Preview: StarCraft II

[Zanez]

I dunno why people say this WC3 was bad....sure MP side was good but the SP side was well....."bioshock" easy due to the crappy AI they didn't take the time to work on or polish....

Currently in beta there is only one difficulty for computer controlled AI. It is set to very easy. It is like this for two reasons:
To encourage people to play against eachother instead of computer AI's.
Because this is beta, and there will be sweeping balance changes. They do not want to be adjusting how the AI plays every time there is a patch.
There will be 5 difficulty modes for the AI: Very Easy, Easy, Normal, Hard and Insane. The Insane one cheats a little, but it is not designed to be fought unless you want a real challenge.

Also, there will be several difficulty levels for the single player campaign, and many side levels and all of them include optional missions that add difficulty and replayability.

I personally liked Warcraft 3, and all aspects of it. And that is because I didn't compare it to Starcraft.

 

[John Funk]

I'm not saying you are wrong and you should certainly vote with your money, but how come Steam doesn't garner the same response from you? That's what Blizzard has made though, a system where you loose some rights for other services.

Who says it doesn't? What Steam doesn't do is: slow my games down, limit my installs, limit my use of mods, force me to use one d/l system, and snoop without my permission.
What it does do is give me instant messaging that I can turn off, a robust package and reasonable prices some of the time. It also support independent developers and talks to its community.

That counts for a lot, and while I understand that companies have all gone down the DRM route, there are fair trade-offs and unfair trade-offs. I won't buy from those I believe have made unfair trade-offs.

Steam also crashes occasionally, have a support staff where sarcasm is an inbred trait and hides too many options away; but if I have to have a DRM, it's the one I'll put up with.

I guess we could go through and weigh every feature to see where the scales land, but my point is that that's precisely what the new Battle.net system does. Unlimited install, downloadable clients, cross game chat, etc. If that's your DRM of choice, I don't see why this one is any different at least in a broad sense of the scheme.

Do you know if you have to be logged into battle.net to access the single player game? I know the beta doesn't include single player content, but I haven't been following the battle.net features very closely so I'm hoping you knew.

IIRC, there is a singleplayer mode offline but you won't get achievements or any of the online features (obviously) since you can't log in.

Re: the LAN issue... if they go forward with the "you get LAN pings but you need to maintain a net connection" I don't think it'll be much of a problem. We live in the era of widespread wifi and broadband; tech-savvy folks are almost SURE to have stuff like that. I can't remember the last time I LANned without an internet connection.

And my lag on B.net has been extremely miniscule if any.

 

[Dectilon]

I tried to get into the first Starcraft, but it just seemed so slow-paced and bland. I played for a couple of hours, and never did it seem like actual fun. Which is a shame, because I've always had a certain fascination with RTS's, just that I haven't found one to entertain me enough.

HHHHH.... MMMHH... MOAHAHAHAHA! Slow-paced? I doubt you'll find a RTS with a higher pace than StarCraft anywhere. Sure, you set up your base the first 5 minutes of each game, but after that... Well, let's just say that if your apm isn't in the 200-range you're probably going too slowly.

 

[Zanez]

Sorry for my enormous number of posts.
Here is a website with just a few of the livestreams for SC2
http://www.starcraftmethod.com/livestream/

 

[Peace Frog]

Any news on what the South Korean elite think of it so far?

I imagine it's kind of like the Second Coming for them.

I loved the Preview though. "Carriers have arrived" indeed!

Well actually, I imagine they're likely to be very critical of it since it's so hard to improve on the original. One blogger even criticised the improved drone/probe/scv pathing because it removes the skill involved in splitting them up... hopefully he's in the minority ^__^

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Granted it doesn't currently allow for non-blizzard games, but you could get xfire or load it up with steam

I LOL'd.

I have thousands of books in my house. I can read them anywhere, re-read them, don't need to authorise them, share them, lend them, mark passages, cross-out passages, discuss them and buy 10 or more for the price of a game that's taken as long to write as the book.

I could even re-write some, put them on line...or even put the original up online. I can buy them from shops everywhere, no matter what format.

Granted it's tougher to write to people while I do that, but I can do it by Steam. What I don't have to do is sign a long legal contract that makes me read it in one place, for only a few times, and have a few pages missing occasionally.

I can also read through half a book without it arbitarily deciding that I can't finish it.

And often, people I pass books to buy them themselves.

Every creative industry expects some loss to piracy. Every pirate grins at the thought of an "unbreakable" DRM and cracks their knuckles. Until some people say "No", nothing will change. IMHO.

 

[Zanez]

Granted it doesn't currently allow for non-blizzard games, but you could get xfire or load it up with steam

I LOL'd.

I have thousands of books in my house. I can read them anywhere, re-read them, don't need to authorise them, share them, lend them, mark passages, cross-out passages, discuss them and buy 10 or more for the price of a game that's taken as long to write as the book.

I could even re-write some, put them on line...or even put the original up online. I can buy them from shops everywhere, no matter what format.

Granted it's tougher to write to people while I do that, but I can do it by Steam. What I don't have to do is sign a long legal contract that makes me read it in one place, for only a few times, and have a few pages missing occasionally.

I can also read through half a book without it arbitarily deciding that I can't finish it.

And often, people I pass books to buy them themselves.

Every creative industry expects some loss to piracy. Every pirate grins at the thought of an "unbreakable" DRM and cracks their knuckles. Until some people say "No", nothing will change. IMHO.

Yeah I'm no fan that I cannot chat with people outside of blizzard games too, but there are simple ways around it.

Every industry needs to keep up with piracy definitely. Just like every business needs to expect theft. Every submarine needs to expect leaks. Every gamer needs to expect to get beaten.
Does that mean we don't need to take steps to beat it? Should we just give up and accept that it will happen? I can currently pirate SC1 to play single player if i tried. I have no skill in piracy or hacking or anything of that matter. Now since SC2 requires logging in, authentication, battle.net connection to access single player. I wouldn't even know where to begin! I would need to get hold of all kinds of unholy cracks and tricks that would most likely be patched out in days by the 'always connected blizzard police'. So I could not pirate SC2. That is one person that will not pirate their game.
Sure the veteran pirates who want nothing more than to pirate games (and probably don't even play them; just taking joy in beating the system), may find ways to get around all these systems in order to play the game, but the sheer number of problems they have to overcome make it difficult for most.

 

[Jebusetti]

Eh. Seriously, if Starcraft 1 is the best the genre has to offer, then I don't care for that genre.

But holy shit does that game look pretty.

This. Looks to be a re-skinned version of the original, which is great if you liked the first one... However, those of us that like the improvements made to the genre over the last 12 years are going to have to give this one a pass. Seriously? Your air units have to stop to fire? WTF is the point??? I will take my TA/SupCom any day thanks!

Balance, playability, and precision, mostly. Not every RTS needs every feature.

Although I completely agree that SC was balanced, playable, and precise for its day, I just feel that the genre has moved on and grown a LOT over the last decade and this game looks to be kinda dated already to me. While you are right, not every game needs every feature in it, they do need to have the ones that most people see as a positive. If Doom 4 comes out and only allows you to use a keyboard like the original, how would that fare? The fact that units STILL can't fire while moving, or that air units hover in one spot and get shot, just seems like such a huge mistake to me.

I'm pretty skeptical about this game too, guess I will just have to wait till one of my fanboy friends buys it to check it out.

 

[Zanez]

Although I completely agree that SC was balanced, playable, and precise for its day, I just feel that the genre has moved on and grown a LOT over the last decade and this game looks to be kinda dated already to me. While you are right, not every game needs every feature in it, they do need to have the ones that most people see as a positive. If Doom 4 comes out and only allows you to use a keyboard like the original, how would that fare? The fact that units STILL can't fire while moving, or that air units hover in one spot and get shot, just seems like such a huge mistake to me.

I'm pretty skeptical about this game too, guess I will just have to wait till one of my fanboy friends buys it to check it out.

The keyboard example is flawed, because that is an interface aspect of the game. SC2 has a smooth, innovative interface that is a pleasure to use and doesn't feel limited (granted, I'm still waiting to try it out myself). Your keyboard for Doom example is akin to if Starcraft 2 allowed only 12 unit selection, single building selection, and workers couldn't be rallied to minerals.
The air units hovering in one spot is part of Starcraft. Add all the innovation developed over the last 12 years and you would end up with a game that is simply not Starcraft.
Like all sequel games in early stages of development, they had to wrestle with a descision: Do we make it the newest, shiniest, most innovative, deepest and best graphic game on the market and risk losing the feel of the original? Or do we keep it closer to our original product and build upon the model that was so successful back in the day?

Also, they have 2 expansions to go for SC2! Who knows, they might add some interesting stuff in there.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I dunno why people say this WC3 was bad....sure MP side was good but the SP side was well....."bioshock" easy due to the crappy AI they didn't take the time to work on or polish....

Currently in beta there is only one difficulty for computer controlled AI. It is set to very easy. It is like this for two reasons:
To encourage people to play against eachother instead of computer AI's.
Because this is beta, and there will be sweeping balance changes. They do not want to be adjusting how the AI plays every time there is a patch.
There will be 5 difficulty modes for the AI: Very Easy, Easy, Normal, Hard and Insane. The Insane one cheats a little, but it is not designed to be fought unless you want a real challenge.

Also, there will be several difficulty levels for the single player campaign, and many side levels and all of them include optional missions that add difficulty and replayability.

I personally liked Warcraft 3, and all aspects of it. And that is because I didn't compare it to Starcraft.

I was comparing it more with WC2 than SC, tho SC had..er...more fun AI to go against. I was really disheartened with the AI and frankly since then I have seen more lacking design implementations in gaming across the board to widen demographics and profit at the cost of qaulity. Bioshock and Dragon age are both very well done games but unfinished IMO and will never be finished because no one seems to care about qaulity and polish these days....

 

[John Funk]

Although I completely agree that SC was balanced, playable, and precise for its day, I just feel that the genre has moved on and grown a LOT over the last decade and this game looks to be kinda dated already to me. While you are right, not every game needs every feature in it, they do need to have the ones that most people see as a positive. If Doom 4 comes out and only allows you to use a keyboard like the original, how would that fare? The fact that units STILL can't fire while moving, or that air units hover in one spot and get shot, just seems like such a huge mistake to me.

I'm pretty skeptical about this game too, guess I will just have to wait till one of my fanboy friends buys it to check it out.

The problem with those features is that they remove the precision that is so incredibly important to StarCraft. Here, I'll give you an example from a match that me and Greg Tito JUST played over our lunch break. He was Protoss, I was Zerg. I had a group of Mutalisks (flying units), he had an outpost with a pretty secure defense of Photon Cannons. If I was in too long, his cannons would rip me to shreds, so I had to dance in and out of his range attacking and escaping, trying not to take too much damage if I could avoid it. That's something you could never do if you could just order your planes on bombing runs.

CoH, Supreme Commander, etc, are all about providing a realistic experience. StarCraft II is not. It's about providing an excellent, very traditional RTS.

I dunno why people say this WC3 was bad....sure MP side was good but the SP side was well....."bioshock" easy due to the crappy AI they didn't take the time to work on or polish....

You're putting waaaaaaay too much emphasis on AI, honestly. It's nice, but hardly a crucial element of a game IMO.

Every creative industry expects some loss to piracy. Every pirate grins at the thought of an "unbreakable" DRM and cracks their knuckles. Until some people say "No", nothing will change. IMHO.

The only problem is that you're saying "no" to the wrong thing. Say no to UbiSoft's insane scheme, sure. Say no to install limits. But Battle.net 2.0 is actually really cool, it works very well, and doesn't come with any of the insane limitations of most other DRM.

Logging onto GFWL feels like a chore. Battle.net 2.0 works wonderfully so far.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Although I completely agree that SC was balanced, playable, and precise for its day, I just feel that the genre has moved on and grown a LOT over the last decade and this game looks to be kinda dated already to me. While you are right, not every game needs every feature in it, they do need to have the ones that most people see as a positive. If Doom 4 comes out and only allows you to use a keyboard like the original, how would that fare? The fact that units STILL can't fire while moving, or that air units hover in one spot and get shot, just seems like such a huge mistake to me.

I'm pretty skeptical about this game too, guess I will just have to wait till one of my fanboy friends buys it to check it out.

The keyboard example is flawed, because that is an interface aspect of the game. SC2 has a smooth, innovative interface that is a pleasure to use and doesn't feel limited (granted, I'm still waiting to try it out myself). Your keyboard for Doom example is akin to if Starcraft 2 allowed only 12 unit selection, single building selection, and workers couldn't be rallied to minerals.
The air units hovering in one spot is part of Starcraft. Add all the innovation developed over the last 12 years and you would end up with a game that is simply not Starcraft.
Like all sequel games in early stages of development, they had to wrestle with a descision: Do we make it the newest, shiniest, most innovative, deepest and best graphic game on the market and risk losing the feel of the original? Or do we keep it closer to our original product and build upon the model that was so successful back in the day?

Also, they have 2 expansions to go for SC2! Who knows, they might add some interesting stuff in there.

Mmm I thought the WC/SC control scheme did nicely in a refined combo button/dual stick environment. What is the most important thing for translating from KB/M to game pad and back again is not how well you make the cookie cutter control schemes but the fact you allow for control customization. This is a reason why I have virtually stopped fooling with new console gaming control customization is seen a hack or a cheat rather than something to allow a single person to set one type of layout for specific genres, without wasting time and effort relearning nuances for each they can enjoy a game at their pace and not be strung along at the whims of an arbitrary and overly controlled control system.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I dunno why people say this WC3 was bad....sure MP side was good but the SP side was well....."bioshock" easy due to the crappy AI they didn't take the time to work on or polish....

You're putting waaaaaaay too much emphasis on AI, honestly. It's nice, but hardly a crucial element of a game IMO.

What keeps one playing a game(not a film or a movie nor interactive video) shiny graphics?, a story? or depth in game play? A lack luster game that dose not play well is still lack luster and sub par, a nice to good game with a decent story that dose not play well is mediocre.

IMO AI,control and "interfaces"(how you interact with the game world via its mechanics) are far more important than story,setting or graphics and its those things which the industry including the review industry has rushed to over the last decade because they do not want to put the time or effort into better mechanics that are polished and finished.

I do not care for the industry's substandard way it dose things, were things always better maybe, maybe not thats not so much the point as the industry has grown stagnate in both mechanic's and polish making what was a 5 or 6 a 7 or a 9 just because something is a big seller. And yet these big sellers are not very well supported by the industry that made them millions........ *sigh* I am rambling again... my apologies...

 

[John Funk]

What keeps one playing a game(not a film or a movie nor interactive video) shiny graphics?, a story? or depth in game play? A lack luster game that dose not play well is still lack luster and sub par, a nice to good game with a decent story that dose not play well is mediocre.

IMO AI,control and "interfaces"(how you interact with the game world via its mechanics) are far more important than story,setting or graphics and its those things which the industry including the review industry has rushed to over the last decade because they do not want to put the time or effort into better mechanics that are polished and finished.

I do not care for the industry's substandard way it dose things, were things always better maybe, maybe not thats not so much the point as the industry has grown stagnate in both mechanic's and polish making what was a 5 or 6 a 7 or a 9 just because something is a big seller. And yet these big sellers are not very well supported by the industry that made them millions........ *sigh* I am rambling again... my apologies...

I agree that control and interfaces - and general gameplay - are by far the most important things to most games, especially one like StarCraft II. But AI? The AI only matters in the singleplayer campaign, and if it's functional for that then that's what's important. I'm confident SC2 will have a great singleplayer even if the AI is on the easy side, but tons of people are going to buy it for its multiplayer where the AI is literally irrelevant.

I would honestly lump AI in with story and graphics as things that are "nice, but not must haves."

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

What keeps one playing a game(not a film or a movie nor interactive video) shiny graphics?, a story? or depth in game play? A lack luster game that dose not play well is still lack luster and sub par, a nice to good game with a decent story that dose not play well is mediocre.

IMO AI,control and "interfaces"(how you interact with the game world via its mechanics) are far more important than story,setting or graphics and its those things which the industry including the review industry has rushed to over the last decade because they do not want to put the time or effort into better mechanics that are polished and finished.

I do not care for the industry's substandard way it dose things, were things always better maybe, maybe not thats not so much the point as the industry has grown stagnate in both mechanic's and polish making what was a 5 or 6 a 7 or a 9 just because something is a big seller. And yet these big sellers are not very well supported by the industry that made them millions........ *sigh* I am rambling again... my apologies...

I agree that control and interfaces - and general gameplay - are by far the most important things to most games, especially one like StarCraft II. But AI? The AI only matters in the singleplayer campaign, and if it's functional for that then that's what's important. I'm confident SC2 will have a great singleplayer even if the AI is on the easy side, but tons of people are going to buy it for its multiplayer where the AI is literally irrelevant.

I would honestly lump AI in with story and graphics as things that are "nice, but not must haves."

Well I got burnt on WC3 because it was not up to snuff, AI is important for a solid SP experience of course some people don't bother with counting what the AI dose or dose not do and call trash like bioshock "11++++ great"(its above average yes but not THAT much above average), I mean I know I am OCD on somethings but come on is everyone just out to make and buy the most minimalistic experience possible these days?

AI is a cornerstone of gameplay its part of how mechanics are applied, I just can not see how its on the same level of story and graphics....

 

[Skeleon]

Huh, it's a little sad when "you can now select more than 12 units" is a grand new feature.
Bah, but who am I kidding? I'd probably love the game even if it didn't have anything innovative.

 

[Lemon Of Life]

Cannot wait for this. This, for me, will be the biggest release of the year.

 

[John Funk]

What keeps one playing a game(not a film or a movie nor interactive video) shiny graphics?, a story? or depth in game play? A lack luster game that dose not play well is still lack luster and sub par, a nice to good game with a decent story that dose not play well is mediocre.

IMO AI,control and "interfaces"(how you interact with the game world via its mechanics) are far more important than story,setting or graphics and its those things which the industry including the review industry has rushed to over the last decade because they do not want to put the time or effort into better mechanics that are polished and finished.

I do not care for the industry's substandard way it dose things, were things always better maybe, maybe not thats not so much the point as the industry has grown stagnate in both mechanic's and polish making what was a 5 or 6 a 7 or a 9 just because something is a big seller. And yet these big sellers are not very well supported by the industry that made them millions........ *sigh* I am rambling again... my apologies...

I agree that control and interfaces - and general gameplay - are by far the most important things to most games, especially one like StarCraft II. But AI? The AI only matters in the singleplayer campaign, and if it's functional for that then that's what's important. I'm confident SC2 will have a great singleplayer even if the AI is on the easy side, but tons of people are going to buy it for its multiplayer where the AI is literally irrelevant.

I would honestly lump AI in with story and graphics as things that are "nice, but not must haves."

Well I got burnt on WC3 because it was not up to snuff, AI is important for a solid SP experience of course some people don't bother with counting what the AI dose or dose not do and call trash like bioshock "11++++ great"(its above average yes but not THAT much above average), I mean I know I am OCD on somethings but come on is everyone just out to make and buy the most minimalistic experience possible these days?

AI is a cornerstone of gameplay its part of how mechanics are applied, I just can not see how its on the same level of story and graphics....

But the thing is, BioShock WAS great. For the most part, gameplay is king, but BioShock excelled in writing and atmosphere even if the mechanics were average. If you go into BioShock to play it as a shooter, it's an average shooter; the trappings and the setting are what make it stand out. The AI wasn't BAD, it just wasn't great. Just because a game is on the easy side doesnt' make it "minimalist," and I think you're judging these things on a hugely skewed scale.

In the grand scheme of things, AI CAN ruin a game, but it's hardly a make or break thing. ICO and Shadow of the Colossus have very limited AI, but they're still spectacular, emotional experiences.

 

[Playbahnosh]

Reading this review I get the irresistible urge to spawn more overlords and get in the pipe, five by five. Sadly, I did not get into the beta (because a colleague of mine snatched the press key before I was even aware there is a beta going on), but for what it's worth, I'm going to pop my weather beaten SC1 disc into the drive, and plow through all the campaigns for the 11 gazillionth time, BW too. Also, I'll pray to the Overlord, that my EIC will give SC2 to me for reviewing.

 

[TerranReaper]

So how balanced is the beta right now between the 3 factions? Seems like the game has gone a long way though, looks great compared to what it was a few years back.