It still fails in that aspect too. Personifying all the pain, suffering, and death that is happening and putting it onto one person and feeling upset about it really misses the mark a lot.
Meh, it didn't fail for me. I also appreciated the subversion of the kid running into Shepard's arms only to burn anyway in the last dream.
It still fails in that aspect too. Personifying all the pain, suffering, and death that is happening and putting it onto one person and feeling upset about it really misses the mark a lot.
To compare it to something, it's like the scene in Black Hawk Down near the end when the U.N. Convoy is leaving the city on the Mogadishu Mile at daybreak and the Humvee stops as an old man carries the body of a child past him. That scene was supposed to personify the carnage taking place, and it was a simpler, much more succinct summation, and much more powerfully resonating theme because of it, whereas in ME3, everything keeps going back to this one child. It borders on narm territory, especially since you never see much of the rest of the carnage of the war, or its affect on people.
I'd still argue against the forced characterization, but I at least wouldn't be complaining that it is in and of itself bad.
I'll defend the dreams on one point. Nobody wakes up and says "I want to have PTSD." Shepard has no choice in that. They had to convey Shep's mental state somehow.
Honestly, I'd have left out that bit, and left it to interpretation.
There are those very few people who don't suffer PTSD. Or more appropriately, they experience it in a different manner. PTSD, in its broadest sense, is the normal reaction of the body in the face of unfamiliarity, especially when the change is sudden and the differences extraordinary. I never had to 'deal' with it in a manner many of my fellow servicemen did. Rather, I was able to process the change to a point where I could cope with it in ways where many others perhaps couldn't or didn't. I've never had problems or nightmares, and I'm very forthcoming with my experiences and what they were. As my player avatar, I wanted my Shepard to reflect that. He's simply not bothered by those sorts of things. He's... detached enough that he's more or less incapable of being traumatized in that manner. He deals with it in a different way. He's tired of being the hero who has to fix other people's mistakes because of their own stupidity and ignorance. He has to clean up their messes, and when all is said and done, he's going to change the galaxy into a place where he never has to it again.
For one, Shepard does hear the voices of squadmates in the dreams, so it's not entirely focused on the kid. There are other shadows, too.
And two, he's not representative of all suffering, exactly, but of the innocents and defenseless who are dying due to the Reaper invasion. The kid is the first seen by Shepard of many, until s/he stops it.
But lets look at it: You have this child, this singular entity that is a constant in the otherwise surreal realm of oily shadows and almost inaudible whispers. The focus is centered around the child. There is more coming in the way of shadows and whispers, yes, but the child is the focus since it's vivid and the dream revolves around saving the child. I think it might have worked better if it was a whole bunch of shadows that you see of squadmates and fallen npc's who have died and you try running to them but they only seem to get further away.
And I do feel that the forced caring about innocents and defenseless is kind of hamfisted. It's not very subtle. And I don't have the ability to opt out of it. They aren't even a blip on my Shepard's radar. The only thing he considers about them is that it's population control on the Reapers part. And I'd have liked the ability to be much more apathetic to them in ME3. It all rolls back to not really being able to control my Shepard's emotional range in ME3. My Shepard would fit the term of sociopath well, and the game really doesn't let you play as a sociopath.
Meh, it didn't fail for me. I also appreciated the subversion of the kid running into Shepard's arms only to burn anyway in the last dream.
I saw that as a foreshadowing for Shepard's impending death, as a sort of nod to the probable self-sacrifice that they'd envision Shepard would make. The kid is safe and comfortable in a world without Reapers thanks to Shepard's sacrifice. I didn't really buy into it.
I saw that as a foreshadowing for Shepard's impending death, as a sort of nod to the probable self-sacrifice that they'd envision Shepard would make. The kid is safe and comfortable in a world without Reapers thanks to Shepard's sacrifice. I didn't really buy into it.
Well, except the kid burns, too, so I'm not sure that interpretation works. I took it to mean the galaxy is trusting Shepard to save them, only he might not be able to. Not that this alleviates your concern about events happening that don't reflect your Shepard's personality; I can definitely understand RPing a Shepard that isn't having nightmares worrying whether what he's done is enough.
It worked for my Shepard, though. I say without sarcasm that I'm sorry you couldn't RP a sociopathic Shepard, but I'm not sure that this was ever really possible. Maybe you could be more of a dick in the first two games.
I wonder why we don't hear Jenkins voice in the dreams? I mean they have Allers voice in the dreams.
But lets look at it: You have this child, this singular entity that is a constant in the otherwise surreal realm of oily shadows and almost inaudible whispers. The focus is centered around the child. There is more coming in the way of shadows and whispers, yes, but the child is the focus since it's vivid and the dream revolves around saving the child. I think it might have worked better if it was a whole bunch of shadows that you see of squadmates and fallen npc's who have died and you try running to them but they only seem to get further away.
And I do feel that the forced caring about innocents and defenseless is kind of hamfisted. It's not very subtle. And I don't have the ability to opt out of it. They aren't even a blip on my Shepard's radar. The only thing he considers about them is that it's population control on the Reapers part. And I'd have liked the ability to be much more apathetic to them in ME3. It all rolls back to not really being able to control my Shepard's emotional range in ME3. My Shepard would fit the term of sociopath well, and the game really doesn't let you play as a sociopath.
That's fair. I can't really speak against the inability to play a full-blown sociopath.
I'm not a fan of the Kid and Nightmares either. I thought it was a great scene at the beginning when you see the kid die because it really drove home the reality of the situation. But the problem is the writers decided to milk that scene over and over and over again. Sure it's a sad scene, but it's nothing compared to the death of characters like Thane or Mordin, because those are characters that the player is actually attached to. That's ultimately my problem with the whole Shepard PTSD thing. Shepard is suppose to be the avatar of the player, and yet I felt completely detached from it. Given everything I've gone through, my Shepard would not obsess over this sort of thing.
I'll address the most common response I've heard to this. It goes somewhere along the lines of "Shepard was always on rails to a certain extent. If you're gonna complain about this, you might as well complain about Shepard joining Cerberus, or not having the choice to steal the Normandy in ME1 and do your own thing." The thing is though, if you do complain about those sort of things, you have to ask yourself do you want to follow a story or not? If not then you're playing the wrong game. But I believe that you should at least stay consistent with the players actions. I'm not saying the trilogy hasn't broken this before, but the kid to me was the most jarring. We're talking about a guy who's seen his close friends die, killed hundreds of people, and blew up an entire system killing 300,000 Batarians. And this is what makes him crack? Some random kid? It makes even less sense if you're a full blown Renegade.
Yes I get the kid represents Earth, I don't care. The Nightmares came off as try hard and corny. A smarter writer would've written a different event for each of the three Nightmares. One of the best examples of a Nightmare on film is Sarah's dream in Terminator 2. It was horrifying and it drove home the consequences of what failure means. Chasing around a kid in a forest three f-ing times is just redundant as all hell. For the third dream, why not have it be a playable sequence from Priority Mission Earth, but it shows you fail. You watch Shepard get mortally wounded as he looks upon his Squadmates being cutdown by Reaper fire. Seeing Garrus or Liara getting shot to death in front of me would've been WAAAY more effective.
But lets look at it: You have this child, this singular entity that is a constant in the otherwise surreal realm of oily shadows and almost inaudible whispers. The focus is centered around the child. There is more coming in the way of shadows and whispers, yes, but the child is the focus since it's vivid and the dream revolves around saving the child. I think it might have worked better if it was a whole bunch of shadows that you see of squadmates and fallen npc's who have died and you try running to them but they only seem to get further away.
And I do feel that the forced caring about innocents and defenseless is kind of hamfisted. It's not very subtle. And I don't have the ability to opt out of it. They aren't even a blip on my Shepard's radar. The only thing he considers about them is that it's population control on the Reapers part. And I'd have liked the ability to be much more apathetic to them in ME3. It all rolls back to not really being able to control my Shepard's emotional range in ME3. My Shepard would fit the term of sociopath well, and the game really doesn't let you play as a sociopath.
I think the focus on the child has at least something to do with the fact that the image of the child can be used without having to worry about Shepard's prior decisions; for instance, if you use the VS, you have to use either Kaidan or Ashley depending upon which choice you made on Virmire. You can't use any of the ME2 squadmates unless you got them killed in ME2. Using the kid allowed them to avoid these headaches. But mostly, I'm with you on the dreams. The image of the child is just too obvious in its manipulation.
It also seems pretty clear to me that the developers wanted to have some kind of emotional arc for Shepard; they apparently felt that in a game as cinematic as ME3 was, a blank slate just wasn't going to cut it. For me, some of the gestures in this direction worked better than others (see Shepard throwing his or her gun away in disgust after gunning down Mordin). I wasn't too bothered by this kind of thing because I had given up on the idea that Shepard was "mine" back in ME2, but it is unfortunate you weren't able to play the Shepard you wanted; constructing any kind of emotional arc for a sociopathic character is very difficult, and with everything else the writers had on their plate, perhaps it was just something they never considered, or didn't feel they could handle,.
Well, except the kid burns, too, so I'm not sure that interpretation works. I took it to mean the galaxy is trusting Shepard to save them, only he might not be able to. Not that this alleviates your concern about events happening that don't reflect your Shepard's personality; I can definitely understand RPing a Shepard that isn't having nightmares worrying whether what he's done is enough.
It worked for my Shepard, though. I say without sarcasm that I'm sorry you couldn't RP a sociopathic Shepard, but I'm not sure that this was ever really possible. Maybe you could be more of a dick in the first two games.
I took the burning child that was smiling this time with Shepard hugging him to mean a possible end to having to run and hide and suffer. The flames can symbolically mean an end to the suffering that either must face, which, by way of BW's intent, would likely be through death.
You definitely could, in the first two games. I was able to do it satisfactorily, at least until the Collector base decision (in which case, I'd rather destroy the base while being practical; I'm destroying it because it's too much loose and unrestrained Reaper technology with too much of a propensity to blow up in my face. I'm not adverse to studying or using Reaper tech, but there's too much here to safely use without very heavy substantial risk to indoctrination). ME3 is where the sociopathic nature was downplayed or eliminated.
With the dreams I thought Bioware had a good idea that just wasn't implemented well. I like that they had Shepard suffer from some form of PTSD, but the manifestation of it obviously didn't over well with much of the fanbase. I think the main problem is that the players didn't have any emotional connection to the child, so the dreams failed to have any emotional impact on the players,. Sure, was just an avatar for everyone dying back on Earth...but on some level it just didn't work. That, and having the Catalyst take the form of the child ultimately guaranteed that the dream segments would get blasted with lots of redirected ending hate.
It also seems pretty clear to me that the developers wanted to have some kind of emotional arc for Shepard; they apparently felt that in a game as cinematic as ME3 was, a blank slate just wasn't going to cut it. For me, some of the gestures in this direction worked better than others (see Shepard throwing his or her gun away in disgust after gunning down Mordin). I wasn't too bothered by this kind of thing because I had given up on the idea that Shepard was "mine" back in ME2, but it is unfortunate you weren't able to play the Shepard you wanted; constructing any kind of emotional arc for a sociopathic character is very difficult, and with everything else the writers had on their plate, perhaps it was just something they never considered, or didn't feel they could handle,.
I suppose I should't say sociopath in the most literal sense since he really isn't that. He's more akin to Dexter, especially the Dexter from later seasons, though still much more amoral and unfettered. He's a dark character, and he honestly doesn't care about collateral damage or civilian considerations. They're meat sacks as far as he's concerned. We've gone through that before, so I don't really need to say more about my Shepard in that aspect (you're more than aware of how I feel about his characterization that I make for him).
But otherwise, the problem I saw was with trying to make Shepard into an emotional person and giving him an ark that you couldn't really opt out of. Shepard is a blank slate for the player. I can see what you're saying for the cinematic aspect though, though I have to say that I disagree with the whole desire for the cinematic route they had taken to begin with. I mean, of all the things to whine about, it's not even done well. And it really doesn't mesh with the entire series previous if you sort of played a character that went against their cinematic vision of Shepard and the story. It didn't leave a lot of room for input from the player or characterization that the player could control.
I don't care about the kid. What makes his death more important then the others that died on the shuttle? He's the only child in the whole trilogy that we see. I would prefer that the dreams weren't in the game and Bioware used the resources towards something else.
What makes his death more important then the others that died on the shuttle? He's the only child in the whole trilogy that we see.
I wouldn't say more important, but he's the only previously identifiable face out of the ones on the shuttle.
But otherwise, the problem I saw was with trying to make Shepard into an emotional person and giving him an ark that you couldn't really opt out of. Shepard is a blank slate for the player. I can see what you're saying for the cinematic aspect though, though I have to say that I disagree with the whole desire for the cinematic route they had taken to begin with. I mean, of all the things to whine about, it's not even done well. And it really doesn't mesh with the entire series previous if you sort of played a character that went against their cinematic vision of Shepard and the story. It didn't leave a lot of room for input from the player or characterization that the player could control.
IIRC, your entry point into the series was ME2. This probably explains our different experiences with the series as a whole. ME2 did a very good job of allowing you to play the Shepard you wanted to play, whereas given the history I'd already established in ME1, it pretty much broke mine. From that point I came to view Shepard in a manner pretty similar to how I view Adam Jensen from DX:HR; you can exercise a degree of choice, but a lot of the history and relationships of the character are fixed; no matter what, Jensen cares about Megan Reed, is friends with Malik, etc. From that point of view, things like Shepard's auto-friendship with Anderson were, to me, not much different from Jensen's auto-antagonism towards Frank Pritchard. But I totally get that a lot of other players didn't have the same experience I did.
IIRC, your entry point into the series was ME2. This probably explains our different experiences with the series as a whole. ME2 did a very good job of allowing you to play the Shepard you wanted to play, whereas given the history I'd already established in ME1, it pretty much broke mine. From that point I came to view Shepard in a manner pretty similar to how I view Adam Jensen from DX:HR; you can exercise a degree of choice, but a lot of the history and relationships of the character are fixed; no matter what, Jensen cares about Megan Reed, is friends with Malik, etc. From that point of view, things like Shepard's auto-friendship with Anderson were, to me, not much different from Jensen's auto-antagonism towards Frank Pritchard. But I totally get that a lot of other players didn't have the same experience I did.
No, I started with ME1, way back in 2008. Bought it in a bargain bin of used games at Gamestop. Even in ME1, you could disagree with Anderson and be rather disrespectful towards him (at least in light of a military setting and personal experience, from the get-go, you can say things that would see me cleaning latrines with my tongue until ****** tasted like Red Bull and **** tasted like nutella and peanut butter if I tried with any superior officer). By no means are you really made to be Anderson's buddy in ME1.
No, I started with ME1, way back in 2008. Bought it in a bargain bin of used games at Gamestop. Even in ME1, you could disagree with Anderson and be rather disrespectful towards him (at least in light of a military setting and personal experience, from the get-go, you can say things that would see me cleaning latrines with my tongue until ****** tasted like Red Bull and **** tasted like nutella and peanut butter if I tried with any superior officer). By no means are you really made to be Anderson's buddy in ME1.
My mistake. Fair enough point on Anderson in ME1, although even ME1 has a few moments of auto-characterization (i.e. feeling down in the dumps after the Normandy gets shut down). I still think the basic point, that ME2 was more hospitable to your Shepard than it was to mine, is still basically correct, though.
My entry point was ME1 as well. I just didn't think it was very good. ME2 renewed my faith in BW. Though, Shepard, specifically, is probably most poorly-written there. It was ME2 I really grokked to, so Shepard treating his ME1 team as his closest friends while the characters I'd bonded with were dropping all around me. I was miserable on my first ME1 playthrough while Shep was acting like he was finally home.
Aside from Shepard's portrayal, which we'd disagree on forever I'd say, I agree in regards to the ME2 team vs. the ME1 team.
The ME1 team is treated like Shepard's truest companions, whereas the ME2 team borders on 'and the rest' territory. 4 of the 6 ME1 squadmates are ranked in the bottom 5 of squadmates, while the other two, Wrex and Kaidan, are only meh level for me. In ME1, Wrex was the only squadmate I felt was worth a darn and written well, but he got flanderized in ME3 to a point where I find him unlikable. Kaidan and Garrus didn't really have much to them, with Kaidan being slightly vindicated by his better characterization in ME3, while Garrus got progressively worse IMO. Tali was a semi-tolerable kid (who I didn't really need or want, hence trying to tell her not to come) who was nothing more than exposition about the Geth in ME1 and was a non-entity, gradually becoming a despised character in ME2 and ME3, and Liara and Ashley were always Scrappy's in my opinion. They never had anything worth a damn about their characters, though Ashley is my hate-sink character. I'd only want more of her if I could be even more of a jerkass towards her.
Bottom line, though, I hated the ME1 team.
My mistake. Fair enough point on Anderson in ME1, although even ME1 has a few moments of auto-characterization (i.e. feeling down in the dumps after the Normandy gets shut down). I still think the basic point, that ME2 was more hospitable to your Shepard than it was to mine, is still basically correct, though.
Oh it definitely was much more hospitable in ME2 for me, much, much moreso. Granted, I'm fine with the Normandy grounding; It's where my Shepard's faith in either the alliance and the Council is more or less confirmed to be at rock-bottom and a point where he starts personally toying with the idea of leaving (though he still has Ashley as a sort of chain to hold onto... which ends up pretty badly for Ashley later on).
Without attempting to evaluate which group is better, I'm going to make a general point about the squads in ME1 versus ME2. They're fundamentally different kinds of characters which appeal to different audiences.
In ME1, we basically have unlikely heroes. Sure, Shepard's a spectre, but the whole idea of a human spectre isn't something the galaxy takes seriously yet. Kaidan and Ashley are basically soldiers; they're not the elite of the elite. Garrus is just an ex C-Sec officer, Liara is a researcher with no combat experience, and Tali, while capable, is hardly a seasoned veteran. Only Wrex breaks this basic template to any significant extent, and even then, I don't think anyone thought during ME1 that he would become the leader of all Krogan.
ME2 transitions to a more explicitly comic book aesthetic, both in terms of art style and characterization. We get the Genetically Perfect Woman, the Galaxy's Baddest Biotic, the Galaxy's Most Dangerous Assassin, the founder of the Blue Suns, etc. Even Garrus' Archangel business was, in my view, an attempt to allow Garrus to 'catch up' to the overt awesomeness of these characters. So if your attachment is mostly to the ME2 characters, the ME1 cast just doesn't seem cool enough in comparison, whereas if your attachment is mostly to the ME1 characters, most of the ME2 cast might seem a bit over the top.
Strangely, I don't really fit into either of these groups; my favorites are a mix of the ME1 and ME2 casts (Wrex, Ashley, Mordin, Legion). It's a bit of a shame that the two groups didn't get more time to intermingle, but it probably wasn't going to be possible with the sheer number of characters and the complexity of the suicide mission.
EDIT: Added some clarification.
Without attempting to evaluate which group is better, I'm going to make a general point about the squads in ME1 versus ME2. They're fundamentally different kinds of characters which appeal to different audiences.
In ME1, we basically have unlikely heroes. Sure, Shepard's a spectre, but the whole idea of a human spectre isn't something the galaxy takes seriously yet. Kaidan and Ashley are basically soldiers; they're not the elite of the elite. Garrus is just an ex C-Sec officer, Liara is a researcher with no combat experience, and Tali, while capable, is hardly a seasoned veteran. Only Wrex breaks this basic template to any significant extent, and even then, I don't think anyone thought during ME1 that he would become the leader of all Krogan.
ME2 transitions to a more explicitly comic book aesthetic, both in terms of art style and characterization. We get the Genetically Perfect Woman, the Galaxy's Baddest Biotic, the Galaxy's Most Dangerous Assassin, the founder of the Blue Suns, etc. Even Garrus' Archangel business was, in my view, an attempt to allow Garrus to 'catch up' to the overt awesomeness of these characters. So if your attachment is mostly to the ME2 characters, the ME1 cast just doesn't seem cool enough in comparison, whereas if your attachment is mostly to the ME1 characters, most of the ME2 cast might seem a bit over the top.
Strangely, I don't really fit into either of these groups; my favorites are a mix of the ME1 and ME2 casts (Wrex, Ashley, Mordin, Legion). It's a bit of a shame that the two groups didn't get more time to intermingle, but it probably wasn't going to be possible with the sheer number of characters and the complexity of the suicide mission.
EDIT: Added some clarification.
I wouldn't say the groups as you define them really are something I fall into, but yes, I do hold that I go more for the ME2 dynamic. ME3 adds James and Javik to the mix as more characters to add (James being an experienced Special Forces soldier, though with an informed lack of experience in the galaxy proper, and Javik as the vengeful Prothean warrior who was a leader of his men in a similar mission to Shepard.) I do kind of disagree with how you describe the parties in comparison; I wouldn't say rule of cool factors in like you say it does, and you unintentionally make it seem like the ME2 fan would be more predisposed towards more insipid and banal stuff for the sake of awesomeness.
I wouldn't say the groups as you define them really are something I fall into, but yes, I do hold that I go more for the ME2 dynamic. ME3 adds James and Javik to the mix as more characters to add (James being an experienced Special Forces soldier, though with an informed lack of experience in the galaxy proper, and Javik as the vengeful Prothean warrior who was a leader of his men in a similar mission to Shepard.) I do kind of disagree with how you describe the parties in comparison; I wouldn't say rule of cool factors in like you say it does, and you unintentionally make it seem like the ME2 fan would be more predisposed towards more insipid and banal stuff for the sake of awesomeness.
I absolutely didn't mean to suggest that ME2 fans have shallower tastes; I simply mean to say that if you set ME2 as your baseline, it's understandable that the ME1 squad would pale in comparison. I do think that Rule of Cool did play a role in ME2's character design; just in terms of the visual presentation of the characters, this influence seems pretty evident. It's not a bad thing in its own right; not necessarily to my tastes, but I think it is definitely there.
I absolutely didn't mean to suggest that ME2 fans have shallower tastes; I simply mean to say that if you set ME2 as your baseline, it's understandable that the ME1 squad would pale in comparison. I do think that Rule of Cool did play a role in ME2's character design; just in terms of the visual presentation of the characters, this influence seems pretty evident. It's not a bad thing in its own right; not necessarily to my tastes, but I think it is definitely there.
I can agree with that. I'm not necessarily adverse to what you say about the ME1 characters compared to the ME2 characters: For example, I think Kaidan is a strong match, as, at least by ME3, he's one of the best Biotic Soldiers in the alliance military. Garrus is a lot more than a jaded ex-cop; prior to joining C-Sec, he was in Turian Special Forces and was at one point a Spectre Candidate. Tali is mechanical savant when it comes to technology, and your assessment of Wrex was spot on, along with Liara and Ashley, both of whom are people not suited to the mission with Ashley being a standard infantryman with no outstanding skills or experience and Liara being a civilian archaeologist who's actual true relevance is questionable (she can be saved dead last after everything, including Virmire, at which point you know about the Reapers, you have the Cipher, you have Saren's destination, and you have the location for it). But yeah, I see what you're saying. And I don't really feel like they're 'my' team as BW tried to make them out to be. As you said, they're people thrown together by circumstance to solve a problem.
Versus in ME2, the only characters who really don't seem to truly standout are Jacob and Tali again, but even then, they are both competent. Jacob's a solid soldier and competent biotic, and he has done some stuff in the galaxy that's worthy of notice (if you played Galaxy and read the comics where he single-handedly rescues Miranda from a group of Blue Suns Mercenaries), and as I said, Tali is still a savant technician and engineer who's not on the team for her combat ability so much as her technical utility. Otherwise, yeah, you have the genetically and physically perfect Miranda who has a lot of experience as a Super spy/Secret Agent/Field Officer/scientist/leader (by her own admission) and she's a gifted biotic with exceptional (for a human) skills and combat training (albeit private training). You have the genetically perfect Krogan Supersoldier in Grunt. You have Kasumi, the best thief in the galaxy (though to be honest, why you need a thief for a military operation is a bit odd, though it's likely she's wanted for her infiltration and hacking skills), the veteran mercenary and former soldier who has thrived in the galaxy's criminal underbelly in Zaeed, the most powerful human biotic to ever live who is also a deadly, psychopathic career criminal who loves mayhem in Jack, the genius polymath scientist who is a truly gifted geneticist and biologist who also happens to have a past as an STG operative in Mordin, a centuries old Asari warrior who has dedicated her life to punishing the wicked by the ancient laws of the Asari and has spent centuries honing her martial, biotic, and combat abilities to do such with Samara, a master assassin and infiltrator with competent biotic abilities in Thane, a Geth platform that is one of the most advanced and sophisticated platforms ever created by the Geth, and Garrus, who has definitely spent the last two years honing his skills and leadership abilities. I see where you come from there in comparison to the ME1 crew, and I wholeheartedly stick with the ME2 crew since you do work to gain each member of the crews' undying loyalty.
Then come ME3, it's implied that the people thrown together by circumstance are your true companions over the ones you worked your ass off to gain as loyal. I simply found that unconvincing and asinine.
Retour en haut