My Two Cents - Starcraft 2

A game franchise which name precedes itself. Starcraft has always had a hefty reputation in the RTS community and as a RTS gamer I find it strange that I just never crossed paths with it in the nineties. I played my fair share of Red Alert 1, Command and Conquer 1,  and even Dune 2, but I never actually saw Starcraft 1, merely heard of it in passing. Only in the last two years preceding the launch of Starcraft 2 did I come across it more personally. So I had relatively low expectations for SC2 (Starcraft 2) despite the reviews and its reputation.

Despite being a sucker for a great, well told storyline and visual effects. It is the game play and game design that make or break a release of a game and possibly a franchise. This game hasn’t revolutionized the RTS genre by any means. It has however re-used a tried and true formula and polished it well incorporating not only storyline and visual effects, but also keeping to the original game’s strengths in level design and game play ( I ended up buying the original and expansion in a bargain bin ). If anything, I feel the game’s storyline is told a bit better with the style of cinematics and dialogue even casually between missions. There is also a hint of RPG similar to Mass Effect in the way you can move about the ship (however streamlined) to talk to various characters and also research and manage your upgrades.

The meat of the game is actually in the levels themselves and the combat around the objectives. This might sound like a stereotypical approach to a campaign in an RTS, but the Blizzard folks have done this well. The objectives are very well balanced and conform well to the map style (such as holding out for x amount of time). Even the “Escort the Civilian” type missions which I have a personal distaste for were somewhat engaging. Just to detail the extent of polish applied to the story telling, even the in-game dialogue between characters gives detail to the mission and its context. I will say that finishing the original might give value to playing the SC2 as there are aspects to the story which could be missed ( such as the differences between the dominion and the confederation ). This might seem like a subtle point but it could really add up down the line in the franchise.

I will say with all the hype that I found the graphics to be a let down. The game’s graphics isn’t a discredit to the game, but I did find it lacklustre considering the caliber of the game. There are aspects to the detail put into the game that I appreciated, like the dialogue of the units. Such as Thor which has a distinct “Arnold Schwarzenegger” sound and accent to him.

On the multiplayer front, my opinion is quite opposite to other people that I have spoken to. I feel the game has been drastically nerfed here compared to the single player game. The number of upgrades, structures and units has been significantly reduced. Now the SC2 players that I have spoken to so far have been relatively happy with this cause they recognize that it was probably done to enforce balancing in the game. Looking at the success worldwide of the multiplayer, obviously it has been well done. I still feel however that the game should’ve have been balanced with all of the single player bell’s and whistles.

Despite the questions raised while playing, I finished the game with little effort in terms of motivation which is a great credit to a game. I generally have no qualms stopping a game if it no longer engages me.

That’s my two cents on Starcraft 2. I’m looking forward to the expansion, Heart of the Swarm :-)

Adios Everyone :-)

My Two Cents - World In Conflict

I saw World In Conflict ( with the Soviet Assault Expansion ) in a bargain bin recently and decided to give it a try. I originally ignored this game despite enjoying Ground Control 1, which was a great game also done by Massive Entertainment. To put this game in a nutshell, it is a great game. I have thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaign and I have not yet tried the multiplayer. The expansion pack essentially merges a set of missions in-between the original set of missions to bulk up the storyline.

One of the biggest detractors for me originally when considering this game was the lack of base building and traditional resource management. Call me old school but I like my strategy games to involve base building and resource management. Although I sometimes wonder if I’m in the minority, seeing as though more and more games are streamlining that part of RTS games (Dawn of War 2; Command and Conquer 4). With that said, I think the design decision to use squads/regiments only has worked well with the game style and how it is meant to be played. The game’s focus is entirely around management of troops and there interaction/support of each other within a relatively small battlefield.

The game’s central storyline revolves around the Cold War between the United States and the USSR break out into a full invasion initiated by the USSR. An interesting use case for me personally. I can’t help but imagine what fears the US people had regarding a full invasion in the eighties. The storytelling is done well with the missions bouncing between the US and USSR characters. Although the cinematics could have benefited from a little work in terms of graphics, it told the story very well. I also had to bear in mind how old this game is when playing it. I also found constantly playing missions between the different sides gives a broader perspective on the conflict that goes on between nations and the people leading the fight on the ground which kept me engaged in the game as well.

When I said earlier that there was no resource management, I meant only in the traditional sense. In WiC you do have the concept of resource points which are allocated based on performance but also seem to be subject to the nature of the mission and are not given out purely based on kills or objectives. These resource points can essentially be used either to get reinforcements ( such as troops or vehicles/helicopters ) or the points can be used to access various types of artillery which can be a lot of fun and even crucial for tactical management of the battle at hand.

The gameplay mechanics turned out very well and feels fluid without dragging on. With that said, my personal highlight for the game is the graphics which is quite often a make or break deal for me. The game feels deep and the scale of the environment and its objects feel real as well. There is ample use of decent particle systems with the best application being to no surprise, a nuclear detonation which is so far my favourite to date.

All in all I think the game is worth the buy, and should be playable even for the non-RTS gamers. It is rare when I lose track of time while playing a game, but this is one of those games which made keeping track of time more difficult :-)

My two cents,

Ciao all :-)