289 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryoten]

alsonamedbort wrote...

oblique9 wrote...

mosesarose wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

The people who like the endings and like ME3, are people who joined the series at a later date.  

Nope. I've been playing ME since #1 the ending (mostly control) is fine with me. The only thing I disliked about the game is the lack of Jack. It seems this may be  fixed, so after this DLC launch I think I'll be satisfied;)

I think he's generalizing, and I believe that generalization to be true.

I suspect most of their market in the upcoming "ME4" or whatever they call it will be people who were not on board with the series from the beginning.

They made some choices with the ending that made lots and lots of people who played the first two games upset. They chose to stand by those choices, so people who were made upset (myself included) are probably alot less likely to buy future games from the same people who made the choices that made us disatisfied with the game in the first place.

What's vaguely offensive about this generalization is that it assumes that no rational person who has played ME since it came out could like ME3 or want to play ME4 (I say vaguely because in the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal, but come on).

What's vaguely offensive is that you're looking way to far into what i said.  Mass Effect 3 was marketed and created to pull in people who did not play ME1 or 2.  They also wanted the non RPG'er (Call of duty crowd).  This is why we got a watered down RPG.  Patrick Weekes described over the summer of last year, that the direction they took with ME3 would be the future direction with all future BioWare games, because its easier from a programming perspective.  So what we will essentially get is a wave of watered down games.

This is not new to EA.  They have done this already (Comman and Conquer 4 anyone)?  The only people who will buy it are the minority of people who enjoyed ME3 who were veterans of the game, or new commers.  They will be the future of Mass Effect.

[jedidotflow]

[spam post removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 23 février 2013 - 01:16 .

[thepeaguy]

El Mito wrote...

So your argument is "LOL". Uhuh. Perhaps you should get out more, instead of asking who strangers on the internet are. Bro bro bro.

That was a rhetorical question to imply that you're no-one important to lecture anyone at expert arguments. Derp!

To me, you're a whiner likely of a big gaming demographic from a country with nearly 316 million people. Amuurrrikaah.

Every time someone complains about nerd-related **** over the internet tends to be from the States. It's true.

To Ryoten:

The level of insight you display is truly incredible. Not only can you judge who started with what game and how they did.
You can even foresee how the series will develop. I can only watch in awe as your magical powers of foresight reveal what the future will be.

Seriously now... Really? Where did you pull this out from? Rose colored glasses vision? But that's not all.
You even go so far as to judge the "newcomers that liked ME3" as mediocre people (mediocrity fits in with more mediocrity, as conventional wisdom holds).

Let me tell you something, Ryoten.
I started with Mass Effect 1, and played them in order. That said, ME was not my first Bioware series. I started a little earlier with Knights of the Old republic, Jade Empire and went even back to play the older ones. So believe me when I tell you, I know how the older games were.
Your argument is invalid.

Posting a response for my friend Vlad here.

Modifié par thepeaguy, 22 février 2013 - 10:06 .

[tetsutsuru]

Any emotional attachment I had left for the Mass Effect series had died when the Extended Cut DLC was released. I have since had ZERO interest with the Leviathan and Omega DLCs, and now, ZERO interest with the upcoming Citadel DLC.

The Multiplayer component, in spite of its numerous issues, I still find to be quite fun, and will continue to play it.

However, BioWare has lost me as a customer.

[alsonamedbort]

Ryoten wrote...

alsonamedbort wrote...

oblique9 wrote...

mosesarose wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

The people who like the endings and like ME3, are people who joined the series at a later date.  

Nope. I've been playing ME since #1 the ending (mostly control) is fine with me. The only thing I disliked about the game is the lack of Jack. It seems this may be  fixed, so after this DLC launch I think I'll be satisfied;)

I think he's generalizing, and I believe that generalization to be true.

I suspect most of their market in the upcoming "ME4" or whatever they call it will be people who were not on board with the series from the beginning.

They made some choices with the ending that made lots and lots of people who played the first two games upset. They chose to stand by those choices, so people who were made upset (myself included) are probably alot less likely to buy future games from the same people who made the choices that made us disatisfied with the game in the first place.

What's vaguely offensive about this generalization is that it assumes that no rational person who has played ME since it came out could like ME3 or want to play ME4 (I say vaguely because in the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal, but come on).

What's vaguely offensive is that you're looking way to far into what i said.  Mass Effect 3 was marketed and created to pull in people who did not play ME1 or 2.  They also wanted the non RPG'er (Call of duty crowd).  This is why we got a watered down RPG.  Patrick Weekes described over the summer of last year, that the direction they took with ME3 would be the future direction with all future BioWare games, because its easier from a programming perspective.  So what we will essentially get is a wave of watered down games.

This is not new to EA.  They have done this already (Comman and Conquer 4 anyone)?  The only people who will buy it are the minority of people who enjoyed ME3 who were veterans of the game, or new commers.  They will be the future of Mass Effect.

Except you didn't say any of this, just that the people that liked it were newcomers.  It sounds like you actually wanted me to read more into it than what I did, which was to read the words on their face.

[Berty213]

tetsutsuru wrote...

Any emotional attachment I had left for the Mass Effect series had died when the Extended Cut DLC was released. I have since had ZERO interest with the Leviathan and Omega DLCs, and now, ZERO interest with the upcoming Citadel DLC.

The Multiplayer component, in spite of its numerous issues, I still find to be quite fun, and will continue to play it.

However, BioWare has lost me as a customer.

I enjoyed the EC it left me satisfied with the endings, like you however I also have had no interest in any of the DLC, although I think I will get the Citadel DLC.

[Ryoten]

thepeaguy wrote...

El Mito wrote...

So your argument is "LOL". Uhuh. Perhaps you should get out more, instead of asking who strangers on the internet are. Bro bro bro.

That was a rhetorical question to imply that you're no-one important to lecture anyone at expert arguments. Derp!

To me, you're a whiner likely of a big gaming demographic from a country with nearly 316 million people. Amuurrrikaah.

Every time someone complains about nerd-related **** over the internet tends to be from the States. It's true.

To Ryoten:

The level of insight you display is truly incredible. Not only can you judge who started with what game and how they did.
You can even foresee how the series will develop. I can only watch in awe as your magical powers of foresight reveal what the future will be.

Seriously now... Really? Where did you pull this out from? Rose colored glasses vision? But that's not all.
You even go so far as to judge the "newcomers that liked ME3" as mediocre people (mediocrity fits in with more mediocrity, as conventional wisdom holds).

Let me tell you something, Ryoten.
I started with Mass Effect 1, and played them in order. That said, ME was not my first Bioware series. I started a little earlier with Knights of the Old republic, Jade Empire and went even back to play the older ones. So believe me when I tell you, I know how the older games were.
Your argument is invalid.

Posting a response for my friend Vlad here.

Tell your friend to get the sand out of his vagina.

[El Mito]

thepeaguy wrote...

El Mito wrote...

So your argument is "LOL". Uhuh. Perhaps you should get out more, instead of asking who strangers on the internet are. Bro bro bro.

That was a rhetorical question to imply that you're no-one important to lecture anyone at expert arguments. Derp!

To me, you're a whiner likely of a big gaming demographic from a country with nearly 316 million people. Amuurrrikaah.

Every time someone complains about nerd-related **** over the internet tends to be from the States. It's true.

Tssk tss tssk. You're backpedalling again. You thought your little WHO AREZ YU ANYWAY BRUH was somehow going to intimidate me.

And what a wonderful assessment you've made of me. Truly. Let's just put aside that I'm nowhere close to being American, and simply focus on the gross, and quite frankly, laughable, overgeneralization you made there.

I'm sure there are some on this forum who would find that quite offensive. Not me. I'll just continue to chuckle at your continued stupidity.

[AllThatJazz]

iakus wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

I like the sound of that too. In fact, you are pretty much describing my headcanon. But the problem is, it basically removes the 'downside' that is currently unique to Destroy, thereby rendering the other endings pointless. Shep definitely lives, and the strong implication is that so does EDI and therefore the Geth. Why would anyone choose Control or Synthesis if everything they wanted could be achieved by Destroy? I guess Bio wanted the choices to all carry an incredibly big sacrifice - which one of these appalling prices is Shepard prepared to pay in order to end the war? As much as I would love Bio to do something like this, it would be very irritating to those who see Control/Synthesis as valid alternatives.

Because control gets their Invincible Fleet of Space Cthulhu to watch over the galaxy
and
Synthesis gets their Perfect Understanding Between Organics and Synthetics

Both also get Reapers to rebuild the relays for them

Destroy the younger races have to rebuild everything themselves and deal with the possibility that the Catalyst may be right, and the peace won't last.  That's already a sacrifice:  you're rejecting everything the Reapers have to offer.

But there are ways to make Control and Synthesis more palatable.  But right now I have to go to work.

Hah, see I don't view the things that Control/Synthesis get as good things. The fact that the Reapers are still around in both scenarios worries me - in Control they are only allies as long as the Shepard Catalyst a) exists and is benevolent. Plus, Shepard has had to give up her humanity and what remains of her will live in complete isolation forever. Insane AI mark 2 somewhere down the line? Synthesis is imposing new genetics on the entire galaxy to an uncertain end. It assumes that being able to see everything from other perspectives means a permanent end to conflict, which isn't necessarily true - and in the event that conflict still happens, the Reapers are still about. It's the big 'Leap of Faith' choice.

Destroy, yes, rejects Reapers assistance in rebuilding, but ensures that they will never ever be a threat again. It allows the younger races of the galaxy total self-determination. Yes, there is a risk that synthetic-organic conflict could arise again - I guess since my Shep has already proved with the Quarian/Geth peacemaking that such can be resolved, it isn't something that sounds as awful to me as the Reapers still having a presence in the galaxy. I think the benefits Control and Synthesis would have to be 'strengthened' somehow to allow them to continue being valid choices - which then obviously requires a bit more work.

*sigh*, not gonna happen anyway On a more positive note, hope your day at work goes okay!

OT - I really didn't enjoy the ME3 ending (frankly I found all the choices unpalatable, regardless of narrative coherence, thematic consistency etc) and I also disliked some other bits of ME3. However, I still enjoyed the game very much overall, will buy this dlc (and happily so), and will watch development of MENext or whatever I'm supposed to call it. If it looks like something I'll have fun with, I'll buy. If not, I won't. I don't really do the automatic pre-ordering thing with any particular company anymore, and not for a fair few years now

[tetsutsuru]

Berty213 wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

Any emotional attachment I had left for the Mass Effect series had died when the Extended Cut DLC was released. I have since had ZERO interest with the Leviathan and Omega DLCs, and now, ZERO interest with the upcoming Citadel DLC.

The Multiplayer component, in spite of its numerous issues, I still find to be quite fun, and will continue to play it.

However, BioWare has lost me as a customer.

I enjoyed the EC it left me satisfied with the endings, like you however I also have had no interest in any of the DLC, although I think I will get the Citadel DLC.

Cool.  Don't get me wrong though.  The upcoming Citadel DLC would be a lot of fun, I believe.  It's gonna be awesome to have Miranda, Wrex, Grunt, Samara, Jack, etc. as squadmates again.  If you're getting it, or for everyone else that's getting it for that matter, I hope you guys enjoy it!

[Berty213]

tetsutsuru wrote...

Berty213 wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

Any emotional attachment I had left for the Mass Effect series had died when the Extended Cut DLC was released. I have since had ZERO interest with the Leviathan and Omega DLCs, and now, ZERO interest with the upcoming Citadel DLC.

The Multiplayer component, in spite of its numerous issues, I still find to be quite fun, and will continue to play it.

However, BioWare has lost me as a customer.

I enjoyed the EC it left me satisfied with the endings, like you however I also have had no interest in any of the DLC, although I think I will get the Citadel DLC.

Cool.  Don't get me wrong though.  The upcoming Citadel DLC would be a lot of fun, I believe.  It's gonna be awesome to have Miranda, Wrex, Grunt, Samara, Jack, etc. as squadmates again.  If you're getting it, or for everyone else that's getting it for that matter, I hope you guys enjoy it!

It feels good to look forward to one more journey and funny times my LI Tali and my bro Garrus

[Rhayak]

AlanC9 wrote...
So we lanuch the attack on Earth because we can't win conventionally... except that we can win conventionally and we were just wrong about everything. Yeah, that's coherent.

So i have to help you think. Ok.

All it would take to fit in the conventional victory would be some slight changes to dialogue.

Simplest example: providing there's enough EMS, Hackett might at some point just tell players that yes, the crucible is an option, but they have amassed so many ships that there is actually hope for conventional victory.

Reapers are amassed around Earth anyway, so with the bulk of their forces crushed there, stragglers around the galaxy soon follow. The end. The crucible can always be dismantled, and all that tech reused.

Not hard, you see.

Modifié par Rhayak, 22 février 2013 - 10:42 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

iakus wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Your very opening statement makes it clear that the rest of your post is meant to be taken as gospel. In persuasive arguments, the opening statement sets the tone for the work, and your tone is a very sour and yellow note.

As for your argument, I find it full of folly and pretentious arrogance. You find the result not worth presuing, and so  everyone who is sane, rational, intellegant, worth listening to, must also feel the same way. Your entire argument is based on "the results of the ending are not satisfying" and while that might be true for you, it is not for everyone. And yet, in your very same post, you insinuate that it is indeed true, based on little more than a claim of divine purity of your opinion, manifested only from your own claim of somehow speaking for all, and dismissing all claims of dissention from the proposed interpretation as not even being possibly valid.

If you find speaking with conviction to be arrogance, then I can't help you.  I also suggest you be casreful on the BSN, bec ause I am nothing compared to others.  I, at least try to avoid direct insults to those I argue with.

Everything I say on my posts, I believe to be true. I think the endings are not worth pursuing.  I think EC doesn't help.  I've explained why.  If you disagree, fine.  I understand that not everyone likes the same thing.  But I also think that a game which imports chocies across three games and claims to be shaped by the player should have a wider range of endings to choose from.

 I've been saying that for months now.  But apparantly I just "dont' get it"  I'm also tired and in a foul mood.

I have no problem that you feel it to be true, in fact, I say you made a good case for why you believe it to be true. But my problem is not that you feel this opinion, but express it in a way that is full of conotations that really are not needed and could have been easily avoided.

Specifying that this is what you feel, rahter than it being truth, and thus opening up the logical conclusion that any thought not co-inciding with this truth is false, is something that could aid you greatly. And I truley do mean that from a perspective of persuasive arguments. The game not honoring your choices, and the conclusion of the game being something undesireable, can be true for you. But it is not the divine truth, the absolute truth, a truth that is undeniable by any perespective, such as the sun rises and sets, or the sky is blue, or the earth is not flat. Becasue such a truth when applied to opinions simply does not exist, for any side.

[PainCakesx]

Another idea for a conventional victory would be that it, too, would come at a cost. Not of genocide, but such a victory would clearly result in more deaths due to conventional warfare. The choice could be something like this:

1) Using the crucible will end the war immediately following what we already have.
2) Conventional victory will save the Citadel, Mass Relays, synthetics, etc., but will likely result in many more casualties from the actual battle itself.

[Cainhurst Crow]

PainCakesx wrote...

Another idea for a conventional victory would be that it, too, would come at a cost. Not of genocide, but such a victory would clearly result in more deaths due to conventional warfare. The choice could be something like this:

1) Using the crucible will end the war immediately following what we already have.
2) Conventional victory will save the Citadel, Mass Relays, synthetics, etc., but will likely result in many more casualties from the actual battle itself.

That sounds like low ems destroy.

[Invellous]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Another idea for a conventional victory would be that it, too, would come at a cost. Not of genocide, but such a victory would clearly result in more deaths due to conventional warfare. The choice could be something like this:

1) Using the crucible will end the war immediately following what we already have.
2) Conventional victory will save the Citadel, Mass Relays, synthetics, etc., but will likely result in many more casualties from the actual battle itself.

That sounds like low ems destroy.

 A lot of people just want an Ending where there is no doubt that Shepard lives, and is reunited with their love interest and crew. As well as one without that Star Brat and his backwards logic.

[Dr_Extrem]

Invellous wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Another idea for a conventional victory would be that it, too, would come at a cost. Not of genocide, but such a victory would clearly result in more deaths due to conventional warfare. The choice could be something like this:

1) Using the crucible will end the war immediately following what we already have.
2) Conventional victory will save the Citadel, Mass Relays, synthetics, etc., but will likely result in many more casualties from the actual battle itself.

That sounds like low ems destroy.

 A lot of people just want an Ending where there is no doubt that Shepard lives, and is reunited with their love interest and crew. As well as one without that Star Brat and his backwards logic.

well ... thats the reason i play me3 with mehem ... if bioware does not provide an ending like this, we make it on our own. no hard feelings

[PainCakesx]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Another idea for a conventional victory would be that it, too, would come at a cost. Not of genocide, but such a victory would clearly result in more deaths due to conventional warfare. The choice could be something like this:

1) Using the crucible will end the war immediately following what we already have.
2) Conventional victory will save the Citadel, Mass Relays, synthetics, etc., but will likely result in many more casualties from the actual battle itself.

That sounds like low ems destroy.

How in the hell does that sound like Low-EMS Destroy?

Low-EMS Destroy wipes most life in the galaxy, destroys all the relays and destroys the Citadel.

Conventional victory results in more military casualties, but it preserves the relays and the Citadel. Similar to the High-EMS Destroy, the galaxy can then rebuild with most of its infrasture still intact.

[Cainhurst Crow]

PainCakesx wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Another idea for a conventional victory would be that it, too, would come at a cost. Not of genocide, but such a victory would clearly result in more deaths due to conventional warfare. The choice could be something like this:

1) Using the crucible will end the war immediately following what we already have.
2) Conventional victory will save the Citadel, Mass Relays, synthetics, etc., but will likely result in many more casualties from the actual battle itself.

That sounds like low ems destroy.

How in the hell does that sound like Low-EMS Destroy?

Low-EMS Destroy wipes most life in the galaxy, destroys all the relays and destroys the Citadel.

Conventional victory results in more military casualties, but it preserves the relays and the Citadel. Similar to the High-EMS Destroy, the galaxy can then rebuild with most of its infrasture still intact.

the narration speaks of the massive casualties, the great pains that will come from needing to rebuild, the sacrifice it took the kill the reapers.

The pirce for destroying the reapers is great, all races feel it from all over the galaxy.

Seems like the outcome of a military victory without any aid whatsoever from the crucible. Of course that's better than what conventional victory logically would create, which is a double negative victory where both sides lose the war, simialar to the result of a nuclear war or truley massive planet-wide war.

The entire galaxy, made to be like tuchanca.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 22 février 2013 - 11:48 .

[PainCakesx]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Another idea for a conventional victory would be that it, too, would come at a cost. Not of genocide, but such a victory would clearly result in more deaths due to conventional warfare. The choice could be something like this:

1) Using the crucible will end the war immediately following what we already have.
2) Conventional victory will save the Citadel, Mass Relays, synthetics, etc., but will likely result in many more casualties from the actual battle itself.

That sounds like low ems destroy.

How in the hell does that sound like Low-EMS Destroy?

Low-EMS Destroy wipes most life in the galaxy, destroys all the relays and destroys the Citadel.

Conventional victory results in more military casualties, but it preserves the relays and the Citadel. Similar to the High-EMS Destroy, the galaxy can then rebuild with most of its infrasture still intact.

the narration speaks of the massive casualties, the great pains that will come from needing to rebuild, the sacrifice it took the kill the reapers.

The pirce for destroying the reapers is great, all races feel it from all over the galaxy.

Seems like the outcome of a military victory without any aid whatsoever from the crucible. Of course that's better than what conventional victory logically would create, which is a double negative victory where both sides lose the war, simialar to the result of a nuclear war or truley massive planet-wide war.

The entire galaxy, made to be like tuchanca.

I wasn't saying that there are massive casualties, just that there are more. With the relays in tact, the Citadel intact, and a lot of the military infrasture in tact, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as the Low-EMS ending.

[Cainhurst Crow]

PainCakesx wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Another idea for a conventional victory would be that it, too, would come at a cost. Not of genocide, but such a victory would clearly result in more deaths due to conventional warfare. The choice could be something like this:

1) Using the crucible will end the war immediately following what we already have.
2) Conventional victory will save the Citadel, Mass Relays, synthetics, etc., but will likely result in many more casualties from the actual battle itself.

That sounds like low ems destroy.

How in the hell does that sound like Low-EMS Destroy?

Low-EMS Destroy wipes most life in the galaxy, destroys all the relays and destroys the Citadel.

Conventional victory results in more military casualties, but it preserves the relays and the Citadel. Similar to the High-EMS Destroy, the galaxy can then rebuild with most of its infrasture still intact.

the narration speaks of the massive casualties, the great pains that will come from needing to rebuild, the sacrifice it took the kill the reapers.

The pirce for destroying the reapers is great, all races feel it from all over the galaxy.

Seems like the outcome of a military victory without any aid whatsoever from the crucible. Of course that's better than what conventional victory logically would create, which is a double negative victory where both sides lose the war, simialar to the result of a nuclear war or truley massive planet-wide war.

The entire galaxy, made to be like tuchanca.

I wasn't saying that there are massive casualties, just that there are more. With the relays in tact, the Citadel intact, and a lot of the military infrasture in tact, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as the Low-EMS ending.

...Okay. How?

[Nerevar-as]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

...Okay. How?

The galactic political, economical and social maps wouldn´t completely collapse. Without relays, it´s like if we went back to sail ships.

[ofarrell]

The ending with the EC is fine by me. I don't need any in game content to know what happens afterwards, that's what imagination is for.

[PainCakesx]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Another idea for a conventional victory would be that it, too, would come at a cost. Not of genocide, but such a victory would clearly result in more deaths due to conventional warfare. The choice could be something like this:

1) Using the crucible will end the war immediately following what we already have.
2) Conventional victory will save the Citadel, Mass Relays, synthetics, etc., but will likely result in many more casualties from the actual battle itself.

That sounds like low ems destroy.

How in the hell does that sound like Low-EMS Destroy?

Low-EMS Destroy wipes most life in the galaxy, destroys all the relays and destroys the Citadel.

Conventional victory results in more military casualties, but it preserves the relays and the Citadel. Similar to the High-EMS Destroy, the galaxy can then rebuild with most of its infrasture still intact.

the narration speaks of the massive casualties, the great pains that will come from needing to rebuild, the sacrifice it took the kill the reapers.

The pirce for destroying the reapers is great, all races feel it from all over the galaxy.

Seems like the outcome of a military victory without any aid whatsoever from the crucible. Of course that's better than what conventional victory logically would create, which is a double negative victory where both sides lose the war, simialar to the result of a nuclear war or truley massive planet-wide war.

The entire galaxy, made to be like tuchanca.

I wasn't saying that there are massive casualties, just that there are more. With the relays in tact, the Citadel intact, and a lot of the military infrasture in tact, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as the Low-EMS ending.

...Okay. How?

If I've obtained 7,000+ war assets and have united virtually every region of the galaxy against the reaper threat, I would expect the casualties to be less than if I brought in an army 1/4 that size. 

Certainly less than a galaxy sized red light of death that wipes out everything it comes into contact with.

And with the relays and Citadel in tact, intragalactic commerse still continues, faciliating the rebuilding process significantly.

Modifié par PainCakesx, 23 février 2013 - 12:08 .

[Ryoten]

ofarrell wrote...

The ending with the EC is fine by me. I don't need any in game content to know what happens afterwards, that's what imagination is for.

Here,  i'll sell you my game for $60.  Here's the beginning of the game.....


Two bad assess walk into a bar.


Use your imagination to come up with the remaining 39.90 hours left of the game. 


You see paying for someone to say "use your imagination", is not what we pay money for.  That just sets a standard that "this is acceptable".  And what you will get down the road, is less and less product for more and more money.  If you want to use your imagination, dream up a story from beginning to end.  Otherwise, you're hurting everyone else who want to pay money to be entertained.

Modifié par Ryoten, 23 février 2013 - 12:08 .