205 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaosgirl]

Bibdy wrote...

Because my self-imposed limits don't make a fun game...

That's not an answer.  It's just begging the original question:
Why is it different when it's someone else jamming your hand in the door?

[themaxzero]

Aesir Rising wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
Sorry, but declaring yourself the winner of a debate does not make you the winner. Bury your head in the sand and ignore that fact if you wish.
 

I specifically declare victory since

* the game has included competition features
* the developers have run a competitive tournament
* players posting in this thread expressed that they want a standards-based metric in the form of a Bioware update to the difficulty modes in this game in order to provide some baseline for comparison.  To make it all seem more 'official".

 


So.... what gives?  Exactly what is it you're denying?  That the game and/or the players aren't competitive?  I declare myself victor with facts to back it up.  As far as I've read, you've just denying what others are saying.  Where are your facts that show the game has no competition features, has no one interesting in tracking success/achievement metrics and points, doesn't want to establish a baseline standard for comparison ideally through a disinterested 3rd party (logically, Bioware)  and doesn't like to compare their game successes with others via this website and its online profile features (which fail for me)?

Even MacArthur knew when to retreat.  This isn't forum bravado either, I'm pretty sure you are purposely being ignorant because you don't want to see your game impacted.  And that's fine - but we need to be clear about that or no progress will be made in the discussion.  Because I'm pretty sure there's a way to discuss changes to difficulty that DO NOT screw you in half.

As an example, I don't support most of what I've read from Matthew Young CT as far as specific changes he's espoused.  He's posted elsewhere (1.02 topics) about specific spell nerfs he wants all in the name of making Nightmare mode harder.  But those changes have zero to do with the game's difficulty settings defined in the difficulty xls table (difficulty.xls) and (worse, imo) he wants to nullify crowd control spells versus elite or boss MOBs.  I scream 'No" to that.  But, on the other hand, if he wants to pump up spell resists in difficulty.xls (or ask Bioware to do these things) then, that's more acceptable to me because they're systemic changes that don't target specific character builds or limit tactical options for certiain playstyles and characters.  So, for this discussion I say, "hey can we focus on difficulty.xls settings?" and avoid "Make Lyrium disappear or rare" nerfs - since among other things, they target specific characters/builds (mages).

Yeah but how do I know you didn't cheat?

[themaxzero]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Bibdy wrote...

Because my self-imposed limits don't make a fun game...

That's not an answer.  It's just begging the original question:
Why is it different when it's someone else jamming your hand in the door?

"I need Bioware to validate my in game choices!"

[Kaosgirl]

soteria wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

soteria wrote...
Totally different type of game, but legendary difficulty on halo is about what I expect for the hardest difficulty in a game--it requires you to play at an entirely different level to win, and even if you do everything you can to cheese the AI it's still a challenge.  

That... er, just sounds like the kind of 'challenge' that seems pointless to me.  Like flipping coins... heads I win, tails I lose, but I only get to flip the coin if I did everything right: otherwise I just lose.  But then, I haven't played Halo so I'm more extrapolating from games that likely don't have enough in common with it to be relevant.

OOC, where does that challenge come from?

You just have to be really good to beat it on legendary, or you'll be reloading trying to beat the same battle for hours.  Headshots, using items tactically, finding the right position, whatever you can do.  There's no need to create an artificial challenge, so to me, winning feals more rewarding.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like nothing more than a paraphrase of the statement "it's more challenging."  It doesn't say why being "really good" is more essential, it just reiterates that it is.

What, mechanically speaking, makes it so that there's less margin for error than on lower levels?

soteria wrote...

soteria wrote...
I shouldn't have to play with a hand behind my back on the hardest difficulty on only my second playthrough.  That's all I'm saying.

I think I get what you're saying, but... most of the proposed solutions I've seen involve asking Bioware to do the equivalent of tying your hand behind your back for you.  What I don't get, is why it makes a difference who's doing the tying.  
If that's not where you're going for, then I apologize for reacting as though it was.

Not quite.  There's a few different dimensions to my complaint, really.  First is, believe it or not, I care that this game be a quality product.  It's already one of the best games I've ever played, but I believe it can easily be improved by providing a genuine challenge to players that want it.

I believe that'll last a month, maybe, before they're back asking for another upgrade.  Or complaining  that the last upgrade "did it wrong" - something I've seen in just about every damn rpg  with scalable difficulty levels so far, from Diablo.to the original BG series.  This is why I keep suggesting DIY solutions.

soteria wrote...

Second, there's a definite difference between self-limitations and rebalance from the developers.  Putting limits on myself takes away choices--like not using force field on party members to save them because I know it will trivialize the fight, or not trying to "pull" enemies to me because I know they will come one at a time and that will also trivialize things.  

Sure, I can (and do) put limitations on myself, but I lose options.  In those examples, if Bioware fixed the AI to function more as expected, I would feel like using force field to save a dying party member was a legitimate choice, or pulling enemies into a trap not to be quite so exploitive.

If they "fixed" the AI, pulling enemies wouldn't work in the first place.  There goes one option already... 

Even with that said, we don't know how feasible adjusting the AI *but only for nightmare level* is.  My impression is that the AI routines are threaded throughout the difficulties, so making it smarter for one level would do so for all levels.  If I'm right, this 'fix' does increase the frustration level for those who are still struggling on the lower difficulty levels.

If I'm wrong, then perhaps we finally have the skeleton of a viable idea to promote.  The next question, of course, being "how do you fix this." 
Bearing in mind, there's a number of talents designed specifically to manipulate the AI's tactical paths - taunt, threaten, disengage.  Adjusting for smarter AI may mean reworking those talents as well, lest they get nerfed into what I call 'false options.'

soteria wrote...
Imagine if I had three weapon choices in a shooter... a 9mm beretta, a .50 desert eagle, and an ak-47.  The fight is challenging with either pistol, but is trivialized by the AK.  So don't use it, right?  Sure.  But I'm still losing options, whereas if the developer replaced the AK with, say, a .45 colt revolver, I would have another option that feels like a real choice.

But the guy who realizes the .45 colt is just a rebranded beretta is going to complain because he doesn't see a 'real choice' anymore, just a fake choice.  He wants an AK-47 that's "fair" in some way against pistol users.  And then there's another guy who says it doesn't matter what you use, the AI* just falls down if you so much as aim at them.  And a third guy complaining that he never even gets a chance to spot the AI before they've one-shotted him.
(That third guy would be me, in a shooter.  That's why I don't play them.)

*Notwithstanding that most shooters are primarily PvP these days.

You've got three guys pulling for fixes in three different directions, and all making demands on the Dev's limited time-pools.   Meanwhile, you've got an entirely different group of guys competing for that same attention with their requests for new content (maps in shooters, I presume?)

soteria wrote...
Third, as I was getting at with my halo example, I get nothing out of beating a challenge I created.  For me, there's no sense of accomplishment from that.

Well, duh.  My question was not "how do you feel," but "why do you feel that way."

soteria wrote...
As Matthew Young said, who is objecting to making Nightmare harder, and why?

I am, on a few grounds.
1) There's no clear direction on how it should be done, so nobody's going to be satisfied with the end result.
2) History has taught me you'll just be back in a month asking for another fix, once you've overcome this one.
3) Some of the proposals (AI fixes) are likely to have unintended consequences for other levels as well.
4) You're competing for limited dev-time that could be used in ways I'm more interested in.

Modifié par Kaosgirl, 11 décembre 2009 - 09:19 .

[Kaosgirl]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Aesir, you're both right. However, this game has the ability to be competitive, but that's not it's focus. There is no prize, and Bioware isn't running any contests about who can get what the fastest. Any competition here is strictly at the player's behest. Not all of us care; I'd hazard a guess most of us just play the game as a single player game and couldn't care less what other people do or think...except when they argue that the game should be changed to fit what they want.

Remember this; fighting on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. You may win the gold, but you're still retarded.

You've seen the picture.  We should all be so lucky to experience the pure joy that kid is feeling.

But no, we're all too busy trying to pretend we're superior to the 'retards' and making ourselves and each other miserable in the process

[Kaosgirl]

themaxzero wrote...

The sense of accomplishment is more REAL when its the developer's intent.

No it really isn't.

I've come to accept that, for some people, it somehow is.  I haven't the foggiest idea why, though.

[soteria]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

First you said "well it's challenging if you play a GOOD character," and I said, "No, not really, unless your good character is also an idiot. Besides, why should I be forced to RP a good character to get a challenge?" You really need to think about what you're saying.

Dude, it is just a game. There is no reason to twist my words. It is quite obvious that there will always be an optimal character build and party set up, which is what I ihave said. The game will be easier with that party and method of play.

The game is a game, and this is a discussion.  I haven't twisted your words, unless now you're denying that you're saying the game is more challenging with a good character.  Are you denying that now.  You did twist my words, though--"The game is too easy on nightmare" somehow became "The game has to be balanced around an optimum EVIL party."

It is obvious that if you steal, extort, and exploit you will have more gold and so the game will be easier for you. If you steal/extort/exploit don't complain that you can buy too many potions. You chose the easy path. If you only like to role play bad guys, download or make a mod that makes stealing, extorting, and exploiting less profitable and more costly when you get caught. Or make one yourself. Oh and don't use a mod that makes stealing not have a cooldown in combat.

No, I'm not a troll, contrary to your implication. I also don't want to trade insults like a 5 year old so perhaps we could keep the discussion civil, eh?

Don't act like a troll and I won't accuse you of it.  When all you do is repeat the same argument every post "But it's hard if you play a good character!" it's hard to have an adult discussion.  Consider that.  You should also consider that although you may have more gold from playing an "evil" character, that doesn't really make the game much easier.  In fact, all it means is you can buy more of the 100g+ weapons.  I can get all the tomes and more than enough materials for potions playing a good character.  Oh, wait, your good character also has to be stupid, right?  No crafting or something?

You keep going on about the RP in this game, and then turn around and make suggestions to us that completely destroy the RP aspect. "Play solo. Play good characters." So... as I said in the beginning, you're saying we can RP, or get a challenge; pick one? If all I wanted was a challenge, and didn't care about RP, I'd go try assassin's creed 2 or something.

Totally wrong dude. I said you role play what you want and let eveyone else role play what they want. It is just if you role play an evil guy who steals, extorts, and exploits then you are chosing a path that will result in easier game play due to you having more money than someone playing a good character.

Read what I said.  You're saying I can RP the way I want or get a challenge.  How do you go from saying "Totally wrong dude" to affirming my accusation in the same *paragraph*? 

I did suggets some methods of play that would make the game harder for those complaining the game is easy. If the game is indeed as easy as a couple of you are saying, you should be able to breeze through nightmare as a solo mage (not arcane warrior.)

Anyways, there are mods to increase difficulty. If you don't like them and refuse to make your own, I guess you'll just have to keep saying how easy the game is.

I use one, believe it or not.  I shouldn't have to--it's a flaw in the game that I hope the developers care about.

Actually, my first playthrough was on hard but I'm playing on nightmare now. If you want to make the game easier by stealing/extortion/exploitation, that is your right.

What happened to adjusting the game difficulty by using, y'know, the difficulty settings?

Let me know when you do the solo mage playthrough on Nighmare. Not arcane warrior. Please keep detailed notes about it and write up a detailed leveling guide for it. I haven't tried it but I'm sure such an awesome player will have no trouble getting it done in a few days since the game is easy street on Nighmare.

If you're so interested, do it yourself.  I'm certainly not.  Playing with no companions sounds incredibly boring and completely contrary to how the game was designed to be played.  Your sarcasm does you no credit, since I've certainly never claimed to be a great player.  Besides, I've been saying this whole thread I don't care about defeating a self-created challenge.  Why would playing the game in a way it is not intended to be played, taking out the majority of what makes this game so great, be something you would advocate?  As I said before, I may as well play some other game if all I want is a challenge.

[soteria]

[quote]Kaosgirl wrote...


I'm sorry, but that sounds like nothing more than a paraphrase of the statement "it's more challenging."  It doesn't say why being "really good" is more essential, it just reiterates that it is.

What, mechanically speaking, makes it so that there's less margin for error than on lower levels?
[/quote]

Oh, excuse me.  You're asking specifically what the technical differences are on legendary?  I don't actually know the details... enemies shoot much more accurately, are tougher, and are more aggressive (quicker to shoot you and assault your position).  I think your shield might recharge more slowly or deplete more quickly, as well.  The result is you need to be good at making a lot of headshots quickly, and use the terain and items to your advantage.  To me the most significant difference is the faster, more aggressive attacks.


[quote]

I believe that'll last a month, maybe, before they're back asking for another upgrade.  Or complaining  that the last upgrade "did it wrong" - something I've seen in just about every damn rpg  with scalable difficulty levels so far, from Diablo.to the original BG series.  This is why I keep suggesting DIY solutions.
[/quote]

Err... upgrade?  I'm not asking for a continuously evolving game.  That's what mods ARE for, right?  I just don't like that the base game has so many loopholes and that nightmare is so relatively easy.  With any patch that changes things, some people are going to complain it did too much or not enough, but that doesn't mean the solution is to not make changes.


[quote]
If they "fixed" the AI, pulling enemies wouldn't work in the first place.  There goes one option already... 

Even with that said, we don't know how feasible adjusting the AI *but only for nightmare level* is.  My impression is that the AI routines are threaded throughout the difficulties, so making it smarter for one level would do so for all levels.  If I'm right, this 'fix' does increase the frustration level for those who are still struggling on the lower difficulty levels.
[/quote]

Not sure if we mean the same thing by pulling.  IMO if I shoot a hurlock with an arrow, the whole group should come, not just one (the way it works now).  You have a point about AI changes affecting every difficulty, but I suspect that the players that are really struggling with normal/easy probably aren't exploiting the AI in ways we're talking about--or they wouldn't be struggling.  I also think that what those players really need is tips on how to build their characters and set up their tactics, not an easier game.  Some people just don't "get it," but I have seen some people complaining the game was too hard, got a few suggestions on how to play better, and realized the game wasn't as hard as they thought.

[quote]
If I'm wrong, then perhaps we finally have the skeleton of a viable idea to promote.  The next question, of course, being "how do you fix this." 
Bearing in mind, there's a number of talents designed specifically to manipulate the AI's tactical paths - taunt, threaten, disengage.  Adjusting for smarter AI may mean reworking those talents as well, lest they get nerfed into what I call 'false options.'
[/quote]

Sometimes I think taunt is too strong, and threaten is too weak--it feels like without taunt it's impossible to get a monster's attention, but with it it's impossible to lose its attention.  It's not something I've studied in detail, but I think the deal is those abilities don't scale.  I noticed that early in the game one taunt meant I had everything's attention until it was dead.  Late-game, when monsters had more hp, it might take multiple taunts.

[quote]
[quote]soteria wrote...
Imagine if I had three weapon choices in a shooter... a 9mm beretta, a .50 desert eagle, and an ak-47.  The fight is challenging with either pistol, but is trivialized by the AK.  So don't use it, right?  Sure.  But I'm still losing options, whereas if the developer replaced the AK with, say, a .45 colt revolver, I would have another option that feels like a real choice.[/quote]

But the guy who realizes the .45 colt is just a rebranded beretta is going to complain because he doesn't see a 'real choice' anymore, just a fake choice.  He wants an AK-47 that's "fair" in some way against pistol users.  And then there's another guy who says it doesn't matter what you use, the AI* just falls down if you so much as aim at them.  And a third guy complaining that he never even gets a chance to spot the AI before they've one-shotted him.
(That third guy would be me, in a shooter.  That's why I don't play them.)

You've got three guys pulling for fixes in three different directions, and all making demands on the Dev's limited time-pools.   Meanwhile, you've got an entirely different group of guys competing for that same attention with their requests for new content (maps in shooters, I presume?)
[/quote]
[/quote]

In that specific case I would argue that there's a large difference between a 6-shot .45 caliber revolver and a 15-shot 9mm semiautomatic pistol, and the first guy should shut up and realize that a rifle vs a pistol will never be a fair contest, even if you're using them as melee weapons.  The second and third guys' problem is that they need opponents on their level, and at this point the analogy breaks down because no one has really designed bots that "worked" in a shooter, so most game makers focus on MP.

Besides, my point is that if something is so strong that it clearly becomes the best choice with no additional cost associated with it, "nerfing" it doesn't reduce your number of choices.  It can actually increase them.  In that example we went from one "good" choice to three.  Presumably, the game was already balanced with pistols in mind, or it's a MP game and everyone now has pistols so they have three choices instead of one.

[quote]
[quote]soteria wrote...
Third, as I was getting at with my halo example, I get nothing out of beating a challenge I created.  For me, there's no sense of accomplishment from that. [/quote]

Well, duh.  My question was not "how do you feel," but "why do you feel that way."
[/quote]
[/quote]

For that, we would need to hire a shrink, I assume.  I can't explain my feelings; I just know that they are so.  Because I like you, I'll take a brief stab at it.  I walk to work every day.  I could make a game with myself to see if I could walk just exactly on the painted yellow line by the road, and it might amuse me.  I might even make it all the way to work without stepping off, but I personally would get no thrill of accomplishment.  If, on the other hand, the only way to get there were by walking on a raised wooden beam the same width, I would immensely enjoy the challenge of walking along it all the way. 

Before someone brings up competition or whatever, that would be true regardless of any competition with anyone else--I could do it and never have anyone else know I did it, and it would be still be a fun challenge.

[quote]
[quote]soteria wrote...
As Matthew Young said, who is objecting to making Nightmare harder, and why?
[/quote]

I am, on a few grounds.
1) There's no clear direction on how it should be done, so nobody's going to be satisfied with the end result.
2) History has taught me you'll just be back in a month asking for another fix, once you've overcome this one.
3) Some of the proposals (AI fixes) are likely to have unintended consequences for other levels as well.
4) You're competing for limited dev-time that could be used in ways I'm more interested in.[/quote]

1) Arguably true about any game design decision, so I'm not sure why this point has more weight now.
2) If I think something is broken, sure.  Or, I'll give up and move on to a different game, perhaps to come back later in half a year to see if things are better.  I honestly don't think I'll be playing DA a month from now... I'll probably shelve it and come back when it's fresh again.
3) Ok.  I think I've covered this, so I won't hash it out again.
4) Fine, but I'll note this is nothing more than preference.  Nothing wrong with this objection, but it's hardly compelling as an argument for status quo to anyone whose preferences are different from yours.

Modifié par soteria, 11 décembre 2009 - 03:57 .

[SoulBlazer]

Play on nightmare, cry less about potions.

[Bibdy]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Bibdy wrote...

Because my self-imposed limits don't make a fun game...

That's not an answer.  It's just begging the original question:
Why is it different when it's someone else jamming your hand in the door?

Explain to me how sitting down with a stop watch makes a game fun.

Keep ignoring my answers, I'm just going to keep ignoring your questions.

Modifié par Bibdy, 11 décembre 2009 - 04:16 .

[Dieover]

Sleeping_Dragon wrote...

SuperD-710 wrote...

Oh they're totally nerfing potions next patch!
Can't say I disagree though. I beat Loghain (with Alistair) with absolutly no tactics but drinking potions when hp got low, and was wondering why there's a huge wall of text on Loghain strategies on the wiki.

With enough potions you can beat the archdemon naked with a wooden sword..

Very good job running the game on "Very Easy" and complain about potions in a single player game.

Try Nightmare like other had suggested and come back with your review on potions or will there be more tears?

hmm

[themaxzero]

Bibdy wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Bibdy wrote...

Because my self-imposed limits don't make a fun game...

That's not an answer.  It's just begging the original question:
Why is it different when it's someone else jamming your hand in the door?

Explain to me how sitting down with a stop watch makes a game fun.

Keep ignoring my answers, I'm just going to keep ignoring your questions.

Its not very fun because the game does not support so in this case you need to do some lateral thinking. How about instead of a fixed time you can have a rule like 'Only two potions per boss fight'. No need for a mod and easy to keep track of.

It even encourages the use of more powerful potions.

Modifié par themaxzero, 11 décembre 2009 - 07:29 .

[PrinceOfFallout13]

seriously thsi is the new complain potions? wtf people might aswell take out momentum for rogues

[MOTpoetryION]

a simple fix dont use pots

[XOGHunter246]

MOTpoetryION wrote...

a simple fix dont use pots

Exactly this poster has it on point simple too easy with potions don't use

[Lolballs]

Oh come on you all! This is a fantasy roleplaying game! It wouldn't be that without constant potionchugging. Baldur's Gate 1/2 had it for sure.

Recipe for a classic Fantasy RPG :

10% swords
10% sorcery
20% longwinded dialogue from characters who's names you can't pronounce.
20% Quests where you find something and bring it to the other.
40% Potionchugging


Dragon Age is true to that formula, and it has never been done so well in my personal opinion. If I use too many potions I get deeply worried, its the POTION FEAR I've had playing EVERY fantasy RPG..
"Used all my greater health potions!! What if I need them more in the next fight... oh the horror"

At the end of every fantasy roleplaying game you should have atleast 40 of each type of potion in your inventory that you never used out of fear of actually running out.

classic and I love it.

Modifié par Lolballs, 11 décembre 2009 - 08:36 .

[Dieover]

gosh... some people made the best drama thread here and i can't believe we all got troll'd good.



this thread should get lock

[Lolballs]

Dieover wrote...

gosh... some people made the best drama thread here and i can't believe we all got troll'd good.

this thread should get lock

Who's trolling?

[Sleeping_Dragon]

Dieover wrote...

Sleeping_Dragon wrote...

SuperD-710 wrote...

Oh they're totally nerfing potions next patch!
Can't say I disagree though. I beat Loghain (with Alistair) with absolutly no tactics but drinking potions when hp got low, and was wondering why there's a huge wall of text on Loghain strategies on the wiki.

With enough potions you can beat the archdemon naked with a wooden sword..

Very good job running the game on "Very Easy" and complain about potions in a single player game.

Try Nightmare like other had suggested and come back with your review on potions or will there be more tears?

hmm

Whats so hard about nightmare if I have 100 health pots and lyrium pots...?

[Dieover]

Sleeping_Dragon wrote...

Dieover wrote...

Sleeping_Dragon wrote...

SuperD-710 wrote...

Oh they're totally nerfing potions next patch!
Can't say I disagree though. I beat Loghain (with Alistair) with absolutly no tactics but drinking potions when hp got low, and was wondering why there's a huge wall of text on Loghain strategies on the wiki.

With enough potions you can beat the archdemon naked with a wooden sword..

Very good job running the game on "Very Easy" and complain about potions in a single player game.

Try Nightmare like other had suggested and come back with your review on potions or will there be more tears?

hmm

Whats so hard about nightmare if I have 100 health pots and lyrium pots...?

simple solutions:

1. don't use cheat to get pots and lyrium
OR
2. don't use pot and delete all your pots from your inventory/hotbar.

Its also easy because you actually earn it to get those pots and craft it by grinding, but of course if you cheat that make you a pathetic player bragging in a single player game.

Not to mention we have no idea if you're playing on "Very easy" mode or SUPER very easy mode.

I don't think you even can handle "normal" without chugging pots

heh

Modifié par Dieover, 11 décembre 2009 - 10:47 .

[Bibdy]

So buying Elfroot and Flasks is cheating?

[Dieover]

where you got the money from to buy those ingredient?

[Bibdy]

Where don't you? The Lesser Flasks only cost 1 Elfroot and 1 Flask. They're both cheap as hell, and there's little need to use higher-quality versions of the potions (which cost a hell of a lot more) because the cooldown is so short.

[Coyel]

All that this thread deserves is a /rollseyes and /blink.



Just play the game whichever way YOU choose and enjoy it for what it is......entertainment!

[Dieover]

Bibdy wrote...

Where don't you? The Lesser Flasks only
cost 1 Elfroot and 1 Flask. They're both cheap as hell, and there's
little need to use higher-quality versions of the potions (which cost a
hell of a lot more) because the cooldown is so short.

hehe this is why i rarely use pots just to challenge myself.

I rely on my healer pumping lots of wisdom to get the most mp and kitting/CC mobs to survive.

I also notice elfroot is pretty rare, shop sold those at low quantities every where.

Pots is there for a reason, its mostly cater to new players that doesn't know how to play a micro-mananged game, its an option to make the game less frustrating and to prevent you from dying all the time. If anyone look at the 1.03 patch notes, they even mention about allowing regeneration of hp/map tick faster even when you're in combat.

If you wanna challenge yourself in a single player game, delete all your pots from your inventory. Only real P2P PVP MMO like Warhammer Online got long cooldown on pots because its all come down to balance, but single player game like DA:O is an exceptional.

Check out my warhammer pvp video : D

video is pretty old but ah i enjoy DA:O more now hehe.

Modifié par Dieover, 11 décembre 2009 - 11:24 .