Make no mistake- STARCRAFT is a game of conflict. The modular map is pretty small (each player gets to place two planets) and elbow room is very limited so scuffles over territory, resources, or to simply block someone from getting in position to win the game represent a huge percentage of the game’s play time, which is roughly thirty minutes per player. That being said, there’s not a whole lot of room for diplomacy and practically no possibility for deal-making which is one of the few derogatory points worth mentioning. Classic, infinitely replayable games are almost uniformly characterized by intense and significant player interaction beyond the game’s structure and STARCRAFT simply doesn’t allow for it. It isn’t that the game is one of those dreadful German multiplayer solitaire games or that there’s a lack of interaction because there isn’t—every turn you’ll likely do something that will tick off someone else, and there’s certainly no shortage of friction.

It may be that STARCRAFT feels a little over designed. It features a very strict, specific structure that doesn’t really allow players a large amount of freedom but the devil’s bargain there is that it’s an epic-scale game of conquest with an entirely reasonable, weeknight-friendly playtime and almost no downtime save for the resolution of a few complex battles.

Compare the carefully controlled action selection and sequencing of the game with something like TWILIGHT IMPERIUM and you’ll see that the latter game ultimately provides a much larger, broader scope not only because there is more interaction between players but also because there are many more possible decisions for the player each turn- which may be effected by game state, tactical situation, resource availability, or even metagame relationships between players. It’s a given that European game design, and in particular the limitation and restriction of player decision matrices, is a primary influence on STARCRAFT and although I really like the mechanics and I believe that they represent a very daring combination of the two extreme ends of European cut-to-the-quick abstraction and efficiency and American theme and conflict emphasis. I do feel that the game is at times too controlled. I kind of want it to go a little off the rails, to get a little edgy and unpredictable, to loosen up and let in some of the player interaction and strategic creativity that would truly make this one a game for the ages.

As it stands, however, STARCRAFT is a very innovative game that offers a refreshingly novel set of well-developed and highly evolved mechanics that are specifically tailored for and informed by a great theme rich with narrative and atmosphere. With a modular setup and three races offering totally unique units, technologies, special abilities, and victory conditions there’s a high degree of variability and replay value built into the game and there is substantial depth present in terms of the buildings, modules, technologies, and unit selection. Throw in a huge deck of event cards and the forgone conclusion that Fantasy Flight will probably have an expansion ready within the next six months and you’ve got a title that will provide plenty of fun and interest for years to come.

Do be advised, however, that STARCRAFT is not a “lite” version of any other game nor is it a casual piece of Eurogamer fluff suited for one or two plays before the ignominy of eBay or an Internet trade. You won’t play well the first time it hits the table and you might not even completely have it figured out the second time, despite a spectacular rulebook and extensive player aid cards. Anyone presuming to give an opinion on this game after an in-store or convention demo or even a single full game should be regarded as suspect and without authority. STARCRAFT is a game that demands your attention and requests you to commit to its particular vision and structure or you’re just not going to get it. It isn’t a difficult game, nor is it necessarily as rich or complex as a great wargame or even TI3 but neither is it something that offers the sort of immediate but much shallower rewards that a game like NEXUS OPS provides.

STARCRAFT is a brilliant piece of work all things considered. I think the game is pretty much as close to vanguard as board game design can get—sure, we’ve been seeing so-called “hybrid” designs that split the difference between European and American game styles going back to 2003’s not-quite-so-successful AGE OF MYTHOLOGY but I don’t think anything has come closer to really nailing the perfect balance of the idioms while managing to do so in a manner that doesn’t feel either totally artificial or skewed one way or the other. It’s a clean, razor sharp design that expands on the STARCRAFT license while also further cementing Fantasy Flight’s position as the premiere designers, developers, and publishers of board games today.

Questions or comments for Michael? Send them along to gameshark.feedback@yahoo.com .

Previous Cracked LCDs: