815 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

That's pretty much what Shepard says to Liara at the end of Lair, in the ship.
"I'm worried" = "I don't know how we're going to do this. I have no idea of where to go from here."
Or the lower response in the second option:
"What did we accomplish? We blew up a base, stopped the abductions, but..."

Bioware is aware of where the plot is, what the players have seen, and what it looks like to us. But they don't feel that way because they have the larger picture. They can see "into the future" of the game, and where they left us in ME 2 was apparently quite deliberate.

I used to think that way.  But since interviews have shown us that there is no Grand Script, and that aside from a few broad outlines, they' pretty much "winging it", I'm no longer quite so sure what's deliberate and what just sounded good at the time.

[Foolsfolly]

iakus wrote...

StarcloudSWG wrote...

That's pretty much what Shepard says to Liara at the end of Lair, in the ship.
"I'm worried" = "I don't know how we're going to do this. I have no idea of where to go from here."
Or the lower response in the second option:
"What did we accomplish? We blew up a base, stopped the abductions, but..."

Bioware is aware of where the plot is, what the players have seen, and what it looks like to us. But they don't feel that way because they have the larger picture. They can see "into the future" of the game, and where they left us in ME 2 was apparently quite deliberate.

I used to think that way.  But since interviews have shown us that there is no Grand Script, and that aside from a few broad outlines, they' pretty much "winging it", I'm no longer quite so sure what's deliberate and what just sounded good at the time.

Please, you actually believe that the writers who have spent over 6 years on this property don't at least have an idea about where it's heading?

Don't be so dense.

[Iakus]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Please, you actually believe that the writers who have spent over 6 years on this property don't at least have an idea about where it's heading?

Don't be so dense.

An idea?  Sure.  It's how much of an idea that things get a little fuzzy

[Revan312]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Please, you actually believe that the writers who have spent over 6 years on this property don't at least have an idea about where it's heading?

Don't be so dense.

The writers for BSG had six years to figure out where to take it and we pretty much found out they were winging it, which is obvious when watching the finale, they had no idea what to do so they "concentrated on the characters" which made for a horrific ending imo.

Lost had more than six years to figure out where it was going and it's painfully obvious how disjointed and on the fly that show was, the finale of it as well being down right pathetic, answering none of the questions they brought up throughout the course of the show.

Length of time =/= knowing what your doing with the story. Not that I think that will be the case with ME3, I think it's ability to produce multiple endings will appease pretty much everyone, but just pointing out that writers that spend numerous years on a project can still simply be winging it..

[StarcloudSWG]

Revan312 wrote...

The main plot of ME2 could literally take 4 hours to beat.. Wake up, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector ship, dead Reaper and finally suicide mission. The rest is fluff, fairly well done fluff, but fluff none the less. There's no integration between goal and content. The majority of ME1 quests were infused into the main story in some way.. Sure there were missions like "find my (dead) brother" or the cerberus quests, but most of the content involved individuals on the main planets you visit and the problems they have. Problems that help you achieve your specific goal on that planet.

The main plot of ME 1 could also literally take four hours to beat, if it weren't for the long drawn out Mako 'exploration' scenes and the tedious inventory management. Seriously. Pick up Liara, go to Feros, go to Noveria, go to Vermire go to Ilos, take the Conduit, fight Seren.

[Frybread76]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

The main plot of ME2 could literally take 4 hours to beat.. Wake up, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector ship, dead Reaper and finally suicide mission. The rest is fluff, fairly well done fluff, but fluff none the less. There's no integration between goal and content. The majority of ME1 quests were infused into the main story in some way.. Sure there were missions like "find my (dead) brother" or the cerberus quests, but most of the content involved individuals on the main planets you visit and the problems they have. Problems that help you achieve your specific goal on that planet.

The main plot of ME 1 could also literally take four hours to beat, if it weren't for the long drawn out Mako 'exploration' scenes and the tedious inventory management. Seriously. Pick up Liara, go to Feros, go to Noveria, go to Vermire go to Ilos, take the Conduit, fight Seren.

Hyperbole aside, the main plot was much longer in ME1 than ME2.  IOW, there were more missions in ME1 that advanced the main plot than there were in ME2.

[Randy1012]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

The main plot of ME2 could literally take 4 hours to beat.. Wake up, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector ship, dead Reaper and finally suicide mission. The rest is fluff, fairly well done fluff, but fluff none the less. There's no integration between goal and content. The majority of ME1 quests were infused into the main story in some way.. Sure there were missions like "find my (dead) brother" or the cerberus quests, but most of the content involved individuals on the main planets you visit and the problems they have. Problems that help you achieve your specific goal on that planet.

The main plot of ME 1 could also literally take four hours to beat, if it weren't for the long drawn out Mako 'exploration' scenes and the tedious inventory management. Seriously. Pick up Liara, go to Feros, go to Noveria, go to Vermire go to Ilos, take the Conduit, fight Seren.

Mass Effect
Recover the Beacon > Meet Garrus and Wrex, Rescue Tali, Expose Saren > Rescue Liara > Find the Cipher > Locate the Mu Relay > Destroy Saren's Base > Escape the Lockdown > Find the Conduit > Defeat Saren and Destroy Sovereign

Mass Effect 2
Destruction of the Normandy > Escape from Lazarus Station > Explore Freedom's Progress > Defend Horizon > Investigate the Collector Ship > Acquire the Reaper IFF > Assault the Collector Base > Destroy the Human Reaper

The plot in ME2 was practically an afterthought. Shepard instead spends 90% of the time dealing with grown adults' emotional angst. The main plot worlds in ME1 also had far more depth and content than those found in ME2, most of which could be completed within half an hour.

[wizardryforever]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

I don't necessarily support either side of this argument I just have a question for you smud.  Why is it whenever ou post it's rude, snide, provocative, and generally unwelcome?

Take a look at this page: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fandumb, scroll down to the Culture Alien and Toxic Critic entries.  That's smud for ya.

Anyway, arguments about plot comparisons are subjective and I want to hear some objective stuff comparing the two games.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument that proves that there is NO nostalgia at work here at all.  Everything people have brought up has been subjective, and I find it utterly unbelievable that nostalgia is completely absent from any of these opinions.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

ScooterPie88 wrote...

I don't necessarily support either side of this argument I just have a question for you smud.  Why is it whenever ou post it's rude, snide, provocative, and generally unwelcome?

Take a look at this page: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fandumb, scroll down to the Culture Alien and Toxic Critic entries.  That's smud for ya.

Anyway, arguments about plot comparisons are subjective and I want to hear some objective stuff comparing the two games.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument that proves that there is NO nostalgia at work here at all.  Everything people have brought up has been subjective, and I find it utterly unbelievable that nostalgia is completely absent from any of these opinions.

Haven't you been reading this thread?  Others have posted several examples of how ME1 has superior story to ME2.

It seems to me this thread was just your attempt to rile everyone up and create some kind of fight.

[smudboy]

wizardryforever wrote...

ScooterPie88 wrote...

I don't necessarily support either side of this argument I just have a question for you smud.  Why is it whenever ou post it's rude, snide, provocative, and generally unwelcome?

Take a look at this page: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fandumb, scroll down to the Culture Alien and Toxic Critic entries.  That's smud for ya.

Anyway, arguments about plot comparisons are subjective and I want to hear some objective stuff comparing the two games.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument that proves that there is NO nostalgia at work here at all.  Everything people have brought up has been subjective, and I find it utterly unbelievable that nostalgia is completely absent from any of these opinions.

Here you go.

I'm a Fandumb what now?

Modifié par smudboy, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:01 .

[wizardryforever]

Randy1083 wrote...

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

The main plot of ME2 could literally take 4 hours to beat.. Wake up, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector ship, dead Reaper and finally suicide mission. The rest is fluff, fairly well done fluff, but fluff none the less. There's no integration between goal and content. The majority of ME1 quests were infused into the main story in some way.. Sure there were missions like "find my (dead) brother" or the cerberus quests, but most of the content involved individuals on the main planets you visit and the problems they have. Problems that help you achieve your specific goal on that planet.

The main plot of ME 1 could also literally take four hours to beat, if it weren't for the long drawn out Mako 'exploration' scenes and the tedious inventory management. Seriously. Pick up Liara, go to Feros, go to Noveria, go to Vermire go to Ilos, take the Conduit, fight Seren.

Mass Effect
Recover the Beacon > Meet Garrus and Wrex, Rescue Tali, Expose Saren > Rescue Liara > Find the Cipher > Locate the Mu Relay > Destroy Saren's Base > Escape the Lockdown > Find the Conduit > Defeat Saren and Destroy Sovereign

Mass Effect 2
Destruction of the Normandy > Escape from Lazarus Station > Explore Freedom's Progress > Recruit four unique squadmates for the mission > Defend Horizon >  Recruit some more unique squadmates or do other stuff > Investigate the Collector Ship >  Ensure everyone is ready for the Suicide Mission > Acquire the Reaper IFF > Assault the Collector Base > Destroy the Human Reaper

The plot in ME2 was practically an afterthought. Shepard instead spends 90% of the time dealing with grown adults' emotional angst. The main plot worlds in ME1 also had far more depth and content than those found in ME2, most of which could be completed within half an hour.

Added some important points to ME2's plotline that you forgot.  Considering this, ME2 has more missions that are story missions than ME1 did.  The difference was that ME1's missions took longer to do.  This does not by itself make the plot better or worse.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:04 .

[Nozybidaj]

Frybread76 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

ScooterPie88 wrote...

I don't necessarily support either side of this argument I just have a question for you smud.  Why is it whenever ou post it's rude, snide, provocative, and generally unwelcome?

Take a look at this page: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fandumb, scroll down to the Culture Alien and Toxic Critic entries.  That's smud for ya.

Anyway, arguments about plot comparisons are subjective and I want to hear some objective stuff comparing the two games.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument that proves that there is NO nostalgia at work here at all.  Everything people have brought up has been subjective, and I find it utterly unbelievable that nostalgia is completely absent from any of these opinions.

Haven't you been reading this thread?  Others have posted several examples of how ME1 has superior story to ME2.

It seems to me this thread was just your attempt to rile everyone up and create some kind of fight.

I thought that was readily apparent several pages ago.  You could say "2+2=4" and he would repsond "that's just your nostalgia talking"

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

Anyway, arguments about plot comparisons are subjective and I want to hear some objective stuff comparing the two games.  I have yet to hear a compelling argument that proves that there is NO nostalgia at work here at all.  Everything people have brought up has been subjective, and I find it utterly unbelievable that nostalgia is completely absent from any of these opinions.

Of course nostalgia isn't completely absent.  We liked ME 1, and looked forward to a continuation with that story.  But what we got was ME 2, which I feel swapped out storyline for cinema.  We want the feel of ME 1 back.

Earlier you wrote about what's necessary for an rpg.  I responded with the problems I had with ME 2, remember?

wizardryforever wrote...

  Dialogue, story, and an opportunity to influence that story is all that is necessary to be an RPG.. 

I'm inclined to agree.  Now look at my problems with ME 2:

Dialogue.

Which of your companions, in Jacob's loyalty mission:
Advocate arresting Jacob's father?
Advocate leaving him to his fate?
Would rather kill him?

Garrus wants to kill Sidonis.  What do the following have to say about that?
Thane.  Samara.  Tali.

At what point in the game does Tali express her concerns about having an AI (EDI) on board?

Mordin is struggling to decide what to do with the genophage data.  Which companions advocate destroying it?  Which advocate keeping it?

Story

How is ME 2 a continuation of the ME 1 story?  Keep in mind that ME 2 has an almost entirely new cast, a new enemy that's introduced and promptly forgotten about, and glaring continuity problems with ME 1

Opportunity to influence the story:

This is where ME 2 actually hurts ME 1.  ME 2 cannot simply be judged as a standalone game, but as a sequel to ME 1.

What choices end up mattering?  No, not all the choices in ME 1 had to have an immediate impact on ME 2 (I actually thought the rachni cameo was well done), but there were some that should.  The fate of the Council, the Virmire survivor, your LI, if any.  Anderson or Udina as Councilor.  Missions you took against Cerberus.

In addition, how do you think your choices in ME 2 will matter in ME 3?  Keep in mind that most recruitment missions, and all loyalty missions are skippable.  Any squadmate can potentially die, and all these games are supposed to be "standalone".  How will these choices matter in ME 3 without penalizing newcomers?

[smudboy]

Damned nostalgia. Creeping up on us like that and biasing all our opinions on ME2 that have nothing to do with ME1.

[upsettingshorts]

Value judgments aside, there are different ways to advance a story:

Mass Effect 1 was plot driven. It was - more or less - a chase. You were investigating and pursuing Saren. Plot driven stories are heavily reliant on tension and pacing, and character development while not unwelcome is mostly incidental and discovered along the way.  Example:  The Hunt for Red October.
Mass Effect 2 was character driven. The recruitment and loyalty-building of your squad served to move the story forward. In character driven stories emotional engagement with the characters and their motivations are more important than tension and pacing, which are still present as a result of attachment to the characters.  Example: Firefly.

Oh, and value judgments aside means that opinions over which game pulled off their story better are irrelevant to the point of my post - which is simply to say that to claim that Mass Effect 2 had no plot because it focused on characters makes no sense. 

Whether or not its character-driven plot is any good is another matter entirely, but it is there and it isn't an afterthought - it was just a different approach.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:09 .

[smudboy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Value judgments aside, there are different ways to advance a story:

Mass Effect 1 was plot driven. It was - more or less - a chase. You were investigating and pursuing Saren. Plot driven stories are heavily reliant on tension and pacing, and character development while not unwelcome is mostly incidental and discovered along the way.
Mass Effect 2 was character driven. The recruitment and loyalty-building of your squad served to move the story forward. In character driven stories emotional engagement with the characters and their motivations are more important than tension and pacing, which are still present as a result of attachment to the characters.

Oh, and value judgments aside means that opinions over which game pulled off their story better are irrelevant to the point of my post.

How was ME2 character driven?  The plot was to stop the Collectors stop the daddy issues do something.  Side stories are not the main plot.  In fact, they had no impact on anything main plot related.

[wizardryforever]

Why do people act like nostalgia is some kind of embarassing STD?  Nostalgia is not bad, I've admitted to having nostalgia myself, and it colors my opinion on many past games.  This thread was designed to explore people's reasoning, not start a flame war.  You'd think I'd accused everyone of having herpes the way people have reacted to a simple question.  Jesus.

I have never said that ME1 was bad, only that objectively speaking, ME2 has better gameplay.  I'm not attacking anyone who likes ME1 better, or their beliefs.  All I'm asking is that people examine their underlying reasoning here.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Randy1083 wrote...

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

The main plot of ME2 could literally take 4 hours to beat.. Wake up, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector ship, dead Reaper and finally suicide mission. The rest is fluff, fairly well done fluff, but fluff none the less. There's no integration between goal and content. The majority of ME1 quests were infused into the main story in some way.. Sure there were missions like "find my (dead) brother" or the cerberus quests, but most of the content involved individuals on the main planets you visit and the problems they have. Problems that help you achieve your specific goal on that planet.

The main plot of ME 1 could also literally take four hours to beat, if it weren't for the long drawn out Mako 'exploration' scenes and the tedious inventory management. Seriously. Pick up Liara, go to Feros, go to Noveria, go to Vermire go to Ilos, take the Conduit, fight Seren.

Mass Effect
Recover the Beacon > Meet Garrus and Wrex, Rescue Tali, Expose Saren > Rescue Liara > Find the Cipher > Locate the Mu Relay > Destroy Saren's Base > Escape the Lockdown > Find the Conduit > Defeat Saren and Destroy Sovereign

Mass Effect 2
Destruction of the Normandy > Escape from Lazarus Station > Explore Freedom's Progress > Recruit four unique squadmates for the mission > Defend Horizon >  Recruit some more unique squadmates or do other stuff > Investigate the Collector Ship >  Ensure everyone is ready for the Suicide Mission > Acquire the Reaper IFF > Assault the Collector Base > Destroy the Human Reaper

The plot in ME2 was practically an afterthought. Shepard instead spends 90% of the time dealing with grown adults' emotional angst. The main plot worlds in ME1 also had far more depth and content than those found in ME2, most of which could be completed within half an hour.

Added some important points to ME2's plotline that you forgot.  Considering this, ME2 has more missions that are story missions than ME1 did.  The difference was that ME1's missions took longer to do.  This does not by itself make the plot better or worse.

You should add that hardly any of those "recruiting" and "loyalty" missions advances the main story beyond the game mechanic that counts how many missions have been done to activate the main story-related quests of Horizon, the Reaper IFF and the Suicide Mission.

[upsettingshorts]

smudboy wrote...
How was ME2 character driven?  The plot was to stop the Collectors stop the daddy issues do something.  Side stories are not the main plot.  In fact, they had no impact on anything main plot related.

In order to avoid entangling myself in yet another long pointless debate, I'll say this:

In my view, the recruitment and loyalty missions were the main plot.  The jeopardy of the Collectors just served as a MacGuffin to bring these people together.

My point of view will be perfectly valid until such a time that Bioware announces that Mass Effect 3 will have Shepard utilizing a whole new crew and the team he built in ME2 will be reduced to cameos or worse.  Then I'll get to join the forum rage.  Until then, I'm going to enjoy hoping all of them* will be back for the big finale, in which case I expect my view of the purpose of ME2's plot will be validated.

I'm fully aware though that until we know more about ME3, it's basically just yet another unsubstantiated opinion on these forums.  We've all got 'em.

* That survive.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:17 .

[Randy1012]

wizardryforever wrote...

Added some important points to ME2's plotline that you forgot.  Considering this, ME2 has more missions that are story missions than ME1 did.  The difference was that ME1's missions took longer to do.  This does not by itself make the plot better or worse.

I wasn't comparing the amount of story missions, just their depth and amount of content, which ME1 wins by a very large margin. Recruiting people isn't a plot, it's a time waster. Half of the people we're sent to recruit have no impact on the storyline and almost none of them have any connection whatsoever to the Collectors.

ME2 would have been better off if they'd cut half of the squadmates and devoted that extra time to fleshing out the plot and giving the Collectors an actual presence in the story. The only really essential characters are Miranda, Jacob, Mordin, Grunt, Legion, Garrus, Tali, and Jack. That's still more squadmates than we had in ME1. It also would have been nice if we hadn't had every plot point spoonfed to us by the Illusive Man. In ME1 we actually had to uncover the mystery ourselves, for the most part. In ME2 all we had to do was complete a few missions until Conductor TIM decided it was time to get the plot chugging down the railroad again.

[upsettingshorts]

Randy1083 wrote...
Recruiting people isn't a plot, it's a time waster.

That's one view.

[Frybread76]

Randy1083 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Added some important points to ME2's plotline that you forgot.  Considering this, ME2 has more missions that are story missions than ME1 did.  The difference was that ME1's missions took longer to do.  This does not by itself make the plot better or worse.

I wasn't comparing the amount of story missions, just their depth and amount of content, which ME1 wins by a very large margin. Recruiting people isn't a plot, it's a time waster. Half of the people we're sent to recruit have no impact on the storyline and almost none of them have any connection whatsoever to the Collectors.

ME2 would have been better off if they'd cut half of the squadmates and devoted that extra time to fleshing out the plot and giving the Collectors an actual presence in the story. The only really essential characters are Miranda, Jacob, Mordin, Grunt, Legion, Garrus, Tali, and Jack. That's still more squadmates than we had in ME1. It also would have been nice if we hadn't had every plot point spoonfed to us by the Illusive Man. In ME1 we actually had to uncover the mystery ourselves, for the most part. In ME2 all we had to do was complete a few missions until Conductor TIM decided it was time to get the plot chugging down the railroad again.

Don't forget the assumed fact that most of the characters you recruit can be killed and some don't even have to be recuirted.  Additionally, some have said it sounds like many might not even make it into ME3.  If all of this is true, it makes ME2 seem like an even bigger waste of time than if all 12 could be transferred over to ME3.

[Iakus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Value judgments aside, there are different ways to advance a story:

Mass Effect 1 was plot driven. It was - more or less - a chase. You were investigating and pursuing Saren. Plot driven stories are heavily reliant on tension and pacing, and character development while not unwelcome is mostly incidental and discovered along the way.  Example:  The Hunt for Red October.
Mass Effect 2 was character driven. The recruitment and loyalty-building of your squad served to move the story forward. In character driven stories emotional engagement with the characters and their motivations are more important than tension and pacing, which are still present as a result of attachment to the characters.  Example: Firefly.

Oh, and value judgments aside means that opinions over which game pulled off their story better are irrelevant to the point of my post.

I have nothing against character driven stories.  I enjoyed Firefly, Lost, Battlestar Galactica.  Creating a "Dirty Dozen in Space" stroy would not have been my first choice in a stgroy, but I could see how it could work.

Except, the crew of Serenity interacted a  lot more than Shepard's squad.  Honestly, did Tali and Legion even realize thet Shepard had recruited the other before their squabble?  How can you have a character driven story if the characters don't interact?  Yes, the loyalty missions are good, but by themselves, they cannot adequately develop teh character.  It's only a good start.  By not letting the squad interact; chat, fight, argue, give Shepard input, disagree with Shep's choices, or even comment much on a given situation, they left the job half-done.

[smudboy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In order to avoid entangling myself in yet another long pointless debate, I'll say this:

In my view, the recruitment and loyalty missions were the main plot.  The jeopardy of the Collectors just served as a MacGuffin to bring these people together.

My point of view will be perfectly valid until such a time that Bioware announces that Mass Effect 3 will have Shepard utilizing a whole new crew and the team he built in ME2 will be reduced to cameos or worse.  Then I'll get to join the forum rage.  Until then, I'm going to enjoy hoping all of them* will be back for the big finale, in which case I expect my view of the purpose of ME2's plot will be validated.

I'm fully aware though that until we know more about ME3, it's basically just yet another unsubstantiated opinion on these forums.  We've all got 'em.

* That survive.

Dude, ME2 was a frame story.  That means there's an underlying story framing the other stories.  The Collectors are not a MacGuffin.  That doesn't...make sense.  You can completely skip the loyalty missions.  Are you saying the plot is completely skippable then?

ME3 will have a whole new crew.  Because they can all die.  Because Casey said so.

[upsettingshorts]

Frybread76 wrote...
Don't forget the assumed fact that most of the characters you recruit can be killed and some don't even have to be recuirted.  Additionally, some have said it sounds like many might not even make it into ME3.  If all of this is true, it makes ME2 seem like an even bigger waste of time than if all 12 could be transferred over to ME3.

I don't buy that, yet.

In order to even import a save from Mass Effect 2 to 3, at least two ME2 squadmates must have survived.  This seems somewhat artificial.  Why not one?  Is one squadmate incapable of lifting Shepard up into the Normandy?  No, considering when two survive it only takes one to do it.

So why the 2-other-people must survive plot device? 

How many squadmates must Shepard take with him during missions in both Mass Effect 1-2?  Two.

So at a bare minimum, any imported save from ME2 to 3 will have enough characters to play the game.  Throw in the fact that Ashley/Kaidan has plot armor by being safely hidden from the plot and you're up to three potential characters.  

Am I basing a lot on the assumption that Bioware wouldn't use some artificial, hamfisted, "two squadmates must survive in order for a save to be importable" plot device if they didn't have some reason for doing it?  I sure am.

smudboy wrote...
ME3 will have a whole new crew.  Because they can all die.  Because Casey said so.

Then Bioware will have failed and ME2 was a total and utter waste of time. 

Edit: Maybe it's a result of me skimming, but I don't see where he says that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:26 .