|
A Legacy of Distinction
April 7th, 2009 15:00 GMT
"They envy the distinction I have won; let them therefore, envy my toils, my honesty, and the methods by which I gained it". -Sallust
TeamLiquid: Final Edits
A Legacy of Distinction
by Arrian
A legacy is an enduring presence, a lasting and unquestionable attribution to a relevant discipline which revolutionizes that discipline. A legacy is emulated because it defines the discipline it is a part of, sets important precedents, and fundamentally alters that discipline. Legacies can come in all forms, and in all disciplines. The paper “Syntactic Structures” by Noam Chomsky defined the future of the scientific study of language. The organization of the Roman republic continues to influence governments and political theory, nearly two millennia after its passing. J. S. Bach, called “the father of all music” influenced Western musical composition and theory, from rock to classical, even to this day. In science, politics, and art, legacies are omnipresent parts of their pursuit.
Eleven--and Counting
In gaming, however, there are few legacies. The atmosphere changes with each generation of consoles and the maturation of developers. Thematic continuity in genres and occasionally in titles provides some looks at what a legacy could be, but because the focus in gaming is always on the newer, the glossier, and the more powerful, there are few legacies—only nostalgia.
A legacy in gaming would require that a game transcend the lusty sheen of higher polygon counts or 3D graphics acceleration; it would require that a game be so profoundly deep that innovation would be its golden rule, skill its cardinal virtue, and victory its only pursuit. It would require the harmonic convergence of nearly flawless gameplay and epic competition. There has been only one such game to ever combine these fortuitous properties, and it was released on March 31st, 1998.
StarCraft, and its subsequent expansion, quickly became one of the best-selling PC games of all time, having sold over 9 million copies since its release. With its expansion, StarCraft was lauded across the gaming world, with numerous accolades and awards—5 Game of the Year awards, a star on the Walk of Game, and an acknowledgment in GameSpot’s Greatest Games of All Time—and praise from reviewers and personalities, expressing what would be its legacy:
With its excellent campaign, elegantly designed factions, and simple to learn but deep, strategic gameplay, Starcraft is the defining game of its genre. It is the standard by which all real-time strategy games are judged. -GameSpot StarCraft is hands down one of the best, if not the best, real-time strategy games ever created. With three distinct races, both in terms of gameplay and style Blizzard's masterpiece contains some of the most balanced and yet widely-varied units in the genre. -IGN This game is one of the best in the genre and should be a part of all strategy gamer's libraries. You'll find yourself coming back to StarCraft again and again. -The Gamers Temple The hype from Blizzard is that this is the best real-time strategy game ever created. And as a complete package, you'd have to make a pretty good argument to punch holes in the veracity of that statement…StarCraft may not be the next generation of the genre but it is easily the current pinnacle of how good it can be. -The Electric Playground It truly revolutionizes and sets a new standard for real-time strategy games on the PC. –All Game Guide Starcraft showed how games could express our imagination and help us experience it in an exciting way. -Lim Yo-Hwan, from Crazy As MeStarcraft was a landmark in online gaming, and put RTS on the map as a competitive, incredibly fun genre. -Tom “Zileas” Cadwell The game is incredibly balanced which is almost nonexistent with other RTS games…The depth of the game on the competitive level rewards hard work and creativity where as other games have been 'figured out' fairly quickly resulting in a stagnant metagame. -Nick “Tasteless” Plott
But this is not enough. The true question worth examining is—why? What is it about StarCraft that has made this legacy? Last season, ICCup hosted over 2 million games. Every day, tens of thousands of people still log on to Battle.net to experience a game that is over a decade old. This is unparalleled in gaming. Truly, very few games are able even to cultivate a dedicated player base, much less for 11 years. The answer to why, in a general sense, is that there are qualities intrinsic to a game that allows for its success or failure. An artist or scientist without vision, intelligence, or talent will not leave a legacy, and neither will a game without equivalent properties.
True Virtue
What are these equivalent properties? Gaming can be considered like a painting: when it is beheld, its art is experienced; when a game is played, its gameplay is experienced. A painting must have a vision for what that experience should be, as must a game. For a game, that experience is competition, and that competition must be unadulterated and unmolested. A painting must have some complexity, in any manner of speaking, whether it be abstract or concrete complexity (of meaning or graphic detail), and so must a game have some level of complexity, either, but preferably both, in strategy and gameplay. For a painting, when vision and complexity are combined, it is said to be art. When a game combines competition and complexity, it is said to have a metagame.
A game that is pure is one that has at its core the essence of strategy. Undoubtedly, there is no way for a real-time strategy game to be purely strategy; some technical component must accompany and complement the strategic one. But the physical component should not be considered irrelevant to competitive purity—competitive purity stresses strategic advantages over technical prowess, but technical ability is also a major factor. The prevailing idea behind a purity of competition is that, in the end, the better player must be the one to win, whether or not the play of the victor is defined by technical rather than strategic prowess. The favoring of strategy over technical ability is not a slight to the value of technical play, but rather it is meant to disqualify a game that permits the player who button-crunches faster and harder to always be the victor.
Technical ability and strategic execution are very different functions for a player, as different as the functions of the parts of the brain that control these activities. Without technical ability, the execution of a strategy will inevitably fail. Without a strategy, technical ability is useless. This is to point out that these two must act together; they must be completely and consciously coordinated. It is difficult to quantify or investigate which of these skills is more important to the outcome of a game, and it ought not be a concern for the player. In StarCraft, as in other competitive games, it is the fundamentals of strategy and technical ability that prove most important. Flashy hand motions or micro gimmicks are superficial and irrelevant to game outcome if the fundamentals of strategy and technique are not in place.
StarCraft at its highest levels requires dozens of strategically complex decisions to be made in just seconds. The richness of this complexity is what makes the game so interesting and powerful. With the literally hundreds of ways to tech between the races, each game is a unique struggle and no two games are completely alike. Thousands of games are played every day, most opening with the same handful of refined build orders, and nearly each one, at the very least, ends uniquely for the player.
StarCraft is not a march to the biggest unit or biggest gun, it is not the unidirectional march to the highest perch on the tech tree for the weapons that overpower all enemies. Its design is far more complex than that—as GameSpot’s review elaborated: “Even more remarkable is that the game's early combat units, like the lowly Zerglings and Marines, maintained their usefulness all the way to the end of the longest matches. Units higher up on the technology tree did not make earlier units obsolete--they only added to the array of strategic options available to the player. Impressively, the Brood War expansion pack threw even more units into the mix without breaking the game's delicate balance.”
Complexity does not imply the existence of balanced and prevalent metagame. A hypothetical game with five races instead of StarCraft’s three would prove incredibly, perhaps impossibly, difficult to balance. A hypothetical fighting game with sixty playable characters will not have all of these characters viable in competitive play. In this sense, overly complex and overly simple games share the same damning principle that fails them: they cannot completely support a metagame. Overly simple games, because of their lack of innovation or even distinct variance, prevent a metagame from even being possible. Overly complex games, because of the problem of balance, cannot support a metagame.
StarCraft splits this appropriately down the middle. It is not a perfectly balanced game; such a feat is impossible, but it is balanced enough that it is pure. StarCraft has developed a fascinating metagame; the strategic innovations over the years and the interplay of older builds and concepts with newer builds and concepts is a salient example of what makes StarCraft unique, and what enables legacy. The history of StarCraft metagame is not the irreversible march to the single most optimal strategy for each (one could argue, non-mirror) matchup. There are safe builds, economic builds, aggressive builds, cheese builds, all-in builds—but all have harmonious advantages and disadvantages, which are suited to a player using them per situations and per a personal style. It is not possible to imagine that the entire history of StarCraft strategy was mapped out and balanced during playtesting. This is either a lucky accident, a one in a thousand chance that StarCraft in its most competitive forms would be so harmoniously complementary, or the deliberate and impressive foresight of the developers, that the metagame has proven to be appropriately malleable to allow for depth in innovation, but also that it is not infinitely malleable.
Curtain Call
StarCraft’s real innovation over the years has been the gameplay itself. The innovation was the potential of the game for boundless outcomes, but even more that these outcomes are almost exclusively a function of player skill. The innovation in gameplay was this: the player’s mind, and the player’s hands, against another’s mind, and another’s hands. The function of all the complexity and purity in the game is this simplistic result.
In personal correspondence with Zileas on this very topic, he raised an important spectre: StarCraft 2. Zileas is an important old-schooler who playtested StarCraft in its infancy, and who himself is responsible in some way for the legacy of this game. Doubtless, StarCraft 2 will be judged by the same properties that were responsible for the success of its predecessor: purity, complexity, and metagame. It stands to reason that if these of the sequel fall short in quality as compared with the original, the game will not prove as successful in the long term. As the reviews come out, and awards come in, there will be a clear and objective measure of how well the legacy of StarCraft has been succeeded. It is impossible to predict, at this point, what the result will be, but there is some optimism from Zileas on the matter: “Starcraft 2 is going to be an incredible game -- I know the team from my time at Blizzard working on the RTS team and I know that the product they are going to deliver is going to be a huge milestone in gaming just like the first.”
So, as StarCraft 2 looms just over the horizon, this may be the appropriate time for reflection on the legacy of this game, what has made it so great, and what the game has meant to the RTS genre and gaming as an industry. If StarCraft 2 does supplant its predecessor, then all that will be left in the end, after serious competition has moved on and left impoverished this unadulterated art of war, is its legacy: the legacy of the greatest game ever made.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
A very well written article. It's great to have a new FE after the drought 
|
Hungary11291 Posts
Amazing, writing and artwork.
|
very well wirtten and fun to read. Great job.
|
i feel a little overwhelmed lol- only a really really really starcraftish person could have written this from scratch.. kudos to you, Mr Arrian.
|
Very well written. Props to you.
|
|
|
I like the art you chose for this article. Always nice to see something new!
Also your writing was very good
|
nice read,I love Dali's paintings as well
|
nice article
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
Omg a new FE!!
Awesome write-up will recommend to anyone that doesn't know about Starcraft.
|
sweet right up :D and I'm just half way through
|
I love dali
Also i like the article.
i wish taht starcraft2 could "continue the legacy" or whatever. Live up to the expectations, and maybe push the greatness of starcraft even more.
But i am not so optimistic about this anymore :/
|
gj except "It is not a perfectly balanced game"
|
Starcraft 2 will be nothing compared to brood war. Thats just how the world works.
|
konadora
Singapore66158 Posts
Amazing read, style of writing is mystique and intriguing. Message clearly delivered, that Starcraft is the best RTS ever.
|
Amazing, touching, and ridiculously true. This article defines what Starcraft is and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldnt agree after reading this article. Loved it.
|
On April 07 2009 23:52 Blunderbore wrote:gj except "It is not a perfectly balanced game"
It is impossible to "perfectly balance" an unsymmetrical game. This is simply a fact. Even chess is unbalanced; white moves first.
Only players can be balanced.
On topic: brilliant. I love the dali artwork.
|
Enjoyed to read that, nice quotes!
|
Ooh, nice piece of work you got here. I remember you (Arrian) from one of the competitive Super Smash Brothers Melee threads. I also really like the touches of art you put in. :D
nitpick on a typo: last paragraph 2nd line "what has it made it so great" ->"what has made it so great"
other than that, Awesome FE.
|
Salvador Dali´s artwork roolzzz!!!
|
Ah quoting the Emperor was well placed.
|
United States889 Posts
On April 08 2009 00:22 Gliche wrote:
I also really like the touches of art you put in. :D
I wish I could take credit for that, but alas, those are the touches of more creative minds. Mine is just the text, but thanks!
|
On April 08 2009 00:34 Infinity.SkyLark wrote:
Ah quoting the Emperor was well placed.
and tasteless, very nice article
|
really good job thanks . Awesome writeup make me remember when i played starcraft for the first time and everytime i play starcraft im so excited like the first time
|
Very nicely written article. Good job!
|
Wow. Easily one of my favorite TLFEs. The artwork makes it
Thanks a million Arrian!
|
excellent read. it put starcraft player's thoughts and feelings into words and on paper. I think this is what most of us want to say when we try to explain to people what starcraft is and represents.
dali is awesome too.
|
awesome read.... just awesome...
|
United States17042 Posts
Great piece of work. Nice pictures as well.
|
What an epic article, I enjoyed it.
|
Salvador Dali is my favorite painter Gold star for you.
epic article
|
|
|
|
|
very good one indeed
enjoyed reading it
|
Very good write up, but I suppose you forgot one thing and maybe don't even consider it to be so, but luck is one of the very important factors which isn't meant as a primitive way or neglecting other factors. It's there and you could call it anything - fate, coincidence or just a chance - but it does affect, if not all, then some situations, especially grandiose.
Some of scientific revelations were luck based, Blizzard stated themselves that they never expected the game to last this long or see it squeezed to limits they didn't even know existed.
By the way, you should credit original art authors I suppose and just for curiosity of others have names of the pictures written down as well. That would be not only correct but educational, too
|
that was awesome.
totaly awesome writing.
thank you for that
|
Interesting article. You described well what is the secret of StarCraft`s success (although I would disagree with the notion that that is the only way for a game to succeed) and what is its long-term legacy. However, I do have one major complaint and it has to do with one of your factual statements:
On April 01 2009 14:56 Arrian wrote:
At the time that StarCraft hit shelves, it was common knowledge that the PC market was dead—consoles were the only place for gaming.
I am sorry, but...that is simply untrue. Infact, 1998 was probably one of the best years for PC gaming. There was a great deal of successful titles released that year and a grand majority of them found their home on the PC platform. Baldur`s Gate, Thief: The Dark Project, Grim Fandango, Fallout 2, Half-Life...I could go on. And this is not mentioning a great deal of successful PC games (including Blizzard`s) which were released in the late 90`s in general.
To put it shortly, the PC market was nowhere near dead when StarCraft was released. Infact, PC gaming back then was at the height of it`s power and StarCraft was a part of it`s golden years.
|
Amazing article. I have trolled this site for 7 years and never been inspired enough to make an account. Well done sir.
What is the name of Dali's painting that creates a face out of the spheres?
|
i like that first image by silversky gj
|
I thought the next FE was going to be OSL wrapup 
|
|
|
nice writeup ...
though you compared sc and painting, i found the paintings rather distracting and not fit to the content
|
Very awesome and well written. It's about time we had another FE! =)
|
well written, but i dont think anyone though PC gaming was dead 10 years ago. That was actually its golden age 0_o
|
|
|
loved everything about it, especially Dali's painting. Dali's painting always give me a feel of timeless and awe.
|
United States11637 Posts
|
United States12607 Posts
Great article. I liked the Dali theme ^^
All hail SC:BW, the greatest game ever made!
On April 08 2009 03:36 scwizard wrote:I thought the next FE was going to be OSL wrapup
Wow are you a prick.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
Not a big fan of Dali, but great writing!
|
oh man, hearing the name Zileas sure brings back some memories, really old school... wonder what he is up to now, I know he was a student at MIT back when SC first came out... I mean the guy basically pioneered shuttle/reaver play.. I think he was the reason why Blizz patched the game to add a cooldown to the reaver's attack after you drop from the shuttle.. lol i remember before that patch zileas' control was so nasty it basically looked like he had a shuttle flying around the map shooting scarabs =D
man imagine if it was still like that today.. Bisu would be taking out entire armies with just a shuttle/reaver.
|
Shit this is deep, well written :D
|
Thx man really thx im kinda sentimental now DX
|
The last bit made me sad
I hope starcraft 2 is good, otherwise competitive gaming and esports are going to take a massive blow.
|
|
|
On April 08 2009 07:07 nataziel wrote:The last bit made me sad
Yeah, I was so excited reading through the article, until I came to the heading + Show Spoiler +, and my heart sank thereafter. Exhilaration turned despair. T_T
Props, well-written.
|
Great writing, and you bring up a lot of good points. I wonder where the RTS genre would be without sc?
|
United States889 Posts
On April 08 2009 03:18 Tom Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2009 14:56 Arrian wrote:
At the time that StarCraft hit shelves, it was common knowledge that the PC market was dead—consoles were the only place for gaming. I am sorry, but...that is simply untrue. Infact, 1998 was probably one of the best years for PC gaming. There was a great deal of successful titles released that year and a grand majority of them found their home on the PC platform. Baldur`s Gate, Thief: The Dark Project, Grim Fandango, Fallout 2, Half-Life...I could go on. And this is not mentioning a great deal of successful PC games (including Blizzard`s) which were released in the late 90`s in general. To put it shortly, the PC market was nowhere near dead when StarCraft was released. Infact, PC gaming back then was at the height of it`s power and StarCraft was a part of it`s golden years.
Keep in mind--I'm talking about the PC market, not the titles. I personally think '97/'98 were some of the best years in gaming ever, but as far as the money being spent on PC vs console games, it isn't even close.
The short answer is that yes, there were a number of successful PC titles, but there were way more successful console titles.
The titles released for PC were good, but at that time if you were going to try and sell several million games, you were developing for the Playstation, N64, even a Sega console. In more than a few ways, StarCraft's sales numbers were rather surprising. Obviously, I'm speaking relatively, and I'm speaking in a grandiose fashion in the TLFE, but this is the reality I'm trying to convey.
Some actual figures of the money spent on console games and PC games in '98/years to and after:
Console:
-1997 - $5.1 billion
-1998 - $6.2 billion
-1999 - $6.9 billion
PC:
-1998 - $1.8 billion
-1999 - $1.9 billion
So not only, in 1998, was the console market bigger, but it was growing much, much faster than the PC market.
This is supported by empirical observation, as well. At that time, consoles were far more powerful, far more established, and far more developed for than PCs. The real leg up that PCs had on consoles was online capability, which at the time consoles could not do. Before 98, and even through 98, the internet and online play was quite new (in fact, I encountered arguments which said that StarCraft basically pioneered online play, but I don't exactly buy that), so that advantage was not quite realized yet, and one of the things StarCraft did was help players realize that advantage, and make it standard.
|
Very well written article and at the same time very inspiring and emotional. Props to you Arrian.
|
Wow, great write-up. I have to disagree on one thing though, SC on N64 for the fucking win!
I'll never forget when I was a complete noob. Me and a friend, Dave, picked up those hideous N64 controllers, only to the shock that a 2v1 comp on Island Hop turned into a 3 hour nightmare, where our last stronghold was the tiny island on the right packed with turrets and enough room for one building: The Starport. We slowly clawed our way back to victory. It was tremendous. It was ghastly. It was the last game I ever played on Nintendo 64.
|
Awesome article, I don't know how I missed it until now >_<
|
On April 08 2009 07:37 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2009 03:18 Tom Phoenix wrote:On April 01 2009 14:56 Arrian wrote:
At the time that StarCraft hit shelves, it was common knowledge that the PC market was dead—consoles were the only place for gaming. I am sorry, but...that is simply untrue. Infact, 1998 was probably one of the best years for PC gaming. There was a great deal of successful titles released that year and a grand majority of them found their home on the PC platform. Baldur`s Gate, Thief: The Dark Project, Grim Fandango, Fallout 2, Half-Life...I could go on. And this is not mentioning a great deal of successful PC games (including Blizzard`s) which were released in the late 90`s in general. To put it shortly, the PC market was nowhere near dead when StarCraft was released. Infact, PC gaming back then was at the height of it`s power and StarCraft was a part of it`s golden years. Keep in mind--I'm talking about the PC market, not the titles. I personally think '97/'98 were some of the best years in gaming ever, but as far as the money being spent on PC vs console games, it isn't even close. The short answer is that yes, there were a number of successful PC titles, but there were way more successful console titles. The titles released for PC were good, but at that time if you were going to try and sell several million games, you were developing for the Playstation, N64, even a Sega console. In more than a few ways, StarCraft's sales numbers were rather surprising. Obviously, I'm speaking relatively, and I'm speaking in a grandiose fashion in the TLFE, but this is the reality I'm trying to convey. Some actual figures of the money spent on console games and PC games in '98/years to and after: Console: -1997 - $5.1 billion -1998 - $6.2 billion -1999 - $6.9 billion PC: -1998 - $1.8 billion -1999 - $1.9 billion So not only, in 1998, was the console market bigger, but it was growing much, much faster than the PC market. This is supported by empirical observation, as well. At that time, consoles were far more powerful, far more established, and far more developed for than PCs. The real leg up that PCs had on consoles was online capability, which at the time consoles could not do. Before 98, and even through 98, the internet and online play was quite new (in fact, I encountered arguments which said that StarCraft basically pioneered online play, but I don't exactly buy that), so that advantage was not quite realized yet, and one of the things StarCraft did was help players realize that advantage, and make it standard.
I have to take issue with this. In your article you said the PC market was dead, you did not say that it was small relative to the console market. To support your statement you would need to show that in the previous years the PC market was larger than what it was in 98. I would be surprised if you could show that. The data you provide here does not support your claim. It supports a completely different claim that you did not make in the article.
Other than that, I think it was a very well written article.
|
ship it~~ (to blizzard HQ that is) nice article, very well written
|
United States889 Posts
On April 08 2009 08:56 Mastermind wrote:
To support your statement you would need to show that in the previous years the PC market was larger than what it was in 98. I would be surprised if you could show that. The data you provide here does not support your claim. It supports a completely different claim that you did not make in the article.
Other than that, I think it was a very well written article.
This is because the PC market just started around then, when developers tried to figure out how they could use it. When they realized it had almost no advantages over the consoles, until online play came around.
EDIT: Hang on.
|
On April 08 2009 07:37 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2009 03:18 Tom Phoenix wrote:On April 01 2009 14:56 Arrian wrote:
At the time that StarCraft hit shelves, it was common knowledge that the PC market was dead—consoles were the only place for gaming. I am sorry, but...that is simply untrue. Infact, 1998 was probably one of the best years for PC gaming. There was a great deal of successful titles released that year and a grand majority of them found their home on the PC platform. Baldur`s Gate, Thief: The Dark Project, Grim Fandango, Fallout 2, Half-Life...I could go on. And this is not mentioning a great deal of successful PC games (including Blizzard`s) which were released in the late 90`s in general. To put it shortly, the PC market was nowhere near dead when StarCraft was released. Infact, PC gaming back then was at the height of it`s power and StarCraft was a part of it`s golden years. Keep in mind--I'm talking about the PC market, not the titles. I personally think '97/'98 were some of the best years in gaming ever, but as far as the money being spent on PC vs console games, it isn't even close. The short answer is that yes, there were a number of successful PC titles, but there were way more successful console titles. The titles released for PC were good, but at that time if you were going to try and sell several million games, you were developing for the Playstation, N64, even a Sega console. In more than a few ways, StarCraft's sales numbers were rather surprising. Obviously, I'm speaking relatively, and I'm speaking in a grandiose fashion in the TLFE, but this is the reality I'm trying to convey. Some actual figures of the money spent on console games and PC games in '98/years to and after: Console: -1997 - $5.1 billion -1998 - $6.2 billion -1999 - $6.9 billion PC: -1998 - $1.8 billion -1999 - $1.9 billion So not only, in 1998, was the console market bigger, but it was growing much, much faster than the PC market. This is supported by empirical observation, as well. At that time, consoles were far more powerful, far more established, and far more developed for than PCs. The real leg up that PCs had on consoles was online capability, which at the time consoles could not do. Before 98, and even through 98, the internet and online play was quite new (in fact, I encountered arguments which said that StarCraft basically pioneered online play, but I don't exactly buy that), so that advantage was not quite realized yet, and one of the things StarCraft did was help players realize that advantage, and make it standard.
I found the source of your numbers (it is Game Sales Charts, correct?) and there are three issues with the numbers you provided:
1. You compared the Total US Handheld & Console Sales to the PC Game Software Sales. This is not a great comparison since the first number includes the sales of the consoles and handhelds themselves as well as the sales of the games themselves. Since we do not have PC Hardware sales to include (not that that would have been an accurate representation, anyway), it is more accurate to only include the sales of Handheld and Console games, which brings us to these numbers:
US Console & Handheld Game Software Sales
1998 - $3.7 billion
US PC Game Software Sales
1998 - $1.8 billion
2. When considering these numbers, it is important to note that the first figure also includes the sales of handheld games as well. In the late 90`s the handheld market was already very popular. Gameboy was preety much all the rage back then. So while the console sales are most likely still higher, the fact that handheld sales are included would probably chip away a significant part of that figure if we were able to remove that part.
3. One more thing to consider is that these numbers only include the US market. However, the Japanese market was already very big back then and even the European market was not something to ignore. Of course, this would increase the number of both, but there is no telling what the total would have been.
Even if we only look at the numbers themselves, the PC market still equaled nearly half of the sales of the console and handheld market combined. This indicates that while consoles were most likely still more popular, the PC market was quite significant itself as well and accounted for a considerable part of video game sales.
But anyway, for the sake of simplicity, let us say that you are correct. Let us say that the console market was already back then far more popular and that there were way more successful console titles then PC ones (although I do not think that point is absolutely correct either). Even considering this...how does that qualify the PC market as "dead" during that period?
Heck, one could make an argument that the PC market is not even dead today, even though one can count the number of game developers that develop mostly for the PC on the fingers of one hand. But back then, there was a number of (successful) games that were released for the PC. Ultimately, you cannot seperate the titles from the market since the titles are what make the market and if those titles were developed, it means that there were developers who considered it worthwhile to develop games for the PC. If the market was considered dead, then that obviously would not have been the case.
Anyway, PC gaming in 1998 aside, I do agree with your points about StarCraft. It may not have been the game that sparked online gaming, but it certainly was the game that took it to heights never imagined before (or even after).
|
United States889 Posts
On April 08 2009 09:47 Tom Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2009 07:37 Arrian wrote:On April 08 2009 03:18 Tom Phoenix wrote:On April 01 2009 14:56 Arrian wrote:
At the time that StarCraft hit shelves, it was common knowledge that the PC market was dead—consoles were the only place for gaming. I am sorry, but...that is simply untrue. Infact, 1998 was probably one of the best years for PC gaming. There was a great deal of successful titles released that year and a grand majority of them found their home on the PC platform. Baldur`s Gate, Thief: The Dark Project, Grim Fandango, Fallout 2, Half-Life...I could go on. And this is not mentioning a great deal of successful PC games (including Blizzard`s) which were released in the late 90`s in general. To put it shortly, the PC market was nowhere near dead when StarCraft was released. Infact, PC gaming back then was at the height of it`s power and StarCraft was a part of it`s golden years. Keep in mind--I'm talking about the PC market, not the titles. I personally think '97/'98 were some of the best years in gaming ever, but as far as the money being spent on PC vs console games, it isn't even close. The short answer is that yes, there were a number of successful PC titles, but there were way more successful console titles. The titles released for PC were good, but at that time if you were going to try and sell several million games, you were developing for the Playstation, N64, even a Sega console. In more than a few ways, StarCraft's sales numbers were rather surprising. Obviously, I'm speaking relatively, and I'm speaking in a grandiose fashion in the TLFE, but this is the reality I'm trying to convey. Some actual figures of the money spent on console games and PC games in '98/years to and after: Console: -1997 - $5.1 billion -1998 - $6.2 billion -1999 - $6.9 billion PC: -1998 - $1.8 billion -1999 - $1.9 billion So not only, in 1998, was the console market bigger, but it was growing much, much faster than the PC market. This is supported by empirical observation, as well. At that time, consoles were far more powerful, far more established, and far more developed for than PCs. The real leg up that PCs had on consoles was online capability, which at the time consoles could not do. Before 98, and even through 98, the internet and online play was quite new (in fact, I encountered arguments which said that StarCraft basically pioneered online play, but I don't exactly buy that), so that advantage was not quite realized yet, and one of the things StarCraft did was help players realize that advantage, and make it standard. I found the source of your numbers (it is Game Sales Charts, correct?) and there are three issues with the numbers you provided: 1. You compared the Total US Handheld & Console Sales to the PC Game Software Sales. This is not a great comparison since the first number includes the sales of the consoles and handhelds themselves as well as the sales of the games themselves. Since we do not have PC Hardware sales to include (not that that would have been an accurate representation, anyway), it is more accurate to only include the sales of Handheld and Console games, which brings us to these numbers: US Console & Handheld Game Software Sales1998 - $3.7 billion US PC Game Software Sales1998 - $1.8 billion 2. When considering these numbers, it is important to note that the first figure also includes the sales of handheld games as well. In the late 90`s the handheld market was already very popular. Gameboy was preety much all the rage back then. So while the console sales are most likely still higher, the fact that handheld sales are included would probably chip away a significant part of that figure if we were able to remove that part. 3. One more thing to consider is that these numbers only include the US market. However, the Japanese market was already very big back then and even the European market was not something to ignore. Of course, this would increase the number of both, but there is no telling what the total would have been. Even if we only look at the numbers themselves, the PC market still equaled nearly half of the sales of the console and handheld market combined. This indicates that while consoles were most likely still more popular, the PC market was quite significant itself as well and accounted for a considerable part of video game sales. But anyway, for the sake of simplicity, let us say that you are correct. Let us say that the console market was already back then far more popular and that there were way more successful console titles then PC ones (although I do not think that point is absolutely correct either). Even considering this...how does that qualify the PC market as " dead" during that period? Heck, one could make an argument that the PC market is not even dead today, even though one can count the number of game developers that develop mostly for the PC on the fingers of one hand. But back then, there was a number of (successful) games that were released for the PC. Ultimately, you cannot seperate the titles from the market since the titles are what make the market and if those titles were developed, it means that there were developers who considered it worthwhile to develop games for the PC. If the market was considered dead, then that obviously would not have been the case. Anyway, PC gaming in 1998 aside, I do agree with your points about StarCraft. It may not have been the game that sparked online gaming, but it certainly was the game that took it to heights never imagined before (or even after).
1. This is because counting all PC sales as sales for games is ridiculous and untrue. At that point in the development of gaming, the amount of sales specifically for gaming or even in large part for gaming would be only a fraction of the market. However, all sales of consoles are specifically for gaming.
2. I don't see how this is relevant. Just because another market was taking off doesn't invalidate my claim.
3. The Japanese PC game market was very not good in 1997, as seen here. The console market, however, was very good.
1.9 is nowhere near 3.1. That's a whopping 1.2 billion dollars off. When you look at the symbols, it doesn't seem big. When you think of the sums, it does.
But I'll make an admission. It was a dramatization, and perhaps an inappropriate one. I didn't, and still don't, think it's a particularly important piece of information--StarCraft was innovative regardless of the climate it was introduced into. That was my point. If you would like me to amend that point to clarify, I will, but I think that there's enough information here that I could reasonably make this judgment.
|
Poll: Beauty or Truth?
(Vote): Beauty
(Vote): Truth
Okay I'm done trolling for the day
|
There has been only one such game to ever combine these fortuitous properties, and it was released on March 31st, 1998. Wrong. Both Street Fighter 2 (ST) and Street Fighter 3 (3S) are still going strong after more than ten years in case 1 and ten years in case 2.
|
On April 08 2009 10:00 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2009 09:47 Tom Phoenix wrote:On April 08 2009 07:37 Arrian wrote:On April 08 2009 03:18 Tom Phoenix wrote:On April 01 2009 14:56 Arrian wrote:
At the time that StarCraft hit shelves, it was common knowledge that the PC market was dead—consoles were the only place for gaming. I am sorry, but...that is simply untrue. Infact, 1998 was probably one of the best years for PC gaming. There was a great deal of successful titles released that year and a grand majority of them found their home on the PC platform. Baldur`s Gate, Thief: The Dark Project, Grim Fandango, Fallout 2, Half-Life...I could go on. And this is not mentioning a great deal of successful PC games (including Blizzard`s) which were released in the late 90`s in general. To put it shortly, the PC market was nowhere near dead when StarCraft was released. Infact, PC gaming back then was at the height of it`s power and StarCraft was a part of it`s golden years. Keep in mind--I'm talking about the PC market, not the titles. I personally think '97/'98 were some of the best years in gaming ever, but as far as the money being spent on PC vs console games, it isn't even close. The short answer is that yes, there were a number of successful PC titles, but there were way more successful console titles. The titles released for PC were good, but at that time if you were going to try and sell several million games, you were developing for the Playstation, N64, even a Sega console. In more than a few ways, StarCraft's sales numbers were rather surprising. Obviously, I'm speaking relatively, and I'm speaking in a grandiose fashion in the TLFE, but this is the reality I'm trying to convey. Some actual figures of the money spent on console games and PC games in '98/years to and after: Console: -1997 - $5.1 billion -1998 - $6.2 billion -1999 - $6.9 billion PC: -1998 - $1.8 billion -1999 - $1.9 billion So not only, in 1998, was the console market bigger, but it was growing much, much faster than the PC market. This is supported by empirical observation, as well. At that time, consoles were far more powerful, far more established, and far more developed for than PCs. The real leg up that PCs had on consoles was online capability, which at the time consoles could not do. Before 98, and even through 98, the internet and online play was quite new (in fact, I encountered arguments which said that StarCraft basically pioneered online play, but I don't exactly buy that), so that advantage was not quite realized yet, and one of the things StarCraft did was help players realize that advantage, and make it standard. I found the source of your numbers (it is Game Sales Charts, correct?) and there are three issues with the numbers you provided: 1. You compared the Total US Handheld & Console Sales to the PC Game Software Sales. This is not a great comparison since the first number includes the sales of the consoles and handhelds themselves as well as the sales of the games themselves. Since we do not have PC Hardware sales to include (not that that would have been an accurate representation, anyway), it is more accurate to only include the sales of Handheld and Console games, which brings us to these numbers: US Console & Handheld Game Software Sales1998 - $3.7 billion US PC Game Software Sales1998 - $1.8 billion 2. When considering these numbers, it is important to note that the first figure also includes the sales of handheld games as well. In the late 90`s the handheld market was already very popular. Gameboy was preety much all the rage back then. So while the console sales are most likely still higher, the fact that handheld sales are included would probably chip away a significant part of that figure if we were able to remove that part. 3. One more thing to consider is that these numbers only include the US market. However, the Japanese market was already very big back then and even the European market was not something to ignore. Of course, this would increase the number of both, but there is no telling what the total would have been. Even if we only look at the numbers themselves, the PC market still equaled nearly half of the sales of the console and handheld market combined. This indicates that while consoles were most likely still more popular, the PC market was quite significant itself as well and accounted for a considerable part of video game sales. But anyway, for the sake of simplicity, let us say that you are correct. Let us say that the console market was already back then far more popular and that there were way more successful console titles then PC ones (although I do not think that point is absolutely correct either). Even considering this...how does that qualify the PC market as " dead" during that period? Heck, one could make an argument that the PC market is not even dead today, even though one can count the number of game developers that develop mostly for the PC on the fingers of one hand. But back then, there was a number of (successful) games that were released for the PC. Ultimately, you cannot seperate the titles from the market since the titles are what make the market and if those titles were developed, it means that there were developers who considered it worthwhile to develop games for the PC. If the market was considered dead, then that obviously would not have been the case. Anyway, PC gaming in 1998 aside, I do agree with your points about StarCraft. It may not have been the game that sparked online gaming, but it certainly was the game that took it to heights never imagined before (or even after). 1. This is because counting all PC sales as sales for games is ridiculous and untrue. At that point in the development of gaming, the amount of sales specifically for gaming or even in large part for gaming would be only a fraction of the market. However, all sales of consoles are specifically for gaming. 2. I don't see how this is relevant. Just because another market was taking off doesn't invalidate my claim. 3. The Japanese PC game market was very not good in 1997, as seen here. The console market, however, was very good. 1.9 is nowhere near 3.1. That's a whopping 1.2 billion dollars off. When you look at the symbols, it doesn't seem big. When you think of the sums, it does. But I'll make an admission. It was a dramatization, and perhaps an inappropriate one. I didn't, and still don't, think it's a particularly important piece of information--StarCraft was innovative regardless of the climate it was introduced into. That was my point. If you would like me to amend that point to clarify, I will, but I think that there's enough information here that I could reasonably make this judgment.
1. I agree that it would be ridicolous to count all PC sales as sales for games. However, we are talking about sales of games themselves, not the related hardware. So the sales of consoles themselves should not be a factor.
2. It is relevant beacuse the inclusion of that market inflates the number of sales. Since our purpose is to directly compare the sales of PC games and console games, handheld game sales are irrelevant to our comparison. However, the first number does include the sales of handheld games.
3. Very well, good point.
I do not know where you got the 3.1 number, but even considering that, 1.9 is still much more then half of the console market. So while the console market was bigger, the PC market was still very much significant and not at all "dead".
I think the climate in which StarCraft was released does bear some significance (although not that much) since it reflects upon StarCraft`s success. To be successful in a dying market is a great feat, to be successful in one of the best years of a significant market is an even greater feat. Overall, StarCraft proved to be among the best of the best in a period which produced many other rivals. While it does not affect me personally, I think it is best if you do provide a clarification for the sake of the article`s correctness.
I hope you do not take any of this criticism to heart. In spite of my words, I think it was still an excellent article which showed what made StarCraft successful and the legacy upon which StarCraft II will be built upon.
|
United States889 Posts
On April 08 2009 10:40 Tom Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2009 10:00 Arrian wrote:On April 08 2009 09:47 Tom Phoenix wrote:On April 08 2009 07:37 Arrian wrote:On April 08 2009 03:18 Tom Phoenix wrote:On April 01 2009 14:56 Arrian wrote:
At the time that StarCraft hit shelves, it was common knowledge that the PC market was dead—consoles were the only place for gaming. I am sorry, but...that is simply untrue. Infact, 1998 was probably one of the best years for PC gaming. There was a great deal of successful titles released that year and a grand majority of them found their home on the PC platform. Baldur`s Gate, Thief: The Dark Project, Grim Fandango, Fallout 2, Half-Life...I could go on. And this is not mentioning a great deal of successful PC games (including Blizzard`s) which were released in the late 90`s in general. To put it shortly, the PC market was nowhere near dead when StarCraft was released. Infact, PC gaming back then was at the height of it`s power and StarCraft was a part of it`s golden years. Keep in mind--I'm talking about the PC market, not the titles. I personally think '97/'98 were some of the best years in gaming ever, but as far as the money being spent on PC vs console games, it isn't even close. The short answer is that yes, there were a number of successful PC titles, but there were way more successful console titles. The titles released for PC were good, but at that time if you were going to try and sell several million games, you were developing for the Playstation, N64, even a Sega console. In more than a few ways, StarCraft's sales numbers were rather surprising. Obviously, I'm speaking relatively, and I'm speaking in a grandiose fashion in the TLFE, but this is the reality I'm trying to convey. Some actual figures of the money spent on console games and PC games in '98/years to and after: Console: -1997 - $5.1 billion -1998 - $6.2 billion -1999 - $6.9 billion PC: -1998 - $1.8 billion -1999 - $1.9 billion So not only, in 1998, was the console market bigger, but it was growing much, much faster than the PC market. This is supported by empirical observation, as well. At that time, consoles were far more powerful, far more established, and far more developed for than PCs. The real leg up that PCs had on consoles was online capability, which at the time consoles could not do. Before 98, and even through 98, the internet and online play was quite new (in fact, I encountered arguments which said that StarCraft basically pioneered online play, but I don't exactly buy that), so that advantage was not quite realized yet, and one of the things StarCraft did was help players realize that advantage, and make it standard. I found the source of your numbers (it is Game Sales Charts, correct?) and there are three issues with the numbers you provided: 1. You compared the Total US Handheld & Console Sales to the PC Game Software Sales. This is not a great comparison since the first number includes the sales of the consoles and handhelds themselves as well as the sales of the games themselves. Since we do not have PC Hardware sales to include (not that that would have been an accurate representation, anyway), it is more accurate to only include the sales of Handheld and Console games, which brings us to these numbers: US Console & Handheld Game Software Sales1998 - $3.7 billion US PC Game Software Sales1998 - $1.8 billion 2. When considering these numbers, it is important to note that the first figure also includes the sales of handheld games as well. In the late 90`s the handheld market was already very popular. Gameboy was preety much all the rage back then. So while the console sales are most likely still higher, the fact that handheld sales are included would probably chip away a significant part of that figure if we were able to remove that part. 3. One more thing to consider is that these numbers only include the US market. However, the Japanese market was already very big back then and even the European market was not something to ignore. Of course, this would increase the number of both, but there is no telling what the total would have been. Even if we only look at the numbers themselves, the PC market still equaled nearly half of the sales of the console and handheld market combined. This indicates that while consoles were most likely still more popular, the PC market was quite significant itself as well and accounted for a considerable part of video game sales. But anyway, for the sake of simplicity, let us say that you are correct. Let us say that the console market was already back then far more popular and that there were way more successful console titles then PC ones (although I do not think that point is absolutely correct either). Even considering this...how does that qualify the PC market as " dead" during that period? Heck, one could make an argument that the PC market is not even dead today, even though one can count the number of game developers that develop mostly for the PC on the fingers of one hand. But back then, there was a number of (successful) games that were released for the PC. Ultimately, you cannot seperate the titles from the market since the titles are what make the market and if those titles were developed, it means that there were developers who considered it worthwhile to develop games for the PC. If the market was considered dead, then that obviously would not have been the case. Anyway, PC gaming in 1998 aside, I do agree with your points about StarCraft. It may not have been the game that sparked online gaming, but it certainly was the game that took it to heights never imagined before (or even after). 1. This is because counting all PC sales as sales for games is ridiculous and untrue. At that point in the development of gaming, the amount of sales specifically for gaming or even in large part for gaming would be only a fraction of the market. However, all sales of consoles are specifically for gaming. 2. I don't see how this is relevant. Just because another market was taking off doesn't invalidate my claim. 3. The Japanese PC game market was very not good in 1997, as seen here. The console market, however, was very good. 1.9 is nowhere near 3.1. That's a whopping 1.2 billion dollars off. When you look at the symbols, it doesn't seem big. When you think of the sums, it does. But I'll make an admission. It was a dramatization, and perhaps an inappropriate one. I didn't, and still don't, think it's a particularly important piece of information--StarCraft was innovative regardless of the climate it was introduced into. That was my point. If you would like me to amend that point to clarify, I will, but I think that there's enough information here that I could reasonably make this judgment. 1. I agree that it would be ridicolous to count all PC sales as sales for games. However, we are talking about sales of games themselves, not the related hardware. So the sales of consoles themselves should not be a factor. 2. It is relevant beacuse the inclusion of that market inflates the number of sales. Since our purpose is to directly compare the sales of PC games and console games, handheld game sales are irrelevant to our comparison. However, the first number does include the sales of handheld games. 3. Very well, good point. I do not know where you got the 3.1 number, but even considering that, 1.9 is still much more then half of the console market. So while the console market was bigger, the PC market was still very much significant and not at all "dead". I think the climate in which StarCraft was released does bear some significance (although not that much) since it reflects upon StarCraft`s success. To be successful in a dying market is a great feat, to be successful in one of the best years of a significant market is an even greater feat. Overall, StarCraft proved to be among the best of the best in a period which produced many other rivals. While it does not affect me personally, I think it is best if you do provide a clarification for the sake of the article`s correctness. I hope you do not take any of this criticism to heart. In spite of my words, I think it was still an excellent article which showed what made StarCraft successful and the legacy upon which StarCraft II will be built upon.
1. I was talking about the whole market, to be technical. The console market includes the sale of its platforms.
2. I'm getting the feeling we're talking about two different things...
3. In fact, if you include Japan's PC struggles (which is a huge video gaming market), then the statement gains a lot more credibility, and in fact perhaps even complete truth. However, as a matter of complete truth, the statement was something of an opinion. When I call it 'dead,' the definition of 'dead' to me, metaphorically in this context, could be precisely how it was, and your opinion can be (and is) quite different, and the analysts I reference could be anybody with an opinion.
I'm mentioning this merely as a matter of course to dispense further argument. I haven't taken this at all to heart, you've made your points and made them fairly. You've made your points and well, at that. I will consider some manner of clarification, to be sure, and seriously at that. But I also do want to stress that if I choose not to make a change it's because I think that the statement is still justified, given all data that have been presented.
|
awesome article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for posting.
|
so true about the balance of technical ability and strategy. people get caught up too much in this debate when the answer is quite simple.
great read
|
Very well written and a great use of art. One can only hope that SC2 will have a similar, or greater, destiny in store for us so that the legacy may continue to grow.
|
This article is epic! Thank you for that
|
5673 Posts
Am I the only one who looked at the cover image and thought of the opera house from BSG?
Good post by the way. SC is far and away the best RTS of all time, and I know that I'll be playing it for many years to come.
|
Nice read. Starcraft 2 has yet to be playtested, patched over and over again just to reach the level Brood War has set. But, I don't doubt that SC 2 will surpass BW but, it should take a while.
|
On April 08 2009 00:11 miseiler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2009 23:52 Blunderbore wrote:gj except "It is not a perfectly balanced game" It is impossible to "perfectly balance" an unsymmetrical game. This is simply a fact. Even chess is unbalanced; white moves first. Only players can be balanced. On topic: brilliant. I love the dali artwork.
I think if you don't know which race is the "best", at professional levels at least, you can say the game is balanced.
|
Sheer awesomeness. Amazing article.
|
Beautiful work. Thank you. The pictures were pretty sweet too, just added to the overall impression of the article..
I must say I am scared of change. It's a bit odd, but I'm so into the SC scene right now that I honestly don't even care if SC2 comes out in 1 year, 2 years or 3 (ok maybe 3 is pushing it). But really, SC has become more of a spectator thing to me now and I simply play because I have learned so much from watching that it makes me want to get back into it. But honestly, as crazy as people think we are for "watching a video game," I don't even play that many games now that I'm "older" (22). I don't know how much time I'll have to play SC2, but I'll certainly make time to sit back with a cold beverage and watch a good FBH vs Jaedong match on ESPN, lol. 
|
In chess it's true that white has a slight advantage, but the advantage can be distributed between two players in a series by alternating who starts off as which color. Unfortunately the same can't be said for SC.
|
ummi disagree with the almost thing. if the game was even slightly off balance it would have collapsed when  BoxeR went into his slump. thats just my opinion anyway.
anyway... deep stuff there
|
Though I found the article overly romantic and lacking "scientific precision", that is probably because I'm just a complete nerd, you're very good at writing this kind of thing. It's just that you treat too many of your hopes and wishes as truths that gives the article a little bit of naive feeling from me and bothers me a bit when reading it.
Starcraft was a fluke, even Blizzard admitted it many times that so many important features of the game, for both the excitement and the balance were mere unintended bugs. You try to make too much out of a simple combination of events that happened to be in the right place at the right time.
But you do it with class non the less. Still a great writing.
|
On April 09 2009 13:15 VIB wrote:
Though I found the article overly romantic and lacking "scientific precision", that is probably because I'm just a complete nerd, you're very good at writing this kind of thing. It's just that you treat too many of your hopes and wishes as truths that gives the article a little bit of naive feeling from me and bothers me a bit when reading it.
Starcraft was a fluke, even Blizzard admitted it many times that so many important features of the game, for both the excitement and the balance were mere unintended bugs. You try to make too much out of a simple combination of events that happened to be in the right place at the right time.
But you do it with class non the less. Still a great writing.
Exactly my thoughts. This topic kinda reminds me of the south park episode where everyone buys hybrids, and are so much in love with themselves they like their own fart. Stop comparing a video game with paintings ugh.
Edit: BTW, my favorite RTS ever is Starcraft, like probably 90% of people here on TeamLiquid, but those kind of posts, imo, push it pretty far.
|
I wish I could write like that. Hats off to you :D
|
On April 08 2009 23:59 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2009 00:11 miseiler wrote:On April 07 2009 23:52 Blunderbore wrote:gj except "It is not a perfectly balanced game" It is impossible to "perfectly balance" an unsymmetrical game. This is simply a fact. Even chess is unbalanced; white moves first. Only players can be balanced. On topic: brilliant. I love the dali artwork. I think if you don't know which race is the "best", at professional levels at least, you can say the game is balanced.
For sure. One can never be sure if there are just better players in a particular race, either. Sometimes when a map at first favours one race, and then a new strategy is developed we see it go the complete opposite way (ZvT Monty Hall). In Professional StarCraft, the better player will always win an important series. Like Flash on Katrina hahahha.
|
|
|
On April 12 2009 00:43 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2009 23:59 DamageControL wrote:On April 08 2009 00:11 miseiler wrote:On April 07 2009 23:52 Blunderbore wrote:gj except "It is not a perfectly balanced game" It is impossible to "perfectly balance" an unsymmetrical game. This is simply a fact. Even chess is unbalanced; white moves first. Only players can be balanced. On topic: brilliant. I love the dali artwork. I think if you don't know which race is the "best", at professional levels at least, you can say the game is balanced. For sure. One can never be sure if there are just better players in a particular race, either. Sometimes when a map at first favours one race, and then a new strategy is developed we see it go the complete opposite way (ZvT Monty Hall). In Professional StarCraft, the better player will always win an important series. Like Flash on Katrina hahahha.
The balance is just so close, that you can't determine it. Protoss may be overpowered, but by so little its still 50-50. And that is either increased, decreased, or evened out depending on the maps, which are changing every season. Therefore, it is impossible to tell exactly if one race is more powerful than another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/Legacy/cover.png)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/Legacy/ppersistance.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Plexa/Legacy/dali2.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/Legacy/dali6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Plexa/Legacy/dali3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Plexa/Legacy/dali10.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Plexa/Legacy/dali8.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Plexa/Legacy/dispersistence.jpg)
