1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Dark_Savant]

willholt wrote...
I see people saying one negates the other... I disagree.

I think the sycophants are actually saying that implementing a system that allows for iconic character armours, unique body models and Origins style party customisation requires more effort and expense on the part of Bioware, so they really shouldn’t bother. Astonishing! I mean, it really does take a very special kind of apologist to make the case against adding value on behalf of their fav developer.
 
 In any case, could the good people at Bioware please do the work to put back into Dragon Age 3 what was taken from Origins in a way that doesn’t dent the enjoyment of those who want you to decide upon the look of their party for them?

Modifié par Dark_Savant, 31 août 2011 - 06:16 .

[Gunderic]

ipgd wrote...

As far as I am aware, DA's writers are not their artists. If they are diverting any resources away from from anything to make unique companion models happen, it's going to come out of their art department first.

Yes, the writers don't have control over this most likely; I'm not blaming them and it's not their responsibility. So I'm just going to blame Mike Laidlaw/EA and whoever else is in charge. 

Strengthening the visual component of their character designs does not associatively diminish their writing -- in fact, it strengthens it, in that it gives the writers an entirely new dimension with which to develop their characters' traits and histories (see, yet again: Jack, Fenris. Fenris is a character whose character narrative is heavily predicated on a physically visible change).

DA2 had about the same individual companion word budget as DAO did, and a lot of work went into improving the companion interaction infrastructure, so I have no idea where this is coming from. Writing in no way has to suffer when artists have more design leeway.

Yet, Dragon Age 2 had less than half the number of words than Origins did... not that having the same amount would make it better. And by 'improve' you mean 'dumb down', right? 

A Morrigan-type system is still constrained by the things I've gone over many times, none of which have anything to do with 'popularity' or 'recognition'. It is not an ideal system, because popularity and recognition are not the sole motivations to have a unique companion model system. There are, in fact, other reasons.

Yes, well, you may not agree with that, but what about the developers/other people who prefer 'iconic looks' ( I would prefer that the latter demographic be completely disregarded, personally )? Some may, in fact, think that this strikes a perfect balance.

Chris Priestly has cited cosplay ( i.e. popularity, recognition ) as a reason, after all.

Modifié par Gunderic, 31 août 2011 - 05:07 .

[Maconbar]

Dark_Savant wrote...

willholt wrote...
I see people saying one negates the other... I disagree.

I think the sycophants are actually saying that implementing a system that allows for iconic character armours, unique body models and Origins style party customisation requires more effort and expense on the part of Bioware, so they really shouldn’t bother. Astonishing! I mean, it really does take a very special kind of apologist to make the case against adding value on behalf of their fav developer.
 
 In any case, could the good people at Bioware please do the work to put back into Dragon Age 3 what was taken from Origins in a way that doesn’t dent the enjoyment of those who want you to decide the look of their party for them?

Actually many of us have been saying that this would be the ideal situation. Anything that moves Dragon Age toward that would be great. What I have been arguing against is going back to a DA:O type approach or staying with what was used in DA:2.

Ignoring the resource side of things seems foolish.

[John Epler]

Referring to people as 'sycophants' and 'apologists' is not acceptable. I shouldn't have to make this post, but apparently I do.

[Dark_Savant]

Maconbar wrote...

Dark_Savant wrote...

willholt wrote...
I see people saying one negates the other... I disagree.

I think the sycophants are actually saying that implementing a system that allows for iconic character armours, unique body models and Origins style party customisation requires more effort and expense on the part of Bioware, so they really shouldn’t bother. Astonishing! I mean, it really does take a very special kind of apologist to make the case against adding value on behalf of their fav developer.
 
 In any case, could the good people at Bioware please do the work to put back into Dragon Age 3 what was taken from Origins in a way that doesn’t dent the enjoyment of those who want you to decide the look of their party for them?

Actually many of us have been saying that this would be the ideal situation. Anything that moves Dragon Age toward that would be great. What I have been arguing against is going back to a DA:O type approach or staying with what was used in DA:2.

Ignoring the resource side of things seems foolish.

You post is a little vague, but if I understand it to mean ‘I prefer the approach of DA2 to Origins’ I say fine, but (and this is really a question for Mike and not those who seem happy to make excuses on his behalf) why cant we have both? 

Modifié par Dark_Savant, 31 août 2011 - 05:38 .

[Dark_Savant]

JohnEpler wrote...

Referring to people as 'sycophants' and 'apologists' is not acceptable. I shouldn't have to make this post, but apparently I do.

Sorry John, my bad.

[ipgd]

Gunderic wrote...

Yes, the writers don't have control over this most likely; I'm not blaming them and it's not their responsibility. So I'm just going to blame Mike Laidlaw/EA and whoever else is in charge.

I'm not saying it's not the writers' fault. I am saying that the people who are in charge are probably not taking money out of the writing department to fund companion armor models. If it cost more money (and I don't know exactly how much time/money it costs, because I don't work there, and neither do you), it would likely come out of somewhere else in the art department before it came out of the writing department. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that increased focus on companion model individuality, specifically, has any negative affect on writer resources whatsoever. You are fabricating this.

Yet, Dragon Age 2 had less than half the number of words than Origins did... not that having the same amount would make it better.

Each companion had about the same number of lines as each companion in Origins did. As Gaider has stated an innumerable number of times at this point. Or are you going to move the goalposts from 'companion writing having less focus' to 'THE WHOLE GAME'S WRITING IS WORSE!!!!'?

And by 'improve' you mean 'dumb down', right? 

How on earth do visual character designs 'dumb down' anything? Are you even thinking about the words you are using or are you just repeating whatever combatative buzzword first comes to mind? Can we stop using all terms to mean "anything I don't like". It makes language bothersome. Back in my day words used to mean things.

Yes, well, you may not agree with that, but what about the developers/other people who prefer 'iconic looks' ( I would prefer that the latter demographic be completely disregarded, personally )? Some may, in fact, think that this strikes a perfect balance.

What?

A preference for visually distinctive characters is part of the reason they made this change. It is not the defintive, all encompasing whole of this change. There are many other reasons to prefer this method, which I have given examples of countless of times. You can choose to ignore all of that and laser focus on the things you find easier to make fun of, but that is an incredibly simplistic approach to an argument.

Chris Priestly has cited cosplay ( i.e. popularity, recognition ) as a reason, after all.

Christ Priestly cited cosplay as an illustrative example of the effect of the shift towards a more distinctive art style, and you are misrepresentating what he said because "we did this because of cosplay!!!" is easier to ridicule.

[Maconbar]

Dark_Savant wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Dark_Savant wrote...

willholt wrote...
I see people saying one negates the other... I disagree.

I think the sycophants are actually saying that implementing a system that allows for iconic character armours, unique body models and Origins style party customisation requires more effort and expense on the part of Bioware, so they really shouldn’t bother. Astonishing! I mean, it really does take a very special kind of apologist to make the case against adding value on behalf of their fav developer.
 
 In any case, could the good people at Bioware please do the work to put back into Dragon Age 3 what was taken from Origins in a way that doesn’t dent the enjoyment of those who want you to decide the look of their party for them?

Actually many of us have been saying that this would be the ideal situation. Anything that moves Dragon Age toward that would be great. What I have been arguing against is going back to a DA:O type approach or staying with what was used in DA:2.

Ignoring the resource side of things seems foolish.

You post is a little vague, but if I understand it to mean ‘I prefer the approach of DA2 to Origins’ I say fine, but (and this is really a question for Mike and not those who seem happy to make excuses on his behalf) why cant we have both? 

Let me clarify. Ideally I would like to have unique body models for all companions plus armor choices for all. Neither DA:O nor DA:2 gives that to me. What Laidlaw appears to be offering is something that seems to move toward a direction that I prefer.

[bEVEsthda]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Hey folks,

At the PAX panel last night (which I enjoyed immensely! Thanks to all those that came, and pushed the room to capacity), I made some mentions about the pros and cons of the direction we took for follower armors and appearances in DAII, and strongly hinted that customization would be coming back. In the interests of transparency, I wanted to pop in here and lay out our current thinking in terms of how follower armors will work in the future.

To start, there was a thread a month back or so that was an excellent litmus test for us, as it asked what you folks would like to see in follower armors, and it was great to see that what was suggested by the majority of people was what we were thinking. I was careful not to comment much in that thread, so as not to influence the discussion, but a huge thanks to the folks who offered their opinions.

Second, I want to make it very clear that this is the direction we are thinking, not a contractual agreement. When and exactly how we make the changes is something we can't talk about at this point; remember that no official products have been announced, and, of course, circumstances can change, but I'm reasonably confident in this direction and thought it would be good to let you know early.

Now, to the meat of it. Our goals are:

• Followers will continue to have iconic appearances. Similar to DAII, their outfits will be more "full body" rather than parts-based (like Hawke or the DAO followers), and these armors will be unique to the followers. This decision allows us to give the followers appearances that "break the rules," such as isabela's boots coming over the knee, or Merril's gloves coming seamlessly up her arms. Ultimately, we believe that the strong visual identity given to characters by iconic appearances is an important part of their identity.
  
• Followers will have more than one appearance. Whether they be unlocked by advancing the core story, plot reward, some crazy ass crafting quest, romance or completing a personal plot, we would like the followers to have more than one appearance over the course of the game. To do show allows them to progress, grow and react to changing circumstances, all of which help us tell a visual story with the followers.
  
  
• The player should be given control over the follower's appearance once more than one appearance becomes available. Did you prefer Merril in green over white? Fair enough. We want to treat additional appearances more as unlocks, than as mandatory changes, so that you, as the player, maintain control over how your team looks, within each character's iconic style. Functionally, imagine going to the camp in Origins or your follower's base in DAII and clicking on a pack or wardrobe, and opening an interface that lets you pick which of their outfits you want them to wear.
  
  
• Followers will have their equipment slots restored and armor you equip in those slots will have the expected statistical impact on the follower, including enchantments, bonuses and base armor stats, along with requirements to wear the armor applying. As per above, adding armor pieces to these slots will not impact the follower's appearance directly, only their statistics.
  Followers who have no armor equipped by the player will be automatically equipped with a "basic" suit of armor that progresses automatically with them as they level, similar to the "basic" weapons that equip if you remove your real weapons in DAII. For those players uninterested in fiddling with their follower armors, these basic suits will be serviceable, and loosely equivalent to an run-of-the-mill suit of armor with no bonuses or enchantments for their current level. Hardly optimal, but serviceable enough for the lower difficulties.

Additionally, we are experimenting with armor equipped to the followers having some additional visual impact on the follower's iconic appearance, but we'll dig deeper on that as we get closer to a final implementation. As a general rule, you should expect that any deviation from the ideas outlined above would be towards more visual customization, rather than less.

So, we now have two feedforwards since "DA3 will be the best of DA2 and DA:O".
The first basically said that art direction stays the same: DA3 = slightly evolved DA2.
The second feedforward on followers equipment now also states DA3 = slightly evolved DA2.  Another day, another game, same ****.  Not that I ever understood what "best of DA2" was supposed to be, either.
(And yes, I've read all the 40 painful pages of ipgd, zanallen and co )

I'm unsure how to respond to this. I fail to see any advantages to force everyone to preserve your precious 'iconic' looks. It does remind very much of the feeling that permeated DA2, that someone wanted to force exactly his/theirs story with every his/theirs flavor intact, straight down my throat.
On the other hand I could possibly muster a fragment of tolerance for technical reasons, i.e. needing to keep the DA2 engine over next iteration. The art of possible, etc. But I don't know that is true.
(Because  I do know that there shouldn't be any resource problems if any scheme involving associative modeling is used.)
Whatever, can't say this is looking good. I suppose there will never be any "best of DA:O" in DA3.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 31 août 2011 - 06:11 .

[Alex Kershaw]

I actually like this decision (from somebody who loved Origins but was not impressed with DA2). It will probably seem a bit odd to equip armour to followers and not have them actually wear that armour, and I don't see why you can't have a toggle option as to whether or not they wear the armour or have their iconic looks, but it's definitely a step up from DA2's system (even if it is still a step down from DAO, but my dreams of the game ever going back to that quality are long gone).

Of course, if you stick with the system of having every inventory item go by the same name with a non-functional 5 star system, it will simply make it incredibly frustrating. You need to go back to items with unique names, a tiered system (metals, types of leather/wood) and unique icons. Sounds odd to be saying this to the developers who did it perfectly in DAO and for some reason threw it all in the bin...

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 31 août 2011 - 05:57 .

[Dark_Savant]

Maconbar wrote...

Dark_Savant wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Dark_Savant wrote...

willholt wrote...
I see people saying one negates the other... I disagree.

I think the sycophants are actually saying that implementing a system that allows for iconic character armours, unique body models and Origins style party customisation requires more effort and expense on the part of Bioware, so they really shouldn’t bother. Astonishing! I mean, it really does take a very special kind of apologist to make the case against adding value on behalf of their fav developer.
 
 In any case, could the good people at Bioware please do the work to put back into Dragon Age 3 what was taken from Origins in a way that doesn’t dent the enjoyment of those who want you to decide the look of their party for them?

Actually many of us have been saying that this would be the ideal situation. Anything that moves Dragon Age toward that would be great. What I have been arguing against is going back to a DA:O type approach or staying with what was used in DA:2.

Ignoring the resource side of things seems foolish.

You post is a little vague, but if I understand it to mean ‘I prefer the approach of DA2 to Origins’ I say fine, but (and this is really a question for Mike and not those who seem happy to make excuses on his behalf) why cant we have both? 

Let me clarify. Ideally I would like to have unique body models for all companions plus armor choices for all. Neither DA:O nor DA:2 gives that to me. What Laidlaw appears to be offering is something that seems to move toward a direction that I prefer.

Thanks for clearing that up, my brain is a little foggy today. Here's hoping the game delivers for us both.

[bEVEsthda]

Maconbar wrote...
Let me clarify. Ideally I would like to have unique body models for all companions plus armor choices for all. Neither DA:O nor DA:2 gives that to me. What Laidlaw appears to be offering is something that seems to move toward a direction that I prefer.

I don't understand this. He doesn't promise you unique body models and you don't get armor choices, only stats. Why does the offering seem to move toward a direction you prefer?

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
Honestly, if Bioware goes out and does it, I would fully support the apperance slot + equipment slot approach, so long as we get an iconic look and an alternate (let's say). 

Appearance slots (called social) + equipment slots work rather well in Terraria. Granted, an indie game with a "16 bit retro" look on it is not the same as a big budger studio production, but the principle seems sound.

[Maconbar]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maconbar wrote...
Let me clarify. Ideally I would like to have unique body models for all companions plus armor choices for all. Neither DA:O nor DA:2 gives that to me. What Laidlaw appears to be offering is something that seems to move toward a direction that I prefer.

I don't understand this. He doesn't promise you unique body models and you don't get armor choices, only stats. Why does the offering seem to move toward a direction you prefer?

Actually unique body models were provided in DA:2 and seems to be promised in DA:3. More choice in appearance appears to be under consideration. If it's just ME2 style reskinning then I will be disappointed. Min/maxing for stats is put forward as an option and that is an improvement  for me.

In an ideal DA:3 heads wouldn't be bolted onto torsos. Anything to minimize that would also be appreciated by me.

[bEVEsthda]

ipgd wrote...

What?

A preference for visually distinctive characters is part of the reason they made this change. It is not the defintive, all encompasing whole of this change. There are many other reasons to prefer this method, which I have given examples of countless of times. You can choose to ignore all of that and laser focus on the things you find easier to make fun of, but that is an incredibly simplistic approach to an argument.

Chris Priestly has cited cosplay ( i.e. popularity, recognition ) as a reason, after all.

Christ Priestly cited cosplay as an illustrative example of the effect of the shift towards a more distinctive art style, and you are misrepresentating what he said because "we did this because of cosplay!!!" is easier to ridicule.

You have posted a lot here, in your countless attacks on everybody who doesn't like this, including your presumed examples of reasons to "prefer this method". But I'm with Gunderic here. I'd prefer to ignore your countless examples, because I don't know you're right. Why should I believe you're right? Your arguments are not convincing.
And I have not seen the developers give any good reasons for preserving iconic looks. The only reason I've seen is cosplay. And that is a pretty ridiculous reason for a such impopular restriction, so obviously risks ridicule.

[bEVEsthda]

Maconbar wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maconbar wrote...
Let me clarify. Ideally I would like to have unique body models for all companions plus armor choices for all. Neither DA:O nor DA:2 gives that to me. What Laidlaw appears to be offering is something that seems to move toward a direction that I prefer.

I don't understand this. He doesn't promise you unique body models and you don't get armor choices, only stats. Why does the offering seem to move toward a direction you prefer?

Actually unique body models were provided in DA:2 and seems to be promised in DA:3. More choice in appearance appears to be under consideration. If it's just ME2 style reskinning then I will be disappointed. Min/maxing for stats is put forward as an option and that is an improvement  for me.

In an ideal DA:3 heads wouldn't be bolted onto torsos. Anything to minimize that would also be appreciated by me.

There's no general reason you can't have unique body models and armour choices. There may be an existing technical reason in the engine they are planning to use. I don't know that.

[Sad Dragon]

Alex Kershaw wrote...
... and I don't see why you can't have a toggle option as to whether or not they wear the armour or have their iconic looks ...

Been discuessed earlier in the thread but will try and explain why this really isnt a viable option.

The iconic look enables Bioware to also use unique body modles for every character -- instead of having to try and build companions around 2 models (male and female). The reason why you would center around just two models is that these are the two models that the PC is using.

Making an armour suite you would have to model that part. Now to save development time, and money, an easy way to do this is to have everyone -- of the same gender -- have the same body. Using the same body would then mean you dont have to have an unique model for each companion.

Now you may say that why not combine the two cause you dont care that the body swapping would occure when you go from Iconic to None-Iconic mode. This approace might be ok for a mod but for a feature developed by the games developer it needs to be of a sertain standars lest they will get all kinds of stuff thrown at them because it looks like it is an uncompleete feature.Now if the PC is human that would also mean that they would still have to make special models for someone like Varric which again would mean extra job.

Say you have about 20 armours and 6 companions. instead of making 40 armour models which you would have to do anyway for the male and female PCs you would end up making 40 + 120 sets to make sure that the armor looked good. You would also have to test all armour models so that they dont glitch or have severe clipping issues when animated. Of course you might not have 20 unique looking sets of armour but rather you might have 5 sets and swap textures around but that would still be 10 + 60 models. I think we all can see that if we use unique models for the companions this might create a lot of extra workload.

You could of course use some shortcuts or even try to design the iconic look around the generic bodies, though the latter would severly restrict what you could do.

Hope that explained why having both isn't really a viable idea.

-The Sad Dragon

[ipgd]

bEVEsthda wrote...

You have posted a lot here, in your countless attacks on everybody who doesn't like this, including your presumed examples of reasons to "prefer this method". But I'm with Gunderic here. I'd prefer to ignore your countless examples, because I don't know you're right. Why should I believe you're right? Your arguments are not convincing.

I'm not sure how exactly to make a statement of "my opinions exist" more convincing than, you know, being the person with that opinion and trying to explain why someone would prefer unique companion models, as a person who prefers unique companion models. If you would really rather believe that I and all people who prefer unique companion models are mindless sycophants purposefully deceiving ourselves in order to cover up EA's evil corporate money machine, there's not much of a discussion to be had here.

And I have not seen the developers give any good reasons for preserving iconic looks. The only reason I've seen is cosplay. And that is a pretty ridiculous reason for a such impopular restriction, so obviously risks ridicule.

Yet again, cosplay was not cited as a reason. It was used as "an illustrative example of the effect of the shift towards a more distinctive art style". Chris Priestly is also not, as far as I know, actually involved in the creative development process on DA2.



Now I am going to McDonalds to buy french fries for my dog (???)

Modifié par ipgd, 31 août 2011 - 06:43 .

[Maconbar]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maconbar wrote...
Let me clarify. Ideally I would like to have unique body models for all companions plus armor choices for all. Neither DA:O nor DA:2 gives that to me. What Laidlaw appears to be offering is something that seems to move toward a direction that I prefer.

I don't understand this. He doesn't promise you unique body models and you don't get armor choices, only stats. Why does the offering seem to move toward a direction you prefer?

Actually unique body models were provided in DA:2 and seems to be promised in DA:3. More choice in appearance appears to be under consideration. If it's just ME2 style reskinning then I will be disappointed. Min/maxing for stats is put forward as an option and that is an improvement  for me.

In an ideal DA:3 heads wouldn't be bolted onto torsos. Anything to minimize that would also be appreciated by me.

There's no general reason you can't have unique body models and armour choices. There may be an existing technical reason in the engine they are planning to use. I don't know that.

I know that. That is why I have said that my ideal approach would use both unique body models and armor choices. And heads that aren't bolted on.

[Dark_Savant]

bEVEsthda wrote...

There's no general reason you can't have unique body models and armour choices. There may be an existing technical reason in the engine they are planning to use. I don't know that.

That’s the million dollar question isn’t it? Do the reasons for dropping Origins style party customisation extend beyond Biowares desire to shift things in the direction of cosplayable icons?

[hoorayforicecream]

bEVEsthda wrote...

There's no general reason you can't have unique body models and armour choices. There may be an existing technical reason in the engine they are planning to use. I don't know that.

The proposed solution in the OP is exactly this already. The disconnect comes from the proposed decoupling of the armor you equip for stats with the actual visual you see. Some people value the potential for ambient storytelling by locking in specific visuals for the characters. Others prefer to craft their own looks from the generic models for their followers.

These are both legitimate viewpoints and both have their pros and cons, but neither is inherently "better" than the other, they just focus on different overall vision for the game.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 31 août 2011 - 06:53 .

[aries1001]

I have a technical question. Irt may be that I'm a bit slow to get the detail of it all. But, as I understand it, follower customization is coming back in this way.

1) A follower will be allowed to wear any armor (boots, helmet, gloves) - but only after we have locked that follower's main armour which is
2) the chestpiece

At least that is how I read Laidlaws post on the first page in this thread.

Adding to this, we'll be able to dress our followers with any armour (including chestpiece etc) we so choose. We'll get the stat bonus for the armour, but not the visual bonus e.g. the followers will still look like they in DA2 i.e. Isabella will still have her long boots visually, but she'll also have the stat bonus for say boots with an armour class of +50 (if she has the strength req. to wear them, of course).

And we can only change our followers' armour in their home, or in Hawke's home?

Adding to this, I have a plea. I have tried to find out how I can view my companions stats and abilities while in my home, Hawke's mansion. I haven't been able to find out why this is so...I'd really want to be able to do this. But maybe, it is not doable?

[Kail Ashton]

Dark_Savant wrote...


I think the sycophants are 

lmao really? someone really liked that speach Eamon gave and tried to use it in a actual sentence i see, impresionible youth, oh bioware look what you did~!

[Zanallen]

tmp7704 wrote...

Ah; no then, i don't think anyone called for removal of the appearance/gear slot thing (unless it was me who failed my reading comprehension check)  And if i understand the OP right, it is something that they currently plan to put into DA3. It's just planned to have a limit on what items can be placed in the 'appearance' part of it, and i don't think having that artificial limit is necessary or beneficial.

What Mike has laid out is that a companion will have gear slots akin to what the PC has. Then they will have an appearance slot that overrides the gear slots. The appearance slot is a single item that counts for a whole suit. It has no stats and just changes the appearance of the companion. You will gain new appearance items, unique per companion, by completing sidequests, story progression or romancing.

Pros: Unique appearance for each companion, full stat customization
Cons: Limited visual customization

What people have been asking for in this thread is possibly a toggle option that turns off the appearance slot so the current gear is what appears on the companion. I think this might be expensive or time consuming with having to mesh all armors to all companions plus their unique armor meshes. There is also the issue with the companion's unique body model being swapped for the generic model.

Pros: Complete stat and visual customization, iconic armors
Cons: Increased cost and time would take away from other aspects of the game, model swapping could be an annoyance and be considered another anti-Bioware rallying point, hampers character design and forces companions to be generally build around the generic model.

Other people have suggest a Morrigan's armor type solution, which would make the iconic armors only good for certain class builds and therefore not at all useful for a good number of people. Others have discussed having the equipped armors have some sort of visual change on the set appearance, something that Mike said they are already looking into.

((Note, I might have missed some parts of each argument))

[Dark_Savant]

Kail Ashton wrote...

Dark_Savant wrote...


I think the sycophants are 

lmao really? someone really liked that speach Eamon gave and tried to use it in a actual sentence i see, impresionible youth, oh bioware look what you did~!

Awww, get all our big words from Bioware RPG's do we Kail? Besides, I've already apologised for the tone of that post.

Modifié par Dark_Savant, 31 août 2011 - 07:02 .