StarCraft
       (STRATEGY)


   StarCraft My first reaction to StarCraft--starting up the single
   player Terran campaign--was "Units look nice...terrain elevation is
   important, that's cool...but this is a lot like WarCraft 2." Now
   that's not necessarily a bad thing. WarCraft 2 is still my favorite
   strategy game, despite the many improvements offered by other strategy
   games. If you were to buy only three games ever in your life, I'd
   probably recommend WC2 as one of them. Now, is StarCraft a significant
   improvement on WarCraft 2? In some ways, no. On the disappointing
   side, there have only been a few changes to game mechanics. We do have
   production queues now, that's a help. You can also assign units to a
   squad and call up that squad by hitting a numeric key. But there is a
   lack of some of the more useful features of more recent strategy games
   like Total Annihilation, and Dark Reign. For example, you can't set
   unit behavior, and the waypoint system (yes, there is one) is awkward.
   Some of the things that DR and TA offer would come in real handy.
                                      
   The races are very different in feel, style, and strategy. They also
   played with the mission objectives so it's not always just a routine
   exercise in getting the resources and kicking the crap out of the other
   guy .It's just that some races are geared better to different strategies.
                                      
   While it doesn't have the complexity of a Total Annihilation, it does
   have something else. Style. Blizzard strategy games have something
   that just charms an avid gamer, and I know I'm not alone in feeling
   this way. I wish I could better explain it. Whatever it is, I
   find myself sitting in my chair until the enemy is defeated, the sun
   is rising, and my butt is sore.
                                      
   I've heard some people complain about the lack of real 3D terrain, but
   quite frankly I don't give a toss about that. "Superior" technology
   doesn't mean a thing if not used right. Saying that SC is a bad game
   simply it doesn't have the 3D terrain is a lot like saying that A Fork
   in the Tale is a better game than Tetris because it has full motion
   video. Which would you rather play? The multi-level terrain works well
   enough, looks good, and doesn't add a lot MHz to the system
   requirements. Unit art is very good, and imaginative. The humans have
   a cool, technical and military feel to them, the Zerg are slimy and
   disgusting, a completely biological army, and the Protoss have a nice,
   classy, almost futuristic art-deco look. Imagine if the people who
   designed the Sydney Opera House sat down and dreamed up a race.
                                      
   The music isn't bad, though I personally found the WC2 soundtrack more
   stirring. Great sound effects though, from the spitting of Zerg
   Hydralisks, to the roar of the siege cannon, and the high energy of
   Protoss structures.
                                      
   Each campaign isn't "different but equal" as with WC2 and many other
   strategy games. Each campaign is an "episode," associated with a
   particular race. Although each gets off to a slower start to help you
   adjust to the new race, each campaign is progressively more
   challenging.
                                      
   The first and easiest, the Terran (Human) campaign, is the most like
   the WC races. Terran is a good intro to Star Craft. Zerg is medium,
   and Protoss is hardest.
                                      
   As with WC2 and especially Beyond the Dark Portal, key
   player-characters or special items become crucial to the success of
   many missions. You might have the Zerg on the ropes, but if Kerrigan
   dies in the skirmish, you lose.
                                      
                                      
   Each campaign has a great backstory. Many are filled with twists,
   turns, and knives in the back. The final victory cutscenes, and
   indeed, most of the cutscenes in general, are gorgeous. Blizzard does
   animation very well. My favorite occurs during the Zerg campaign, an
   aliens-inspired moment which looks like it might have been directed by
   Ridley Scott.

   When all is said and done, this is what it's all about. While anyone
   who has played WC2 will recognize where SC came from, there are some
   refinements to gameplay, many of them very subtle. For example, each
   basic gathering unit is very distinct, and that's where the key
   differences in the races begin. The human unit builds something, then
   when it is finished, you send it back to gathering. The Zerg unit
   actually evolves, so their units must be sacrificed entirely to make
   structures. The Protoss unit can initiate building, and then
   immediately leave to doing something else while the structure builds
   itself. Humans can repair, Zerg can heal, Protoss have hit points and
   a recharging energy shield.
                                      
   Despite the changes, gameplay is still very intuitive, and it's very
   easy to find out what you need to know in order to build the next
   structure or unit up.
                                      
                                      
   Special kudos much go to the story, with its many ironic twists and
   turns. I also like the fact that there isn't really an aggressor.
   Although the Zerg want to absorb the Protoss and the Terrans, the real
   culprit has died out before the time of StarCraft (maybe we'll see
   them in an expansion pack, or a sequel. How about it, Blizzard?). Said
   species genetically engineered the Zerg and the Protoss, and a lot of
   the conflict arrives from circumstances beyond everyone's control.
                                      
   For the final word though SC hasn't got the features of some recent                                   
   strategy games, it is still as addictive as ever. Warcraft II kicked ass,
   Starcraft kicked ass....end of the story.