Monday, March 1, 2010

Starcraft 2 - Blizzard's most disappointing effort?

Starcraft 2 just launched the beta phase of its development. This is an incredibly exciting time for any SC fan, but those of us without beta keys (myself included) have been left feeling blue-balled by the whole experience. To occupy our time, we lurk on the sc2 beta forums (at which we can look, but not touch), watch the countless videos coming out from a plethora of beta testers, and continue to play the original Starcraft with renewed vigor.

Amidst all of these serene, semi-real moments of observing a game I often doubted would ever exist, I’ve taken a few steps backed and wondered to myself: “When I finally do get my hands on SC2 and start playing, what’s it going to be like?” My conclusion was sort of a let down – it will be exactly what I expected it to be. That is to say, the gameplay will be flawless, the matchmaking system will be fluid, and I’ll play match after match for years on end… just like I did with SC1.

Why do I have a problem with this? Isn’t it a good thing that Blizzard hasn’t messed with their tried and true formula? After all, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and the fact that SC is more popular now than it ever has been (what with the Korean pro-league beginning to seep into other countries and iccup constantly inundated with a very active and competitive ladder) should be an indication that SC needs no fixing. In fact, many diehard Starcraft fans hate the very notion that Starcraft 2 should have tried to change or alter its core mechanics, mechanics that made Starcraft so tremendously popular.

Here’s my question, though – what if Blizzard had taken that attitude at any other point during their company’s history? When Warcraft 2 was released, it, too, was tremendously successful. Blizzard had essentially perfected the standard RTS formula at that point, making a very fast-paced, vibrant game where two races that tightly mirrored each other (with a few exceptions) fought time and again for dominance. Warcraft 2 had a huge following of loyal fans that loved everything it offered them: if you told them “that’s great, but we’re going to try something different”, they surely would have been dismayed.

Yet, this is how the original Starcraft was conceived. Blizzard took traditional RTS notions and turned them on their head, by making three races that were radically different from each other. Not just different in their unit compositions, although the difference between their units was tremendous, but also different as far as mechanics and gameplay. Zergs didn’t use the standard RTS method of producing units from a specific “barracks”, but instead pumped them out of the same place where workers stored resources. “Farms” for the protoss weren’t just to sustain a larger army, but also provided power to all of their other buildings. In a genre where every army was essentially a mirror, Blizzard had the audacity to make three armies that were all fundamentally different from each other, and the tenacity to balance these three such that the game worked in whatever combination you experienced them.

This move was what brought us, arguably, the greatest RTS of all time – our beloved, time-honored, venerated Starcraft. Other popular video games usually attract spiteful hatred in direct proportion to their popularity. Anybody that doesn’t play WoW despises it, and in the FPS community, you either live by Halo, or wish it had never been created. Starcraft, in direct comparison, never receives such grand doses of vitriol. While not everyone loves it, those that don’t acknowledge how ambitious of an RTS it was, and what it’s done for the genre.

In the end, I just find myself wishing that Blizzard had dared to take this chance again. It’s not as if they haven’t radically altered a successful franchise before – look at Warcraft, as a series. It went from a very popular RTS in Warcraft 2, to a very popular RTS with very different mechanics in Warcraft 3. Did people love the change? Some did – I was one of the biggest fanboys of heroes, and personally feel it was a huge advancement for the genre. Some hated it, though, and overall Warcraft 3 wasn’t nearly as explosive as Starcraft. This didn’t stop Blizzard, though: rather than reverting to Warcraft 2’s mechanics, or making ‘Warcraft 4’ a Starcraft clone, they shook up the Warcraft series again by developing WoW, which has become the biggest MMO in history, single-handedly changing Blizzard from a successful developer to the titanic figure it’s become today. Perhaps that’s why Blizzard didn’t take a chance on Starcraft 2. They may consider themselves, at this point, too big to fail.

Am I upset by this? Not at all. I completely understand every facet of their decision. Between the starcraft loyalists who would hate them for changing the game, to the guys over at Activision who would probably have a heart attack if they heard of a sequel not being notably similar to its predecessor, it probably would’ve been way too risky to try to dramatically change the RTS genre, again, with Starcraft II. And listen, I’m not at all trying to complain – I’m still chomping at the bit waiting for my beloved beta key to come to me, and until that happens I’ll keep pouring over SC2 vids from Crota, Diggity, Heggemon et al. I just can’t shake the notion that if Blizzard still had those big, golden brass balls that they were rocking back in 1999, we’d have been in for a surreal experience when SC2 was launched. As is, it’s going to be phenomenal, but it’s going to be everything we expect it to be.

4 comments:

  1. The problem is, Blizzard's not just a speedboat anymore that can change directions at the flip of the wrist, but (to use your word) a titanic ocean liner. If it wants to change directions, it's going to take a lot of energy, while in the meantime all the fans and stakeholders will be shitting a brick. Why go through all the trouble when it has so much to lose?

    Blizzard is too big to fail. Its risks should be heavily monitored by panels of regulatory agencies. That tends to work out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it's not just about Blizzard being big, but the state of RTS games and PC gaming; the former is all but dead recently and the latter is being abandoned because of rampant piracy. Blizzard needs to make a game to remind the world how awesome an RTS can be when properly balanced and maintained. The huge emphasis on the battle.net experience and the lack of LAN are attempts to deter piracy. Seriously, when was the last blockbuster game exclusive to PCs? Staying true to the formula, hopefully, will bring people back to the golden days of PC gaming and influence a resurgence of the genre.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know about the whole "too big to fail" thing. That may be true, but it can still be "too bland to live on" if they don't revitalize their games every once and a while. Look, I want to see the new ideas that are coming from these developers, I don't want them to stifle themselves.
    There's a new MMO from Blizzard coming out right? That's a good example of a game I want to see reinvent the MMO. I don't want another MMO that's a WoW clone (that would be so dumb if they copied themselves), I wanna see something new. Plus, I think when you add something to a sequel that's substantial without totally ruining it, that's a good way to get new players involved. Right now, people who have never played SC find SC2's beta confusing. Something that's new to young and old players alike will bring them to the same level and won't (pardon the pun) ALIENATE them so much.
    So maybe SC2 is playing it safe. But if there is ever a SC3, or new content for this current SC, I can tell you that even die hard fans are going to want a little variety and a bit of a change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @JICKo: Hahaha, the day we have our video game companies regulated as heavily as our banks is the day I pull my money out.

    @ultima: You make a great point regarding piracy. It seems Blizz has done a fantastic job of getting around pirating without having to resort to those unmentionable DRM measures - battle.net's an ideal solution, because gamers will readily accept the notion that you need to buy the game to earn a battle.net account. Hopefully more companies adopt this model in the future, and in that sense SCII will certainly be pushing computer gaming forward.

    @Frank: Well said. I also have high hopes for that upcoming MMO, which is why I like the fact that it's a new franchise, not a 'World of Starcraft' (even though that would've been so amazing. O_O) It's possible that Starcraft II is paying homage to one of PC gaming's greatest accomplishments, whereas that new MMO is going to be Blizzard's next big thing. I'm crossing my fingers, for sure.

    ReplyDelete