The Story of Starcraft Part 1: Introduction

I love stories.

Some of my closest friendships revolve around talking about TV shows, movies, books and games.

I say this because I’m not a programmer. I mean, I’ve dabbled, so I know what programming is like. No one would want to hear me talk about the weird, buggy, puzzle/RPG game I coded years ago.

And I’m not exactly a pro gamer. File me under C for Casual. That surprises me sometimes, given how much of my youth I spent rocking my consoles, playing and replaying all the classics until I’d mastered them.

The point is, if you know who Shamus Young is… I’m not Shamus Young. No one is because he was a legend, a one of a kind… but I’m especially not him.

When he passed away, I got to thinking about his legacy. I started wondering how I could honour him, given how unlike him I am.

But that didn’t stop me thinking - in what way am I most like him?

That’s easy - talking about stories.

And there’s one game series I’ve played a lot - one I continue to play, read about, watch streams of and think endlessly about. That’s Starcraft. I enjoy the characters, the lore and the setting. What really sticks in my head is how the series uses (and sometimes stumbles over) the medium.

Telling a story in an RPG is easy. Following a character around as they fight evil and grow stronger? That’s the plot of plenty of blockbusters. First-person shooters? That’s easy - they’re first person. You see what the character does. What happens to them, happens to you.

But how do you tell a story as a disembodied camera, watching tiny action figures running to their doom en masse?

It turns out, I have a lot to say on the matter.

About this series

In the spirit of Shamus Young and his site, Twenty Sided Tale, this will be a long and detailed retrospective. I fully intend to make it witty, original and insightful, but we’ll see. There’s a lot to say about the RTS genre, even when focusing mainly on the plot, and even when looking mostly at the plot of a series of six games*.

* Starcraft, Starcraft: Brood War, Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty, Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void, and Starcraft 2: Nova Covert Ops. I, like most people, am mostly going to ignore the expanded universe content.

This series will explore what works and why. I’ll analyse the story as a story, but also how it works when paired with the gameplay experience. I’ll be quick to point out shortcomings, doing my best to stay objective but reaching for opinion if it’ll enhance the conversation.

Either way, I’ll also offer suggestions on what could improve things.

The state of the RTS genre back in the day

Starcraft was far from the first RTS, but it did step the genre up a notch. The original game was so slick, fun and responsive that it helped birth the eSports genre.

It also wasn’t the first RTS to have a story but, again, it kicked things up a bit. Here are some of the games it competed against when it launched in the dusty, forgotten age of 1998.

Age of Empires

The Age of Empires is a classic RTS series, but AoE 2 hadn’t come out yet. The original had campaigns, but they didn’t have much of a plot. They were the story of your… well, Empire. It was less about charismatic leaders and dramatic betrayals, and more about your civilisation changing over time.

Not a lot to say here about the plot.

Warcraft 2

This classic Blizzard title launched in 1996. In the campaign, you chose between Orcs and Humans - two nearly identical factions thrown into conflict in a high-fantasy land.

Each campaign told a story of sorts, but not through the missions. The vast majority of mission objectives were to kill every enemy structure. Variety came from how much water there was in your way and the colour of the ground beneath your soldiers’ feet.

That’s not to say it didn’t have a story - it just didn’t play it through gameplay. The (for the time) gorgeous CGI cut scenes, pre-mission briefings, unit barks and building aesthetics told the story by setting the mood.

The mission briefing would say this battle is to cut off supplies to the dwarven kingdoms, while this would shatter the Alliance navy. Then you fire up a map that played almost identically to the last. You had to use your imagination to see the consequences of your leadership… but that was easy! You had these moments between the missions to marinade your brain in the elegance of the elves, the ferocity of the orcs and the tinkering of the goblins.

There’s a mission with each faction where you have to fight traitors from your race. Despite being mechanically similar to each other, these fights felt different - especially the Orc campaign one*.

* Though maybe that was from all the demons flying everywhere.

You can chalk a lot of that up to my youthful imagination and enthusiasm. Still, they conveyed a lot of the atmosphere without many tools at hand, so they have my respect there.

Command & Conquer

Released in 1995, the original Command & Conquer had a thin but solid plot. It was set in a near-future* world of warfare between two factions. On one side was the Global Defense Initiative (or GDI) - an alliance of Western powers, like an expanded NATO or a militarised UN. The other side was the Brotherhood of Nod - a ragtag alliance of the world’s poorer countries, built around a cult of personality.

* Or alternate timeline? The Command & Conquer series has a delightfully muddled continuity.

There were two campaigns, each telling a different story*. Both were a series of battles across Europe or Africa, advancing your forces with each successful battle**.

* In modern RTS campaigns, each campaign is often considered canon. Back then, it was common for the one you pick to be the winner. This led to mutually exclusive endings, which different series handled differently. We'll talk more on that soon.

** In Command & Conquer, there was a sense of gaining territory and putting pressure on the enemy with each battle. Contrast with Red Alert 3, where you seemed to jump around the world map at random until you somehow won the war. Story can show up in the subtlest ways - even on a continental map with arrows drawn on it.

There was a lot of plot for such a simple setup. Each mission tended to be “kill all the enemies” - though there were clever twists on that - but the pre-mission briefings really sold the story. You were a “Commander”, they’d give you orders about the upcoming mission. Those briefings told a lot.

As a GDI commander, a few parts of the plot stood out. One were a series of missions partway through the campaign. The Brotherhood have framed the GDI for attacking civilians - as such, the UN have cut funding.

For the next few missions, you had to make do with broken bases and paltry forces. It’s tough, having all your cool and expensive toys taken away from you.

Then the money pipes open again and it’s like you can breathe.

In another mission, the briefing makes it clear this will be a cakewalk. You’re providing an escort for an overwhelming attack force against a Brotherhood base. The mission starts with an army big enough to make you salivate.

Then the Brotherhood unveil a superweapon which shreds your army, leaving you with just enough forces to build a base. From there, it plays as a normal mission - macro up, then send in the troops.

It’s great storytelling, using very simple tricks to show how unpredictable war is.

But what happens in the Brotherhood of Nod campaign is just delicious.

The Brotherhood is led by the mysterious Kane. You, a lowly Commander, don’t meet with him. You get your briefings from his right-hand goon, Seth.

At first, Seth likes you. You win battles which makes him look good.

Then he grows jealous. Kane starts asking for you by name. Seth grows snarky and sarcastic. He gives you wrong intel, like saying a mission should be easy as there are no GDI forces in the area*. With each success as you plough your way across Europe, he becomes more hostile to you.

* Is it fair for the mission briefing to lie to the player? In this case, absolutely. You, as a Commander, might be surprised by unexpected enemy forces. You, as a player, know there has to be enemies around somewhere.

After that comes a shift. Suddenly, Seth is all smiles, talking about a plan that not even Kane knows about. He talks about you leading a sudden, overwhelming attack on the Pentagon, which should -

The briefing cuts to static.

Kane appears, says no to that, then briefs you on your actual mission - a mission you have to do with scraps and sticks, since the Brotherhood’s armies are being recalled from Seth’s rogue mission.

You never hear from Seth again.

Then you conquer Europe, steal the GDI’s satellite weapons and blow up a landmark.

That’s a lot of plot compared to the others I’ve cherry picked. I’m no historian, so maybe I missed a few. I don’t remember the plot to the Dune games - looking at their wikis, it looks like it was “fight a war and win it”.

So Command & Conquer stood out.

Still, that’s thin for two campaign’s worth of story. Given that game’s success, though, gamers didn’t mind having some plot with their macro and their micro. Things were ripe for a game with a rich, solid plot to enter the scene.

We’ll begin talking about Starcraft next week.