Aller au contenu

Photo

Dragon Age Origins is highly overrated, and DAII does many things better.


585 réponses à ce sujet

#476
billy the squid

billy the squid
  • Members
  • 4 669 messages

Dormiglione wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Theagg wrote...


Hmm, strong plot for Origins. Debatable. I still can't get over how the miltary saviour of Ferelden abandons the field, knowing full well this would allow the Darkspawn to gain the upper hand and wipe out a large section of the forces required to deal with it. And decimate some of his beloved country in the process. Given the great strategist he is supposed to be his actions certainly were dramatic but not exactly smart. Or believable.

Well, perhaps someone can point me to a real life historical battle where a general has abandoned an army to the oncoming advance of an invading force and what that means strategically. Because of a personal grudge.


Military strategist. The game shows clearly that as a political one, Loghain is quite bad.


I found Loghain to be quite poorly written, unlike some other prominent major Bioware antagonists like Saren, Sun Li, Malak, or Irenicus.


You found Loghain poorly written but Meredith a deep interesting personality? Well Loghain was introduced at the very beginning of DAO. You see his betrayal of Cailan, you get discussion between him and Anora. You see how Loghain struggles to believe that there is a real blight. All the intrigues that he starts, poisons the Arl, allows slave hunters to deport elves as slaves. How he defamed the wardens, spreading lies about who betrayed Cailan.

I dont like Loghain, but he was certainly not poor written. And thats not subjective.


Yep, and if you talk to Anora and Arl Eamon they both give you an insight, all be it brief into Loghain's character and the possible driving force behind his actions. Personally I really liked Loghain as the main antagonist, rather than being a moustache twirling villain who is simply evil there is actual reasoning, however warped, behind many actions.

The sacrifice at Ostagar appears more the desperate act of a man who sees the potential return of the Orlesians, through the marriage of Cailan and the Empress of Orlais once the marriage to his daughter Anora is dissolved. It was the best opportunity to remove Calin, considering Loghain didn't belive that the Darkspawn were an actual threat, a raid rather than a blight the sarcifice of the wardens and some men to remove a weak king was worth it.

In addition Arl Eamon's discussion with Calin about putting Anora aside, the Return to Ostagar letters between Celine and Calin, Loghain himself comments on it if one takes him along. Thus his war to evict the Orlesians from Ferelden would have come to naught had the marriage taken place making Ferelden a de facto province of Orlais.

Whilst the conflict between Calin and Logahin at Ostagar is already evident when one speaks to a soldier and Loghain's comments about the orlesian's coming to help 

"How fortunate Maric did not live to see his son hand Ferelden over to those who had enslaved us for a century"

Loghain really paints the picture of a good man blinded by old grudges, willing to carry out some rather unsavory acts to protect Ferelden, but failing to see the true threat of the blight.

Meredith, there is very little character detail whatsoever and the lirium idol is a cheap gimick to turn her into a villain, she's bad, because she's mad. to do justice to such antagonists they need character exposition. Thus one's opinion changes over the game, as more is revealed, culminating in decisions like the Landsmeet, were Loghain had reasons to do what he did. Finally you are given an option and Alistair gives a glimpse of the fact he is almost as idealistic as Calin in his refusal to allow Lohgain to live, made me question his fitness to be king.

Modifié par billy the squid, 26 juin 2011 - 10:15 .


#477
TEWR

TEWR
  • Members
  • 16 987 messages

Whatsupnewyork wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

No I did them, but that's not enough. Those are isolated incidents of the Darkspawn. More like roving bands of the Blight's army. Except for Honnleath. They're situated close to the horde.

Honnleath was the best showing of the Blight in Origins, but it could've been better. Throw in a few ghouls for good measure.

And since Honnleath was the only village we visit outside of Lothering where the Darkspawn attacked....


I'm not saying Origins didn't try to show the Blight's pace. It did. It just could've been better.



How?


The Bannorn was supposed to have been decimated by the Blight, especially Arl Gallagher Wulff's Arling, so we should've visited villages within that area and seen how they were destroyed. Deal some damage to the Darkspawn horde, even if it's only a miniscule amount.


Those villages should've had as much destruction as Honnleath was shown at the very least. Ghouls should also be shown, as well as people who haven't contracted the Blight disease.


More things to show that the Blight is indeed upon your very doorstep.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 juin 2011 - 10:05 .


#478
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

txgoldrush wrote...
DaII style is wildly different from Bioware's past games...there is no mid section where you can do major quests in any order. Its more like The Witcher, where you can do smaller quests in the Act in different orders, but you can't choose the order of the acts.


Actually, each Act is constructed that way. And then each Act is disconnected in the Bioware manner. Basically, each year in Kirkwall is a "mini-game".

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The main conflict with Loghain is all
about human nature. And the fight against the Archdemon also becomes
part of human nature, as the willingness to sacrifice one's life or not,
is a part of it. Especially when Morrigan gives you a way out. So your
"human nature" is tested with that choice. It's the Warden struggling
against his own nature.


Well, no. The main conflict with Loghain is a but thou must, sprinkled with plot-hole magic. And the final choice with Morrigain is terribly done. 

KnightofPhoenix wrote..
A character exposition in the last 10
minutes of the game is not development. It's character exposition (a
very desperate and poor one). Character development is an on-going
process that should be seen, and not just told, throughout the game.
Especially when the hag's face shows up when the game starts.


Loghain wasn't developed at all. He was Meredith, but just has a bigger fan-club because there was a bigger fish to fry at the end.

Il Divo wrote...
As always, your posts sum up my thoughts
entirely. I think the test is especially important. I often see Bioware
praised for their storylines, yet they have remarkably little-depth
because of how much time the player actually spends performing unrelated
tasks. 


Bioware does write side quests well, though. It's just that they use that the main-quest is always a little sandbox oriented.

I agree. It's similar some blame the dialogue wheel for 'narrowing
down' the PC's responses, while praising Mass Effect's system or
previous games.


Bioware fans are very good at pretending content isn't in the game if they can imagine it away.

There is one distinction though: In KotOR, collecting the Star Maps has a
role in the story, even if it doesn't add anything to the narrative.
You need to collect the Star Maps to reach the Star Forge. During the
'choose your mission' moments in DA2, it's not quite clear why Hawke
must do all these quests, beyond their being listed in the 'main quest'
section. Ex: If I already have Bartrand's 50g, why is it necessary that
I help the Qunari?


Not really. The Star Map on Dantooine could be fixed. Then, you run into the Leviathan on the way to that Rakkatan (sp?) planet, where Bastilla is kidnapped. The Ebon Hawke could be damaged, and in the time you fix it, Bastilla falls to the darkside and the endgame follows.

#479
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages
I need to put my scientist cap on for a second:

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

people don't have a personality set in stone. It's constantly changing, constantly evolving.


Actually, personality is very stable. When you control for the situation, it is very stable.

I've woken up some days and I've been a sarcastic guy. The next day something will happen where I'm just pissed the entire day, or a good portion of it.


That's all situational. You're not a different person, you're in a different environment. Even the next day at work is a non-identical environment to the last day.

Forcing me to stay true to one personality tone to get certain things available instead of allowing me to numerically tally them up is something I despise about it.


Now, this is unrealistic. But actual personalities work differently.

#480
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

billy the squid wrote...
Yep, and if you talk to Anora and Arl Eamon they both give you an insight, all be it brief into Loghain's character and the possible driving force behind his actions. Personally I really liked Loghain as the main antagonist, rather than being a moustache twirling villain who is simply evil there is actual reasoning, however warped, behind many actions.


It's no differnet than being able to talk to Cullen about Meredith, or hearing from Anders how Meredith is pushing the mages more, hearing complaints from Anders, and having Varric narrate changes. The amount of content there is, well, still about the same. Loghain doesn't have very much development, in terms of content.

Meredith, there is very little character detail whatsoever and the lirium idol is a cheap gimick to turn her into a villain, she's bad, because she's mad. to do justice to such antagonists they need character exposition. Thus one's opinion changes over the game, as more is revealed, culminating in decisions like the Landsmeet, were Loghain had reasons to do what he did. Finally you are given an option and Alistair gives a glimpse of the fact he is almost as idealistic as Calin in his refusal to allow Lohgain to live, made me question his fitness to be king.


Actually, if you ignore the lyrium idol reveal at the end (obviously a WTF? from many levels) the actual amount of content we have re: Meredith becoming more and more extreme is there.

Look, DA2 failed on many levels, but I don't like the white-washing of Bioware's short-comings, because a big part of why we got DA2 is the pass DA:O got for it's flaws.

#481
Sammyjb

Sammyjb
  • Members
  • 234 messages
Just gonna drop in here and spit out what I know and/or feel:


Out of the gate, I loved DA:O. It engaged me, drew me in with its lore and fantastic characters and gameplay that had me thinking. I didn't feel this way for Dragon Age 2.

To answer the OP's question, the reason a lot of people dislike DA:2 is because Bioware did something very stupid: They built up an audience and fanbase for one type of game, and then made the sequel another thing all together. That, coupled with a story that didn't seem to change much based on your actions, restrictions on what you could do, and a huge amount of glitches and bugs made people dislike DA 2.

Also, a lot of people find the story in Dragon Age 2 unsatisfying. In DA:O, and ME:1 +2, and KOTOR, and Jade Empire, you are the catalyst for change. You make these decisions that have consequences. In Dragon Age 2, you get nerfed in this respect. The ending is almost identical, and the three acts lacked any continuity.

OP, I can respect that you liked DA 2 better. But the reason that people liked Origins better is because of characters they could identify with, great strategic gameplay, and a great, if somewhat generic, story.

Huzzah.

#482
Morroian

Morroian
  • Members
  • 6 396 messages

Sammyjb wrote...

To answer the OP's question, the reason a lot of people dislike DA:2 is because Bioware did something very stupid: They built up an audience and fanbase for one type of game, and then made the sequel another thing all together.

Not really, the gameplay is quite similar to DAO just sped up a little.

Sammyjb wrote...

Also, a lot of people find the story in Dragon Age 2 unsatisfying. In DA:O, and ME:1 +2, and KOTOR, and Jade Empire, you are the catalyst for change. You make these decisions that have consequences. In Dragon Age 2, you get nerfed in this respect.

In DA2 while you lack the big choices the character of Hawke is still the catalyst for change.

#483
Savber100

Savber100
  • Members
  • 3 049 messages
There are three things that can instantaneously bring my faith back for the DA franchise.

DA3 is given a 3-4 year release time

DA3 uses the CryEngine 3 (hence the longer time)

DA3 has two drastically branching questlines like Witcher 2 rather than just push down a linear storyline with some minor alterations.

Why these three things? Mainly because it's difficult to pull off any of them when your sole or major aim is to just make money. These requirements demand commitment and being able to deliver shows that Bioware still believes that making QUALITY products is better than what sells better.


Also, to reply to OP, a game has to be good to be overrated. ;D

Just saying since you don't see people calling DA2 overrated. ;)

In the end, DA2 failed because while it had great goals, it lacked the commitment and dedication that Bioware genearlly gives to her products.

Modifié par Savber100, 26 juin 2011 - 11:02 .


#484
Nerevar-as

Nerevar-as
  • Members
  • 5 375 messages

Morroian wrote...

In DA2 while you lack the big choices the character of Hawke is still the catalyst for change.


No, he isn´t. That´s the problem. He is a supporting character to qunari, Anders, Meredith & Orsino and the people whose actions really shape things.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 26 juin 2011 - 11:03 .


#485
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

Sammyjb wrote...
Also, a lot of people find the story in Dragon Age 2 unsatisfying. In DA:O, and ME:1 +2, and KOTOR, and Jade Empire, you are the catalyst for change. You make these decisions that have consequences. In Dragon Age 2, you get nerfed in this respect. The ending is almost identical, and the three acts lacked any continuity.


The ending in DA:O is effectively identical, and the Warden is a dramatic agent for the status quo. The whole game is about keeping the satus quo, after all.

#486
TEWR

TEWR
  • Members
  • 16 987 messages

In Exile wrote...

That's all situational. You're not a different person, you're in a different environment. Even the next day at work is a non-identical environment to the last day.


As is every quest in DA2, but forcing me to keep being a jackass just so I can get a few extra lines is what irks me.


Forcing me to stay true to one personality tone to get certain things available instead of allowing me to numerically tally them up is something I despise about it.


Now, this is unrealistic. But actual personalities work differently.




What's unrealistic? Me asking to numerically tally our choice of tones or what DA2 did?

#487
Nerevar-as

Nerevar-as
  • Members
  • 5 375 messages

In Exile wrote...

Sammyjb wrote...
Also, a lot of people find the story in Dragon Age 2 unsatisfying. In DA:O, and ME:1 +2, and KOTOR, and Jade Empire, you are the catalyst for change. You make these decisions that have consequences. In Dragon Age 2, you get nerfed in this respect. The ending is almost identical, and the three acts lacked any continuity.


The ending in DA:O is effectively identical, and the Warden is a dramatic agent for the status quo. The whole game is about keeping the satus quo, after all.


Dwarf king, Circle annulment, elf-werewolf trouble, Ferelden throne... vs deciding who you help in a situation out of your control which ends the same anyway (and I just don´t believe Templars or Mages would give a damn about HAwke´s opinion after end game).

#488
Cutlasskiwi

Cutlasskiwi
  • Members
  • 1 509 messages

Morroian wrote...

Sammyjb wrote...

Also, a lot of people find the story in Dragon Age 2 unsatisfying. In DA:O, and ME:1 +2, and KOTOR, and Jade Empire, you are the catalyst for change. You make these decisions that have consequences. In Dragon Age 2, you get nerfed in this respect.

In DA2 while you lack the big choices the character of Hawke is still the catalyst for change.


That is one of the reasons why I liked DA2 more than DAO. For once our character is not the center of attention with all the answers, who decides if the world should be saved or if it's doomed. It's out of the players control. And not knowing this while playing though the game for the first time made my gaming experience that much greater.  

Modifié par Yellow Words, 26 juin 2011 - 11:14 .


#489
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
As is every quest in DA2, but forcing me to keep being a jackass just so I can get a few extra lines is what irks me.


It's a pet peeve of mine when people reference how things are when they aren't that way (or at least we have evidence to believe they are not).

What's unrealistic? Me asking to numerically tally our choice of tones or what DA2 did?


What DA2 did. Your idea is good. I support it.

Nerevar-as wrote...
Dwarf king, Circle annulment, elf-werewolf
trouble, Ferelden throne... vs deciding who you help in a situation out
of your control which ends the same anyway (and I just don´t believe
Templars or Mages would give a damn about HAwke´s opinion after end
game).


Mages wiped out or some escaped, Fenryiel abomination or not, last of the Harrowmonts surviving or not, Arishok alive or dead...

We can list these choices is they had meaning, but they don't.

Modifié par In Exile, 26 juin 2011 - 11:15 .


#490
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Yellow Words wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Sammyjb wrote...

Also, a lot of people find the story in Dragon Age 2 unsatisfying. In DA:O, and ME:1 +2, and KOTOR, and Jade Empire, you are the catalyst for change. You make these decisions that have consequences. In Dragon Age 2, you get nerfed in this respect.

In DA2 while you lack the big choices the character of Hawke is still the catalyst for change.


That is one of the reasons why I liked DA2 more than DAO. For once our character is not the center of attention with all the answers who decides if the world should be saved or if it's doomed. And not knowing this while playing though the game for the first time made my gaming experience that much greater.  


That....WRPG protagonists are way too powerful..then along come Hawke and Geralt who aren't all powerful and feel more human as a result.

And the world is far more believable when other characters can make major decisions as well. Why does the PC have to be the only one allowed to make plot changing decisions? It is far more realistic when your character, who is a decision maker, shares space with other decision makers.

DAII doesn't have to always stick to western RPG convemtion.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 26 juin 2011 - 11:18 .


#491
Realmzmaster

Realmzmaster
  • Members
  • 5 510 messages
Both DAO and DA2 have plot holes. DAO story strings together better than DA2. Let us look at examples. KOP and I discuss it in a different thread and he has touch upon it here along with Eternal Writer Redux.

The darkspawn army attacked and won at Ostagar. What enemy army justs stops and not press the advantage? What was the army doing for the rest of the game until near the end. The few encounters on the road did not show the full army and was basically use as character development for your companions.

The only town that is destroyed is Lothering. It would have made far more sense to have the darkspawn over running the country with the overland map showing overran areas in red .
If the darkspawn over run an area that contained a potential ally, that ally is lost to the warden (scratch one army) and any quests are lost.

Where were all the scouts? How did an entire army march from Ostagar to Denerim without being detected? Why did everyone think Redcliffe was going to be attacked?

A game can have more than one antagonist. The ArchDemon is a weak antagonist. The game makes it appear that the ArchDemon was sitting back waiting for the warden to raise his/her army.
Loghain along with Howe were better antagonists in DAO. The ArchDemon was anti-climatic.

The same can be said for DA2. The Arishok is a better antagonist than Meredith. Act 3 in DA2 simply is not even half-baked. There is very little development of Meredith or Orsino in the game.

You learn nothing about Meredith until Act3 and only if you do certain quests, otherwise you stay in the dark. You know learn nothing about Orsino. Orsino becoming a Harvester to combat a pro templar Hawke makes sense.
Orsino becoming a Harvester with a pro mage Hawke makes no sense. The fact that Hawke is unable to influence Orsino to stop him from losing it was just bad. The fact that you can have a mage Hawke in Kirkwall without detection is bizzare. The same with Anders, but both have plot shield. Bethany even balks when going to Kirkwall is mentioned.

Both games have faults. The faults in DAO are a little more tolerable given its length. The faults in DA2 are more glaring because of its focus.

Now this is coming from a gamer who likes both games and had fun playing them. I do not ignore the faults. I also care less about DA2 is better than DAO or DAO is better than DA2.

My standard is did I have fun playing the game. In that regard both were a win for me.

#492
Morroian

Morroian
  • Members
  • 6 396 messages

Nerevar-as wrote...

Morroian wrote...

In DA2 while you lack the big choices the character of Hawke is still the catalyst for change.


No, he isn´t. That´s the problem. He is a supporting character to qunari, Anders, Meredith & Orsino and the people whose actions really shape things.

You're wrong IMHO. I know the arguments that have been mounted for that but I disagree with them and think they amount to rationalisations.

#493
Morroian

Morroian
  • Members
  • 6 396 messages

Realmzmaster wrote...

You learn nothing about Meredith until Act3 and only if you do certain quests, otherwise you stay in the dark. You know learn nothing about Orsino. Orsino becoming a Harvester to combat a pro templar Hawke makes sense.
Orsino becoming a Harvester with a pro mage Hawke makes no sense. 

It does to me it just wasn't presented well at all, Orsino gave in to despair.

As for Meredith you learn something about her in Acts 1 and 2 not much though and its all second hand. We should have met her and Orsino earlier.

#494
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages
Do you guys know why Bioware decided to go for a "cliche" story in DAO?
Because cliches work.

#495
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages

Realmzmaster wrote...
Loghain along with Howe were better antagonists in DAO. The ArchDemon was anti-climatic.


Sorry, I have a hard time looping my head around this... Killing the leader of the blight and thus saving Ferelden was anti-climatic? 

#496
Aaleel

Aaleel
  • Members
  • 4 427 messages

Morroian wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You learn nothing about Meredith until Act3 and only if you do certain quests, otherwise you stay in the dark. You know learn nothing about Orsino. Orsino becoming a Harvester to combat a pro templar Hawke makes sense.
Orsino becoming a Harvester with a pro mage Hawke makes no sense. 

It does to me it just wasn't presented well at all, Orsino gave in to despair.

As for Meredith you learn something about her in Acts 1 and 2 not much though and its all second hand. We should have met her and Orsino earlier.


Orsino had just given this rousing speech and helped handily beat back the first wave of Templars, why would he give in to despair then, it did not make sense.  If anything he should have done it right when they were cornered before any Templars ever attacked.

But where it fell apart for me the most.  Every other mage that turns into a demon, abomination, and the harvester you fought previously all seem to know friend from foe, but Orsino somehow can't and just attacks you.  Whole scene made no sense.

Modifié par Aaleel, 26 juin 2011 - 11:40 .


#497
TEWR

TEWR
  • Members
  • 16 987 messages
It doesn't help that the mages die, even when you save them.

#498
Realmzmaster

Realmzmaster
  • Members
  • 5 510 messages

Jon Jern wrote...

Do you guys know why Bioware decided to go for a "cliche" story in DAO?
Because cliches work.


DA2's rags to riches story is equally cliched. So what is your point?

#499
Jon Jern_

Jon Jern_
  • Members
  • 600 messages
We have different interpretations of "cliche" then. In my opinion (Holy **** I hate using this phrase) DAO was cliche but it was great as hell, DA2 tried a little  (read : LITTLE) different approach but fell short.

Modifié par Jon Jern , 26 juin 2011 - 11:48 .


#500
billy the squid

billy the squid
  • Members
  • 4 669 messages

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
Yep, and if you talk to Anora and Arl Eamon they both give you an insight, all be it brief into Loghain's character and the possible driving force behind his actions. Personally I really liked Loghain as the main antagonist, rather than being a moustache twirling villain who is simply evil there is actual reasoning, however warped, behind many actions.


It's no differnet than being able to talk to Cullen about Meredith, or hearing from Anders how Meredith is pushing the mages more, hearing complaints from Anders, and having Varric narrate changes. The amount of content there is, well, still about the same. Loghain doesn't have very much development, in terms of content.





Meredith, there is very little character detail whatsoever and the lirium idol is a cheap gimick to turn her into a villain, she's bad, because she's mad. to do justice to such antagonists they need character exposition. Thus one's opinion changes over the game, as more is revealed, culminating in decisions like the Landsmeet, were Loghain had reasons to do what he did. Finally you are given an option and Alistair gives a glimpse of the fact he is almost as idealistic as Calin in his refusal to allow Lohgain to live, made me question his fitness to be king.


Actually, if you ignore the lyrium idol reveal at the end (obviously a WTF? from many levels) the actual amount of content we have re: Meredith becoming more and more extreme is there.

Look, DA2 failed on many levels, but I don't like the white-washing of Bioware's short-comings, because a big part of why we got DA2 is the pass DA:O got for it's flaws.


As I said, Anora and Arl Eamon do give you some information although it is quite brief, but I think it could have been expanded on and we don't learn a great deal of what Loghain has been up to until the Landsmeet section of the game, but this is one of issues in the way in DAO was conveyed, the different parts of the main quest to secure allies feels more seperated from the main plot, only linked to the overarching theme of the blight in a rather loose manner.  

I have never claimed DAO is a classic or a shining beacon of how things should be done, it has numerous problems from how it handles the plot to the actual gameplay itself. But, I don't think that DA2's faults are entirely derived from DAO's reception, particularly considering the shift in design direction to DA2, there is a problem in that DA2 didn't fix many of the problems of the original and added more

Now, Loghain vs Meredith, I think Loghain was handled better in terms of the character potrayal rather than the amount of content, inspite of the limited information there was enough to draw some conclusions as the motivation behind his current actions at Ostagar  where he is first introduced as the antagonist and remains present throughout even if whilst recruiting allies he dissapears somewhat, but, this is an issue with how the plot progresses. The Arch demon for me was a plot device to create an overarching theme to bind the game together, it was okay, but not particularly good.

Whereas Meredith doesn't appear until the end of Act 2, considering she is supposed to be one of the most important figures in Kirkwall, I would have though we would see her influence earlier, even if it remains subtle. The issue with info about Meredith it is only able to be gained through the completion of certain quests particularly in Act 3, otherwise one is left with several question marks over why she acts in this manner. This is exacerbated by the way in which DA2's plot progresses with each act feeling disjointed from the others.
 
DAO had an overarching theme even if the many of the main quests were only loosely associated with the plot, his  subsequent disappearance in the middle of the game with the exception of some cutscenes didn't seem to damage Loghain to the same degree, as his involvement and some of his motivations had already been established at Ostagar and the meeting with the Bannorn where he declares himself regent. Whilst more information is revealed later towards the end when events start to reach a head

Modifié par billy the squid, 27 juin 2011 - 12:01 .