StarCraft II

Terran up the competition: the beta, previewed

It's probably not deliberate, but Blizzard seems determined to drive home just how inadequate I am as a gamer. Within minutes of arriving at the company's imposing Southern California base - the giant statue of an orc riding a wolf in the courtyard is under renovation by a team of builders, it transpires - I'm seated in a private cinema to watch some StarCraft II matches in progress.

Observing the matches through the game's vastly improved spectator mode, ably assisted by a live commentator, I watch the balance of power and resources ebb and flow at breakneck speed. StarCraft has always been a fast game, and StarCraft II has lost none of that speed. With two experienced players pitted against one another, the game is all about broad strategy and perfect timing.

They expertly probe one another's defences for any way to gain a resource advantage, distracting one another with feints and taking calculated risks where the balance between stunning victory and crushing defeat rests on a knife-edge. Tiny turns in the balance of play can determine the fate of a match - easily missed by less experienced eyes, were it not for the helpful voice of our commentator. Even the physical dexterity of the players is mind-boggling, with graphs on screen showing that each is carrying out well over a hundred actions per minute.

This is impressive stuff - but also a little intimidating. This kind of play is probably beyond the reach of mere mortals such as I. It's hugely entertaining to watch, but can it possibly be fun to play for a less talented and devoted gamer? Is this really a game for all of us, or should those of us who aren't Korean youths dreaming of pro-gamer careers look away now?

"Okay", our Blizzard hosts say, with a hint of a slightly evil grin. "Now it's your turn!" Time to find out.

Even back in 2003, when work started on StarCraft II, it was obvious that this game was a child of two worlds. On one hand, millions of gamers has bought the game and loved it - finding joy in the extraordinarily perfect balance between the three disparate forces, the surprisingly strong narrative of the singleplayer mode and the fast-paced, action-packed nature of multiplayer encounters.

'StarCraft II' Screenshot 1

Battlecruisers are still among the best Terran units, while Protoss players will fall for the charms of the War of the Worlds-inspired Colossus.

On the other hand, however, the world of eSports had picked up StarCraft with an enthusiasm few other games have enjoyed. Professional players invented ingenious strategic tricks and pushed their physical abilities to levels which shocked even the game's creators at Blizzard. In Korea and other East Asian nations, TV broadcasts of StarCraft pro matches were filmed in front of studio audiences largely made up of teenage girls who screamed the names of their pro-gamer idols.

With StarCraft II, the challenge is to try and please both of those audiences. Blizzard wants the pro gamers to love StarCraft II, but it wants you and I to love it just as much. It's a tall order, but the company adopted a handful of design ideas which, it reckons, will ensure that StarCraft II makes everyone happy.

The first, and perhaps most important, of those ideas is apparent to me within minutes of settling into my first game. StarCraft II has totally avoided the trap into which almost every other RTS sequel in gaming history has fallen - namely, making the sequel more complex than the original.

'StarCraft II' Screenshot 2

Lookout towers, like the one in the top left, can be captured to provide a huge line of sight across the map - a major strategic advantage.

The temptation, with a sequel, is to put everything from the first game in, and add extra stuff on top of that. Instead, StarCraft II re-imagines the three races - but doesn't make them any more complex than they were before, and resists the urge to add a fourth race to the mix.

Blizzard's head of game design, Rob Pardo, is very blunt about how this design idea worked in practice. In StarCraft: Brood War, each race had around 15 units to play with, a number which the team decided to stick to. The consequences were obvious. "We had a rule that every time we wanted to come up with a brand new unit for one of the sides, an old unit had to go," Pardo explains.

"We really felt like the original StarCraft had the right mix of complexity," he continues. "It had a lot of depth and complexity to it, but it was still really approachable and accessible. If the approach we took was just to take a whole bunch of new units and throw them in there, we felt like the game was just going to become overly complex, and wouldn't even be as good as the original."

A similar philosophy has been applied to the buildings and research trees in the game. What I'm confronted with when I sit down to play StarCraft II is a game which is familiar from my years of playing StarCraft (badly), but yet different in almost every way. Some key ideas are familiar - resources and scouting are still crucial, as is knowing when to build an expansion. The basic play-style of each race remains the same.

Outside of that, however, StarCraft II is a game which StarCraft players will need to re-learn - but it's a learning process that won't take any longer than the first game's did. By the end of three or four games, I've tried out all three sides and worked out the basics of each one. I've won some and lost some, but crucially, despite being a long way from hitting 150 actions per minute, I've had a lot of fun.

The learning curve itself is entertaining. For new players, the joy of discovering the three disparate races will be immense - for those of us coming from the original StarCraft, however, seeing how things have changed is even more fun.

The insect-like Zerg, for example, have developed key new ways to expand the "creep" cover - the purple goop under their bases on which Zerg units zoom around at enhanced speed. Floating Overlords can spew creep onto the map below them, both extending the Zerg's range and preventing other races from building in that area, while the Zerg Queen - a hugely changed and much more powerful unit - can drop a "creep tumor" into the ground to expand the range of the cover.

Terran buildings have always been interesting, thanks to the ability to lift off and move them around, but their architects have been hard at work on even more versatile structures for SC2. Supply depots can now sink into the ground on command, allowing units to pass overhead - effectively making them into useful barriers for cutting off choke points on the map. The Command Centre, meanwhile, has developed the ability to upgrade either to an orbital uplink which benefits sensors and resource gathering, or a Planetary Fortress, complete with a very big gun on top.

'StarCraft II' Screenshot 4

The Protoss remain a powerful foe in the air - while Terran ground units like the building-sized Thor and the much-loved Siege Tanks are tough opponents.

Plenty has changed for the Protoss, too. Gateways, the basic unit production structures, can be upgraded into Warp Gates - which allows you to instantly warp new units into position around any Pylon you've placed on the map. Building a simple, cheap Pylon near an enemy base means you could warp in an entire attack force en masse, in theory at least. The Protoss have also acquired a new unit called a Mothership, a hugely expensive but powerful Close Encounters style ship which cloaks everything underneath it and has various support abilities including being able to "banish" a group of enemies into a black hole for a period of time.

StarCraft II is filled with a wealth of changes and occasionally startling new ideas, far too numerous to list in a preview. It's a whole new game, each similarity to the original balanced out by several changes - but the key ideas of being simple to learn and tough to master, of providing three radically different play styles which are perfectly balanced against one another, are totally intact.

What's blindingly apparent is that while this game is going to be fantastic for high level competition, exactly the same attention to detail and obsession with balance is also going to make it fantastic for us normal humans as well. Each strategy has a counter-strategy, each action has an effective response - it's just down to you to learn them and, more importantly, to recognise when to apply them. The pro players will do that at breakneck speed, but that doesn't mean it won't be fun for the rest of us to do the same things at a more sedate pace.

'StarCraft II' Screenshot 6

StarCraft players probably recognise most of these units - but expecting them to behave the way that they used to is a quick way to a humiliating defeat.

This is the beauty of what Blizzard is doing with StarCraft II. It knows that the game doesn't need to be dumbed down for the rest of us - it just needs to avoid pandering to the ultra-hardcore mentality. Their labours over the past six years have focused on building something that's accessible and deceptively simple, yet full of hidden depth. Another comment from Pardo is revealing. "It gets to that level where, hopefully, the game is as deep and strategic as something like chess, where there isn't a dominant strategy," he told us. Like Chess, or Go, the rules of StarCraft II are simple - the games which result from those rules, however, are beautifully complex and nuanced.

With some time left to run on the development of the game, Blizzard knows that it's not perfectly balanced just yet. Changes are still being made, countless matches between players of all kinds being observed and researched to see where improvements can be made. The tweaks being made now are probably things which you or I, the average strategy game player, would never even notice as a flaw, but the pro gamer community will take advantage of them in a flash. As a result, Blizzard is aiming for a higher level of perfection - but in the end, it looks like that will result in something that all of us can enjoy.

Comments (37) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • migasUK #1 3 years ago

  • Bakerman #2 3 years ago

    want ... so ... bad ...

    I've been a nice boy, so I hope Blizzard will bring me (or at least let me purchase) Starcraft II for Christmas 2009!
  • flaming.carrot #3 3 years ago

    Looks great, and a Mac version too! Yay!
  • UncleLou #4 3 years ago

    I can't see myself ever playing this online, but as long as it has an interesting campaing with Blizzard's usual standard of über-CGI cutscenes, I'll be happy.
  • StooMonster #5 3 years ago

    Haven't played a game of this genre in years, but very much looking forward to this title. :)
  • Bitkari #6 3 years ago

    I am really looking forward to this, but still a little bit sad that they've split the game up into three separate products :(

  • Edwardo #7 3 years ago

    Bring it already! I can't wait anymore!

    I also only played a few games online (they minced me before I knew it)...but the real value for me was always in the campaign and the local network games I played anyway! Would have been nice to play the Zerg first (Kerrigan looks hot!).
  • Dizzy #8 3 years ago

    I loved SC1... but TBH the gameplay is now a bit old and a "more-of-the-same" philosophy is not going to do it for me. I played the beta and it is great to return to SC, but I will be playing this mainly for the single player campaign. The online matchmaking will be way too much micromanagement for my tastes. I will stick to DoW2 for my online battes.
  • mingster #9 3 years ago

    The question for us mortal players is how good is the AI?
  • Genji #10 3 years ago

    "We don't want to make it too different, because then squllions of people in South Korea won't buy it." ;)

    I predict this game single-handedly driving a massive influx of computer upgrades over there. Most of the systems I saw were positively ancient - good enough for the first SC, but not for this.

    As for me.... well, I'm not a huge RTS fan in general - mostly because of the lightning-fast decision making that's required - but I might give this a go. Probably just against the AI, though. :)
  • pikemon #11 3 years ago

    Mac version? Will this run on my macbook?

    Nice review. It's awesome how Blizzard guys have taken their time with this game.
  • Gnort #12 3 years ago

    I'm really looking forward to Starcraft 2, but I think I much prefer the more streamlined approach to multiplayer that Dawn of War II uses. I don't want to faff around with resource fields and building supply depots, I want to be waging war within a minute of starting a multiplayer game.

    I didn't really think DoW2's single player campaign was the right decision, though, and I think SC2's more traditional approach in this regard will work better.
  • BathiBoi #13 3 years ago

    ...can...not...wait...anymore...
  • Ryuken #14 3 years ago

    I am sure StarCraft II will be polished as hell, with every feature present that the e-sports/modding crowd want and with decent enough matchmaking to make us lesser gods enjoy it a bit online as well.

    But yeah, the campaign is my main interest too (non-linear, 3D adventure stuff between missions, unique units with upgrades, stuff to drool on), at least that part doesn't look like it's based on RTS mechanics from 1998 (and earlier times). Going from a 12 unit selection limit to a possible 24 unit selection limit doesn't exactly make my RTS heart beat faster. After more than 10 years StarCraft still easily carries the crown of best linear RTS campaign but the genre has moved on in all other aspects of strategy gaming. I'd rather play the upcoming DoW II "There Is Only War" beta to be honest.

    And where are those other strategy game previews on EG btw? :) Missed SupCom 2, Hearts of Iron III, Disciples III, East India Company at E3 and the recent hints at a radically new C&C 4 or is there some kind of embargo?
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/09 @ 10:17
  • Sunyavadin #15 3 years ago

  • Xerx3s #16 3 years ago

    As much as I love SC, I'd rather have DIII first any day of the week.
  • Evolution #17 3 years ago

    @Gnort

    How can you call SC2's SP campaign traditional?
  • sneetch #18 3 years ago

    @Bitkari
    I am really looking forward to this, but still a little bit sad that they've split the game up into three separate products :(

    I was a little too then I read how long the Terran campaign actually is (30 missions) and I didn't mind. Approximately 90 missions for the three games (or one game and two expansion packs, possibly).

    Then again Terran were always my favourites. :)
  • Gnort #19 3 years ago

    @Evolution

    Because you will be able to build units.
  • Hantheman #20 3 years ago

    Blizzard must be the most controlled game designers. They don't rush. They don't mess about. They just do the right thing.
  • zoweewowee #21 3 years ago

    for those asking about the mac version, pc and mac version will be released at the same time

    probably on a pc/mac disk like war3
  • paulf #22 3 years ago

    chess for the 21st century, the best thing about blizz is they make loads of moeny for all the right reasons - ie they make really really good games
  • geeza2020 #23 3 years ago

    yes this is nice and all, but im more interested in Diablo 3, and (if there is any) news on WarCraft 4. Will they ever make this game?
  • Spekingur #24 3 years ago

    Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. Games that I want, now!

    I'll probably need a new computer though to run them in proper graphics. I just recently played SC1 and what hit me most was the resolution. I really, really want to play SC in higher resolutions with widescreen.
  • robg #25 3 years ago

    @Gnort

    Not like the non-unit-building gaming pioneered in the Commando mission in C&C, then. That's brand new.

    And how old's Ground Control?
  • Averice #26 3 years ago

    Pro gamer, such a silly concept. I must admit watching the preview matches with the announcers was interesting, but also off putting for myself as a player. The only way I'll ever play SC2 is||| Edit: Apparently the game can't be played on LAN, only over Battle.net|||if I somehow meet a few guys with a LAN setup and we play local multi-player, and then someone loans me the single player campaign. Not going to touch it otherwise, Blizzard just doesn't seem to make some of their games for the right reasons anymore. Definitely looking forward to D3 though, I can't wait until Blizzcon just for more D3 info.

    Also, memorizing keyboard shortcuts in order to fast produce units/structures/tech at 150 actions a second doesn't sound like the future of chess to me. Sounds more like an FPS than an RTS when you bring such required levels of twitch gaming. Maybe this is the future of RTS, but not chess.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/09 @ 18:46
  • peak_performance #27 3 years ago

    Nah, the gaming community has always (at least since the original Starcraft) been complaining about Blizzards no-innovation gameplay. Regardless, they always top the charts when they are released, so obviously western gamers don't want new features as much as a good game.

    And Blizzard knows how to make a good sequel: Don't dismiss what your fans liked about the previous game, expand upon it.
  • Shinji #28 3 years ago

    Anyone who complained about there being no innovation in Starcraft (or Warcraft III) clearly hasn't played many other RTS games. Both of them radically changed a lot of the fundamental things about the genre, both in their single-player and multiplayer modes. SC2 multiplayer looks like one of the most conservative things they've done in years, but it's not hard to see why, and it works really well as a result.
  • Gnort #29 3 years ago

    @robg

    If you'd read my original post, you'd see that I'm not criticizing the single player campaign by calling it traditional, I was saying I far prefer the base-building approach more typical to RTS games, at least for the single player campaign. I'm not claiming Dawn of War II invented the "unit-driven campaign" or whatever you want to call it. In fact, I wish they hadn't gone in that direction.

    Honestly, you can't really say anything about a Blizzard game without a bunch of irate fans taking offense.
  • wonton #30 3 years ago

    Its been such a long time, at least this game will be polished like a mirror when it comes out.

    Take as long as you need Blizzard :) It should be near perfect.
  • CouldntResist #31 3 years ago

    Oh my god oh my god oh my god. Is it time to quit my job yet?

    For me, SC and WC are always about the competitive play. To people who are dismissing this, i don't want innovative gameplay features. I want a game where i can compete against other people both strategically and tactically. Remember new != good.
  • lolife.se #32 3 years ago

    StarCraft without LAN. No thank you.
  • robg #33 3 years ago

    @Gnort

    I'd ask the same question regardless of which game you were commenting on; if you look very closely, you'll see that my response isn't specific to Starcraft.
  • Vixremento #34 3 years ago

    I was so looking forward to this...then they announced the game being released in 3 chunks. I convinced myself it'll be okay...waiting three years between each iteration (well that's how long it feels Blizz takes before they release anything) would be okay I guess because of the ability to use any race in a LAN

    --BOOM-- No LAN

    WTF?
  • Shinji #35 3 years ago

    The "no LAN" thing is a bit of a misleading story. I've seen no suggestion that it won't work on a LAN (I was playing perfectly happily on a LAN for this hands-on, in fact), it's just that there won't be a LAN-specific mode. LAN games will be set up on Battle.net, just like online games.

    If anything that's an improvement since it means you'll be able to track the stats of your LAN games on your Battle.net account.

    It would probably help if Blizzard actually clarified this, I've seen a huge number of complaints in the past few days about something that really isn't going to be an issue at all.
  • Gnort #36 3 years ago

    @robg

    Sorry, I assumed your comment was made out of petulance at my perceived slight of Blizzard because your point made no sense. You surely can't be implying that due to a few novelty missions in Command & Conquer and an under-appreciated RTS (Ground Control) a "traditional" RTS game isn't one where you build bases and units?

  • Buran #37 3 years ago

    Is purchase day 1 to me, but pseudo Protoss looks utter lame without Templars, Dark Templars, Dragons, Scarabs and Arbiters. I doubt that the gameplay with the new units keep some resemblance with the old Protoss.