642 réponses à ce sujet

[Aggie Punbot]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Any tragedy in the ending should be a result of our choices. It should not be pre-determined.

^

[sylvanaerie]

I prefer happy endings, or at worst, bittersweet (like the US). If I know my Inquisitor (or worse, a beloved companion) is doomed to die, regardless of his/her choices, that's going to kill replayability for me. I only played Final Fantasy 7 once (because of Aeris's death). FF8 saw multiple playthroughs regardless of the fact that it also was a pretty linear story.  The difference being one ended happily, the other...well, was sort of confusing to me, not really sure WTF happened in 7.

I enjoyed multiple playthroughs with Origins and DA2. If I am allowed only one ending for Inquisition, and a disastrous one at that, I'll not be playing through more than once.  I doubt I will even buy it if this is the case.  Even though technically Origins had one ending that counted (Blight ended) and DA2 had one ending (Mage/Templar war sparked), the journey I took, who ended up happy, who ended up sad varied from play to play.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 01 février 2014 - 02:34 .

[Hiemoth]

iakus wrote...
That's what I don't understand.  Why does having a happier option rob meaning from the sadder option?  Unless you are completely metagaming the story where the protagonist automatically knows all possible outcomes, what difference does it make if there are other options available?

It's quite clear you don't understand, despite the number of explanations offered why it would be so. And the thing, I doubt expects you, I certainly don't. You want to have a happy ending for your game? Well, then you should ask for it. I prefer a bittersweet ending to a "You win at everything" ending, even if my main preference is a well-written ending? I should similarly push for that.

What is the problem is the constant claim that your solution accounts for both, which it doesn't, even if you can't grasp why. Now the issue with continuously asserting that it does is the question of why do you then assume that people favoring bittersweet endings continue to oppose the purely happy ending if they lost nothing? Unless you assume that they get some sadistic pleasure from denying a happy ending from people who enjoy those, which is possible I assume, then they must feel that the happy ending takes something away from their preferred ending. All I am asking for is for equal respect to that position, for you to example to concede that they might not find your alternative desirable, and stop presenting as the solution for everything, because it clearly isn't. Why else would people continue to argue against it? Personally, I cannot put to words how condesending it feels for someone to claim how their solution allows for everyone while my side apparantely is simply there to take away for their enjoyment for the apparent pleasure of it.

And, by the way, your metagame argument is inconsistant with your argument. If you play the game through, do everything and fail to achieve that perfect ending because of some choices you made during that game play, why does it matter doest that happy ending exist? You did everything you could and playd the character you wish, shouldn't it be enough for a fulfilling ending? Protesting about it because it did not lead to that happy ending is solely because of metagaming knowledge of it existing. And in that case, would you make those correct choices solely to reach that happy ending? Unless your position is that just by doing everything you should reach the happy ending, at which point it again indicates that those players not getting the happy ending dind't just do enough, which kind of robs the bittersweet ending its impact.

How does the fact that computer games are already inherently limited justify limiting the game still further?

Why are you only complaining about one specific set of limitations? Why are you not complaining about having to become a Warden? Or that the only way to get the elves to your side is to deal with the werewolves? Or that you can only make the Ashes public or kill Brother Genevini? Why are all those limitations acceptable, but a forced sacrifice at the end not?

It's not a matter of "having to play" a character.  It's a matter of "having the option to play" such a character.  Or even varying degrees of characters.

It's not about being an objectively better or worse hero.  It's about being different kinds of heroes and telling different kinds of stories.

Some heroes have more or worse flaws than others.  Some flawed heroes can overcome thier weaknesses while others are consumed by them.  

How does the existence of Captain America  rob the emotional impact of Punisher?

Considering the differences between Captain America and Punisher, as well as the stories they tell with those characters, that was an odd comparison.

Also, you kind didn't answer the question. If one Inquisitor can deal with the situation without any losses, while the other Inquisitor in the exactly same situation loses half of their troops because they were too lazy to check out that tunnel network, isn't the first Inquisitor kind of better at their job? And, by the way, they are not telling different kind of stories here. There is one story, which is predetermined, with characters reacting differently in those situation.

[Iron Fist]

A tragic ending, if offered, should be the result of obtaining a high value of some variable that is tracked throughout the entire game, so that you can't just reload a save that takes place five minutes before the end of the game.

I guess this would be vaguely similar to the chaos system in Dishonored.

[Nefla]

I would rather have a "the main character, companions, and a population of additional people survive and relocate starting fresh and the land/lots of people die" than "the main character and companions die and the land and most of the population is saved 100%"

Just because a "perfect" solution exists, doesn't devalue the tragic outcomes. I think killing Connor is the best option out of the 3 ways to deal with him, I take the US as many times as I take the DR ending and both are good imo. I wish people would just roleplay and do what their character would do and get the story that comes as a result rather than seeing their ending as "lesser" if a different, more utopian ending exists. A Dalish might kill the werewolves instead of compromise, someone against demons and blood magic would kill Connor rather than take chances with an abomination, maybe the warden doesn't trust Morrigan with the OGB, etc...Also if there is a self sacrifice to be made, I want to choose to do it or it means nothing and has no impact. It's just frustrating and dumb.

[Iakus]

Hiemoth wrote...

What is the problem is the constant claim that your solution accounts for both, which it doesn't, even if you can't grasp why. Now the issue with continuously asserting that it does is the question of why do you then assume that people favoring bittersweet endings continue to oppose the purely happy ending if they lost nothing? Unless you assume that they get some sadistic pleasure from denying a happy ending from people who enjoy those, which is possible I assume, then they must feel that the happy ending takes something away from their preferred ending. All I am asking for is for equal respect to that position, for you to example to concede that they might not find your alternative desirable, and stop presenting as the solution for everything, because it clearly isn't. Why else would people continue to argue against it? Personally, I cannot put to words how condesending it feels for someone to claim how their solution allows for everyone while my side apparantely is simply there to take away for their enjoyment for the apparent pleasure of it.

I am not trying to sound condescending, I simply don't understand why people take the position that a happy ending somehow takes something away from a sad ending.  

Why do people continue to argue against it?  I have heard the what by not the why.

And, by the way, your metagame argument is inconsistant with your argument. If you play the game through, do everything and fail to achieve that perfect ending because of some choices you made during that game play, why does it matter doest that happy ending exist? You did everything you could and playd the character you wish, shouldn't it be enough for a fulfilling ending? Protesting about it because it did not lead to that happy ending is solely because of metagaming knowledge of it existing. And in that case, would you make those correct choices solely to reach that happy ending? Unless your position is that just by doing everything you should reach the happy ending, at which point it again indicates that those players not getting the happy ending dind't just do enough, which kind of robs the bittersweet ending its impact.

You are assuming that people only play a game once.  If I know there are other, perhaps better outcomes, I am going to want to see these outcomes.  Heck I may even want to see tragic outcomes, if only to see them once.

 Heck my first DAO game I tried to recruit Loghain, but Alistair wouldn't accept the crown unless he was executed.  Decided then that having Alistair as king was more important to me.  Next game I played things differently and managed to recruit  Loghain and keep Alistair on the throne.

Do I feel I "didn't do enough" the first time around?  Not really.  I did something different each time and got different results.  Which led to more outcomes, which led to me getting different endings.  

Why are you only complaining about one specific set of limitations? Why are you not complaining about having to become a Warden? Or that the only way to get the elves to your side is to deal with the werewolves? Or that you can only make the Ashes public or kill Brother Genevini? Why are all those limitations acceptable, but a forced sacrifice at the end not?

Because the name of this thread is "What are your thoughts about tragic endings"? <_<

Considering the differences between Captain America and Punisher, as well as the stories they tell with those characters, that was an odd comparison.

Also, you kind didn't answer the question. If one Inquisitor can deal with the situation without any losses, while the other Inquisitor in the exactly same situation loses half of their troops because they were too lazy to check out that tunnel network, isn't the first Inquisitor kind of better at their job? And, by the way, they are not telling different kind of stories here. There is one story, which is predetermined, with characters reacting differently in those situation.

FIrst I've never said "no losses"  

Why does everyone seem to think a "happy ending"="golden ending"?  Is this where the real impasse is?

Second, Is the Warden who chooses Ultimate Sacrifice worse than the Warden who does the Dark Ritual?  How about the Redeemer Warden?  The Knight Commander? Give me a list of these Wardens from best to worst. 

The same story can unfold a number of different ways.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am not trying to sound condescending, I simply don't understand why people take the position that a happy ending somehow takes something away from a sad ending.

Why do people continue to argue against it? I have heard the what by not the why.

It is the (personal) perspective that their character and playthrough is subpar... you didn't win/weren't as successful/whatever. It's personal, much like how the death of your character is perceived by you as not being a happy ending and seems to take away from the game experience for you. By extension, I'm sure there are probably some that do not understand your perspective and preferences, either. It's two sides of the same coin, really; people are different and have different preferences.

The notion of subpar/suboptimal comes from the idea of, at least on my playthroughs, I am actively trying to come away from all encounters flawlessly.  If that is my goal, and I do not achieve it though it was possible, then it's possible for my mind to conclude "you didn't do as well as you could have."  (note, I don't really feel this way anymore... Thane died on my ME2 playthrough and I stuck with that.  Having said that I still felt that a "suicide mission" where everyone survives simply as a result of "playing the entire game" wasn't the best way of doing that)


Additionally, there is also the notion that everything working out in a rather bleak situation comes off as implausible (i.e. why I tend to not be a fan of Hollywood endings).

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 février 2014 - 04:34 .

[AresKeith]

I'd be ok with a tragic ending if it's done well and doesn't really feel forced (i.e the PC always dies)

[Hellion Rex]

In and of itself, I didn't have a problem with my Shepard dying, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the act.

[Fast Jimmy]

eluvianix wrote...

In and of itself, I didn't have a problem with my Shepard dying, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the act.

Agreed. Before ME3 came out and all of the rage existed because of the leaked script, I was blind to the details, but assumed much of the butthurt was simply because Shephard died. I told people that it was no reason to get upset... and people who had read the leak said "no, you don't understand, it is so much worse than just Shephard dying."

And they were right. It was a complete disregard for all previous choice, story and development that, for me at least, invalidated the entire trilogy's importance using terrible narrative concepts and hokey space magic... all in an attempt to force a tragic ending. 

So I agree 100% - the tragedy only becomes an issue when the reasons behind including the tragedy (does it make sense vs. let's force this because it would be "deeper") and its integration into the overall story are, to be blunt, poorly conceived.

[Steelcan]

In the Dragon Age universe I am much more....amenable to a tragic ending, mostly because I don't get as attached to the protagonists so i don't really care about their fate.

Seriously Hawke could have died the day after Kirkwall went to hell, you know even more than it already is, by tripping in a ditch and I've been ok with it.

[leaguer of one]

eluvianix wrote...

@JCAP, but that wasn't a Bioware RPG. Totally different animal.

But it's a game based enitirly on choice...Like  a BW game.

[Steelcan]

leaguer of one wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

@JCAP, but that wasn't a Bioware RPG. Totally different animal.

But it's a game based enitirly on choice...Like  a BW game.

if you say so, both series have had issues with it...


ME makes your choices irrelevant and pointless, DA retcons them all

[EmperorSahlertz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

In and of itself, I didn't have a problem with my Shepard dying, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the act.

Agreed. Before ME3 came out and all of the rage existed because of the leaked script, I was blind to the details, but assumed much of the butthurt was simply because Shephard died. I told people that it was no reason to get upset... and people who had read the leak said "no, you don't understand, it is so much worse than just Shephard dying."

And they were right. It was a complete disregard for all previous choice, story and development that, for me at least, invalidated the entire trilogy's importance using terrible narrative concepts and hokey space magic... all in an attempt to force a tragic ending. 

So I agree 100% - the tragedy only becomes an issue when the reasons behind including the tragedy (does it make sense vs. let's force this because it would be "deeper") and its integration into the overall story are, to be blunt, poorly conceived.

They didn't disreard your previous choices, they just didn't have the impact you wished. It makes all the difference in the world.

[Fast Jimmy]

If the only point my choices made could be the same as fifteen minutes of multiplayer, then they were ignored.

[HiroVoid]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If the only point my choices made could be the same as fifteen minutes of multiplayer, then they were ignored.

You also actually had to play multiplayer to get the scene of one ending too in the original game when they stated before the game released that multiplayer wouldn't be required to get all the endings.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 01 février 2014 - 05:08 .

[spirosz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If the only point my choices made could be the same as fifteen minutes of multiplayer, then they were ignored.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think if the ME team was ignoring the choices, you'd not have gotten any points for them and multiplayer would've been the only way to gain points for galactic readiness.

Unless people are making an argument that having two different paths to get to the same conclusion means that one's choice is ignored (intentionally framed this way to distill down to the root of how I read the complaint).

If that's the case though, then BioWare's entire legacy is filled with games where the developers ignored the player's choice, and that the only time we ever really offered choice was at the very end of the game.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 février 2014 - 05:16 .

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It is the (personal) perspective that their character and playthrough is subpar... you didn't win/weren't as successful/whatever. It's personal, much like how the death of your character is perceived by you as not being a happy ending and seems to take away from the game experience for you. By extension, I'm sure there are probably some that do not understand your perspective and preferences, either. It's two sides of the same coin, really; people are different and have different preferences.

That is an understandable concept.  However, DAO allowed you to sacrifice your Warden at the end, and it's not really seen as a lesser ending than the ones where the Warden can survive (at least I haven't seen it being derided as a fail ending).  It is in that context that I wonder how such endings can't exist side by side more often.

The notion of subpar/suboptimal comes from the idea of, at least on my playthroughs, I am actively trying to come away from all encounters flawlessly.  If that is my goal, and I do not achieve it though it was possible, then it's possible for my mind to conclude "you didn't do as well as you could have."  (note, I don't really feel this way anymore... Thane died on my ME2 playthrough and I stuck with that.  Having said that I still felt that a "suicide mission" where everyone survives simply as a result of "playing the entire game" wasn't the best way of doing that)

As I said upthread, I am not opposed to a happy outcome being difficult to get.  If I have to go the extra mile, do more than simply play through the content, that's okay (as long as I don't have to dive into MP or purchase additional content of course) 

Like I said before, my first playthrough of DAO I failed to recruit Loghain.  In the end, it turned out okay.  I didn't get my "optimal" ending (actually had to sit and think for a while what I ultimately wanted to do when the moment came) but in the end I got a satisfactory outcome.  And then I replayed DAO and Redeemed Loghain on my next Warden.  

And you know what?  That first game is my preferred imported game for DA2.  It's the game with my "mistakes" and the one I went through fresh.  So I own those errors.

But I'm glad I can still fire up DAO and get the ending I prefer.

Additionally, there is also the notion that everything working out in a rather bleak situation comes off as implausible (i.e. why I tend to not be a fan of Hollywood endings).

See, and here's where things seem to go askew.  I don't see a "happy" ending as being necessarilly the same as a "golden ending"  Golden endings may be the most extreme form of a happy ending, but as the saying goes, all dogs are not retrievers.  In the same way, a happy ending isn't necessarilly a flawless ending.

[ObserverStatus]

Mr.House wrote...
Find all these comments funny because I bet you if all the options where happy you guys would not give a flying crap, you would be happy because you got a happy sunshine ending and get to ride off with your waifu even if it makes no sense at all, but have a tragic ending? EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MIND

I wasn't expecting a house on Eden Prime and blue babies or anything like that, but seriously, they didn't have to turn her into a banshee. 

[dragonflight288]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think if the ME team was ignoring the choices, you'd not have gotten any points for them and multiplayer would've been the only way to gain points for galactic readiness.

Unless people are making an argument that having two different paths to get to the same conclusion means that one's choice is ignored (intentionally framed this way to distill down to the root of how I read the complaint).

If that's the case though, then BioWare's entire legacy is filled with games where the developers ignored the player's choice, and that the only time we ever really offered choice was at the very end of the game.

This reminds me of Legion in Mass Effect 2 when talking about the heretics. 

Legion talks about how the heretics were to be given their future by the Reapers, but the Geth sought to build their own future. Shepard asks what the difference is, and Legion responds, and I paraphrase as I don't remember the direct quote, "There are multiple paths to reach the same conclusion. Using that which is placed before us blinds us to alternatives."

We got to the ending of the game, and many of us felt that all our choices at the end were invalidated because we ultimately only had 3 endings, and Shepard died in all but one, so long as your galactic readiness was high enough. I remember all the rage as it happened, debated and defended Bioware a bit as I genuinely felt that it wasn't the destination that was important for me, it was the journey. 

In any video game we play, from Dragon Age/Mass Effect, Jade Empire, or games made by other companies like Kingdoms of Amalur, Assassin's Creed, even Skyrim, we get to create our characters, make decisions on what and when we do certain things, but the story always takes front-seat, and no matter if it matches or doesn't match your headcanon for your character, you still have to follow a story. 

For example, in Skyrim while a member of the Dark Brotherhood, I had no choice but to follow a questline to assassinate the emperor. No matter what I did as an assassin, in the end of that faction quest, I would still be killing the emperor. In the end, what made it so much fun was how I was able to get there, and all the different ways you could kill. Do you use the poisoned root on the decoy? Do you let them dine and try to do a sneak attack? Or do you do as I did, let them all sit there quietly and summon an Astronoch in the middle of the room and threw a fireball into his face. 

In any game, we have a set story, and sometimes developers are generous enough to let us gamers influence how the story progresses. But no matter what choices we make, how we influence the story, we truly are doing nothing more than following pre-determined paths, and the destination is the same overall. 

I mean, Jade Empire really only had three endings as well, yet I don't remember anyone raging about their lack of choices there. "Kill Li and restore balance, kill Li and take the Water Dragon's power as your own, or let Li live on as emperor and allow yourself to be killed."

I play games to enjoy the journey, and hopefully be really satisfied with the ending. But in the end, if I didn't enjoy the game in the first place, I wouldn't be playing 20-50 hours and hope the ending makes those hours worth it. I enjoy those hours as I play them. 

[Hiemoth]

iakus wrote...

Hiemoth wrote...

What is the problem is the constant claim that your solution accounts for both, which it doesn't, even if you can't grasp why. Now the issue with continuously asserting that it does is the question of why do you then assume that people favoring bittersweet endings continue to oppose the purely happy ending if they lost nothing? Unless you assume that they get some sadistic pleasure from denying a happy ending from people who enjoy those, which is possible I assume, then they must feel that the happy ending takes something away from their preferred ending. All I am asking for is for equal respect to that position, for you to example to concede that they might not find your alternative desirable, and stop presenting as the solution for everything, because it clearly isn't. Why else would people continue to argue against it? Personally, I cannot put to words how condesending it feels for someone to claim how their solution allows for everyone while my side apparantely is simply there to take away for their enjoyment for the apparent pleasure of it.

I am not trying to sound condescending, I simply don't understand why people take the position that a happy ending somehow takes something away from a sad ending.  

Why do people continue to argue against it?  I have heard the what by not the why.

You do realize that almost all the post by me and others on the subject have tried to explain why having a happy ending takes away some of the impact of the bittersweet ending, including the very message you wrote that reply to?

This is the last time I will write this explanation and, based on the previous responses, I realize you will still not feel anything has been explained to you. If you have a happy ending by going that extra distance and having that extra fight, then the ending where a sacrifice happened took place because the player go that extra distance. At the heart of a great bittersweet ending is the hero giving their all, pushing their all, yet the victory demanding a sacrifice or something be lost. If that something lost could not have been avoided, then it isn't a bittersweet ending, but rather a failed ending.

You won't accept that as an explanation, fine. You still scratch your head about unreasonable stand of so many people opposing your suggestion, okay. You want that happy ending without a sacrifice? Great. Although at this point I can freely admit I have no idea what your happy ending consists of as many of your stances on the matter seem really contradictory. But then again, I really don't have to. All I ask, for this final time, is to allow that thought in your head that if the people your solution is supposed to appease argue against it, then maybe your solution isn't as perfect as you seem convinced it is. In that case, allow those arguing against it the respect of having that preference instead of constantly insisting that your suggestion solves for everything while their stance only takes away from you.

[Allan Schumacher]

That is an understandable concept. However, DAO allowed you to sacrifice your Warden at the end, and it's not really seen as a lesser ending than the ones where the Warden can survive (at least I haven't seen it being derided as a fail ending). It is in that context that I wonder how such endings can't exist side by side more often.

Its entirely up to perspective, however. There are some that feel that the happy ending of the game is the one with the Dark Ritual because nobody has to sacrifice themselves. I think this is more a reflection of how Dragon Age: Origins did a good job of making endings where none of them are really intrinsically superior to the other.

Most people I see that consider the ultimate sacrifice to be the bestest ending are the ones that don't feel that the Dark Ritual is worth the risk. While those that feel it is worth it, pick that one.

As I said upthread, I am not opposed to a happy outcome being difficult to get. If I have to go the extra mile, do more than simply play through the content, that's okay (as long as I don't have to dive into MP or purchase additional content of course)

What do you mean by "extra mile" though? I could easily manifest a reason that would work for myself, where the "extra mile" that I have to go includes sacrificing my own character, ensuring that everything works out the best for everyone involved. But that isn't satisfactory for you.

I suspect where we differ is not so much on whether or not an ending is happy (though I think there are important, personal preferences we have that are not the same), but on what it means to "go the extra mile."

If go the extra mile is simply "play all the content" then I don't think that's as interesting as it could be. If it is "do all the things a certain way" then I don't think that that is a good thing either. So what sort of things are considered acceptable for "going the extra mile" and which things are unacceptable?

[LPPrince]

Everyone's got their own opinion of course.

In mine, happy ending usually requires my character's survival, along with some hope. Any hope. And by survival, I don't mean Shepard's breath. I mean obvious survival that didn't require multiplayer just to achieve.

As for going the "extra mile" as we're putting it to get there, I wouldn't know how I'd prefer it. I'd just want to be able to achieve that happy ending of mine feasibly without having to go on my cellphone and use an app to raise galactic readiness, play multiplayer, or wait for a patch.

I want there to be a range of endings, not all of which are grim or depressing or require a sacrifice of some colossal sort. I want to be able to have a fulfilling or unfulfilling ending, instead of being railroaded into a failure or grim victory because "art".

Modifié par LPPrince, 01 février 2014 - 06:02 .

[Dave of Canada]

iakus wrote...

That is an understandable concept.  However, DAO allowed you to sacrifice your Warden at the end, and it's not really seen as a lesser ending than the ones where the Warden can survive (at least I haven't seen it being derided as a fail ending).  It is in that context that I wonder how such endings can't exist side by side more often.

Redeemer, Ultimate Sacrifice and Warden-Commander all fall under the branch of the "sacrifice" ending with the Dark Ritual offering a way out with potential consequences down the line, the Warden who decides to sacrifice themselves doesn't mean they want a tragic ending, it just means they don't want the Dark Ritual to be done.

In a sense, it's a "bittersweet" ending. You've either sacrificed a friend or yourself to end the Blight or you might've spared yourself at the cost of leaving a variable at play, something which might cost you a lot more than you want it to.

How many people would've praised DA:O's ending if the Dark Ritual had an epilogue slide that said thousands of people were killed as a result of your choice or another Blight was triggered which lasted for decades/centuries is something I've always asked myself.

As I said upthread, I am not opposed to a happy outcome being difficult to get.  If I have to go the extra mile, do more than simply play through the content, that's okay (as long as I don't have to dive into MP or purchase additional content of course)

I've always said that you should get a happy outcome if it's "difficult", the thing is the "difficult" part is different from person to person. What does "difficult" mean to you? For me it means doing a certain chain of choices which have negative consequences throughout the game in order to reach a particular ending which you might find positive. Someone else might find this "tragic" and hate the very idea of it.

What do you mean when YOU say "difficult"?

See, and here's where things seem to go askew.  I don't see a "happy" ending as being necessarilly the same as a "golden ending"  Golden endings may be the most extreme form of a happy ending, but as the saying goes, all dogs are not retrievers.  In the same way, a happy ending isn't necessarilly a flawless ending.

So shouldn't varying shades of "tragic" count as a "happy ending" to people? Some might not mind say... their chosen side in the Mage/Templar war losing if it means closing the Veil tears, yet someone else might find the veil tears something which can be resolved at a later time and has their mage/templar faction of choice win.

As a side question, why do some find the Destroy ending the "happy ending" but others hate it? Is it because the Destroy ending--although offering a lot of players what they desire--isn't flawless?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 février 2014 - 06:16 .