Insiders are pointing their finger for Realtime Worlds’ collapse at All Points Bulletin (APB), a persistent world cops-and-robbers game that failed to set sales charts on fire. It’s a fair point. RTW head David Jones is a mercurial yet seasoned operator who should have known better than to bet the farm on a game concept which would have struggled in 2007, let alone 2010.

If there’s two words Microsoft knows, it’s “due” and “diligence”. What was the gain for them in causing an exodus from Realtime Worlds?

Jones: not the only one to blame for RTW's downfall

Jones as a history of shooting from the lip, but it’s not exactly a inspiring choice of words is it, “ploughing ahead”? And what of Microsoft’s motivations for selecting Ruffian, something that’s never been made clear. Was it too hard dealing with RTW? Was the asking price too much? Did RTW want to take longer than Microsoft was willing to wait? As Jones observed at the time, talent in Dundee was hard enough to come by without having two studios competing for it.

If there’s two words Microsoft knows, it’s “due” and “diligence”. What was the gain for them in causing an exodus from Realtime Worlds? There’s no way Ruffian goes into business in the scale they did without a big name publisher behind them. By handing Crackdown 2 to Ruffian, it suggests Microsoft didn’t have a problem with the development talent at RTW, but rather the management. And if that was the case, wouldn’t it have been better to hand off Crackdown 2 somewhere, anywhere else and take a short term hit about “abandoning the studio that made them successful”? That story is over in a week or two, as opposed to the “Microsoft splits studio in two” story that we ended up with. We’re talking half a year or more of people spending as much time asking Ruffian and Realtime Worlds about each other as opposed to their games.

If you’re a recently laid off employee at Realtime Worlds, this kind of talk is largely immaterial to you now, as you’re now looking for a job in a uncertain economy. Ruffian’s probably a waste of time. After dropping Crackdown 2, the company has been keeping a low profile. Probably the best thing to do when your game measures 70 on the much maligned Metacritic. Translated through the bizarre numeric filter that passes as a game review scoring scale, that’s rent, don’t buy territory at best.

So in summary: yes, Realtime Worlds management did themselves no favour by loading all their expectations on APB, however that decision was likely forced by Microsoft’s meddling. It’s hard to see any winners out of what’s transpired. Instead of one Scottish powerhouse pumping out strong titles – albeit at a slower rate – we instead had two studios in Dundee competing for talent and attention – Realtime Worlds and Ruffian.

Gamers lost out too. Crackdown 2 turned out to be a major disappointment – highly derivative from the original title, and APB played a major part in driving Realtime Worlds into the dirt.  When the inevitable postmortems and tell-alls surface, we hope Microsoft’s role in two bad games, and one insolvent developer gets a thorough airing.

In an update today on the US Battle.Net site the uber developer has revealed players will be able to change their in-game names for free…initially. After that window of grace, you better get your wallet out if you don’t like you’re in-game name:

“In addition, beyond this initial free name change, we’ll be launching a service similar to the one we offer for World of Warcraft which will allow additional character name changes for a fee.”

The Blizzard update claims some gamers mistakenly entered the wrong name during the registration process, and that the free change period will allow them to right their wrongs.

The update doesn’t point out the name change will not reset a player’s achievements or rankings on Blizzard’s comprehensive ladder scheme. The company has assigned all competitive and playing history info to the account to ensure if players wish to have multiple “characters” in the game, they will need to buy additional copies of the game.

The offer flags the first of what may be a steady flow of paid services and extras to the game. Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime has previously underscored the success of VAS (value added services) in World of Warcraft – it’s logical to expect StarCraft II to feature similar. Already announced previously was a plan to have a custom level “marketplace” in StarCraft II – where map and mod makers share profits with Blizzard – to be integrated post-launch.

Free Character Name Change Coming Soon [Battle.Net]

While gamers knew the crossbow – with its variable ordinance – would be making an appearance, we’re betting one of the most talked about features shown in the game is a remote-control car. A killstreak reward, we can imagine plenty of people watching in horror as the zippy little toy motors up to them and explodes.

Imaginative? Sure. But the real thanks should go to the team who made the hoary Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood) film, The Dead Pool. In addition to showing Jim Carrey playing one of his first film roles ever (a strung-out rock star), the movie also is memorable for a car chase scene with a difference: Eastwood’s character having to evade a lethal – you guessed it – remote control car:

Not a bad source of inspiration, we submit. We’re still hoping Black Ops will borrow from Rambo – an incomprehensible speech at the end of a mission would go down a treat:

…we can dream, right?

Amongst the trolls and flaming however, a comment from a developer Ian Christy, who is lead level designer at EA Black Box in Canada. Christie worked on Vivendi’s Scarface: The World is Yours game, and related an example of why it’s sometimes dangerous to let suits start dictating game design decisions.

“management from Vivendi, which later merged with Activision, kept asking for things that were outside both our rating and Tony’s moral code. Peter Wallnutt (or something like that) asked for a micro-game where Tony hired a prostitute (feature chasing GTA), got locked into an interactive NIS, and held a gun to her head to force her to perform certain gratifications, toggle the analogue sticks to win, or Tony shoots her. We nodded politely and quickly backed out of the room.”

Oh what a different game Scarface could have been, had the executive had his way. And you were thinking all the suits did was curb the designer’s excesses.

Brings a new meaning to "Say hello to my little friend," doesn't it?

We’re wondering if the man in question was inspired by a scene out of Dead Man, where Johnny Depp’s character witnesses the same act.

Or maybe he just woke up one day thinking “you know what Scarface needs – forced oral!”

Was there anything from the minibar Sir? Did you take any DLC?

Well, all those unused boxes have to be cleared out somehow, and so MTV has brokered one of the more unusual deals we’ve seen. They’ve teamed up with boutique hotel group Desires to give away the game to guests. It gets better: stay two nights and you merely get the game disc. Opt for three nights and you will be able to lug away the limited edition bundle, which as we close in on a year after launch appears to have been not that limited after all.

But wait! There’s more! You’ll also be able to play the game at the hotel with other people too. From the press release:

We can’t imagine the fiercely protective custodians of the Beatles properties – Apple (not the tech company) – who took forever to agree to a videogame treatment would be thrilled at the band’s name being associated with this.

A week ago, I thought I knew what StarCraft II would bring upon its launch. As one of the chosen few invited to Blizzard HQ in Irvine, California, I’ve played through parts of the game at regular intervals this year and spoken to key developers – lead producer Chris Sigaty, lead designer Dustin Browder – multiple times. I even scored an audience with Blizzard’s creative font, Chris Metzen, who left his fingerprints all over the StarCraft storyline. In other words – I was ready.

Access to the beta further entrenched my view that the game would be great, but not “once in a generation great”. A fitting follow-up to the still-revered StarCraft, sure. A more meaningful emphasis on the campaign, absolutely. The appeal of multiplayer I wasn’t as sure on. The most obvious read would be the ultra-hardcore StarCraft fans: virtually guaranteed to turn up their noses at the flashy graphics and blanch at the “user friendly” moves the designers were trying to instill into the game. Blizzard sold us out to the casuals, they would type furiously at launch.

"Terran" each other apart - the human faction faces off in a mirror match.

However, I was wrong. And if you find a gamer claiming Blizzard has fallen foul of gamers here, they are wrong too. To give a cliche a spin, in StarCraft II, the whole truly eclipses the sum of its very fine parts. Blizzard has managed to accomplish a classy balancing act here. A campaign mode that gives fans of single player experiences value for money, and a multiplayer game that history will remember as being more accessible for for average players as well as as an enduring, credible competitive platform.

As it stands right now, StarCraft II is the most complete blend of single player gaming and competitive multiplayer gamers have been lucky to see – ever. And in our opinion that includes console games.

Staying connected

Before we get too carried away, there are some valid criticisms of the game to address. Yes, the game requires an internet connection. That’s not a technological hurdle to most people but it needs to be mentioned due to its sheer obduracy. The other downer is no local LAN play, something Blizzard has been up front about from early on. It’s not an issue unless you have multiple friends over with PCs, all straining your internet connection playing each other. Then it seems positively counterproductive.

gamers should credit StarCraft II as the Star Wars of the noughties – a three-faceted reflection of the grip gaming has taken on the mainstream.

One thing you won’t catch me – or any objective person – complaining about is how Blizzard has broken the game into three. The first instalment – this instalment – is Wings of Liberty, the Terran faction storyline. Next the story will continue from the Zerg faction’s viewpoint in Heart of the Swarm, and the trilogy will close by focusing on the third faction – the Protoss – in Legacy of the Void.

When the trilogy model was announced, many gamers complained and/or assumed Blizzard was short shrifting them, splitting the game into three to make more cash. Whatever the commercial imperatives may have been, it can’t be argued that the first instalment runs a decent amount of time. The game features 25 (26 if you score the “secret” one) missions, all with multiple achievements and customised objectives. You’re not going to get much change out of 20 minutes for most of the missions – with many of the involved ones running a lot longer. Players showed too little faith in Blizzard. Instead of berating the company for spinning out the intergalactic epic into three, gamers should credit StarCraft II as the Star Wars of the new millenia – a three-faceted reflection of the grip gaming has taken on the mainstream.

The campaign storyline itself is loaded with Blizzard references, which will admittedly likely be missed by newcomers. Not that newbies have much to complain about. The sparse use of pre-rendered cut-scenes in game only make their appearance more powerful. The “typical” cinematics – rendered using the game engine and occurring before and after most missions serve to inform predominantly, with most of the plot progression being told via face-to-face conversations. News updates are also show on TVs in-game. The first is in a bar in Mar Sara, the planet protagonist Jim Raynor starts the game on, and then aboard Raynor’s spaceship in a lively cantina that would have made The Matrix‘s Nebuchadnezzar a much more pleasant place for Neo to hang in, had they thought of it.

Devil on one shoulder: Tychus Findlay keeps an eye on Raynor (r)

The plot arc initially has Raynor pitting himself against the corrupt dictator Mengsk, but soon finds himself embroiled in a much wider scope than mere human (Terran?) drama – with the threat of an impending apocalypse. Human-turned-Zerg Kerrigan plays a pivotal part in the story, as does a host of supporting actors, including the “never can feel he’s trustworthy” Tychus Findlay, Raynor’s closest thing to a peer. He too has an agenda of his own.

Play it again, Samwise

Almost from the get-go, players will be redoing missions as they complete them. StarCraft II gives you ample reason to try, try again. Each mission features multiple achievements, many for performing feats or taking actions you normally wouldn’t consider doing. Many achievements are linked to the difficulty level you play on as well – sure you can coast through the campaign on “Casual” difficulty, but your achievement score will pale beside the determined soul who went the extra mile (and difficulty levels).

you’d have to be a unrealistically brutal marker to not expect people to get full value from the single player alone.

The variety of play you’ll encounter in these missions is outstanding for a real time strategy title. You’ll have to race against time to mine enough resources (or cause the opposition to mine less) to secure a useful ally, you’ll battle the elements as you evade waves of lava floods, you’ll take on “night of the living dead” style mission where you bunker down in your base to fend off an infected colony before venturing out in daytime to burn down their homes.

Some missions you’ll control one character, others a lot more. The final chapter of the Protoss mini-storyline will see you take control of a potentially supply capped (200 units, or the equivalent) Protoss army in a final apocalyptic battle. Apocalyptic because (on Normal level) the conditions for completing the mission include killing 1500 enemies as well as all your units eventually dying as well. Hey – you can’t complete the mission without getting wiped out. Is that nihilistic enough for you?

Things look rather grim for the Terran player as the Protoss closes in.

There’s plenty of achievements and reward recognition – avatar replacements – for those who complete chains of achievements clustered within different storylines. Heck, there’s even achievements for the “Lost Vikings” arcade game (think a slick version of Galaxians) in the cantina aboard Raynor’s ship. You can find it on the level under the hologrammatic go-go dancer. Even without such touches, you’d have to be a unrealistically brutal marker to not expect people to get full value from the single player alone. And that’s before you throw in the ability to replicate multiplayer vs humans with AI opponents, or the in-game Challenges section, which throws players into nine specific (and difficult) scenarios, each with a bronze, silver or gold passing grade.

More than a feeling – multiplayer

But as much as we like the campaign mode, it’s StarCraft II’s multiplayer which has managed to justify the game’s hype. And it all comes down to your gut-response once you set foot into the multiplayer regions of this game.

Games are increasingly good at evoking basic emotions. A monster pops up and you twitch. Finish a hard level and you might cheer, yell something stupid or break the unemotive “gamer shell”. But there’s not too many games out there which deliver an enduring, deeper response. StarCraft II’s multiplayer joins those games which deliver what I unscientifically dub “the feeling”. It’s your first kiss. It’s the last day of school or work before a well-earned holiday. It’s the excitement of embarking on something new and exciting knowing you’ll be coming back for a long time. Game creators can luck out every now and then, but most of the time a game which manages to bewitch players over a long time relies on a commitment to longevity from the developer. StarCraft II has both the rare spark and that commitment – and that’s why you as a thinking gamer with a pulse need it.

you lose track of time watching video replays of star players’ memorable battles trying to gain insight into the game’s mechanics. And you will improve

When you put sit down at the intergalactic poker table that is StarCraft II’s multiplayer world, it’s akin to going all in. You get “that feeling”. This is a journey that will last you years – not just a couple of months until the next big thing. That realisation drives you to higher lengths. You’re dared to know more about the game, to improve. You find yourself – as I did – scouring through StarCraft communities like the outstanding Team Liquid (http://www.teamliquid.net/). You glean strategy tips (taking careful note of their dates to avoid outdated info). You lose track of time watching video replays of star players’ memorable battles, trying to gain insight into the game’s mechanics. And you will improve. I don’t care if you – like me – are a utter strategy game disaster area. You will improve because this game will motivate you to learn and play more, young Jedi.

Who wants to rank a million?

The biggest thing Blizzard has done with StarCraft II doesn’t revolve around the story, or the graphic updates, or the coming expansions. It’s the league system. A massive challenge that faced lead designer Dustin Browder and his team was winning. Or more accurately – throwing diligent players a bone. Lose one game, and it’s to be expected. Lose three in a row, and it’s disappointing. Get thrashed ten running, and even the most tenacious player will wonder why they’re bothering.

Rumours of a Zergling shortage in SCII appear to be unfounded.

This isn’t the same as a “ten minutes and you’re done” first person shooter match. In StarCraft II, a game that’s over in single digit minutes is a fast one. Play conservatively, and you can spend close to an hour. Loss in these circumstances has more weight, especially with the modern generation of gamers who have plenty of options for their playing time.

The solution: a multi-tiered system. Players dipping into true multiplayer – against humans, not artificial intelligence enemies – can play up to 50 unranked practice matches to learn the ropes. This step can be passed over at any time. With practice matches out the way you go into five placement matches. Your performance in these games determines your final placement within the game’s tiers: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum and finally Diamond. You can’t just win your five placement games and end up in Diamond, however – it’s only accessible by winning matches after your placement five.

Once you’re placed in a league, the system is pretty logical. Win games against opponents at the same ranking, and your rating within that league goes up. Lose games, and your rating goes down. You aren’t “stuck” in your placed league. Win enough games and you can be promoted to the next league up, where the average skill level will be higher.

It’s a little harder to be demoted, but from first hand experience, I can tell you it’s possible. As fortune would have it, my current skill level sees me at the fulcrum of Bronze and Silver leagues. After promotion (still with more games lost than won) to Silver, I promptly lost several tight games before winning one. A couple of losses later, and I was back in Bronze.

it’s not so much a win-win philosophy as a win-lose-win one

While Blizzard may make ongoing adjustments, right now the system works. And it’s working not only on the blue ribbon competitive mode, 1v1, but also in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 modes. Each assigns you a rating independent of another.

With thirty+ games under my belt – with a win ratio of around 35% – I’m not getting discouraged or hitting the wall because these games are reasonably close. You’re not being thrown to the lions by clicking on “find a game” and then having a near-pro massacre you. There’s every likelihood – short of a superior player deliberately tanking the bulk of their games – you’ll be playing against similarly skilled opposition. The system is engineered to help you win games at some point, and underlines a key insight Blizzard has acted upon: people don’t hate losing – they hate being destroyed without any real hope of victory.

Get used to closer matches - that's what the league system is for

It’s not so much a win-win philosophy as a win-lose-win one. And for the legion of tertiary talent around the game – the amateur analysts who give play-by-play on game replays or the top-tier players who advise on strategy or balance – it’s a philosophy they should thank Blizzard for instilling. While the original StarCraft enjoyed fanatical devotion from its followers, it materialised in a different time. Twelve years ago, if you were a competitive gamer who didn’t play Quake, you played StarCraft. Period. Nowadays distractions abound. The “easy to learn, lifetime to master” ethos that StarCraft II lives and breathes assures the game – and those who live off of it – will endure.

About the only real losers in this new world order are people who take ghoulish delight in demolishing newbies. But who knows, perhaps even they will relish the opportunity to improve by playing similarly skilled opposition. There’s only so many ways you can pick the wings off a fly, after all.

The balancing act

For the sake of completeness I’ll mention the balance between the game’s three factions. That said: the problem with making any declaration on one side being better than another is balance in this game will be an ongoing concern. If Blizzard testing picks up on an imbalance, then voila – a few weeks later an innocuous patch will suddenly tilt the scales in another direction. So has it been with World of Warcraft, so will it be with StarCraft II.

Zerg Banelings on a suicide mission before the big troops come in.

StarCraft II’s rule of thumb for competition remains unchanged from StarCraft. That being: if person (a) is demonstrably better then person (b), they can expect to win 99% of the time. The only mitigating factors here are map selection and spawn points – where the terrain of some maps can clearly favour the units of a given faction – and differing playing styles. For example at lower levels, rushing your opponent – committing virtually all your efforts into a swift attack – is commonplace. Here, the Zerg faction anecdotally appears to be slightly behind the other races. The theory is the longer a Zerg player stays alive, the better their prospects become. However whether Blizzard is happy about the proportion of players staying alive long enough to gain a supposed advantage or not is something their internal tracking will likely determine.

In my travels at lower leagues, the Protoss faction is highly popular at present online, with the ability to quickly mount a very effective, powerful attack by warping in units rather than having them trot across the map. If you build enough structures that permit this warping move, a well resourced player can bring immense amounts of pressure on an opponent. This strategy works well for beginners (at least it does for me) because it still gives players a fighting chance if your foe has figured out what you’re up to and taken steps to counter it. And there’s still plenty of people in that boat at present.

at higher levels the game really becomes a high stakes poker match where an incorrect decision can lead to your downfall

Faster attacks – like the Protoss rushing in their (cheapest and easiest to make) Zealot combat units – can work, but a wily opponent will punish players who fail to pull it off. This kind of move – failing to invest in any technology enhancements in return for a handful of early attack units – gambles on crippling or killing off a player. If it’s rebuffed, the aggressor is on the back foot economically, which usually means they’re a step or two behind for the rest of the game.

Ditto the Terran faction. The Terrans can amass a small, quick and cheap Marine force to devastating effect. But if victory eludes the Terran player – even if they micromanage their units and structures leading up to the attack – they can expect to suffer the rest of the game from inadequate resourcing compared to their foe.

Herein lies StarCraft II’s beauty. Blizzard’s built an edifice for rat cunning and strategic finesse amongst its players. Multiplayer is all about knowing that rock almost always beats scissors – but if scissors is used correctly, Rock can sometimes come off second best. The theory aspect of the game is arguably easy. Players can quickly learn if they see a given unit, what the appropriate counter is. However the differing micromanagement skills of players provide a big differentiation factor, and also how versed one is at misdirection. Players pretend to build one type of unit, but change midstream. Others may sacrifice a few units to bait the opposition into reacting to misinformation. At higher levels the game really becomes a high stakes poker match where an incorrect decision can lead to your downfall.

Final verdict – and one lingering concern

StarCraft II justifies the long wait and the development delays. It’s not just a solid single player game, but rather a surefire competitive platform for years to come. The one question we have is how the future expansions will impact the way the game is played.

Protoss Void Rays - lethal for now, but who knows about later?

On one hand, StarCraft’s popularity was in part derived from a consistent platform. Players mastered a specific faction, and then honed their abilities and skills over the years confident in the strengths and weaknesses of it. However that’s the “old” Blizzard, which made StarCraft well before World of Warcraft and its regular balancing shifts and updates. The two impending expansions to the game virtually guarantee major balance shakeups will occur. Players will on one hand demand enough content and changes to justify purchase – something Blizzard has never stinted on. On the other hand players will also bemoan the uncertainty surrounding “their” faction’s ultimate performance as each new expansion – and the introduction of new, balance altering units – is made.

There’s no real easy solution to the problem if the expansions remain on track to address multiplayer as well as single player. Perhaps that’s going to be a side benefit in the long run – periodic shakeups of the status quo to prevent players getting too comfortable. To be fair periodic balancing changes haven’t hurt World of Warcraft’s pro gamer offerings.

Either way, whether you’re a single player fan who has no time for online gaming, an aspirant pro gamer, or merely wish you could get deeper into online multiplayer, StarCraft II won’t disappoint. Epic in campaign scale, and simply transcendent when played against others, this is the new standard for PC online gaming – even if you aren’t fluent in RTS.

Our recommendation: BUY

“The [Medal of Honor] Limited Edition features a host of weapons, powerful ammunition and camouflage” stated a EA press release.  Camouflage being the operative word, as EA prepares to potentially break bad news to PC gamers about the fate of Battlefield 1943.

Medal of Honor is due for release this year, October 12th.

And while the recent announcement of Ice’s involvement with Gears of War 3 – he will voice one of the characters – he’s also been getting busy on Twitter, giving the lowdown on some of the hottest games in beta and just out. We advise hitting up his twitter – FINALLEVEL – for the full picture. But the short version of the Ice Opinion on games: Medal of Honor blows (“janky”), Limbo gets a thumbs up (“dope”) , and Kane & Lynch 2 also gets a nod (“gangsta”).

If you’re going to hit up the social-media savvy Ice, do yourself a favour and don’t call him Ice Cube to gain attention like one sucka did. That kind of move could see you on the wrong end of the Final Level crew.

FINALLEVEL [Twitter]

Further, the company appears to be forestalling an outcry by refunding pre-orders – no questions asked. At present EA’s spokespeople can not advise a release date for the game:

All pre-orders can be canceled with refund at anytime and we do not have any further information at this time about a release date for the PC version of Battlefield 1943 – Electronic Arts spokesperson

It isn’t looking good for the PC version of Battlefield 1943. Perhaps DICE’s involvement with another EA FPS – they’re doing the multiplayer component of Medal of Honor’s entree into modern combat – has sunk the project for now.

The cast have made the most of their 15 minutes: the Situation is pimping a book and workout video, DJ Pauly D has managed to gain a large profile (not always positive) amongst the DJ community, and the remainder of the cast can usually be found velcroed to anything resembling a red carpet.

Be sure to tune in to the inevitable fallout; the outrage from the Italian-American community, the “too hot for TV” teasers, and the ongoing disturbing fascination of tween America with the midriff of a man old enough to be their father.

Jersey Shore Season Two [MTV]