EPT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case you weren’t already aware, the writers at Polygon are possibly the best sources out there for great video game journalism. To many, gaming is still considered the domain of insipid man-children (also actual children), so few journalists take the medium seriously, much less perform critical analysis thereof. Polygon’s team does. I learned about Polygon via the extra-gaming exploits of two of their editors: Justin and Griffin McElroy. They comprise two-thirds of the hilarious weekly “advice” podcast, My Brother, My Brother, and Me. Which you should listen to. But that’s not the point. The point is that back in September, Justin made a few tweets about the difficulty utilizing the standard ’1-10′ rating scale. That got me to thinking. How can we rate games in a way that avoids an arbitrary, dimensionally-stunted scale? That addresses the complexities within video games without losing a simple bottom line? Can we change how we critically examine the games we play? Most importantly, can we do it with sexy graphs?
I think so. Henceforth it shall be called THE N3D REVIEW.
Here’s the idea. We can divide the gaming experience into several linked, but distinct, categories. The most universal are gameplay and presentation. All games possess these attributes. Gameplay are the mechanics of button presses that make the game fun and challenging or… shitty. Presentation describes the graphical and musical aspects of the game from cutscene to soundtrack. Beyond that, games either have single player, multiplayer, or both. The single player element expresses the quality of the narrative or simply how enjoyable a game is to play on one’s own. In contrast, the multiplayer aspect characterizes the community with which the game is played, as well as the draw to play a game’s multiplayer features. Finally, there’s the “fun factor,” that indefinable quality that varies from reviewer to reviewer, from player to player, that inspires them to keep playing. My hypothesis is that by assessing a game’s Gameplay, Presentation, Single Player, Multiplayer, and Fun Factor, you can discern whether or not you’d enjoy playing it. So how do you judge these categories? Fun factor, being a personal preference, must be explained by the reviewer, but the general sentiment will be either Awesome, Good, Okay (Yellow), Mediocre (Orange), or Terrible, and will be indicated with the associated colors. The rest of the factors can be judged on axes of Quality and Novelty. Well, multiplayer doesn’t EXACTLY fit into these aspects, so instead we judge it on axes of Playability and Community. Playability is defined as the accessibility of the multiplayer mode, how likely a player is to participate in competitive and cooperative modes. Community reflects the quality of the other gamers and the interest the player possesses to continue interacting with them. In summary, games are judged as follows:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rIrBz.png)
Addictive/Distracting (Quality); Dull/Innovative (Novelty)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Sccaj.png)
Jaw-Dropping/Ugly (Quality); Derivative/Unique (Novelty)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xWJEC.png)
Compelling/Inarticulate (Quality); Uninspired/Novel (Novelty)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NnqOP.png)
Motivating/Discouraging (Playability); Infuriating/Inspiring (Community)
AND
Fun Factor:
Awesome/Good/Okay(Yellow)/Mediocre(Orange)/Terrible
The final verdict will be the sum of all of these graphs; all four points will be shown in relation to each other and fall into one of four quadrants:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gjj3o.png)
Avoid At All Costs (No Quality/No Novelty)
Wait Until Fixed (Novelty/No Quality)
For Genre Fans (Quality/No Novelty)
Must Play (Quality/Novelty)
The reviewer’s final choice will be indicated in one of the quadrants, specifically the one shaded by the Fun Factor’s color (typically there will be only one shaded quadrant).
Okay, maybe this seems unapproachable to start. I guarantee it’s not as complex as it appears. Let’s take a look at an example. How about… Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty.
The Game: Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty is a Real-Time Strategy (RTS) game for PC and Mac. It is published by Blizzard Entertainment, makers of the most critically acclaimed RTS series in the world: Warcraft and Starcraft. Wings of Liberty is the first of three installments in the Starcraft 2 saga. The other installments, Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void are planned for later dates. Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty comes 12 years after the release of the original game and its expansion, Starcraft: Brood War. One would think that this means its release will go unnoticed by many, assuming that a 12-year old PC game couldn’t still have many ardent fans. WRONG. Starcraft: Brood War has maintained a great deal of its fanbase years after first arriving on store shelves. Its success came from its compelling story (particularly for an RTS), a set of complex and strategically-deep gameplay mechanics, and, last but certainly not least, an international eSports scene with thousands of fans. After 12 years in development, Starcraft 2 is expected to both perpetuate the legacy of its predecessor and to draw in new fans with updated graphics, a new plot, and a (hopefully) improved multiplayer system. Can Starcraft 2 succeed its ancestor and succeed the throne of RTS King?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Bql3K.png)
Single Player: To be perfectly honest, Starcraft 2‘s single player campaign left much to be desired. Some history is required to explain this. The original Starcraft told the tale of an embattled sector of space in which three factions competed for control: the human Terrans, the bug-like Zerg, and the psychic, advanced Protoss. Each faction had their own campaign, advancing the story through missions where the player defeated armies, defended territory, or escorted heroic units. The missions comprised a narrative which spanned all of the campaigns, allowing the player to see the backstabs, triumphs, and losses of the different races from varying perspectives. The story was compelling, despite being told through mission-briefing screens. Flash-forward to the sequel, and a similar conceit and setup is still employed: the factions continue to battle each other and each race has their own campaign. But now each campaign is longer and has its own installment. Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty is the Terran campaign, centered around Starcraft hero Jim Raynor, a virtuous rebel seeking to free the Terrans from imperial tyranny and absolve himself of the guilt he acquired in the first game. And its boring. The story falls on the tropes of foreshadowing of a coming great evil and a trite love story intended to have origins in the first game (it doesn’t). Where have you heard this before? Oh right: EVERYWHERE. Old characters like Raynor lose the depth and attitude that made them interesting, while new characters never get those traits. Missions seem cherry-picked from the Standard Video Game Mission Handbook: gather resources here, defend fortifications here, end zombie attack there… nothing makes the missions Starcraft. Embarrassingly enough for the Terrans, the most interesting parts of the game are played from the perspectives of the Protoss, who make brief cameos to allude to a “universe-ending prophecy”. It seems like the wind has gone out of Starcraft‘s narrative sails. For a company that used to deliver quality storytelling, Blizzard seems to be seriously dropping the ball (coughdiablo3cough). But hey, they still have two more expansions to pick up their slack. And let’s face it: it’s the gameplay (and, by extension, multiplayer), that make games like Starcraft 2 worthwhile. Right?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/07Ysa.png)
Gameplay: Starcraft 2 is an ideal, modern RTS. Unfortunately, RTSs are not a particularly approachable genre of gaming and many would argue that its modern “improvements” detract from what make the game competitive. For those unfamiliar with the genre, a Real-Time Strategy game presents you with the task of building a base, creating an army, and using that army to destroy that of your opponent. In Starcraft 2, you watch your units from above, commanding them to gather resources, construct buildings, and deploy soldiers and vehicles of war. The actions are performed in real time: if a unit doesn’t have a command, it stops. As general, you give orders to your units, using your reflexes and strategies to attack and defend. But learning how to effectively command your units in Starcraft 2 is not easy; even simple computers will defeat you until you mechanical skill is solid enough, to say nothing of creative human opponents. This can make Starcraft 2 frustrating and difficult to approach. Still, this means that a victory in Starcraft 2 is always well-earned, and there is great satisfaction in crushing your enemies. The controls themselves are fluid and accurate, and while unit AI can occasionally make unexpected maneuvers, your minions generally move exactly as you’d expect. As your skill increases, the value of the mechanical accuracy increases, since you need each and every command to register as accurately as possible. Starcraft 2‘s control scheme isn’t very different from its predecessor or RTSs in general. It differs from Brood War‘s in a few important ways, such as new units and faction abilities, larger control groups, and auto-mining, but the core gameplay is unchanged. While the small differences make the game more approachable for newer players, seasoned veterans of the original claim that they also lower the game’s skill cap, an important facet of a competitive title. Either way, Starcraft 2 is a near-perfected RTS, continuing to prove why Blizzard’s dominate the genre.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MukX1.png)
Presentation: The looks and sounds of Starcraft 2 possess another Blizzard trademark: sheer beauty. Say what you will about the company, but they produce incredible graphics and wonderful music. On the highest settings, Starcraft 2 looks simply gorgeous. Each Marine, Zergling, and Zealot looks detailed and powerful, and their battlegrounds are fully-fledged worlds, rather than the flat palettes and textures of the original. This makes the game not only fun to play, but also to watch. Little is as satisfying as seeing two armies collide – lasers charring alien spawn, corrosive acids melting tanks and infantry alike, and explosions bursting as warships and mechs are demolished. In the background, each faction has their own soundtrack: exalted, sober hymns for the Protoss, pulsing, atmospheric noise for the Zerg, and jaunty, upbeat bluegrass for the Terran. The songs capture the essence of each race and often provide a thrilling backdrop for skirmishes and other engagements. The single player set pieces possess similar quality. The inside of Jim Raynor’s ship is a rusted, cobbled-together flying fortress, conjuring images of Firefly or the futuristic equivalent of a redneck’s pickup. But each piston, steam leak, and planet-displaying hologram looks immaculate, even on low to medium graphical settings. Raynor’s crew seems alive, nearly down to the hair follicle, bringing the player towards the uncanny valley with its intense realism. And that’s just within the confines of the main mission hub. Outside are the slavering, savage Zerg, whose leathery wings glisten and teeth visibly drip venomous saliva. The technologically-advanced Protoss shine in their massive and detailed warships, and their psionic blades almost radiate heat through the screen. It is a beautiful game. On the other hand, the graphics can take a toll on weaker graphics cards, but such is to be expected from a PC game. Additionally, Starcraft 2‘s aesthetic changed little from its predecessor. While the games have their artistic differences (lighting, color, and so forth), it’s obvious that Starcraft 2 is just the original game taken to the next level. But it’s quite an amazing leap.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3uKht.png)
Multiplayer: The heart of an RTS is its multiplayer, and its in the multiplayer that Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty shines. From amateur laddering to professional eSports tournaments, the player vs. player element of Wings of Liberty is the game’s clear focus. However, despite its greatness, the infrastructure that powers Starcraft 2‘s multiplayer and the stress implicit in the genre makes it difficult to fully enjoy. Starcraft 2 is designed around playing against a human opponent. Only in direct PvP competition can your skills be truly tested. It’s that simple, really. You discover your strengths and weaknesses on the ladder, and since the game has a huge range of skill, there’s always room to improve and adapt. Constant new opponents also provide Starcraft 2 with infinite replayability: you are guaranteed to never play the same game twice, since matchup, strategy, and skill will change from match to match. And this player vs. player focus gives Starcraft 2 a vibrant professional scene, since it’s not just entertaining to play but also to watch. What’s bad about this? Well, the problems with Starcraft 2‘s multiplayer also stem from the game’s difficulty: it’s hard to get into and hard to keep playing. No one wants to be always losing, but that’s what playing Starcraft 2 can seem like sometimes. And it’s even worse because you know that your loss is due to your lack of skill. It’s on you. Most people play games to relax, and in that sense, Starcraft 2 can be a chore. Games are long and losing them is hard. Particularly losing to the assholes that play competitive online games (I mean, it’s not FPS-bad… but it’s bad). Also, by default, you play games on Blizzard’s Battle.net ladder, which gives you a ranking based on your wins and losses. Fact: no one enjoys losing rank. In contrast, the original Starcraft had easily accessible custom games, which were far more relevant to the casual player. Starcraft 2 also has them (along with their incredible comprehensive map-maker, which is too detailed to cover in this review), but the interface of Battle.net makes them hard to access. As a result, many people who were excited about Starcraft 2 stopped playing, simply because the game is a huge commitment. But stress and accessibility aside, it cannot be overstated: Starcraft 2‘s multiplayer is awesome.
Fun Factor: Starcraft 2 is pretty damn fun. As a player, the taste of victory is so, SO sweet. You’ll find yourself whooping hysterically for wins in this game than you will in any other, since you will be so concentrated on defeating your opponent. But, on the other hand, losses will hurt. I found myself sulking a shocking amount while playing Starcraft 2. As such, even I got tired of playing. I’ve never been good at practicing (ask my old saxophone teachers), and it’s clear to me that while I’m better than a lot of people who play the game, I’m just not that good. I did enjoy the single player campaign, derivative as it was. The missions were amusing, but I spent a lot of time pining for the old Starcraft, with all twists and troubles I enjoyed when I was a kid. Yet while Wings of Liberty looks “just alright” from a player perspective, it is so much more as an eSports title. Starcraft 2 is the first eSport that I’ve really followed, and I could not enjoy it more. Watching competitive Starcraft 2 matches has become quite the hobby for me, and I plan on being part of the scene until ‘Starcraft 3′ replaces it. It’s wonderful to be a Starcraft fan and wonderful to be part of the community of Starcraft fans. As both a player and spectator, Starcraft 2 is just plain fun.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sGaWD.png)
Final Verdict: When all is said and done, Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty is a game for people who either know they’ll like Starcraft, know they are eSport fans, or know they enjoy cutthroat multiplayer. As much as the game reaches out towards new players, the new players will be the first to say “Fuck it,” and go play something that relaxes them. As a huge fan of the game, I find that unfortunate, but that’s just how it is.
Do you like the N3D Review? Is it something you’d like to see more of? I’m still perfecting it myself, so any suggestions would not be amiss. Next time will be a more recent review, and I want to get the format right before then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you guys liked that and hope you the perspective on reviews and SC2 interested you. You can read more and more articles at the N3rd Dimension.
