Is Starcraft 2’s Strategy Design Still a Winning Formula?

I recently played through all of the Command & Conquer games while researching my new book on real-time strategy games. It made sense, of course, to also check out the other equally-famous RTS series: StarCraft. Though I didn't have time to make my way through the entirety of the original game, I did play through its sequel (as both the Terrans and the Zerg on the highest difficulty). This was my first time analyzing a StarCraft game; it's easy to see how it became one of Blizzard's top games and how few other studios (including EA LA, creators of Command & Conquer), actually learned from it.

The StarCraft design strategy

Although there are only two StarCraft games (compared to Command & Conquer's impressive seven main games), fans certainly got more than their money's worth with StarCraft 2. While players did have to purchase each of the game's three campaigns, each of these campaigns/expansions was its own full-length experience (more on that in a moment). This structure differs from Command & Conquer and other multi-faction games where all missions (across all factions) are bundled into the same game/purchase. StarCraft 2's approach not only gave Blizzard three times the revenue, but it allowed them to fully embellish each campaign well beyond what any RTS designer has done (at the time, or since).

The campaigns provide players with an expansive area to discover, packed with lore, Easter eggs, cinematic and in-game cutscenes, and a more diverse selection of missions than than Command & Conquer games. What the game truly exceptional is that the developers simply said "screw it" and abandoned the idea of balancing single and multiplayer modes.

StarCraft 2 - like the Mortal Kombat revival - understood that the players seeking single-player experiences differ from those who are keen on competitive gaming experiences (and vice versa). Instead of trying to create gameplay that would act as a bridge between the two, the creative team went all-in on creating a 100% unique single-player experience.

Apart from the mission design (which I'll discuss next), all three factions have unique upgrades, units, and progression that are absent in multiplayer. Although players can research some tech upgrades and bonuses, many of the "spicy" units and features simply aren't included in the multiplayer modes.

At first, this might sound like a bad idea: why would you remove cool stuff from a large portion of the game experience? The reason is that it would throw Blizzard's trademark balance out of the window. Many of the advanced upgrades explicitly aim to break the traditional balancing rules: for example, Terrans enabling the construction of two SCVs at a time (which then enables players to have multiple SCVs working on a single project, thus speeding up base building). Anyone who has played or watched professional matches knows that being able to build your base faster offers a huge advantage in a competitive game.

Players will also find powerful mutations transforming the Zerg (with Kerrigan taking the role of a prominent hero unit through the campaign). I like the way the developers went beyond the creation of a single unique campaign and instead designed three truly unique experiences. Since players can decide which upgrades to chase, these campaigns and their structure provide a rare example of strong replayability built into the design of a real-time strategy game.

Blizzard's mission design and unique features still set it apart from other RTS games on the market.

StarCraft vs Command & Conquer

The sharpest difference between Blizzard's approach to RTS games and Westwood/EA's is mission design. In Command & Conquer, almost every base-building mission requires the player to destroy the enemy's base. Fundamentally, it's a battle between the player base and the enemy base.

In StarCraft 2 (and in earlier incarnations of the series as well), the player and AI are on two entirely different planets in terms of their goals on the map. Blizzard focuses on highly unique once-off missions where objectives rarely involve destroying the enemy base. And the missions that do require you to destroy the enemy base tend to have very different conditions compared to the typical base-destroying mission in other RTS games.

In my recent Command & Conquer retrospective, I discussed the idea that earlier RTS games could be seen as "RTS puzzles", but the structure that Blizzard established in StarCraft 2 is much more impressive by comparison. Each mission not only unlocks a new unit, but also pulls double duty in challenging the player and seamlessly integrating the new unit into their repertoire.

Every mission has one or more unique conditions that the player must abide by. This is further expanded by making the new unit the "star" of the map. The challenge is that the player must figure out how to achieve their goal given the specific objectives and behaviors of the enemy. In one map, for example, the player must rush out and destroy buildings by day because they spawn infected by night (this could also have been the inspiration for "They Are Billions"). Normal units are not fast enough to cover the map and deal with them, but thankfully, the mission introduces hellions to the mix as a counter to the enemy's capabilities. Playing these missions on brutal difficulty also highlights just how much map and unit knowledge are key to winning.

If you try to play these maps in the same way as you'd play a competitive multiplayer session, you are going to lose. This is primarily because time and resource limitations impact many of the map conditions. Tier 3 units are slow to build up to (let alone making an army out of them). Many maps enforce a specific time limit on how long you have to complete an objective (or before the challenge escalates in some fashion to punish dawdling). On a later Terran map, for example, the player has to defend a giant laser from waves of Protoss units. Given the frequency of units and number of attacks, you don't really have the luxury to just "tech up". And on the highest difficulty, you may not even have enough resources to build a large enough army that guarantees your defense. In yet another level, you're literally being chased by a wall of fire; so good luck trying to set up a base somewhere.

Now that I've discussed some of the ways StarCraft 2 stands out from the competition - especially Command & Conquer - it's time to deal with the biggest question of all: which of these two iconic franchises holds up better today?

Finding the balance

When looking at both designs, the question is really what two completely different schools of thought around mission and unit design means for both franchises.

Command & Conquer's design has some clear and obvious advantages. Defensive units and structures are simply pound-for-pound better in Command & Conquer. Every faction has the means to lock down an area of the map pretty effectively unless the enemy is throwing an entire army at them.

StarCraft 2 has a totally different focus. Base defenses are band-aids, more or less, intended to keep matters from getting worse. But they will fail quickly in any serious confrontation (especially when an enemy throws a full army at you). The reason for this is because all three factors gain easy access to siege units that can simply bombard defenses without reprisal (and even Tier 1 units can overwhelm every static defense out there). If you're going to defend an area on the map, you'll need units; specifically, a broad diversity of units.

StarCraft's design incorporates a rock-paper-scissors balance. In Command & Conquer, you'll face extreme consequences for bringing the wrong army composition to a confrontation; these consequences are less extreme in StarCraft. As a result of this, StarCraft 2 can feel more exhausting to play than Command & Conquer. Even though StarCraft 2 removes the single player specific elements from the multiplayer balance and structure, it still requires far more micromanagement compared to anything Command & Conquer throws at the player. Since you can never rely on defenses to do the job of holding territory, you need to be highly reactive to attacks across multiple fronts (and you must keep a stream of units in production at all times).

One of StarCraft 2's biggest UI/UX fails - and perhaps its most surprising - is that, compared to other RTS games, you don't have universal control over unit production. There's no "select all barracks" option. I do like that you can set rally points for individual units, but I prefer Command & Conquer's vertical command bar for easy unit construction no matter what I'm doing.

Comparing mission design is a tall order, as both series have fundamentally different approaches to mission structure. StarCraft 2's missions are, on the whole, more unique. While Command & Conquer lets the player pursue multiple strategies to achieve their goal. You simply don't have the flexibility of unit design and rules set in StarCraft 2 to do something "off script" (at least not without going against the intended design of the missions). While I do appreciate the uniqueness of StarCraft 2, I ultimately prefer the looser and more fluid structure of Command & Conquer. One of the side effects here is that Command & Conquer is more relaxing to play by a large margin. Mission design in StarCraft 2 is more varied, but this also means that the quality spectrum is much wider than in Command & Conquer. I can't think of a single bad mission out of all the Command & Conquer games (not counting the original, C&C4, and the ones that were altered due to balance patches as in C&C3).

I can think of multiple missions in StarCraft 2 where the only word I can use to describe them is ugly (in terms of gameplay). While the missions aren't designed for multiplayer matches, the game seems to expect players to control them like professional players (requiring them to split forces and perform precise micromanagement). Many of them will surprise players with unexpected challenges. I was able to beat all of Red Alert 3 on the highest difficulty; I had to tone things down in a few places for StarCraft 2. One common complaint about baseless missions is that the general gameplay approach of an RTS doesn't lend itself well to controlling just one (or a small group of) units at a high level. This problem is on full display in the Zerg's campaign, with missions that feel like you're playing with masochistic Pikmin.

Is there a perfect RTS?

Looking at both StarCraft 2 and the Command & Conquer games, there is definitely an interesting dichotomy at play. The greater focus on progression and upgrades - along with the high-quality story - makes StarCraft 2 the deeper game, while Command & Conquer offers the player a more intuitive and approachable experience along with some fun unit design.

There's a fantastic RTS lying in wait somewhere between the two design philosophies of these series. There's a great opportunity here too, given that both Command & Conquer and StarCraft are apparently retired franchises at this point. Although both of these series achieve high marks in terms of some aspects of their game design, I believe we've yet to see the a true evolution of the RTS genre.

If you're curious about RTS games and want to learn more, make sure to pre-order my upcoming book: Game Design Deep Dive: Real-Time Strategy