StarCraft II: Wings of LIberty. A review by HKC.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

Everything old is new again
Twelve years pass, and Blizzard has finally reminded us that they can make games other than World of Warcraft. Considering that this is their first non-WoW game since that MMO juggernaut came out in 2004, it’s probably, as Vice President Biden would say, a big f'in deal.

Or is it? The game is very nice to look at, but what game isn’t these days? Underneath the shiny candy-coated shell is the same StarCraft you’ve played for years. The Protoss have high-end units, the Zerg have waves after waves of small units, and the Terrans are stuck in the middle with the option of being either. An amusing situation, considering that if you take the game faction dynamics and apply them to the plot, you’ve just written the back story to the entire game.

A novel idea
The single player game for StarCraft II has been, much to the consternation of a large number of fans, split up into three parts. Wings of Liberty deals with the Terran campaign, bringing back former Marshall Jim Raynor. In my opinion, the single-player elements were the most enjoyable part of the game. This is where the game’s improved the most: the scenes between missions are fully animated with an in-game rendering system (not the game engine, I believe. But if Blizzard decided to make an FPS with that engine, it’d look great). The storyline, while similar to other Blizzard endeavors in the past, seems to be thoroughly written out and voice acted properly.

The only missing element is the voice for Kerrigan. While bringing in the talented Tricia Helfer from Battlestar Galactica was a fine decision, I miss Glynnis Talken Campbell’s voice as the Queen of Blades. Information about this decision is sketchy at best, and Blizzard isn’t usually known for replacing voice actors on a whim. I can only surmise that Campbell was unavailable to work on the game at the time.

Ooh…shiny!
The campaign has some very familiar role-playing elements included that enhance the later missions. Completing missions gives you credits, which in turn can allow you to purchase upgrades for your units. For example: you can purchase health enhancements for most of your infantry units, or purchase an upgrade that reduces friendly fire from siege tanks by 75%. (Very helpful, I think) Completing side objectives can give you “research points” (Protoss or Zerg research points, to be specific) and there’s a limited tech tree with enhancements for your base and operations. For example: you can choose to upgrade your SCV units so multiple units can build a structure, or build supply depots “instantly” as they’re dropped down from orbit in drop pods.

Shall we play a game?
I should be upfront about this: I don’t like playing RTS games multiplayer. I don’t click the mouse as fast as I should. I never liked StarCraft’s micro-management of abilities for units. I didn’t mind teaming up with some friends and playing the CUP on its highest difficulty, though. I think it’s the prospect of watching your base being slowly destroyed as wave after wave of zerg overwhelm your forces. Or maybe it’s just the people, as I rarely play games online outside of friends I know, since you all know what happens when you give a person an audience and anonymity on the internet.

I did try out a skirmish with the CPU to see how multiplayer was different, and I’ll say it: I was disappointed. A full third of the units you can build in the single player campaign are missing from the multiplayer game, and there are no enhancements or tech tree upgrades to be seen anywhere. Maybe Blizzard decided to remove them in a case of game balance, but when I played the game, aside for some graphical enhancements, it felt like StarCraft. I’ve already played StarCraft.

Online what? Battle.net what?
One important factor in this game for multiplayer is that there is no LAN support in StarCraft II. All players need an internet connection to play the game, (Even the single player game) and you need a Battle.net account to log into. You can play the single player campaign without an internet connection, but you will not earn achievements during your play. But Blizzard’s choice to completely remove LAN support seems puzzling, as this is what made StarCraft a steadfast pillar of LAN parties everywhere and helped sell a ton of copies. (Oh, and South Korea’s obsession with the game helped, too)

Also, it seems that StarCraft II may be region-locked. People in North America cannot play against people in Europe, and vice versa. This may be changed in future updates.

Meet the new game…(almost the) same as the old game.
I know I’m in the minority about this. StarCraft II has a 96% MetaCritic score, so it’s getting multitudes of “perfect” scores out there. But I think this game is hardly perfect. I think people are simply giving it a high score because it’s Blizzard. StarCraft II brings nothing new to the table. It may have “refined” a few things, but the genre of real-time-strategy has moved far, far past StarCraft’s 1997 make-a-base and harvest resources element.

The units don’t really interact with the environment save for a few that can either jump up or down ledges or teleport across gaps. There’s no cover factor that we’re used to in such games like Dawn of War II and Company of Heroes. It’s a lot more rock-paper-scissors gameplay than people will choose to admit, and tactics really have no play here. No doubt the return of the “Big Game Hunter” maps will flood online servers. (BGH games have all the resources you’ll ever need at your starting area, and you just focus on making as many units as possible to swarm your enemy. Tactics are chucked out the)

StarCraft II’s graphics are impressive, but as I said before, that doesn’t seem to be too hard. I have to wonder why it took them 12 years to make this sequel? This game doesn’t tread much new territory, and StarCraft’s original gameplay was so well balanced that it seems like this is just StarCraft: The HD Version instead of a true sequel. Save for the entertaining single player storyline, I don’t think I’d play this game otherwise. I can only assume that Blizzard didn't take 12 years to make this game, actually. Since StarCraft came out, they've created WarCraft III and it's expansion, World of Warcraft and it's two expansions, and are currently working on Diablo III at the same time.

Make no mistake: StarCraft II will sell millions. And it will be played extensively by a multitude of people across the globe. The single player campaign is 29 missions long and with a look. And if you liked StarCraft’s original multiplayer game, you’ll probably like StarCraft II as well. Just don’t buy the game expecting something brand new. It’s a completely refurbished and rebuilt car, but it was made in 1998. Although...that map in the glovebox is new, and it's only showing a third of the full route. I guess I'll have to wait to see how it pans out.

Summary
Hong Kong Cavalier gives StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty a...
...wait, I don't have a rating system. It's a great-looking game, and if you enjoy StarCraft, you'll enjoy this. But it's nothing really new to the RTS genre, and while it's polished, Blizzard doesn't really take any risks and try anything new or different. I'd say go rent it, but it's for PC only, so wait for a demo, if Blizzard puts one out. Or see if you can nab a trial pass from a friend who has purchased the game.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. My userID is Yama.813 on Battle.net if you want to play casual games.

Friend me up.

I'm really enjoying SC2.

I specifically like the fact that it's 80 percent the same as SC. SC/BW is my favorite computer game ever and my biggest fear is that it would die from the earth simply due to new operating systems etc. I LIKE that it's an update of my favorite game, with some significant improvements (worker rally points substantially decrease the amount of micro/clicking required, and unit pathing is overall much better for things like Zerglings.).

It's too bad that you don't play online vs. people because that's where the game really shines. Even at release, balance between the 3 factions is quite good and will gradually improve over time (they are STILL patching SC/BW and Warcraft 3). Online play is quite smooth and works well, even when I play on a laptop using a cellphone 3G connection as a tethered modem. I agree that there should be LAN support etc. but the matchmaking system on Battle.net works very well, if you place into a league and play a couple/few dozen matches, you really do adjust to get matched with players where you have a roughly 50 percent win rate, meaning challenging, meaningful games for the most part.

Studying the replays of your games, and those of advanced players post on websites, allows you to really improve. I agree that the intensity (and often bad manners) that comes with online anonymous competition is not for everyone, but for those who like it, it's by far the strongest part of the game and its biggest draw.