912 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

Torhagen wrote...

Erm don't choose the dialogue option with the heart then ?

*laughs*  You would think that would be enough, but no.  Apparently having the gay anywhere near by is anathema.   More importantly, your character should be so sauve and social that even the most emo, dysfunctional acquaintances are soothed by your merest words and take no offense at your rejection.

[Ryzaki]

Here's the quote you wanted jeweledleah.

Thomas_R_Roy wrote..

I didn't work on ME1 but I would venture to say that most of the developers feel that Liara/Femshep is an F/F relationship. I don't know if the "she's an asari" thing was ever intended to take away from the F/F aspect (since I wasn't around when the idea was put together) but nevertheless, she was intended as the gay female love interest.

As far as M/M love interests... I can say that it was planned, but as far as I know it was cut due to time constraints. Quite frankly the demand is small. I'm not defending it, but the choice is between a level that everyone will enjoy and a romance that only a minority will enjoy. We did it in Jade so we're not afraid of it; there just isn't enough time.

Sorry to all the gay ME fans

-Thomas

 

They ran out of time. Nothing about it being out of character. 
 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 avril 2011 - 04:51 .

[ElitePinecone]

I've just found this thread and read through the first few pages, so I'm sure someone has said this before:

I agree that the morality system shouldn't be tied to romances, insofar as you should be able to politely turn someone down without it being considered an 'evil' action. I realise that DA2 used a friendship/rivalry system, but it made no sense that Anders (for example) would get angry at rejection from a (roleplayed) Hawke who clearly couldn't choose to be heterosexual. And wow, that got a little meta.

Other than that I loved DA2's romances in general and I hope they're emulated for ME3.

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 24 avril 2011 - 05:04 .

[jeweledleah]

Vormaerin wrote...

I don't agree that its more work than a new romance. Do you have some secret information that Ashley won't be an LI if you aren't importing from ME1? Because, otherwise, you'll have to have content for a 'just met the character in ME3' romance. The whole reason the devs always go with the bisexual character is because writing a romance that goes both ways is negligibly more work than writing the romance in the first place.

Writing a pure gay character is the real problem, because that would be catering to a minority in a big way.

writing bisexual character who is avaialble as bisexual LI from the moment they meet a protagonist IS easiest, becasue in case of bioware, they just record the same dialogue for both genders and use the same animations (which in case of female characters lands them with swan necks and longer then normal limbs)  lets take DA2 for isntance.  none of the characters have history with Hawke.  none of the characters were previously available as love interests and in case of Fenris/Merril, they wren't even developed much at all. Anders was the only one that needed to be explained in some way, but again, no prior history with Hawke = clean relationship slate.

I don't have information if Ashley comes back as new LI as well as old
LI, only that if you romanced her in ME1 she comes back as relationship
you can possibly rekindle (whether you played ME1 yourself, or picked her via
comic for ps3 - she is NOT coming back as a returning LI if you just
played a default game in ME2 with no save editing - portrait in Shepards
quaters, or no romance flag for Ashley).  if you don't have an existing romance flag for Ashley - this meas writing a new relationship subplot as opposed to rekindling old relationship.  this is where variables come in. 

in case if male Shepard, Ashley was atracted, but if the romance didn't happen that was either do to him picking Liara, or due to him turning Ashley down, period.  either way, but the time you finish the game, there is no romantic tension, the relationship is platonic only.  However... that innitial atraction was still there, so you have a "what changed your mind" situation in case of male Shepard, and it becomes sort of rekindling relationship, but not the same as rekindling actual existing relationship.

in case of female shepard, relationship was platonic and friendly (or professional depending on how you play your shepard) from the beginning, no romantic tension in existance.  in ME3 - this becomes a "I didn't know you felt that way" plot.  different dynamic then with a male shepard, different relationship.  eventualy it will end up in the same spot with identical dialogue, but to get there, you still have 2 different paths.  and that's not counting renegade/paragon

its a bit more complex then just saying: I still love you/I always loved you, not if you want it to be well written and believable in context of you knowing the characters for a while.

new character?  can have well written relationship that's non gender specific, identical in its implementation and therefore easier to write without losing the quality.

edited to add - thanks for the quote Rizaki.  he didn't say when it was cut though, so if I'm assuming correctly, they originaly planned it but never fully written it.  in general voice recording doesn't start untill all the writing is done, so it was cut during innitial writing, and not when it was almost done with some voice recordings remaining

Modifié par jeweledleah, 24 avril 2011 - 05:05 .

[didymos1120]

Vormaerin wrote...
 Apparently having the gay anywhere near by is anathema.  

"TEH GHEY" works just like cooties.  I thought everyone knew this.

[Vormaerin]

ElitePinecone wrote...
. I realise that DA2 used a friendship/rivalry system, but it made no sense that Anders (for example) would get angry at rejection from a (roleplayed) Hawke who clearly couldn't choose to be heterosexual. And wow, that got a little meta.
.

Yes, it does make sense.  Anders is an extremely emotional, hypersensitive person with a massive persecution complex. Who is on the rebound from the end of an important relationship to boot.  He makes a pass at the character (its possible to avoid this, but most people won't) and, naturally, doesn't like it when turned down.

I don't know about you, but I'm not thrilled even by polite refusals when I ask a girl out.   And I'm not a demon possessed emo man-child.

[Maugrim]

didymos1120 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
 Apparently having the gay anywhere near by is anathema.  

"TEH GHEY" works just like cooties.  I thought everyone knew this.

So with the amount of gayness in this thread I figure everyone who has argued in here has to be gay by now, we win by default!

[Vormaerin]

jeweledleah wrote...
Stuff

Your argument is really that making the old LIs available for new romances is more work than making new ones from scratch.   This is true. 

But its not an issue that is specific to the gender.  And much of that work has to be done even if the VS is "Just a friend" unless the use the copout of "I"m too busy to talk to you if you aren't gonna bonk me" that was so prevalent in ME2.   The scenes are pretty similar.

I can see an argument for "Ashley won't give you the time of day if you didn't already have something going".   But "zomg, working up a new relationship with a man is okay, but with a girl its too much" doesn't fly.

[Ryzaki]

Vormaerin wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...
. I realise that DA2 used a friendship/rivalry system, but it made no sense that Anders (for example) would get angry at rejection from a (roleplayed) Hawke who clearly couldn't choose to be heterosexual. And wow, that got a little meta.
.

Yes, it does make sense.  Anders is an extremely emotional, hypersensitive person with a massive persecution complex. Who is on the rebound from the end of an important relationship to boot.  He makes a pass at the character (its possible to avoid this, but most people won't) and, naturally, doesn't like it when turned down.

I don't know about you, but I'm not thrilled even by polite refusals when I ask a girl out.   And I'm not a demon possessed emo man-child.

I laughed way harder than I should've. But by god is it accurate.   

edited to add - thanks for the quote Rizaki. he didn't say when it was cut though, so if I'm assuming correctly, they originaly planned it but never fully written it. in general voice recording doesn't start untill all the writing is done, so it was cut during innitial writing, and not when it was almost done with some voice recordings remaining

It was cut due to time constraints is pretty clear. Doesn't matter when just means it had to be cut. Not due to OOCness not due to character intergrity but due to running out of time. 

As for some of the dialogue not still being on there they could've trimmed certain voice files to make room for other things on the ME disc. Perfectly in line with rushing. If you bother reading through the thread he then later says this

Thomas R Roy wrote...
I really doubt we'd cut the M/M romance because some people didn't like it. We have a little bit more moral fiber than that.  However we WOULD cut it if there wasn't enough time, since it only serves a small part of the population.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 avril 2011 - 05:36 .

[ElitePinecone]

Vormaerin wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...
. I realise that DA2 used a friendship/rivalry system, but it made no sense that Anders (for example) would get angry at rejection from a (roleplayed) Hawke who clearly couldn't choose to be heterosexual. And wow, that got a little meta.
.

Yes, it does make sense.  Anders is an extremely emotional, hypersensitive person with a massive persecution complex. Who is on the rebound from the end of an important relationship to boot.  He makes a pass at the character (its possible to avoid this, but most people won't) and, naturally, doesn't like it when turned down.

I don't know about you, but I'm not thrilled even by polite refusals when I ask a girl out.   And I'm not a demon possessed emo man-child.

I guess from his perspective it does make sense, true. Perhaps players just need to 'take the rivalry hit', in a concession that Anders really is in a troubled emotional place and isn't thinking reasonably?

I would prefer it, though, if personal interactions didn't become steeped in morality as it's expressed in the ME series (though paragon and renegade points rather than friendship or rivalry) - it's attaching an external measure of values to a personal conversation. It's even more fraught when questions of sexuality are involved, and the refusal can't be done in a 'nice' way. 

[Sajuro]

makenzieshepard wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
 Apparently having the gay anywhere near by is anathema.  

"TEH GHEY" works just like cooties.  I thought everyone knew this.

So with the amount of gayness in this thread I figure everyone who has argued in here has to be gay by now, we win by default!

Just like watching a Celine Dion concert then?
I lol at people who are so uncomfortable their sexuality that 'teh ghey' being in the same room as them is horrible.

[Ryzaki]

Rivalry isn't bad though. (Heck in Anders case I'd argue it's better for him.) And it helps that Anders is one of the easiest characters to rival/friend. (You can *max* his rivalry (without rejecting him) by the end of act 1. You can max his friendship (including the rivalry hit for rejecting him) a little into act 2 (right after dissent I maxed him out). He's just too easy.
And since Anders is the only healer in the game you're gonna be dragging him around everywhere. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 avril 2011 - 05:23 .

[Vormaerin]

ElitePinecone wrote...


I would prefer it, though, if personal interactions didn't become steeped in morality as it's expressed in the ME series (though paragon and renegade points rather than friendship or rivalry) - it's attaching an external measure of values to a personal conversation.

Well, that's a different issue.   So many people are used to ME's wheel that they can't grasp that DA2's wheel is nothing like it.    There's no morality associated with it.   There's no  "paragon/neutral/renegade".     There's actually six kinds of personality responses, plus the flirts, questions, and a few special options.

Also, friend and rival only determine the tone of the relationship.   My buddy that I compete with in everything is still my buddy.   Same as my other friend who has a more relaxed, hang out kind of friendship.

Metagame wise, if you want to push the companion along the path they already support, you go friend.   If you want to push them away from that  (which is sensible with some of them), you want rivalry.    Its not a moral issue at all.

[HealthyGiraffe]

Vormaerin wrote...

Did you miss the part where I said that its freaking illegal to even admit to it?  Of course the incidence is lower in the military.  You can't even join unless you can hide it.  But the fact that it is illegal is a feature of certain militaries, not of the military in general.  

Ah, here we go. Someone who knows absoluetely nothing is trying to convince a person with years of expirence in an issue that they are wrong.

this is embarrassing. 

Code:

BLUE: Acceptance of open homosexuality in the military
RED: No Acceptance
Orange: Appealing - soon to have open homosexuality in the military within the next few months

http://en.wikipedia....litary_laws.png

Please note that the USA and Obama has recently gotten rid of Don't ask don't tell it and gay people will be allowed in the USA military within the next few months. 

The countries in red (which don't allow gays in the military to admit they are gay) I have never served with. Probably because they are all eastern or third world countries. 

So yeah, stop talking out of your arse. It's not illegal in any Western developed country. But oh wait, you were only talking about Africa and the Middle East's armies - weren't you?  

I've served and I am telling you, it doesn't matter what country someone comes from - the military (especially combat roles) appeal to straight people more than they do to homosexual people. 

And, again, you are ignoring that homosexuality is already in the game.  Its just for girls only at the moment.

That's debateable at best. There is lore behind why the Asari romance is not really a lesbian romance. For starters, Asari's don't have a concept of gender and secondly, a human female and an asari can have a baby. You may say that lore is a cop out, and it may well be - but I wouldn't call it homosexual. 

How about if they are bisexual all the time because they like being bisexual and they don't give a rat's behind what you think about it?

Ashley clearly isn't bisexual. Why must every love interest in a video game be bisexual just because developers are too lazy to put in effort for "20%" of the game. 

Modifié par HealthyGiraffe, 24 avril 2011 - 05:27 .

[Vormaerin]

HealthyGiraffe wrote...

Ah, here we go. Someone who knows absoluetely nothing is trying to convince a person with years of expirence in an issue that they are wrong.

The policy for the US is flagged ambiguous because there has been an order not to enforce the existing laws as long as an issue is not made of it.   In theory, it is being changed.   But I haven't heard anything about Congress actually amending the Uniform Code yet.  

In case you are confused here is Title X, section 654 of the Code:
  [/b]
A member of the armed forces shall be separated
from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in
accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:



(1)
That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts
2)
That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect
(3)
That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.




Don't Ask, Don't tell said that it was prohibited to investigate suspected violations, so you only got dishonorably discharged if you brought it up.   But if you did state you were gay, you were out.

Its actually NOT good that they are repealing Don't Ask, Don't tell without having changed the Code yet...

[Vormaerin]

HealthyGiraffe wrote...



That's debateable at best. There is lore behind why the Asari romance is not really a lesbian romance. For starters, Asari's don't have a concept of gender and secondly, a human female and an asari can have a baby. You may say that lore is a cop out, and it may well be - but I wouldn't call it homosexual.

Kelly Chambers states she's bisexual and she demonstrates it, too, if femshep hasn't hooked up with someone else.

[sgriffin0810]

Vormaerin wrote...

HealthyGiraffe wrote...

Ah, here we go. Someone who knows absoluetely nothing is trying to convince a person with years of expirence in an issue that they are wrong.

The policy for the US is flagged ambiguous because there has been an order not to enforce the existing laws as long as an issue is not made of it.   In theory, it is being changed.   But I haven't heard anything about Congress actually amending the Uniform Code yet.  

In case you are confused here is Title X, section 654 of the Code:
  [/b]
A member of the armed forces shall be separated
from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in
accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:



(1)
That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts
2)
That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect
(3)
That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.




Don't Ask, Don't tell said that it was prohibited to investigate suspected violations, so you only got dishonorably discharged if you brought it up.   But if you did state you were gay, you were out.

Its actually NOT good that they are repealing Don't Ask, Don't tell without having changed the Code yet...

The code will be changed before the Chief of Staff and Secretaries sign off on it. The JAGs and military admin lawyers are working on it right now, trust me. There is no conspiracy to subject gay servicemembers to military tribunal, nor will they be subjected to the same. DADT is dead, the UCMJ will be adjusted, and it will become abundantly clear that the military homophobes who talked big but didn't leave were cowards, and those who actually did leave never really cared about their country at all.

Modifié par sgriffin0810, 24 avril 2011 - 05:54 .

[Vormaerin]

I know that is the intention. That wasn't my point. My point is that claiming that straight men are more inclined to military service when its illegal for gay men to serve without concealing that fact is bs. Then he tried to claim it wasn't illegal just because there's no active investigations. The intention is to change the law, but I believe that Congress has to amend the UCMJ and nothing is ever guaranteed with Congress.

[HealthyGiraffe]

Vormaerin wrote...
snip

Regardless, the USA will see open acceptance of homosexuals in the military in the near future. It's inevitable. I think we can all agree on this. 

And I wasn't even refering to the USA. Your argument still has no weight. I'm not an American. I have mostly served with European and Australasian forces that have very liberal views on this kind of stuff. I have served for years with them, and I met two gay men. One was a nurse at an aid station and one was an engineer. In five years of active duty, I met no gay men who were in a combat role.  I would have met hundreds and hundreds of soldiers.  And yes, their comrades WOULD have accepted them if they came out and if they didn't they could be punished severly. 

You can dance around the issue all you want, gay people are rare in combat roles. Why? Let me explain.

Gay people, in Western culture, are extremely likely to have liberal, free thinking, progressive views with a centre on human rights. You can call this a stereotype or whatever you want, but you know it is true. I'm not saying they ALL do, I'm saying they are FAR MORE LIKELY because they themselves have been persecuted. All my gay friends are liberal, free thinking, progressive, compassionate and place civil liberties incredibly high. All of them. Yes, they have far different personalities from one another - but they generally do share a passion for these kinds of things - and it's fantastic that they do. It's good for all of us that they do. 

These sorts of people generally don't have a desire to fight in a war and kill people. People with these mindsets get destroyed by the military.  I know this first hand. Combat roles are predominately made up of politically conservative, macho, agressive, "straight down the line thinkers" young men. It's the only way you can survive in war. Yes, there are always exceptions - but for the majority this is true. Liberal people who place extreme emphasis on civil rights and cultural well being don't commongly run away to kill and fight in a war.

I don't even see why this is such a debateable issue for you - it's the plain and simple truth. In every western country. Doesn't matter if it is the USA or Frace. Or Australia or Spain. 

Maybe, in the Mass Effect universe, this has all changed and gay people have a ratio of 1:1 in Mass Effect. Whatever. That is still no reason why Mass Effect HAS to include a gay romance. Maybe it's as simple as Bioware deciding Shepard is not a gay character. They can do this. It's their game. We can cry all we like about it. 

Whilst Mass Effect is technically a role playing game, Shepard is quite an established character. We can't control most things about him - so why do we have to control his sexuality? This isn't The Sims. Surely Bioware have a right to make their characters whatever they want? 

I do beleive we may see a gay romance in Mass Effect 3, and frankly, I hope we do.

Regardless, I have felt like you are just trying to argue specifics with me all along. Let me be simple.

My points are:

1 - The simple fact that gay people ARE rarer to come across than straight people. Especially in the military. Especially in combat roles in the military. 

2 - I don't want a character to be bisexual due to developer laziness. 

3 -  I don't want Bioware to include a token gay character just to appease the fans. If there is a gay character, I want them to be just as realistic as any other character. I don't want to see him or her tacked on and thrown in there out of place just to make people happy. I want there to be a geniune effort to implement him/her. 

4 - At the end of the day, Bioware have a right to make their characters who they want and we can't hate them for this. 

[Vormaerin]

HealthyGiraffe wrote...

You can dance around the issue all you want, gay people are rare in combat roles. Why? Let me explain.

Which is a big way of saying  "they are persecuted and denied the right to serve, so they tend not to".    Its quite clear that, if this supposed aversion actually does exist (of which I'm doubtful), its a product of our current culture and legal system.

Which is not the legal structure or culture of the alliance.   Or is there some evidence that the Alliance is homophobic to the same degree as Western culture is/was in the last century?


As for your points:

1)  Don't agree, unless you are specifying very specific cultural-legal environments
2)  Doesn't matter whether the character is gay or bi, as long as its consistent.
3)  Duh?  Someone doesn't want this?
4)  Right

Modifié par Vormaerin, 24 avril 2011 - 06:09 .

[sgriffin0810]

Vormaerin wrote...

I know that is the intention. That wasn't my point. My point is that claiming that straight men are more inclined to military service when its illegal for gay men to serve without concealing that fact is bs. Then he tried to claim it wasn't illegal just because there's no active investigations. The intention is to change the law, but I believe that Congress has to amend the UCMJ and nothing is ever guaranteed with Congress.

Aha, I see the mix-up. No worries.

I'm guessing you're referring to Article 125 of the UCMJ, the prohibition against unnatural carnal acts. Thing is, it doesn't really need to be repealed; it's not specific to homosexuals. It's been interpretated as engaging in any type of sex outside of the missionary position... which, if it was an issue, should already have made a lot of straight soldiers sweat. There's case law suggesting it prohibits anything other than heterosexual sex, but it's not clearly defined and in light of recent legislation probably won't be used as a tool to exclude gay soldiers.

I can't recall any gay soldiers being discharged recently as a result of it.

Even if it was... the Log Cabin Repubs have a case sitting in course right now that addresses this, at least in part. The DOJ is trying to get it tossed out. Thanks Obama! Hope and change!


To put this differently, I hope you're wrong. When the dust settles, it's still not legal to have sex of any kind while on duty. The contextualization that the repeal of DADT offers will (hopefully) make sure this is not an issue off-duty... which is as it should be.

Modifié par sgriffin0810, 24 avril 2011 - 06:15 .

[HealthyGiraffe]

Vormaerin wrote...
Which is a big way of saying  "they are persecuted and denied the right to serve, so they tend not to".    Its quite clear that, if this supposed aversion actually does exist (of which I'm doubtful), its a product of our current culture and legal system.

THEY AREN'T DENIED THE RIGHT TO SERVE. 

My God, you're completely out of it today. I just explained I have mostly served with European nations that have been accepting open homosexuality in the military for years!

I also went on to explain why gay people are less likely to fight in combat roles, and you have completely ignored it. They are more likely to be liberals (in pretty much all sense of the word - freedom of expression, place importance on cultural well being, human rights, etc). People like that are less likely to fight. 

Which is not the legal structure or culture of the alliance.   Or is there some evidence that the Alliance is homophobic to the same degree as Western culture is/was in the last century?

I've already explain this. I'm done.

I love the way you completely ignore the over arching point and focus on two sentences. Rock on, you lunatic. 

Modifié par HealthyGiraffe, 24 avril 2011 - 06:15 .

[Vormaerin]

No, I simply disagree with you that they are more likely to be liberals, except as an accident of the current political culture. Its NOT true of the historical record. Nor is it true that its legal for gays to serve in the US Armed services in the recent past. If i walked up and said "Hi, I'm a gay man and I want to enlist", I'd be told NO." I would only be allowed to serve if I didn't admit to being gay.

Gay men have a long history of military service in the historical record. Just not in the recent history of the US.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 24 avril 2011 - 06:22 .

[HealthyGiraffe]

Vormaerin wrote...

No, I simply disagree with you that they are more likely to be liberals, except as an accident of the current political culture. Its NOT true of the historical record. Nor is it true that its legal for gays to serve in the US Armed services in the recent past. If i walked up and said "Hi, I'm a gay man and I want to enlist", I'd be told NO." I would only be allowed to serve if I didn't admit to being gay.

Gay men have a long history of military service in the historical record. Just not in the recent history of the US.

You are being a typical American here. I'm not talking about America. America is not the centre of the universe. And if you wait a few months, you would be able to say "hi I'm a gay man and I want to enlist" in the USA anyway. 

Anyway, there is no point explaining this and I honestly don't care what you believe about it. You've never experienced it. Next time you meet someone who has been in combat, ask them how many gay men they meet out there. Because I fought with hundreds of French, British, German, Spanish and Australian men and women (who were all incredibly accepting and open about their sexuality) and I didn't meet any gay people in combat. Not one. Maybe it's just a coincidence. A coincidence that went on for five years. In two seperate wars. With people from several varying cultures. Yeah. Probably. There is no under-lying reason why this happened. 

Of course it is because of our political/social environment. I'd argue that EVERYTHING has something to do with that, and I have conceeded that maybe in the Mass Effect universe - this doens't exist. It still doesn't change the fact that gay men are 10% of the population and it still doesn't change the fact that TODAY, gay men are relatively unheard of in combat roles. 

Meeting just as many gay men in your travels as straight men, in any universe involving humans, would be a complete rarity and would break immersion for me. Gay people are rare. If I had 5 gay squad mates in ME3 and 5 straight squad mates, I'd think it was pandering, "EQUALITY FOR THE SAKE OF EQUALITY!"  nonsense because that would never happen and my immersion would be ruined. I'd get the impression that Bioware were trying to be p-c and trying to pander to the fan base instead of actually creating their artistic vision of the universe - especially considering the fact that ME1 and ME2 had no gay members. Plain and simple. And I am entitled to express this on forum. 

[Elite Midget]

Maybe in Europe they allow Gays to serve openly or not but in America you weren't allowed to untill Obama pressed the issue. If you said you were Gay they could disciminate against you, treat you badly, and than have you thrown out of the military even if you were a Warhero. Also, what statistics do you have that Gays are most likely to be liberals? I've met republicans are Gay though I haven't met a single Tea Partier that was Gay mostly because they bash Gay/Lesbians on a daily basis.

Don't bother asking American Soldiers if they're Gay. Either they aren't or they'll lie about it to no get discharged or attacked by their 'brothers' in arms.

Modifié par Elite Midget, 24 avril 2011 - 06:43 .