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

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.

Blizzard just opened a competition for members of Twitter to win SC2 beta invites. All you have to do is Tweet why you’re the biggest fan. Blizzard will then pick the best entrances every day from August 14th – 24th.

It’s open now so freakin go!