StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
Multiplayer beta.
So there, right at the top of this invisible pyramid I'm gesturing at, are the guys who play StarCraft competitively. Then there are the guys who are really, amazingly, incredibly good at it. Then there are those who are very, very good at it. Then the ones who are good at it. Then there are the ones who are competent at it.
Below that, somewhere in the giant mass further down this hierarchy, there's a tiny, microscopic dot that is me, and my current howling great lack of skill at StarCraft. Look pretty pathetic, don't I? Yeah, laugh at me, spit on me, say rude things about my mother.
But wait! Below that, there's a yawning expanse of people who are even worse at it. People who just can't click that fast. People who don't play strategy games online. People who don't play strategy games. I know I could, eventually, become at least capable at StarCraft. Those guys, though? It is, as a man once sang to Rambo, a long road.
In its current beta form, StarCraft II isn't what you'd call accessible. It's multiplayer only, with the only available AI so stupefying easy that you'd have a better chance of learning how to be good at this real-time strategy game if you played against a heroin-addled baboon.
That clearly won't be the case in the full, final game, but if you're thinking of dropping £300-odd on a beta key from eBay, know that's what you'll be getting. (People are doing that, you know. This is one of those games where the idea of missing out on several months of practice time is many players' worst nightmare.) There has also been talk that the full version will include a raft of training to help ease relative newcomers into the very precise, entirely unforgiving world of StarCraft II multiplayer.

The Terran Ghosts can drop a dirty little nuke onto the enemy base, if you can stealth 'em close enough. This = upsetting.
Even in its current, go-online-and-get-instawhipped beta form, you can tell there's a brewing helpfulness. The lobby/social networking system of the revised Battle.net, which is built into SCII's bones, is an unbelievably slick construct of information, friend profiles and auto-downloading maps as and when you need them.
Blizzard's money, experience and perfectionism have built a robust, beefy online gaming shell that, I don't doubt, every other bugger will soon be aping. It's quite clear it will eventually be filled with resources to ease the traumatic passage from absolute beginner to approximate understanding.
Phew, frankly. That's probably the only hope for rank newcomers, apart from a particularly bloody-minded select few breaking into the game. If you've not played much StarCraft online before, you really don't know what you're in for, even if you've played a ton of other strategy games.
Most of all, if you've looked at any of the released videos and screenshots of StarCraft II and thought, "I know exactly what that's going to be like," you're wrong. Yes, it's an entirely traditional RTS - you build your base and your army, and then you go box the ears of the other guy. In practice, though, it's exhausting brain-athletics.
In most any multiplayer RTS, victory relies on what you have in your hand - the structures and units you've built. In a great many of them, though, what you do with that hand is just as crucial. StarCraft II, if you're going to be playing it relatively casually, is different in that success depends primarily on what you have in your hand, how it's tailored to what the enemy has in their hand, and not so much on what you actually do with it. At least until you're playing at a level where both you and your opponent knows exactly what to build at all times, in which case constant micro-movement of your largely deadlocked armies is a whole new, even harder discipline to learn.
There are three factions - the space mariney Terran, the Aliensy Zerg and the techno-alien Protoss - and all three are totally distinct. This is asymmetrical strategy, rather than every side having roughly equivalent units.
Once you've semi-mastered a race, you're probably going to stick with it, forever. However, you must have absolute understanding of the other two factions, so that when your spies or scouts spot their first unit stride out of a factory, you know exactly what path up the tech tree they're taking, and exactly what to build to counter it.
It's ultra-chess, in its way. The actual fights are almost perfunctory, usually foregone conclusions. Player A has built that, which means Player B is absolutely screwed no matter how many of those he's managed to build. While learning the choke points and open spaces of the map is also key - you can't afford to waste any time wandering aimlessly, or leaving ground troops stuck at the bottom of a cliff overlooked by a phalanx of enemies - information is the real power here. If you don't know what the enemy is building, you can't respond to it. Biff. Dead.
On top of that, you need to be fast. The guys who are frighteningly good at StarCraft and its sequel are essentially superhumans, able to move and click that mouse at lightning speed. The pro players can manage over 400 actions per minute - selecting units, ordering them somewhere, building something, upgrading something else, activating a special ability, selecting, deselecting, selecting, deselecting...

To be a good Zerg player, you must be a master of creep. Even more so than you are down Ritzy's of a Saturday night.
You won't ever need to be that good. But you'll certainly need to manage much better than the less than 100-odd actions per minute you'll likely muster in your first few matches.
Achieving this is as much about will as it is about practice. One recent match saw most of my Protoss factories wiped out by a Terran assault, but his lack of invisible bastard-spotting Ghosts meant his army of robots and tanks was ultimately destroyed by a couple of permanently-stealthed Dark Templars I'd left lurking near my HQ.
Half my base was down, but his entire his army was down. Luck, not judgement - but a vital lesson that, next time, I should use a scout to identify whether my opponent was building any stealth-detecting units (Ghosts, in the Terran's case). If not, I should go full invisible and not bother with aircraft and tanks and whatnot. He'd have no chance. I'd learned something: the sense of understanding was so powerful I could taste it. It meant I could climb slightly further up that great pyramid of skill.
In this oddly fortunate mutual cock-up, however, despite losing almost all my barracks and factories I was left with a reasonable amount of resources, and enough Probes (the Protoss builder units) to come back, to stage enough of a defence to fight off whatever his second assault would be and then push forwards myself, while he was without an army.
I could see exactly what I had to do, the sustained clicking and planning, and how quickly I'd need to do it. It was eminently possible. But I lacked the will. I was weak, I was feeble, and I succumbed to the tiredness I felt when I thought about the physical and mental exertion involved. It was the point where your legs start to burn when you're out jogging; do you listen to the invisible PE teacher screaming at you in your head and push on, or do you give up and go buy some Monster Munch and a Fanta from the corner shop?
I did the latter. I spent everything on building a bloody great Mothership and pinged it straight to his base, where it was immediately shot down by a wall of anti-aircraft turrets. I knew it was a mistake. I'm not stupid. I'm just very lazy.
StarCraft II, in its current form, does not truck even the slightest laziness. You need to learn every unit, and how it counters every other unit. You need to learn exact build orders, the fastest route to get the good stuff and the good upgrades for the good stuff. You need to pore over the post-match replays and statistical comparisons with other players. Graphs! Numbers! Maths! So. Much. Maths. All the information you need is there, in a very slick, very modern and very Blizzard way. You absolutely can learn from it: this is something StarCraft II does very well.

The shuriken-like Protoss Mothership will lay waste to a base in seconds - unless they've gone big on anti-air units.
The question is - can you be bothered to learn it? Becoming better at StarCraft II multiplayer is the only reward you're going to get for giving yourself to StarCraft II multiplayer. It does pretty much everything a veteran StarCraft fan could want - the same but different, deeply traditional but with the very internet as its spine in such a way that it's incredibly modern; breezily cartoonlike but built as hardcore from the very foundations.
In an age where every other RTS is trying to be all things to all men - compromising the multiplayer to try and let newcomers in and (arguably) comprising the single-player because there's an industry-wide trend to squeeze role-playing into strategy - StarCraft is pure. The build-and-bash model may seem overly classic, but it's also an exceptionally rare beast in these genre-bending times: a gift to those who want to treat strategy gaming as a sport rather than a pastime. No quarter is given, no sacrifice is made to allow newbies in too.
This is a good thing. Gaming needs and deserves titles as sure of themselves and their audience as this is - it's just that it means StarCraft II isn't for some PC gamers. Maybe even most PC gamers. Right now, you're somewhere near the bottom of that towering pyramid of skill. Are you man/woman/robot/alien enough to climb it?
StarCraft II is due out for PC in the first half of 2010.
You may also like...
-
Why Can't Games Do Sex?
-
Fresh Far Cry 3 teaser is full of swears
-
Warp Review
-
Bethesda on Skyrim's viewable Morrowind, Cyrodiil: "maybe we'll use it one day"
-
Huge range of PlayStation 2 Classics storm European PlayStation store
-
App of the Day: Tongue Tied!
-
Notch can match Schafer's $13m Psychonauts 2 budget valuation
-
Far Cry 3 release date revealed by leaked trailer
-
Valve selling a virtual Team Fortress 2 ring for $100
-
Dear Esther Review
-
Fresh Resident Evil 6 details bleed in
-
PS3 exclusive JRPG Ni No Kuni out in Europe Q1 2013
-
PS2 Classics God Hand, Maximo on PlayStation Store today
-
PC Mass Effect 3 does not support game pads
-
Assassin's Creed Revelations getting Desmond single-player DLC
-
UFC Undisputed 3 Review
-
HTC smartphones and tablets to be PlayStation certified - report
-
Syndicate launch trailer blasts out the dubstep
-
Solitaire Blitz Preview: Why PopCap's Approach to Facebook Gaming is Anything But Casual
-
Comedian takes on Choose Your Own Adventure
-
Capcom registers new Darkstalkers trademark
-
Sony to shut down PSP Digital Comics service
-
Alan Wake PC version footage
-
Will there be a PS3 version of The Witcher 2?
-
Prince of Persia creator Mechner remaking Karateka









Comments (46) Latest comment 2 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The singleplayer and co-operative levels are all I'm interested in.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
so that noobs will play noobs, not scarily good players pretending to be noobs.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Personally I agree with Metalfish though, am only really interested if it is a solid and worthwhile single player game.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Either way I may just have to just settle for the single player campaign on it's own (yes I'm a baby). Just please oh please let the single campaign at least be as good (and as lengthy) as I've come to believe to make up for it.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'll probably get it for the single player, but multiplayer starcraft is just humiliating.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You have to remember that Blizzard don't need to please the casual gamers, WoW does that well enough.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Absolutely, definitely not, no.
But I am looking forward a lot to playing the campaign(s).
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You have to remember that Blizzard don't need to please the casual gamers, WoW does that well enough.
I don't think they've ever wanted a single game as their only vehicle for casual players. IIRC, Blizzard said in an interview about WOW that they focus on catering to the hardcore first and foremost, then they find that casuals are surprisingly willing to adapt. Easy to learn, difficult to master - I believe that's been applied to all of their games.
@Katana-Bob: I understand where you're coming from, but I honestly think it's fair to say that SC is different. I don't know any old school RTS games that have truly endured like SC has, or any others that became a country's national sport.
For SC2, I'm really looking forward to it, but I've never been good at the multiplayer, I'm too slow to respond and dislike intensive multi-tasking. Few people enjoy losing after all. I'll give multiplayer a dabble, but I'll buy it for the single player and world editor.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I don't agree.
SC2 is a million times less micro-intensive than 1. You don't need anywhere the 'APM' to compete even at a reasonable level, largley due the the AI which does most of the work.
If you've played WC3, or even C&C3, you'll be fine.
And for anyone shying away from MP due to lack of support/tutorials, protip: watch replays.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Tried Starcraft 1 online once, got my arse handed to me in record time. Never bothered again. There should be an online mode for absolute pussies I think.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I am in the beta for this as I went to Blizzcon. I still sucked as much at multiplayer my first few games as I did back then, but this time it's different - you play ten placement matches to see how competent you are, and then get put into an appropriate league (I was placed into copper, the lowest league). Each league is split into sub-divisions of 100 or so players who you can gauge yourself against, with the top 8 getting into a playoff at the end of the season to advance to the next league.
I lost my first few games, and lost them convincingly - but I decided to persevere. I was playing Protoss, so when a Protoss player completely dominated me, I go back to the replay and watch how. I then try using their tactics against other players - gradually I started reducing my loss-win ratio, and the experience felt incredibly rewarding.
As it stands now my loss-win ration is a little less than 2:1, but I am now winning more than I am losing. I am 19th in my league out of 100 (I was bottom for a considerable time), and I have to say, the feeling you get when an opponent who is favourite against you (you do get told before each match who is favourite) type "gg" is incredibly satisfying.
The matchmaking system as it stands is incredibly accurate and fair with only a pool of around 2000 people in it at the moment. I imagine when you have a few hundred thousand onlne players to compete against games will be even more evenly matched.
Be cynical if you like, but this hands-on is 100% correct when the author says that everyone will be trying to mimic Blizzard with regards to implementation of multiplayer gaming in the future.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Also the single player campaign should be good because they are releasing it in 3 parts so you will have more single player experience drip fed to you over time and they will have even longer to perfect/ develop it.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'm primarily interested in the SP campaign, but I dont doubt Ill be trying the MP, SC has always struck me as the modern day version of speedchess. Its a smart thing they stick you in sub-leagues of 100 people, that way your group feels small enough for you to feel satisfied with your progress, no matter how much you suck at the game.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Build orders are just opening moves, the game is too dynamic for any build order to be useful beyond the first few minutes of a match. When both players know the game well strategy does become very important and the strategy in StarCraft is very deep, that's why the game has managed to stick around. It's true that you need a lot of dexterity to play the game well, since it is in real time, you also need a lot of mental dexterity to keep track of dozens of different things at the same time, but that isn't mutually exclusive with strategy.
I don't like the chess analogy but it works insofar as chess requires a lot of investment before you actually see the game for what it is, and StarCraft is the same way. You can't say that there's no strategy involved when you don't even know the game well.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
RTS games have evolved a lot since the days of Starcraft but this doesn't appear to want to push the boundaries. And whilst it's all very neon and bright, the art direction is leaving zero impression on me at the moment. It really does just look like a higher resolution version of Starcraft, which in an age of detail in the likes of Company Of Heroes and Dawn Of War, makes it look very last, last-gen.
I do wonder what the Koreans will make of it though. Starcraft was so popular there, for so long because of it's low spec requirements. You could run it everywhere. Will this boast the same? I'm guessing there's an element of that in there but that makes me feel somewhat short-changed.
Time will tell.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Still on the fence about this, given my "no more Activision games" routine, but will probably crack...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
my first multiplayer experience was counter strike beta, I have never looked back since. playing with other humans is always sooooo much more exciting.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'll out-medic anyone in Bad Company2 or TF2. I'll medic your faces off. But the effort required to grind an opponent in a RTS is too much for my brain to cope with. Ironically I've won most MP RTS games I've played but I was so drained by the end of them I wasn't sure if I'd had any fun.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
?
Judging off that surely this game HAS to get a terrible score?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
but at the same time, competitive fps (clan matches) are pretty draining too, certainly no less than RTS, just far less common.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
But what i loved about original SC was certain details; eg if you just had a handful of marines, they would shoot up at the aircraft near them. They never became obselete. After C&C and RedAlert where troops just sat and got shot by helicopters etc this resonated very well with me, it made sense and made it enjoyable. You didnt have to lose to a single red health-bar aircraft. You could stop 100 massed zerg with 3 well played units but just as easily lose those same units to a few well played units.
What i hate is a "you didnt build that! you cant do anything!" approach. We're back at troops just sat getting shot by helicopters again... thats not good. Not to me anyway.
The replays were always good for a laugh, watching players spam the ground as fast as they can to get a higher APM!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
For those who were asking about single player, I did get to try the 20 minute demo of the single player campaign at Blizzcon, and it is incredibly good - so far removed from the multiplayer that it feel like almost an entirely different game. I spent literallly the entirety of my first 20 minutes walking around the ship quest hub and talking to characters that I didn't get the chance to actually take a mission before I got timed out!
On subsequent plays I got to try the two different missions. The first one was an escort mission of sorts where you had to escort convoys through a choke-point style valley to an evacuation point, with each convoy coming under increasingly intense attacks from the Zerg. During this mission you also had the opportunities to explore the area in-between escort runs to try and discover Zerg DNA samples, which can later be spent on researching new permanent tech for future missions. The one thing I noticed about this mission was the inclusion of Firebats - a unit which will be familiar to anyone who played the original SC, but one which isn't present in SC2 multiplayer at all. Blizz have assured us that each mission will have it's own unique spin like this to differentiate it from the multiplayer.
One thing which was showcased in one of the dev panels which wasn't available to play was a mission on a lava planet. This was a mission where you had to mine X amount of resources within a certain time period. The catch is that these resources are at the low points of the planet, which are regularly flooded by lava. When the lava floods are incoming you have to lift off your command centres, and get your SCVs to safety. Not only is this a great twist for a single-player mission, but it also inadvertently will teach you an important skill for multiplayer without you realising you've learned it. Certainly a showcase for good game design.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I must be getting old because I feel the answer is no. I can't even be bothered to get back into something like WoW now. MW2 and its instant thrills have spoiled me.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I also did my StarCraft2 Wings of Liberty Preview.
Check it out here: http://www.spacesector.com/blog/201 0/03/starcraft-2-wings-of-liberty-preview/
Enjoy!