dreman9999 wrote...
It been said so many time in the topic and forum that it doen't needto be said any more. Stoptrying to grasp straws that have counter points well made clear that you know.
Modifié par Warrior Craess, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:39 .
dreman9999 wrote...
Control and destory is not based on the catalyst logic nor control by him. He just telling you what the crucible does.Moirai wrote...
Okay, I'm going to throw my opinion into the mix on this, coming in from a slightly different angle.
My main issue with the ending was that I was forced to choose any of the StarChild/Intelligence's choices at all. Why? Because the reasons for doing so are based on faulty in-game logic and zero evidence.
StarChild states that the core reason for the 'harvesting' is due to the fact that the created will always turn on their creators. And yet, as the main character/player, you are never once presented with any evidence whatsoever to even hint at this possibility. Not ever.
No ancient records from previous cycles. No evidence in current cycle.
And no, the Geth attacking Eden Prime, etc and so on, is not evidence of this. StarChild clearly implies that this created/creator conflict is a natural evolution of events that cannot be avoided, cycle after cycle. That isn't the same as the Geth. That was a forced 'evolution', caused directly by Reaper involvement. As shown in ME3, the Geth never had any desire or want to rebel against their creators. Completely the opposite of what StarChild states.
And yet, at the end of three games, we are now forced to choose from three unpalatable options (yes, refuse, exists as an 'option' but isn't technically the same in context of the in-game situation), when we have been provided with absolutely no evidence to support the notion that any of those options are valid or necessary. In fact, if you saved the Geth and Quarians, you have substantive evidence to the contrary.
And yet it means nothing.
And, back in March, when finishing the game, I sat there, thinking, 'Why the hell is the game forcing me to pick from these crappy options, when my Shepard and everyone in the ME universe deserves none of them? Why is there no other option that allows me to prove to the StarChild that it is wrong and just get him to stop? Why, after all that these characters have gone through, are they being punished this way?'
More to the point; why did Bioware not allow us, through exploration, mission success and dialogue choice, to attain an ending which was fair to all involved?
And no, these aren't realistically tough decisions that make sense within the context of what you know (like Virmire). These are the cheap contrived versions that come out of left field, at the last moment, just when you expect to be given a shot at victory over the bast*rds you've been fighting all this time, and after all that you've done and all the resources you collected together...and socks you right on the f**king jaw, leaving you thinking, 'WTF...?'.
That is cheap. Real cheap.
StarChild has no evidence to support his standpoint. You, on the other hand, can have evidence to strongly counter it. And yet, you can't argue with him because Bioware wants to enforce a set of unreasonable end game scenarios on you based on completely unsubstantiated events that have never been mentioned before.
So, yes. I think the story deserves another attainable ending, and one that pays tribute to the time and effort that the player (and characters) have gone through to reach that spot in front of StarChild.
I think we've earned the right to be given a chance at that.
And besides, at its core, this is just a game. Is it so bad to leave your customers finishing it and punching the air and wearing a big soppy grin on their faces?
Is that really so bad..?
Bioware..?
xray16 wrote...
3DAndBeyound:OP - Thank you for so clearly articulating my feelings about ME3.
In simple terms, Mass Effect, when I reached the end of ME3, was no longer FUN for me. I play computer games to have fun and relax/escape from the real world.
Not fun = I do not want to play this again.
Yes I've continued to lurk here - watching the arguments and flamewars ripple accross what's left of the fragmented fanbase... In honesty I've been looking for hope that maybe something else was coming. After 5 months the evidence suggests that it isn't.
I am but one gamer and this is purely MY opinion. Maybe Bioware games are not for me anymore -I can appreciate and understand that. As a customer demographic perhaps I don't fit into their sales target- that's fair enough - I'll go elsewhere.
If there was an ending to Mass Effect where I could actualy feel like I won... then I would be throwing money and time at this game - in both Multiplayer and Singleplayer. But thats not what happened. Multiplayer is just a reminder for me of the awful and depressing way that the story ends. Singleplayer? Why would I want to prolong the suffering.
To clarify - my view of what the Starbrat demands at the end:
Chose Synthesis= Saren - ME1's evil bad guy - was right.
Chose Control= TIM - ME3's evil bad guy - was right.
Chose Destroy= commit genocide - become the evil bad guy.
Chose Refuse= everyone dies. Instantly. (see above re: becoming the evil bad guy).
To me - THATS NOT FUN: In this form either the bad guys were right, or I am the bad guy. Uh - no thanks. I don't want to choose to inhabit that reality.
I've enjoyed the Mass Effect series so much up until now that I felt I should send this feedback, regardless of the inevitable vitriol.
To 3DandBeyond (and so many others including AdmiralCheez): I wish you all the best for so eloquently communicating that which I could not.
What I'm saying is that it is foolish to base any sort of choice on the Crucible. The Crucible is intended to be a device of enormous power operating of fictional principles, so any limits it's given will be arbitrary. It is an awful way of forcing a moral dilemma.plfranke wrote...
So basically what you're saying is, the crucible should have had a set of rules to play by from the beginning? Like from the get go it should be known that it's going to destroy the reapers and nothing else. Or that from the get go we'll know the 3 choices?
IamDanThaMan wrote...
AresKeith wrote...
no she didn't this create for everyone to agree with her, your welcome to state your own opinion. And no we didn't fail to grasp the theme because the ending isn't about the theme of the game
Apparently you did, because from the very first ad for ME1(which has been linked to) we were told that we would have to make difficult decisions.
Why did you not complain that you were not able to save both Ashley and Kaiden on Virmire? Shouldn't Bioware have given you that option? Why did you not complain that Bioware didn't give you the option to hand the collector base over to the alliance instead of destroying it or handing it over to the illusive man? Would that not have been the preferred option?
), and character progression is achieved. It furthers the story and makes sense.
those things you listed, they made sense. To me, and a lot of others, the ending of Mass Effect 3 did not. Consider the previous paragraph about ME2 and how the end choice tied into the entirety of the game. The end choice of ME3 does not. I didn't mind the Catalyst and his demystification of the Reapers too much, but the way the rest of the ending was handled just left me puzzled and confused. I felt no sense of accomplishment when the credits rolled, only a meek longing for a real conclusion. I still don't feel I have that, albeit the Extended Cut helped.Modifié par Ajensis, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:03 .
Zan51 wrote...
You just gave me the biggest laugh of my day! Thank you so much for that! Hard SF? Grounded in Reality? Sure it is! ME employs EXACTLY what I do as a Science Fiction Writer - the Bull*hit Drive for starters, and races off into Scence Fiction and Fantasy from there on! I'm talking about Mass Effect fields and Eezo for starters, never mind all the biotic powers the Asari have and Humans use implants to enhance. Science Fantasy, NOT based in reality. Let's not go iinto the firearms because my A.Sc. isn't up to it but I am sure someone here is!
Go read here - http://www.hardsf.org/HSFGHsf.htm
The term "hard" science fiction is used for sf that corresponds to our currently understood science models of the universe. Nearly all of ME3 depends on suspension of disbelief in that we are willing to "accept" "future science" as fact.
OK I will give you a hard morally challenging choice. You are one of 6 stuck on a crashed pane in the Andes, 3 are injusred to various degrees, but there is not food. What do you do? Kill off the worst injured and eath them one at a time and hope for rescue eventually, or try to keep them alive and all probably die, the injured hideously with frostbite and gangrene. Real people faced that dilemma in the 70's , and they ate the dead. Several survived but were shunned as cannibals. Who was right, them or the rest of us? Was itr MORALLY right to eat a dead person, or morally right to die? It was sensible, no doubt about that! Morally? (http://en.wikipedia....flight_disaster I made the numbers smaller than the real 49)
Collateral damage is when you shell a terrorist camp and a village is too close. The Free Dictionary defines it as Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially
unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation.
Key is UNINTENDED. If you know in advance ti will kill them, it is NOT unintended. Intentionally targetting civilians is a terrorist attack, and to be honest, deciding one whole race or two get wiped out to save the rest is STILL a terrorist attack. And so is infecting them intentionally with nanites to poroduce synthesis.
So hard choices? Sure, you're a Terrorist, mate.
Now read what you wrote again - "I don't like that destroy kills the geth, in fact, I disliked it so much that I didn't choose destroy, I chose synthesis besause I felt it was the best option. Did I like the idea of forcibly merging synthetic and oranic DNA? No, but that is absolutely not the point. The point is that if there was one choice that was inherently better that the rest, there may as well not be a choice."
You have just said that if there is one choice that is inherently better than the others, there is no choice. And before it you said " I chose synthesis besause I felt it was the best option." You are admitting there was only one best option.choice, therefore in your OWN words, "there may as well be no choice."
We're saying the "choices" we are given are not valid choices because all but Refuse or Destroy are morally wrong, just like eating dead people is morally wrong. It may be sensible, but good morals prevent us from doing it. (For good, practical reasons, Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease for one)
Modifié par IamDanThaMan, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:00 .
Vigilant111 wrote...
Moirai wrote...
I think we've earned the right to be given a chance at that.
And besides, at its core, this is just a game. Is it so bad to leave your customers finishing it and punching the air and wearing a big soppy grin on their faces?
Is that really so bad..?
Bioware..?
I am speculating that giving gamers more choices and a more satisfactory ending mean we are taking credit away from them for creating the story...
Ugh...RPG, hello?! other peoples' stories!!! and no one is stealing the thunder so BW, don't worry
chevyguy87 wrote...
Ah 3D we meet again, lovely post by the way, valid points all around. I myself am over Mass Effect, the current state of affairs forever soured my feelings for the series. I watched Leviathan on youtube and must say it was very good and well structured. I also believe that it should of been in the base game but that is a totally different matter. Possibly should have been placed early on in the story line for ME3 since I doubt we need Reapers 101 after most of us have completed the game one or more times.
My next bid. Why is it that people always twist the word "happy" and associate it with fairy tale garbage and bright annoying colors? Happy can be as simple as seeing Shep sit up from the trash he/she is in to showing a scene on the Normandy where Joker picks up Shep's ID signature. See what I did there? no unicorns humping trees, hokus pokus, rainbow flavored bubblegum, flying animals, cotton candy, or any other whimsical nonsensical fairy tale garbage everybody assigns the word happy to these days.
Moving on, I do not see them successfully pulling off ME4. Unless they either pull a Halo and put out a prequel, or step in the shoes of a completely different character set in the future after the Reaper War. As far as I am concerned Shepard's story is done, and seeing how they balked that, I really don't forsee a fourth installment being treated much better. I have always been a firm believer that Shepard's story should have been at least four installments. ME3 would have been the strategic buildup in preperation for the war and ridding ourselves of Cerberus, and ME4 would have been the war in it's totality. The story and the universe contained in the story are far too detailed and expansive to cram into a trilogy, but if they do decide to do ME4 I hope it's not going to be a CoD with lazer weapons.....oh wait thet already did that with ME3 multiplayer....................damn.
Now if Bioware followed that system, Leviathan would have fit in perfectly as in game content rather then DLC and we would have had logic going into the conversation with the talking glow in the dark wristband they dubbed the Catalyst. From Ashes also could have fit in somewhere. I have not given it much thought though. But I feel that half of the arguments on the forums would not exist because BW would have had plenty of time to tie up the story quite nicely and give Shepard a proper sendoff rather then have us play a furturistic game of twister and deciding who to screw over.
But as I said, I am over Mass Effect, sad because it was my favorite game series but as the Rolling Stones put it "You can't always get what you want". Since Shepard is pretty much history at this point I do not feel the need to bother myself with any ME related content. However the sharing of ideas and hypothesizing story lore is most interesting and are the two reasons I still gander at the forums every now and then.
Oh I get what you're saying. The crucible is too much like a hypothetical question, only this hypothetical question now decides the very real outcome of our game. Damn that line would have been great in the thread I just made. Oh well, one day.elitehunter34 wrote...
What I'm saying is that it is foolish to base any sort of choice on the Crucible. The Crucible is intended to be a device of enormous power operating of fictional principles, so any limits it's given will be arbitrary. It is an awful way of forcing a moral dilemma.plfranke wrote...
So basically what you're saying is, the crucible should have had a set of rules to play by from the beginning? Like from the get go it should be known that it's going to destroy the reapers and nothing else. Or that from the get go we'll know the 3 choices?
3DandBeyond wrote...
Ok, just to reiterate. This thread is about asking Bioware to take another look at the game(s) and try to see it from the perspective of those that feel left out. I'm asking them to consider adding to the endings, to make it possible to achieve an ending where Shepard could (if you work hard enough at it) live and only the reapers could be destroyed. I am not asking them to change the other endings so as to ruin them for those who like them. I'm asking for some slight additional content at the least that would return the game to playability for the rest of us. Additionally, there is DLC that has been requested that I do think would be especially satisfying for others. The consideration here is not only to make more money for the franchise, but to make more content that would appeal to a large segment of players. I think one of those things could include some sort of aftermath and even as many have requested, reunion content.
I am additionally asking that they consider continuing to make games in the ME universe (perhaps not well received if ending content is not re-considered) that are in this same unique vein. I fully understand Shepard's story may be done after this game, but feel there is room for a sequel with a new character set in this same galaxy.
Primarily though, I feel this game lost sight of the person that was the best marketing device ME had-Shepard. Please reconsider.
dreman9999 wrote...
That's not the meaning of moral delema at all.
Morality delama is simply you morals vs the reality for the situation in hand.
Let's say you morals is to save an innocent person, and you in a hostage situation to save peole held hostage for a terrorist cell. The only way to save the hostages is to let the terrist go, but by doing that you leave open the chance of other innocent people die. And you can't go in and systematicly take down the terrist because they have bombs setup in the building they are holding the hostages.
The delama his is ether to save people now but risk the death of more people, or kill the terrist now, risking and ending the lives of the hostages but save more live later on.
Sure , a person in the situation can have a completly differnt morality but they still go through some form of moral conflict anyway.
What you talking about is moral change or evolution. That's not the same thing but can because by moral conflict.
You can say that every time Shepard has to kill anyone in this series. In fact, renegade Shepard often doesn't give a second though to the concept of morality and only cares about results, but the fact that Shepard does get results regardless of methods means that credit must be given where it's due. It actually makes the story more interesting and believable, because sometimes heroes are just sons of ****es who had statues made of them.drayfish wrote...
Any of those people – the players who don't give a flying crap about morals, ethics or basic human rights – do not have to sacrifice or consider anything in this narrative. In fact, while they sit back glowing with contentment at a job well done, the game goes out of its way to call them a 'hero' and pat them on the back for doing the 'right thing'.
Modifié par Hudathan, 01 septembre 2012 - 10:04 .
Moirai wrote...
Okay, I'm going to throw my opinion into the mix on this, coming in from a slightly different angle.
My main issue with the ending was that I was forced to choose any of the StarChild/Intelligence's choices at all. Why? Because the reasons for doing so are based on faulty in-game logic and zero evidence.
StarChild states that the core reason for the 'harvesting' is due to the fact that the created will always turn on their creators. And yet, as the main character/player, you are never once presented with any evidence whatsoever to even hint at this possibility. Not ever.
No ancient records from previous cycles. No evidence in current cycle.
And no, the Geth attacking Eden Prime, etc and so on, is not evidence of this. StarChild clearly implies that this created/creator conflict is a natural evolution of events that cannot be avoided, cycle after cycle. That isn't the same as the Geth. That was a forced 'evolution', caused directly by Reaper involvement. As shown in ME3, the Geth never had any desire or want to rebel against their creators. Completely the opposite of what StarChild states.
And yet, at the end of three games, we are now forced to choose from three unpalatable options (yes, refuse, exists as an 'option' but isn't technically the same in context of the in-game situation), when we have been provided with absolutely no evidence to support the notion that any of those options are valid or necessary. In fact, if you saved the Geth and Quarians, you have substantive evidence to the contrary.
And yet it means nothing.
And, back in March, when finishing the game, I sat there, thinking, 'Why the hell is the game forcing me to pick from these crappy options, when my Shepard and everyone in the ME universe deserves none of them? Why is there no other option that allows me to prove to the StarChild that it is wrong and just get him to stop? Why, after all that these characters have gone through, are they being punished this way?'
More to the point; why did Bioware not allow us, through exploration, mission success and dialogue choice, to attain an ending which was fair to all involved?
And no, these aren't realistically tough decisions that make sense within the context of what you know (like Virmire). These are the cheap contrived versions that come out of left field, at the last moment, just when you expect to be given a shot at victory over the bast*rds you've been fighting all this time, and after all that you've done and all the resources you collected together...and socks you right on the f**king jaw, leaving you thinking, 'WTF...?'.
That is cheap. Real cheap.
StarChild has no evidence to support his standpoint. You, on the other hand, can have evidence to strongly counter it. And yet, you can't argue with him because Bioware wants to enforce a set of unreasonable end game scenarios on you based on completely unsubstantiated events that have never been mentioned before.
So, yes. I think the story deserves another attainable ending, and one that pays tribute to the time and effort that the player (and characters) have gone through to reach that spot in front of StarChild.
I think we've earned the right to be given a chance at that.
And besides, at its core, this is just a game. Is it so bad to leave your customers finishing it and punching the air and wearing a big soppy grin on their faces?
Is that really so bad..?
Bioware..?
I don't know how to answer your question because to be honest I have no idea what you mean. Indeed, your question seems to negate its answer: as you said, a paragon Shepard takes lives for a good reason, only when necessary; I do not recall any of the 'cold-blooded slaughter' to which you allude.Hudathan wrote...
You can say that every time Shepard has to kill anyone in this series. In fact, renegade Shepard often doesn't give a second though to the concept of morality and only cares about results, but the fact that Shepard does get results regardless of methods means that credit must be given where it's due. It actually makes the story more interesting and believable, because sometimes heroes are just sons of ****es who had statues made of them.drayfish wrote...
Any of those people – the players who don't give a flying crap about morals, ethics or basic human rights – do not have to sacrifice or consider anything in this narrative. In fact, while they sit back glowing with contentment at a job well done, the game goes out of its way to call them a 'hero' and pat them on the back for doing the 'right thing'.
Even the most well-intentioned Shepard ends up taking many lives over the course of the series for good reason. Does that mean the entire series endorses cold-blooded slaughter just because some players spend their time in the game killing for the hell of it?
drayfish wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
That's not the meaning of moral delema at all....
*snip*snip*
Going back quite a way, but I have to call out this comment and the thinking it presents, because I believe that this is a dangerous misconception:
You are talking about moral compromise, and testing moral boundaries, but the problem with that premise is that the only people that this ending will effect in that way are those with morals. See your premise that this is meant to be an ingenious, deep moment of reflection where players take time to consider their deepest ethical beliefs falls down entirely when one considers that for some people none of these options will look sick and depraved. Some people will not find anything unnerving about what is asked of them at the endgame:
Genetically alter everyone in the universe against their will? Cool. Sure. Exterminate a race of allies? With pleasure. Mind control a species and use them as puppets to rule the universe? Ab-so-tutely.
There are people who quite happily think that synthetics are not a legitimate form of life, and so they will gladly blow them all to hell. ...Those players don't have to face a moral compromise. There are people who believe that they are important enough to mutate everyone's body without their consent – not because it's necessary, but because they can. ...Those players don't have to face a moral compromise. There are people who would love to take control of a race of immortal, unstoppable aliens and rule the galaxy mercilessly. ...Those people most certainly do not have to compromise any of their beliefs. Their beliefs get a big happy smile...
(And I want to make this clear: I am not saying that if a person likes the ending then they are a racist; what I am saying is that a hypothetical racist megalomaniac would have absolutely no problem with anything that is presented in the final scenes.)
Any of those people – the players who don't give a flying crap about morals, ethics or basic human rights – do not have to sacrifice or consider anything in this narrative. In fact, while they sit back glowing with contentment at a job well done, the game goes out of its way to call them a 'hero' and pat them on the back for doing the 'right thing'.
The end of this game overtly celebrates not questions moral corruption.
It tells you that the only thing that will end war is denying people their most basic freedoms – and the only people who will find that objectionable are those who have morals to hurt.
A fiction that actively endorses amoral actions and war crimes is a travesty. Bioware chose to end a franchise that had previously celebrated diversity and unity with a gigantic, heartbreaking statement that the only way peace can be achieved is though violating other people's most basic freedoms. Yes, those players who cherish human rights will feel compromised; but those who believe that people should have no rights in the first place will punch the air with glee.
The only thing that Bioware is teaching is that it's easier to not care about others in the first place. A wonderful legacy for their narrative to leave.
So you're saying that the decision to leave a squad member behind on Virmire because it was a necessary sacrifice for the greater good is no different than a selfish Shepard who just wanted that character gone? That any decision can be considered immoral just because some people made those decisions for bad reasons instead of good?drayfish wrote...
I don't know how to answer your question because to be honest I have no idea what you mean. Indeed, your question seems to negate its answer: as you said, a paragon Shepard takes lives for a good reason, only when necessary; I do not recall any of the 'cold-blooded slaughter' to which you allude.
As for your first point, that's actually the exact argument I am making. The 'hero' of Mass Effect 3 is revealled to be that theoretical Shepard who doesn't care about the people he steps over to achieve his selfish goal.
That Shepard gets to win completely uncompromised, while those who bother to care about others get punished.
Until the end of Mass Effect 3 I had not realised that his opinion was 'canon'.
...No?Hudathan wrote...
So you're saying that the decision to leave a squad member behind on Virmire because it was a necessary sacrifice for the greater good is no different than a selfish Shepard who just wanted that character gone? That any decision can be considered immoral just because some people made those decisions for bad reasons instead of good?
Modifié par drayfish, 01 septembre 2012 - 01:17 .
iakus wrote...
The Kobyashi Maru may be a fine test for aspiring Star Fleet captains, but it makes for poor entertainment.
Modifié par Seival, 01 septembre 2012 - 02:00 .
Seival wrote...
OP, your position is selfish. You can't even imagine how many people liked the endings and don't wanna anything to be changed. Did you think about those people before posting this? I don't think so.
No offence, but all you are trying to do is to please one group of people by disappointing everyone else... If you want an "independence-day-style-holywoodish-happy-ending-silly-story", then you already have tons of such games available already. Just look around, and choose the one with the most bad-ass-hero-photo on the box... But please, don't try to apply those silly holywoodish standards to my favorite game.
BioWare will not remake the endings (thanks, BioWare). You have to deal with it.
/thread
Oransel wrote...
Seival wrote...
OP, your position is selfish. You can't even imagine how many people liked the endings and don't wanna anything to be changed. Did you think about those people before posting this? I don't think so.
No offence, but all you are trying to do is to please one group of people by disappointing everyone else... If you want an "independence-day-style-holywoodish-happy-ending-silly-story", then you already have tons of such games available already. Just look around, and choose the one with the most bad-ass-hero-photo on the box... But please, don't try to apply those silly holywoodish standards to my favorite game.
BioWare will not remake the endings (thanks, BioWare). You have to deal with it.
/thread
No, no, you are wrong completely. We are still the majority, for starts. Second, noone is forcing anything at you. We want our ending, you may keep yours with ghost childs, eugenics as paradise and tube shooting.
Seival wrote...
Oransel wrote...
Seival wrote...
OP, your position is selfish. You can't even imagine how many people liked the endings and don't wanna anything to be changed. Did you think about those people before posting this? I don't think so.
No offence, but all you are trying to do is to please one group of people by disappointing everyone else... If you want an "independence-day-style-holywoodish-happy-ending-silly-story", then you already have tons of such games available already. Just look around, and choose the one with the most bad-ass-hero-photo on the box... But please, don't try to apply those silly holywoodish standards to my favorite game.
BioWare will not remake the endings (thanks, BioWare). You have to deal with it.
/thread
No, no, you are wrong completely. We are still the majority, for starts. Second, noone is forcing anything at you. We want our ending, you may keep yours with ghost childs, eugenics as paradise and tube shooting.
No offence, but if you want your own ending, and think that you are a professional writer, then write a fanfiction...
...I think it's a good suggestion for all haters, by the way. Write your own book, if you think you are the best writers on this planet.
Seival wrote...
OP, your position is selfish. You can't even imagine how many people liked the endings and don't wanna anything to be changed. Did you think about those people before posting this? I don't think so.
No offence, but all you are trying to do is to please one group of people by disappointing everyone else... If you want an "independence-day-style-holywoodish-happy-ending-silly-story", then you already have tons of such games available already. Just look around, and choose the one with the most bad-ass-hero-photo on the box... But please, don't try to apply those silly holywoodish standards to my favorite game.
BioWare will not remake the endings (thanks, BioWare). You have to deal with it.
/thread
Seival wrote...
No offence, but if you want your own ending, and think that you are a professional writer, then write a fanfiction...
...I think it's a good suggestion for all haters, by the way. Write your own book, if you think you are the best writers on this planet.
Modifié par Ajensis, 01 septembre 2012 - 02:25 .
Modifié par Jere85, 01 septembre 2012 - 02:23 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
