291 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

DahliaLynn wrote...

I'll play a bit of Devil's Advocate here and ask, where do you draw the line when it comes to viewing your PC in third person? It's alright to see him fight in front of you, talk to the NPCs "next to you", but to view his/her reactions straight on is a no no? Would the ultimate solution in your eyes be first person camera? where you run around your world only able to see your arms and weapon,  and refer to NPCs looking directly at you? the Camera? Where do you think it's safe to draw the line? 

Third/first person camera and third/first person gameplay aren't as intertwined as is suggested. As long as the character looks as close to what you feel/think or actually you look like, also says/does and acts as close as possible the responses you would say or do or act, even the using your own voice when reading as opposed to spoken. Then the fact you look at them compared to through them doesn't destroy the immersion of the first person RPG player at all. It doesn't have to be a first person camera game to be a first person player style game. One way to think of it would be akin to your looking at a mirror (screen in this case) the third person see's someone else while the first person see's his reflection in appearence and choices. Having a VO main character detracts from this because he/she doesn't sound like you or what you think you sound like while having a silent main character adds immersion for the first person player because while reading the dialogue the voice is your own in your mind.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

 DA 2 is the only one that start to move away.

Mass Effect did it as well, but if we're only talking about fantasy games then sure.

I only buy Mass Effect 2 and I've been avoiding many third person RPG lately.  

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The balance you speak of is what I mean by it being an accident.

Well.. I don't think so.

Ray Muzyka: Here's how the games are different: Dragon Age is a first person narrative, where you're taking on an origin and a role, and you are that character at a fundamental level. It's fundamentally about defining your character, including those kinds of concepts. In Mass Effect it's more a third person narrative, where you have a pre-defined character who is who he is, or she is. But it's not a wide-open choice matrix. It's more choice on a tactical level with a pre-defined character. So they're different types of narratives, and that's intentiona

http://www.gamebansh...-interview.html

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 19 avril 2011 - 05:22 .

[upsettingshorts]

Indeed the camera perspective is only part of the equation. Generally speaking, its how the game approaches the narrative and the protagonist - namely his/her connection to the player. There's a whole host of differences that lead to a large number of the reasons a game like Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect is so polarizing to a great deal of long term Bioware fans. It's why some are perplexed at all the people "afraid of change" and angry at this mythical "new audience" that Bioware is targeting. I don't think either label really approaches the problem as I understand it - which is the conflict between the third and first person narrative approach.

In any case though, in a thread primarily about cinematics, the camera perspective and the hands-off actions of the protagonist in such scenes would probably be more on topic than the other related issues.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Well.. I don't think so.

I said the balance was an accident.  In any case that is just my speculation and the least important part of my argument.  I'd gladly abandon it, because I truly have no way of knowing what the developers' specific intents were regarding accomodating both playstyles.  The observation stands regardless and independent of their intent.  But as I said I don't expect a lot of common ground on this issue.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

http://www.gamebansh...-interview.html

Origins certainly was.  But it introduced many third person elements that angered some players, I've read their posts on this very board.  If Origins was a truly first person narrative in every way - why do we see Loghain and Howe enlisting Zevran in Denerim when we're across the country?  What about battle scenes at Ostagar from a perspective our player would be unable to see, or after he was knocked unconscious? That's what I mean when I say it was a sort of clumsy half-breed.  It used cinematics a bit, but it also introduced gameplay/story segregation by doing so - a problem that has re-emerged in DA2 in a big way.  And to me this is the biggest issue resulting from the explicit cinematic direction, but it also ties into the engine and narrative as well.

I mean, it could be argued that the developers perhaps intended DA2 to accomodate first person playstyles, but did it?  You tell me.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 avril 2011 - 05:32 .

[Dragoonlordz]

There is an issue I have with fact Mass Effect series is more inline with the third person style player, a whole series or franchise based on this, Dragon Age was different and allowed/catered for the first person style player. This doesn't mean Mass Effect series was bad, I loved Mass Effect too but in a different way. Both Greg and Ray saw this and agreed the two were different. This meant the combination of the two different style titles appealed to a wider audience, now Dragon Age has taken the role of the Mass Effect style gameplay (third person) it has reduced the audience scope of interest slightly. Bioware have in turn at the cost of diversity put both series in the same boat from a narration perspective to me this is not a good thing.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 avril 2011 - 05:34 .

[Foolsfolly]

Closer to the topic at hand....

I think DA2 could have used more cinematic moments. I think whenever an achievement happens (slogging through a long dungeon, beating a boss, clearing an act, etc.) a cinematic can be a reward to the player.

The player beat this thing, did that task, whatever, and a small cutscene plays. Maybe a cutscene that pulls the camera back and we see something new.

I'll give an example. The opening escape from Lothering. Right before Flemeth shows up there was a chance for a cutscene as a reward. (Not saying it was a missed opportunity it's just a spoiler light area of discussion).

The player's fought their way here, killed an Ogre. Now the story says that there are Darkspawn closing in. The cutscene shows a small handful Hurlocks up close. Hardly anything really, but the characters are behaving as if they're surrounded and escape is impossible.

A cutscene showing the hill Hawke and company are on in the distance as Hurlocks charge towards it, their backs to us (a limited number is needed just to give the impression of larger sizes) would have fit the story and rewarded the player with a sight that should inspire dread or that "Oh, here we go!" attitude of being surrounded. A handful of close up shots didn't convey this as well.

There can also be cutscene rewards that offer vistas, like reaching the top of Sundermount and fighting the enemies there. Then you show a small cutscene of Hawke and company looking down Sundermount and onto Kirkwall in the distance. The camera rising to allow the player to take it all in. We can finally see the whole scale and scope of the city, and make out some of the landmarks.

A little thing like that would go a long way in opening the scope.

At least that's my two cents. Hope it makes sense.

[AkiKishi]

JohnEpler wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Generally my problems were more with Hawke's inexplicable lack of action. If the bad guy is up to no good, then Hawke should at least try to respond.

The worst examples would be those which result in NPC deaths, like in the alienage in "On the Loose" and at the end of "Best Served Cold".

As the person who worked on the end of "Best Served Cold", I can agree to a point. I think that's a key area where an interrupt-style system would have been nice. Not all players are going to want to try and intervene, of course, but giving them the option to at least -try- might have been neat. Of course, you then run into the situation of 'if you let them try but they fail, is that satisfying?'. And for some players, the answer might be 'yes, as long as there's a good reason why I failed'. For others, though, they don't want to see their character rendered impotent, no matter what the cause for it is.

It depends on how you fail. Forced outcomes are not so bad as long as they are believable in the world you are currently in. For example I played a game called Trinity. It has an outcome that you can't avoid (like the Beth scene after act 1). The difference however is the bad guys sent an army, fighting at that point would be suicide.
In the Beth scene you have nothing close to the number of Templars you have been mowing down like grass for the last few hours. It feels like you are being forced simply because the writer wants it that way, not because it's credible.

Interupts are like illusion of choice. If they are easily seen through, or they lead to the same thing , some people are going to see right through it.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 19 avril 2011 - 05:35 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Indeed the camera perspective is only part of the equation. Generally speaking, its how the game approaches the narrative and the protagonist - namely his/her connection to the player. There's a whole host of differences that lead to a large number of the reasons a game like Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect is so polarizing to a great deal of long term Bioware fans. It's why some are perplexed at all the people "afraid of change" and angry at this mythical "new audience" that Bioware is targeting. I don't think either label really approaches the problem as I understand it - which is the conflict between the third and first person narrative approach.

In any case though, in a thread primarily about cinematics, the camera perspective and the hands-off actions of the protagonist in such scenes would probably be more on topic than the other related issues.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Well.. I don't think so.

I said the balance was an accident.  In any case that is just my speculation and the least important part of my argument.  I'd gladly abandon it, because I truly have no way of knowing what the developers' specific intents were regarding accomodating both playstyles.  The observation stands regardless and independent of their intent.  But as I said I don't expect a lot of common ground on this issue.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

http://www.gamebansh...-interview.html

Origins certainly was.  But it introduced many third person elements that angered some players, I've read their posts on this very board.  If Origins was a truly first person narrative in every way - why do we see Loghain and Howe enlisting Zevran in Denerim when we're across the country?  What about battle scenes at Ostagar from a perspective our player would be unable to see, or after he was knocked unconscious? That's what I mean when I say it was a sort of clumsy half-breed.  It used cinematics a bit, but it also introduced gameplay/story segregation by doing so - a problem that has re-emerged in DA2 in a big way.  And to me this is the biggest issue resulting from the explicit cinematic direction, but it also ties into the engine and narrative as well.

I mean, it could be argued that the developers perhaps intended DA2 to accomodate first person playstyles, but did it?  You tell me.

Which is why I say it's all about balancing. It's clear Ray specifically mention DA Origin was first person and I take some element of third person as balancing/compromising for both play style. But you keep insisting on your explicit third person point of view to justify DA 2 direction.

[upsettingshorts]

Re: Dragoonlordz

I understand that.

As a third person narrative gamer, I love that both Mass Effect and DA2 seem to be catering to my preferences in that way. That Sacred_Fantasy's experience is diminished ultimately has zero relevance to me as a consumer - just as my increased enjoyment has none to him - we only know what we like and what we don't. So while I'm sympathetic to the position, that doesn't mean I'm obligated to endorse it, or undermine my own preferences. That's why a game like Dragon Age 2 is polarizing with little middle ground.

Does that mean that developers can pick a side so easily? Not necessarily. They, unlike me or Sacred_Fantasy, do need to consider the broader implications of their choices as they have a responsibility to make the best game they can for the most people they can. If that makes sense.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Which is why I say it's all about balancing. It's clear Ray specifically mention DA Origin was first person and I take some element of third person as balancing/compromising for both play style. But you keep insisting on your explicit third person point of view to justify DA 2 direction.

I do, because why shouldn't I, if I prefer it?  Especially given the fact that my position is that the playstyles are not compatible and "balance" is the result of failures, limitations, and poor compromises.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 avril 2011 - 05:45 .

[Beerfish]

There are only a few that were problems for me and one was mentioned earlier in this thread but it could have have been solved by a little additional dialogue. The alienage one where you are to meet Huon and whats her name. All that needed to be done to make that work is for the wife to say, 'Huon, you are here early, I didn't expect you until midnight.' or something along those lines. That then lets the player off the hook for arriving late to some extent.

It's certainly a delicate balancing act that is for sure. In my books I'll sacrifice some control for companion, character and story development because these are the strengths of BioWare games. Without a good dose of cutscenes I doubt if I would have developed a healthy hate for the Quanri and Arishok, and a like/dislike of some of my companions.

[Dragoonlordz]

Foolsfolly wrote...

The player's fought their way here, killed an Ogre. Now the story says that there are Darkspawn closing in. The cutscene shows a small handful Hurlocks up close. Hardly anything really, but the characters are behaving as if they're surrounded and escape is impossible.

I agree with this I felt I was having no problem fighting the waves of reinforced Darkspawn I could have gone on for hours fighting them off at that rate, but the story 'tells me' that I am not succeding and that I am losing on a massive scale. I did not feel that way. So Your idea holds water with me the cinematic should have compensated for this in a much bigger way.

The same with Bethany scene bob talks about I could have taken those Templars out with my baby finger and was annoyed that he stood there like a lemming.

Again with Sister Patrice situation, my Hawke as it were was not acting anything like I would have or should have during that cutscene.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 avril 2011 - 05:48 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Which is why I say it's all about balancing. It's clear Ray specifically mention DA Origin was first person and I take some element of third person as balancing/compromising for both play style. But you keep insisting on your explicit third person point of view to justify DA 2 direction.

I do, because why shouldn't I, if I prefer it?  Especially given the fact that my position is that ultimately the playstyles are not compatible and "balance" is the result of failures, limitations, and poor compromises.

Those failure, limitation and poor compromises wasn't much an issue before ME 2. Moving explicitly towards your preferred direction is a sure way to limit more audience because right now, we're pretty much split 50-50 between each group.

[upsettingshorts]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Those failure, limitation and poor compromises wasn't much an issue before ME 2.

For you, perhaps.  Also, I'm struggling to think of ways in which ME2 changed dramatically in this regard from its own predecessor.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Moving explicitly towards your preferred direction is a sure way to limit more audience because right now, we're pretty much split 50-50 between each group.

Whether or not it's a good business decision, or if the split is indeed 50/50 isn't really for either of us to say.  Like I said, it's really only an observation of where I believe the true dichotomy causing the polarized reaction to DA2 lies as opposed to the common scapegoats.

Basically I'm here to say, "Yay! More of this!"  and you're here to say "But this totally ruins it for me!"  

Other than that, I'm not sure what either of us - or any other forum poster without a Bioware tag - has the authority to honestly claim. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 avril 2011 - 05:53 .

[adneate]

This whole debate reminds me of something that really bugged me in DA2 and that was how utterly unconnected the "Game" portions were from the "Movie" portions. In the "Movie" part Hawke is a human character with a set of defined experiences past, present and future, it's trying to paint a picture of a person more caught up in circumstance and doing their best than a born hero. Whether or not such a premise makes for a good game or an interesting RPG is another issue all together but the themes it wants to get across when you're talking to your companions and choosing Hawke's response is obvious. Then we get to the "Game" potion of DA2 and things get strange, now Hawke is someone who kill hundreds of people in the run of a week, routinely slaughters 2 story nightmare creatures and makes people explode from the inside out in a rain of blood. Hawke is the kind of person who can burn a monster to death with his or her mind or cleave five heads off in a single sword swipe. You're 100% in control of everything and nothing stands in your way, you're not human at all but some kind of mass murder machine. Your class your abilities your specializations, almost none of that has any bearing on anything that happens in the "Movie" Spirit Healers don't heal anyone Blood Mages don't get hassled and Reavers don't deal with any negative side effects from drinking Dragon Blood. The few times the "Movie" acknowledges the game it's in passing with no real bearing on anything or it makes no sense like the Arishock conversation at the end of Act 2. You just slaughtered your way through half his army with 3 other people yet he acts like you don't want to fight him? He feels he should dictate the terms of a truce to you, all you do is kill people is killing him and his guard going to be any different? Why wouldn't you just chop his head off and throw him on your thousand strong corpse pile? A certain discrepancy between "Game" and "Movie" is to be expected when you use storytelling mechanics that aren't native (or even suited) to videogames but in DA2 the underlying themes don't even match up.

It's like being told a story by someone with multiple personality disorder, one minutes it's reflective and somber the next it's screaming in your face and acting like a drunken frat boy.

Modifié par adneate, 19 avril 2011 - 05:53 .

[upsettingshorts]

adneate, if I had to pick my personal biggest problem with Dragon Age 2 it would indeed be "gameplay/story segregation." It's everywhere, and you point out quite a few examples.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 avril 2011 - 05:54 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Basically I'm here to say, "Yay! More of this!"  and you're here to say "But this totally ruins it for me!"  

Other than that, I'm not sure what either of us - or any other forum poster without a Bioware tag - has the authority to honestly claim. 

So can we agree to disagree now because it's not going anywhere, Both you and I have no BioWare tag. Errant_knight has post his opinion. So let's BioWare consider it without both of us trying to force our way in. 

Thank you.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 19 avril 2011 - 05:56 .

[John Epler]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Closer to the topic at hand....

I think DA2 could have used more cinematic moments. I think whenever an achievement happens (slogging through a long dungeon, beating a boss, clearing an act, etc.) a cinematic can be a reward to the player.

The player beat this thing, did that task, whatever, and a small cutscene plays. Maybe a cutscene that pulls the camera back and we see something new.

I'll give an example. The opening escape from Lothering. Right before Flemeth shows up there was a chance for a cutscene as a reward. (Not saying it was a missed opportunity it's just a spoiler light area of discussion).

The player's fought their way here, killed an Ogre. Now the story says that there are Darkspawn closing in. The cutscene shows a small handful Hurlocks up close. Hardly anything really, but the characters are behaving as if they're surrounded and escape is impossible.

A cutscene showing the hill Hawke and company are on in the distance as Hurlocks charge towards it, their backs to us (a limited number is needed just to give the impression of larger sizes) would have fit the story and rewarded the player with a sight that should inspire dread or that "Oh, here we go!" attitude of being surrounded. A handful of close up shots didn't convey this as well.

There can also be cutscene rewards that offer vistas, like reaching the top of Sundermount and fighting the enemies there. Then you show a small cutscene of Hawke and company looking down Sundermount and onto Kirkwall in the distance. The camera rising to allow the player to take it all in. We can finally see the whole scale and scope of the city, and make out some of the landmarks.

A little thing like that would go a long way in opening the scope.

At least that's my two cents. Hope it makes sense.

You raise an interesting point. As I see it, there are two types of cinematics - 'reward' cinematics, where the player is rewarded with a neat scene for accomplishing a task (killing blows would fall under this heading, I think) and 'story' cinematics, which are cinematics which occur as a way to propel the story forward. I think, perhaps, DA2 suffered from a dearth of the former and perhaps an overabundance of the latter in some areas.

Ideally, the latter should be minimized wherever it takes agency away from the player. Sometimes, of course, it can be necessary to take away at least some agency, at least temporarily, but if you do it too often you run the risk of ending up with what feels like an interactive movie. Those latter should also be relatively short - a minute, two minutes of stuff happening that the player can't control and it can feel a bit like you're being shoved down a specific path and told 'here's what we wanted you to do, now go do it'.

That's not to say there aren't exceptions, of course - there are exceptions to every rule. However, the exceptions are stronger due to their status as exceptions - if it occurs too often, they become the norm and can damage the interactivity of the game experience.

[upsettingshorts]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

So can we agree to disagree now but it's not going anywhere, Both you and I have no BioWare tag. Errant_knight has post his opinion. So let's BioWare consider it without both of us trying to force our way in. 

Thank you.

I can agree to that, and I really don't see this issue for players like us ending any better than by amicably agreeing to disagree.

JohnEpler wrote...

You raise an interesting point. As I see it, there are two types of cinematics - 'reward' cinematics, where the player is rewarded with a neat scene for accomplishing a task (killing blows would fall under this heading, I think) and 'story'
cinematics, which are cinematics which occur as a way to propel the story forward. I think, perhaps, DA2 suffered from a dearth of the former and perhaps an overabundance of the latter in some areas.

I'm not sure if I see it the same way, I mean - witnessing characterization that moves the story forward as the result of actions that took place or things that were said is a kind of reward.  It shows the game reacting to itself and to the decisions the player made.  

Granted, I would still consider things like deathblows or "badassery moments" as more of its own category - sure.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 avril 2011 - 06:00 .

[AkiKishi]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Those failure, limitation and poor compromises wasn't much an issue before ME 2. Moving explicitly towards your preferred direction is a sure way to limit more audience because right now, we're pretty much split 50-50 between each group.

I'm not sure that is the case. A lot of people I know who play JRPGs don't like having to choose things from lists. They want the full cinematic experience delivered and them playing the "game" bits.
This is true for them even with a 3rd person game like Mass Effect. They love stories, they love characters and character building, but they have no need to choose how a character interacts with the world because it's more like the an actor in a film than an extension of themselves.

[Sabotin]

I think an idea for cutscenes would be to revise a bit how they are implemented into the game. I like them, but they often seem kinda detached from the game. Specifically the companion dialogues, where it often appears as if they weren't traveling with you at all. Like when you talk to Anders and suddenly it's you walking in on Isabela's gynecological exam or something... Almost feels as if the companion areas should act as a camp in DA:O, removing everyone from the party.

[Sherbet Lemon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The same with Bethany scene bob talks about I could have taken those Templars out with my baby finger and was annoyed that he stood there like a lemming.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I will say one thing about this.  In my game, I'm pretty sure it was Knight-Captain Cullen who came to take Bethany to the Gallows.  Sure, a player could fight and win against him, but should a player be allowed to do that? Is it believable that there would be no repurcussions?  With the amount of power and influence the Templars had in this city, Hawke and his/her family would have had to flee again. 

In my opinion, it wouldn't make sense for Hawke to choose this as what would be the point in going into the Deep Roads then if the purpose is not to stay in Kirkwall and build a life?

Modifié par Village Idiot, 19 avril 2011 - 06:01 .

[AkiKishi]

JohnEpler wrote...
You raise an interesting point. As I see it, there are two types of cinematics - 'reward' cinematics, where the player is rewarded with a neat scene for accomplishing a task (killing blows would fall under this heading, I think) and 'story' cinematics, which are cinematics which occur as a way to propel the story forward. I think, perhaps, DA2 suffered from a dearth of the former and perhaps an overabundance of the latter in some areas.

On that sort of topic.

An intro cinematic should be my vehicle into the game world and the end cinematic should be my reward for finishing the game.

[upsettingshorts]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I'm not sure that is the case. A lot of people I know who play JRPGs don't like having to choose things from lists. They want the full cinematic experience delivered and them playing the "game" bits.
This is true for them even with a 3rd person game like Mass Effect. They love stories, they love characters and character building, but they have no need to choose how a character interacts with the world because it's more like the an actor in a film than an extension of themselves.

Even that kind of approach is more extreme than mine though it is somewhat related.  I'd describe what I do as something closer to a puppet master than one playing an avatar.  I'm picking the story I want the game to tell me, of which the protagonist is just the character over which I have the most control. 

So choosing how the character interacts with the world is still important.  But finite control over the protagonist isn't as important as say, the idea that the game react to and actively acknowledge that interaction - even if it's as simple as responding to the tone or intent of the decision.  Put another way, I don't want to have to imagine the impact, I want to see it and feel it - and that kind of calls for reducing the player agency by making such choices more explicit.

There's a continuum for this kind of thing, it's not two broadly identical camps that's for sure. 

Edit: Additional clarity/content

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 avril 2011 - 06:16 .

[Warheadz]

Village Idiot wrote...
I don't want to derail the thread, but I will say one thing about this.  In my game, I'm pretty sure it was Knight-Captain Cullen who came to take Bethany to the Gallows.  Sure, a player could fight and win against him, but should a player be allowed to do that? Is it believable that there would be no repurcussions?  With the amount of power and influence the Templars had in this city, Hawke and his/her family would have had to flee again. 

In my opinion, it wouldn't make sense for Hawke to choose this as what would be the point in going into the Deep Roads then if the purpose is not to stay in Kirkwall and build a life?

At least in the game I played Hawke killed HUNDREDS of Templars without any repercussions.

[erynnar]

JohnEpler wrote...

I've actually got a question for you guys - what scenes in DA2 did you feel took too much control away from you as a player? We've actually taken things out of scenes before because we felt that some players might look at it and say 'Hey, my Hawke would never do that!' so I'm interested in hearing where you felt we missed the mark in DA2. The more specific the examples, the better!


I just noticed that you posted this. I would love to give feedback. I must confess I haven't played the game in a while and was working myself up to give it another go as a mage.   Would it be alright if I gave you feed back even if it late?

[Dragoonlordz]

Village Idiot wrote...

In my opinion, it wouldn't make sense for Hawke to choose this as what would be the point in going into the Deep Roads then if the purpose is not to stay in Kirkwall and build a life?

But my Hawke didn't care about Kirkwall or keeping the peace, his only goal was protecting his sister and mother through dialogue choices I had made, removing threats not pandering to them out of fear. What the point in allowing you to shape a personality if throughout the whole game at various points both cutscenes and plot sections throw your character way out of balance of what it is you have pushed for with his personality to that point. This applies to the start when your sister is threatened and then again many other times including when they take her away (if you got that scenario). You build/shape your personality of Hawke and then at many times you are forced diplomatic against your will far too often. It was blatent and blunt forced in all those occassions. Bethany example is also one of those times.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 avril 2011 - 06:16 .