Starcraft 2 Unleashed!

Starcraft 2 comes out today and God have mercy on our souls. The game is arguably the most ubiquitous and longest lasting since, well, chess. Competitive Starcraft has become something close to the national sport of South Korea and has endured for ten years past its release. It’s quite popular over here in the West, as well, and is poised to become even more popular with Starcraft 2’s improved graphics and state-of-the-art multiplayer experience. VGChartz’s sales projections are about two million units in the first week, so it’s likely that Starcraft will be sticking around for another ten years, at least.

I was able to sample Starcraft 2 during the open beta and I have to say I’m impressed with the thoughtful multiplayer presentation and balanced gameplay. I’m not very good at Starcraft, so it was discouraging to play the original and have an expert with a new account (most likely created to stomp noobs) come in and rush me before I could even decide what I wanted to build. Now, though, you play a series of placement matches of various difficulty and you’re assigned to a league appropriate to your skill. It was so nice to be able to have some casual fun in the bronze league while the experts in the platinum league had their serious duels of skill and talent. If you win too many games, you’ll get upgraded to the next league more appropriate for your growing ability. Best of all, it’s only one account per copy of Starcraft, so no one can create a fake account for the purpose of torturing the less skilled (a practice known, hilariously, as smurfing).

The game itself is a nice balance of old and new. There are no earth shattering changes from the original. You still have Terran, Zerg, or Protoss gathering minerals and Vespene gas to turn into death dealing units. The units are still designed with strength and weaknesses in the classic RTS rock-paper-scissors design. The design is clearer, this time around though, with each unit’s focus clearly spelled out in the tutorials and generally more streamlined for fun and exciting battles. Just as an example, they’ve combined the Terran transport unit and the medic unit to create a medivac, a flying guardian that sweeps soldiers in quickly and then sticks around to heal them during the battle. If things aren’t going well, you can pick up your remaining dudes and heal them as you make an escape. It’s a great innovation and a smart expression of the Terran’s role as masters of utility and defense. All that said, I doubt I’m going to pick up the game any time soon, a month of the Beta before it all got old for me.

I didn’t get to play the single player campaign but, after looking through the previews, it looks worthwhile. A sprawling tale told through lush cinematics, in=game moments, and, most surprisingly, between-mission point and click adventure style encounters a la Myst. Blizzard has a reputation for going the extra mile, so no doubt they’ll have some value, but without having played it I couldn’t tell you how much is hype and how much is real. Also, the story of Starcraft tends to run a little on the generic side, so I wouldn’t go running to your Gamestop without a love for balanced RTS gameplay.

The most interesting thing, to me, is that Blizzard is breaking the game into three parts. The core Starcraft II game, Wings of Liberty, focuses on the Terran chapter of the single player campaign and allows for the full multiplayer experience. Each successive expansion features a campaign from another alien races and adds units and features to the multiplayer game. I think this (and the online store that will sell premium maps, mods, and who knows what else) is a brilliant and diabolical ploy from Blizzard that will make them so much money that they’ll move Blizzard HQ into a pyramid made of gold on Manhattan Island. The multiplayer experience is the most successful and enduring element of the game and each of the expansions will be a requirement if you want to stay abreast of the scene. Yet, due to the single player element, they’ll be able to charge more for each expansion as it is more akin to an independent game rather than a traditional expansion pack. It’s true that the original’s Brood War expansion had an single player campaign but the difference is in the extra mile they ran to provide the cinematics and the in-between mission moments. I have no doubt the Wings of Liberty campaign will end in a dramatic cliffhanger that demands you shell out an extra ten or twenty bucks more than you would have for a gussied up expansion.

My purchase will depend on seeing how the first player campaign feels. If it’s as grand and compelling as the hype, It might be worth it but I think I’d prefer to indulge in the inevitable Starcraft 2 collection at a reduced price so I can experience the story without feeling I’m paying extra for multiplayer that has already grown boring. Still, it cannot be argued, it’s a big day whenever a new Blizzard product is released.

Still unaddressed: at what point do you actually start crafting stars? Giant plot hole.

Batman: Arkham Asylum: The Chore of Enjoyment

Thanks to Steam, I have a handy barometer of my game enjoyment to reference - hours played. As of this writing, I've played it a total of 33.6 hours of Mass Effect and bought and downloaded the sequel, logging 30.7 hours to beat that. During the same sale in which I bought Mass Effect, I downloaded Batman: Arkham Asylum. I’ve logged a mere 4.2 hours so far. In addition, I've logged 2 hours here, 3 hours there in other, smaller games. Deus Ex, M.U.D. TV, World of Goo, Multiwinia. In fact, I'm only playing through Arkham Asylum right now so I could feel comfortable deleting it off my miniscule hard drive. After that, I plan another go at mass effect 1 and 2 and downloading another AAA title on my queue, like Bioshock.

I can't wait to play Bioshock.

The question I have is why? Why is this popular and critical darling an obstacle I must get through rather than an enjoyable experience?

On paper I should love this game. Largely considered one of the best licensed games, Arkham Asylum comes from a who’s who of Batman pedigree. Character designs by Jim lee, written by Batman comic and animation alumnus Paul Dini (perhaps my favorite), and most importantly voiced by the same actors of the animated series - Kevin Conroy, Arleen Sorkin, and Mark Hamill's delightfully energetic demented Joker. And it’s Batman!

Added up, all of the math means that this game was made for me.

So why is getting through this game such a chore?

BUGS

I should admit that my system is not the most gaming geared - it’s a measly laptop that reaches the minimum requirements for my graphics work, and that’s about it. So, when I first entered the Asylum, I did so very slowly. I began to have similar issues with Mass Effect 1 and 2, and so I looked up some tutorials on how to tweak my system. Batman runs pretty smoothly now (thanks to my desire to make sure Mass Effect runs very smoothly). Still, I kept going back to ME 1, bugs and warts and all, and only occasionally visiting Batman: AA. This disparity still seems too wide to be ignored.

There’s an unfair comparison, isn’t it? Two games couldn’t be more different. Still, I was playing them simultaneously, and devoted more time to one than the other. I enjoyed Mass Effect so much I barely waited to download the sequel to continue Shepherd’s adventure.

While I’ll still wait to finish this game before writing a full review (as it would be unfair of me to not), I figure it is appropriate to look at the first 5 hours and ask myself why I’m not having fun.

PLAYER vs GAME

My first thought was rather cynical: did I not want to like this game?

I was cynical about Mass Effect. I didn't believe it would take me where people said it would take me. I didn't believe that the game could be that good, and it was. Despite my best effort, Mass Effect sold me.

I desperately want to like Batman: Arkham Asylum. It seems that nearly everybody else does. Still, public opinion could easily be shaped by widely read opinions. Or, could it be that a good game is a good game, and therefore earns those reviews?

Perhaps that's the issue - I wanted more from the game than I got. I wanted to be blown away in the first hour, and it didn't fulfill its promise.

TOO CLOSE TO THE BEGINNING?

But that's not true - the opening credits sequence, with its limited movement, and Batman following a talkative Joker really got me. Hell, the bats flying though the menu system got me. However, those very first moments of gameplay, in the tutorial levels, didn't.

But that's not fair, is it? Tutorials are a notoriously bad bit of business one must get through to teach you how to play the game, after all. "Use W, A, S, D to move" is not a great plot point.

True, but Mass Effect's tutorial bit (walking through the ship to a cutscene than landing on a planet) didn't feel like training. I have a fond memory of that bit where my Shepherds look ahead, out at the world that I've just come into. Portal's entire game is a teaching / tutorial level for the eventual "boss fight" with GlaDOS. The bike riding sequence in Grand Theft Auto 3: San Andreas was the most laughable, literally starting you off by riding a bike. Fallout 3 uses the tutorial level to start you off as a baby, an infant, that slowly teaches you how to walk while establishing your character's relationship with his father, the very driving plot point of the game. Most games I have played, including those with complex key-bindings and difficulty didn't feel nearly as bad as that first hour of grinding through Arkham's prisoner reception hall - which seemed to be designed by some sort of mad labyrinthine architect.

WRITING

So, writing then? Bioware is specifically known for its writing, and it was one of the primary reasons I had to come back into their world over and over again.

Zero Punctuation specifically isolates the writing as clumsy, and I sort of agree. It pains me to say it as Paul Dini is one of the best comic book and visual media writers out there, especially where Batman is concerned. That being said, something went wrong here. Some of the dialog is a bit too much, but then again, I'd venture to guess they didn't give Paul Dini much to do.

Whereas Bioware's writing philosophy is to keep them on staff and hire them from the get-go, Eidos, Rocksteady, and WB games come from a different world entirely. They hire the writers to create set up the levels and setpieces that they have already created. So much technology and resources have already been expended into creating the game, the writer is left to merely create the framework surrounding it. So, Paul Dini probably had to write several thousand lines of mostly use dialog in order to set up the game and give it the drama he feels it should have.

Alot of the story logic makes little sense to. Why am I being distracted by a collection quest set up by the Riddler if Gotham is a panic? Optional fan-service, of course. It's not enough to play as Batman, we needed some rickety addition just so we can keep people playing - but that just confuses the design. Batman should be grinding through to SAVE GOTHAM, not messing about with stupid gimmicks left by a third rate criminal (who doesn't even bother to show up in the game). Why does Waynetech build the security gates and Batman NOT have a back door to the place? Is he worried that he's one day going to go crazy and break into Arkham and deal with all of the villains himself (hint; he's already nuts)? Oh yeah, Lucius built them, not Bruce. But Bruce did bother to put his own freaking batcave into Arkham. Did Amadeus Arkham get a good deal at a statuary, because there are SO MANY FREAKING GARGOYLES INSIDE BUILDINGS.

One of the early lines I cringed at was when Harley Quinn specifically points out her costume as her "new, sexier look". I can only imagine what it meant to do that as Dini was Quinn's original creator on the animated series. Wildstorm, lead by Jim Lee, reworked most of the characters for the game. Changing Harley from a fun sociopath to a crazy sexpot when rendered in 3D. Dini couldn't help but point that out, it seems, and the writing became clunkier for it.

ART DIRECTION

Wildstorm's vision of Batman isn't too far off from the comics. In fact, Lee penciled the Batman classic, "Hush", and was lauded for his character designs. They weren't much different from historical design, but every character looked better in some way.

The looks in Arkham Asylum, though, are muddy, dirty facsimiles of the originals. This doesn't quite work when one brings in voice acting and writing from the animated series.

Wildstorm's Batman is a badass. He slowly becomes more scarred and tattered as the game goes on, wearing him down. He's a pacifistic Rambo, a Dirty Harry who won't kill the bad guy, but chiselled nonetheless. He's a pair of underwear and a cape you wear when you're 5 and pretending to be the Bat.

When I think about the Animated Series, however, I think of a moment where they flashback to Crime Alley (something that happens in this game) and Batman watches helplessly as his parents get killed in front of his eyes. His white pupils turn up, scared, frightened, a vulnerable little 8 year old boy as he falls into oblivion.

That Batman is not a badass. He's conflicted, angry, and human. This Batman isn't vulnerable. He can't be. His face has a constant look of determination, sheer force of will. There is no way that he can lose.

And there it is, my main problem.

There are no stakes. I have no reason to come back and play because Gotham will continue to be safe.

Shepherd had to save the Universe, and it was not easy to do. The humans are the newcomers, and have to prove themselves, but Batman doesn't have this issue. Ultimately, I wanted to play Mass Effect more to root for the underdog, whereas Batman, well, he's just the jerkoff who likes to beat up nameless Blackgate fugitives.

Upcoming Reviews

In true Late to the Game fashion, I'm downloading games that have been out awhile, and reviewing them only after finishing.

What to expect in the near future:

Mass Effect

I recently downloaded and finished this game. At the moment, I'm replaying the game in two different classes and paths, so I can provide a well-rounded review of it.

Star Control 2

There were plenty of similarities between Mass Effect and Star Control 2, and so I felt compelled to write this review. I'll be taking a critical look at where it stands then and how it stands up today. Full disclosure, though - this is my all-time favorite game.

Still to come:

Batman: Arkham Asylum

I've barely managed to finish the first hour or so of this game. While I was initially unimpressed, most people told me to get to scarecrow first. Well, I got to him. I will beat this game before posting a review. Don't expect the usual fanfare.

Mass Effect 2

After finishing the first, I had to continue the journey. So far, I'm impressed. It remains buggy on my system, and yet I'm enjoying it.

Knights of the Old Republic

This is the game that inspired me to give Mass Effect a serious look, and a classic. I'll talk about its advantages and its limitations. How does it hold up?

Fallout 1, 2, and 3

Having played and beat all three (not including DLC), this is a long time coming. How does the reboot (3) compare to the first 2?

Deus Ex

The ultimate multi-path game, Deus Ex is remembered fondly as a classic First Person Shooter/Action-RPG (the FPRPS, as I've heard it called), which is now an emerging genre.

Back to the Future:
Bioshock 1 & 2

These games are well regarded, but never initially appealed to me. It's now of interest.

System Shock 1 & 2

And speaking of, the series of games that 2K developed before Bioshock, the spiritual beginnings.

I still need to find and download these games. Any leads would be helpful.