262 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

Jacen987 wrote...

The whole "ME1 was perfect example of  RPG evolution and had all staples of the |RPG" is equivalent to "ME2 didnt need any RPG elements and the games structure was perfect".Both games seem to have their apologists,but their both flawed,in some way or another.

The Main difference is,after having followed ME1 developent progress,i consider it to be a work in progress title.The game was so initially so umbitious.What we had in the end was a ton of ideas,that were half realized and some that just never made the cut.ME2 didnt finish the work ME1 started,didnt rebalance or evolve those mechanics.Instead they just cut them right off to persue a different genre expierience.

So generally ME1 atleast tried.It wasnt perfect,but atleast it was a true Hybrid.Just look at ME2 general Level structure and mechanics ,and tell me it isnt taylored to something like Gears or Uncharted.

Theiy simply needed to continue along the same line of developent.But its obvious the whole COD craze got to them.Its still an RPG where it counts,but its missing so much.Its wasted potential,trying to be something its not.

Did you watch the video? Level structure? Both games heavily feature corridors filled with waist high cover, and walls with conveniently shaped waist high holes in them from which to shoot from.

Here is another. Sure it also has a stair well, but so does this level from ME 2.

The myth that some ME 1 didn't make HEAVY use of the shooting gallery style levels of ME 2 is just that, a myth.

And as far as being a hybrid goes, I actually think ME 2 is more of a hybrid than ME 1 is although they're kind of like two sides of the same coin. I felt with ME 1 the shooter aspects of it were so bad, stat, and gear based, that the game was essentially an RPG with guns. ME 2 flipped that on it's head some and became more of shooter with rpg features but I feel of the two it was the better mix

Lastly with regards to GOW or Uncharted, it makes sense to try and emulate franchises that work on the aspects of the game that they felt they failed at. The entirety of the game doesn't feel like GOW or Uncharted to me, only the shooting does. I can't even say the combat because neither Gears nor Uncharted feature stat based powers that you use in battle, or a controllable squad, that are also customizable, or a narrative that you actually have an effect on. I mean Uncharted had a GREAT story, but you certainly had no control or impact on it in any way shape or form. Nathan Drake was going to do what Nathan Drake was going to do regardless.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 12:18 .

[Schneidend]

That's because if the player DID try to control Nathan Drake's actions completely, he'd make some kind of quip about said player so chock full of wiseassery the controller would explode.



Anyway, I think threads like these are fairly moot. If Christina Norman, who is awesome, says she's putting forth effort to make the RPG elements a bit deeper in ME3, I don't think we have anything to worry about. She turned ME1's ******-poor shooting into something stellar for ME2, after all. If she's focusing on tweaking the RPG stuff, ME3 will probably be a truly exemplary (because nothing is "perfect") hybrid.



And people will STILL complain about it.

[sinosleep]

Didn't I get mad at you in a thread once? My bad man, you're an alright guy after all.

[Epic777]

Schneidend wrote...

That's because if the player DID try to control Nathan Drake's actions completely, he'd make some kind of quip about said player so chock full of wiseassery the controller would explode.

Anyway, I think threads like these are fairly moot. If Christina Norman, who is awesome, says she's putting forth effort to make the RPG elements a bit deeper in ME3, I don't think we have anything to worry about. She turned ME1's ******-poor shooting into something stellar for ME2, after all. If she's focusing on tweaking the RPG stuff, ME3 will probably be a truly exemplary (because nothing is "perfect") hybrid.

And people will STILL complain about it.

Sad but true

[Schneidend]

I think my being okay with Dragon Age 2 being $60 on PC pissed you off.



It's cool. I was being a bit of a wiseass/troll myself. I tend to flavor my posts with such things. It rarely meets others' tastes.



Love your vids, btw. I pimp them whenever says something flat out wrong about ME2 gameplay that you've covered, like how "useless" the shotgun is.

[sinosleep]

Lol, man, I was blowing up all over the place in that thread. I've been known to overreact to things on the forums once or twice a day. Thanks for spreading the vids around, I make a lot of em to disprove this or that claim, so it's good to see em posted for that purpose.



But, uh, back on topic......



Christina Norman rules!

[Jacen987]

sinosleep wrote...

Jacen987 wrote...

The whole "ME1 was perfect example of  RPG evolution and had all staples of the |RPG" is equivalent to "ME2 didnt need any RPG elements and the games structure was perfect".Both games seem to have their apologists,but their both flawed,in some way or another.

The Main difference is,after having followed ME1 developent progress,i consider it to be a work in progress title.The game was so initially so umbitious.What we had in the end was a ton of ideas,that were half realized and some that just never made the cut.ME2 didnt finish the work ME1 started,didnt rebalance or evolve those mechanics.Instead they just cut them right off to persue a different genre expierience.

So generally ME1 atleast tried.It wasnt perfect,but atleast it was a true Hybrid.Just look at ME2 general Level structure and mechanics ,and tell me it isnt taylored to something like Gears or Uncharted.

Theiy simply needed to continue along the same line of developent.But its obvious the whole COD craze got to them.Its still an RPG where it counts,but its missing so much.Its wasted potential,trying to be something its not.

Did you watch the video? Level structure? Both games heavily feature corridors filled with waist high cover, and walls with conveniently shaped waist high holes in them from which to shoot from.

Here is another. Sure it also has a stair well, but so does this level from ME 2.

The myth that some ME 1 didn't make HEAVY use of the shooting gallery style levels of ME 2 is just that, a myth.

And as far as being a hybrid goes, I actually think ME 2 is more of a hybrid than ME 1 is although they're kind of like two sides of the same coin. I felt with ME 1 the shooter aspects of it were so bad, stat, and gear based, that the game was essentially an RPG with guns. ME 2 flipped that on it's head some and became more of shooter with rpg features but I feel of the two it was the better mix

Lastly with regards to GOW or Uncharted, it makes sense to try and emulate franchises that work on the aspects of the game that they felt they failed at. The entirety of the game doesn't feel like GOW or Uncharted to me, only the shooting does. I can't even say the combat because neither Gears nor Uncharted feature stat based powers that you use in battle, or a controllable squad, that are also customizable, or a narrative that you actually have an effect on. I mean Uncharted had a GREAT story, but you certainly had no control or impact on it in any way shape or form. Nathan Drake was going to do what Nathan Drake was going to do regardless.

I've watched the video,and ive ACTUALLY played the game multiple times.And no its not quite the same.Stucture is similar,execution is not.Small camparison.Hub worlds.

The Citadel ME1 and Omega in ME 2.Both hub worlds.Citadel ME1 was entirely open from the beginning,shootouts took place as part of quest triggers or story progression.And you could return to the same area,once the quest was completed.

Omega ME2 is segmented and closed off.Areas only accessable as part of quests.General progression.Shoot,shoot some more,stoot ones again,talk once,repeat.All in linear progression.Almost no other quest in area,none viable after "complete main" is complete.Huge area closed off,never to be visited agian.

Feros ME1 Zhu's Hope hub.Furst you shoot some geth,then take Clear Tower quest.Then come back,talk to people,purshace equipment,get new quest.Do quest,come back,talk to others,get new quests.Finish main planet quest,come back,shootout in the same area,then underground passage.All in the same area,talking shooting,quests,progression.And the Area is revisitable at any time.

In ME2,once you enter you're stuck.You cant leave thanks to some invisable barrier. And will only shoot.There are no aditional quests and even if they are you cant come back.The game even pulls your gun out,as if to tell you "Shooting Gallery Pal"Outside you cant even draw a gun,telling you"No matter,what you do,or say,You will never,ever,get in a fight."Unlike ME1 where you could initiate a fight through conversation.
Linear,only shooting gallery,is worse than multi purpuse revisitable gallery.

On topic:Casey Hudson rules.Just putting it out there,is all!! But seriously i really respect,the man.

Modifié par Jacen987, 28 décembre 2010 - 12:57 .

[Cyberfrog81]

sinosleep wrote...
But, uh, back on topic......

Christina Norman rules!

That's on-topic?

In that case, I agree. She rules.
Also, I'm secretly admiring Casey Hudson. (Don't tell anyone.)

[sinosleep]

@Jacen987

I don't think the styles of hub world both games use are all that different from each other.

Many of the things you list as positives in the ME 1 format are largely irrelevant.

For one, being able to revisit areas you've already cleared. First, that's only half true, and secondly why would you bother?

Practically every side quest you get mid-mission, like all of the colonist related side quests on Feros, are resolved in the same area and as such can all be done at once, much like in ME 2.

Same thing applies to the survivor's quests on the way to ExoGeni headquarters. They are all really minor quests that are resolved at ExoGeni in one go. So why would you bother to revisit the area?

Then, as I mentioned earlier there ARE areas you don't continue to have access to once you've cleared them. From what I remember you don't get access to ExoGeni headquarters again once you've cleared it, you just have access to the colony (althogh I suppose I could be wrong, since once again, revisiting the area could be pointless and maybe that's why I never did), so I don't really see how that's any different than losing access to say the flight deck once you've finished Miranda's loyalty mission on Illium.

With regards to getting into fights in hub world style areas, on the whole they are few and far between, and when they happen it's not as if you didn't see them coming. It's no more surprising getting into a fight after threatening a Krogan to stop messing with the good doctor than it is getting into a fight with some krogans who are paying Mordin's homeboy to find a cure for the genophage after you light their leader on fire mid conversation.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 01:28 .

[MassEffect762]

Bioware knows what us RPG nerds/fans want, I'm not exactly sure what was going through their collective minds when they finalized the RPG mechanics of ME2 but here's hoping they toss us a bone with some meat on it next time around.

[Jacen987]

sinosleep wrote...


@Jacen987

I don't think the styles of hub world both games use are all that different from each other.

Many of the things you list as positives in the ME 1 format are largely irrelevant.

For one, being able to revisit areas you've already cleared. First, that's only half true, and secondly why would you bother?

Practically every side quest you get mid-mission, like all of the colonist related side quests on Feros, are resolved in the same area and as such can all be done at once, much like in ME 2.

Same thing applies to the survivor's quests on the way to ExoGeni headquarters. They are all really minor quests that are resolved at ExoGeni in one go. So why would you bother to revisit the area?

Then, as I mentioned earlier there ARE areas you don't continue to have access to once you've cleared them. From what I remember you don't get access to ExoGeni headquarters again once you've cleared it, you just have access to the colony (althogh I suppose I could be wrong, since once again, revisiting the area could be pointless and maybe that's why I never did), so I don't really see how that's any different than losing access to say the flight deck once you've finished Miranda's loyalty mission on Illium.

With regards to getting into fights in hub world style areas, on the whole they are few and far between, and when they happen it's not as if you didn't see them coming. It's no more surprising getting into a fight after threatening a Krogan to stop messing with the good doctor than it is getting into a fight with some krogans who are paying Mordin's homeboy to find a cure for the genophage after you light their leader on fire mid conversation.

I suppose its a matter of preferance.I however prefer it when things are more organic,less mechnical and segmented.Like on Noveria when i do a quest for the merchant,then report him to the administrator,then do go met Lorak Qeen.And on the way out i speak with that Thessian Spy,then betray Qeen to Annolayus,than do the Office quest,then come back to Admn.A,without one single loading screen or the game forcing me into a specific area.

Their not irrelevant,unless you're saying a videogame's structure is irrelevant.Howeever i like those ideas,to have been explored further in ME2.Like having a shootout in Aria's club after a convesation gone wrong.Heck even pissing Aria off and having to fight my way out of it.r on Illium figting,whats her Name,Liaras assistent.Instead of just hearing about it.

Oh,and i prefer an RPG with Guns,you know cause im uh,playing an RPG.Otherwise ill go play Halo.Im not sure,whats with all the phraise ME2 combat gets,sinse its GOW copy paste.

Modifié par Jacen987, 28 décembre 2010 - 01:52 .

[sympathy4saren]

Anybody who thinks the hub worlds and/or Citadel were larger or equally as explorable as Mass Effect has a difficult task of defending their argument and creating genuine recognition of agreement with somebody in disagreement, because in this case, it is what it is. People who feel disappointed in level design and size must have played an entirely different version of ME2, because for us it was way smaller than in the original. Sure, there were definitely areas in the original game that were like the second, but as a whole, areas to explore were much more expansive in the original. The inability to simply recognize that borders on dogma. Small portions of Mass Effect compared to areas of Mass Effect 2 are just that...small portions contorted to fit an argument.



@PoliteAssassin:



Thanks for the link...interesting.

[sinosleep]

Jacen987 wrote...

I suppose its a matter of preferance.I however prefer it when things are more organic,less mechnical and segmented.Like on Noveria when i do a quest for the merchant,then report him to the administrator,then do go met Lorak Qeen.And on the way out i speak with that Thessian Spy,then betray Qeen to Annolayus,than do the Office quest,then come back to Admn.A,without one single loading screen or the game forcing me into a specific area.

Oh,and i prefer an RPG with Guns,you know cause im uh,playing an RPG.Otherwise ill go play Halo.Im not sure,whats with all the phraise ME2 combat gets,sinse its GOW copy paste.

It was billed as a hybrid, and you said it was a better one at that, but now you say

Oh,and i prefer an RPG with Guns,you know cause im uh,playing an RPG

Which is it? 

As far as GOW goes you still haven't dismissed anything I mentioned when I said

1. GOW doesn't have a controllable squad
2. GOW doesn't have stat based powers used in battle

so, not really. Unless by virtue of having weapons and cover system you've done a copy/paste job of GOW. In which case, ME 1 falls under that ludicrously broad brush by virtue of having a cover system (albiet a flaky one) and guns.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 01:58 .

[sinosleep]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Anybody who thinks the hub worlds and/or Citadel were larger or equally as explorable as Mass Effect has a difficult task of defending their argument and creating genuine recognition of agreement with somebody in disagreement, because in this case, it is what it is. People who feel disappointed in level design and size must have played an entirely different version of ME2, because for us it was way smaller than in the original. Sure, there were definitely areas in the original game that were like the second, but as a whole, areas to explore were much more expansive in the original. The inability to simply recognize that borders on dogma. Small portions of Mass Effect compared to areas of Mass Effect 2 are just that...small portions contorted to fit an argument.

@PoliteAssassin:

Thanks for the link...interesting.

I never said they were equally as explorable, all I'm doing is putting down the wide spread myth that ME 1 didn't feature a whole hell of a lot of ME 2 style shooting galleries (I can post more vids if you really want me to cause it certainly isn't small portions. Nearly every combat section of the game is an ME 2 style shooting gallery) because it most certainly did.

Were those shooting galleries interlinked with hub worlds that offered a richer exploration experience? ABSOLUTELY . But this constant line of "ME 2 is nothing but corridors with waist high cover while ME 1 was an organic utopia with not an out of place box or or walls with conveniently placed shooting windows" is ridiculous and I've grown tired of reading it over and over and over again from the ME 1 was God's gift to the RPG crowd.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 01:59 .

[slimgrin]

Sammyb123 wrote...

Does anyone else want a return of the RPG style we had in the first game? 

I do. And that's all I'll say on the matter.

Modifié par slimgrin, 28 décembre 2010 - 02:01 .

[TomY90]

slimgrin wrote...

Sammyb123 wrote...

Does anyone else want a return of the RPG style we had in the first game? 

I do. And that's all I'll say on the matter.

I do miss parts of ME1 (some of the exploration and the lift banter) but glad to see other parts gone (the mako, the too big maps, the inventory, the shocking cover system and the unlimited ammo).

But in balance I would rather have the ME2 layout than the ME1 layout its the one that is the most polished and removed the annoying parts of RPGs but kept what we love about them.

[Jacen987]

You basically just proved my point.Alot of people think this.

Were those shooting galleries interlinked with hub worlds that offered a richer exploration experience? ABSOLUTELY

is better than this

ME 2 is nothing but corridors with waist high cover

Not that,im actually saying that too.But linearity can to quickly get in your face.Many a time it got me to thinking"This could have been done so much better,Heck i could do this so much better":pinched:

Its not perfecty realized but its better.They should have continued along that line of thinking.Everything shoud have stayed connected and quests should have been spread out over all areas.With combat after combat encounter being brooken up by some quest or something else to do.And nobody is claiming ME1 was an Utopia,but it was on the right track.

As far as Combat,a rebalanced and reworked ME1 combat would have been better.Everyone knows ever since GOW1,everyone and their mother have used the same mechanic for every TPS,trying to cash in.So technically all TPSs have stuck to it.But ME1 being a RPG tried to incorporate statistics to influence shooting and combat,not to shamelessly steel like so many before it, ME2 included.It even made sense in the lore,ME2 saying enviroment conditions,outside of an enclosed shooting range,could affect a soldiers aim.

Well instead of shamelessly bying it,how about you spend points into some kinda recalibration skill,that improves a weapon's ME field,targeting computer,or ammunition.That way you'll actually have to choose,witch weapon to upgrade,instead of just buying them all.You know choice.Like in ME1,you coulnd't upgrade everything.But you companion's skills could complement and balance yours out.

And in one way or another im all for having something like that.

Modifié par Jacen987, 28 décembre 2010 - 02:35 .

[sinosleep]

You do get breaks from the shooting in ME 2, it's just that you don't get them mid mission, you get them pre or post loading screen. If you did the shooting gallery that was Garrus' loyalty mission (which actually DOES get broken up at the end by your decision with what he's going to do about the traitor) you could easily follow it up with the small side quest for Ish, or the non-combat mission that was Samara's loyalty mission. So for me that was never really an issue.

With regards to stats for weapons, NO, NO, NO AND NO. Shepard is not the traditional young, untrained, upstart, that rpgs generally use for their protagonist. He is an highly decorated spec ops soldier REGARDLESS of class and as such should be damned good with any weapon available to him. If there was ever anything immersion break about ME 1 it was that, particularly when the person playing it is a military man himself.

ME 2's system of if you can use it, you can USE it, is far superior and also more analogous to how things work in the modern day military. I was in the technical field, not infantry but I received the exact same training they did on their weapons when I qualified for mine. The difference was they tend to qualify on more weapons. Which is essentially what ME 2 did. The soldier class was qualified to use more weapons, but the other classes could use their weapons just as well without the influence of powers.

I also highly disagree about the stat system. I thought it was incredibly bloated. Way too many skills that leveled in increments that were FAR too small.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 02:39 .

[Jacen987]

Yes,Yes,Yes and Yeas.Its not my problem,you have a problem with PR mechanics,that have been around for 15 years.When Kotor used agility or strenght,to influence combat reflex and damage,i didnt hear anybody complaining.

Besides ME2 itself states that environment could affect a soldier aiming.If thats to annoying for today's spoiled crowd.,than perhaps the opposite.Upgrades like weapon calibration.Ones targeting an enemy the weapon could easily lock on for a clean head-shot,or any other part of the body.something Fallout inspired.Dont remember anybody complaining there.

I would agree,it needs less increments.

The Ish quest,you mean picking up a data pad.Thats your idea of a pause,an different activity to break the monotony of pointless shootouts?Im sorry,but that....you......

Modifié par Jacen987, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:03 .

[sinosleep]

No one complained in KOTOR because KOTOR played itself as a straight up RPG. Mass Effect was supposedly a hybrid and as such people complained, and it was THANKFULLY removed in ME 2. Because unlike ME 1, ME 2 actually makes an attempt at being a true hybrid by INCORPORATING actual gameplay mechanics from the genre it's supposedly meshing with. ME 1 simply gave you an over the shouder camera, a gun, and a flaky cover system and called itself a hybrid. It was LAUGHABLE how little the game resembled any kind of decent shooter.

Your Fall Out 3 comparison is just as bad. Fall Out 3 is a straight up RPG with guns, it's not a hybrid and doesn't pretend to be.

As far as Ish's fetch quest goes, there's a reason I mentioned Samara's quest as well and didn't hinge the entirety of that point on Ish. Although to be fair, it's not as if killing X amount of beasties to get food for colonists or hacking a couple of terminals for the survivors at ExoGeni were any more involved.

That's just more revisionist history of ME 1.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:11 .

[Jacen987]

So what exactly has ME2 hybridized.Its point and shoot.So pretty much a straight up shooter.Hybridizing is mixing two genre mechanics together,to form a third.Me1 took guns,aiming,cover mechanics and mixed the up with stats,powers and squad command.Thou squad commands have been in straight up FPSs.

ME2 is a boringly straight forward as possible,Point and shoot.Oh and dont forget to reload the weapon that doesnt need reloading.Because it uses clips that last half a human lifespan,and dispenses heat automatically.

But lets defy the laws of the universe,to accommodate the shooter fans.
If your favorite genre are shooters,fine by me.But i dont see why everything has to accommodate everyone.For one its impossible,for two self-destructive.ME2 didnt absolutely nothing but copy a simple design ,so i dont know what the phrase is for.As far as im concerned,gameplay designers need to hybridize something,before we start throwing roses at their feet.<_<

Modifié par Jacen987, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:30 .

[Slayer299]

Marbazoid wrote...
The only difference between the two games were its combat and loot system, and I don't agree that those are genre defining. 

I wasn't referring to the combat and loot system, I had already commented on that generally the combat was improved over ME.

One of the things I was referring to was the ability to better customize your charachter beyond 4 abilities in ME2. One specific example being the Charm/Intimidate which was removed and instead you were forced deeper down the paths of Ren and Para. In ME I could invest in intimidate even if I was a Para primarily. In ME2 I *had* to be Ren inorder to try and intimidate someone. Playing a Para doesn't mean my char will not try either to Intimidate or Charm someone to acheive their goals, the same is true of the reverse.

edit - formatting

Modifié par Slayer299, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:42 .

[sinosleep]

Jacen987 wrote...

So what exactly has ME2 hybridized.Its point and shoot.So pretty much a straight up shooter.Hybridizing is mixing two genre mechanics together,to form a third.Me1 took guns,aiming,cover mechanics and mixed the up with stats,powers and squad command.Thou squad commands have been in straight up FPSs.

ME2 is a boringly straight forward as possible,Point and shoot.Oh and dont forget to reload the weapon that doesnt need reloading.Because it uses clips that last half a human lifespan,and dispenses heat automatically.

But lets defy the laws of the universe,to accommodate the shooter fans.
If your favorite genre are shooters,fine by me.But i dont see why everything has to accommodate everyone.For one its impossible,for two self-destructive.ME2 didnt absolutely nothing but copy a simple design ,so i dont know what the phrase is for.As far as im concerned,gameplay designers need to hybridize something,before we start throwing roses at their feet.<_<

It's hybridized because the powers are still stat based and used in battle. Armor is also usually a non-factor in straight shooters but ME 2 provides armor with modifiers. And then you have all the non-combat aspects of the game that are incorporated like the PC having an effect on the narrative, dialogue trees, merchants, etc, etc, etc.

As far as the LORE aspect of reloading, frankly I don't care. For one I never liked it any way, and secondly I've learned to accept a great many things as game play over X (lore, common sense, what ever else you can think of) and count this is another one.

I accept that in most fantasy games Mage's are rare and according to lore destroy entire armies but then I play the game and I fight enemy mages all the time and have trouble with the small groups I face in every encounter. I accept that real soldiers don't go around picking up enemy weaponry and ammo but actually fight with their own weapons and bring combat loads of ammunition to the fight but that video games dictacte that's EXACTLY what you should do. I accept that a great many rpgs have infinite mass back packs that you carry a ludicrous amount of gear in. All these things I accept in the name of gameplay, so accepting another is not an issue for me.

Modifié par sinosleep, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:52 .

[JamieCOTC]

You can add me to the middle ground group. A little more RPG would be nice, but I would never want to go back to the old system.

[Slayer299]

sinosleep wrote...
It's hybridized because the powers are still stat based and used in battle. Armor is also usually a non-factor in straight shooters but ME 2 provides armor with modifiers.

What stats are you seeing that I've never seen? I've yet to see one thing in-game that tells me how much damage any of my weapons actually does. The same goes for damage absorbed by my armor/shields. We do see upgrades of 10% here and upto 50%, but 10% - 50% of what since I see no base to judge my equipment in-game.

It doesn't have to be as specific on every little detail, but I need something to base those upgrade percentages on.

And then you have all the non-combat aspects of the game that are
incorporated like the PC having an effect on the narrative, dialogue
trees, merchants, etc, etc, etc.

edit - typo

No one is talking about a lack of narrative/dialogue trees/etc, because obviously they are there, but those part of the game-play mechanics that have to be there to help tell a story outside of a shooter like CoD/MoH for example.

Modifié par Slayer299, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:52 .