In a nutshell, Starcraft 2 is a second installation of the critically acclaimed Starcraft series, and the bulk of it's plot takes placed after the Brood Wars, a playable expansion set of Starcraft 1 released in 1998. Originally developed for release in 2007, Blizzard has delayed productions for Starcraft 2 due to their commitments to expand WoW. Starcraft 2 was released on July 2010, and like it's predecessors, features an identical style of playing unique to the Starcraft universe.
One of the main strengths for Starcraft 2 is the intricate universe, as well as it's intriguing plot. Throughout the campaign, players are gradually introduced towards the background story, as well as the playable units of Starcraft 2. The transition towards these units are indeed meticulously planned to ensure that the learning curve does not become too steep, or the plot become jarring in transition from one mission to the next. An added feature of the game was the ability for the player to make defining choices within the game to alter his deposition. For example, in Jim Raynor's decision between purging or saving a refugee colony in Haven, the outcomes of the upgrades of the Terran technology tree varies considerably, on top of the plot outcome of the fate of the colonists and his diplomatic relations with the Protoss. Such a feature is welcomed, since it does bring a greater immersion and interaction to the universe, as well as integrating the game play with the background plot.
Yet Starcraft does fall short, like C&C3, in fleshing the more specific dynamics of it's gameplay. As like most RTS games, Starcraft utilizes a conventional resource-production structure. Two primary forms of resources, Minerals and Vespense gas, powers the economy of all three armies. In most base-building campaigns (including the multiplayer), these resources are located directly next to an existing base, and further resources
are placed strategically on the battlefield for subsequent expansion. While such a method of resource gathering does definitely encourage base expansion, it naturally entails a 'the greater the merrier' mindset to players. Moreover, as these resources are finite- it is desirable for a player to deplete his cache of resources early game into credits, and then subsequently plan on his strategy. In fact one of the common scenes in Starcraft 2 would be a player amassing a ridiculously large force of harvesters, and the observed outcome that the winner of a multi player is usually one with the biggest economy- since he has the liberty to choose the type of units to assault his enemy's base, and from therein forcing his enemy to play by his rules subsequently (since the Starcraft concept mirrors closely to the concept of chess, where one unit is especially effective to another unit, but vulnerable to another).
This concept of 'the greater the merrier' too extends considerably to the combat units in Starcraft 2. Indeed, the chess-esque method does balance to the choice of units in the Starcraft game, and we definitely will not be witnessing infantry spams or tank rushes (since a strategic choice of a squad of its counter units can decimate an entire battalion in no time) as witnessed in C&C3 game play, where players will basically spam tier 1 tanks and pit them in a head on battle while leaving the true strategy to time and resource management in clickfests.
However, what falls short in Starcraft 2 would be the process of the battle. Starcraft 2 still preserves the '1 shot 1 hit' methodology of warfare evident in many of the older RTS games. In other words, what determines the outcome of killing an enemy unit equivalent (ie a infantry-infantry or tank-tank battle) would be brute firepower and exposure time. This reduces the strategic components of battle back to the choice of units, since other considerations and tactics to outwit enemies during battle (i.e. ambushes, terrain position, veterancy) are reduced to hit-points and damage-points. An outcome of a single squad, micromanaged to perfection, outnumbering a platoon of mindless rushes in a NON unit-nemesis battle (i.e. vikings against zerglings) would be rare.
Of course it could be argued that such a style discourages spamming of a single type of infantry, and different units have to be used in conjunction during an assault. Yet, it does not make sense to be overtly focuses in the strategy of 'what unit's countering what unit'- the RTS genre focuses on the strategies used during the process of battle, and it would be disheartening to reduce the playing style of Starcraft 2 to a battle strategy on par with the strategy used in the american civil war- The infantry attack first, against infantry, and both suffer equal casualties. Then it would be the insertion of calvary by either team to wipe out the opposing infantry, and then a retreat by the losing team to the FUP, where the cannons will make short work of the calvery. This will be countered by the opposition calvary, on a flanking mission. Towards the end, the battle reduces to a confusion of units and is determined by firepower.
Moreover, such a playing style discourages the significance of veterancy of units in combat. It would be meaningless to retreat, just as long as new units may be produced in battle to reinforce the existing units in battle. It is notable in Starcraft 2 that while offensive powers vary in unit choice and nemesis-battles, the distinction of vehicles, or infantry is not very great. A single tank can be easily discriminated by a squad of marines as an opposing infantry would, since other considerations such as reaction time, and the accuracy are not taken into consideration. Moreover, it does not make sense for a mothership, or a planetary assault carrier to be downed so easily considering their actual size. Efforts to tier up a base completely for more 'powerful' infantry are compromised since it boils down to a choice of the 'cheapest' and 'most effective' unit. In simple words, size doesn't matter.
At this point in time I may have already been drawing flak by proponents. But I would wish to go one more step further to reinforce this point: the arguments of economy, unit choice, firing accuracy, size and overt emphasis of unit choice over other effective strategies; does not promote Starcraft 2 as a true proponent of strategic gameplay. While I do not take the other extreme to state that minue details such as bullet-drop, firing precision (as in the player deciding which part of the unit to hit to maximize damage points), I do advocate for a much more realistic game, not in terms of graphics or plot unfolding, but realism via the ability to utilize at least a greater variety of tactics used in real warfare. Guerrilla warfare, scorched earth, ambushes, and of course all out warefare, with due consideration to terrain (slope), troop veterancy and morale, on top of unit choice, would definitely bring about the much needed realism of RTS games, and of course, the importance of strategy, as the genre states.
Of course, I must restate my point again that this post is not a jibe to Starcraft 2. But naturally, in consideration to the above mentioned factors, Starcraft does not get my vote as a strategy game, but rather as an intriguing game that could do as well being spectacled (watched) rather than played.
No comments:
Post a Comment