|
On December 01 2011 08:37 Gingerninja wrote:
I watched some proleague the other night, I don't watch BW often I'll be honest.
But based on what I saw, Mirror matchups at least. look identical to sc2.
PvP Mass dragoon + some reavers vs Mass dragoon some reavers.. plays out exactly like Mass stalker + Collosus.
ZvZ.. one player tried to go for muta's the other player made more lings.. the other player won by just running lings at him. How is that any different to any ZvZ in sc2?
There are differences in the games, this is obvious. but to a casual observer, both games look the same, they follow similar ebb and flow.
Sure if you're going to base the game off a couple of mirrors...
Also, reaver+shuttle and mutas in bw take many times more micro than the sc2 equivalents.
|
This article was not quite, but close to spot on when it was written. The more good bw-pros that moves over the more people will realise this.
|
|
|
On December 01 2011 08:37 Gingerninja wrote:
I watched some proleague the other night, I don't watch BW often I'll be honest.
But based on what I saw, Mirror matchups at least. look identical to sc2.
PvP Mass dragoon + some reavers vs Mass dragoon some reavers.. plays out exactly like Mass stalker + Collosus.
ZvZ.. one player tried to go for muta's the other player made more lings.. the other player won by just running lings at him. How is that any different to any ZvZ in sc2?
There are differences in the games, this is obvious. but to a casual observer, both games look the same, they follow similar ebb and flow.
when you take the game at face value yes, it looks pretty lame
but if you play bw, then you understand the ridiculous amount of micro that goes into these games. remember, max selection is 12 units? with these limits, when you see mutas and scourge flying around trying to dodge each other and snipe one another, and reaver+shuttle micro, and so on. further, understanding the cutthroat nature of the matchups, the extremely fine line you tread when you only have 3 larva and deciding when to make a drone, zergling, or mutalisk, rather than the brute force approach found in sc2.
ling baneling is the closest thing sc2 has to this level of control. and i'm sure some of you have seen hero's prism micro. sc2 is getting there, but like what was said on sotg, when this was originally written, the game was entirely different (and less of a) beast.
|
On December 01 2011 08:58 kNyTTyM wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.picasion.com/pic47/24875f3b62ddf846160bf04723c71314.gif)
hahahahhaa nice
|
I think the fact that this article is less accurate now than it was written is a good sign. this game is still in its infancy, people are showing that there are an unknown number of doors to be open as people's control and multitasking improves... we aren't remotely close to great macro players and lots of player's control leaves plenty to be desired.
I don't see any reason to believe sc2 can't blow people away the way bw does in the future. except of course for the people who don't want to be blown away by sc2, but that's their choice.
|
On December 01 2011 09:04 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 08:37 Gingerninja wrote:
I watched some proleague the other night, I don't watch BW often I'll be honest.
But based on what I saw, Mirror matchups at least. look identical to sc2.
PvP Mass dragoon + some reavers vs Mass dragoon some reavers.. plays out exactly like Mass stalker + Collosus.
ZvZ.. one player tried to go for muta's the other player made more lings.. the other player won by just running lings at him. How is that any different to any ZvZ in sc2?
There are differences in the games, this is obvious. but to a casual observer, both games look the same, they follow similar ebb and flow. when you take the game at face value yes, it looks pretty lame but if you play bw, then you understand the ridiculous amount of micro that goes into these games. remember, max selection is 12 units? with these limits, when you see mutas and scourge flying around trying to dodge each other and snipe one another, and reaver+shuttle micro, and so on. further, understanding the cutthroat nature of the matchups, the extremely fine line you tread when you only have 3 larva and deciding when to make a drone, zergling, or mutalisk, rather than the brute force approach found in sc2. ling baneling is the closest thing sc2 has to this level of control. and i'm sure some of you have seen hero's prism micro. sc2 is getting there, but like what was said on sotg, when this was originally written, the game was entirely different (and less of a) beast.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. The game should be judged at face value. The whole max selection limit and unit glitching stuff can be ignored.
Although the OP has nothing to do with casual observing, ill bite. There are more casual observers in BW than there are in SC2. BW is also a much simpler game to watch and get excited about than SC2 for the casual observer.
Although ZvZ and PvP are not exactly exciting matchups, a casual observer should easily be able to distinguish the difference between SC2 and BW in terms of battle dynamics. Protoss players have a lot of openers to choose from, and mid-game can often involve lots of storm drops, dt harass, reaver harass while there are battles going on in the middle. SC2 mostly devolves into stalker colossus wars, and during a big clash Reaver/Templar control is a lot more interesting than Colossus control.
However if you watched Jaedong vs Mind during the proleague stream, that was a whole other kettle of fish.
On December 01 2011 08:41 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:Show nested quote +There was nothing particularly special about MVP in BW and neither is he in SC2, he's just very good but that is all he will ever be (just the best player in SC2), he won't bring magic into the game with far reaching concepts like the top players in BW. I don't know, I think MVP is pretty amazing at SC2. And as others have pointed out, BW is ten years old, SC2 is one year old. The games shouldn't even really be compared like that. Show nested quote +Nestea, Leenock and Stephano seem like notable exceptions, but they are still nothing in comparison, and none have won 3 GSLs. I believe NesTea has won 3 GSLs, Leenock might win one (pretty sure he will), and could be on his way to another. Who knows? Why specifically those three players though? I mean, is there anything about someone like: MarineKingPrime, or Idra, or Huk, that you find to be lacking? Especially when you keep in mind that this is the first generation of professionals for that game, not the I don't know how many generations of pros there were in BW, but probably more than one.
Nestea has not won 3 GSL's. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/NesTea
Meanwhile, Jaedong, Nada, Flash have all won 5 or more with complete dominance for a much longer period of time.
The first generation of pros that were imported from the many generations of BW. Even in the early days of BW there were still geniuses that would walk the royal road (a rookie enrolling into a starleague first time and winning the grandfinal) into a starleague win overcoming all odds (Boxer, Garimto, Nada, July, Anytime, Savior and Jaedong), or ones that would never lose a grand final and have 100% TvZ win rates in starleague runs (iloveoov).
The point is we have yet to see these kinds of uber-geniuses in SC2, you can't point out how long the game has been out, the argument doesn't even make sense, because that's what the OP is about. If anything, the longer the game is out, the harder it is to walk a royal road, its harder for a rookie to beat players in an established scene. We have yet to see it and so right now if TBLS were to switch, they would dominate.
How can anyone refute that when the achievements of the best BW players of any time (at least past the point when progamers knew that APM and macro was important) are astounding compared to anyone from SC2.
Leenock kinda fits the description but he is still nowhere close, until you have understood the short-term achievements of these superstars from BW you won't understand. Lets give the example of Flash, he was banned from using a computer till middle school, he then begs his parents he can become a progamer in 1 month. In 1 month from not really having touched a computer, he was beating guys who had been practising 12 hours a day nearly all their life. A year later he gets 4th in OSL. Less than 2 years later he has won an OSL at the age of 15. Most people struggle to get into D+ in a year, let alone win Courage in a month. The disparity is so large we are not even looking at the same universe here.
|
On December 01 2011 08:37 Gingerninja wrote:
I watched some proleague the other night, I don't watch BW often I'll be honest.
But based on what I saw, Mirror matchups at least. look identical to sc2.
PvP Mass dragoon + some reavers vs Mass dragoon some reavers.. plays out exactly like Mass stalker + Collosus.
ZvZ.. one player tried to go for muta's the other player made more lings.. the other player won by just running lings at him. How is that any different to any ZvZ in sc2?
There are differences in the games, this is obvious. but to a casual observer, both games look the same, they follow similar ebb and flow.
You watched a couple of games and the mirror matchups seemed similar, so the games look the same. Good deduction.
|
Yeah, it says NesTea, and I quote:
"He is the first player to win three GSL championships."
The point is we have yet to see these kinds of uber-geniuses in SC2, you can't point out how long the game has been out, the argument doesn't even make sense
The game is young. That argument makes perfect sense. What was RTS gaming before BW? Was it an established professional "sport" with veterans of over 10 years of experience? Of course there will be guys who dominate the scene! They were inventing the scene! The pros of SC2 have a different challenge; they don't have to build a sport from the ground up; they have to apply professional standards to a new version of the sport. (The sport being RTS gaming)
If anything, the longer the game is out, the harder it is to walk a royal road, its harder for a rookie to beat players in an established scene.
For one, this is pure assumption; and for another; one should not define one's success on how well one did as a rookie. Some of the greatest QBs in the world started out as bench warmers. Some of the most mediocre QBs in the world had good, sometimes stellar, rookie seasons. This "walk a royal road" seems like way too specific a goal to put up in order to judge a games worthiness.
We have yet to see it and so right now if TBLS were to switch, they would dominate.
That seems to be the inherent assumption. Only time will tell.
Lets give the example of Flash, he was banned from using a computer till middle school, he then begs his parents he can become a progamer in 1 month. In 1 month from not really having touched a computer, he was beating guys who had been practising 12 hours a day nearly all their life. A year later he gets 4th in OSL. Less than 2 years later he has won an OSL at the age of 15. Most people struggle to get into D+ in a year, let alone win Courage in a month. The disparity is so large we are not even looking at the same universe here.
Ten years is a long time for a phenom like that to rise up and make something of himself. One year is not such a long time for someone to do that. And judging one game because of one phenom as better seems hasty.
|
On a random note, I remember how Hiya said he got to Plat(?) I think on SC2 and thought it was hard going higher. It
is certainly not for everyone.
|
Very good read. I'm glad it's been said in a write-up like this.
|
I disagree.
While it's true that the level of skill seen from the players is comparatively low to the level shown in Broodwar games, and while it's true that the level of play will continue to go up and up until most of the current players are left behind, I don't necessarily think that the current competition is a "farce" nor do I think it's better because the players are better.
There are two fallacies here:
1) Competition that is not representative of the very highest possible level of play is fake (or a "farce")
----------------------------
Some people might prefer the very highest possible level of play, but, in theory, the current highest level of play is sufficient for the most "true" competition. It's not fake or a farce that our competition and levels of competitiveness are what they are, it simply is. It may not be the very best, and some spectators might not like that, but that doesn't make it a farce. A farce would imply that it was contrived or not real, neither of which is true. The current top players are competing, trading top spots and struggling to keep up with one another. Such is the definition of competition. It's as real as it gets.
----------------------------
2) The highest level of play creates the best spectating
----------------------------
Also another assumption which is based on preference. If I watched the very best team in Football play the very worst team, it wouldn't be very fun, now would it? Now pretend that the very best team is THAT much better than the next best team. Not a very fun game either, right? But that's the "highest level of play" out there in that environment. Now, suddenly, the sport is ruined by it. I personally feel that the very best spectating comes from watching two players of similar skill play. Even in some lower level games, just the fact that the players have similar skill levels makes for exciting games, in spite of the mistakes.
However, at the highest levels of play (as they are currently), these similar skill levels create for some very very exciting games. This excitement, though, doesn't increase with the magnitude of skill. Watching two similarly skilled Master's level players would actually be pretty damn exciting, in spite of the fact that most Master's level players aren't anywhere close to the top of the Pro level. It's an inverted curve, the better play gets, the less that it impacts the quality of watching the game. At least, that's how it works for me. But I would suspect the same is true of many others as well.
----------------------------
Also, it's my own belief that players like Flash would hurt the scene immensely. As much as I've found myself wondering what SC2 would look like with a Player like him, I always come back to the fact that, currently, Players work very very hard as it is right now. I feel like a lot of the top players are killing themselves with travel, practice, grueling tournaments, practice, travel, practice, travel, grueling tournaments. It goes on and on. If they had to do even more work just to keep up with the top, I'm not sure they could keep up without truly hurting themselves physically and mentally. I don't want that.
There needs to be limits, even if it comes at the cost of stifling growth a little. We're already seeing fantastic games, and we'll definitely see even better. We don't need players literally killing themselves to give us better games.
|
On December 01 2011 09:59 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:Yeah, it says NesTea, and I quote: "He is the first player to win three GSL championships." Show nested quote +The point is we have yet to see these kinds of uber-geniuses in SC2, you can't point out how long the game has been out, the argument doesn't even make sense The game is young. That argument makes perfect sense. What was RTS gaming before BW? Was it an established professional "sport" with veterans of over 10 years of experience? Of course there will be guys who dominate the scene! They were inventing the scene! The pros of SC2 have a different challenge; they don't have to build a sport from the ground up; they have to apply professional standards to a new version of the sport. (The sport being RTS gaming) Show nested quote +If anything, the longer the game is out, the harder it is to walk a royal road, its harder for a rookie to beat players in an established scene. For one, this is pure assumption; and for another; one should not define one's success on how well one did as a rookie. Some of the greatest QBs in the world started out as bench warmers. Some of the most mediocre QBs in the world had good, sometimes stellar, rookie seasons. This "walk a royal road" seems like way too specific a goal to put up in order to judge a games worthiness. Show nested quote +We have yet to see it and so right now if TBLS were to switch, they would dominate. That seems to be the inherent assumption. Only time will tell. Show nested quote +Lets give the example of Flash, he was banned from using a computer till middle school, he then begs his parents he can become a progamer in 1 month. In 1 month from not really having touched a computer, he was beating guys who had been practising 12 hours a day nearly all their life. A year later he gets 4th in OSL. Less than 2 years later he has won an OSL at the age of 15. Most people struggle to get into D+ in a year, let alone win Courage in a month. The disparity is so large we are not even looking at the same universe here. Ten years is a long time for a phenom like that to rise up and make something of himself. One year is not such a long time for someone to do that. And judging one game because of one phenom as better seems hasty.
My bad, if you check the achievements it only has 2 Gold with GSL. Didn't realise "2010 Sony Ericsson Starcraft II Open Season 2" was a GSL too (even though I watched it ;_;).
I'm confused because you contradict yourself multiple times. At some points you say domination is easy because its new, and other times you say "give it time".
Like I said, its harder for a rookie to completely dominate an established scene, which is what you seem to be implying anyway. Which makes Flash the best example out of all. You said judging a game from one phenom huh? Jaedong, Bisu, Savior, iloveoov also had massive achievements in tiny time-frames, not as much as Flash but who cares? Flash was the best example. Boxer after getting beaten by a BattleNet scrub who was offracing, he didn't have enough money to play frequently but Boxer recruited him to Slayers, his name was iloveoov, shortly afterwards he was winning starleagues.
Make up your mind, its either "give it time" (for a prodigy like Flash to appear), or "dominance is easier when the game is new" (in which case "give it time" doesn't work). Regardless BW examples work in both time frames.
The "give it time" argument doesn't make sense, because the OP in essence is implying just that. That's the whole point, right now the competition is a farce, it may not be in the future.
|
My argument is simple: taking isolated examples from one game that is over ten years old, and furthermore was the first game of it's type to become the basis of a professional scene; and comparing those with general examples of another game that is a completely new and different take on that original game... it's all elementary. There is no way of knowing one way or the other. Maybe in another three years, after the scene of SC2 is well-established, there can be some kind of comparison, but as it stands now... there is nothing alike about the two things. It's apples and oranges.
You can't even take the first year of pro BW as an example, because, as I said earlier, BW was the first of it's type. SC2 is based upon BW, and other games, and is like a tenth generation RTS.
I'm simply giving you various reasons for the various examples you've come up with. You give me one specific example:
A select few players dominated the scene in BW and continue to do so. There is no single dominators in SC2 like there is in BW.
There could be a million reasons for this: SC2 is younger, it's less established, it requires different skill sets, it is still in development, etc. And YES one of those possible reasons is that the BW pros may just be better than the SC2 pros. That could be it. I don't necessarily think that it is the reason. You do. We cannot really go any further than that.
The only answer I can and will give you is this:
Comparing the two games doesn't work all that well because they are such different games.
|
The fact that we don't have such domination is better, actually. Which is something I forgot to mention in my post, but meant to.
|
On December 01 2011 10:25 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
My argument is simple: taking isolated examples from one game that is over ten years old, and furthermore was the first game of it's type to become the basis of a professional scene; and comparing those with general examples of another game that is a completely new and different take on that original game... it's all elementary. There is no way of knowing one way or the other. Maybe in another three years, after the scene of SC2 is well-established, there can be some kind of comparison, but as it stands now... there is nothing alike about the two things. It's apples and oranges.
You can't even take the first year of pro BW as an example, because, as I said earlier, BW was the first of it's type. SC2 is based upon BW, and other games, and is like a tenth generation RTS.
I'm simply giving you various reasons for the various examples you've come up with. You give me one specific example:
A select few players dominated the scene in BW and continue to do so. There is no single dominators in SC2 like there is in BW.
There could be a million reasons for this: SC2 is younger, it's less established, it requires different skill sets, it is still in development, etc. And YES one of those possible reasons is that the BW pros may just be better than the SC2 pros. That could be it. I don't necessarily think that it is the reason. You do. We cannot really go any further than that.
The only answer I can and will give you is this:
Comparing the two games doesn't work all that well because they are such different games.
But the best imports from BW are the best at SC2. MVP is the strongest player to be imported from BW, and is one of, if not the strongest in SC2. ForGG is probably going to unsettle this, but he has achieved more in BW than MVP as well. You can make assumptions if you look at the trends, now Flash is 1000000x better than both of these guys, we can assume that he will be magnitudes better than these guys at SC2 as well. It makes perfect logical sense.
|
On December 01 2011 10:40 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 10:25 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
My argument is simple: taking isolated examples from one game that is over ten years old, and furthermore was the first game of it's type to become the basis of a professional scene; and comparing those with general examples of another game that is a completely new and different take on that original game... it's all elementary. There is no way of knowing one way or the other. Maybe in another three years, after the scene of SC2 is well-established, there can be some kind of comparison, but as it stands now... there is nothing alike about the two things. It's apples and oranges.
You can't even take the first year of pro BW as an example, because, as I said earlier, BW was the first of it's type. SC2 is based upon BW, and other games, and is like a tenth generation RTS.
I'm simply giving you various reasons for the various examples you've come up with. You give me one specific example:
A select few players dominated the scene in BW and continue to do so. There is no single dominators in SC2 like there is in BW.
There could be a million reasons for this: SC2 is younger, it's less established, it requires different skill sets, it is still in development, etc. And YES one of those possible reasons is that the BW pros may just be better than the SC2 pros. That could be it. I don't necessarily think that it is the reason. You do. We cannot really go any further than that.
The only answer I can and will give you is this:
Comparing the two games doesn't work all that well because they are such different games.
But the best imports from BW are the best at SC2. MVP is the strongest player to be imported from BW, and is one of, if not the strongest in SC2. ForGG is probably going to unsettle this, but he has achieved more in BW than MVP as well. You can make assumptions if you look at the trends, now Flash is 1000000x better than both of these guys, we can assume that he will be magnitudes better than these guys at SC2 as well. It makes perfect logical sense.
And it would probably ruin the competitive scene, rather than make it better.
|
On December 01 2011 09:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 09:04 a176 wrote:On December 01 2011 08:37 Gingerninja wrote:
I watched some proleague the other night, I don't watch BW often I'll be honest.
But based on what I saw, Mirror matchups at least. look identical to sc2.
PvP Mass dragoon + some reavers vs Mass dragoon some reavers.. plays out exactly like Mass stalker + Collosus.
ZvZ.. one player tried to go for muta's the other player made more lings.. the other player won by just running lings at him. How is that any different to any ZvZ in sc2?
There are differences in the games, this is obvious. but to a casual observer, both games look the same, they follow similar ebb and flow. when you take the game at face value yes, it looks pretty lame but if you play bw, then you understand the ridiculous amount of micro that goes into these games. remember, max selection is 12 units? with these limits, when you see mutas and scourge flying around trying to dodge each other and snipe one another, and reaver+shuttle micro, and so on. further, understanding the cutthroat nature of the matchups, the extremely fine line you tread when you only have 3 larva and deciding when to make a drone, zergling, or mutalisk, rather than the brute force approach found in sc2. ling baneling is the closest thing sc2 has to this level of control. and i'm sure some of you have seen hero's prism micro. sc2 is getting there, but like what was said on sotg, when this was originally written, the game was entirely different (and less of a) beast. I don't think that's a fair comparison. The game should be judged at face value. The whole max selection limit and unit glitching stuff can be ignored. Although the OP has nothing to do with casual observing, ill bite. There are more casual observers in BW than there are in SC2. BW is also a much simpler game to watch and get excited about than SC2 for the casual observer. Although ZvZ and PvP are not exactly exciting matchups, a casual observer should easily be able to distinguish the difference between SC2 and BW in terms of battle dynamics. Protoss players have a lot of openers to choose from, and mid-game can often involve lots of storm drops, dt harass, reaver harass while there are battles going on in the middle. SC2 mostly devolves into stalker colossus wars, and during a big clash Reaver/Templar control is a lot more interesting than Colossus control. However if you watched Jaedong vs Mind during the proleague stream, that was a whole other kettle of fish. Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 08:41 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:There was nothing particularly special about MVP in BW and neither is he in SC2, he's just very good but that is all he will ever be (just the best player in SC2), he won't bring magic into the game with far reaching concepts like the top players in BW. I don't know, I think MVP is pretty amazing at SC2. And as others have pointed out, BW is ten years old, SC2 is one year old. The games shouldn't even really be compared like that. Nestea, Leenock and Stephano seem like notable exceptions, but they are still nothing in comparison, and none have won 3 GSLs. I believe NesTea has won 3 GSLs, Leenock might win one (pretty sure he will), and could be on his way to another. Who knows? Why specifically those three players though? I mean, is there anything about someone like: MarineKingPrime, or Idra, or Huk, that you find to be lacking? Especially when you keep in mind that this is the first generation of professionals for that game, not the I don't know how many generations of pros there were in BW, but probably more than one. Nestea has not won 3 GSL's. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/NesTeaMeanwhile, Jaedong, Nada, Flash have all won 5 or more with complete dominance for a much longer period of time. The first generation of pros that were imported from the many generations of BW. Even in the early days of BW there were still geniuses that would walk the royal road (a rookie enrolling into a starleague first time and winning the grandfinal) into a starleague win overcoming all odds (Boxer, Garimto, Nada, July, Anytime, Savior and Jaedong), or ones that would never lose a grand final and have 100% TvZ win rates in starleague runs (iloveoov). The point is we have yet to see these kinds of uber-geniuses in SC2, you can't point out how long the game has been out, the argument doesn't even make sense, because that's what the OP is about. If anything, the longer the game is out, the harder it is to walk a royal road, its harder for a rookie to beat players in an established scene. We have yet to see it and so right now if TBLS were to switch, they would dominate. How can anyone refute that when the achievements of the best BW players of any time (at least past the point when progamers knew that APM and macro was important) are astounding compared to anyone from SC2. Leenock kinda fits the description but he is still nowhere close, until you have understood the short-term achievements of these superstars from BW you won't understand. Lets give the example of Flash, he was banned from using a computer till middle school, he then begs his parents he can become a progamer in 1 month. In 1 month from not really having touched a computer, he was beating guys who had been practising 12 hours a day nearly all their life. A year later he gets 4th in OSL. Less than 2 years later he has won an OSL at the age of 15. Most people struggle to get into D+ in a year, let alone win Courage in a month. The disparity is so large we are not even looking at the same universe here.
You know the whole "you just don't understand" bit is a pretty lame argument to read. As for your other one, sure lets look at some of the things which you clearly missed that excited us SC2 fans:
1. Nestea going undefeated until the finals of GSL2
2. Nestea's rediculous ZvZ winrate (undefeated in televised games for about nine months in televised games)
3. Nestea undefeated in GSL August.
Keep in mind that Nestea was scoffed at during the start of GSL2. I'm not even a Nestea fan, in fact I fucking hate the guy for beating MKP and in doing so starting a new Kong Line Curse. But you're talking about a royal road of a genius beating the odds and going undefeated in various things and Nestea fits the bill perfectly. And now leenock might as well.
But you're saying "Look at the one most extreme fucking example in the world. We have nothing like that" WELL NO SHIT! Broodwar doesn't even have that! It's just flash, and everyone below him are varying degrees of amazing. Like, Jaedong is great, he's arguably the second best player out there... but he is NOWHERE near flash. Same with any pro that has been and MAYBE any pro that will be. Certainly in SC:BW there will never be another Flash.
|
Uh, I never get excited watching any clips from Broodwar games, they're not terribly interesting to me to watch... so I'm not sure where this "easier for the casual observer" is coming from?
|
I just wish people would compare the first year of competitive SC2 to the first year of competitive not even Brood War, standard SC1.
I see no sense in drawing up these arguments against a game so established to one that's just finding it's feet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
