1470 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...
 Still, even though Skyrim's dungeons grew rather samey too they had a much greater range (and there were more of them), so something better is doable. Getting Skyrim's level of detail into enough outside parts though is impossible, when you'd need big enough worlds to not whizz across in 10 seconds in the Mako. Which would get stuck in the forests anyway.

I'm not sure what Skyrim did is the right way to look at this; the miscellaneous quests are much more important to a TES game than they are to a Bio-style game, so the resources that can go into them are correspondingly greater.

drayfish has a point; Bio should have been more upfront about how they don't think that exploration and inventory are worth more than a trivial resource commitment.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 mai 2013 - 01:40 .

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

I would say it was (or should have been) pretty much for everyone.  In ME1 it's Stop Saren (so you can stop the Reapers).  In ME2 it's Stop The Collectors (who work for the Reapers).  Finally even in ME3, it's "Stop the Reapers" (you say so directly to TIM and can even get TIM to shoot himself over this...vs control).  It's only at the VERY END does it stop being "Stop the Reapers".

-Polaris

But it wasn't.  From the time Sovereign made his appearance, I wanted to know why.  You can't tell another person what their motivations for playing the game were.  If all I wanted to do is kill something then I would play a FPS.  I don't play those games because there is no mystery to them for me.

IanPolaris wrote...

Refering to the bolded statement:  You still do.  You have no reason to trust or believe anything the Star-kid says, and you have no reason to think that even if he is telling the truth, that he is correct (and you have a lot of reasons not to think this).

So in the end, you are still making decisions for trillions without knowing why.

-Polaris

Whether I trust or believe Star Brat is my personal decision.  Again, you are trying to impose your thoughts and ideas about the game onto me.  I played the game because I wanted to know why.  The Catalyst provided the why to me and Leviathan told a similar story and I choose to believe them.  You are free to choose not to.

Modifié par remydat, 13 mai 2013 - 01:38 .

[Iakus]

remydat wrote...

But it wasn't.  From the time Sovereign made his appearance, I wanted to know why.  You can't tell another person what their motivations for playing the game was. 

Everyone who's ever accused another player of wanting "blue babies" may disagree with you 

Modifié par iakus, 13 mai 2013 - 01:39 .

[Modius Prime]

I don't really understand why they are making a new Mass Effect game. I understand that they believe that it is a vocal minority that didn't like the game (a minority that managed to stimulate one the biggest video game controversies ), but it suprises me how the the forum is dominated by people who are disappointed with the ending; if a lot of people actually liked then ending, then why are there more people posting things that are against the ending (however, I do agree that angry people tend to shout louder than happy people)? I don't think that anyone on this forum would ever say that they 'hate' the game, because a lot of people clearly care enough about the game to be wandering around the forums so late after its release. Generally, if I hate something, I would just stop flaming after a month, but the it is still continuing after so long. I don't think that they will ever admit that they did something wrong because you shouldn't just think of the fat cats that are running the show; hundreds of people work at BioWare and they need jobs, so admitting that they made a mistake would damage their reputation enough that they would possibly lay off people (I think that's the reason for all the PR spin-off stuff). Personally, I think it's amazing how fans have come together and made such a huge effort to change a game all in the name of love (because they hated the ending and wanted it to have justice ) and I think we should continue efforts like this, minus all of the flaming. 

Modifié par Modius Prime, 13 mai 2013 - 01:49 .

[remydat]

iakus wrote...

Everyone who's ever accused another player of wanting "blue babies" may disagree with you 

And they would be wrong.  The reason anyone picks up a game is going to be different.  There are 100s of games in which you try and kill some big bad enemy.  99% of them do not appeal to me at all so killing Reapers was never going to be the reason I played it.

[remydat]

Modius Prime wrote...

I don't really understand why they are making a new Mass Effect game. I understand that they believe that it is a vocal minority that didn't like the game (a minority that managed to stimulate one the biggest video game controversies ), but it suprises me how the the forum is dominated by people who are disappointed with the ending; if a lot of people actually liked then ending, then why are there more people posting things that are against the ending (however, I do agree that angry people tend to shout louder than happy people)? I don't think that anyone on this forum would ever say that they 'hate' the game, because a lot of people clearly care enough about the game to be wandering around the forums so late after its release. Generally, if I hate something, I would just stop flaming after a month, but the it is still continuing after so long. I don't think that they will ever admit that they did something wrong because you shouldn't just think of the fat cats that are running the show; hundreds of people work at BioWare and they need jobs, so admitting that they made a mistake would damage their reputation enough that they would possibly lay off people (I think that's the reason for all the PR spin-off stuff). Personally, I think it's amazing how fans have come together and made such a huge effort to change a game all in the name of love (because they hated the ending and wanted it to have justice ) and I think we should continue efforts like this, minus all of the flaming. No matter what we do, ME3 will no longer be changed, so maybe we should put our efforts into telling BioWare what we want in the next game? I think they understand all the flaws in their game from a year and they will continue to keep saying things in the article (all for the PR spin).

People that hate things tend to be more vocal about it.  If I have a good meal at a restaurant, I rarely fill out the survey.  If I have a sh*tty meal then I tend to look for those surveys so I can complain.

And they don't admit they did something wrong because the game sold a sh*tload.  They are no making games to make you happy.  They are making games to make money.  Until such time that you prove to them your displeasure is real by not buying the game then all you complaints are hot air.  So yes they will make ME4 and as long as it sells well, they will continue to maintain the people crying about ME3 were a vocal minority because they would have no evidence via game sales to conclude otherwise.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I would say it was (or should have been) pretty much for everyone.  In ME1 it's Stop Saren (so you can stop the Reapers).  In ME2 it's Stop The Collectors (who work for the Reapers).  Finally even in ME3, it's "Stop the Reapers" (you say so directly to TIM and can even get TIM to shoot himself over this...vs control).  It's only at the VERY END does it stop being "Stop the Reapers".

-Polaris

But it wasn't.  From the time Sovereign made his appearance, I wanted to know why.  You can't tell another person what their motivations for playing the game were.  If all I wanted to do is kill something then I would play a FPS.  I don't play those games because there is no mystery to them for me.

I won't tell you what's important to you, but I can tell you very objectively what the emphasis of the story/game was, and it was to stop the reapers.  Period.  This is emphasized first, last, and always all the way up to the final ten minutes.  Heck as another poster already noted, a dying, beat-up shepard when he first sees the Starkid asks FIRST AND FORMOST, "I need to destroy the reapers.  How can I do that?"

I don't see how you can see the game was ultimately (at least up to this point) about anything else.

IanPolaris wrote...

Refering to the bolded statement:  You still do.  You have no reason to trust or believe anything the Star-kid says, and you have no reason to think that even if he is telling the truth, that he is correct (and you have a lot of reasons not to think this).

So in the end, you are still making decisions for trillions without knowing why.

-Polaris

Whether I trust or believe Star Brat is my personal decision.  Again, you are trying to impose your thoughts and ideas about the game onto me.  I played the game because I wanted to know why.  The Catalyst provided the why to me and Leviathan told a similar story and I choose to believe them.  You are free to choose not to.

My point is that you claim you don't want to make a decision for trillions without enough information, but that's exactly what you do.  You can't say (whether you trust it or not) that the starkid gives you enough information.....well ok you can, but I don't see how that's anything like objectively correct.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

And they don't admit they did something wrong because the game sold a sh*tload.

That is slanted data at best.  ME3 had a very successful MP component with an extremely successful microtransaction model that essentially had nothing to do with the SP game (other than the very basic setting).  Comparing this to games without such components and only the Sp campaigns is like comparing apples to kumquats.

I would guess that ME3 is as successful as it is because of the MP component which is one reason I have very little faith in what's coming down the pike for the franchise (or in Bioware's direction in general).

-Polaris

[Iakus]

IanPolaris wrote...

remydat wrote...

And they don't admit they did something wrong because the game sold a sh*tload.

That is slanted data at best.  ME3 had a very successful MP component with an extremely successful microtransaction model that essentially had nothing to do with the SP game (other than the very basic setting).  Comparing this to games without such components and only the Sp campaigns is like comparing apples to kumquats.

I would guess that ME3 is as successful as it is because of the MP component which is one reason I have very little faith in what's coming down the pike for the franchise (or in Bioware's direction in general).

-Polaris

Let's not forget the sheer number of preorders and day one ordersas well.  Copies sold before the ending fallout hit.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

remydat wrote...
People that hate things tend to be more vocal about it.  If I have a good meal at a restaurant, I rarely fill out the survey.  If I have a sh*tty meal then I tend to look for those surveys so I can complain.

And they don't admit they did something wrong because the game sold a sh*tload.  They are no making games to make you happy.  They are making games to make money.  Until such time that you prove to them your displeasure is real by not buying the game then all you complaints are hot air.  So yes they will make ME4 and as long as it sells well, they will continue to maintain the people crying about ME3 were a vocal minority because they would have no evidence via game sales to conclude otherwise.

So popularity trumps fan feedback. Thus, if my game is popular, I don't have to listen to valid criticism?

This always ends well.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

remydat wrote...
People that hate things tend to be more vocal about it.  If I have a good meal at a restaurant, I rarely fill out the survey.  If I have a sh*tty meal then I tend to look for those surveys so I can complain.

And they don't admit they did something wrong because the game sold a sh*tload.  They are no making games to make you happy.  They are making games to make money.  Until such time that you prove to them your displeasure is real by not buying the game then all you complaints are hot air.  So yes they will make ME4 and as long as it sells well, they will continue to maintain the people crying about ME3 were a vocal minority because they would have no evidence via game sales to conclude otherwise.

So popularity trumps fan feedback. Thus, if my game is popular, I don't have to listen to valid criticism?

This always ends well.

That's the defense BW is falling back on. Not to say that it's right, it's just that it's what BW can do. They know they pissed off a large part of their core fan base. So to make the hate from many of their core fan base go away (in their head) is to deny them and rely on the anonymous, unattached, non-vocal casual fans who don't question things or become vocal and upset or worry about narrative consistency or thematic structure. Not to mention the pre-orders for ME3. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 13 mai 2013 - 02:25 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

CronoDragoon wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Compare their response to criticism with Bethesda's response when dealing with Skyrim on the PS3. They didn't blame Sony or act like there weren't any issues or bring up "artistic integrity." They openly said it was their fault and that they were trying their hardest to fix the issues and eventually did. That is how you respond to criticism. And while fans did give Bethesda a lot of **** (fans will always complain about something), I still think they appreciated their honesty in the end.

Big difference between admitting the glitchiness of a game and the case of ME3's ending. If they don't believe that the ending choices were a screw-up then there's no point in expecting them to. That doesn't mean you must think the endings are good, though. You just need to realize there's a difference of opinion. Aspects of the ending that are less situated in subjective analysis have been acknowledged.

But I don't buy the "artistic integrity" argument. I refuse to believe that they actually thought the endings were perfect or exactly what they had envisioned for the end of the series. Infact, I know they weren't because there was no peer review of said endings. It was just Casey and Mac sterring the ship at that point.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 13 mai 2013 - 02:26 .

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

I won't tell you what's important to you, but I can tell you very objectively what the emphasis of the story/game was, and it was to stop the reapers.  Period.  This is emphasized first, last, and always all the way up to the final ten minutes.  Heck as another poster already noted, a dying, beat-up shepard when he first sees the Starkid asks FIRST AND FORMOST, "I need to destroy the reapers.  How can I do that?"

I don't see how you can see the game was ultimately (at least up to this point) about anything else.

My point is that you claim you don't want to make a decision for trillions without enough information, but that's exactly what you do.  You can't say (whether you trust it or not) that the starkid gives you enough information.....well ok you can, but I don't see how that's anything like objectively correct.

-Polaris

Stoping the Reapers and killing the Reapers are two different things.  Once I understand their purpose, my decision on the most effective way to stop them changed.  Prior to being given a reason why I was operating off of incomplete information.

Did you miss where Star Kid and Leviathan tell me effectively the same story?  I have two stories from the two people that were there when the Reapers were first born.  I can choose to believe them or not.  Just like a jury can hear eye witness testimony and can decide whether to believe it or not.

[IanPolaris]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

But I don't buy the "artistic integrity" argument. I refuse to believe that they actually thought the endings were perfect or exactly what they had envisioned for the end of the series. Infact, I know they weren't because there was no peer review of said endings. It was just Casey and Mac sterring the ship at that point.

Not only that but the ME3 team begged EA for six more months.  They got three.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I won't tell you what's important to you, but I can tell you very objectively what the emphasis of the story/game was, and it was to stop the reapers.  Period.  This is emphasized first, last, and always all the way up to the final ten minutes.  Heck as another poster already noted, a dying, beat-up shepard when he first sees the Starkid asks FIRST AND FORMOST, "I need to destroy the reapers.  How can I do that?"

I don't see how you can see the game was ultimately (at least up to this point) about anything else.

My point is that you claim you don't want to make a decision for trillions without enough information, but that's exactly what you do.  You can't say (whether you trust it or not) that the starkid gives you enough information.....well ok you can, but I don't see how that's anything like objectively correct.

-Polaris

Stoping the Reapers and killing the Reapers are two different things.  Once I understand their purpose, my decision on the most effective way to stop them changed.  Prior to being given a reason why I was operating off of incomplete information.

Did you miss where Star Kid and Leviathan tell me effectively the same story?  I have two stories from the two people that were there when the Reapers were first born.  I can choose to believe them or not.  Just like a jury can hear eye witness testimony and can decide whether to believe it or not.

The Leviathon is DLC only.  You can't count on that information.  In any event, you still don't have enough information so my point stands.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

That is slanted data at best.  ME3 had a very successful MP component with an extremely successful microtransaction model that essentially had nothing to do with the SP game (other than the very basic setting).  Comparing this to games without such components and only the Sp campaigns is like comparing apples to kumquats.

I would guess that ME3 is as successful as it is because of the MP component which is one reason I have very little faith in what's coming down the pike for the franchise (or in Bioware's direction in general).

-Polaris

Whether it is slanted or not is irrelevant.  Prove it.  Until it no longer makes them money, expecting a for profit company to care about fan complaints is silly.  They are not a charity.  You say you are the majority then prove it by not buying the next game in enough numbers that it makes a dent to their bottom line.  

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

So popularity trumps fan feedback. Thus, if my game is popular, I don't have to listen to valid criticism?

This always ends well.

Of course it does.  They are in it for profits not fan feedback.  Fan feedback doesn't pay bills.  You want to be heard then express your opinion with your money.  That is and has always been the only viable solution in a capitalist society.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That is slanted data at best.  ME3 had a very successful MP component with an extremely successful microtransaction model that essentially had nothing to do with the SP game (other than the very basic setting).  Comparing this to games without such components and only the Sp campaigns is like comparing apples to kumquats.

I would guess that ME3 is as successful as it is because of the MP component which is one reason I have very little faith in what's coming down the pike for the franchise (or in Bioware's direction in general).

-Polaris

Whether it is slanted or not is irrelevant.  Prove it.  Until it no longer makes them money, expecting a for profit company to care about fan complaints is silly.  They are not a charity.  You say you are the majority then prove it by not buying the next game in enough numbers that it makes a dent to their bottom line.  

Oh that's rubbish.  No company (certainly not EA) has sales figures that are publically available, and the composite sales estimates are completely skewed because of the MP and microtransaction revenue stream that is present in ME3 and not in ME2.

You have no way to prove your intial point.  All I am doing is pointing out that even if it were true, it's a slanted analysis and it is.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Leviathon is DLC only.  You can't count on that information.  In any event, you still don't have enough information so my point stands.

-Polaris

From an in universe perspective I can rely on it because Shep doesn't know it is just a DLC.  I have more than enough information to make a decision.  

If you want to introduce that it is just a DLC ie make a metagame argument then I can say I saw the outcomes of the endings and they prove that what the Catalyst said was largely correct.

So you need to decide.  Either we are making an in-universe argument in which Leviathan is valid information or a meta one in which case I can bring up my knowledge of the endings.  You can't cherry pick and only allow metagame when it suits you.

Modifié par remydat, 13 mai 2013 - 02:35 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

IanPolaris wrote...

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I won't tell you what's important to you, but I can tell you very objectively what the emphasis of the story/game was, and it was to stop the reapers.  Period.  This is emphasized first, last, and always all the way up to the final ten minutes.  Heck as another poster already noted, a dying, beat-up shepard when he first sees the Starkid asks FIRST AND FORMOST, "I need to destroy the reapers.  How can I do that?"

I don't see how you can see the game was ultimately (at least up to this point) about anything else.

My point is that you claim you don't want to make a decision for trillions without enough information, but that's exactly what you do.  You can't say (whether you trust it or not) that the starkid gives you enough information.....well ok you can, but I don't see how that's anything like objectively correct.

-Polaris

Stoping the Reapers and killing the Reapers are two different things.  Once I understand their purpose, my decision on the most effective way to stop them changed.  Prior to being given a reason why I was operating off of incomplete information.

Did you miss where Star Kid and Leviathan tell me effectively the same story?  I have two stories from the two people that were there when the Reapers were first born.  I can choose to believe them or not.  Just like a jury can hear eye witness testimony and can decide whether to believe it or not.

The Leviathon is DLC only.  You can't count on that information.  In any event, you still don't have enough information so my point stands.

-Polaris

He can't count on information which his character learns in-universe in making a final decision which also occurs in-universe?

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Leviathon is DLC only.  You can't count on that information.  In any event, you still don't have enough information so my point stands.

-Polaris

From an in universe perspective I can rely on it because Shep doesn't know it is just a DLC.  I have more than enough information to make a decision.  

If you want to introduce that it is just a DLC ie make a metagame argument then I can say I saw the outcomes of the endings and they prove that what the Catalyst said was largely correct.

You you need to decide.  Either we are making an in-universe argument or a meta one.

Both.

Not all people will have the Leviathan DLC.  That means for THOSE Shepards, you are using data for your argument that doesn't exist.  Futhermore on a meta level, Leviathan was made AFTER the ending Snafu, so you are using an ex-post facto fix/information to justify the state of a game.

In the game, Shepard has no reason to believe anything the reapers say.  They can, do, and have lied like rugs to him and others often with horrifyingly effective results.  That would be reason enough not to trust anything the starkid says once it admits that it is the controlling intelligence of the Reapers.  Not only that, but you are not told how this thing is supposed to work.  You destroy the reapers by shooting the tube.  REALLY?  You somehow canm rewrite all life on the molecular level by throwing yourself into a pit of plasma.  REALLY?

At this point we aren't dealing with science fiction any more, but faith healing.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

Oh that's rubbish.  No company (certainly not EA) has sales figures that are publically available, and the composite sales estimates are completely skewed because of the MP and microtransaction revenue stream that is present in ME3 and not in ME2.

You have no way to prove your intial point.  All I am doing is pointing out that even if it were true, it's a slanted analysis and it is.

-Polaris

Whether it made money because of MP or because of the SP cannot be proven by you or me because we don't have the data.  However, I am on much firmer ground than you because I know the game made a sh*t ton of revenue.

You are acting like you are in the majority based on message boards.  That is no less skewed than me saying that maybe you are not based on money made.  The aim of the game is to make money not be popular on a message board.  It made money.

[IanPolaris]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

He can't count on information which his character learns in-universe in making a final decision which also occurs in-universe?

It's not in-universe for all versions of Mass Effect/Shepards.

It was made after the ending snafu (so you are assuming the conclusion to prove the conclusion on a meta-level).

If you do take Leviathan seriously, then you should be able to use/coop the Leviathan signals to have a decent shot at a conventional victory.  Basically the Levis introduce at least as many problems as they supposedly solve.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

Whether it made money because of MP or because of the SP cannot be proven by you or me because we don't have the data.  However, I am on much firmer ground than you because I know the game made a sh*t ton of revenue.

We know it made money.  We don't know how much exactly or how close or far it was away from EA corporate targets.  Until you do, you are speculating just as much as anyone else.  DA2 made money, but it was a failure because it didn't hit targets.

As for whether it was MP or SP, I disagree.  It makes a huge difference, and I think it's no accident that the next instalment of the MEU is coming from Bioware Montreal who handles MP games.

You are acting like you are in the majority based on message boards.  That is no less skewed than me saying that maybe you are not based on money made.  The aim of the game is to make money not be popular on a message board.  It made money.

According to the data available to me (at least when it comes to the endings), I am in the majority (or at the very least the plurality depending on how you define it).  Bioware is doing everything they can to deny this, but that doesn't make it so.  As for "making money", you are wrong.  It's about "meeting corporate targets" which is not quite the same thing.

Not only that but (as I am sure EA is aware) there is such a thing as being penny-wise and pound foolish.  IF success today costs you continual revenue streams tomorrow (because of lack of trust or other issues), then you wind up over the fiscal eight-ball.  Big Corporations do know this, yet they make this mistake constantly (and not just EA).  Why?  Becuase the corporate model emphasisizes the importance of short term return and tends to deemphasize long term success.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

Both.

Not all people will have the Leviathan DLC.  That means for THOSE Shepards, you are using data for your argument that doesn't exist.  Futhermore on a meta level, Leviathan was made AFTER the ending Snafu, so you are using an ex-post facto fix/information to justify the state of a game.

In the game, Shepard has no reason to believe anything the reapers say.  They can, do, and have lied like rugs to him and others often with horrifyingly effective results.  That would be reason enough not to trust anything the starkid says once it admits that it is the controlling intelligence of the Reapers.  Not only that, but you are not told how this thing is supposed to work.  You destroy the reapers by shooting the tube.  REALLY?  You somehow canm rewrite all life on the molecular level by throwing yourself into a pit of plasma.  REALLY?

At this point we aren't dealing with science fiction any more, but faith healing.

-Polaris

But you are confused Ian.  I was always talking about MY DECISION and MY DECISION includes Leviathan.  Go back to the post, I said MAYBE FOR YOU but not for ME.  Whether someone else has Leviathan or not is irrelevant because I was referring to my experience not theirs.  There is not a human on the planet that hasn't lied before.  Yet when they tell me a story in that moment I have to decide whether to believe it or not.  That is a personal decision.  If I can trust someone because they have lied once then I can't trust anything any human has said.  My parents lied to me when I was 3 and told me Santa Claus was real.  By your logic, must mean I can never believe a word they said since.  Like I said Ian, believe what you want but trying to tell another person what they should believe is where you have lost perspective due to your dislike of the game. 

From a metagame perspective, I saw the endings and I saw that the world does not end with Synthesis or Control.  So pre EC, I had more than enough info as well.  So again, if you want to bring meta in this, I saw clearly from the endings that either choose led ultimately to the same outcome.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

IanPolaris wrote...

It's not in-universe for all versions of Mass Effect/Shepards.

 Not all Shepards are exposed to the same information, period. The player is given quite a few points in the game where investigate options can be ignored, especially at certain plot critical moments in the series, ranging from the discussion with Vigil, Sovereign, etc.

If he's introducing Leviathan, then the dlc (and all knowledge gained from) are relevant for those particular Shepards. If playing Leviathan results in a more narratively consistent main plot, then from an entertainment pov you're better off giving it a run (not saying this is necessarily true).

It was made after the ending snafu (so you are assuming the conclusion to prove the conclusion on a meta-level).

The meta level is irrelevant. In character information is all that matters in determining whether a character is justified in reaching a specific conclusion from a given set of knowledge.

If you want to argue that Leviathan is poor writing or that its necessity demonstrate that the original endings were poor writing, that's a separate argument altogether.

If you do take Leviathan seriously, then you should be able to use/coop the Leviathan signals to have a decent shot at a conventional victory.  Basically the Levis introduce at least as many problems as they supposedly solve.
-Polaris

Different issue entirely to consider then the "it's just a dlc" argument, which is crap.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 02:54 .