874 réponses à ce sujet

[Daeion]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

“taking a look at the game as a whole and how do we make all these other features that will work with our shooter combat instead of working against it.”

So if I understand that quote, she feels that inventory works against combat?  Someone should tell that to Borderlands.

Inventory juggling gets in the way of any good game/story. That's why the first thing I always do in DA:O is bump my inventory space up to around 250, so I don't have to worry about messing around with juggling it.

I guess I've never understood how it gets in the way of the game or story, to me it adds to the game and story because it makes the workd seem more real.  I mean when you kill someone or something, there's going to be stuff to loot, and it's up to the player to decide what was worth picking up and carrying.

[Tasker]

Jebel Krong wrote...

i think you two are missing the point somewhat: me2 is a TPS shooter as much as an rpg - mass effect games were always meant to be. just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean BW have their priorities in the wrong place, for the majority of us they gave us exaclty what we wanted: better combat to accompany the story/rpg/character elements etc.

If they were always meant to be this way, then why didn't they start with ME1?

If the ME series was meant to have :  mission end screens, no inventory, lack of customisation, hand holding "Press button to whatever" popups and teleporting everywhere, then why didn't they do it with ME1?


ME1 set the precedent for the ME series, so why didn't they stick to it?

Daeion wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

i think you two are missing the point somewhat: me2 is a TPS shooter as much as an rpg - mass effect games were always meant to be. just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean BW have their priorities in the wrong place, for the majority of us they gave us exaclty what we wanted: better combat to accompany the story/rpg/character elements etc.

Actually ME was meant to be a RPG, they just wanted to take combat in a different direction from the typical RPG so they made it look like a shooter.  The comment I keep seeing thrown around is that ME was a game that looked like a shooter, but didn't play like a shooter and that upset a lot of people so that's why they changed things.  That to me says that they didn't set out to make a RPG/Shooter hybrid but that the game evolved in that direction.  However, that still doesn't really explain why they had to do away with things like inventory considering Borderlands has a bazillion guns and other items yet I never hear people complaining about it.

It's a bit bizzare when you think about it...

As it currently stands, thanks to all the elements that make up the game, Borderlands it technically more of a true RPG than ME2 is.

Modifié par Orkboy, 26 mars 2010 - 06:46 .

[Pocketgb]

Dudeman315 wrote...

DAA shows what good could come in DAO2. DAA fixed most of my problems with DAO now if we could just hire voice actors for the main character it would be amazing. I'm only 1/2 through DAA so my opinion could change but so far A+ on every point.

1. Combat's boring as hell. Awakening made it worse by making *everyone* ridiculous.
2. Leveling can be incredibly linear and static (i.e. Warriors).

Overhaul both of these for DA2 and I'll be looking forward to it much more.

Orkboy wrote...

ME1 set the precedent for the ME series,
so why didn't they stick to it?

It was the first game in a
franchise where they really went out of their comfort zone with. The
end product might not've been what they really wanted. There's still RPG in there. Near the depth of ME2? That's debatable, except when in regards to weapon customization and squad armor customization (which don't exist).

Modifié par Pocketgb, 26 mars 2010 - 06:53 .

[Daeion]

Pocketgb wrote...

Dudeman315 wrote...

DAA shows what good could come in DAO2. DAA fixed most of my problems with DAO now if we could just hire voice actors for the main character it would be amazing. I'm only 1/2 through DAA so my opinion could change but so far A+ on every point.

1. Combat's boring as hell. Awakening made it worse by making *everyone* ridiculous.
2. Leveling can be incredibly linear and static (i.e. Warriors).

Overhaul both of these for DA2 and I'll be looking forward to it much more.

1.  What's boring about the combat?
2.  How are warriors linear or static when you can use a warrior to tank, melee DPS, or ranged DPS?

Modifié par Daeion, 26 mars 2010 - 06:56 .

[kregano]

Daeion wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

“taking a look at the game as a whole and how do we make all these other features that will work with our shooter combat instead of working against it.”

So if I understand that quote, she feels that inventory works against combat?  Someone should tell that to Borderlands.

Inventory juggling gets in the way of any good game/story. That's why the first thing I always do in DA:O is bump my inventory space up to around 250, so I don't have to worry about messing around with juggling it.

I guess I've never understood how it gets in the way of the game or story, to me it adds to the game and story because it makes the workd seem more real.  I mean when you kill someone or something, there's going to be stuff to loot, and it's up to the player to decide what was worth picking up and carrying.

It detracts from the scifi nature of the game for Shepard to pick up a whole bunch of items of varying effectiveness when he/she could just scan them and pickup the best one if it was better than what Shepard already had. The ME1 style inventory works with settings where you can't scan things in seconds and then duplicate them over and over again. ME2's method of looting is a lot better than ME1's in terms of conforming to the lore, but it admittedly lacks the customization aspect of ME1's system. That's probably what most people are complaining about when they talk about Bioware dropping the inventory in ME2, not the actual inventory itself.

[Pocketgb]

Daeion wrote...

1.  What's boring about the combat?
2.  How are warriors linear or static when you can use a warrior to tank, melee DPS, or reanged DPS?

1. It's insanely tough for those who are a bit inexperienced with the game, and incredibly and massively easy for those who have a single clue of what they're doing. It gets insane in Awakening when *everyone* gets insane abilities.
2. And I didn't say Warriors' roles were static, their leveling was. Once you choose which tree you want to go up into you can pretty much auto-level with it, which is pretty opposite of the Mage (who, likewise, are screwed in pretty much relying on two stats).

Modifié par Pocketgb, 26 mars 2010 - 07:06 .

[Daeion]

kregano wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

“taking a look at the game as a whole and how do we make all these other features that will work with our shooter combat instead of working against it.”

So if I understand that quote, she feels that inventory works against combat?  Someone should tell that to Borderlands.

Inventory juggling gets in the way of any good game/story. That's why the first thing I always do in DA:O is bump my inventory space up to around 250, so I don't have to worry about messing around with juggling it.

I guess I've never understood how it gets in the way of the game or story, to me it adds to the game and story because it makes the workd seem more real.  I mean when you kill someone or something, there's going to be stuff to loot, and it's up to the player to decide what was worth picking up and carrying.

It detracts from the scifi nature of the game for Shepard to pick up a whole bunch of items of varying effectiveness when he/she could just scan them and pickup the best one if it was better than what Shepard already had. The ME1 style inventory works with settings where you can't scan things in seconds and then duplicate them over and over again. ME2's method of looting is a lot better than ME1's in terms of conforming to the lore, but it admittedly lacks the customization aspect of ME1's system. That's probably what most people are complaining about when they talk about Bioware dropping the inventory in ME2, not the actual inventory itself.

Even in SciFi there's still salvage, Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, and Babylon 5, all SciFi set in the future with advanced technology and all still have salvage in them.  Also, shep would be picking up w/e they can get to sell because they are essentially funding their own war against the reapers at this point, even Cerberus has limited funds.  Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of let me scan an item and now every crewmember all of a sudden has it, even without going back to the ship to get one.  For the most part yes it is the lack of customization, but for some there actual a bit of a thrill wondering when and where that next upgrade is going to come from.  I don't agree with taking armor off dead bodies because I just riddled it with bullets, but that doesn't mean some Merc commander doesn't have an armory stock full of armor, including some nice new pieces.

Modifié par Daeion, 26 mars 2010 - 07:24 .

[Tasker]

Pocketgb wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

ME1 set the precedent for the ME series,
so why didn't they stick to it?

It was the first game in a
franchise where they really went out of their comfort zone with. The
end product might not've been what they really wanted. There's still RPG in there. Near the depth of ME2? That's debatable, except when in regards to weapon customization and squad armor customization (which don't exist).

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you there.

The only way that Bioware went out of their comfort zone with ME1, was with how the player views the character : point & shoot with fixed over the shoulder camera, instead of select to target with freely moveable camera.

Take any previous Bioware game and stick ME1s over the shoulder system in it, and you'll have pretty much the same game.

Regardless of presentation, all Bioware games up untill ME2 followed a standard tried and tested and brilliant fun formula.

So I would have to say that it was ME2 that was outside of Biowares comfort zone, as it forgoes a hell of a lot of their usual elements.


But, as I keep saying, I don't have any problems with Bioware making a game with the system they gave to ME2, it was a fun game, but it should not have been ME2 that they gave the system to.  Had it been the start of a new franchise or a stand alone ME game that wasn't about Shepard, then I would have no problems with it whatso ever.

Modifié par Orkboy, 26 mars 2010 - 07:18 .

[kregano]

Daeion wrote...

kregano wrote...

Daeion wrote...
I guess I've never understood how it gets in the way of the game or story, to me it adds to the game and story because it makes the workd seem more real.  I mean when you kill someone or something, there's going to be stuff to loot, and it's up to the player to decide what was worth picking up and carrying.

It detracts from the scifi nature of the game for Shepard to pick up a whole bunch of items of varying effectiveness when he/she could just scan them and pickup the best one if it was better than what Shepard already had. The ME1 style inventory works with settings where you can't scan things in seconds and then duplicate them over and over again. ME2's method of looting is a lot better than ME1's in terms of conforming to the lore, but it admittedly lacks the customization aspect of ME1's system. That's probably what most people are complaining about when they talk about Bioware dropping the inventory in ME2, not the actual inventory itself.

Even in SciFi there's still salvage, Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, and Babylon 5, all SciFi set in the future with advanced technology and all still have salvage in them.  Also, shep would be picking up w/e they can get to sell because they are essentially funding their own war against the reapers at this point, even Cerberus has limited funds.  Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of let me scan an item and now every crewmember all of a sudden has it, even without going back to the ship to get one.  For the most part yes it is the lack of customization, but for some there actual a bit of a thrill wondering when and where that next upgrade is going to come from.  I don't agree with taking armor off dead bodies because I just riddled it with bullets, but that doesn't mean some Merc commander doesn't have an armory stock full of armor, including some nice new pieces.

Personally, I don't mind not getting a lot of guns because even in real life there aren't that many differences between them. But to your point about selling guns to fund the war against the Reapers- if you've got the blueprints of the gun after you scan it, you can make as many as you want to sell, sort of like in XCOM. Relying on the salavage from enemies isn't a viable long term method for garnering profit unless you get a ton of rare, unduplicateable stuff, in which case you would be better served by saving that for your team. I admit that the implementation of the scanning could have used some work to avoid squad members magically acquiring copies of those weapons without being near an armor locker or going back to the Normandy. I think a good way of bringing back loot is to get more blueprints for stuff during missions, but not necessarily picking up every weapon dropped by a bunch of mercs when they died.

[Pocketgb]

Orkboy wrote...

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you there.

The only way that Bioware went out of their comfort zone with ME1, was with how the player views the character : point & shoot with fixed over the shoulder camera, instead of select to target with freely moveable camera.

Take any previous Bioware game and stick ME1s over the shoulder system in it, and you'll have pretty much the same game.

Regardless of presentation, all Bioware games up untill ME2 followed a standard tried and tested and brilliant fun formula.

So I would have to say that it was ME2 that was outside of Biowares comfort zone, as it forgoes a hell of a lot of their usual elements.


But, as I keep saying, I don't have any problems with Bioware making a game with the system they gave to ME2, it was a fun game, but it should not have been ME2 that they gave the system to.  Had it been the start of a new franchise or a stand alone ME game that wasn't about Shepard, then I would have no problems with it whatso ever.

They went out of their comfort zone when they attempted to make a shooter/RPG hybrid, which is what ME1 was.
They were making their own IP once more as opposed to DnD or KotOR (they did this with JE as well, though).
They were, once again, attempting completely new RPG systems that could fit while still being a fun shooter.
They created vehicle sections to add variety inbetween the missions.
They were not following the "good or evil" ending, or A or B ending. Instead you have to go from A to B (from start to destroying the Reapers) but it changes differently depending on if you go left or right (renegade or paragon).
I did not think they'd have much of an issue with the dialog, since Bioware are aces with it.

ME2's also going out of what they usually do, but they used ME1 as a launch-off to see what they could accomplish in ME2 - and what did they accomplish?
-They don't always have to stick to the standard format of three to four world hubs where you progress the story.
-That they can make a fun and unique shooter implementing various abilities and perks to alter the combat.
-That, they can, still make a completely different and depthful game.

I'd say it worked : )

[Daeion]

kregano wrote...

Daeion wrote...

kregano wrote...

Daeion wrote...
I guess I've never understood how it gets in the way of the game or story, to me it adds to the game and story because it makes the workd seem more real.  I mean when you kill someone or something, there's going to be stuff to loot, and it's up to the player to decide what was worth picking up and carrying.

It detracts from the scifi nature of the game for Shepard to pick up a whole bunch of items of varying effectiveness when he/she could just scan them and pickup the best one if it was better than what Shepard already had. The ME1 style inventory works with settings where you can't scan things in seconds and then duplicate them over and over again. ME2's method of looting is a lot better than ME1's in terms of conforming to the lore, but it admittedly lacks the customization aspect of ME1's system. That's probably what most people are complaining about when they talk about Bioware dropping the inventory in ME2, not the actual inventory itself.

Even in SciFi there's still salvage, Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, and Babylon 5, all SciFi set in the future with advanced technology and all still have salvage in them.  Also, shep would be picking up w/e they can get to sell because they are essentially funding their own war against the reapers at this point, even Cerberus has limited funds.  Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of let me scan an item and now every crewmember all of a sudden has it, even without going back to the ship to get one.  For the most part yes it is the lack of customization, but for some there actual a bit of a thrill wondering when and where that next upgrade is going to come from.  I don't agree with taking armor off dead bodies because I just riddled it with bullets, but that doesn't mean some Merc commander doesn't have an armory stock full of armor, including some nice new pieces.

Personally, I don't mind not getting a lot of guns because even in real life there aren't that many differences between them. But to your point about selling guns to fund the war against the Reapers- if you've got the blueprints of the gun after you scan it, you can make as many as you want to sell, sort of like in XCOM. Relying on the salavage from enemies isn't a viable long term method for garnering profit unless you get a ton of rare, unduplicateable stuff, in which case you would be better served by saving that for your team. I admit that the implementation of the scanning could have used some work to avoid squad members magically acquiring copies of those weapons without being near an armor locker or going back to the Normandy. I think a good way of bringing back loot is to get more blueprints for stuff during missions, but not necessarily picking up every weapon dropped by a bunch of mercs when they died.

Sure salvaging off dead bodies isn't a long term solution, but when you need cash quick, it's a better solution then hoping someone wants some blueprints or spending cash to build weapons and then selling them instead.  I'm not saying we need to go back to the amount of drops we had in ME, I don't think anyone is saying that, but it would be nice if there was a greater variety of items, I mean I'm supposed to believe that in 2 years the entire galaxy has regeared to only use 1 of 2 pistals or sub machine guns?  It would be nice to see some more
unigue items that the entire squad could use.

[Dudeman315]

kregano wrote...

Personally, I don't mind not getting a lot of guns because even in real life there aren't that many differences between them. But to your point about selling guns to fund the war against the Reapers- if you've got the blueprints of the gun after you scan it, you can make as many as you want to sell, sort of like in XCOM. Relying on the salavage from enemies isn't a viable long term method for garnering profit unless you get a ton of rare, unduplicateable stuff, in which case you would be better served by saving that for your team. I admit that the implementation of the scanning could have used some work to avoid squad members magically acquiring copies of those weapons without being near an armor locker or going back to the Normandy. I think a good way of bringing back loot is to get more blueprints for stuff during missions, but not necessarily picking up every weapon dropped by a bunch of mercs when they died.

Apparently you don't shoot. There are huge differences between guns irl even when they all use the same ammo type.

[Terror_K]

The thing was, it wasn't until Mass Effect 2 came along that BioWare started using the term "shooter" in their marketing, promotions, etc. The original Mass Effect was always just referred to as being an "Action RPG" all the time... it wasn't until BioWare wanted to start hyping up the "improved combat" of ME2 that they started saying "shooter" and making such comparisons. They've admitted themselves that it was while developing ME2 that they started looking at other existing shooter games for research, which suggests that this wasn't done for the original Mass Effect to me. Ironically, before Mass Effect came out, I was worried that it was actually going to be like Mass Effect 2 turned out to be and was very happy that it wasn't... at least not until the sequel, which is likely a major reason why ME2 disappoints me so much.

[Chala]

This recalls me to what happened to s.t.a.l.k.e.r. series (I love that game):
The first one was a really good idea: desolation, good argument, the sensation of danger, the tension in the dark places, the realistic weapons (if you shoot the sniper in this game you'll know what I´m saying), the game was unique.

Then comes the first expansion, clear sky (prequel): They try to fix the combat system (in the first game the enemies can kick you a## like nothing) so they give a lot of new stuff: the options of modify any weapon, repair it, more factions to fight, etc. but they also give a lot more combat, and making the player join a faction and fight in a war between the differents groups, with this they forget a lot of things that makes stalker a great game: Desolation, in the first game you're always on your own, and it was your choice to help a faction or not. But the worst thing is that with this THEY KILLED STALKER. (And not only with all those huge bug that, ironically, made the combats worst than the 1° game)

But then they relased a new expansion, call of pripyat: Better that clear sky and (in moments) Shadow of chernobyl. It combines the best of the two games, the ambient of the first one and the improvements of weapons of the second one. And with new stuff: more enemies, new kinds of dangers in the zone (like the emisions). Making the game a nice experience.

For me This is what is happening in mass effect, the first one was a very good game, but it lacks in combat (For example I'm a shooter player so it gives me a lot of problems with the "R" because I used to press that button to reload a weapon and instead of it, shepard throws a grenade, jeje good times). In the second one the combats problems are fixed but a very good part of rpg elements are missing (but thanks god, for me, this game doesn't kill the mass effect saga like what happened with clear sky), So it's obvious that the next game will blend "the best of both worlds".

Pd: I speak spanish, And this is the first time that i wrote so much in english, so please don't take Garrus stick and beat me to death with it

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 27 mars 2010 - 08:51 .

[yoda23]

Orkboy wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

ME1 set the precedent for the ME series,
so why didn't they stick to it?

It was the first game in a
franchise where they really went out of their comfort zone with. The
end product might not've been what they really wanted. There's still RPG in there. Near the depth of ME2? That's debatable, except when in regards to weapon customization and squad armor customization (which don't exist).

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you there.

The only way that Bioware went out of their comfort zone with ME1, was with how the player views the character : point & shoot with fixed over the shoulder camera, instead of select to target with freely moveable camera.

Take any previous Bioware game and stick ME1s over the shoulder system in it, and you'll have pretty much the same game.

Regardless of presentation, all Bioware games up untill ME2 followed a standard tried and tested and brilliant fun formula.

So I would have to say that it was ME2 that was outside of Biowares comfort zone, as it forgoes a hell of a lot of their usual elements.


But, as I keep saying, I don't have any problems with Bioware making a game with the system they gave to ME2, it was a fun game, but it should not have been ME2 that they gave the system to.  Had it been the start of a new franchise or a stand alone ME game that wasn't about Shepard, then I would have no problems with it whatso ever.

Hogwash! NWN, KOTOR & Jade Empire were all 3rd person games (over the shoulder). Get your facts straight!

[Miobako]

Hey guys, there isn't anymore Bioware. it's Bioware\\EA. It's about money, the salary of EA CEO is about 9 million atm. He's doing anything to keep that going. Bioware stuff are loosing their fighting spirit day by day. Even the god-like David Gaider has stopped posting as often as he did. Suckers, it's all about money, like it or not. You like shooting, Bioshooting is going to give it to you.

[Jaysonie]

Miobako wrote...

Hey guys, there isn't anymore Bioware. it's Bioware\\\\EA. It's about money, the salary of EA CEO is about 9 million atm. He's doing anything to keep that going. Bioware stuff are loosing their fighting spirit day by day. Even the god-like David Gaider has stopped posting as often as he did. Suckers, it's all about money, like it or not. You like shooting, Bioshooting is going to give it to you.

Nikitik(or however you spell it), is that you?

[Miobako]

Jaysonie wrote...

Miobako wrote...

Hey guys, there isn't anymore Bioware. it's Bioware\\\\\\\\EA. It's about money, the salary of EA CEO is about 9 million atm. He's doing anything to keep that going. Bioware stuff are loosing their fighting spirit day by day. Even the god-like David Gaider has stopped posting as often as he did. Suckers, it's all about money, like it or not. You like shooting, Bioshooting is going to give it to you.

Nikitik(or however you spell it), is that you?

Not really, was he/she a troll?

[Jaysonie]

Miobako wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Miobako wrote...

Hey guys, there isn't anymore Bioware. it's Bioware\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\EA. It's about money, the salary of EA CEO is about 9 million atm. He's doing anything to keep that going. Bioware stuff are loosing their fighting spirit day by day. Even the god-like David Gaider has stopped posting as often as he did. Suckers, it's all about money, like it or not. You like shooting, Bioshooting is going to give it to you.

Nikitik(or however you spell it), is that you?

Not really, was he/she a troll?

Well, no. He just liked to post paranoid posts similar to yours. I can see by your joindate that your not him so nevermind.

[Miobako]

Jaysonie wrote...

Miobako wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

Miobako wrote...

Hey guys, there isn't anymore Bioware. it's Bioware\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\EA. It's about money, the salary of EA CEO is about 9 million atm. He's doing anything to keep that going. Bioware stuff are loosing their fighting spirit day by day. Even the god-like David Gaider has stopped posting as often as he did. Suckers, it's all about money, like it or not. You like shooting, Bioshooting is going to give it to you.

Nikitik(or however you spell it), is that you?

Not really, was he/she a troll?

Well, no. He just liked to post paranoid posts similar to yours. I can see by your joindate that your not him so nevermind.

Paranoid in what? About the salary? Check it out yourslef.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

The thing was, it wasn't until Mass Effect 2 came along that BioWare started using the term "shooter" in their marketing, promotions, etc. The original Mass Effect was always just referred to as being an "Action RPG" all the time... it wasn't until BioWare wanted to start hyping up the "improved combat" of ME2 that they started saying "shooter" and making such comparisons. They've admitted themselves that it was while developing ME2 that they started looking at other existing shooter games for research, which suggests that this wasn't done for the original Mass Effect to me. Ironically, before Mass Effect came out, I was worried that it was actually going to be like Mass Effect 2 turned out to be and was very happy that it wasn't... at least not until the sequel, which is likely a major reason why ME2 disappoints me so much.

See, this is what bummed *me* out: I usually associate "action-RPGs" with hack-and-slashers that have a wide variety of playstyles: ranged, caster focused, and melee. So seeing how awesome these armors were in this new Bioware action-RPG I couldn't wait to pick up something heavy and hit someone.

Wasn't the case, of course : ( Wouldn't be fitting anyways, though.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 28 mars 2010 - 11:48 .

[Nethaufer]

Dudeman315 wrote...

DAA shows what good could come in DAO2. DAA fixed most of my problems with DAO now if we could just hire voice actors for the main character it would be amazing. I'm only 1/2 through DAA so my opinion could change but so far A+ on every point.

Now the problem about getting voice actors for DAO is that you have three different races, two genders, and five or six different voice styles. And then you have to get each one of them to have to say several lines for each occasion. Finding enough people to do that would take a while. Not to mention you have to pay each person. Now I don't know how much money they pay them and when, but that would seem expensive. So this seems highly unlikely that it will EVER happen. And if it does you're going to see some sort of change in the character customization or in the dialogue.

[Tennyochan]

bump
Found these vids from GDC(before her talk) of Christina N.
Talking about GDC,launch,combat,IP,Movies

Modifié par tennyochan, 29 mars 2010 - 04:24 .

[Saturamas]

tennyochan wrote...

bump
Found these vids from GDC(before her talk) of Christina N.
Talking about GDC,launch,combat,IP,Movies

Thanks for sharing

[Dudeman315]

"How will we make all these other features that will work with our shooter combat instead of working against it." --Christina Norman
In ME2 shooter combat IS the sacred cow!!!!!!!!

Also the interviewer is crazy if mission complete screens don't make him feel like he completed a level, what would?

Modifié par Dudeman315, 29 mars 2010 - 04:56 .