583 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
That seems  like a perfectly reasonable  conclusion to me.  Which is why I saw  red flags the moment I heard Mike Laidlaw cite the DA:O's "quitter" numbers as  one of the reasons why  Bioware decided to 'simplify' DA2.   He saw the numbers, then concluded that it had something  to do  with DA:O's design  (he claimed some nonsense about a wall of stats  discouraging players or whatever).  In other words, this is a classic example of having  perfectly good metric data and then spectacularly  MISINTERPRETTING it.

Isn't Mike Laidlaw just a project manager, basically? I don't think he has input on the business side, aside from how to reach goals that EA sets out (e.g. find a way to maximize competion %).

He said it anyway.  He cited this data anyway, and then used it as his argument to explain why DA:O's formula had to be drastically changed.

Link

^again,  classic example of having perfectly good metric data, and then managing to totally misinterpret it.

[Morroian]

xkg wrote...

VGchartz shows 3,8 mils without PC sales for USA.
Do you think that DAO for PC sold about 700 000 in USA ? Easily.
Sum it up  =  at least 4,5 mil

So it looks like VGChartz sales data isn't so inacurate.

Funny how you don't want to apply the same reasoning to DA2 sales ie. if you did DA2 sales probably arrive at significantly over 2m. A lot less than DAO but not by 3 times. 

[Morroian]

alex90c wrote...

and yet plenty of people love it, unlike the 4+ months of NON-STOP bashing DA2 has received on here and practically every site on the internet. besides, ME2 doesn't have stupid mangatard combat (no guys, don't shoot me for saying that, I'm using it interchangeably with awful/rubbish/garbage, w/e)

DA2 combat is so much better than ME2 combat its not funny. Despite the waves its far more varied offerring differring approaches unlike the relentless cover based focus of ME2.

alex90c wrote...

no, the point of my b*tching, whining and incessant vitriol (don't worry, i'm no "holier than thou", I know full well I can be extremely vitriolic in regards to DA2, I don't hide from that) is to keep awareness of the flaws in the hope that they're not repeated in DA3.

You don't think Biwoare have got the message about what people disliked about the game? At this point it has just become trolling, provocative nonsense which doesn't accomplish anything. Bioware would have long since stopped listening to anyone who posts the same whinges time after time arfter time after time.

[xkg]

Morroian wrote...

xkg wrote...

VGchartz shows 3,8 mils without PC sales for USA.
Do you think that DAO for PC sold about 700 000 in USA ? Easily.
Sum it up  =  at least 4,5 mil

So it looks like VGChartz sales data isn't so inacurate.

Funny how you don't want to apply the same reasoning to DA2 sales ie. if you did DA2 sales probably arrive at significantly over 2m. A lot less than DAO but not by 3 times. 

Funny how you always have no idea about the subject you are talking about.
PLEASE TELL ME WHY ???????

Have you ever seen VGchartz sales page ?
I don't need to apply the same reasoning for DA2 because sales for USA PC are available.

I am looking at that data now and all the sales (ALL PLATFORMS EUROPE & USA) for DA2  = 1 430 000

But I really have enough of you and your pity arguments.
Think twice before you quote me next time.

[Morroian]

My mistake I thought you were talking about digital sales. Why doesn't vgchartz have the DAO PC sales?

[xkg]

They do have sales for PC - but only for Europe - why? I have no clue, really.

http://gamrreview.vg...on-age-origins/

[txgoldrush]

alex90c wrote...

a) no, I wasn't changing the goal post ...

I never claimed DA2 wasn't a bioware RPG, I quite clearly stated when I play Bioware RPGs I expect stuff like awesome story, characters, whatever, not "DA2 isnt a bioware RPG"

and to be honest, if sticking with the cliche would have made DA2 something better than the complete joke it is now, then I would have been willing to put up with it one more time. yes, Bioware needs to branch away from gather allies defeat big bad, but the execution of their change in direction with DA2 sucked.

IT SUCKED HARD

c) And many want Bioware to make a game just like DAO, which is a BAD thing. Many fans cannot accept that things can be different, they want more of the same and thats a bad thing. Always listening to your fans is not always a good thing.

Its more than just fixing DAII's flaws, its wanting to take steps back that is the problem with the DA fanbase.

no, I believe the consensus is :

people loved DA:O thought it was a great game. if forced to choose between a game like DA2 and DA:O, many would pick DA:O any day.

BUT

and heres the big butt
since i like big butts and cannot lie

people are willing to accept change if its GOOD change. so for example

do NOT turn dragon age in to mass effect (ME is great, but seriously, keep the franchises separate, we don't need a hybrid)
do NOT turn dragon age in to a BUTTON AWESOME hack n' slash, it just insults peoples intelligence and alienates the fan base
do NOT limit companion interaction to twice per act

and a gazillion other things which im too lazy to write down

now Bioware does have the right idea in mind (moving forward), but the execution currently sucks ass. "moving forward" and "innovating" is not turning the dragon age franchise in to BUTTON AWESOME to get the call of duty crowd, it's ACTUALLY making the game BETTER, so that people who come in expecting an rpg get an rpg out of it, not some weird action adventure hybrid that doesn't even know what it is.

a) DAII had a good overall story (minus a few factors here or there), with a better overall cast than the one to two dimensional more Bioware cliched original cast. Its also a far smarter story than most Bioware stories, certainly far more than DAO which is one of the most generic WRPG stories in the modern era.

Is the execution all there? Hell no...but because it was rushed, not because it was bad to begin with.

Also fans simply just did not get the format. The unique format REQUIRED people to look at the narrative and its delivery differently.

And even flawed ideas move the RPG genre far more than a conservative game done well. The most overrated aspect of DAO is that it does NOTHING to advance the genre.

And many like the combat system better in DAII. There is no reason why to change the pace back to Origins. All they have to do is allow a tactical view, allow auto attack options, have a far more varied enemy roster, and impliment waves smarter. Going back to the clunky Origins is not an option and it is something they won't simply do. And if some players want to play it like a hack and slash, let them. Instead of being an almost complete rip off of FFXII, bring something fresh and new to the expreince. Its a simple fact that fans hate going away from the tried and true formula.

The companion interaction and implimentation is better in DAII than it is in DAO. They are more participants in the story than in the past games, and especially DAO where Alistair was the only real particpant. Can there be mor einteractive moments with them? Sure. But the DAII way is a step forward, going back to the talking codex entries that the characters were in DAO is a very bad idea.

Simple fact is that fanbases resist change when the formula works, unaware of the diminishing returns when the same formula is used over and over. Bioware made DAII, especially its narrative, in response to the same formula becoming tired. Bioware should not always listen to its fans, sometimes they need to do what they want to do and the fans need to accept it. Bioware should try more unconventional storylines, characters with far more subtle personalities, breaking formulas, set protagonists like a Geralt (why not give Leliana or Cassandra a try?), despite what fans want. Fans need to learn to reserve judgement instead of whining when a company makes a change in direction.

It was not the direction that really hurt DAII, it was the fact that the game was rushed.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 18 juillet 2011 - 03:37 .

[OdanUrr]

txgoldrush wrote...

It was not the direction that really hurt DAII, it was the fact that the game was rushed.

I partially agree. That the game was rushed for whatever reasons is largely undisputable. Many issues players have with the game could have benefited from a longer dev cycle (re-used maps, lacking environments, better implementation of character development, etc.). The fact that Bioware put a 180-spin on the franchise cut what little time they had even shorter, like creating several already existing elements from scratch (new designs for elves, qunari, darkspawn, and a general revamped look and feel to the DA universe).

I've argued before that DA2 introduced a paradigm shift not only in how we viewed the DA universe so far, but in how we view RPGs in general. Thus, if they build upon DA2 and take feedback to heart, DA3 has the potential to be a great game. Bioware moved away from their usual type of RPG (where you're basically the hero who has to defeat some ancient, or not so ancient, evil), they're moving away from their comfort zone, so it's bound to hurt. It still surprises me a little that CD Projekt managed to pull off something like TW2 which, while not without its flaws, seems to accomplish what Bioware set out to do with DA2 with a bit more flair (well, maybe more than a bit).

But a rushed dev cycle isn't the only reason behind DA2's several flaws. There was no need to change every single thing in the DA universe from DAO to DA2. It leaves one with the feeling of having experienced a reboot of sorts, that, somehow, DAO was not the kind of game Bioware had originally envisioned for the DA franchise, merely a lucky (or not) accident.

So, to sum up, DA2 has both strong and weak points. However, a longer dev cycle wouldn't have solved every single one of its weak points, whichever those may be...

Modifié par OdanUrr, 18 juillet 2011 - 04:16 .

[Corto81]

txgoldrush wrote...

a) DAII had a good overall story (minus a few factors here or there), with a better overall cast than the one to two dimensional more Bioware cliched original cast. Its also a far smarter story than most Bioware stories, certainly far more than DAO which is one of the most generic WRPG stories in the modern era.

DA2 had a good story?
2 separate stories, in now way linked to each other (Qunari, Temp vs Mage), and your main antagonists pop up very late in the game, never feels natural, never feels real.
DA:O was about the politics of Ferelden cloaked in a Save the World from Darkspawn story.
But the Darkspawn was only the end goal and made about 10% of the plot.
The core was Ferelden politics, making allies, overcoming obstacles and betrayals, etc.

DA2 doesn't have a good story because it doesn't have a story.
It's a bunch of un-connected stuff that happens over 7 years and it's neither believable nor immersive... nor interesting tbh.

And better overall cast?
You gotta be joking.
They're so single-minded and immature (Fenris, Seb, Anders, Merrill, Carver).
The only slightly believable companions were Varric and Avelline - Isabela was a so-so, too cartoony and too cliche IMO.
Not to mention that outside of your companions, only the Arishok leaves any impact.... Others are just complete rubbish - Orsino, etc. and can't begin to compare with Loghain, Arl Howe, etc.

[Stanley Woo]

Let's take the hysteria and vitriol down a notch and keep it on topic, please. THank you.

[Ylhaym]

Corto81 wrote...]
DA2 had a good story?
2 separate stories, in now way linked to each other (Qunari, Temp vs Mage), and your main antagonists pop up very late in the game, never feels natural, never feels real.
DA:O was about the politics of Ferelden cloaked in a Save the World from Darkspawn story.
But the Darkspawn was only the end goal and made about 10% of the plot.
The core was Ferelden politics, making allies, overcoming obstacles and betrayals, etc.

DA2 doesn't have a good story because it doesn't have a story.
It's a bunch of un-connected stuff that happens over 7 years and it's neither believable nor immersive... nor interesting tbh.

You're right about DA:Os story but...
DA2's core story isn't about Qunari and Templars vs Mages... Its about the story of Hawke, and how he handled those events. Qunari and Templars vs Mages are linked, linked through Hawke. Even the "bunch of un-connected stuff". If you're in Hawke's shoes, those "bunch of un-connected stuff" can actually make or break you as a person. It is a good story. People just view it in a wrong way.

edit: added some stuff...

Modifié par Ylhaym, 18 juillet 2011 - 10:01 .

[Foolsfolly]

DA2's core story isn't about Qunari and Templars vs Mages... Its about the story of Hawke, and how he handled those events.

That's a cheap answer, though. In that event DA:O is about the Warden and how the Warden handles events.

[TEWR]

Ylhaym wrote...

Corto81 wrote...]
DA2 had a good story?
2 separate stories, in now way linked to each other (Qunari, Temp vs Mage), and your main antagonists pop up very late in the game, never feels natural, never feels real.
DA:O was about the politics of Ferelden cloaked in a Save the World from Darkspawn story.
But the Darkspawn was only the end goal and made about 10% of the plot.
The core was Ferelden politics, making allies, overcoming obstacles and betrayals, etc.

DA2 doesn't have a good story because it doesn't have a story.
It's a bunch of un-connected stuff that happens over 7 years and it's neither believable nor immersive... nor interesting tbh.

You're right about DA:Os story but...
DA2's core story isn't about Qunari and Templars vs Mages... Its about the story of Hawke, and how he handled those events. Qunari and Templars vs Mages are linked, linked through Hawke. Even the "bunch of un-connected stuff". If you're in Hawke's shoes, those "bunch of un-connected stuff" can actually make or break you as a person. It is a good story. People just view it in a wrong way.

edit: added some stuff...

DA2's story was supposed to be about both Hawke and how he dealt with the Mage-Templar conflict, which all of the Acts should've connected to. It was supposed to be about Hawke rising up to power and building various connections, which Act 1 had in leaps and bounds and Hawke never (or rarely) took advantage of.

He could've built a connection with alienage elves or a city magistrate, Amaranthine (which now that I think about it I guess he did do for that mysterious lady), Athenril/Meeran (they weren't given enough time on-screen despite being important to Hawke's life in Kirkwall), and others.

All of the Acts should've been connected to the rising tensions between mages and templars, with Hawke following the events and keeping up on them. Instead, they were all very loosely tied together.

I've since re-evaluated my stance on the Warden in that he isn't as proactive as I thought (there are some instances, but not enough to really call him proactive. Avernus' fate, the Architect's fate, the OGB, and maybe some others). Really, it seems like the Warden and Hawke are both reactive on the same level. And that's DA2's greatest failing imo, as Hawke could've been incredibly proactive, but he was made to be as reactive as the Warden if not moreso.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 juillet 2011 - 10:34 .

[xkg]

Ylhaym wrote...
It is a good story. People just view it in a wrong way.

If there are enough people who view it in worng way then there is something wrong with the story not with the people. Think about that.

[Ylhaym]

Foolsfolly wrote...

That's a cheap answer, though. In that event DA:O is about the Warden and how the Warden handles events.

What i mean is, DA2's core story is about Hawke, a more personal story compared to the DA:O's Blight on Ferelden.

xkg wrote...
If there are enough people who view it in worng way then there is something wrong with the story not with the people. Think about that.

What i mean is, some(i did not mention many) people view the Qunari and TvM as the main focus of DA2s story, not Hawke.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

DA2's story was supposed to be about both Hawke and how he dealt with the Mage-Templar conflict, which all of the Acts should've connected to. It was supposed to be about Hawke rising up to power and building various connections, which Act 1 had in leaps and bounds and Hawke never (or rarely) took advantage of. 

He could've built a connection with alienage elves or a city magistrate, Amaranthine (which now that I think about it I guess he did do for that mysterious lady), Athenril/Meeran (they weren't given enough time on-screen despite being important to Hawke's life in Kirkwall), and others.

All of the Acts should've been connected to the rising tensions between mages and templars, with Hawke following the events and keeping up on them. Instead, they were all very loosely tied together.

I do agree with what you said. For me, its a good story but not implemented well.

edit: correcting stuff.
I have a hard time expressing myself in english 

Modifié par Ylhaym, 18 juillet 2011 - 11:17 .

[Yrkoon]

xkg wrote...

It is a good story. People just view it in a wrong way.

If there are enough people who view it in worng way then there is something wrong with the story not with the people. Think about that.

It's not even a story. It's three friggin stories (which in and of itself isn't a bad thing. BG1 was two very distinct stories, but they were  tightly and masterfully weaved into each other)  And that's the difference.    In DA2, the 3 main plots weren't connected. At all. There were huge gaps. it was almost like playing 3 different games... only worse because you  weren't playing 3 different games.  You were consistantly being pounded upside the head with the  exact same unchanging setting, dealing with the exact same unchanging people, and doing the exact same type of unimaginative poorly written quests/busy work.

 It was a literary  mess. An unbelieveable one, considering  that Bioware is usually the industry LEADER when it comes to putting out amazingly written stories.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 18 juillet 2011 - 11:30 .

[iggy4566]

Yrkoon wrote...

xkg wrote...

It is a good story. People just view it in a wrong way.

If there are enough people who view it in worng way then there is something wrong with the story not with the people. Think about that.

It's not even a story. It's three friggin stories (which in and of itself isn't a bad thing. BG1 was two very distinct stories, but they were  tightly and masterfully weaved into each other)  And that's the difference.    In DA2, the 3 main plots weren't connected. At all. There were huge gaps. it was almost like playing 3 different games... only worse because you  weren't playing 3 different games.  You were consistantly being pounded upside the head with the  exact same unchanging setting, dealing with the exact same unchanging people, and doing the exact same type of unimaginative poorly written quests/busy work.

 It was a literary  mess. An unbelieveable one, considering  that Bioware is usually the industry LEADER when it comes to putting out amazingly written stories.

How are the 3 acts not concected?

[OdanUrr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

DA2's story was supposed to be about both Hawke and how he dealt with the Mage-Templar conflict, which all of the Acts should've connected to. It was supposed to be about Hawke rising up to power and building various connections, which Act 1 had in leaps and bounds and Hawke never (or rarely) took advantage of.

In hindsight, I don't think DA2 was ever about Hawke's rise to power but about what kind of person he becomes at the "end" of the Kirkwall conflict. It was marketed as Hawke's rise to power, sure, and it was at least implied he'd have a greater power of choice than his predecessor, the Warden. I kept expecting him to build connections, much like you did, but those never came to be. It kind of reminds me of the passage of time in Fable III when you're preparing for the invasion. You think you have all the time in the word to change things, better things, and then the reality that you really have three or so days sinks in. It was ironic at best.

He could've built a connection with alienage elves or a city magistrate, Amaranthine (which now that I think about it I guess he did do for that mysterious lady), Athenril/Meeran (they weren't given enough time on-screen despite being important to Hawke's life in Kirkwall), and others.

Similarly to how the Warden gained the support of allies through the treaties, Hawke could have gained the allegiance of certain power groups within Kirkwall for some final epic showdown. It would have been a way to reward your building connections throughout those ten or so years you've been living in Kirkwall. Alas, Hawke is Champion in name only.

All of the Acts should've been connected to the rising tensions between mages and templars, with Hawke following the events and keeping up on them. Instead, they were all very loosely tied together.

Well, there are missions throughout the acts that show us that the templar-mage conflict is ongoing. However, the **** truly hits the fan in Act III. I agree this particular aspect of the game should have been built better, we should have seen Meredith and Orsino early on and see them evolve with the years.

I've since re-evaluated my stance on the Warden in that he isn't as proactive as I thought (there are some instances, but not enough to really call him proactive. Avernus' fate, the Architect's fate, the OGB, and maybe some others). Really, it seems like the Warden and Hawke are both reactive on the same level. And that's DA2's greatest failing imo, as Hawke could've been incredibly proactive, but he was made to be as reactive as the Warden if not moreso.

The problem is that we're not given a credible reason as to why he isn't as proactive as he could be given that he's been living in Kirkwall for years and years. What has he been doing all those years? Why is it that he's got no goal in life, no agenda of his own? I would. If you want to argue that's the point, to make him feel powerless, then make me believe why exactly he is powerless, why he doesn't have an agenda of his own. I can understand that DA2 may have been the story Bioware wanted to tell, but at least make me believe it, don't make it an act of faith.

[Il Divo]

Yrkoon wrote...

 It was a literary  mess. An unbelieveable one, considering  that Bioware is usually the industry LEADER when it comes to putting out amazingly written stories.

With Dragon Age 2, Bioware tried a completely different style, which I can appreciate even if some things were handled badly. Origins plot-wise is nothing special either. Recruiting the army does not add to the story and is simply filler content, equivalent to what you would find in an anime. The Archdemon/Darkspawn was simply a Macguffin to get the ball rolling.

Someone made the point earlier that DA:O was about Fereldan politics. I would have preferred a game which focused on this entirely, rather than starting with a usual premise of saving the world from an ancient evil. As it stands, Origins itself was nothing special.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juillet 2011 - 03:11 .

[Addai]

txgoldrush wrote...
Simple fact is that fanbases resist change when the formula works, unaware of the diminishing returns when the same formula is used over and over. Bioware made DAII, especially its narrative, in response to the same formula becoming tired. Bioware should not always listen to its fans, sometimes they need to do what they want to do and the fans need to accept it. Bioware should try more unconventional storylines, characters with far more subtle personalities, breaking formulas, set protagonists like a Geralt (why not give Leliana or Cassandra a try?), despite what fans want. Fans need to learn to reserve judgement instead of whining when a company makes a change in direction.

It was not the direction that really hurt DAII, it was the fact that the game was rushed.

Fans don't need to do anything.  You act as though we have some sort of obligation to the dev company to hand over our money.  That's not the way it works.

[Yrkoon]

iggy4566 wrote...


How are the 3 acts not concected?

Well lets see.  I'm sure  Act 1's main plot  (the deep roads expedition (and the Idol))  are very cleverly connected to, say,    Act's 2's main plot  (The Qunari)    And I'd be absolutely delighted  for someone  (perhaps you?) to explain  exactly how they are.

Start with that, since that's 2/3rds of the friggin game right there.

Then later we can discuss what the hell the Qunari have to do with the Mage vs. Templar conflict  (act 3's main plot).  Because I sure as hell can't see  a link there.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 18 juillet 2011 - 04:42 .

[OdanUrr]

Yrkoon wrote...

Well lets see.  I'm sure  Act 1's main plot  (the deep roads expedition (and the Idol))  are very cleverly connected to, say,    Act's 2's main plot  (The Qunari threat.)    And I'd be absolutely delighted  for someone  (perhaps you?) to explain  exactly how they are.

Start with that, since that's 2/3rds of the friggin game right there.

Then later we can discuss what the hell the Qunari have to do with the Mage vs. Templar conflict  (act 3's main plot).  Because I sure as hell can't see  a link there.

The three acts are not quite directly linked to each other. In Act I you forge a personal connection with the Arishok that places you at the center of a plot against the Qunari later in Act II. In that same act there are nods to the Deep Roads expedition and to the fate of the idol (I wasn't at all surprised later in Act III).

The resolution of the Qunari conflict at the end of Act II leaves Kirkwall in a power vacuum. During the first two acts, the Viscount, ineffectual as he might have been, acted as a sort of barrier between the templars and the mages. The status quo at the time, while it didn't place the two organisations as equal, gave the illusion that no body was above the other. After the end of Act II, that situation rapidly deteriorates as the Templar Order fills that power vacuum with the Chanty's blessing. In Act III, the templars are effectively above the mages in hierarchy, they're the law of the land. The templars are not exactly neutral towards mages so this leads to constant abuses of power that are referred to in the interlude leading to the famous Act III climax.

[SkittlesKat96]

 The OP actually has a really great point (even if some of you don't agree) but a lot of other peoples points are right too (DA 2 didn't do as good a job with the choices as other Bioware games etc. etc.)

Its just ridiculous that people can't come to a compromise though and take the good points of what the OP is saying with their own opinions...

[xkg]

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

 The OP actually has a really great point (even if some of you don't agree) but a lot of other peoples points are right too (DA 2 didn't do as good a job with the choices as other Bioware games etc. etc.)

Its just ridiculous that people can't come to a compromise though and take the good points of what the OP is saying with their own opinions...

But what if there are people whose opinions are completly different from OP's.
They can't find any good points in his opinions - is it RIDICULOUS too for you ?

Modifié par xkg, 18 juillet 2011 - 04:54 .

[Yrkoon]

OdanUrr wrote...

The three acts are not quite directly linked to each other. In Act I you forge a personal connection with the Arishok that places you at the center of a plot against the Qunari later in Act II. In that same act there are nods to the Deep Roads expedition and to the fate of the idol (I wasn't at all surprised later in Act III).

The resolution of the Qunari conflict at the end of Act II leaves Kirkwall in a power vacuum. During the first two acts, the Viscount, ineffectual as he might have been, acted as a sort of barrier between the templars and the mages. The status quo at the time, while it didn't place the two organisations as equal, gave the illusion that no body was above the other. After the end of Act II, that situation rapidly deteriorates as the Templar Order fills that power vacuum with the Chanty's blessing. In Act III, the templars are effectively above the mages in hierarchy, they're the law of the land. The templars are not exactly neutral towards mages so this leads to constant abuses of power that are referred to in the interlude leading to the famous Act III climax.

Act one isn't about the Arishok at all.  It's not even indirectly about the Arishok.    You only have 2 quick conversations with him   in act 1, and both are about  Gunpowder...which is  neither here nor there.  You've got more dealings with friggin Thrask and Fenrial than you do with him.    Act one's Main plot  is  about raising money for a deep roads expedition, and then going on it, and then discovering an evil red Idol.... and then waiting 3 years for something  else to come up.


And using a Dead Viscount and a retreating Qunari to explain why the  act three Templar vs. Mage conflict decides to heat to a boil 3 years later isn't a "connection". it's the opposite of a connection. It's a lack of one. It's a completely different road.

It's like the devs sat down to write the plot, and after getting up to a terrific climax and resolution in act two, they looked at the finished product and said: "wow, that was awesome but... sh*t. The game's only 20 hours long. Quick, lets toss together something for act 3. Oh I know, how about Mage vs. Templar? That's always a good one!

Modifié par Yrkoon, 18 juillet 2011 - 05:04 .