than the Zerg, who have loaned their name to various "overwhelm" strategies in a raft of games for the past decade.

But the nuance of strategy could be discussed for pages on end. Already, wiki sites replete with spreadsheets and graphs detailing the minutiae are cropping up across the internet. Instead, we reached out to some of Gameplanet's team to get their first impressions on StarCraft II.

Aylon Herbert:
Obviously, it is a great looking game and though still in beta is already showing the sort of polish Blizzard is known for. However, It would be ignorant (and wrong) to say this was StarCraft with better graphics. Instead, it would be fair to say the sequel is very faithful to the original while adding subtle, yet important, evolutionary changes to the formula.
 
StarCraft II is still a game about the rush and heavy harassment. Most games will be decided from the first or second encounter. The amount of macro- and micromanagement involved in each match is far too much for my simple brain to manage.

It appears that you need to be very good at at least one (and preferably both) of these. The limited number of players currently invited to beta testing means that there's little ground for a player who is average at both to find a competitive match.

Playing in the StarCraft II beta is a lot like coming back home after being away for a while. On the one hand, it is great to be home but on the other hand, I am not the same person I was when I left and I realise that while it is familiar, it is not quite my home anymore.

My experience sees most games ending in seven to twelve minutes and with almost none of the top tier units being used. This is not my idea of fun, but for the highly competitive of you out there I am sure it is as near to perfection as Blizzard can provide.

As for myself, I am still eagerly awaiting the release of the final game so that I can enjoy the singleplayer campaign.

Nik Hardy:
I'm going to go right ahead and say it: I haven't fallen in love with this one. It's good, don't get me wrong, and I'm sure it will be exactly what the original's fans have been waiting for. It's just not all that I want.

I think what it boils down to is that there are two sorts of people in interested in StarCraft II. There are those who loved the original and then there are the rest of us who are simply hanging out for a quality RTS (real-time strategy game).

We certainly get a quality RTS. Blizzard knew not to tinker overmuch with the formula, and has kept things by the book. Sure, there are some minor changes, a few new units, but it's a game that you can instantly recognise.

But I wish they had chopped it up a bit. Yes, I know it doesn't always work - Metallica's St. Anger or Empire Earth 3 spring to mind. But sometimes it does. When the Grand Theft Auto series evolved into an open-world 3D game it changed the playing field right across the board.

Perhaps it's that after 12 years, and with a studio as well respected as Blizzard, I feel there could be more on offer than enhanced graphics, some new units, maps and a new online portal.

And in spite of the fact that I've been an RTS gamer for 18 years, I don't necessarily believe that I'm the target audience. I understand that you can't simply rewrite the franchise when it's a national sport for some folks - and if you enjoyed the original, you'll love this one. I just hoped they would have taken some more risks.

In many ways it feels like I'm paying homage to the original StarCraft here instead of a brand new game. But let's be fair: it's a game worthy of such homage.

Dan Brown:
When StarCraft and the expansion, Brood Wars, came out, I was living in rural area with a poor internet connection. While it went a long way in shielding me from the horrors of the internet, it also meant that I was unable to get onto Battle.Net so I was relegated to rolling friends whenever we decided to get our LAN on. While initially entertaining, I desired a challenge better suited to my level.

A few years later I was a creeping closer to civilisation. There I had a connection that was stable and logging on to Battle.Net was no longer an issue - playing was.

The difference in the skill level of all my opponents - even those who only appeared to have a couple of matches under their belts - was so vast that the best I was ever able to do was turtle inside my base and wait for the inevitable defeat.

Thanks to the replay feature that had been implemented, as well as the myriad of fan sites that now existed, I was able learn what it was that made a good player.

Unfortunately, because of the less-than-stellar matchmaking and the tendency for a lot of players to start new Battle.Net accounts to improve their win/loss ratio, upskilling and improving my game wasn't so much an enjoyable challenge as a chore.

I gave up trying to find opponents at my skill level and went on to other games - returning now and then only to watch some of the better replays or to play against the computer on the Lost Temple map.

Roll on 2010, StarCraft II and Battle.Net 2.0.

Designed with the intention of allowing players to advance at their own pace, so far, in my eyes, the beta has been a massive success. Initially you are tasked with playing a few placement matches against others.

Your stats in these matches decide which league and division you end up in. The points you gain from matches against other players in your league are what decide your rank against the 99 other players of your particular division. It serves as a better way to rate your skill level than, say, being tied for 38th position with two thousand other people.

So far I have been impressed with the parings this system provides.

I am sitting on an overall win/loss ratio of about 1.3 wins for every one loss. While it's nothing to write home about, it does show that matchmaking is succeeding in pitting opponents of relatively equal skill against one another. None of my wins were overwhelming and none of my defeats were crushing. It's this that makes the beta so enjoyable to play.

Taking the time to improve my skill level isn't what I need to do in order for the game to become enjoyable to play. I can quite easily sit here on the wrong side of average, jump on and find a challenge. Oddly enough, it's this that keeps me coming back.

Conclusion:
The beta is in a constant state of flux. Unlike other recent beta tests (which often serve equal duty as demos) StarCraft II's beta is being patched almost daily with minor balances - another ten seconds build-time added here, a shield quotient reduced there.

Playing it, you very much get the sense that you're here to supply raw data and stress test mechanics rather than being gifted a sampler in the hope that you'll be coaxed into a retail purchase down the road.

It's already clear that this isn't going to be a multiplayer experience for everyone. It's an old school RTS title dedicated to purists and it refuses to pander to those with a casual interest in the genre or simply an admiration for the developer studio.

Surely only Blizzard can turn that kind of uncompromising manifesto into a strategy for success.

* StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty is due for release about mid-year.

- Gameplanet.co.nz

- Gameplanet