Zergs and Bicycles: An Initial Impression
July 28th, 2010 | By: Stu Horvath
Last summer, I bought a bike. It was the first bike I’ve owned since I was a kid and, true to conventional wisdom, I did not forget how to ride it. That isn’t to say I didn’t wobble a bit or ride into the occasional clump of bushes. I may have also developed a specific kind of paranoia that makes me believe there is a car behind me at any given moment, intent on turning me into a cloud of red mist. Regardless, I can still pedal and not fall over.
That being said, I can say with some confidence that playing StarCraft II is exactly like riding a bike, complete with the fear of being turned into red mist. Perhaps even more so. I’m just not sure that is a good thing – a dozen years since the first installment and the sequel plays exactly the same. Were people truly excited about this game? Did they forget it was an RTS?
Sure, it looks better than the original, but every game looks great these days. StarCraft II arguably looks better than most, but I can’t see that fact alone fueling 800,000 presales. Surely fans weren’t in a froth because of the ridiculously overwrought story that is so overloaded with sci-fi cliches and unconvincing voice acting you can almost hear it groaning.
PC gaming isn’t dead. Steam is proof of that. So is the vibrant indie developer scene. Just this once, I will even say that Blizzard’s own World of Warcraft (particularly its forthcoming reinvention of itself) is further evidence that people will be playing games on computers for years to come, long after the commentators would have had it in its grave.
What I don’t understand is this growing concensus that StarCraft II marks the second coming of gaming on the PC. Do you really want a glorified remake with zero gameplay innovation to be your new messiah?
Lots of big shoulders in this game.
Everyone is kind of alarmingly thick. Lot's a steroids in the future, I guess.
Sorry, I mean 'Stim-paks.'
I'm really sorry you feel that way about starcraft 2, but you're judging the game from a seemingly very ignorant point of view.
Starcraft and its expansion arguably changed the way a lot of people think about video games. Mass craze slowly spawned in South Korea over the game.
People now watch starcraft online, on cable television, and even at large tournament events. Starcraft's popularity as an Esport grew very rapidly but eventually leveled off. Players have sponsors and play this game to make a living.
Now, American teenagers often care less about the quality of video games and the skill required to be good at them and are often bogged down by the looming fear that they will be made fun of for even talking about "professional gaming." So a game released in 1997 won't necessarily be their first choice.
The hope of starcraft II is that with its renewed graphics, new plot and world renown status, the rapid growth of esports will be renewed and that the industry will grow once again.
Aside from that, saying that the game plays "exactly the same" as its predecessor is a far from true statement. Didn't the command and conquer games all resemble one another in terms of gameplay? Don't all of valve's FPS games share a key set and user interface? Don't most of the civilization games look the same?
If a company finds something that works for them, why would they bother changing the basic layout? Blizzard is regarded by many as the company that perfected RTS gaming. If you're already on top, why would you change the basic things that made you king? Warcraft, Wc2, Wc3, Sc, and Sc2 share a lot of aspects. Each new Blizzard RTS takes aspects from its predecessors and builds upon them.
Saying SCII and SC:BW are the same sounds like an opinion formed by someone with little gameplay experience that didn't care enough to really play the game before cranking out their next review. Sure they share many qualities. Zerg still have to build on creep and protoss in energy fields, but those are fundamental aspects of the game that millions of players expect to see in a remake.
In the future, before putting down a game, take the time to explore the game and understand how it actually works. I don't mean playing the campaign and playing bronze league quick matches. Note that even platinum league and brutal campaign gameplay don't necessarily mean you've seen much of the game.
Thanks.
When did StarCraft become the Terrence Malick of video games?
"Do you really want a glorified remake with zero gameplay innovation to be your new messiah?"
How did somebody who doesn't know anything about video games get a job writing for a website like this? Starcraft 2 is evolved in many ways from SC1, so much so that a lot of changes were and still are quite controversial within the community. It sounds to me like the author has no clue about RTS games in general. Starcraft 2 is possibly the best RTS game ever made, and it's a hell of a lot more unique than most of them.
Thanks for illustrating the rich and varied tapestry of subjective opinion, Trevor!