485 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
I cannot create juxtaposition without using a concept to juxtapose. Arrogance is the poloar opposite of humility. This does not require a binary relationship.

The point is that confidence and capability are not mutually exclusive of humility.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that humility follows. Which is my point. Humility is just a contextual judgement from behaviour. I happen to think Bioware games don't support that kind of inference based on what the protagonist is like, and what dialogue options are available. I don't think DA2 is different in that regard than any other Bioware game.

You feel that the voice is in and of itself enough to make you feel that a character is hunble, or not. Whereas I think the writing always has "a voice". So the only real difference between is what you imagine about the game.

Which, really, is my point. It's just your experience of the game. Which is totally cool. But it's not the same thing as Bioware creating God-Among-Mortals.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think we may be getting hung up on the word "humility." Why not use the word "meek" instead?

You cannot play a meek Hawke. Just not possible. Every VA is oozing with confidence and tenacity.

To Epler's point a few pages back that it would be bizarre to have a non-voiced PC where NPCs react to what a PC says and have miscommunications abound, I disagree.

In real life, there are breakdowns in communications all of the time.

I can complement someone on their clothes in real life by say "I think those shoes look great." The person, hearing my words, could mistake them as sarcasm, even though it was not my intent to convey that.

BUT... if I chose the silent PC dialogue option "I think those shoes look great" I can project sarcasm, or sincerity, or a freaking Smurf voice if I wanted to. And I can just as easily assume the NPC didn't pick up on my implied sarcasm, or that they mistook what the writer intended as a sarcastic dialogue option, but what I saw as a non-offensive piece of dialogue, in a way my character didn't mean.

Which is to say - its NOT unrealistic for miscommunication and misunderstandings to happen between people. Its not at all unheard of for people to read intent, malice, flirtation, sarcasm, humor or sincerity into any given statement on any given day.

With a VA? This is completely taken away. A diplomatic Hawke will voice the selected line to include all the calm confidence and assurance of a do-gooder. A sarcastic Hawke will answer sarcastically, with all the snark and satire of a... well, snarky person. Sorry, its early here. My brain isn't up to 100% functionality.

Point being, with a character being unvoiced, I can read a line and apply any type of tone, intent or delivery imaginable. And I'm not doing this to role-play in my head... my gut reaction after reading a line may not match up to the NPCs reaction (and, hence, the manner in which the writer intended), but if I can chalk that up to simple human miscommunication, it makes the characters I am dealing with seem more human, not more fake.

But a VA's line is the way it is... the way its delivered, is the only way the line can be said. I can't say it with my own voice in my head, I can't choose one dialogue line and interpret it multiple ways... its what the VA's act out and its what the writer's intend, 100%, no wiggle room.

Essentially, what the Diplomatic/Sarcastic/Aggressive options do is give us three characters to play DA2 with: Captain America, Tony Stark and Wolverine (sorry, got Avengers on the brain). We get a few dozen choices with these characters, but its still those molds we see acted out. With a silent PC, I can imagine any personality imaginable in the text provided. And I can be sarcastic in one reply and serious in another and not have to worry about if my tone is going to sound totally contradicting between the two.

It would be one thing if good AAA RPGs that had sold amazingly well, yet still had a silent PC, hadn't come out in, say, a decade. But Skyrim broke through the roof, as did Fallout: New Vegas. And while Skyrim is all sandbox, little character/story development, F:NV is a great game with deep story, interesting characters and choices that can affect story and gameplay. So why is this item so completely close to discussion?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 mai 2012 - 12:03 .

[nightscrawl]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Warden is the only surviving member of a super order who saves 'the world' from an ancient, mindless evil. You can sacrifice yourself, or you can have sex with a woman, or convince someone else to have sex with her, or sacrifice a companion.

Hawke is a refugee who rose to prominence in a city but was ultimately a pawn of history.

The first is a massive ego stroke on two legs. The second is a regular character.

This is primarily the feeling I got while playing both games. I think both games are awesome, but I like them for different reasons. I tend to play my Hawke as trying to hold everything together and not succeeding very well. It goes well with an Anders rivalmance, which I played for the first time recently, making me realize that I play this way.

As the Warden you know that the inevitable conclusion will be to fight against a massive darkspawn army, and possibly the archdemon itself. You will most likely die, but what the hell? Might as well try to make the best go of it.

As Hawke, you are constantly confronted by these random incidents that have the potential to blow up in your face, especially true for a mage Hawke (I really wish they had made this matter more in the grand scheme of things), and you don't know where it will all lead. Act 3 starts off very clearly showing you where it can lead, and you can either help a specific side or try to stay in the middle. Because you know that if that final step is taken toward conflict the result is going to be very very bad. For everyone.

[Sidney]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Point being, with a character being unvoiced, I can read a line and apply any type of tone, intent or delivery imaginable. And I'm not doing this to role-play in my head... my gut reaction after reading a line may not match up to the NPCs reaction (and, hence, the manner in which the writer intended), but if I can chalk that up to simple human miscommunication, it makes the characters I am dealing with seem more human, not more fake.

There are not breakdowns "all the time". It happens rarely. We're a
species wired to understand each other. It is what we do. Unless you
have a real disorder you likely can't think of one time this week that
people "misunderstood" you. Maybne you could argue that in trans-species communication there would be more breakdowns but there is clearly no intent that humans and the associataed species have communication issues.

You are basically rationalizing a game shortcoming by pretending people misunderstand you. You could just as equally say that voiced comments "come out wrong" when you hear them and they don't match your intent. That happens "all the time" too using that logic.

In no case is there an option to correct a misunderstanding from your end or theirs. When I tell Leliana "I love shoes" and apply a sneering tone in my mind and she assumes we're best buddies I never get an option to say "No you silly wench I really hate shoes and your airheaded preferences." In game terms, the system needs to respond properly because otherwise any crazy reaction to a dialog can be chalked up to "misunderstanding" and it can be a totally random feature. It actually serves to undermine player agency.

In all honesty in a non-voiced setting you might as well just leave the words off the screen and have options that look like:

1. Angry
2. Funny
3. Jealous
4. Happy

Because that is basically all those options boil down to and what the NPC's respond to. Then people aren't even limited by the tyranny of the words on the screen and can imagine any "funny" dialog they want.

[Sidney]

nightscrawl wrote...

As Hawke, you are constantly confronted by these random incidents that have the potential to blow up in your face, especially true for a mage Hawke (I really wish they had made this matter more in the grand scheme of things),

The more they "limit" the game the better story they can tell - because things have to be less generic in responses. A mage centric Hawke in Kirkwall story would have been much better but you see the way people react to not being able to pick an elf they'd go nuts not being able to pick rogue or warrior.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sindey wrote...
snip

I'm not sure what you mean by "it happens rarely." Have you ever been telling a story and make an obvious exagerration comment and someone say "are you serious?" Or telling a blatant lie that to someone who should know better and them not pick up you are pulling their leg? People can discuss something until they are blue in the face sometimes and STILL not have a clear idea of the other person's perspective or point of view. Miscommunication isn't an anomaly. Its universal to the human experience.

Linguistics say that body language provides over 93% of the cues that imply meaning.

http://en.wikipedia..../Body_language 

So if the vast majority of what you communicate isn't in the words you choose, then why in the world do you think there is so little room in the real world for misunderstandings and incorrect interpretations?

Conversely, having a VA with paraphrases, which inputs exact word choice, tone, inflection, pacing, word emphasis and which we can see now talking in cinematics, displaying body language and gestures - THIS is taking away ALL possible means of loose interpretation. The voiced PC assumes direct control of the entire intent, delivery, tone and content of the dialogue. Whereas a silent PC allows worlds of freedom in the interpretation.


In game example: Aveline likes Donnic. She is trying to communicate that she likes him in the quest The Long Road. If Aveline was using the Dialogue Wheel, she would be choosing the Flirt option every single time.

But because she is nervous and awkward, Donnic doesn't pick up on this and has to be hit over the head with the romance.

Hawke (sarcastic, diplomatic or aggressive) could never have this type of option or freedom. It is impossible. So that limits Hawke from being shy, from being nervous (unless when directly scripted), from being awkward... the list goes on and on. A voiced PC is a 100% set PC. It may be set into three different molds (D/S/A) but its still set, we just have options about which set character to play.

A silent PC could be given the option to say "So... how would you like to go out sometime?" Which could be interpreted as being cautious or reserved, cool and calm, or slick and suave. All the voices sound different in my head. A voiced PC will only sound like one of them. The line will either be delivered like a creeper from a bad singles club, like an awkward emo kid mustering up the courage, or a casual offer with little insinuation or strings attached.

How the NPC reacts is irrelevant. The PC can be shut down with the same reaction either way it is presented. But a voiced PC ONLY gives us that one presentation. End of story.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 mai 2012 - 12:27 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sidney wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

As Hawke, you are constantly confronted by these random incidents that have the potential to blow up in your face, especially true for a mage Hawke (I really wish they had made this matter more in the grand scheme of things),

The more they "limit" the game the better story they can tell - because things have to be less generic in responses. A mage centric Hawke in Kirkwall story would have been much better but you see the way people react to not being able to pick an elf they'd go nuts not being able to pick rogue or warrior.

I am of the mind that they severely limited the story of DA2 (one location, set protagonist, severely railroaded outcomes and conclusions) and I think the story was weaker than it was in DAO. I respect what they tried to do with the narrative, but its final product felt disjointed and muddled. 

So more choice =/= less story. EA/Bioware has proved it before in their games. That's why they are heralded as one of the best in the biz. Its not easy, but its not easy to do a lot of the things involved with a AAA RPG video game. I don't want to start giving developers a free pass to make their games less enjoyable for me so they can make their job easier. That's a selfish mentality, I know. And I may have to deal with them changing things anyway. But it doesn't mean I have to like and accept it.

[Sidney]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm not sure what you mean by "it happens rarely." Linguistics say that body language provides over 93% of the cues that imply meaning.

Hawke (sarcastic, diplomatic or aggressive) could never have this type of option or freedom. It is impossible. So that limits Hawke from being shy, from being nervous (unless when directly scripted), from being awkward... the list goes on and on.

93% of cues is wrong or doesn't mean what you think it means is actually the more proper way to put that. God I hate that silly stat. Think about it - if that was true how would we write a letter or talk on the phone w/o constant misunderstanding. Again, yes miscommunication happens but it also doesn't happen so often that it interfers on a  daily basis with our lives. Communication has to work to be a tool, if it didn't work then we'd not be talking today.

The thing is the Aveline example you give doesn't exist in either the voiced or unvoiced world for your PC - and in Aveline's case the problem isn't that Donnic misunderstands what she is saying it is that she doesn't say what she means which is the actual problem. Fine, you want the Warden to be be nervous and shy? Great, problem is people don't miss your intent all the time. You can't have an Aveline style failed flirting bit, for example, unless you pick the proper dialog options that cause you to fail.  There is no I attempted to be successful but failed options out there. Just like I can't be a reluctant hero at Redcliffe where I don't actually want to try and save the town but through a series of misunderstandins people come to think I will save the town.

[Sidney]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I am of the mind that they severely limited the story of DA2 (one location, set protagonist, severely railroaded outcomes and conclusions) and I think the story was weaker than it was in DAO. I respect what they tried to do with the narrative, but its final product felt disjointed and muddled. 

So more choice =/= less story. EA/Bioware has proved it before in their games. That's why they are heralded as one of the best in the biz. Its not easy, but its not easy to do a lot of the things involved with a AAA RPG video game. I don't want to start giving developers a free pass to make their games less enjoyable for me so they can make their job easier. That's a selfish mentality, I know. And I may have to deal with them changing things anyway. But it doesn't mean I have to like and accept it.

DAO is just as set. The Warden is one character and the story is the same. The only variance is a 15 minute opening sequence. DA2 was a mass of failed execution all over the place but the idea of a more focused narrative based on a particular character remains.

TW2 the story doesn't work if you aren't a witcher. FO1/2/3 it doesn't work if you aren't a vault dweller. DAO doesn't work if you aren't a Warden. Those limits help focus a story and create a better narrative. A DA age game that forced you to be an elf, for example, could craft a story that explored the nature of being an oppressed and disliked member of Thedas. If the game let you choose your race you would lose that element because, like DAO, they couldn't know what you be and they're not gonna craft two wholly different stories.

[Fast Jimmy]

I completely disagree. Playing a City Elf origin in DA:O gave you a very realistic glimpse into the plight of the elves, and their existence as second-class citizens. This '15 minute intro' as you refer to it, is a very interesting and deep part of starting your character out. The origins don't completely guide your character experience, but the dialogue options you have are interesting, such as telling Cailin you do not respect a 'shem' king's authority, or later in the game when you return to the alienate and see the crack down your revolutionary acts in the beginning caused.

Is the game totally tailored to your Origin? No. But it gives you a unique viewpoint and story for the game.

And your argument that every game has a set protagonist falls flat. In TES Skyrim, you play the Dragonborn. That doesn't mean it is a 'set protagonist', since you can be any race on the planet and have any play style you choose. A set protagonist means you have a defined history, an established character. Geralt is a set character - the books the Witcher is based off already have given him a skill set, role, backstory and attitude. 'The Warden' is not a set protagonist. You can make them male or female, warrior or wizard, noble or pauper, human or non-human.

You are confusing plot devices with set protagonists. They are not the same thing.

Having a set protagonist, like TW2 or DE:HR, is not an immediate gateway to a better story.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 mai 2012 - 04:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Yes, but that doesn't mean that humility follows. Which is my point. Humility is just a contextual judgement from behaviour. I happen to think Bioware games don't support that kind of inference based on what the protagonist is like, and what dialogue options are available. I don't think DA2 is different in that regard than any other Bioware game.

You feel that the voice is in and of itself enough to make you feel that a character is hunble, or not. Whereas I think the writing always has "a voice". So the only real difference between is what you imagine about the game.

No, the difference is whether you believe it's there.

You're demonstrably wrong about whether the writing in DAO has a voice.  The voice isn't there, but you've made one up to fill in the gaps and you're insisting that you didn't do it - that the game provided that voice for you.

It's nonsense.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To Epler's point a few pages back that it would be bizarre to have a non-voiced PC where NPCs react to what a PC says and have miscommunications abound, I disagree.

In real life, there are breakdowns in communications all of the time.

In my experience, real-world conversation works almost exactly like DAO-style dialogue.  DA2 style dialogue resembles real-world conversations basically not at all.

Sidney wrote...

There are not breakdowns "all the time". It happens rarely. We're a species wired to understand each other. It is what we do. Unless you have a real disorder you likely can't think of one time this week that people "misunderstood" you. Maybne you could argue that in trans-species communication there would be more breakdowns but there is clearly no intent that humans and the associataed species have communication issues.

Unless I'm making a concerted effort to avoid people, I'd say it happens 5-10 times per day.

Sidney wrote...

DAO is just as set. The Warden is one character and the story is the same.

That's patently false.  I've played through the mage origin alone with vastly different characters, and then how they go about the rest of their job as Warden differs greatly as well.

Is it a story of reluctant heroism, or dutiful obedience?  Is the protagonist defined by his love, or his hatred, or his fear?

Those are very different stories.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In my experience, real-world conversation works almost exactly like DAO-style dialogue.  DA2 style dialogue resembles real-world conversations basically not at all.

Your experience is demonstrably atypical in the extreme, enough to make it useless for the purposes of discussion along these lines, unless the games are being made exclusively for you.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 04:54 .

[Realmzmaster]

A set protagonist is not a gateway to a better story, but neither is a not having a set protagonist. Great stories can be written for either case. The difference in the two comes down to focus. With a set protagonist you can focus or tailor the story to fit that character. Without a set protagonist the story tends to be more general in focus. This is why the story in DAO after the origin plays out basically the same way with only a few references throughout the game to the origin.

DA2 fails in the execution of its story not because the focus is wrong, but because the story falls flat for many gamers and the framed narrative does not work as intended in gamers opinion. The time gaps between acts does not help, but it comes down to the writing and execution.

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In my experience, real-world conversation works almost exactly like DAO-style dialogue.  DA2 style dialogue resembles real-world conversations basically not at all.

Your experience is demonstrably atypical in the extreme, enough to make it useless for the purposes of discussion along these lines, unless the games are being made exclusively for you.

Uh-huh... So why is it that when a group of people watch something like a political speech (given that it is an election year here in the colonies), they can have totally different viewpoints on what was said based upon their own experiences? Or how certain people can take any comment as an insult and become defnsive, or people who have selective hearing twisting words into something they are not?

Failures at communication happen on a regular basis. Anyone who has been in a classroom knows that even when a group of people are told the exact same thing, their take away and understanding of the message is extremely varied. 

[upsettingshorts]

I think you think I'm saying something I'm not. I was only responding to Sylvius' assertion in isolation, not the point he was addressing.

Sylvius denies the possibility of empathy and views psychology - and many of its conclusions - as nonsense.  If I recall correctly, he also finds tone and body language insufficiently reliable for his standards of communication, thus making any ideas conveyed through the voice acting or animation useless to him.  

His experience of human interaction is not representative of most people, therefore my position is his experience should not be taken into account when designing a game meant for most people.  Or at the very least, be acknowledged as an extreme minority point of view and treated as such, something to be considered but not focused upon.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Sylvius.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 05:13 .

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Unless I'm making a concerted effort to avoid people, I'd say it happens 5-10 times per day.

Then you have a major problem with communication and need to seek help because that doesn't happen to any normal person assuming two people actually speak the same language.

[Sidney]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Uh-huh... So why is it that when a group of people watch something like a political speech (given that it is an election year here in the colonies), they can have totally different viewpoints on what was said based upon their own experiences?

That is not a "I didn't undertand what you said" problem. Yes if R's and D's watch Obama give a speech they'll have differing reactions but they'll both understand the speech. Disagreeing with a point of view is different than hearing "I want to help you" and missing the sarcasm in the words. We are not talking about the NPC's in DA* having a different opinion about what you say - plenty of them disagree with you all the time- but rather they can comprehend properly the words that leave your mouth.

[Curlain]

Sidney wrote...



There are not breakdowns "all the time". It happens rarely. We're a
species wired to understand each other. It is what we do. Unless you
have a real disorder you likely can't think of one time this week that
people "misunderstood" you. Maybne you could argue that in trans-species communication there would be more breakdowns but there is clearly no intent that humans and the associataed species have communication issues.

I'm no expert on studies based on conversation and how common miscommication occurs, but I do know from my personal experience that it's happen quite allot to me (and I also misunderstand other people).  Now usually this misunderstanding gets cleared up as the conversation progresses for me in a way that mechanics of game dialogue in RPGs like DA:O doesn't usually allow to be addressed.

But as it's happened to me (sometimes I'll say something perfectectly sincerely, and people have thought I was being sarcastic and began to be insulted), so I've always liked that it happened in the game.  When it did it added to my immersion.  But then again, this acedotal (based only on my own experience), and I'm rather anti-social in many ways (I dislike crowds, and I'm not the best at getting to know new people), so I'm also possibly more atyical then most in this.

Modifié par Curlain, 02 mai 2012 - 06:15 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In my experience, real-world conversation works almost exactly like DAO-style dialogue.  DA2 style dialogue resembles real-world conversations basically not at all.

Your experience is demonstrably atypical in the extreme, enough to make it useless for the purposes of discussion along these lines, unless the games are being made exclusively for you.

I disagree.  I think that most people are misinterpreting their own experiences, either believing that they knew what was going to happen because they guessed correctly, or that they rationalise expectations based on the outcome they've already seen.

DAO's dialogue did those people a favour by drawing attention to their poor reasoning.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 mai 2012 - 06:30 .

[the_one_54321]

The game either demonstrates something or it does not demonstrate that something.

It may be "typical" for the player to try to identify the intent of the writer, but it is not required. At least, not in DA:O.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I disagree.  I think that most people are misinterpreting their own experiences, either believing that because they guessed correctly they knew what going to happen, or that they rationalise expectations based on the outcome they've already seen.

DAO's dialogue did those people a favour by drawing attention to their poor reasoning.

You disagree because your perspective is already so far outside the norm that you can't conceive of it beyond deciding that most everyone else is wrong.

Anecodtal evidence in isolation is mostly useless in this regard, which is why we have psychology and sociology, to attempt to make sense of such a complicated concept.  But if you think those things are bunk, there is no common ground through which to have a discussion except via the only perspecitve you're willing to entertain as being valid:  Your own.  

I'll restate it the way I did in another thread many months ago:  Most people use empiricism in their handling of human interaction, which involves an accumulation of evidence to make educated guesses as to future behavior.  Just because you cannot observe or process this evidence - and therefore do not arrive at conclusions based upon it, instead relying exclusively on rationalism - does not mean that the evidence itself does not exist.  

If your assertion is that this approach is flawed, it is equally valid to respond that your unwillingness or incapability to use said evidence is also flawed.  The problem is that that implies one approach is more correct, and that misses the point.  The point is that one approach is much, much more common.  

I am rather clumsily using "most people" here when I really mean neurotypical.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 06:46 .

[the_one_54321]

The reaction of the NPC is not a demonstration of the PC's voice or intent. Only a demonstration of the PC himself is a demonstration of the PC's voice or intent. It is possible to extrapolate the reaction of the NPC into evidence of the intent of the writer. To do so is the choice of the player, and to ignore it is equally a choice of the player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You disagree because your perspective is already so far outside the norm that you can't conceive of it beyond deciding that most everyone else is wrong.

Anecodtal evidence in isolation is mostly useless in this regard, which is why we have psychology and sociology, to attempt to make sense of such a complicated concept.  But if you think those things are bunk, there is no common ground through which to have a discussion except via the only perspecitve you're willing to entertain as being valid:  Your own.  

I'll restate it the way I did in another thread many months ago:  Most people use empiricism in their handling of human interaction, which involves an accumulation of evidence to make educated guesses as to future behavior.  Just because you cannot observe or process this evidence - and therefore do not arrive at conclusions based upon it, instead relying exclusively on rationalism - does not mean that the evidence itself does not exist.  

The empirical evidence exists, but it applies to individuals, not groups.  To apply the empirical evidence univerally (as psychology does) requires a simplifying assumption that all people are relevantly similar.  This dramatically increases the pool of available evidence (as evidence from any person is now useful) and the applicability of any conclusions (as they can then be used to describe any person), and it's this simplifying assumption that makes psychology appear to be at all useful.

But that simplifying assumption is wholly foundationless.  And without that assumption that all people are relevantly similar, we now don't have anywhere near enough data to draw meaningful conclusions about the vast majority of people we will ever meet.

If your assertion is that this approach is flawed, it is equally valid to respond that your unwillingness or incapability to use said evidence is also flawed.

 
I'm not unwilling to use the evidence.  i'm unwilling to misuse the evidence.

This is not an arbitrary line I'm drawing.

And the less said about socilogy the better.  Sociology, by its very definition, is unscientific.  Sociology, the study of society, necessarily requires that society exist, but positing the existence of society beyond merely being a collection of individuals violates Occam's Razor.

The problem is that that implies one approach is more correct, and that misses the point.  The point is that one approach is much, much more common.

 
And much much more prone to error.

You people may as well be conversing with the fairies in your garden for all the sense your approach makes.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 mai 2012 - 07:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

"At the core of any well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded."

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You people may as well be conversing with the fairies in your garden for all the sense your approach makes.

And yet we do not encounter 5-10 serious misunderstandings per day with our fellow normal humans.

Does that not give you pause in the slightest?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

"At the core of any well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded."

Right back at ya.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 07:09 .