|
Mrit posted:Did you read the last 3 pages? The wailing and gnashing of teeth by some posters about criticism of a video game/those who obsess over it. Because some vocal people are broken and can't get over the fact that their krogan waifu isn't in the game doesn't mean that it is literally impossible for people to simultaneously enjoy a character and realize that said character is not real and does not actually exist. Or even to think that their enjoyment of a game is improved when said character is included.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Mrit posted:Did you read the last 3 pages? The wailing and gnashing of teeth by some posters about criticism of a video game/those who obsess over it. Did you? Not everyone, in fact almost no one, fit your description of wailers or gnashers. The sentiment has largely been that Lt. has been totally dismissive of all but one entire way to enjoy any media. That does not mean his way is wrong to enjoy, but to then basically point his finger at everyone else and then go on a 30 minute ramble about how, in his opinion, everyone is dumb and what is wrong with art, well I think that you can disagree with such an opinion without being portrayed as someone who flies into a rage at any minor perceived slight. I mean, hell, I agree with you that it is just a game to be played for fun. But not a single person that I have seen has even implied that not to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Bioware intentionally structured the game mechanics so that players would feel protective towards their teammates, that's what giving someone the life or death choice is all about. It's why Tamagotchis existed. They fostered the exact relationship between the player and characters that's being derided as the fault/misunderstanding of so-called "pathetic" people. They also intentionally designed female characters and the way they're interacted with through a sexually-entitled, misogynist lens. Bioware fostered the visual stimulus and mechanics that allow people to treat almost all interactive female characters as sex vending machines, and are just as responsible for the backlash that happens when a character doesn't conform. This is the issue with the idea that surface texts/mechanics are apparently not worth exploring, all of a sudden we absolve creators of their responsibility in shaping the perception of their work. The negatives that result are then reframed as the intellectual failings of some perceived lower class of audience, intentionally overlooking why all those people got to those ideas in the first place. If the issue of efficacy when it comes to the presentation of the series' ideas isn't going to be tackled then there's also little hope of reconciling people's initial perceptions with a new reading of the text. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to do that, but I don't think it's appropriate to position that choice as intellectualism. Side note, Film Crit Hulk's review/takedown of the game and reaction hit almost all the same notes as that one update, which is fun. I'm not going to link it because of spoilers and the fact that his writing style is practically illegible but it's interesting to see the discussion from two years ago to now for anyone who's interested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:You know, when put against the likes of Kai Leng, a number of other "expanded universe" characters that made the cross into the main games come off far better. How could Miranda be less flat?! wish there was a combination of gonk and swoon
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:How could Miranda be less flat?! wish there was a combination of gonk and swoon You've obviously never seen the concept art.  Good god it almost makes you appreciate the finalized design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Bioware is real. Grunt is real, and strong, and my friend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Seriously though, I think we need to go back to my earlier comment about separating the questions of "what is Mass Effect 3" and "is Mass Effect 3 good?" because confusing those two leads to spurious value judgments. Someone last page mentioned the "more themes=better" problem that arises when you mix up the two. I think the corollary "things that are not themes=worse" might be the at the root of some of the disdain(?)* that critics tend to have for more prosaic concerns like the death of a popular character. I have a hard time believing that everyone going "I can't believe they killed X!" in some popular TV show or whatever deserves scorn. Other posters have already covered how unfair it is to seek out the shrillest and dumbest voice among millions and equate that person with everyone who might disagree. That trick is older than the book. *I dunno maybe Lt. Danger can clarify his actual opinion of people who saved Wrex in ME1.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
This entire thread is performance art and Lt. Danger is a goddamn genius.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
I think the misunderstanding here is that people expected to be re-sold on ME3 being a good GAME, but what Lt. D is getting at is that it is a game only incidentally and that he believes it is a MEANINGFUL or maybe PURPOSEFUL STORY. I like that idea. I'm not sold yet, but the discussion so far is enough of an elevator pitch to keep me around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
I don't think people are really talking about whether Mass Effect 3 is a good game. It's not 30 pages of talking about skill trees and bugs and boss difficulty or whatever, the mechanics being referenced are usually actually about storytelling: character interactions and plot maguffin advancement, etc. I think this LP has done a pretty good job even this little into the game showing that writers were putting purposeful thought into the story, though I guess that's obviously still up for debate for others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
When Lt. D talked about Jack being a good character, he sold me on the fact, even though I didn't really enjoy her much in ME2. Seeing the change in ME3 made me appreciate the way Bioware took her character now. Then, seeing some of the things people wrote as reasons to why they disliked her made me gag significantly. The way people were treating this fictional person was with all of the horrible "I tried being nice to her and she wouldn't turn into my submissive waifu" which made me think about how too many people put their ideas of how the world should work (horribly) into the game, and now I can see why some people would dislike ME3 on a level of "my waifus weren't submissive enough and I couldn't screw all of them at once, 0/10." These are the creepy, self obsessed jerks and they are inherently wrong, but now I can see where some of the hate comes from. I even agreed with him, partially, on the "Grunt is not your friend" rant. It was a *good* way to end his story. He gets to be a big drat hero and throw himself off the edge of a cliff saving, in essence, his superior officer. The way a good "grunt" should. While I would not play this way, I can see this being a genuinely fun story/novel/whatever to read. People die but they die for reasons that make the story that much more engaging. I think Lt. D was trying to show why he does these things, and why they are just as good as the "perfect everyone lives" story that some people think is the only way to play. The problem I have with it is that halfway through it sounded openly like he was attacking me specifically, just because I do my best to be the "hero" type Shepherd and save everyone. I'm not the best writer; hell, when I do write, most of the time I have to force myself to create conflict because I could just write for pages about people sitting around drinking and talking about how their jobs are doing, and not one of them is doing poorly in said jobs. I am a strange person who actually dislikes a lot of conflict. Saving the world is fun, but I will always try to do it with the least amount of deaths or casualties. Am I wrong? I don't necessarily think so, but then again I am playing the game for game play and min-maxing at that point, rather than story. So I can see both sides. I understand that for a good story to work, things have to happen and characters should die and it's annoying as poo poo when a character dies and all of the fan-girls around me scream about how their OTP is ruined now and that if the author actually cared about their readers they would bring him/her back to life this instant... But on the other side, some people enjoy having fun with their characters. Some people feel a connection, and enjoy hearing what the NPC'll respond with when they press 1, 2 or 3. Neither way is wrong, I think. It's just the way people respond to things. So I'm taking the least conflict route. Can we agree that it's cool that characters die without getting attached to them too much, and also agree that maybe we can have fun enjoying the characters that Bioware made specifically for us to enjoy and become attached to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Goddamn, this just took a sharp turn from legit interesting commentary to "this is how I enjoy this and thus this is how it should be enjoyed and if you disagree with me that means you're on the same level as the pathetic nerds who clearly want to gently caress these fictional characters BUT HEY THAT'S JUST MY OPINION BRO" also, for the record: the only Mass Effect I played was ME1 and I don't think I actually even romanced anyone 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
M.Ciaster posted:Goddamn, this just took a sharp turn from legit interesting commentary to "this is how I enjoy this and thus this is how it should be enjoyed and if you disagree with me that means you're on the same level as the pathetic nerds who clearly want to gently caress these fictional characters BUT HEY THAT'S JUST MY OPINION BRO" I guess Lt. Danger is kinda like Garrus. "It's easy to see the world in black and white. Grey, I don't know what to do with grey."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
If it helps, he was imitating a mediocre comedian whose sets are mostly made up of pithy observations rammed into the audience's face in the most obnoxious way possible. It was less an homage and more akin to a re-enactment of Monty Python sketches by obsessives you'd cross the street to avoid having to acknowledge in public. I guess the same kind of obsessives he was trying to mock?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Sombrerotron posted:Whatever is there can have meaning, regardless of the author's intentions. Also, it is quite possible for people to legitimately interpret the same material in very different ways. That's where literary analysis comes in. So in the case of ME3, you can get something like the Indoctrination Theory - which I rather like, because it is well-argued on the basis of many elements present within the game, and adds depth to the game's narrative. That it's not "canon" is beside the point. Whether by design or not, a work of fiction can be one of multiple things, depending on how you look at it. Think of someone saying "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black!" Its literal meaning is clear, but does it correspond to how people interpret that statement? Does that interpretation depend on whether or not the speaker actually believes they are not racist? If the answer to both questions is "no," then I believe that adequately demonstrates that the meaning and value of any expression of the human mind is not determined solely by its author's views on that expression. And if we can accept that premise, I also believe that any literary analysis is valid and worth consideration if it's well-developed and capable of giving its audience a different perspective on the work it concerns. Don't get me wrong, I've no intention of saying that critical analysis is solely bound to the author's intentions, I mean, I'm sure Adam Sandler genuinely intends to make movies that are funny and good. I think I said in my post that you can absolutely analyse something for what it is rather than what it intends to be. My issue is more with the "zebras instead of horses" thing. Particularly when it's done that smug self-satisfied way where you explain to everyone how much cleverer you are than them because you're the only one that realised that Grown-Ups 2 was actually a satire on the slow death of the movie industry through the gradual slippage of the lowest commmon denominator, and not just Adam Sandler needing to keep himself in coke and whores for another 12 months.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:35
|
|
Precambrian posted:Bioware is real. Grunt is real, and strong, and my friend. I know you're being sarcastic, but it bears saying: Grunt is one of the worst characters ever. Not because he is annoying, but because he is a retarded space dorf Ninja Turtle knockoff designed to appeal to prepubescent boys and adults who whose idea of escapism is pretending to like the same things as prepubescent boys. His only reason for existence is that Wrex can die in ME1.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Grunt is Shepard's adopted son who thinks he's cool but really is just a dumb kid hitting puberty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Voiced by Steve Blum (-1 affection)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:Grunt is Shepard's adopted son who thinks he's cool but really is just a dumb kid hitting puberty. I mean his loyalty quest is literally him dealing with krogan puberty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
To me Grunt came off as a violent but extremely enthusiastic puppy. I wasn't particularly attached to him but I did my best to keep him alive for the whole series because I'd have felt kind of bad if I'd let him die. I was however totally prepared for him to get himself killed somehow that I couldn't do anything about. It never happened, but if it had I wouldn't have minded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDmSY_58b00
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Heh, yeah after Citadel came out I was retroactively happy about my decision to keep Grunt alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Stew Lee would've prolonged the just my opinion bit to the end of the video, working the mike stand. Pretty poor show. In all seriousness, I loved the video and agreed with virtually all of it. I had a moment last year watching Thor 2 in the cinema where I kind of realised I just couldn't watch these movies anymore. Seeing it go through the frames and procedures that characterise every single one of those superhero movies. These vapid, formulaic stories that movie studios have built entire canons of obsession around. And they make millions! I can't stand nerd culture for that reason.It is anti art. Anything good that it touches turns to a commercialised version of its former self as nerds, generally uncomfortable with the concept of pluralism, try to bolt messages down to the floor. There is no room or appetite for subtlety or anything other than the power fantasy. I think it's kind of telling we already had our 'focus on the subtext!' moment in gaming already and that virutally everyone responded to it in the most adolescent manner possible. MGS2 presented all of these dumb questions about vampires and secret shadowy cabals and then, in its ending, dismissed them all as stupid and explicitly said try to focus on the subtext of the game. It was an amazingly prescient piece of work. The response? But seriously who was in the secret shadowy cabal dude?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
I'm seeing a theme rapidly emerging here of people announcing what a group of other people thought and congratulating themselves for being smarter than those other people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm seeing a theme rapidly emerging here of people announcing what a group of other people thought and congratulating themselves for being smarter than those other people. Thank god I'm not foolish enough to think this!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Personally I just want to be clear, everyone who's thrown up their arms and said they're not watching any more of this LP also aren't going to post in this thread again, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Psion posted:Personally I just want to be clear, everyone who's thrown up their arms and said they're not watching any more of this LP also aren't going to post in this thread again, right? If only. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Boy howdy was that a lovely video. I already mute you during cutscenes so I can read the dialogue, but I enjoy the criticism during the bland combat. Since that video was a 'joke' I'm going to assume that liking jack was a joke too. P.s. Videogames aren't art, they're designed to be sold, not be critically analyzed. But that's just m-huaghuaghuaghuaghuaghuaghuag
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Psion posted:Personally I just want to be clear, everyone who's thrown up their arms and said they're not watching any more of this LP also aren't going to post in this thread again, right? And let this circlejerk of "I hate people who like videogames therefore I'm better than you  " continue? gently caress no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:And let this circlejerk of "I hate people who like videogames therefore I'm better than you Are you a bad enough dude to save the LP forum from a strawman circlejerk?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Sorry for the wall of text but I wanted to quote some posts that I think are particularly interesting and worthy of note. I may or may not agree with some or any of these. One or two I've only quoted because they say something interesting about something I want to talk about next video.The Ghost of Ember posted:While I agree with you about the nature of stories, Lt. Danger, I must wonder, doesn't the very nature of the systems of the game encourage this preoccupation with the tools of storytelling? When you're expected to grow the relationship with Shepard (who is less a player avatar than say, the Fallout Player Character, but nonetheless is a player avatar) and NPC Party Member #1 into a friendship in order to get better results and upgrades and interesting new choices that are otherwise locked out if you don't make friends, isn't the game explicitly encouraging you to see the characters as your friends? StrifeHira posted:The story, especially in an interactive medium like videogames, does not exist in a vacuum. I think it's more than a little problematic to try to look at it that way. In order to have the story, you need the themes, characters, setting, mechanics, etc. all bundled into one package. And because it's an interactive medium, people will naturally become attached to characters. In fact, in this case, they're designed with that in mind. They are designed for the player to have some form of attachment to them, to make the player care about them, personally. To care if they chose Liara or Sheppy the volus as Love Interest. To care if they live or they die. Because if they die, it is more often than not the player's fault. It is a failure to the player, a "less than optimal" run if you will. Sydin posted:The problem though, is that Bioware has billed themselves around character focused narrative. Every time they put out a new game they focus on this character or that character, and how you can romance them, or befriend them, or learn their secrets, etc. One of the big selling points Bioware pointed to for ME2 was that you could romance Tali and Garrus. They explicitly went out of their way to shoehorn every ME1 and ME2 character in for their cameo in ME3. In promotions and interviews and game design Bioware constantly again and again harp on their characters. Neruz posted:Fun fact; while intellectually we recognise that fictional characters do not actually exist, subconsciously this isn't the case at all. While Grunt does indeed not exist, a part of you kind of thinks he does in a way. This is why people tend to react so violently to things that 'break immersion' because on an emotional level when immersion is broken you are recognising that things you are looking at are fictional, effectively to a part of you an entire universe and all the characters within have just died. Promontory posted:I'm curious where you'll be going with Grunt being dead. It certainly fits better with the 'there will be casualties' -theme you emphasized in the beginning, but I wonder what else you think it might signify. 'The krogans are destructive' seems like a small problem when someone else is already taking over the galaxy. Torchlighter posted:Games are not films. They are not literature. They have stories, but they are not the stories themselves. And this is the crux of the issue. It is all well and good to note what Bioware is trying to do, and you should be commended for this. I applaud your dedication in using the choices you did in order to reinforce your reading of Bioware's story. Willie Tomg posted:That's on you. I largely don't anymore because of bullshit in this game, but because of critical discussion in this thread have grown to appreciate ME3 because within the gunmetal grey cover shooter hetero-male fantasy fest "hook" is its camp appeal in the balls-on-the-table-gay-as-hell-adam-west-batman sense while curating a salad bar of trimmings from other, IMO more satisfying primary works like Star Trek TNG, Alien/s, etc. Over the course of Mass Effect, while the Reapers hack and saw away at the galaxy in the narrative Mass Effect 3 hacks and saws away at Mass Effects 1, 2 and 3 via theme and character and level design, demolishing what is beloved, decomposing it to its components, and clearing the way for new entries into the ME IP and beginning a new cycle of monetization. Casey Hudson is literally Sovereign over his pet property. That, and the fact that embracing the specific fecal melange actually does kinda make me give a poo poo again just a little, is cool + funny as hell. Koopa Kid posted:Bioware intentionally structured the game mechanics so that players would feel protective towards their teammates, that's what giving someone the life or death choice is all about. It's why Tamagotchis existed. They fostered the exact relationship between the player and characters that's being derided as the fault/misunderstanding of so-called "pathetic" people. Charlett posted:I even agreed with him, partially, on the "Grunt is not your friend" rant. It was a *good* way to end his story. He gets to be a big drat hero and throw himself off the edge of a cliff saving, in essence, his superior officer. The way a good "grunt" should. While I would not play this way, I can see this being a genuinely fun story/novel/whatever to read. People die but they die for reasons that make the story that much more engaging. I think Lt. D was trying to show why he does these things, and why they are just as good as the "perfect everyone lives" story that some people think is the only way to play. SoCoRoBo posted:
Gravastars posted:This is a bit of a false dichotomy and it might be what's stirring people up so much in this thread. Critical analysis is fine, cathartic release is fine, and investment in stories and characters is fine, but I wouldn't just dump each of these into separate piles. There are other hermeneutics at stake here as well. Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Before I post the next update, I think I might have to clarify something. This isn't a Mass Effect thread. I think there's a couple of people here who don't really understand that this isn't yet another thread for you to post all your Mass Effect opinions in. A couple of posts have left me wondering "Well, if this is the first video you've bothered watching, or if you frequently mute the commentary to read the subtitles, why are you watching?" Much like the terrible tie-in franchise fiction, just because something has 'Mass Effect' in the title, it doesn't mean you have to read it. Do what you want, of course, I don't want to tell you what to do. Read and watch if you like, but no one's putting a gun to your head. Sombrerotron posted:Well, it's not about the ME series (and ME3 specifically) having one or more themes, it's about what it does with those themes. What kind of concepts and situations are explored, what explicit and implicit messages are being sent to the player - intentionally or otherwise? The kind of analysis Lt. Danger's opted for in this LP is concerned first and foremost with discovering exactly what a work of fiction expresses and how, or what might be termed its literary value. It's a very academic approach, which in practice more or less means that a work is "better" the more can be said about its literary value. So, for instance, a piece of subversive satire would be "better" than a simplistic slapstick comedy. Regardless, only through careful analysis can the quality of the work be determined. It should become apparent, then, how good or bad ME3 is in this respect as the LP progresses. Willie Tomg posted:It doesn't, necessarily. My bit (and I'm pretty sure Lt Danger's too but I dont wanna put words in his mouth) is mostly getting away from pissing matches about words that change on the speaker like "good" and "bad" and "value" and "like" though in order to focus on aesthetics present in a work that was worked on by hundreds and possibly thousands of people over three games over most of a decade. Both of these posts basically 'get' what I'm aiming for with this thread. If this sounds like boring wank to you, that's fine, but you should probably think about not posting here. I mean, didn't you read the OP? I am expecting people in the thread to have to do a bit of work with this. It may help to consider this thread as part of an ongoing conversation, one which I've been having since Mass Effect 2's release years ago. Back then, it was a struggle to get people to accept that Maelon was (metaphorically) Mordin's son. Now, of course, people are happy to appropriate my analysis and declare that yes, of course ME3 is about intergenerational conflict! Of course it is. Like I say in the video, this isn't going to be like the Mask of the Betrayer thread, where I can just tell you 'the answer' and everyone's primed to agree. You're going to have to work for this one; god knows I did. But if you really have to know: I think being able to switch perspectives and methodologies when consuming fiction is the best way to live. There's a lot of fiction out there that I like primarily because of the characters and interpersonal drama (will always have a soft spot for Farscape), not because there's any grand abstract plan or message or themes going on. For that matter, while I love and adore Gene Wolfe's Severian of the Guild for all the rich underlying construction, it's an exhausting read and I've only read it twice. I'm surprised nobody took the argument expressed in the video to its logical endpoint: that all fiction should take the form of political cartoons, where every artistic choice and decision exists to act as the author's mouthpiece. Nobody wants this. But to get the most out of these videos, out of this game... you're going to need to play along with my methodology. It's really important that you can approach the game the same way I do, even if it's not the 'true' way you would approach it. Just entertain the idea, at least for a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
 Part 10: Focus Further Reading The OP: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3652018#post432447036
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Your video is private. Edit: Lt. Danger posted:
I don't think there's anywhere on these forums you get to go "here's my Personally, I think that's one of the better things about these forums as a whole. Lt. Danger posted:Now, of course, people are happy to appropriate my analysis and declare that yes, of course ME3 is about intergenerational conflict! Of course it is. Xander77 fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Good to go now. e: I don't want people to waste their time reading a thread that isn't what they're interested in, that's all. e2: have you considered the possibility I don't really believe what I'm saying? you probably should. Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:This is really sad. It's more kind of funny that people will challenge me on my opinion that this way is the best way to read a text, but will take on faith that the Crucible 'means' a positive pattern to solve the Reaper threat, or that EDI 'means' the child in the creator v created conflict. Each of those is just as subjective, as I think only FullLeatherJacket has really pointed out. e: like fully half the argument for my reading of the Crucible comes from a fantasy book series I read when I was young. why haven't you challenged me on this?! Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
So basically everyone should be less interested in the game than in what you have to say about it. This is going to be great if the LP sycophant squad doesn't ruin everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
BioMe posted:So basically everyone should be less interested in the game than in what you have to say about it. I want the things other people have to say about the game to be more developed than "I liked it" or "I didn't like it".
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Before I post the next update, I think I might have to clarify something. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:
Though to be fair, if your entire posting career, starting with the NWN2 LP was building towards this, I'll be genuinely impressed. Lt. Danger posted:
For another, if you genuinely think the Assassin trilogy is superior to the Ships of Magic, you are objectively bad at reading, QED 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:37
|
|