Let me first say that I am biased from the outset. Did I play StarCraft? Yes I did. Did I play it too much? Yes — Yes I did. But what is too much? Interesting question. I was going to say too much is an amount that you regret at a later stage, but, in a way, I don’t regret it. I mean, StarCraft was amazing. This being the case, StarCraft II has a lot to live up to.
But first, some back story. What is StarCraft? First, let me ask you this. What do you think of when you think of ‘star’? Outerspace, celebrities, a shape? What do you think of when you think of ‘craft’? Chiseling some wood, a multinational corporation, making… something…? These are questions Blizzard seemingly refuses to answer. Will StarCraft II answer these questions? Not sure. Is it important that they do? No. I think what I’m getting at is that I’m not going to explain what the game is. If you don’t know what StarCraft is (and there aren’t many of you), then buy it, play it (won’t take you that long), then get Brood War (no point without it, won’t take you very long either), then get StarCraft 2. You won’t regret it (guaranteed). And when you don’t regret it, you will.
Looking at StarCraft II, I think blizzard agrees with me. StarCraft II is, in many ways, exactly the same as the original StarCraft. Yes, that’s right — in 12 years blizzard has managed to make the same game again. Only this time it looks a fair bit nicer. They changed what some stuff looks like, took out a few units and added a few more, and now hydras shoot black spikes not green goo! And wait a second: I can zoom now? Now i can see a Kerrigan up close. MY DREAMS HAVE BECOME REALITY! The only reason the zoom is there is to prove that we are, in fact, playing on a new game engine. It has no strategic function. The fact is, these kind of additions are, at best, superficial, and, at worst, just placatory to those in the gaming industry who think it’s all about the freaking graphics.
The simple truth is that StarCraft II will sell no matter what because StarCraft (original) was about three things: the gameplay, the story and the community. And if you break it down like that you can understand exactly why Blizzard has basically released a fancy remake. I can imagine them sitting around a round table (cause Blizzard is fair, balanced environment) and going through these points.
Gameplay: Let’s not change it. We all know its perfect. Just dab around the edges a bit. How about some special, orange minerals?!
The story: Hire some good writers so we don’t stuff it up too much. Oh, and split the game into three parts. This means, to get the entire story, they have to buy it another two times. (Activision CEO walks into the meeting. His pupils have been replaced with big, green dollar signs. He has a big grin on his face and makes a loud ‘cha-ching’ sound).
Now, on the point of community, they did some thinking. If you where a dedicated StarCraft fan, you would know that one of the main reasons StarCraft (and other blizzard games) are so good is / was because of Battle.net. You could log in quickly and easily and, within four minutes, be playing a ‘3v3@BGH NOOBZ ONLY’ (but you’re a pro, so the jokes on them), watching your ‘/stats’ go up ( 
), or down ( 
) and, ultimately, calling people hackers when they notice your arbiter going in for a recall. It’s what the game was about. I mean, fuck the Zerg, Protoss and Terran. In essence, StarCraft was like every other game: the objective is to be better than other people. And it was fun.
So Blizzard looked at this and decided to make Battle.net more comprehensive, more social, more addictive. Basically, when you buy StarCraft II you’re buying Battle.net 2.0. And it’s a lot better than its predecessor. Much better. Now, instead of waiting 4 minutes for a game to start, you wait 1 minute. No longer can pros join noob games, because it matches you against people of your ability. (This could be considered a drawback — Blizzard has no sense of humor). Also, player-made maps are now listed by popularity, and they fill up one at a time. Now there is never five separate turret-defence games full of players spamming “+1 +1 +1” and closing and opening slots (because it makes the game refresh, right?). The only problem: I have noticed is that the countdown timer in custom maps can be thirty seconds! What a joke! My time is valuable, Blizzard. So now I’m not going to recommend StarCraft II at all.
Fortunately, I have found a flash game that doesn’t have a thirty-second load time. Similar to StarCraft II, it’s called Crush the Castle 2. In Crush the Castle, you have a catapult, and you shoot bits of wood and rocks and magic bombs at a castle. Your objective: smash the castle and kill its 2D inhabitants in as few shots as possible. What can I say apart from the load time is nice and short and there are lots of awards in it, like freezing three people in one shot with an ice bomb. I can’t recommend this game highly enough. It has its own level editor where you can play other peoples levels and make your own. Oh, and it’s free.
Crush the Castle 2: 2/5
Synaesthetics in Modern Games
Two articles have recently got me thinking about the interactions we are seeing between the visual elements of games and the aural. In this article on Osmos at Create Digital Music [via Critical Distance], Peter Kim discusses with its creators the process behind the sound design of Osmos and how the game’s mechanics continuously affect it. The other article is on the synaesthetics behind Audiosurf [also via Critical Distance].
Along with the works created by Brian Eno and Peter Chilvers’ project, Generative Music (Bloom, Trope and Air), Audiosurf and Osmos make interesting comments about synaesthetics in modern games. By way of extrapolation we can see them positioned across a sort of spectrum:
The game and thus gameplay is determined according to the music (music determines player’s actions): Audiosurf recognizes that music is as much a part of the game as the visual and mechanical side.
The music indicates aspects of the game and gameplay and vice-versa (music affects game and gameplay, game and gameplay affects music): Pacing in Osmos is suggested by pacing in the music. Conversely, visual elements alter the music. As Osmos creator Mat Jarvis says to Kim:
“I’ve always liked music visualisers like the Processing and Cymatics stuff, they’re quite compelling to watch how they react to the music, so it would be interesting to go the other way; by manipulating/ sculpting abstract shapes which then modify or even create sounds and music, especially using the new controllers like the Wii, [Microsoft’s] Project Natal and Sony’s Motion Controller instead of the mouse.” — Music, Physics, Space in Perfect Fusion: Interview, Creators of Game Osmos.
The player’s in-game actions determine the music (player’s actions determines music): In Generative Music’s software as well as in works like Electroplankton, what the player does determines the music. Whether or not these works constitute games will not be discussed here, but they are relevant as, no matter what, they inevitably fall under the same banner as traditional games.
Following this line of reasoning, we can deduce the following chart:
Simply put, this is a clear synaesthetic relationship being formed between long-standing components of games. I think it is quite wonderful how seamlessly music and gameplay are being integrated in this way. I know there are other games out there that attempt to form these environmental relationships, but the games chosen here demonstrate my point clearly. In sum, some questions:
- Could this relationship be the result of more musicians taking active roles in game development? Generative Music, for example, has Brian Eno at the helm. Eno is a highly influential musician particularly with regard to the types of aural experiences we’re seeing in games. Wiki ‘generative music‘ for a summary of this.
- What directions might these synaethetic relationships take games in the future?
- And what other relationships might be built in to games in similar ways?
Read More