After three-years and fourty-thousand checks of my email, the Starcraft II beta finally arrived. I guess one of the perks of keeping a blog is that you get access to the newest things in video games as they happen, like DoTA remake Heroes of Newerth, as well as exciting developments in the field, like home-made and independent games. But after playing a fair few games of Starcraft II I got to thinking: is this game really “new”; is this game really exciting?
My first impression of SC 2 was, bascially, “wow — this game looks great, this game plays great, this game is great”. And, like culture shock, this elicited a feeling of excitement that this was something familiar (principally similar to Starcraft, common units) but completely different (new mechanics, new units, etc.). But also like culture shock, it wore off, and I was left with the reality of Starcraft II.
Starcraft II, from what I’ve gathered from the multiplayer component of the beta, is a really good game, even post-’culture shock’. The problem: it feels like a really glossy remake of Starcraft; it doesn’t feel like a revolution. As anyone who has been following the developent of the game will know, there are a few changes to the way the game can be played. For example, certain units can leap / scale cliffs and ledges, Zerg roaches can move burrowed. In my short time with the game, I have also noticed the drastic ’rounding’ of the Zerg game since Starcraft (they actually have an early game via roaches!). There is also more filled-out, linear progression from light to heavy units.
For me, some of these features felt like they could have constituted a heavy patching of the original game; the other features, while cool, did not and, in my experience, have not redefined the way the game is played. Low-tier unit rushes are still the same except Terran use a few marauders and Zerg use roaches instead of hydra. Protoss often incorporate stalkers, but can rely on early zealot pushes. Likewise, if playing against someone with even a slightly lower skill level, a fast tech to heavy air units still usually delivers a comprehensive victory.
That being said, there are some drastic improvements in the playability of the game: the ability to select multiple buildings, rally miners to resources, improved pathing, generally less ‘bugged’ unit AI (I am yet to see computer opponent AI in full force), que upgrades, que rally points / commands, etc.
Yet in spite of all this, I return to my earlier point that Starcraft II just feels like a (very) comprehensive remake of Starcraft II. The improvements on Starcraft don’t constitute a revolution of the game. A revolution would imply a considerable, near-redefining shift in the fundamentals, but this has not taken place. Perhaps it is more helpful to consider Starcraft II in terms of evolution. If we consider the patching Starcraft mutations, then I’d say that Starcraft II constitutes, while drastic, just another mutation.
But so far I have only discussed the gameplay itself. The aesthetics of the game, on the other hand are completely different: the design of Starcraft has seen revolution. Units, buildings, terrain have obviously been intricately designed and benefit greatly from the gorgeous Havok-driven polygons. But such changes are to be expected and constitutes an article unto itself.
As you have probably gathered, I was left with the feeling that Starcraft II was more of a contemporaneous interpretation of the original and not the drastic revolution of RTS I was hoping for. Once the culture shock of the new units and (limited) new mechanics had worn off, I felt like I was playing the same game. This is not to say it is bad. In fact nearly every improvement is a liberating development on its predecessor. Additionally, playing Starcraft II is one of the most joyous and purely fun gaming experiences I’ve ever had. I chalk this down to a) its familiarity and b) the developed aesthetics and gameplay. It’s more than likely that the fundamental similarities between the two games were conscious master-strokes made by its developers. But that doesn’t undermine the fact that Starcraft II is to Starcraft as a human is to a chimp: on the surface there are substantial differences, but many of the same principals underpin both creatures.
In sum, Starcraft II does excite me and it is a greatly evolved version of Starcraft, but it is not a new genus of RTS. These are minor, analytical gripes, however, and hinge largely on my own expectations. All in all, anticipate enjoying the game immensely and being uniformly impressed by the work as a whole.
Read More
. I was particularly enamored by 
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