Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: How dead actually is Starcraft?

  1. #11

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich_bird View Post
    It's safe to say that, if there's a plot at all in the next game, it will be bad. Giving the narrative less exposition is probably the best thing they could do for the story itself. Misla is spot-on on that one. What made the older Blizzard stories good, was their more subtle nature. A return to form would do wonder. That's not to say that they need to go back to talking portraits but instead to let the players figure it out more often.
    I doubt that would fix it. Even affording the benefit of the doubt to SC1, the key plot points still don't make sense due to Metzen constantly rewriting them and making things up on the fly.

    Based on the manual's presentation of the backstory, you would expect the zerg to start invading planets and abducting people by the millions in order to process their genomes for the rare psychic mutations. This never happens in the game. Instead, the zerg mindlessly follow the psi-emitter plot device and effortlessly steamroll all opposition despite the manual stating they are at an extreme disadvantage.

    The manual doesn't give a clear timetable for the zerg's invasion so it's easy to assume they could deal with the terrans fairly easily, but the novels contradict that by presenting the terrans as a credible threat to the degree that the zerg invaded subtly up until the Confederacy somehow pissed them off by deploying psi-emitters. There's some plot holes there because it isn't explained 1) why the zerg would be mindlessly attracted to psi-emitters despite their intelligence and their own usage of psychic beacons to lure prey and their purpose in the sector being to harvest psychic mutants, nor 2) where they get the extra forces that seemingly come out of nowhere to invade the frontier after psi-emitter deployment.

    Metzen's execution simply isn't satisfying, not compared to the story I can devise myself based on the manual's setup.

  2. #12

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Does anyone aside from the hardcore geeks, really sweat or care about the exact plot points/plotting? It's never going to be fully immune against fridge logic and I don't think that any of that is what made Sc memorable anyway.

    It's clear that Sc's narrative is really about plotting, such that even the character development you do see is slaved to the plot (Sc2 is especially egregious of this even despite being more "character focused" since it's all in service of some grander plot). So until someone can write a believable and relatable character within the confines of that universes setup and without some overarching plot, it's still going to reek of artifice. It's also the reason why I find the smaller and unrelated short stories set within the universe more interesting than any of the mainline stuff we've had or potentially going to get in the future.
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  3. #13

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    Does anyone aside from the hardcore geeks, really sweat or care about the exact plot points/plotting? It's never going to be fully immune against fridge logic and I don't think that any of that is what made Sc memorable anyway.

    It's clear that Sc's narrative is really about plotting, such that even the character development you do see is slaved to the plot (Sc2 is especially egregious of this even despite being more "character focused" since it's all in service of some grander plot). So until someone can write a believable and relatable character within the confines of that universes setup and without some overarching plot, it's still going to reek of artifice. It's also the reason why I find the smaller and unrelated short stories set within the universe more interesting than any of the mainline stuff we've had or potentially going to get in the future.
    I have two things to say about that:

    Firstly, the canon plot is stupid. In earlier drafts, like the manual, the key plot points made sense and served as a decent basis for telling stories. Then stupidity like Raynor, Queen of Blades and Amon took over the plot at the expense of good writing and internal consistency. It simply isn't possible to tell a good story period without throwing those characters in the garbage where they belong.

    Secondly, the first contact war could totally support a character-driven war narrative a la Game of Thrones. The sheer scale means that there are few stories you could NOT tell. It steps on the toes of Warhammer 40,000 in that regard. The alien cultures of the protoss and zerg have so much room for exploration.

  4. #14

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    Does anyone aside from the hardcore geeks, really sweat or care about the exact plot points/plotting? It's never going to be fully immune against fridge logic and I don't think that any of that is what made Sc memorable anyway.

    It's clear that Sc's narrative is really about plotting, such that even the character development you do see is slaved to the plot (Sc2 is especially egregious of this even despite being more "character focused" since it's all in service of some grander plot). So until someone can write a believable and relatable character within the confines of that universes setup and without some overarching plot, it's still going to reek of artifice. It's also the reason why I find the smaller and unrelated short stories set within the universe more interesting than any of the mainline stuff we've had or potentially going to get in the future.
    That was my particular problem with the SC novels. They didn't work most of the time for that reason (that and their narrative is really bad). Liberty's Crusade was just a retelling of story we already knew with no new angles besides a fanfiction protagonist, Shadow of the Xel'Naga forced everybody in when it would have worked better as a matter of locals, the "Dark Templar" trilogy forced everybody in when it should have just been a Protoss story, etc. That's why my favorite of the novels is SCG: Nova, because it's very narrow in setting and primarily concerns one person -- not that it's actually good, it's just better than the others.

    Yeah, I guess the problems started when SC:Ghost was cancelled. Having a game like that would have fleshed out the Umojans and the Morians, who to this day aren't even up to the level of set dressing.


    "Seeing Fenix once more perplexes me. I feel sadness, when I should feel joy."
    - Artanis.

  5. #15

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    That was my particular problem with the SC novels. They didn't work most of the time for that reason (that and their narrative is really bad). Liberty's Crusade was just a retelling of story we already knew with no new angles besides a fanfiction protagonist, Shadow of the Xel'Naga forced everybody in when it would have worked better as a matter of locals, the "Dark Templar" trilogy forced everybody in when it should have just been a Protoss story, etc. That's why my favorite of the novels is SCG: Nova, because it's very narrow in setting and primarily concerns one person -- not that it's actually good, it's just better than the others.

    Yeah, I guess the problems started when SC:Ghost was cancelled. Having a game like that would have fleshed out the Umojans and the Morians, who to this day aren't even up to the level of set dressing.
    To this day I still don't understand just WHY Blizzard cancelled Ghost.

    I found Liberty's Crusade meh, the only thing that book gave was a little more view in Michael Liberty, but it was a shame they didn't try to follow it up with future books. He was briefly mentioned again in Spectres, but that didn't really count.

    The DT Saga was better because it explained more protoss history, but I can see why you rejected this because of the SC2 lore.

  6. #16

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    Firstly, the canon plot is stupid. In earlier drafts, like the manual, the key plot points made sense and served as a decent basis for telling stories.
    Well, the point I was trying to make was that even the plot in the manual/earlier drafts are kinda stupid, too, in a way, since it's all a contrived setup. The details of that setup or whatever one conceives are just minutiae that only us geeks care about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    Then stupidity like Raynor, Queen of Blades and Amon took over the plot at the expense of good writing and internal consistency. It simply isn't possible to tell a good story period without throwing those characters in the garbage where they belong.
    I don't know about that. Characters starting out as broad archetypes (Raynor being the everyman/audience surrogate, the Queen of Blade being the antagonist with a meaningful connection to all the other characters and Amon being the existential threat/big bad) don't necessarily mean they're bad forever more. Like tropes, they just need to be used well. Good stories utilise tropes but in a much more effective way than bad ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    Secondly, the first contact war could totally support a character-driven war narrative a la Game of Thrones. The sheer scale means that there are few stories you could NOT tell. It steps on the toes of Warhammer 40,000 in that regard. The alien cultures of the protoss and zerg have so much room for exploration.
    If I wanted my Starcraft to be more like Game of Thrones and/or Warhammer 40K, why would I not just go enjoy Game of Thrones/WH40K instead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    That was my particular problem with the SC novels.
    Heh, I knew there was a reason I never got around/felt motivated to reading them lol.

    To me, Sc1 wasn't epic or feel that way just because it was about the big things and big events that occurred but rather because it was about the smallness of it and how individual/little things can have an impact in that small world and moreso to others within that small world. The short stories that got released in between the Sc2 installments captured that feeling the most, I think. Sure they were about inconsequential nobodies who would never have chance at tilting the status quo of that universe at large, but those stories were so focused and felt epic in and of themselves, it eclipsed whatever huge gamechanging "epic" event/plot point that did happen in the main narrative (The Overmind is defeated! The UED are defeated/The Queen of Blades becomes the uncontested top dog! The Queen of Blades is deinfested! The Emperor of the Dominion is finally overthrown! The seemingly unstoppable existential threat that is Amon is defeated!).
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  7. #17

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nissa View Post
    That was my particular problem with the SC novels. They didn't work most of the time for that reason (that and their narrative is really bad). Liberty's Crusade was just a retelling of story we already knew with no new angles besides a fanfiction protagonist, Shadow of the Xel'Naga forced everybody in when it would have worked better as a matter of locals, the "Dark Templar" trilogy forced everybody in when it should have just been a Protoss story, etc. That's why my favorite of the novels is SCG: Nova, because it's very narrow in setting and primarily concerns one person -- not that it's actually good, it's just better than the others.

    Yeah, I guess the problems started when SC:Ghost was cancelled. Having a game like that would have fleshed out the Umojans and the Morians, who to this day aren't even up to the level of set dressing.
    Among many, many other problems with the lore.

    I agree that the personal stories are generally better. I still feel that Blizzard's ridiculous plot points tarnish their success. "The Teacher" short story was a nice twist on the idea that you could enslave the zerg, but the twist comes across as stupid because of Kerry's existence and the fact that it completely contradicts all the times before and after that zerg were successfully enslaved without problem. As a result, it comes across as a wacky side story of some idiots getting killed in circumstances that shouldn't be possible in the first place.

    It's frustrating. It took me about five minutes to rewrite the premise to something more satisfying and internally consistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    Well, the point I was trying to make was that even the plot in the manual/earlier drafts are kinda stupid, too, in a way, since it's all a contrived setup. The details of that setup or whatever one conceives are just minutiae that only us geeks care about.
    I said a bunch of times before that I know that the original setup was contrived. But I accept it because the macguffin trope isn't inherently bad. What matters is the execution.

    The zerg's shtick is that they assimilate useful biological traits from the species they hunt. If they are in the terran sector waging war on the terrans and the protoss at the same time, then they need a pretty good justification for spending so much effort. What useful trait would the terrans have than the zerg don't already possess?

    Let's be real here: there's no good reason for including the terrans at all besides a space magic excuse like purity of form. Purity of form is pretty much the least absurd reason I could think of. And even then it's still only a temporary solution since you can't have the zerg succeed without ending the terran arc forever. Hence why I'm not interested in exploring past the first contact war because there's no story past that point. At least no good story, anyway.

    Just having the terrans randomly in the way while the zerg are traveling to Aiur is not remotely satisfying. It makes zero sense the zerg would waste resources on the terrans when they more important priorities. That's one of the many, many reasons why the canon is so bad.

    What would you propose replacing that plot point with, and why/how would that be qualitatively better?

    I mean, there's no reason why the zerg had to be after the protoss in the first place. The '96 website didn't give them any reason for invading the galaxy. Of course, the inclusion of the terrans was still a lazy plot contrivance. The only reason there were terrans at all was because the protoss invaded koprulu to claim and study ancient xel'naga ruins that might give some insight into the invading zerg. This isn't even a good reason, since the preview provides absolutely no explanation for why this would ever be necessary. The zerg are invading, the protoss are defending, what is the point of studying some random ruins in the middle of nowhere? Why those ruins in that part of space?

    The determinant is a macguffin, sure, but it's the least ridiculous explanation out of every lore iteration before and after.

    But I'm willing to change my mind if you can put forward a sufficiently compelling alternative. No, random coincidence and red herrings don't compel me in these circumstances. Not without completely rewriting the story around that so it isn't a waste of words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    I don't know about that. Characters starting out as broad archetypes (Raynor being the everyman/audience surrogate, the Queen of Blade being the antagonist with a meaningful connection to all the other characters and Amon being the existential threat/big bad) don't necessarily mean they're bad forever more. Like tropes, they just need to be used well. Good stories utilise tropes but in a much more effective way than bad ones.
    Alright, I concede that the basic ideas aren't inherently bad. However, if I used them myself they'd be unrecognizable as the same characters because I can't write stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    If I wanted my Starcraft to be more like Game of Thrones and/or Warhammer 40K, why would I not just go enjoy Game of Thrones/WH40K instead?
    Neither of those is Starcraft. Neither of them has the things I like about Starcraft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    Heh, I knew there was a reason I never got around/felt motivated to reading them lol.

    To me, Sc1 wasn't epic or feel that way just because it was about the big things and big events that occurred but rather because it was about the smallness of it and how individual/little things can have an impact in that small world and moreso to others within that small world. The short stories that got released in between the Sc2 installments captured that feeling the most, I think. Sure they were about inconsequential nobodies who would never have chance at tilting the status quo of that universe at large, but those stories were so focused and felt epic in and of themselves, it eclipsed whatever huge gamechanging "epic" event/plot point that did happen in the main narrative (The Overmind is defeated! The UED are defeated/The Queen of Blades becomes the uncontested top dog! The Queen of Blades is deinfested! The Emperor of the Dominion is finally overthrown! The seemingly unstoppable existential threat that is Amon is defeated!).
    Yep, the starcraft games rehash the same outline over and over. It's ridiculous.

    As I said, this awful foundation tarnishes any good stories written in the universe. That's why I can't write fiction without abandoning canon. My standards are simply too high.

  8. #18

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    I don't know about that. Characters starting out as broad archetypes (Raynor being the everyman/audience surrogate, the Queen of Blade being the antagonist with a meaningful connection to all the other characters and Amon being the existential threat/big bad) don't necessarily mean they're bad forever more. Like tropes, they just need to be used well. Good stories utilise tropes but in a much more effective way than bad ones.
    Yeah but Blizzard didn't know how to do that effectively for SC2, since everyone knew you can't play another betrayal game yet again.

  9. #19

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    I said a bunch of times before that I know that the original setup was contrived. But I accept it because the macguffin trope isn't inherently bad. What matters is the execution.
    But all you're offering is just another setup (a more consistently contrived one though it may be) that purports to have better "execution" without any examples of said "execution" in practice (ie: like an actual story for us to look at). If the issue really is with the execution of the story, it's not really the setup you have to change, but the execution of the story in Sc1 that needs fixing, right? You can dismiss the Sc1 story all the like but you're not actually fixing the problem by starting again and rejigging the premise because that doesn't really guarantee that the story that plays out from this rejigged seteup/premise will have any better execution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    The zerg's shtick is that they assimilate useful biological traits from the species they hunt. If they are in the terran sector waging war on the terrans and the protoss at the same time, then they need a pretty good justification for spending so much effort. What useful trait would the terrans have than the zerg don't already possess?
    The Zerg deem the Terrans as insignificant and unworthy of assimilation were it not for this "psionic potential", so if we take that away, what else do Zerg do unworthy biological specimens they encounter along the way? They just purge them to "purify the strains". Sure, it's not a nice and engaging hook on paper but it's still faithful and realistic to the ethos of the Zerg. If you have to put a "shtick" on why the Zerg attack Terrans, you could have other mundane reasons (who said it has to be a special reason?) like gathering biomass or heck, even better, as a tactic to purposefully draw out and observe Protoss behaviour (since they respond due to the responsibilities of the Dae'Uhl) which the Overmind actually intended to do according to the manual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    Let's be real here: there's no good reason for including the terrans at all besides a space magic excuse like purity of form.
    Not entirely. The whole shtick of the Terrans is that they are there because they are just unfortunate. They're just there at the wrong place and the wrong time. Contrived sure? But what isn't in any fictional universe? It's no worse an excuse and less-on-the-nose than having them have some magical property that something else wants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    Just having the terrans randomly in the way while the zerg are traveling to Aiur is not remotely satisfying.
    Well, that's real life for you, buddy. Shit happens in life and for the Terrans in the K-sector, they don't just get shit, they've got the worst and runny kind...

    I don't find the magical macguffin reason any more comparatively satisfying honestly. It just makes it seem more artificial and a fiction - that everything has to have some kind of physical/inherent meaning for it to happen. That setup stuff isn't really that important to me beyond scratching my nerd interest in fluff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    I mean, there's no reason why the zerg had to be after the protoss in the first place.
    What? It's there in the manual. It can be reduced down to the Zerg wanting to be constantly "better" (with their own concept of what they deem "better") and they find info that makes them believe Protoss will make them "better" (if not the "best") by a lot. So they go and try to find them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    But I'm willing to change my mind if you can put forward a sufficiently compelling alternative. No, random coincidence and red herrings don't compel me in these circumstances.
    I doubt anything I would put down would suffice since what's compelling to one is largely subjective. Afterall, the Terrans having a magical property/purity form/macguffin that is sort after by the alien menace is really just another random coincidence - it's just one that you subjectively choose to ignore as being one in order to suit your preferences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mislagnissa View Post
    Neither of those is Starcraft. Neither of them has the things I like about Starcraft.
    Then why refer to them as something that Starcraft should emulate/be more like? It's why others are confused about what you want. You don't want Starcraft as it currently is to be Starcraft and you don't want Starcraft to be anything else, so just what the heck is "Starcraft" if it's not any of these things? Why not create a whole IP to meet your fanciful whim instead of trying to co-opt and force another thing into something nebulously not that thing but insisting that it still is that thing?
    Yes, that's right! That is indeed ME on the right.


    _______________________________________________

  10. #20

    Default Re: How dead actually is Starcraft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turalyon View Post
    But all you're offering is just another setup (a more consistently contrived one though it may be) that purports to have better "execution" without any examples of said "execution" in practice (ie: like an actual story for us to look at). If the issue really is with the execution of the story, it's not really the setup you have to change, but the execution of the story in Sc1 that needs fixing, right? You can dismiss the Sc1 story all the like but you're not actually fixing the problem by starting again and rejigging the premise because that doesn't really guarantee that the story that plays out from this rejigged seteup/premise will have any better execution.



    The Zerg deem the Terrans as insignificant and unworthy of assimilation were it not for this "psionic potential", so if we take that away, what else do Zerg do unworthy biological specimens they encounter along the way? They just purge them to "purify the strains". Sure, it's not a nice and engaging hook on paper but it's still faithful and realistic to the ethos of the Zerg. If you have to put a "shtick" on why the Zerg attack Terrans, you could have other mundane reasons (who said it has to be a special reason?) like gathering biomass or heck, even better, as a tactic to purposefully draw out and observe Protoss behaviour (since they respond due to the responsibilities of the Dae'Uhl) which the Overmind actually intended to do according to the manual.



    Not entirely. The whole shtick of the Terrans is that they are there because they are just unfortunate. They're just there at the wrong place and the wrong time. Contrived sure? But what isn't in any fictional universe? It's no worse an excuse and less-on-the-nose than having them have some magical property that something else wants.



    Well, that's real life for you, buddy. Shit happens in life and for the Terrans in the K-sector, they don't just get shit, they've got the worst and runny kind...

    I don't find the magical macguffin reason any more comparatively satisfying honestly. It just makes it seem more artificial and a fiction - that everything has to have some kind of physical/inherent meaning for it to happen. That setup stuff isn't really that important to me beyond scratching my nerd interest in fluff.



    What? It's there in the manual. It can be reduced down to the Zerg wanting to be constantly "better" (with their own concept of what they deem "better") and they find info that makes them believe Protoss will make them "better" (if not the "best") by a lot. So they go and try to find them.



    I doubt anything I would put down would suffice since what's compelling to one is largely subjective. Afterall, the Terrans having a magical property/purity form/macguffin that is sort after by the alien menace is really just another random coincidence - it's just one that you subjectively choose to ignore as being one in order to suit your preferences.



    Then why refer to them as something that Starcraft should emulate/be more like? It's why others are confused about what you want. You don't want Starcraft as it currently is to be Starcraft and you don't want Starcraft to be anything else, so just what the heck is "Starcraft" if it's not any of these things? Why not create a whole IP to meet your fanciful whim instead of trying to co-opt and force another thing into something nebulously not that thing but insisting that it still is that thing?
    Forgive the formatting and rambling. Iím typing on phone.

    I donít understand how you can be confused about what I want when Iíve made it clear many times.

    I want a story that isnít shit. The canon storyline is shit. It is a Swiss cheese of plot holes and Metzenís druggie ex-girlfriend fantasies.

    Arguing that my fanfiction isnít Starcraft... that doesnít help anyone. Canon is shit anyway and nobody except me actually wants to write anything good with the IP. Even the best writers will still be writing diamonds covered in shit unless they reboot the canon like I do. This fandom is severely anemic because most of the good writers were scared off by the shit writing.

    Even Blizzard doesnít give a shit about canon considering the complete lack of a real continuity. They donít even care enough to go back and rewrite the lore for consistency like they did in Warcraft Chronicles. Not that Warcraft Chronicles doesnít have loads of storytelling problems, but at least they tried to revise the continuity for consistency. I canít imagine how they would do that for Starcraft without it still being badly written. Their recap of SC1/BW in the WoL manual and old/dead SC2 website outright omitted the plot holes and heavily glossed over the events to make them seem reasonable at first glance. I will give whoever got the job of writing that recap credit for obviously being way smarter than Metzen. Low bar, I know.

    And I did propose an original IP that liberally ripped off starcraft, remember? We discussed it at length. But nobody actually gives a shit and wonít read my original universe. Iíd get a lawsuit from Blizzard anyway, so fanfiction is the only choice I have. If you want to change my mind, then go revive the original universe thread. I even tagged it #starcraft clone. Iím happy to discuss space elves and whatever if you are.

    Anyway...

    This is fiction. Itís all arbitrary. I donít understand why you keep trying to argue youíre right and Iím wrong. Either one of us could write better than Metzen because heís obviously a bloody moron. It doesnít matter what premise we choose.

    I think the determinant is a sufficient reason for the zerg to invade the terran sector. So I use it to explain the zerg invasion in my stories. You can even read them if you want.

    Yes, for the zillionth time, I know that the determinant is a bloody macguffin. If you think it doesnít work and want a better explanation that badly... Okay, letís assume the terran sector is centered on Earth and ATLAS didnít get lost a bazillion light years away, and the protoss empire claims/claimed the Orion Arm where the terran sector is. Terrans engage in cyberpunk dystopia, study protoss/xelínaga ruins, cyborg mutant criminals, reverse engineer alien tech to create psychic powers and basically give themselves nascent purity of form. Does that satisfy you? Your proposed solutions arenít any less arbitrary. You outright stated your own solutions are all nigh impossible coincidences anyway, how is the determinant any worse in that regard so as to make you hate it so much?

    (Also, thanks for inspiring in me this idea. I never thought of it before. However, next time please try to suggest constructive ideas rather than force me to scramble for rebuttals and rationalizations against your attempts to knock over my sandcastle.)

    If believe you can do better without it, then go write your own story and please stop telling me what/how to write.

    The reason I used GoT and 40k as examples is because:

    I like the character driven narrative and politics in GoT. They are a model that I would strive to emulate. Starcraft canon politics are shit tier by comparison. So I would rewrite SC politics to emulate GoT.

    SC is basically a rip-off of 40k. 40k emphasizes the small-scale storytelling you praised, so itís a model to emulate. However, SC giving actual personalities to the zerg made them superior for storytelling compared to tyranids. You can do vastly more with zerg than tyranids. (Obviously Iím ignoring shit tier characters like QoB.)

    At this point, I highly doubt weíll ever be able to have constructive discussions since you obviously donít like anything I write. Just go revive the bloody clone thread already since you seem to have less problem with it.

Similar Threads

  1. The Walking Dead
    By //MavericK\\ in forum Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2012, 06:26 PM
  2. Dead Man Crawling
    By //MavericK\\ in forum Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 09:58 AM
  3. Are they dead?
    By Perfecttear in forum Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-11-2009, 12:25 AM
  4. Wall of the Dead
    By Dauntless in forum StarCraft II Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-23-2009, 05:24 PM
  5. Dawn of the Dead - StarCraft
    By strikesback5 in forum StarCraft: Brood War Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 05:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •