The Evolution of StarCraft

Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs blog links to a piece chock full of gaming history. The StarCraft Legacy site offers up a historical record of the evolution of StarCraft . Written back in 2004, it is still relevant today. A game title that, lo these many years later, not only has an avid cult following but may be the most popular sport in South Korea is something you want to keep in mind. We may even hear word of a sequel this year. The piece runs down the numerous changes the game underwent, from the ugly alpha days through to the upheaval of Brood War (damned Lurkers). Tidbits like this make the article well worth checking out: "The game made a weak first impression at [E3], and it received much criticism. There were many remarks that the game looked too much like 'Orcs in space.' When Blizzard came back from E3 that year, they decided to scrap the idea. Their decision? 'Let's step it up a little more, let's revamp the engine, let's do more than what we're showing. We can't do Orcs in space.' Thus, StarCraft was reborn. The basics of the Warcraft II engine were still used, but more work was being put into the design and programming."

Re:

[blackicye]

lol I pondered your comment, made a wild guess as to who would've
posted this bit of "news"

I guessed right..Zonk, I guess better late than never no?

That said though, I did spend a fair portion of my life playing
Starcraft when it was first released, I had for some reason never
really found Warcraft (the RTS) all that appealing, in any of its
3 incarnations.

Starcraft I feel was possibly the most interesting RTS that had been
released during its time, 3 races which played very differently,
fairly good balance for t

Re:Slowest. Newsday. Ever.

[PFI_Optix]

Starcraft I feel was possibly the most interesting RTS that had been
released during its time

Ever play Total Annihilation?

StarCraft: high terrain serves only to create choke points and barriers to units. It is completely ignored for anything but restricting movement.

TA: Terrain is modelled as truly 3D, and has great effect on combat. High gound matters; a unit firing off a ridge can be protected by the ridge while pummelling its targets below.

StarCraft: Every shot fired hits its target, even when a moving target changes direction as a slow-moving projectile approaches.

TA: Weapons are semi-realistic; they can miss a fast-moving target or be stopped by terrain.

StarCraft: Air units move just like ground units (with the exception of the Carrier's drones), only ignoring terrain.

TA: Air units move realistically, with planes banking and gunships swerving to avoid enemy fire.

StarCraft: Units either move or they fight. Not both.

TA: Most units are capable of firing while on the move, and frequently do so on their own.

Don't get me wrong; StarCraft was a fun game and brought some great things to the RTS genre. Its three balanced factions brought a new element to strategy gaming that is used heavily today. But that was the only real innovation in SC; the only great step it took from WC2 was that the factions forced players to learn a variety of tactics to be competitive.

Total Annihilation was years ahead of its time with gameplay elements that weren't seen in other games until just recently. It's probably the most underrated RTS out there.

Re:

[EvanED]

Total Annihilation was a great game too, though I did tend to prefer StarCraft, probably out of familiarity.

StarCraft: high terrain serves only to create choke points and barriers to units. It is completely ignored for anything but restricting movement.

This isn't true. Units on low terrain next to high terrain had (I know) restricted sightlines and units on high terrain next to low terrain (I think) had extended sightlines as compared to the unit on flat terrain. I think it also affected the probability of

Re:

[jandrese]

Yeah, when a unit on low terrain fired on an elevated unit, sometimes you'll see the bullets "splash" off of the terrain in front of them. I forget if it's a total miss or if it just reduces the damage taken however.

I tried TA for awhile, but from what I remember the AI was dumber than a sack of rocks and there were a ton of units that did almost the same job. It also ran rather slow on my machine (A P100 at the time), so my perceptions might be skewed.

Re:

[MeanderingMind]

StarCraft: high terrain serves only to create choke points and barriers to units. It is completely ignored for anything but restricting movement.

You're misinformed.

In the abstract sense, terrain also provided barriers to vision. A group of marines running by some cliffs might be pummeled by a photon cannon. Barring an airborne unit scouting the cliff for them, they would only be able to see the photon cannon as it fired, reducing the amount of time they could fight back. This had practical implications for

Re:

[Mortimer82]

StarCraft: high terrain serves only to create choke points and barriers to units. It is completely ignored for anything but restricting movement.

Wrong, high terrain and units on it cannot be seen by units on lower terrain, so you could get ambushed walking through a pass or valley. Furthermore, if your marines are on lower terrain and shooting at units on higher terrain, they often miss. Higher terrain is most definitely a tactical advantage and must be taken into consideration.

TA: Air units move realistically, with planes banking and gunships swerving to avoid enemy fire.

TA: Weapons are semi-realistic; they can miss a fast-moving target or be stopped by terrain

If you had read the article, you would know that originally Starcraft ships also used to bank and swerve, although I don't know if they ever "dodged" attacks, this is so

Re:

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

I agree with most of the comments of the parent. I also agree with another poster's comment that the AI in TA is "dumber than a sack of rocks." Unfortunately, so is the AI in SC. Having played both, I found I had a preference for TA. One other thing that added to the game, but ultimately caused its first downfall was the ability to add units. When Cavedog was releasing its unit of the month, it was cool. Unfortunately, third-party add-ins resulted in destroying the balance of the game. It seemed to t

Re:

[PFI_Optix]

The TAUIP and TAUCP unit packs are great compliations of balanced 3rd party units. On the rare occasion that we play TA at my LAN parties, TAUIP is the pack of choice.

I do recall back in 2000 there being a stupid amount of overpowered units...I especially remember one that had an insane ground speed that could be used to simply bypass base defenses and go straight for a commander. You had to literally wall in your main base to defend against them.

Of course, no game that can be modded is immune to such thing

Re:

[king-manic]

TA was a niche geek game. It wasn't that great gameplay wise, it was ahead of it's time graphics wise. The strategies degenerated into swarming which mad it predictable and boring. No mater who you swarmed with it's the same strategy. Select all - attack. Little nauance, balanced only because the majority of the early and mid games units are the same. Also games lasted 1+ hours and defence was king encouraging all of the tactics RTS noobs like.

Like C&C you tended to optimize by swarming with mid level u

Re:

[Nanpa]

TA - Two sides, Core and Arm. A slightly different bunch of robots with some different strength/armor/etc differences Starcraft- Three sides, each very different. TA - A bunch of text between each mission Starcraft - Interesting (At least) story. Mid-mission objectives changes, a few interesting scenarios

TA was alright, yes. It had a few interesting concepts, but Starcraft had its own and pulled the whole thing off much better.

Sides must have no similarities.

[donscarletti]

That's why WWII was so interesting, Axis was armed with tanks and planes, the Western Allies made use of its army of Mech Warriors and the Soviet army was built on a strong front line of Bionic Brain Slime.

I remember that in the second battle of el-Alamein, Irwin Rommel researched "Purity of the Aryans" in his Totenkopf tower, giving all his infantry units an extra point of amour and was keeping the Allies busy with constant strikes with his three wheeled motor bikes (called "Bavarian Thigh Slappers") and of course with Charlimagne (complete with rocket launchers) who Rommel summoned at the Ahnenerbe Alter.

Bernard Montgommary was going the the "Three Pub" build strategy and had an initial weakness in his defense, but was able to recover using his "Big Ben" laser towers for base defense, summoned the Black Cyborg Prince with his Alter of Albion and focused on building his Australian mole mechs in his Woolloomoloo University. After he researched "Wombat's Burrow" his mole mechs were able to dig under Rommel's Swastikas and destroy his Concentration camp, forcing Rommel to retreat to Tunisia.

The Great NPC Winston Churchill was known to have said of the victory: "This is not the beginning of the end, but TOTAL PWNAGE ke ke ke ke ke!!!!!!!!!!!111111oneone".

Re:

[Sigma 7]

StarCraft: high terrain serves only to create choke points and barriers to units. It is completely ignored for anything but restricting movement.

FYI, this statement (among a few others) is usually present on certain "lists" indicating why TA is better than Starcraft. It is also coupled with other known mistakes - and usually indicates that the person making the list hasn't played Starcraft.

In Starcraft, terrain gives a defensive bonus to units on high ground compared to those on low ground - in general, u

Re:

[donscarletti]

Leading a target happens in TA only after a unit has 5 or more kills. It's one of the effects that distinguish a veteran from a regular unit. Experience in TA is implemented in an increase of ability rather than health, armour or damage, just one of many reasons I love it so much.

Re:

[johnnyk427]

I've played a lot of RTS's before and after Starcraft, but I keep coming back to it for some reason. It's the logical nature of it, the balancing, the rock-paper-scissors (but about 15 layers deep) aspect of it. It seems to capture the logic of an orderly game like chess (while certainly less realistic than a game like COH)

Re:

[PuercoPop]

All of your points are good if you are trying to argue which game is more realistic. But games are games and they are important as long as they are FUN not as long as they are REALISTIC. You should be arguing how all this features and their units are balanced, probably with a rock,paper,scissors which is the most common way to balance and give depth to games. I'm surprised you aren't modded -1 non sequitur. .... check www.sirlin.net for info in game design if: http://www.sirlin.net/archive/rock-paper-sciss [sirlin.net]

Insightful?

[popo]

Ah. Interesting ... so the finished product was an improvement over the beta?

Re:

[Pxtl]

Actually, what I find funny is how the beta versions had so many more powers for each unit. More armed spellcasters, more spells on normal units, etc. Given how much of a headache the micromanagement is in StarCraft, I can see why they took so much out. Too bad the landing-dropships didn't make the cut - that sounded cool.

Also funny that their throw-away alpha art is better than most FOSS games art.

Re:

[PingSpike]

Its to bad the terran are still horribly micromanagement intensive compared to the other races.

I thought the landing dropships sounded cool too, but given how poorly armored they are that would make quick drops of units while under fire nearly impossible. You also might get into situations where there wasn't an good spot of land to do a mass dropship landing. As it stands, I still feel like dropships are a pain in the ass to use effectively. Landing looks cool, but probably would have further reduced their

Re:

[MostAwesomeDude]

Well, it's not that intuitive if you're a Microsoft customer.

Interesting

[MeanderingMind]

It's an interesting article, but I have to question why this wasn't brought up in 2004 when it was written.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an interesting article, but I have to question why this wasn't brought up in 2004 when it was written.

The editors have been busy posting articles on:

SCO/IBM

Wii

WEB 2.0

Everything that comes out of Steve Jobs' mouth

Vista

Every litele Windows bug that comes out.

Xbox

Anything that has to do with Video games

Very little, if anything, on *BSD

Cowboy Neal's bowel movements

Google's brush with Evil(TM) an back to being Good(TM) then Evil again, then Good, then ????

Apple's release of some consumer product. Which w

just wondering.

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it that evolutionists jump on the opportunity to use the word 'evolution' any chance they have, regardless of if it is the best suited word for the sentence in question? is it the way they were intelligently designed? (see, if we started doing it, it would be really really annoying.. for you, at least)

but seriously... it really makes me laugh sometimes watching history/discovery. 'the evolution of handtools' oh, so now handtools traits and genes are transferred through reproduction? did the torx come

Re:

[Virak]

evolution [reference.com]
-noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Welcome to the English language. You must be new here.

Re:

[HazMathew]

Welcome to Slashdot, Land of the Opinionated Anonymous Cowards.

Re:

[Virak]

i said that regardless if it is the best choice of word for the sentence, it is still chosen by evolutionists far more often than not.

There is no best choice. Any of the synonyms of evolution could be dropped in without a difference.

its rare to see an evolutionist use the words progress, progression, advancement, furtherance, development, succession, expansion, improvement and so forth. what's not rare to see, is a sentence built around the word evolution to make it fit correctly.

Again, you could drop in

Re:

[PingSpike]

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Duh. The English language has evolved into a sentient being which is trying to push its pro-evolution believes on us. Damned liberal languages, screwing with our heads.

Re:just wondering.

[blackicye]

"why is it that evolutionists jump on the opportunity to use the word 'evolution' any chance they have, regardless of if it is the best suited word for the sentence in question? is it the way they were intelligently designed? (see, if we started doing it, it would be really really annoying.. for you, at least)

but seriously... it really makes me laugh sometimes watching history/discovery. 'the evolution of handtools' oh, so now handtools traits and genes are transferred through reproduction? did the torx come by means of mutation?"

This is the story of the torx screwdriver, as I've been told.
its eons old, and I feel no need to question it, it just makes sense.

In the beginning there was nothing, Great Inventor Dude (GID)
decided, well this kinda sucks..

GID declared that there be stuff, the first day he
created bits and pieces.

GID then decided that bits and pieces still weren't really
that cool and created phillips and flathead, that they may
rule over all bits and pieces, and should they will it turn,
into stuff.

Well to make a long story short, phillips and flathead multiplied
and were many, till either or both, populated the earth.

Then phillips and flathead rebelled, and instead of making stuff
and honoring GID they started questioning and taking stuff apart.

So in a huge deluge lasting 90 days and 90 nights GID submerged
the earth a pool of molten steel.

no phillips or flathead was spared, they were all consumed by the
fire and brimstone and high carbon molten steel.

Only one place on earth was safe, atop a mountain, not the highest
mountain on earth mind you, but it was that mountain, there lay a
forge, and torx was its name.

Henceforth only the righteous torx would remain, to assemble and
build stuff as GID willed, never to be taken apart by phillips and flathead..ever again.

This is my story and I'm sticking to it.

^_~

Check the dictionary

[Mark Gordon]

1. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, any process of growth or development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
- 1913 Webster

The alternative to "evolution" is "the first draft == the final draft". That may be OK for a divinity who is by definition perfect and omnipotent, creating all biota in their current respective forms within the span of a week, but the rest of us typically have to take a more gradual approach towards getting what we want. Evolution in this cont

Re:

[TempeTerra]

As a bunch of people have already pointed out, 'evolution' is an entirely valid word on its own even though it's also commonly used as a shorthand for 'Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by means of natural selection operating on individuals with inheritable characteristics'. Evolution in general is just an iterative refinement.

My favourite 'other' (non-Darwinian) evolution is Lamarckian evolution - children inherit the characteristics of their parents based on phenotype (what their bodies

Re:

[Mark Gordon]

Lamarck obviously never attended a bris.

Re:

[sammy baby]

I know! Everything is "this was an evolutionary process," or "it just sort of evolved that way." It's just about at the point where it's impossible to find any stories on Slashdot containing the word "design," [slashdot.org], fer Designer's sake.

Re:

[bonoboboy]

I find it funny how the word 'evolutionist' has entered into so many people's vocabulary. I think it comes around from all those religious folks who have been so anti-evolution in America. ("Those evolutionists are out to destroy our morals!") I think most people who study evolution usually call themselves something more along the lines of 'evolutionary biologist'. :-D

Re:

[pissedoffamerican]

We crazy evolutionists' morals wouldn't be so bad if those creationists would stop driving us mad by constantly questioning them!

Re:

[shawnap]

What is an "evolutionist"?
I know arithmetic, but I am not a mathematician.
I understand classical dynamics, but I am not a physicist.
I am aware that the human heart has four chambers, but I am not a biologist.

I would suggest that you substitute the accepted term "they" in place of "evolutionist".

Feel free to use any of the following common constructions:
"They are all against me."
"They are all blind to the truth."
"They are all out to get me."
"They are always watching me."
"They have implanted a radio transmit

Re:

[OptimusPaul]

Is this for real? are they trying to be funny, because I don't get it.

Re:I for one...

[User 956]

Welcome our overlord... overlords?

We require more overlords.

Re:

[mmalove]

In Soviet Brood, the Overlords welcome YOU!

Re:

[databoing]

>We require more overlords.

No, no, no...

It's "SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS".

Maybe you're confusing it with "WE REQUIRE MORE VESPENE GAS" or "WE REQUIRE MORE MINERALS" ?

Re:

[koh]

Maybe you're confusing it with "WE REQUIRE MORE VESPENE GAS" or "WE REQUIRE MORE MINERALS"

IIRC it was "mine more minerals" and "harvest more vespene gas".

Re:

[biovoid]

Welcome our overlord... overlords?

We require more overlords.

ERROR: OVERLORD OVERLOAD

Fun stuff

[ShadowsHawk]

Starcraft was a blast and continues to be at LAN parties, but I'm looking forward to Supreme Commander. As balanced as Starcraft was, I found Total Annihilation to be a far better game.

Re:

[Firefly1]

I have a question for those of us who have been fortunate enough to play TA online: having gotten from my single-player experience that the command system is at once simple and tremendously empowering, why did it not catch on elsewhere in the genre?
Because so much of resource gathering and unit production can be semi-automated... what habits, if any, would RTS players have to break in Supreme Commander?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Most RTSs involve buying and selling in fixed chunks of money, while TA involves a flowing economy that continuously pushes and pulls small amounts of resources. As such, players will have to learn to not build too many things at the same time, while conversely trying to keep their factories from going idle as only a certain amount of surplus can be stored. That was the main problem I had playing TA; I would leave factories idle despite being filled up on metal and energy.

Re:

[ShadowsHawk]

Simple. The market was already flooded by the time TA came around. It never had a shot with the hotly anticipated Starcraft hot on its heels. I've listed some of the major releases, but you'll notice the timing for TA couldn't have been worse.

Command & Conquer August 31 1995
Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness December 9, 1995
Civilization II February 29, 1996
Command & Conquer: Red Alert October 31, 1996
Dark Reign August 31, 1997
Total Annihilation September 30, 1997
Age of Empires October 26, 1997
StarCraft

Re:

[Firefly1]

Simple. The market was already flooded by the time TA came around...

True, but it seems you misunderstood my initial question; perhaps I was not perfectly clear: it was not 'why didn't TA catch on among gamers?' but rather 'why didn't TA's gameplay mechanics catch on within the genre?'
And as long as we're here, I fully second orkysoft's comments on DoW; it's great fun to play (I suspect the Assassination condition one can set for skirmish/MP matches - wherein each player has a free hero unit from the word

Re:

[orkysoft]

I haven't played Total Annihilation, though I've seen it mentioned on Slashdot before. I have something to pitch in here too, though, about another not-that-well-known RTS game, which I think is cool.

Dawn of War has no resource collection like you usually see in RTS games, instead, there are Strategic Points (plus some other similar things) on the map, and if your troops occupy them, you get more of the Requisition resource which you use to get more troops and buildings.

The Power resource is generated by po

Re:

[Puff of Logic]

I haven't played Total Annihilation, though I've seen it mentioned on Slashdot before. I have something to pitch in here too, though, about another not-that-well-known RTS game, which I think is cool.

I rather suspect that the Dawn of War series is not quite as obscure as you think. Indeed, both the original game and the subsequent expansions were well-received by both the game media and by the community as a whole. Games Workshop has sufficiently large number of people who are either playing their products or at least have fond memories of doing so to virtually guarantee exposure for any software tied to their intellectual property. Thus, DoW, being a WH40K game, was quite well-covered in terms of b

Re:

[orkysoft]

Well, until recently, I never saw DoW in a store. Only since a few months do I see Dark Crusade for sale. Also, almost nobody I tell about it in real life has heard about it (and those are people who play way more games than I do). That's why I think it's kind of obscure, at least in my area.

I'll have to check the CoH demo some time. I wonder if my computer will run it...

Re:

[joshetc]

Wait.. you only have to break 1000 games to be considered an expert in Starcraft now? Man.. Battle.net has really gone downhill.

Re:

[dAzED1]

if the 1000 games lasted 10 minutes average, that's a full month at a normal job. If one *only* played 2 hours a night, every night, 7 days a week, it would still take them almost 3 months.

After analysis, I have this to say to you: go outside. Read a book, go jogging, do something.

I found this interesting, thanks

[QX-Mat]

As someone who thought they'd not find a good game after C&C or RA2, Starcraft and the expansion pack, Broodwar, was amazing. I finally got around to playing them 2+ years after everyone else but still really enjoyed the content and playability.

SC reminds me of the Dig - the cut scenes were just as epic, and voice acting superb... and the story-line: wow.

I miss you Tassadar!

Matt

Evolution of StarCraft - The Abridged Version

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

1. Open "Warcraft II" Project
2. Replace "Dragon" with "BattleCruiser", etc.
3. Fix the "runs as a DOS program" business
4. Save as "Starcraft" Project
5. Many years later, release IP-friendly patch

Re:

[Superken7]

Huh? No "Profit!" step!?

It will be interesting to see how the sequel evolves from the original StarCraft, though

Re:

[rbarreira]

3. Fix the "runs as a DOS program" business

Not necessary, already done! [wikipedia.org]

The StarCraft Brand and SC2

[moore.dustin]

The StarCraft brand is among the strongest game brands in the world in terms of a PC game and certainly for RTS games. That recognition was forged with a great game, great support (BNET, patches) and most importantly, adaptation as one of, if not the first game to be played on a wide-spread competitive level. StarCraft has enjoyed a vast amount of press based on these accomplishments and almost all have been positive over the years.

That being said, Blizzards time to cash in on the StarCraft name has got to be running out. Clamoring about the release of a second installment has been already been plentiful online for years. Blizzard has yet to say anything except that they hope to revisit the StarCraft world in the future. With the announcement, hype, and eventual termination of StarCraft: Ghost, Blizzard has yet to realize that in the way of a official release.

Time could now against Blizzard to cash in on the StarCraft brand. For many of us who played the game, we are fans forever, but for groves of people that know what a zerg rush is, but have never played, these peoples memory of the brand has got to be nearing its end. The StarCraft name means less and less everyday that goes on and new gamers are being introduced to the market who know nothing of its legacy.

Now on the other hand, Blizzard carries a brand as a publisher that is second to none in the PC World so it may not matter at all. They seem to break there own sales records with each game they release, so who knows :) - I am certainly routing for them.

Re:

[moore.dustin]

It wasn't. It was not even the first game I played online with others (War2 on kali). StarCraft, for me, never caught hold till the expansion when the game was much more complete from an online/competitive point.

Re:The StarCraft Brand and SC2

[bckrispi]

That being said, Blizzards time to cash in on the StarCraft name has got to be running out.

Starcraft was released nine years ago. To this day, you can still find copies of it on major retailer's shelves - not as part of a 'best of' collection, but as a standalone box. Name one other game in the history of PC gaming that can make that claim.

Re:

[Fred Ferrigno]

That being said, Blizzards time to cash in on the StarCraft name has got to be running out.

I think they've been too busy counting all that cash from WoW to work on any new games for a while.

Seriously though, with the subscription model being so profitable, it's hard to imagine Blizzard taking their focus off of WoW for a while yet. Although, once they're done milking WoW, I think the logical next step is with Diablo rather than StarCraft. Diablo could be adapted fairly easily to an MMO format as WoW's successor, though Blizzard would surely put their typical genre-defying twist on it. That way t

Re:

[kmac06]

Yes, because we all know how much the time delay between Warcraft II and World of Warcraft hurt Blizzard :P

Re:

[moore.dustin]

And let us not forget about that whole WarCraft 3 thing either...

Re:

[loraksus]

great support (BNET, patches)

Well.. except for those few YEARS that blizzard didn't do jack shit to fix the flaw with windows 2000 networking, causing people to drop all the fucking time.

Total Annihilation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this isn't news anyway, everyone should check out TA Spring, Total Annihilition > StarCraft/C&C/etc.

Yes, but will there be a Wii version of StarCraft?

[WillAffleckUW]

Now that you can play WoW on the Mac and soon on the Wii, PS3, and 360 - will they have StarCraft's successor on the same platforms?

I've given up on WinVista and am only staying with WinXP, so it's a serious question - if it won't run on the MacOS, Linux, BSD, or one of the new game consoles, I won't be buying it.

Re:Yes, but will there be a Wii version of StarCra

[maxmo55]

Just to clarify, there was a version of StarCraft for the Mac. It came out a little later, but I definitely spent a good deal of time my freshman year of college playing SC versus my PC using buddies.

It will be interesting to see if they end up releasing any new SC game for the consoles eventually (though I suppose them releasing it at all would be a good start), but I personally don't have much interest in playing an RTS without a keyboard.

Re:

[WillAffleckUW]

yes, I know, my son used to play StarCraft on his old iMac, but I was wondering about the new StarCraft successor on the Intel Mac Mini for example.

SC2, Revolutions, etc

[owlman17]

Slow newsday maybe, but this is still relevant. StarCraft is alive and kicking, and is still one of the best games ever made. The least Blizzard could do if it really doesn't want to make StarCraft II is to make a 3D update, or at least give its blessings to StarCraft Revolutions. [wc3campaigns.net] Its a win-win situation for everyone.

Artanis' quotes

[Meneth]

"What do I look like, an orc?" "This is not Warcraft in Space!" "It's much more... sophisticated!" "I know it's not 3-D!"