Aller au contenu

Photo

Mark Darrah on the conclusion of Dragon Age II


2816 réponses à ce sujet

#2576
John Epler

John Epler
  • BioWare Employees
  • 3 390 messages

Darji wrote...
yeah reloading is a huge issue here but there are also many people who actually dont realod decisions.  and so you can mostly satisfy both people. People who like to actually live with the consequences and people who will imidieatly reload. But atleast you personally tried it. It the player ruins the experience its their own fault. 

I really remmeber how I played Heavy Rain with no realoding at all. I messed events up, people died but I never reloaded and in the end I had one of the best expereiences in my life. I know you cant really transfer this to RPGs. But not knowing what the consequences  are would be a step into the right direction in my Opinion.


Trimming the quote tree:

What I'm hearing is that you want decisions with consequences that, even if they're negative, are negative in a narratively satisfying fashion. Am I right?

The issue with the aforementioned example is that, in the case of the weapon, the 'negative consequence' of the weapon not being very good isn't really satisfying. It's just a sword that kind of sucks. But in Heavy Rain, screwing up still have a good narrative beat - it wasn't 'positive', but it helped further the story in a different way and lead you down different paths.

I agree that you can't design around people who always reload. But I think that you can make a distinction between consequences that are just 'negative' and consequences that are 'negative', but which have some sort of narrative shift attached to them that makes them compelling.
  • cindercatz aime ceci

#2577
LPPrince

LPPrince
  • Members
  • 54 909 messages
Perhaps the idea of sacrifice isn't such a good idea then.

#2578
Statulos

Statulos
  • Members
  • 2 967 messages

Kavatica wrote...

Statulos wrote...

For future games, something I´d particularly love to see are the Nevarran dragonslayers. And a companion in that line with a very rash and fatalistic attitude would fit, I think, fine.

Rash and fatalistic does not mean a jerk, which I think Fenris is, simply a guy with the certainty that his life will end baaaaad.


Hey, Fenris isn't a jerk! At least, not all the time... :whistle:

I thought Sten was quite fatalistic. But he definitely was not rash. Not in the way that say, Isabela was. 

Personally, I'm not worried about companions, as based on what I have seen thus far, they are guaranteed to be pretty awesome. What I am worried about, is the level of interaction I get with my awesome companions (more, please).


Sten fatalistic? Well, if you mean it in it´s original sense, indeed, like any follower of the Qun, considering he has a very fixed, very clear idea of what his position is and how he is supposed to act and live.

I ment it in a more worn out, tired and older character. Loghain was that kind of character, the old soldier who felt naked without an armor.

#2579
nightscrawl

nightscrawl
  • Members
  • 7 478 messages

craigdolphin wrote...

A note on MP:

/IF/ you insist on forcing MP onto the next game, please, for the love of the maker, do not do what you did with ME3. MP should be entirely optional and have no significant impact on the SP experience at all. Making MP contribute 50% of galactic readiness is just unfair on players who CANNOT play MP, even if they wanted to.


I gotta say that I was really surprised and disappointed when I read about this aspect of ME3. I have yet to play any of the ME games (they're currently on the Amazon wish list), but this makes me seriously reconsider my desire for playing the series at all if I won't be able to see all of the endings/options by myself. What Bioware has done is punished people for wanting to play solo, in a series where that has been the norm for the first two games. If it is a single-player game, marketed as a single-player game, ALL aspects of the story should be single-player. If you want to do multi-player for competitive reasons (like Starcraft), then that's fine, but it should not have any affect whatsoever on the story.

If such a thing happened with Dragon Age I would be absolutely furious.

#2580
Thor Rand Al

Thor Rand Al
  • Members
  • 2 459 messages

Statulos wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Actually, I'm curious - what frustrations do you foresee as a result of this sort of thing?

One of the neater things a game can do for me is allow me to take a 'run of the mill' weapon and turn it into something special. Particularly when it's staggered so that you aren't able to completely upgrade it right away, but instead have to invest in that weapon over the course of the game. Kind of a 'where do legendary weapons come from' sort of deal.

If that was the logic behind Bianca, I´ll applaud you.

We saw a bit of that in Awakening with the forge of the sword and it was a nice quest to do. It would be nice to be able to use the base weapons and be able to enhance and personalize it little by little, like adding elemental damage, extra attack (or defense), extra critical chances or faster use...



I Actually liked that quest in Awakenings where u had to go and get the materials for that special weapon to be made.  It made the weapon more unique, more personal for me because it wasn't something that I found or something bought.  I had to find the materials for it to be made.

#2581
John Epler

John Epler
  • BioWare Employees
  • 3 390 messages

LPPrince wrote...

Perhaps the idea of sacrifice isn't such a good idea then.


I was mostly just working off of what Maria said - not specifically referencing sacrificing a companion, though.

And I think that there can be the idea of sacrifice - of choosing A instead of B. I don't think it needs to be as binary as 'choose X or Y, and forever lock out the other one!', but if you kill the Ancient Demon of Frost and harvest his essence, well, you only have one essence. You have to make the choice where you use that.

And maybe there's an Ancienter Demoness of Frost who also has a Frost Essence, but at the time you chose to use the Ancient Demon of Frost's essence you don't know she exists. So as far as you know, you are making a permanent choice, and even if you get to do the other thing later, well, you've had to deal with the consequence of your original choice for a while - at least until you get to the point where you fight the Demoness.

#2582
Darji

Darji
  • Members
  • 410 messages

John Epler wrote...

Darji wrote...
yeah reloading is a huge issue here but there are also many people who actually dont realod decisions.  and so you can mostly satisfy both people. People who like to actually live with the consequences and people who will imidieatly reload. But atleast you personally tried it. It the player ruins the experience its their own fault. 

I really remmeber how I played Heavy Rain with no realoding at all. I messed events up, people died but I never reloaded and in the end I had one of the best expereiences in my life. I know you cant really transfer this to RPGs. But not knowing what the consequences  are would be a step into the right direction in my Opinion.


Trimming the quote tree:

What I'm hearing is that you want decisions with consequences that, even if they're negative, are negative in a narratively satisfying fashion. Am I right?

The issue with the aforementioned example is that, in the case of the weapon, the 'negative consequence' of the weapon not being very good isn't really satisfying. It's just a sword that kind of sucks. But in Heavy Rain, screwing up still have a good narrative beat - it wasn't 'positive', but it helped further the story in a different way and lead you down different paths.

I agree that you can't design around people who always reload. But I think that you can make a distinction between consequences that are just 'negative' and consequences that are 'negative', but which have some sort of narrative shift attached to them that makes them compelling.

As for the weapon. Maybe its possible to scale the wepon in a way that its better than you current weapon with some magical  uniqueness like health drain or so.

in nararative way you could do that with special aubclasses like a bloodmage or a "Darknight" for example. 
You get promised more power which you already know will be evil but dont know exactly what it will be. And in the end you get a new subclass with new skills, and powers. That would actually a great way to make it satisfying and interesting.  Which also can lead to a totally new side story which was not availible when you did not accept the evil  power.

Modifié par Darji, 21 mars 2012 - 04:43 .


#2583
slashthedragon

slashthedragon
  • Members
  • 348 messages

Alain Baxter wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...

Regarding the timeline for the making of the next game --can we have it somewhere in the middle of "rushed" and "take all the time you need"? It would be nice to have an incredible game due to years of work, but, some of us don't know how many years we have left due to illness, and I'd like to think I could see what happens with the next game before I go...


Understood. Like all artists (yes, developing games is an art form. Let's leave it at that...) we always want infinite time to create something and really never want to part with it. But in the end, we also want to share our work with everyone and have to let it go. I can't answer how long this will take, but once it just right, we'll send it off.

For now, we'll try to share as much as we can and show off what we can as it's being developed. I hope this will help.



Thank you!  Your reply is greatly appreciated.

#2584
Statulos

Statulos
  • Members
  • 2 967 messages
Considering that magic comes from the Fade, would it be possible to consider that said weapon is literally alive? Like being the phisical anchor of a spirit, a demon or who knows what from the other side?

#2585
DAYtheELF

DAYtheELF
  • Members
  • 712 messages

John Epler wrote...

Darji wrote...
yeah reloading is a huge issue here but there are also many people who actually dont realod decisions.  and so you can mostly satisfy both people. People who like to actually live with the consequences and people who will imidieatly reload. But atleast you personally tried it. It the player ruins the experience its their own fault. 

I really remmeber how I played Heavy Rain with no realoding at all. I messed events up, people died but I never reloaded and in the end I had one of the best expereiences in my life. I know you cant really transfer this to RPGs. But not knowing what the consequences  are would be a step into the right direction in my Opinion.


Trimming the quote tree:

What I'm hearing is that you want decisions with consequences that, even if they're negative, are negative in a narratively satisfying fashion. Am I right?

The issue with the aforementioned example is that, in the case of the weapon, the 'negative consequence' of the weapon not being very good isn't really satisfying. It's just a sword that kind of sucks. But in Heavy Rain, screwing up still have a good narrative beat - it wasn't 'positive', but it helped further the story in a different way and lead you down different paths.

I agree that you can't design around people who always reload. But I think that you can make a distinction between consequences that are just 'negative' and consequences that are 'negative', but which have some sort of narrative shift attached to them that makes them compelling.


What about the negative consequences not being apparent until a while down the road.  I really like that idea.  You make the choice to sacrifice X for Sword of Awesomeness... but 2/3rds down the way that choice has a meaningful negative (or positive) influence on the game.

#2586
ladyofpayne

ladyofpayne
  • Members
  • 3 107 messages

John Epler wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Perhaps the idea of sacrifice isn't such a good idea then.


I was mostly just working off of what Maria said - not specifically referencing sacrificing a companion, though.

And I think that there can be the idea of sacrifice - of choosing A instead of B. I don't think it needs to be as binary as 'choose X or Y, and forever lock out the other one!', but if you kill the Ancient Demon of Frost and harvest his essence, well, you only have one essence. You have to make the choice where you use that.

And maybe there's an Ancienter Demoness of Frost who also has a Frost Essence, but at the time you chose to use the Ancient Demon of Frost's essence you don't know she exists. So as far as you know, you are making a permanent choice, and even if you get to do the other thing later, well, you've had to deal with the consequence of your original choice for a while - at least until you get to the point where you fight the Demoness.

I'd like to sacrifice companion. But only if it willbe daying NPC like Thayne. If not- only if I can save my NPC.

#2587
John Epler

John Epler
  • BioWare Employees
  • 3 390 messages
You all are taking my example far too literally! I'm just using it as a 'here's an example of narrative consequence' sort of thing. But, yes, some consequences which don't reveal themselves until later are good. Though I think a healthy balance works well - some stuff that doesn't come up until down the road, and some stuff where there's an immediate and noticeable difference based on the choices you made. Alpha Protocol did the former quite well.

#2588
nightscrawl

nightscrawl
  • Members
  • 7 478 messages

Darji wrote...

yeah reloading is a huge issue here but there are also many people who actually dont realod decisions.  and so you can mostly satisfy both people. People who like to actually live with the consequences and people who will imidieatly reload. But atleast you personally tried it. It the player ruins the experience its their own fault.


There is a third type which I fall into, and I can't be the only one. I play a game the first time 'round without reloading. Once I've seen the whole story, felt the impact of my actions and so forth, the next time I play I feel free to do the meta-game to see all available options, or (as I do with DA2) switch out companions here and there during quests to max friendship and rivalry.

I'll add though that the single largest reason for any of the reloads I've done is because of the dialogue paraphrasing system. My character might unexpectedly say something totally insensitive, which I had no way of knowing about, and I feel too guilty about having said it, so I reload and pick something else.

#2589
Hrungr

Hrungr
  • Members
  • 18 254 messages

John Epler wrote...

Hrungr wrote...

Each way of handling it has it's merits, but I do agree with you that I had more attachment to *unique* weapons like Vigilance, et al.


I think there's an acceptable medium. One of the reasons why it works that way in Skyrim is because, well, you can build a lot of swords. And that's necessary, because the way their skill system works you have to have something that you're able to build a ton of if you want people to ever have a high enough skill to build the better equipment, using the better resources. It's a feature of the Elder Scrolls games, and it works for them - I sunk an absurd amount of time into finding iron ore so I could skill up.

But if you take away that particular skillup necessity, you get something closer to what happened with the Dragonscale armour in DA:O, although taken further. Instead of crafting a hundred samurai swords, your crafting becomes more 'unique' - you can have higher resource requirements and such. And it opens the door for truly 'unique' weapons - weapons that you can maybe only ever craft once, because it requires a component that you'll never find a second time. The best example I can think of is the Epic weapon quests from EverQuest, although not quite as rare nor time consuming.

Yeah, this sounds like the best fit for DA. So long as the fun gets spread out over the course of the game and not just crowded at the very end. Low, mid and high level unique weapon possibilities. Something like Starfang might be a middle level goal while Vigilance might be the pinnacle, high level achievement.

#2590
Urgelt

Urgelt
  • Members
  • 3 messages
I'm an old, old Bioware gamer.  I played Baldur's Gate when it was still new (and crashed frequently), and I've played every RPG sold by Bioware over the years.

Except Mass Effect 3.  Except Dragon Age 3 when it comes out.  Except for Star Wars: The Old Republic.  You see, Bioware drifted away from what I was interested in doing with my gaming time.

Every single decision Bioware has made since Neverwinter Nights was produced - and some decisions affecting that title, too - has pushed me further out of the nest.  Let me mention the trends.

  1.  "Don't Walk On The Grass."  Players are given tight spaces where they can move around like rats in a maze.  They see incredible scenes but cannot enter them.  It gets worse with every title.  Recent titles are all gauntlet designs.  Being able to discover new territory and explore it is tightly constrained.  The desire to walk on the damn grass is what drew me to BethSoft's Elder Scrolls and Fallout games, and though their stories aren't the equal of Bioware's, they're infinitely more engaging games.

  2.  "Don't Tweak My Creation."  Bioware really only succeeded with one game in allowing players to create content: Neverwinter Nights.  Though creation tools were released for Dragon Age 1 and 2, they're crippled, and never led to very much content being generated.  Aside: if you want to make insane profits, sevelop the creation kit first, refine the hell out of it, make it intuitive and fun to use and easy to create narratives and places and objects.  Then turn your developers loose and watch their productivity soar.  As a bonus for your users, release the kit and watch the universe expand even more.

The Mass Effect and Dragon Age games cry out for more worlds, and larger real estate on worlds, which users would happily supply if they had decent tools.  Without them, the game becomes a treadmill, always the same every time through with very few and very canned exceptions.  And though tools were released for Dragon Age 1 and 2, the dearth of interest among players in using them to produce great mods tells the tale.

The small, cramped real estate in those games which players have to explore also tells the tale.  Given the capabilities of modern PCs, capabilities which are being exploited by other game studios to good effect, small and cramped real estate is a symptom of poor developer tools.  Bioware's own staff struggled mightily with them to produce barely enough content to justify marketing it.

  3.  "Dumb Down the Inventory Management Interface."  Bioware somehow got it into its head that the complexities of inventory management and upgrades were boring to the users, and so they sucked the life out of it.  In later games you have no control at all over your companions' inventories at all.

Here's a hint: Baldur's Gate was fun *precisely* because it required so much effort to fine-tune inventory, to distribute the right items to the right people, to make hard choices, to haul around and sell tons of loot.  Neverwinter Nights eased up on that only a little bit, and that was all right, but the games which followed have carried the trend to an unpleasant extreme.  Now it's all tactics all the time; inventory hardly matters at all, except possibly as a vanity thing for screenshots.  It makes the games lifeless.

  4.  "Restrict Player Choices and Consequences."  In Mass Effect 2, in Dragon Age 2, this trend reached its futile culmination.  No matter who you side with, the outcome is very nearly the same.  Oh, but your choices can influence the fate of companions.  Not in any straightforward way, mind you.  If you forget to buy a toothbrush on Tuesday, they drop dead from a missile hit three years later.  Logic is strained.  Supposedly, discovering through multiple play-throughs how improbable player choices result in even less probable outcomes is a draw, urging the player to play again and again, right?  Not so much, Bioware.  Not so much.

  5.  "Climb on the MMORPG Bandwagon."  When Bioware announced a sequel for KOTR, I was ecstatic.  When they finally admitted they were making an MMORPG, I lost my sense of ecstacy.  And, yup, all the things I hate about MMORPGs are in the new Star Wars offering.  Farmers.  Real-world money purchasing in-game stuff.  Cartoonish combat sequences.  And over a million people whose starting premise is that they are the One Hero For The Ages (or Villain), all telling each other the experiences they've had which every other player will experience in exactly the same way.  You don't have to look far to see how wrong the vision of Star Wars is.  In lore, Jedi are damned rare and damned powerful relative to anyone else.  But in the MMORPG, everyone has to achieve parity, and there are more Jedi than lore admits is possible, and not just Jedi, but Heroic (or Villainous) Jedi around whom the fate of the Galaxy turns.  Hundreds of thousands of them.  It turns my stomach, it does.

Hint: you can't pretend you're the savior (or destroyer) of the galaxy if you aren't unique, or nearly so.  It's a source of enormous cognitive dissonance to have more than a million of the buggers running around and bragging.  I think MMORPGs can be produced that would be fun to play, but not with this starting premise.  For an RPer, it's a disaster.

  6.  "Want to Play with a Buddy?  You Can't."  Neverwinter Nights was the last Bioware title that let buddies team up to experience an adventure together.  And it didn't work terribly well there, not with the single player campaigns being all gussied up with cut-scenes.  In player-created worlds, though, small multiplayer had some traction.  Better than nothing.  But the trend line twisted in a new direction after NWN.  Bioware no longer seems interested in serving the market with buddy play.

When BIoware announced Dragon Age as the successor to Baldur's Gate (and Neverwinter Nights), I imagined people would create community servers, go adventuring together, use a brand-new spiffy game engine with superior graphics.  We got the superior graphics.  That's all we got.  It's a lot like expecting steak for supper and being served oatmeal.

Bottom line:  Bioware was once a company that pushed the art of game design to amazing heights, given the capabilities of earlier-generation PCs.  Baldur's Gate is *still* fun to play.  That game catapulted Bioware onto the world stage of gaming and earned it enormous respect.  Though it's presented in chapters, within chapters you could do anything at all that you took it in your head to do, almost, and you could even do it with a buddy.  NWN spawned an enormous mod community whose enthusiasm kept the title alive far longer than is normal for a PC game.  What happened?

Now it's designs are dominated by cramped gauntlets and a "don't walk on the grass" design philosophy that hasn't kept pace with the capabilities of modern PCs, which can do so much more.  Player modding is almost dead.  Playing with buddies *is* dead.  There's no reason to play through a Modern Bioware title more than once, then put it on the shelf and forget about it, except for the Star Wars MMORPG which has the exact same flaws (to me, fatal flaws) as other MMORPGs and breaks very little fresh ground.

I honestly think every single trend I've mentioned emerges out of a struggle within Bioware to develop useful creation tools, a struggle which has not been going at all well.  Less inventory to manage means less for Bioware staff to do with crappy creation tools.  Gauntlet designs means less real estate to create.  No buddy system means less game engine work.  Restricting player choices to meaningless companion outcomes means less stress for people trying to use bad tools to produce a game.  Bioware seems to have decided to limp along on lousy creation tools for single-player games while banking on its lucrative future being with MMORPGs.  I'm just waiting for a Bioware announcement that it will take Mass Effect in that direction.

As for Dragon Age, it's a damaged franchise.  As others have so often asked, how many times can you see the exact same cave before you're sick of it?  Good stories can't overcome lousy creation tools.

You asked for customer input.  Here's mine.  Put Dragon Age 3 on hold.  Spend the next two years, or more if you need them, working hard on developing the next generation of content creation tools.  *Then* make the game.  No more need to squeeze down designs and produce cramped games.  Think big, plan big.  Aim to show that Bioware can still push the envelope in RPG gaming and make a current-generation PC gasp with effort.  While you're at it, get excited about reviving buddy play, modding,and small community servers, and release great tools with the game.

And if you're determined to keep pumping out MMORPG titles, then for the sake of RPers everywhere, don't try to write stories which place more than a million players in the role of Savior or Destroyer.  Tone it down a few notches; let people be ordinary adventurers.  No galaxy needs a million Revens.  It would be great if you could do something about farming and real-world money polluting in-game acquisitions, too, and if you take Dragon Age in the MMORPG direction, don't cartoonize the animations more than they already are.  Keep it sort of real, eh?

Good luck to you.

#2591
LPPrince

LPPrince
  • Members
  • 54 909 messages

John Epler wrote...

some stuff that doesn't come up until down the road


Sounds like what The Witcher 2 did with some of its quest options.

DA franchise needs more of those.

#2592
Maugrim

Maugrim
  • Members
  • 3 639 messages
It's funny how we can get attached to things, Even if they aren't optimal for our builds. I can't tell you how long I carried the Cousland family sword on my human nobles. And even when I did eventually switch to another weapon I always, always switched back to it to get the the killing blow on Arl Howe. This was my family's sword handed down over generations a symbol of strength and power. And the story and personal touches applied to Starfang and Vigilance made them worthy of being wielded by my wardens.

I guess my point is that as a someone who is not primarily a power/stat gamer don't just make it about choosing +2 awesome or +3roxxors. The weapon should mean something, to me as a player and I shouldn't be discarding something I've been using all along for the thing I pulled off random guys #357 and will discard by dude #375. All the coolest weapons have a history to them, make em count.

#2593
DAYtheELF

DAYtheELF
  • Members
  • 712 messages

makenzieshepard wrote...

It's funny how we can get attached to things, Even if they aren't optimal for our builds. I can't tell you how long I carried the Cousland family sword on my human nobles. And even when I did eventually switch to another weapon I always, always switched back to it to get the the killing blow on Arl Howe. This was my family's sword handed down over generations a symbol of strength and power. And the story and personal touches applied to Starfang and Vigilance made them worthy of being wielded by my wardens.

I guess my point is that as a someone who is not primarily a power/stat gamer don't just make it about choosing +2 awesome or +3roxxors. The weapon should mean something, to me as a player and I shouldn't be discarding something I've been using all along for the thing I pulled off random guys #357 and will discard by dude #375. All the coolest weapons have a history to them, make em count.


Couldn't agree more.  The best items have a true story and meaning behind them.

#2594
merrygoround

merrygoround
  • Members
  • 3 messages

John Epler wrote...

And maybe there's an Ancienter Demoness of Frost who also has a Frost Essence, but at the time you chose to use the Ancient Demon of Frost's essence you don't know she exists. So as far as you know, you are making a permanent choice, and even if you get to do the other thing later, well, you've had to deal with the consequence of your original choice for a while - at least until you get to the point where you fight the Demoness.


Is it safe to assume the Ancienter Demoness of Frost will be an integral part of Dragon Age 3, and if so, can it join my party?


On a serious note on weapons.  How about more powerful weapons are recognizeable?  You walk around town holding the Sword of Truth, people might think you're the Seeker.   Likewise, you take the Sword of Goat Rape, and brandish that bad boy out in public, people might think of you as a Goat Raper.

#2595
John Epler

John Epler
  • BioWare Employees
  • 3 390 messages

makenzieshepard wrote...

It's funny how we can get attached to things, Even if they aren't optimal for our builds. I can't tell you how long I carried the Cousland family sword on my human nobles. And even when I did eventually switch to another weapon I always, always switched back to it to get the the killing blow on Arl Howe. This was my family's sword handed down over generations a symbol of strength and power. And the story and personal touches applied to Starfang and Vigilance made them worthy of being wielded by my wardens.

I guess my point is that as a someone who is not primarily a power/stat gamer don't just make it about choosing +2 awesome or +3roxxors. The weapon should mean something, to me as a player and I shouldn't be discarding something I've been using all along for the thing I pulled off random guys #357 and will discard by dude #375. All the coolest weapons have a history to them, make em count.


Hah. My example is similar, although from STALKER (those of you playing the John Epler Drinking Game, take a drink). One of the earliest weapons I picked up in Call of Pripyat was a less-than-spectacular AK. But through the course of the game, I kept it, I upgraded it and, even when I eventually found weapons that were upgradeable to something far more impressive, I still used it. It was my gun - it had seen me through all sorts of sticky situations, and while it wasn't as fancy as the various weapons that were now prolific, it was still my gun.

Which is to say, I know what you mean. And I like systems that allow you to develop a strong emotional attachment to your equipment. EverQuest was another example where I still used sub-par gear because of the journey I'd undertaken to get that gear.

#2596
merrygoround

merrygoround
  • Members
  • 3 messages
Story driven weapons and armor = awesome.

#2597
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3 680 messages
I always wore the ancient Dalish armor for my Dalish Elf simply because I wanted to give him a distinct look from my other PCs.

#2598
DAYtheELF

DAYtheELF
  • Members
  • 712 messages
PS, John, the fact that you and so many BioWare people are even here and reading all of this and replying and whatnot makes me love you all so much more than I already did. <3 You don't HAVE to do this, yet you do. Thank you!

#2599
hunterxx1xx

hunterxx1xx
  • Members
  • 46 messages

DAYtheELF wrote...

PS, John, the fact that you and so many BioWare people are even here and reading all of this and replying and whatnot makes me love you all so much more than I already did. <3 You don't HAVE to do this, yet you do. Thank you!


+1

#2600
Lucy Glitter

Lucy Glitter
  • Members
  • 4 996 messages

DAYtheELF wrote...

PS, John, the fact that you and so many BioWare people are even here and reading all of this and replying and whatnot makes me love you all so much more than I already did. <3 You don't HAVE to do this, yet you do. Thank you!


^ ^ ^

<3<3<3