764 réponses à ce sujet

[batlin]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The idea of Bioware selling itself to EA was so that Bioware would not have to worry about raising the money upfront for a project. That does not mean that there would be no budget or unlimited resources.

Many defunct companies died because they could not get funding for their next project. The most recent example being 38 Studios which failed to live up to the promises made to Rhode Island and had an investor pull out to the tune of $35 million.

A well managed company requires making a profit. Companies not making a profit no matter how good their games are not well managed.

Goodwill and reputation are very important, but do not mean anything if the business is gone except as a nice memory.

So how many games has Origin Systems made lately? How about Westwood? Maxis? Digital Illusions? Bullfrog Prodctions?

EA forces developers to put out sub-par products in the name of profit and as a result the developers go out of business because no one wants to buy their games anymore.

So tell me, which is more desirable for bioware: Putting out a good product with small profit for everyone involved, or putting out a bad product with higher profit for the publisher at the expense of the developer?

Also, why must one cheap out on productuion in order for a game to be widely successful? Bethesda seems to be able to put out great games AND make huge profit. Is it too much to ask for both?

Modifié par batlin, 06 juin 2012 - 09:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I wouldn't be surprised if DA2 offered BioWare a return on investment as good or better than DAO. Yes, it sold many fewer copies, but it also took much less time to make.

Unfortunately, DA2 may have also damaged their brand, which is something they would want to avoid.

[Dakota Strider]

In regards to the OP: In an effort to appeal to a wider audience, perhaps EA should have the next Medal of Honor game have features that allow soldiers to take time to decorate their foxholes like in a Sims game. It can change the rules of football, for the Madden series, and allow the teams to use fireballs and summoned monsters (I might actually play it then), And it could introduce aliens destroying the neighborhood in a Sims game.

Why won't they do this? Because it would tick off their customer base that follow those games. So why does the Bioware division insist that its fantasy Role Playing Games turn into a hybrid with features of action games and shooters? If you do not keep your base happy, how can you expect to attract more players? Outsiders will see that the once loyal fanbase are not happy, and avoid your product. Conversely, if you market to your base, and keep them pleased, outsiders will take a chance to try your product, to see why so many people buy it over and over and are happy with it.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 06 juin 2012 - 09:33 .

[Zanallen]

batlin wrote...

Also, why must one cheap out on productuion in order for a game to be widely successful? Bethesda seems to be able to put out great games AND make huge profit. Is it too much to ask for both?

Bethesda is not an independent studio reliant on publishers for funding. Bethesda is a subsidiary of ZeniMax Media and a publisher in its own right. They have leeway that Bioware never had. Much like how Blizzard has WoW to keep it afloat while it takes forever to develop games and Valve has Steam.

[batlin]

Zanallen wrote...

Bethesda is not an independent studio reliant on publishers for funding. Bethesda is a subsidiary of ZeniMax Media and a publisher in its own right. They have leeway that Bioware never had. Much like how Blizzard has WoW to keep it afloat while it takes forever to develop games and Valve has Steam.

Being its own publisher doesn't change the fact that they too are beholden to profits. And, again, they seem to be able to put out great games and remain successful profit-wise. That has nothing to do with the publisher and the developer being in the same company, it all has to do with putting out quality games and therefore rewarding their core customers.

[Vormaerin]

Realmzmaster wrote...


To me it represents an illusion of choice that has no effect on the outcome. If the choices all have the same effect on the outcome, it is not a choice in my mind. It is an exercise in illusion. 

If you have followed any of Sylvius' other conversations, its pretty apparent that what he is primarily interested in is a game that has a decent story that doesn't interfere with his ability to invent a wide variety of context that isn't actually in the game itself.

The more context the game actually provides, the less he feels he can RP.   A voice actor tells him too much about tone.  Cinematics tell him too much about attitude.   He wants to imagine all that himself.  That allows him to create a wider range of characters in his head, even though the game itself changes in no way.

[rapscallioness]

Appealing to a wider audience is all well and good. And should be expected. But for gaming in particular, word of mouth is their most powerful asset. Mess that up, and you mess up your franchise.

And honestly, BW, your fanbase is your greatest asset. From the power of word of mouth (nagging friends and family until they try BW games), to buying all of your spin off comics;books;dlc...they are your bread and butter.

Personally, I prefer BW games because they are action/RPG. I don't really care for sandbox RPG. It's alright, but it's not my favorite. At the same time I don't really care for linear, all action shooter-y stuff. It's alright, but not my favorite.

I fell in love with BW because it gave me a reasonable balance of both. Other games I will buy used and will not hesitate to trade them back in. Even ones I liked, but then I rarely play a game more than once.

BW games though, I keep because I have incentive to replay. Try a different class/race/origin. Make different decisions to see how they will play out. Sometimes it's only small differences--dialogue--someone lives. And sometimes it affects the story in a dramatic way.

DA:O and ME2 had the greatest replayability incentive, for me.

I think where BW gets into trouble is that they tend to piddle with stuff that doesn't need to be piddled with. Some things always need to be updated. Graphics and combat mechanics being a couple of them. They need to look and feel current.

There are other things, though, that puzzled me as to why they messed with it in the extreme. Inventory in their first games got a bit...much. But that doesn't mean you take away 99% of the capability to customize armor and weapons.

DA:O had a good formula. 4 major quests and...some..sidequests. I would have liked to have seen a few more sidequests. Maybe 3 grueling major quests and a few more side quests. Personal quests for the PC and companions. Maybe? It was cool cuz you went to different places. Saw different things. It worked.

DA2 was basically a game of sidequests. Now, I liked DA2. I'm not one of the fans that really dislikes it. But nevertheless, it was a game of side quests. Why? Why throw out a formula that worked for you?

I really don't understand. It Seems like you're trying to back away from the very things that gained you a following in the first place.

What I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with marketing yourself to different audiences. As in getting your name out there. Making your presence known. I would expect that. Yeah, step up. Let folks know you're in the room. But don't try to Be like them to gain their support.

Be who you are, and run with it. I know between CoD and Skrim, you don't know which way to go now. You want all that money. Lol. I don't blame you. Money's a beautiful thing. But don't undermine yourself in the process.

I'm a fan of BW games. I'm a typical gamer with every other game. BW, you made me a fan. I have no loyalty to anyone but BW. None. But now that you won me over, I feel like you take it for granted.

So busy trying to impress everybody else, you're forgetting about "wife-y". And when wife-y's not happy....nobody's happy. Lol.

By all means, make a name for yourself in the world, but don't forget where you come from.

[Morroian]

rapscallioness wrote...

DA:O and ME2 had the greatest replayability incentive, for me.
[...]
 DA2 was basically a game of sidequests. Now, I liked DA2. I'm not one of the fans that really dislikes it. But nevertheless, it was a game of side quests. Why? Why throw out a formula that worked for you?

ME2 was even more a game of sidequests yet you like ME2 but not DA2. 

batlin wrote...

Being its own publisher doesn't change the fact that they too are beholden to profits. And, again, they seem to be able to put out great games and remain successful profit-wise. That has nothing to do with the publisher and the developer being in the same company, it all has to do with putting out quality games and therefore rewarding their core customers.

Zenimax and EA hardly have the same policies, Zenimax seems willing to sit and wait for the best game possible to be delivered, EA doesn't do thta.

Modifié par Morroian, 06 juin 2012 - 11:32 .

[batlin]

Morroian wrote...

Zenimax and EA hardly have the same policies, Zenimax seems willing to sit and wait for the best game possible to be delivered, EA doesn't do thta.

Yeah, that's precisely my point. Bethesda continues to be one of the most successful developers around not in spite of them favoring quality over profitabilty, but because they favor quality. Quality ultimately makes profit. Cheaping out will bring profit in the short term, but not in the long term. That's why EA has such a long list of dead developers thanks in no small part to their shoddy business practices.

Modifié par batlin, 07 juin 2012 - 12:12 .

[Vormaerin]

batlin wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Zenimax and EA hardly have the same policies, Zenimax seems willing to sit and wait for the best game possible to be delivered, EA doesn't do thta.

Yeah, that's precisely my point. Bethesda continues to be one of the most successful developers around not in spite of them favoring quality over profitabilty, but because they favor quality. Quality ultimately makes profit. Cheaping out will bring profit in the short term, but not in the long term. That's why EA has such a long list of dead developers thanks in no small part to their shoddy business practices.

Do you actually know anything about Bethesda's success as a business?  Are they making more money producing expensive games with long development times?    Are they really spending more time and money per game or do they just have a development staff that gets more zots per dollar?

Are you really comparing apples and apples?  Because Bethesda doesn't even attempt the sorts of things Bioware is being hammered for supposedly not providing.

[rapscallioness]

Morroian wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

DA:O and ME2 had the greatest replayability incentive, for me.
[...]
 DA2 was basically a game of sidequests. Now, I liked DA2. I'm not one of the fans that really dislikes it. But nevertheless, it was a game of side quests. Why? Why throw out a formula that worked for you?

ME2 was even more a game of sidequests yet you like ME2 but not DA2. 

What are you talking about? In the very part you quoted I said I liked DA2. But DA2 was more of a game of sidequests than ME2. Everything in DA2 was sidequest caliber. I still had fun playing it. I don't see how ME2 was any more of a sidequest game than DA2.

And I didn't think I had to spell out the reasons I liked ME2 For Replay Value. That should be obvious. Whether I upgraded Normandy, or not. Who I chose for the final missions. When I did the final mission. All these had repercussions.

If I wanted to change the repercussions, I had to go pretty far back in the game to do so. In DA2 you're pretty much locked in. I could kill Anders in the end, or not...meh.

So, yes, I liked ME2 better than DA2 for Replay Incentive. In other words I had motivation to replay it if I wanted to get no one left behind.

As far as liking them in general, they were both good games, imo. But I was talking about replay value.

[Vormaerin]

rapscallioness wrote...

 All these had repercussions.

Problem is that all the decisions that actually mattered in ME2 (as opposed to mattering to ME3) seemed to be of the "am I a moron or not?" variety.

"Am I dumb enough not to armor my ship?"
"Am I dumb enough to put Jacob in the tubes instead of a techie?"
"Am I dumb enough to put a non soldier in charge fo the fire teams?"
"Am I dumb enough to skip side quests for no reason at all?"

There's really only two ways not to get "No Man Left Behind" that aren't the result of consciously making an obviously inferior choice.  You could not realize that going to the Reaper IFF mission starts the endgame and get burned by the timer.   You could end up with too little Paragon or Renegade to resolve the Tali/Legion and Miranda/Jack arguments.

Actually, I think the biggest drag on replay of ME3 is that the choices are almost all made in the previous games.  You might have to replay ME1 and ME2 to get some of the options in ME3.

[Realmzmaster]

Vormaerin wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...


To me it represents an illusion of choice that has no effect on the outcome. If the choices all have the same effect on the outcome, it is not a choice in my mind. It is an exercise in illusion. 

If you have followed any of Sylvius' other conversations, its pretty apparent that what he is primarily interested in is a game that has a decent story that doesn't interfere with his ability to invent a wide variety of context that isn't actually in the game itself.

The more context the game actually provides, the less he feels he can RP.   A voice actor tells him too much about tone.  Cinematics tell him too much about attitude.   He wants to imagine all that himself.  That allows him to create a wider range of characters in his head, even though the game itself changes in no way.

Oh! I understand what Sylvius wants. I just point out that not everyone wants what he wants and game developers must take the whole audience into consideration. So it comes down to tradeoffs. I have played and enjoyed at one time the games Sylvius likes, but my expectations and what I want have changed.

[joshko]

Vormaerin wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

 All these had repercussions.

Problem is that all the decisions that actually mattered in ME2 (as opposed to mattering to ME3) seemed to be of the "am I a moron or not?" variety.

"Am I dumb enough not to armor my ship?"
"Am I dumb enough to put Jacob in the tubes instead of a techie?"
"Am I dumb enough to put a non soldier in charge fo the fire teams?"
"Am I dumb enough to skip side quests for no reason at all?"

There's really only two ways not to get "No Man Left Behind" that aren't the result of consciously making an obviously inferior choice.  You could not realize that going to the Reaper IFF mission starts the endgame and get burned by the timer.   You could end up with too little Paragon or Renegade to resolve the Tali/Legion and Miranda/Jack arguments.

Actually, I think the biggest drag on replay of ME3 is that the choices are almost all made in the previous games.  You might have to replay ME1 and ME2 to get some of the options in ME3.

LOL this is true. The first time I beat ME 2 I had no idea any of your squadmates could die. Then I come to the forums and to my suprise I see people trying to figure out how to get everyone to survive.

[Fast Jimmy]

Dakota Strider wrote...

In regards to the OP: In an effort to appeal to a wider audience, perhaps EA should have the next Medal of Honor game have features that allow soldiers to take time to decorate their foxholes like in a Sims game. It can change the rules of football, for the Madden series, and allow the teams to use fireballs and summoned monsters (I might actually play it then), And it could introduce aliens destroying the neighborhood in a Sims game.

Why won't they do this? Because it would tick off their customer base that follow those games. So why does the Bioware division insist that its fantasy Role Playing Games turn into a hybrid with features of action games and shooters? If you do not keep your base happy, how can you expect to attract more players? Outsiders will see that the once loyal fanbase are not happy, and avoid your product. Conversely, if you market to your base, and keep them pleased, outsiders will take a chance to try your product, to see why so many people buy it over and over and are happy with it.

A moose is asleep. He is dreaming of moose drinks. 
                                                                                                       A goose is asleep. He is dreaming of goose drinks. 

That's well and good when a moose dreams of moose juice.
                                                                                   And nothing goes wrong when a goose dreams of goose juice.

But it isn't too good when a moose and a goose....           ...start dreaming they're drinking the other ones juice.

Moose juice, not goose juice, is juice for a moose.
                                                                                                    And goose juice, not moose juice, is juice for a goose.

So, when goose gets a mouthful of juices of moose's...
                                          and moose gets a mouthful of juices of goose's....
                                                                                                          they always fall out of their beds screaming screams...

SO, i'm warning you, now!
                                                         Never drink in your dreams. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 07 juin 2012 - 02:36 .

[rapscallioness]

Vormaerin wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

 All these had repercussions.

Problem is that all the decisions that actually mattered in ME2 (as opposed to mattering to ME3) seemed to be of the "am I a moron or not?" variety.

"Am I dumb enough not to armor my ship?"
"Am I dumb enough to put Jacob in the tubes instead of a techie?"
"Am I dumb enough to put a non soldier in charge fo the fire teams?"
"Am I dumb enough to skip side quests for no reason at all?"

There's really only two ways not to get "No Man Left Behind" that aren't the result of consciously making an obviously inferior choice.  You could not realize that going to the Reaper IFF mission starts the endgame and get burned by the timer.   You could end up with too little Paragon or Renegade to resolve the Tali/Legion and Miranda/Jack arguments.

Actually, I think the biggest drag on replay of ME3 is that the choices are almost all made in the previous games.  You might have to replay ME1 and ME2 to get some of the options in ME3.

well, I'm not a moron and ppl still died on my first playthru.

But my point with DA2 was that you don't even have moronic choice/consequence. So my vote for replay value is ME2 over DA2.

[PaulSX]

Vormaerin wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

 All these had repercussions.

Problem is that all the decisions that actually mattered in ME2 (as opposed to mattering to ME3) seemed to be of the "am I a moron or not?" variety.

"Am I dumb enough not to armor my ship?"
"Am I dumb enough to put Jacob in the tubes instead of a techie?"
"Am I dumb enough to put a non soldier in charge fo the fire teams?"
"Am I dumb enough to skip side quests for no reason at all?"

There's really only two ways not to get "No Man Left Behind" that aren't the result of consciously making an obviously inferior choice.  You could not realize that going to the Reaper IFF mission starts the endgame and get burned by the timer.   You could end up with too little Paragon or Renegade to resolve the Tali/Legion and Miranda/Jack arguments.

Actually, I think the biggest drag on replay of ME3 is that the choices are almost all made in the previous games.  You might have to replay ME1 and ME2 to get some of the options in ME3.

well, not everyone likes to scan planets in order to upgrade the ship, or maybe he just like tali and legion in his team, so he decide to send Jacob in the tubes, or maybe he think Zaeed looked like a veteran, so he let him in charge of the fire teams. or maybe he just do not like talking to certain characters and did not get the loyalty quests.

[hussey 92]

rapscallioness wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

 All these had repercussions.

Problem is that all the decisions that actually mattered in ME2 (as opposed to mattering to ME3) seemed to be of the "am I a moron or not?" variety.

"Am I dumb enough not to armor my ship?"
"Am I dumb enough to put Jacob in the tubes instead of a techie?"
"Am I dumb enough to put a non soldier in charge fo the fire teams?"
"Am I dumb enough to skip side quests for no reason at all?"

There's really only two ways not to get "No Man Left Behind" that aren't the result of consciously making an obviously inferior choice.  You could not realize that going to the Reaper IFF mission starts the endgame and get burned by the timer.   You could end up with too little Paragon or Renegade to resolve the Tali/Legion and Miranda/Jack arguments.

Actually, I think the biggest drag on replay of ME3 is that the choices are almost all made in the previous games.  You might have to replay ME1 and ME2 to get some of the options in ME3.

well, I'm not a moron and ppl still died on my first playthru.

But my point with DA2 was that you don't even have moronic choice/consequence. So my vote for replay value is ME2 over DA2.

ME2 while smaller than the first ME game is much bigger than DA2, and the changes from the original game were less drastic.  So ME2 defenetly has the better replay value.

[rapscallioness]

Really all I was trying to say in my original post to the OP was that marketing your product to a wider audience is okay, imo.

Just don't change the essentials of who you are to appeal to that wider audience. BW fans fell in love with their games for certain reasons. I don't want to see BW throw that all away trying to be more like other games.

that is all.

[ElitePinecone]

batlin wrote...

Dragon Age Origins did all that better than DA2, so why is prefering more of that than less unrealistic or naive?

Agreed, but Origins had largely static conversation cutscenes and no voiced protagonist. Both of those things are (apparently) significantly more expensive, in terms of both time and money. Ditto when they committed to both genders of Hawke. 

I *do* think DA2 wasn't given an appropriate development time, and that had all sorts of effects on how the game turned out (its limited scope, repetition, some really unpolished systems). There could certainly be a huge improvement in the way quests are solved, and giving players more agency to affect the outcomes, but I don't think it's as simple as demanding Origins' level of complexity when the costs associated with it would be so extensive. 

[wsandista]

ElitePinecone wrote...

batlin wrote...

Dragon Age Origins did all that better than DA2, so why is prefering more of that than less unrealistic or naive?

Agreed, but Origins had largely static conversation cutscenes and no voiced protagonist. Both of those things are (apparently) significantly more expensive, in terms of both time and money. Ditto when they committed to both genders of Hawke. 

I *do* think DA2 wasn't given an appropriate development time, and that had all sorts of effects on how the game turned out (its limited scope, repetition, some really unpolished systems). There could certainly be a huge improvement in the way quests are solved, and giving players more agency to affect the outcomes, but I don't think it's as simple as demanding Origins' level of complexity when the costs associated with it would be so extensive. 

I don't think anyone disagrees that DA2 didn't have a long enough dev time.

However, why should we expect less complexity? I mean there are costs for certain features, but what has to be cut to pay for those features? Is what is going to be cut something a significant percentage wants?

[ashwind]

Vormaerin wrote...
Do you actually know anything about Bethesda's success as a business?  Are they making more money producing expensive games with long development times?    Are they really spending more time and money per game or do they just have a development staff that gets more zots per dollar?

Are you really comparing apples and apples?  Because Bethesda doesn't even attempt the sorts of things Bioware is being hammered for supposedly not providing.

Thing is... players do not really care that much about how successful a developer is as a business. As long as they sell enough copies to pay themselves, keep running and produce the next great title, players are content. Who cares if the developer made billions by rushing products that had so much potential out of the door so they can make more bucks?

Bethesda did a lot of development decision right. TES series stayed true to what it was and why people buy them initially; you can play Daggerfall and still feel and know that it is part of the series. When they wanted MP and something else, they create spinoffs like ES: Battlespire. TES however stayed true to itself mostly; when you buy a TES series game, you know more or less what you can expect. 

In short, there is nothing wrong with wanting more audience. For the company to survive and keep producing great titles, you have to expand your current customer base. That expansion however should retain your current customer base and not trade your current customer base for a larger but different customer base.

[batlin]

Vormaerin wrote...

Do you actually know anything about Bethesda's success as a business?

Are you asking me if I think Bethesda is successful? Well I know for certain Skyrim so far has sold almost 12 million copies in 7 months while Dragon Age 2 sold almost 2 million copies in over a year.

http://www.vgchartz....e=dragon age II

http://www.vgchartz....db/?name=skyrim

And considering Skyrim was in development for 4 years while DA2 was in development for 1.5, so far Skyrim sold over 8200 copies per day of development while Dragon Age 2 only sold 3600 per day.

I don't know what that tells you, but clearly in this case, emphasis on quality and catering to your core fanbase is the superior business model.

Are you really comparing apples and apples?  Because Bethesda doesn't even attempt the sorts of things Bioware is being hammered for supposedly not providing.

Really, because I never saw Bethesda criticised for crappy graphics, too much linearity, not enough exploration, too small an area, copy and pasted levels, phoned-in quests, lack of customization, lack of companion interaction, bad storytelling.........

Fast Jimmy wrote...

A moose is asleep. He is dreaming of moose drinks. 
                                                                                                       A goose is asleep. He is dreaming of goose drinks. 

That's well and good when a moose dreams of moose juice.
                                                                                   And nothing goes wrong when a goose dreams of goose juice.

But it isn't too good when a moose and a goose....           ...start dreaming they're drinking the other ones juice.

Moose juice, not goose juice, is juice for a moose.
                                                                                                    And goose juice, not moose juice, is juice for a goose.

So, when goose gets a mouthful of juices of moose's...
                                          and moose gets a mouthful of juices of goose's....
                                                                                                          they always fall out of their beds screaming screams...

SO, i'm warning you, now!
                                                         Never drink in your dreams. 

I love you.

no ******

Modifié par batlin, 07 juin 2012 - 04:54 .

[batlin]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Agreed, but Origins had largely static conversation cutscenes and no voiced protagonist. Both of those things are (apparently) significantly more expensive, in terms of both time and money. Ditto when they committed to both genders of Hawke.

Whoa man...are you suggesting that it's harder to give players more options than less? Excuse me while I pick up my monocle

RPGs should focus on giving the player more freedom. Otherwise what you have is an action-adventure game.

Hell, the only reason I still call DA2 an RPG is because at the very least you can choose how to respond to people, but even THAT is being impeded on with that bulls*** auto dialogue.

I *do* think DA2 wasn't given an appropriate development time, and that had all sorts of effects on how the game turned out (its limited scope, repetition, some really unpolished systems). There could certainly be a huge improvement in the way quests are solved, and giving players more agency to affect the outcomes, but I don't think it's as simple as demanding Origins' level of complexity when the costs associated with it would be so extensive. 

Like Fast Jimmy said before, having a rushed deadline is not an excuse. The fact of the matter is that the game is sub-par, and I would aregue some of the reasons have nothing to do with the rushed development.

Modifié par batlin, 07 juin 2012 - 05:03 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

ElitePinecone wrote...

batlin wrote...

Dragon Age Origins did all that better than DA2, so why is prefering more of that than less unrealistic or naive?

Agreed, but Origins had largely static conversation cutscenes and no voiced protagonist. Both of those things are (apparently) significantly more expensive, in terms of both time and money. Ditto when they committed to both genders of Hawke. 

I *do* think DA2 wasn't given an appropriate development time, and that had all sorts of effects on how the game turned out (its limited scope, repetition, some really unpolished systems). There could certainly be a huge improvement in the way quests are solved, and giving players more agency to affect the outcomes, but I don't think it's as simple as demanding Origins' level of complexity when the costs associated with it would be so extensive. 

 Then I suggest minimize cutscenes conversation. It has no real value except to "watch" character's response to each other.. Note that I do not suggest to discard the use of voice protagonist. I'm quite happy with male/female voice themselves. I'm not happy with how the voice is expressed and how the animated PC actors act. There're rarely sarcastic remarks or passive-aggresive type tone and the cutscene's PC actor rarely match my character's personality in term of facial expression, body language and emotion. It doesn't mean cutscene conversation is "bad". Cutscene conversation can be quite helpful in some cases like when PC is giving final speech. I don't expect to input every line while making important farewell/final speech near the endgame.      

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 07 juin 2012 - 05:11 .