inherit
664
0
3,047
Grog Muffins
Seethingway
1,126
August 2016
grogmuffins
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Grog Muffins on Aug 13, 2024 6:27:18 GMT
Games that have choices embedded into their DNA will always have some kind of content that not everyone will see. Otherwise, why have choices if you don't want players to possibly miss content? RPGs especially are rife with this and it's not a lost practice in the genre, BG3 has so many easily missed things and I've seen people be very enthusiastic when they find something they missed previously. Bioware themselves have always had this philosophy, even if they outright voiced it only with DAI. I remember, I think it was Mike Laidlaw, who said during DAI's marketing that they're not shy of making a game where players might not experience all the content on the first go because that fuels replayability. Sure, most normies will play the game only once (many won't even finish a first go, if Bioware's own statistics are to be believed) but Bioware has always made games that try to make people consider at least a second playthrough. In DAI, if you choose the templars you miss out on the mage content and vice versa, in DAO if you choose one origin, you miss out on the others and the references to them, if you make certain choices the end game consequences are different and you have access to different troops during the final fight, in DA2 if you don't recruit a companion or don't take a companion somewhere with you (Anders to the Deep Roads, for example), the main quests they'd be involved in play out slightly differently. I don't think this aversion is a AAA thing, mostly because if it's dictated by the money people, they care about initial sales, not about the long running ones or about the content of the game. This is something dictated by the studio's philosophy and, if things haven't changed after Laidlaw left, this should still be alive with Bioware. Although, if Laidlaw was the one pushing more for this, I can see things changing after he left, but at this point it's all speculation. What I've seen of the marketing for DAV, has been underwhelming and confusing for me, sometimes I get flashbacks of MEA's marketing. I think the only time where we can truly judge something like this at this point is when the game comes out, unless they decide to not be as vague and confusing between now and the game's launch. The main purpose of marketing is to tease and to offer previews of what we can expect in a game or movie or book. If they gave us all the information beforehand there would be nothing left for us to discover when we get to the game ourselves. Which is what they have been doing. We have seen a massive tease on combat, dialogue wheel, crafting, character creator, role playing, companion content, story focus, etc. ANd with likely two months to go there is plenty of time for them to continue to do so and we have seen them say more is coming and naturally more WILL be coming especially as the game hits Gold and in the weeks immedeitly proceeding launch as the review Embargo ends. Thanks for mansplaning and trying to gaslight my impression of what I've seen, not seen, and what is just bizarre in how it's been explained. Still haven't changed my mind but good try.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Sept 22, 2024 21:06:19 GMT
34,725
colfoley
18,214
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Aug 13, 2024 6:28:45 GMT
The main purpose of marketing is to tease and to offer previews of what we can expect in a game or movie or book. If they gave us all the information beforehand there would be nothing left for us to discover when we get to the game ourselves. Which is what they have been doing. We have seen a massive tease on combat, dialogue wheel, crafting, character creator, role playing, companion content, story focus, etc. ANd with likely two months to go there is plenty of time for them to continue to do so and we have seen them say more is coming and naturally more WILL be coming especially as the game hits Gold and in the weeks immedeitly proceeding launch as the review Embargo ends. Thanks for mansplaning and trying to gaslight my impression of what I've seen, not seen, and what is just bizarre in how it's been explained. Still haven't changed my mind but good try. What is it about the term gas lighting being thrown around with no regard to its actual usage? Having a different opinion then you is not gaslighting.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
Sept 22, 2024 12:48:06 GMT
29,897
gervaise21
12,602
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 13, 2024 7:20:55 GMT
To me this feels like how big companies these days don't want to create content that some people will miss out on. Companions are a lot of work and if some are optional, or some can only be recruited if certain conditions are met, that's a whole lot of money people spent for things not everyone will experience. Yet if they force you to include companions in order to complete the main story, then where is the variety in game play? I may have my preferred party on my first run but I do tend to try and switch them up a bit on subsequent runs. This is because having paid for the game I want to experience all the content that I paid for. Admittedly, not everyone does this but more fool them if they only play the game once or play it the same every time they do. Naturally it is disappointing to the developers of the game if people use some characters more than others and thus don't get to experience all they spent time and resources working on. However, it is only a waste of money to the studio if they priced the game wrong at the outset. What you are suggesting is that the studio want people to experience everything they worked on because otherwise it was a waste of money. This is rather strange logic. In fact what Bioware have done in the past is keep back certain characters or plots from the main game and issue this as DLC. Not everyone will buy these additions to the main game but it has allowed the Devs to showcase their additional ideas to those that are interested and make money out of it. However, I objected to the fact that DLC like Return to Ostagar, Legacy and Trespasser were not included in the main game because the narrative in there was either highly relevant to the story we were in, as was the case with Return to Ostagar, or important to the plot of the next game, as was the case with the other two. Trespasser in particular seemed highly relevant at the time, although less so now as the essence of the narrative is likely going to be covered in that brief narration by Varric we saw in the trailer back in 2022. From what Bioware have said, making us use the companions is not simply a case of not wanting to waste their hard work but because each of the companions does add something to the main narrative and for that reason you cannot simply ignore them altogether. They are relevant to progressing the narrative but you don't have to like them, just work with them when necessary. To be honest, I do prefer this approach to releasing DLC with additional companions that do add something to the overall narrative which you could miss out on if you don't buy it, although you can still complete the story without them. Then you read about aspects of the story that are not in the main game and feel compelled to pay the extra money in order to see them for yourself. If I don't like a companion, I can ignore them in the Lighthouse if I wish (or annoy them if I prefer) and so it still allows for variety in playing the game because next time round I can create a PC with a different attitude that does appreciate them.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Sept 22, 2024 21:06:19 GMT
34,725
colfoley
18,214
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Aug 13, 2024 7:49:52 GMT
To me this feels like how big companies these days don't want to create content that some people will miss out on. Companions are a lot of work and if some are optional, or some can only be recruited if certain conditions are met, that's a whole lot of money people spent for things not everyone will experience. Yet if they force you to include companions in order to complete the main story, then where is the variety in game play? I may have my preferred party on my first run but I do tend to try and switch them up a bit on subsequent runs. This is because having paid for the game I want to experience all the content that I paid for. Admittedly, not everyone does this but more fool them if they only play the game once or play it the same every time they do. Naturally it is disappointing to the developers of the game if people use some characters more than others and thus don't get to experience all they spent time and resources working on. However, it is only a waste of money to the studio if they priced the game wrong at the outset. What you are suggesting is that the studio want people to experience everything they worked on because otherwise it was a waste of money. This is rather strange logic. In fact what Bioware have done in the past is keep back certain characters or plots from the main game and issue this as DLC. Not everyone will buy these additions to the main game but it has allowed the Devs to showcase their additional ideas to those that are interested and make money out of it. However, I objected to the fact that DLC like Return to Ostagar, Legacy and Trespasser were not included in the main game because the narrative in there was either highly relevant to the story we were in, as was the case with Return to Ostagar, or important to the plot of the next game, as was the case with the other two. Trespasser in particular seemed highly relevant at the time, although less so now as the essence of the narrative is likely going to be covered in that brief narration by Varric we saw in the trailer back in 2022. From what Bioware have said, making us use the companions is not simply a case of not wanting to waste their hard work but because each of the companions does add something to the main narrative and for that reason you cannot simply ignore them altogether. They are relevant to progressing the narrative but you don't have to like them, just work with them when necessary. To be honest, I do prefer this approach to releasing DLC with additional companions that do add something to the overall narrative which you could miss out on if you don't buy it, although you can still complete the story without them. Then you read about aspects of the story that are not in the main game and feel compelled to pay the extra money in order to see them for yourself. If I don't like a companion, I can ignore them in the Lighthouse if I wish (or annoy them if I prefer) and so it still allows for variety in playing the game because next time round I can create a PC with a different attitude that does appreciate them. Heck I even try to incorporate different companion party sets in the same playthroughs. Double so is I didn't recruit Vivienne in my first playthrough of Inquisition and it ended up being one of the worse mistakes I ever made. The logic being is that it makes a lot of sense to rotate your people out because combat and trapising around the outback hunting for stuff takes a huge mental and physical tole on people. For obvious reasons the Inquisitor can't take a break from things but she can at least make sure her companions gets rotated out. Obviously I structure things, at least going into Veilguard, as 'A' 'B' and 'C' terms so there are companions I probably don't use as much as others but even the ones my Inquisitor does not like or I don't like still are competent fighters and not taking advantage of that is silly in a professional context...unless you feel such character is a complete incompetent. Then I can have revenge on them like always making Vivi wear really uggly armor. This also makes me think to this point as well that BioWare does not force us to use all 7 companions, or how many of them in a given game, on missions. Sure there is probably other technological reasons and logic reasons behind those situations but at the end of the day BioWare is not forcing you to interact with companions or take them with you or interact them with them in a certain way. Like I get it, player agency is important to consider for these games but I think at the very least as a basic buy in for these games we can do them the curteousy of at least letting them introduce their hard work.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
Sept 20, 2024 23:17:06 GMT
7,318
river82
5,008
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Aug 13, 2024 8:34:53 GMT
So there'll be zero interactions with companions you don't want around with the player in the game then? I'm going to hold you to that. If there are interactions with the character then obviously it isn't the same. Companions have ALWAYS been important to Bioware's success. They have also largely been optional Bit extreme no? 'I hate the look your character so much that I am not even going to give you a chance and if I have to interact with you at all it will be a negative on the game'. In most professional setting you often have to interact with people you disagree with in order to achieve your organizations objectives or people who might occasionally rub you the wrong way. A 'you can save the world but I hate your guts so eff you' mindset. Something that just didn't make sense in previous BioWare games where if you didn't recruit them or even disliked them later they would just dissapear from the plot instead of trying to do an important thing like saving the world on their own. And no not really. Especially if we take it as extremly as the above example very few of BioWare's companions have been optional to this point in any of their games to where you can ignore interacting with them entirely. And? Who cares. People play games the way they want to play games, if it's extreme or not is not for others to say. Professional settings have nothing to do with gaming. People game to get away from professional settings, or to launch into escapism. It's sheer stupidity to say you must play games a certain way because of how you must behave in a professional setting. Only 2 of DA:O's companions were mandatory, similar number for DA:I, similar number for DA:2, almost every BG companion was optional, almost every BG2 companion was optional, you don't know what you're talking about here. And yes, BG companions were sometimes very missable.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
Sept 22, 2024 12:48:06 GMT
29,897
gervaise21
12,602
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 13, 2024 8:43:16 GMT
Then I can have revenge on them like always making Vivi wear really uggly armor. I did this too. It was just a pity that the game didn't register this and have her complain about it. It was satisfying to imagine her reaction though. Heck I even try to incorporate different companion party sets in the same playthroughs. Double so is I didn't recruit Vivienne in my first playthrough of Inquisition and it ended up being one of the worse mistakes I ever made. I've never failed to recruit someone except in DAO when somehow or other first run I completely missed the inn with Leliana. I missed out on her dialogue and her singing but to be honest that was it. I managed perfectly well without her, probably because first run I played as a rogue so had the requisite skills needed. As I've previously posted, I do sometimes select the companion myself for a specific quest even if the game doesn't make me. Vivienne being a case in point there with the ball at the Winter Palace. She knows the Game, so why wouldn't I include her? I would also prefer it if a quest like that of working with the Qunari had triggered whether or not my approval rating was high enough with Iron Bull, particularly when I discovered that all I needed to do was take him on a dragon hunt to get to the required level. I still maintain if the Qunari were that bothered about the export of red lyrium to Tevinter they would have instructed Bull to involve the Inquisition whether he approved of us personally or not. Thus, I am actually quite hopeful that a similar scenario will not repeat itself in DAV and we will at least be given the option of working with the companion's respective faction over some issue, even if we ultimately choose not to.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
Sept 20, 2024 23:17:06 GMT
7,318
river82
5,008
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Aug 13, 2024 8:45:39 GMT
To me this feels like how big companies these days don't want to create content that some people will miss out on. Companions are a lot of work and if some are optional, or some can only be recruited if certain conditions are met, that's a whole lot of money people spent for things not everyone will experience. Yet if they force you to include companions in order to complete the main story, then where is the variety in game play? I may have my preferred party on my first run but I do tend to try and switch them up a bit on subsequent runs. This is because having paid for the game I want to experience all the content that I paid for. Admittedly, not everyone does this but more fool them if they only play the game once or play it the same every time they do. Naturally it is disappointing to the developers of the game if people use some characters more than others and thus don't get to experience all they spent time and resources working on. However, it is only a waste of money to the studio if they priced the game wrong at the outset. What you are suggesting is that the studio want people to experience everything they worked on because otherwise it was a waste of money. This is rather strange logic. In fact what Bioware have done in the past is keep back certain characters or plots from the main game and issue this as DLC. Not everyone will buy these additions to the main game but it has allowed the Devs to showcase their additional ideas to those that are interested and make money out of it. However, I objected to the fact that DLC like Return to Ostagar, Legacy and Trespasser were not included in the main game because the narrative in there was either highly relevant to the story we were in, as was the case with Return to Ostagar, or important to the plot of the next game, as was the case with the other two. Trespasser in particular seemed highly relevant at the time, although less so now as the essence of the narrative is likely going to be covered in that brief narration by Varric we saw in the trailer back in 2022. From what Bioware have said, making us use the companions is not simply a case of not wanting to waste their hard work but because each of the companions does add something to the main narrative and for that reason you cannot simply ignore them altogether. They are relevant to progressing the narrative but you don't have to like them, just work with them when necessary. To be honest, I do prefer this approach to releasing DLC with additional companions that do add something to the overall narrative which you could miss out on if you don't buy it, although you can still complete the story without them. Then you read about aspects of the story that are not in the main game and feel compelled to pay the extra money in order to see them for yourself. If I don't like a companion, I can ignore them in the Lighthouse if I wish (or annoy them if I prefer) and so it still allows for variety in playing the game because next time round I can create a PC with a different attitude that does appreciate them. Making companions a part of the story to the point where it's impossible to drop is a choice they made around a design philosophy which is different to every one of their games in the past. It also doesn't mean that it wasn't because of money, the decision could have been because of money and then they molded the story around that decision, it's impossible to tell but the philosophy of not wasting content is a AAA one. Whatever the reason it wasn't a mandatory decision, and it wasn't an "essential one for the story". It's a conscious gameplay decision they made. Game stories are unique in that writers need to mold the story around the gameplay, it's been this way for most of gaming history. If there's mandatory companions the decision was most likely a gameplay one rather than a story one.
|
|
SilentK
N3
Single-player only =)
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 348 Likes: 835
inherit
895
0
Aug 22, 2024 18:57:50 GMT
835
SilentK
Single-player only =)
348
Aug 11, 2016 10:31:11 GMT
August 2016
silentk
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by SilentK on Aug 13, 2024 8:46:31 GMT
So now I have to take fashion into account too when making my character??? Curse you Bioware for making this so hard, lol! I really can't decide what I want at this point, I want the CC soooo bad because I know I'm going to spend days in it before I decide what to run. Ha ha, the more indepth the CC is the more problems I have
I could for the life of me not create a good looking Inky no matter how hard I tried in DA:I. That was too complex for me. Last time I was really pleased with a character in Dragon Age was in DA2. A few sliders and not too much to fiddle with presto!
It will fun to see the screenshots of everybody cool creations, I'm just hoping for a decent one myself.
Oh.. and better hair.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Sept 22, 2024 21:06:19 GMT
34,725
colfoley
18,214
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Aug 13, 2024 9:20:12 GMT
Bit extreme no? 'I hate the look your character so much that I am not even going to give you a chance and if I have to interact with you at all it will be a negative on the game'. In most professional setting you often have to interact with people you disagree with in order to achieve your organizations objectives or people who might occasionally rub you the wrong way. A 'you can save the world but I hate your guts so eff you' mindset. Something that just didn't make sense in previous BioWare games where if you didn't recruit them or even disliked them later they would just dissapear from the plot instead of trying to do an important thing like saving the world on their own. And no not really. Especially if we take it as extremly as the above example very few of BioWare's companions have been optional to this point in any of their games to where you can ignore interacting with them entirely. And? Who cares. People play games the way they want to play games, if it's extreme or not is not for others to say. Professional settings have nothing to do with gaming. People game to get away from professional settings, or to launch into escapism. It's sheer stupidity to say you must play games a certain way because of how you must behave in a professional setting. Only 2 of DA:O's companions were mandatory, similar number for DA:I, similar number for DA:2, almost every BG companion was optional, almost every BG2 companion was optional, you don't know what you're talking about here. And yes, BG companions were sometimes very missable. Again I am not saying that you can't play the game a certain way and nor is BioWare. You are still free to take a wide lattitude of choice when it comes to the inclusion of your companions in gameplay and the ignoring of their content the only slight difference this time is you at least have to recruit them. From there the ball is pretty much in your court. Yes you may get the occasional cutscene where you have to interact with them even after that but that is not really taking your choice away the other 99.9% you have it. Which is largely the reason I find this argument that this somehow invalidates player agency to be pretty illogical. You have all the agency to interact in the game how you wish no one is taking that away from you the only thing BioWare has done is move the needly maybe .1% away from your control and into their corner. No but I expect my video games to behave in a logical and consistent manner both in and out of universe. And I want my gameplay to reflect that since I expect myself to behave in a logical and rational manner by proxy when I am playing my Inquisitor, Ryder, or Rook. And if you want to play games in a different way then me then you can and BioWare is allowing you to do so. I only brought up it in the specifics of your logic that you used that even being forced to interact with companions you don't like as a no no. But lets go down the list. ME 1: Have to recruit Kaidan, Ashley, Liara (vital to the plot), optional Garrus (have to interact with him) and Wrex (think you have to interact with him but I am not sure). ME 2: Optional- Legion, Grunt, Zaeed (DLC), Kasumi (DLC). Mandatory Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, Jack, Samra, Thane, Mordin (vital to the plot), Tali. ME 3: Optional- Javik (DLC), Ashley/ Kaidan Mandatory-virtually everyone else, or at least, again, have to interact with them. DAO-You are right the only exception to this rule. DAA- Everyone mandatory. DA 2- Optional Fenris, Sebastian (DLC) DAI Optional, Blackwall, Sera, Vivienne, Iron Bull, Cole, (have to interact with) Dorian (have to interact with). So for the vast majority of these games the majority of these companions had to be recruited, or at the very least interacted with the only real exceptions being Inquisition and Origins. Yet if they force you to include companions in order to complete the main story, then where is the variety in game play? I may have my preferred party on my first run but I do tend to try and switch them up a bit on subsequent runs. This is because having paid for the game I want to experience all the content that I paid for. Admittedly, not everyone does this but more fool them if they only play the game once or play it the same every time they do. Naturally it is disappointing to the developers of the game if people use some characters more than others and thus don't get to experience all they spent time and resources working on. However, it is only a waste of money to the studio if they priced the game wrong at the outset. What you are suggesting is that the studio want people to experience everything they worked on because otherwise it was a waste of money. This is rather strange logic. In fact what Bioware have done in the past is keep back certain characters or plots from the main game and issue this as DLC. Not everyone will buy these additions to the main game but it has allowed the Devs to showcase their additional ideas to those that are interested and make money out of it. However, I objected to the fact that DLC like Return to Ostagar, Legacy and Trespasser were not included in the main game because the narrative in there was either highly relevant to the story we were in, as was the case with Return to Ostagar, or important to the plot of the next game, as was the case with the other two. Trespasser in particular seemed highly relevant at the time, although less so now as the essence of the narrative is likely going to be covered in that brief narration by Varric we saw in the trailer back in 2022. From what Bioware have said, making us use the companions is not simply a case of not wanting to waste their hard work but because each of the companions does add something to the main narrative and for that reason you cannot simply ignore them altogether. They are relevant to progressing the narrative but you don't have to like them, just work with them when necessary. To be honest, I do prefer this approach to releasing DLC with additional companions that do add something to the overall narrative which you could miss out on if you don't buy it, although you can still complete the story without them. Then you read about aspects of the story that are not in the main game and feel compelled to pay the extra money in order to see them for yourself. If I don't like a companion, I can ignore them in the Lighthouse if I wish (or annoy them if I prefer) and so it still allows for variety in playing the game because next time round I can create a PC with a different attitude that does appreciate them. Making companions a part of the story to the point where it's impossible to drop is a choice they made around a design philosophy which is different to every one of their games in the past. It also doesn't mean that it wasn't because of money, the decision could have been because of money and then they molded the story around that decision, it's impossible to tell but the philosophy of not wasting content is a AAA one. Whatever the reason it wasn't a mandatory decision, and it wasn't an "essential one for the story". It's a conscious gameplay decision they made. Game stories are unique in that writers need to mold the story around the gameplay, it's been this way for most of gaming history. If there's mandatory companions the decision was most likely a gameplay one rather than a story one. This I doubt very much. Indeed in all the interviews to this point they have talked about how important these companions are for the story of the game and how much they have been advertising this game as getting back to their roots from a character perspective.
|
|
inherit
11611
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:54:55 GMT
1,190
fairdragon
1,821
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Aug 13, 2024 9:34:55 GMT
So there'll be zero interactions with companions you don't want around with the player in the game then? I'm going to hold you to that. If there are interactions with the character then obviously it isn't the same. Companions have ALWAYS been important to Bioware's success. They have also largely been optional Bit extreme no? 'I hate the look your character so much that I am not even going to give you a chance and if I have to interact with you at all it will be a negative on the game'. In most professional setting you often have to interact with people you disagree with in order to achieve your organizations objectives or people who might occasionally rub you the wrong way. A 'you can save the world but I hate your guts so eff you' mindset. Something that just didn't make sense in previous BioWare games where if you didn't recruit them or even disliked them later they would just dissapear from the plot instead of trying to do an important thing like saving the world on their own. And no not really. Especially if we take it as extremly as the above example very few of BioWare's companions have been optional to this point in any of their games to where you can ignore interacting with them entirely. Character you can ignor: DAO: Dog (If you aren't human nobel), Leliana, Oghren, Shale, Sten, Wynne and Zevran. Only Morrigan, Alistair and Loghain aren't ignorable. DAI: Blackwall, Iron Bull, Sera and Vivienne. Have less ignorable character. Cassandra and the advisor, Cole/Dorian, Solas and Varric were very importent for the plot. So at least 2 from the start aren't ignorable my 2 cents are Harding and Neve. One is Tevinter and the other from the inquisition. Both are very importent plot wise. Maybe Bellara as well. I can see the veil jumper beeing very importent to the plot. Edit: if i am not mistaken this isn't true. It was 8 companions/advisior in DAI.
|
|
inherit
410
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:01:56 GMT
3,316
Sartoz
6,709
August 2016
sartoz
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.hVm-5wNStlyTEXjhwDoa_wHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=8f745a5f30b08f8231ddb64664df7375d23cc10878aa50d66fec54e9d570c7e2&ipo=images
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Sartoz on Aug 13, 2024 9:39:29 GMT
This also makes me think to this point as well that BioWare does not force us to use all 7 companions, or how many of them in a given game, on missions. Sure there is probably other technological reasons and logic reasons behind those situations but at the end of the day BioWare is not forcing you to interact with companions or take them with you or interact them with them in a certain way. Like I get it, player agency is important to consider for these games but I think at the very least as a basic buy in for these games we can do them the curteousy of at least letting them introduce their hard work.
Hm... Perhaps so but I think they are "forced upon us" if only tangentially. The Skill Tree may contain certain "skills" that you like and select but during the game you find out they come from a companion that you have no affinity for. Yet, to obtain that skill you must "unlock" it via a Relationship level progression with that person. Increasing the relationship Level requires interaction. Thus, the game gives us no/little player agency here and the word "forced" is applicable, imo.
Funny that courteous is mentioned. Marketing's only obligation is to sell a product and their description of said product can be "elastic" but never cross the line to become a lie. Remember the time during the heavy micro transaction era when game review sites received a promo game with the xmts removed? ...great reviews were given... them being courteous to us?
|
|
inherit
11611
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:54:55 GMT
1,190
fairdragon
1,821
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Aug 13, 2024 9:44:15 GMT
Games that have choices embedded into their DNA will always have some kind of content that not everyone will see. Otherwise, why have choices if you don't want players to possibly miss content? RPGs especially are rife with this and it's not a lost practice in the genre, BG3 has so many easily missed things and I've seen people be very enthusiastic when they find something they missed previously. Bioware themselves have always had this philosophy, even if they outright voiced it only with DAI. I remember, I think it was Mike Laidlaw, who said during DAI's marketing that they're not shy of making a game where players might not experience all the content on the first go because that fuels replayability. Sure, most normies will play the game only once (many won't even finish a first go, if Bioware's own statistics are to be believed) but Bioware has always made games that try to make people consider at least a second playthrough. In DAI, if you choose the templars you miss out on the mage content and vice versa, in DAO if you choose one origin, you miss out on the others and the references to them, if you make certain choices the end game consequences are different and you have access to different troops during the final fight, in DA2 if you don't recruit a companion or don't take a companion somewhere with you (Anders to the Deep Roads, for example), the main quests they'd be involved in play out slightly differently. I don't think this aversion is a AAA thing, mostly because if it's dictated by the money people, they care about initial sales, not about the long running ones or about the content of the game. This is something dictated by the studio's philosophy and, if things haven't changed after Laidlaw left, this should still be alive with Bioware. Although, if Laidlaw was the one pushing more for this, I can see things changing after he left, but at this point it's all speculation. What I've seen of the marketing for DAV, has been underwhelming and confusing for me, sometimes I get flashbacks of MEA's marketing. I think the only time where we can truly judge something like this at this point is when the game comes out, unless they decide to not be as vague and confusing between now and the game's launch. The main purpose of marketing is to tease and to offer previews of what we can expect in a game or movie or book. If they gave us all the information beforehand there would be nothing left for us to discover when we get to the game ourselves. Which is what they have been doing. We have seen a massive tease on combat, dialogue wheel, crafting, character creator, role playing, companion content, story focus, etc. ANd with likely two months to go there is plenty of time for them to continue to do so and we have seen them say more is coming and naturally more WILL be coming especially as the game hits Gold and in the weeks immedeitly proceeding launch as the review Embargo ends. I agree and dissagree at the same time. The problem is there bad marketing. You tease yes, but 1. tease something that give enough for people to talk about (level 1 rook was a bad idea.). 2. Make sure to pace the marketing well. (We have now to much space to badmouth or fear for the game.) Have something for every month. Show something without showing anything. We will see something we know that the question is how many people have the patience to wait.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
Sept 20, 2024 23:17:06 GMT
7,318
river82
5,008
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Aug 13, 2024 9:46:37 GMT
And? Who cares. People play games the way they want to play games, if it's extreme or not is not for others to say. Professional settings have nothing to do with gaming. People game to get away from professional settings, or to launch into escapism. It's sheer stupidity to say you must play games a certain way because of how you must behave in a professional setting. Only 2 of DA:O's companions were mandatory, similar number for DA:I, similar number for DA:2, almost every BG companion was optional, almost every BG2 companion was optional, you don't know what you're talking about here. And yes, BG companions were sometimes very missable. Again I am not saying that you can't play the game a certain way and nor is BioWare. You are still free to take a wide lattitude of choice when it comes to the inclusion of your companions in gameplay and the ignoring of their content the only slight difference this time is you at least have to recruit them. From there the ball is pretty much in your court. Yes you may get the occasional cutscene where you have to interact with them even after that but that is not really taking your choice away the other 99.9% you have it. Which is largely the reason I find this argument that this somehow invalidates player agency to be pretty illogical. You have all the agency to interact in the game how you wish no one is taking that away from you the only thing BioWare has done is move the needly maybe .1% away from your control and into their corner. No but I expect my video games to behave in a logical and consistent manner both in and out of universe. And I want my gameplay to reflect that since I expect myself to behave in a logical and rational manner by proxy when I am playing my Inquisitor, Ryder, or Rook. And if you want to play games in a different way then me then you can and BioWare is allowing you to do so. I only brought up it in the specifics of your logic that you used that even being forced to interact with companions you don't like as a no no. But lets go down the list. ME 1: Have to recruit Kaidan, Ashley, Liara (vital to the plot), optional Garrus (have to interact with him) and Wrex (think you have to interact with him but I am not sure). ME 2: Optional- Legion, Grunt, Zaeed (DLC), Kasumi (DLC). Mandatory Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, Jack, Samra, Thane, Mordin (vital to the plot), Tali. ME 3: Optional- Javik (DLC), Ashley/ Kaidan Mandatory-virtually everyone else, or at least, again, have to interact with them. DAO-You are right the only exception to this rule. DAA- Everyone mandatory. DA 2- Optional Fenris, Sebastian (DLC) DAI Optional, Blackwall, Sera, Vivienne, Iron Bull, Cole, (have to interact with) Dorian (have to interact with). So for the vast majority of these games the majority of these companions had to be recruited, or at the very least interacted with the only real exceptions being Inquisition and Origins. Making companions a part of the story to the point where it's impossible to drop is a choice they made around a design philosophy which is different to every one of their games in the past. It also doesn't mean that it wasn't because of money, the decision could have been because of money and then they molded the story around that decision, it's impossible to tell but the philosophy of not wasting content is a AAA one. Whatever the reason it wasn't a mandatory decision, and it wasn't an "essential one for the story". It's a conscious gameplay decision they made. Game stories are unique in that writers need to mold the story around the gameplay, it's been this way for most of gaming history. If there's mandatory companions the decision was most likely a gameplay one rather than a story one. This I doubt very much. Indeed in all the interviews to this point they have talked about how important these companions are for the story of the game and how much they have been advertising this game as getting back to their roots from a character perspective. "Back in the day" Bioware was a role playing game company. And because they were a roleplaying game company people could choose to exclude certain companions because, and not limited to - Good run, evil run, Anti some faction run, hate their face run. Considering their roots were DnD and DnD emphasises PLAYER CONTROLLED stories, this made people happy. Taking back control goes against what their original playerbase likes and therefore there may or may not be some pushback. Also if I find Wrex is an ass and I want eject him into outer space, I should be able to do that. Whether you like real world logical and consistency in your runs doesn't really matter. Like I said, Bioware's original playerbase was DnD and DnD stories get crazy. Concerning my original words, let's deep dive shall we - "So there'll be zero interactions with companions you don't want around with the player in the game then". If a player doesn't want to interact with a character that would imply enough previous interactions for the player to decide whether or not they want to keep them around. This doesn't mean ZERO interactions, although it could if for example she wears the tabard from the knighthood of the church of the Spaghetti monster and you are a rival faction. This means that the player should be able to choose whether the character can join OR when to dismiss that character. It does NOT mean no interaction at all. BG1 had more than 20 chars. BG 2 had more than 20 chars. Almost all of which can be recruited and dismissed at your leisure. KOTOR introduced more mandatory companions and ever since really only some have always been optional or dismissable. It has NEVER been the vast majority. DAA gets an exception because it was an expansion (almost nobody played). Otherwise, and this may not be the cause, but if you look at the games with the most mandatory chars, these have probably been the worst received of their respective franchises. ME3 and DA:2. It may not be because of the chars, but I believe it reflects a change in philosophy of which was not so much enjoyed - DA:2 being a very linear, char focused game and ME:3 having the ending hijacking player agency away from people. Also while you may doubt it very much, this is how game writing works. While the companions are very important to the story, no doubt, nobody said those chars which were important to the story had to be companions. And that ALL your companions were important to the story. This is a very arbitray decision, NOT one that was forced upon them because the story demanded.
|
|
inherit
664
0
3,047
Grog Muffins
Seethingway
1,126
August 2016
grogmuffins
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Grog Muffins on Aug 13, 2024 10:01:34 GMT
To me this feels like how big companies these days don't want to create content that some people will miss out on. Companions are a lot of work and if some are optional, or some can only be recruited if certain conditions are met, that's a whole lot of money people spent for things not everyone will experience. Yet if they force you to include companions in order to complete the main story, then where is the variety in game play? I may have my preferred party on my first run but I do tend to try and switch them up a bit on subsequent runs. This is because having paid for the game I want to experience all the content that I paid for. Admittedly, not everyone does this but more fool them if they only play the game once or play it the same every time they do. Naturally it is disappointing to the developers of the game if people use some characters more than others and thus don't get to experience all they spent time and resources working on. However, it is only a waste of money to the studio if they priced the game wrong at the outset. What you are suggesting is that the studio want people to experience everything they worked on because otherwise it was a waste of money. This is rather strange logic. In fact what Bioware have done in the past is keep back certain characters or plots from the main game and issue this as DLC. Not everyone will buy these additions to the main game but it has allowed the Devs to showcase their additional ideas to those that are interested and make money out of it. However, I objected to the fact that DLC like Return to Ostagar, Legacy and Trespasser were not included in the main game because the narrative in there was either highly relevant to the story we were in, as was the case with Return to Ostagar, or important to the plot of the next game, as was the case with the other two. Trespasser in particular seemed highly relevant at the time, although less so now as the essence of the narrative is likely going to be covered in that brief narration by Varric we saw in the trailer back in 2022. From what Bioware have said, making us use the companions is not simply a case of not wanting to waste their hard work but because each of the companions does add something to the main narrative and for that reason you cannot simply ignore them altogether. They are relevant to progressing the narrative but you don't have to like them, just work with them when necessary. To be honest, I do prefer this approach to releasing DLC with additional companions that do add something to the overall narrative which you could miss out on if you don't buy it, although you can still complete the story without them. Then you read about aspects of the story that are not in the main game and feel compelled to pay the extra money in order to see them for yourself. If I don't like a companion, I can ignore them in the Lighthouse if I wish (or annoy them if I prefer) and so it still allows for variety in playing the game because next time round I can create a PC with a different attitude that does appreciate them. Excuse me if this might end up a big block of text, I'll try to be concise and structure my thoughts but there's multiple things that I think connect and ultimately lead to some impressions. Gaider said at one point that the writers prefer writing characters that players either like or dislike. They don't want to write characters that leave people indifferent because they want to leave an impression. That said, I do have to wonder if, for example, Sera's writer looks at how may people dislike her with pride in their work at having created a character that left that strong of an impression, or with a bit of sadness that someone they likely put a part of themselves into is so disliked. Of course, intention is also a part here, was Sera written to be ultimately liked for her quirkiness or was she intended to heavily rub people the wrong way and only very few to get to see that deeper side of her? We can only speculate. However, given the statement in one of the interviews that players usually stuck to only certain characters in the previous games and now the devs are trying to make people want to use all of them equally, I would assume that there might be some sadness at seeing some characters used more often than others. However, I believe that this should be done through the writing of those characters, not necessarily through "forcing" them on the player. Preferences exist and people will always have them, we can't really divorce ourselves from them. (Also, obligatory "the interview might have taken things out of context and represented them not as intended", but since we don't have a lot else to go on, speculation abounds as a result). This is what confuses me about how they've presented the companions thus far. On the one hand, they talk about a found family, on the other, they make it seem like you can't really choose to not be around them, but you can dislike them and they can also dislike you, but they'll always be there. On the one hand, they talk about the power of choice and consequences of the player's actions, but on the other, they mention you can't really do something without having specific people around, but then that your Rook can still do things that the companions can also do, if you choose to build Rook that way. The messaging seems non-committal. This not only has an effect on role-play but it also bears asking about the gameplay function of the companions. We know something about the relationship meter (I'd like to know even more because even that is explained vaguely), but what about the classic sense of leveling up? How do companions gain exp? Do they gain exp and level up only from this relationship meter if you bring them along and interact with them during important quests? Does it apply only to main quests or also to side quests? Do they gain exp through combat? Quest completion? Do they gain exp only if they're in the active party or do they gain exp passively, even if not present? This also leads to how much grinding do you have to do. They've said they don't want the player to grind for progression, but what does using some companions more than others mean for their level progression? Are the companions you use more often going to be more advanced and the ones used least going to fall behind and do you feel compelled to switch them out to avoid the need for grinding? Again, confusing and vague messaging here that I hope gets cleared up at some point. I don't think the "forcing" of the companions is going to be as bad as some make it out. Again, I mention the Final Fantasy games that make certain companions go away for parts of the story leaving the players to redo their party synergy with characters they've not used a lot and needing to grind to get their levels up and get them gear, as not being seen as generally a good thing. I think we'll get the mandatory companion in their personal missions and, outside of that, maybe if we go in some areas that are heavily tied to a certain companion but only during specific quests. If we, for example, decide to go explore the Arlathan Forest, I don't expect Bellara to be mandatory every time we go there. In fact, we've seen images of the Arlathan Forest where Bellara wasn't in the party. This probably stems from people reading different things into different statements that don't go into enough detail, yet, and I hope this'll get rectified eventually.
|
|
jennica
N3
Party like a krogan
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 436 Likes: 951
Member is Online
inherit
6523
0
Member is Online
Sept 22, 2024 21:23:38 GMT
951
jennica
Party like a krogan
436
Mar 29, 2017 10:24:07 GMT
March 2017
jennica
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by jennica on Aug 13, 2024 10:12:17 GMT
I don't get it. Did Bioware confirm that all of the companions are mandatory and you must recruit all of them, no exceptions?
|
|
inherit
8885
0
Sept 20, 2024 23:17:06 GMT
7,318
river82
5,008
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Aug 13, 2024 10:16:02 GMT
I don't get it. Did Bioware confirm that all of the companions are mandatory and you must recruit all of them, no exceptions? As far as I know, not confirmed one way or another. And even being forced to use companions hasn't been confirmed, only if you want to progress their quests. This all started from a theoretical I believe? Ell Oh Ell
|
|
inherit
11611
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:54:55 GMT
1,190
fairdragon
1,821
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Aug 13, 2024 10:18:01 GMT
but they'll always be there. This isn't 100% true. They have said they can leave you. (Only comeback at the showdown) They said they can die.
|
|
inherit
11611
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:54:55 GMT
1,190
fairdragon
1,821
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Aug 13, 2024 10:22:17 GMT
they mention you can't really do something without having specific people around, but then that your Rook can still do things that the companions can also do, if you choose to build Rook that way. The messaging seems non-committal. This is a part which also confuses me. Because They don't make it clear enough what they mean. Or contradict themselves. As i have said more than onces this is bad marketing. If you say something say it so that everyone know what you mean.
|
|
inherit
277
0
10,065
QuizzyBunny
No 1 bunny giffer
2,645
August 2016
theycallmebunny
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
InquisitorBunny
430
1114
|
Post by QuizzyBunny on Aug 13, 2024 10:22:54 GMT
I think it was implied when they said you need them to defeat... Whatever we will face in the endgame. So they can leave, but will return when needed. I also got the impression they might be mandatory for some missions, although it's not clear if the missions themselves are mandatory.
Either way, I personally don't turn down companions since it's content, so for me it doesn't matter. Sorry for those who really like that feature, but if it means they can make them more relevant to the plot it's a win for me personally. Companions I dislike I just leave at camp (looking at you Sera).
|
|
jennica
N3
Party like a krogan
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 436 Likes: 951
Member is Online
inherit
6523
0
Member is Online
Sept 22, 2024 21:23:38 GMT
951
jennica
Party like a krogan
436
Mar 29, 2017 10:24:07 GMT
March 2017
jennica
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by jennica on Aug 13, 2024 10:23:13 GMT
I don't get it. Did Bioware confirm that all of the companions are mandatory and you must recruit all of them, no exceptions? As far as I know, not confirmed one way or another. And even being forced to use companions hasn't been confirmed, only if you want to progress their quests. This all started from a theoretical I believe? Ell Oh Ell Thanks. I was confused because i follow DAVe news pretty closely and i don't remember Bioware saying that all of companions mandatory. Personally, i think that it will be like in previous games. Some you will have to recruit no matter what and others are optional.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
Sept 20, 2024 23:17:06 GMT
7,318
river82
5,008
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Aug 13, 2024 10:30:44 GMT
I think it was implied when they said you need them to defeat... Whatever we will face in the endgame. So they can leave, but will return when needed. I also got the impression they might be mandatory for some missions, although it's not clear if the missions themselves are mandatory. Either way, I personally don't turn down companions since it's content, so for me it doesn't matter. Sorry for those who really like that feature, but if it means they can make them more relevant to the plot it's a win for me personally. Companions I dislike I just leave at camp (looking at you Sera). The missions where companions are mandatory could also just be companion missions too, yeah. We really need a bit more info. I thought we'd have more info by now TBH :S
|
|
inherit
664
0
3,047
Grog Muffins
Seethingway
1,126
August 2016
grogmuffins
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Grog Muffins on Aug 13, 2024 10:32:52 GMT
but they'll always be there. This isn't 100% true. They have said they can leave you. (Only comeback at the showdown) They said they can die. Was it at the final showdown? Because the way I understood it was that they'd leave, have a sulk somewhere for a while, then come back, but earlier than the end of the game. See, another instance of people reading different things from the same statement.
|
|
inherit
11611
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:54:55 GMT
1,190
fairdragon
1,821
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Aug 13, 2024 10:42:00 GMT
This isn't 100% true. They have said they can leave you. (Only comeback at the showdown) They said they can die. Was it at the final showdown? Because the way I understood it was that they'd leave, have a sulk somewhere for a while, then come back, but earlier than the end of the game. See, another instance of people reading different things from the same statement. The final showdown is the last bossfight. Cory in DAI. They are needed to get the big last enemie down. Yes that happen when the statements aren't clear enough
|
|
athras
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: Pajuschka
Posts: 116 Likes: 500
inherit
2985
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:49:24 GMT
500
athras
116
Jan 26, 2017 18:45:11 GMT
January 2017
athras
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Pajuschka
|
Post by athras on Aug 13, 2024 11:19:46 GMT
This not only has an effect on role-play but it also bears asking about the gameplay function of the companions. We know something about the relationship meter (I'd like to know even more because even that is explained vaguely), but what about the classic sense of leveling up? How do companions gain exp? Do they gain exp and level up only from this relationship meter if you bring them along and interact with them during important quests? Does it apply only to main quests or also to side quests? Do they gain exp through combat? Quest completion? Do they gain exp only if they're in the active party or do they gain exp passively, even if not present? This also leads to how much grinding do you have to do. They've said they don't want the player to grind for progression, but what does using some companions more than others mean for their level progression? Are the companions you use more often going to be more advanced and the ones used least going to fall behind and do you feel compelled to switch them out to avoid the need for grinding? Again, confusing and vague messaging here that I hope gets cleared up at some point. Take it with a grain of salt, but I feel like I've read recently that all the companions will level up at the same time, but I don't have a source for that info. So my assumption would be they might level up with Rook, or there will be some milestones? And this is just a pure speculation, but I understand the relationship meter being either for special skills you unlock or maybe just the way the AI will behave (maybe a character with good relationship will do better to protect Rook in combat?). I am really curious about how that one will work too.
Either way, I don't think there will be much grinding, it sounds like the game will be more streamlined than the Inquisition.
|
|
inherit
664
0
3,047
Grog Muffins
Seethingway
1,126
August 2016
grogmuffins
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Grog Muffins on Aug 13, 2024 11:23:05 GMT
Was it at the final showdown? Because the way I understood it was that they'd leave, have a sulk somewhere for a while, then come back, but earlier than the end of the game. See, another instance of people reading different things from the same statement. The final showdown is the last bossfight. Cory in DAI. They are needed to get the big last enemie down. Yes that happen when the statements aren't clear enough Yeah, I was asking if they specified the companions that leave would return at the end and I just missed that clarification, or they assumed that people would understand that's what they meant. I remember from the Discord Q&A they said the companions would leave and return after a while, and I understood that as not right at the end for the last confrontation with the BBEG, but some time before that, kind of like what Solas does after his quest but a little more extended. And this is also a bit strange because, if companions can die, they clearly can't be there to help at the end, unless they pull a Justinia and spirits take on their forms and help us because that's what our departed friends would want (or something of the sort). If they die and, as a consequence, things end up badly for us in the final fight, that's a representation of their importance. If they leave but show up at the end, have they been doing something in the meanwhile? Leaving because they hate Rook's face/morals/methods means that they part ways and work towards the same goal but by different means. This would show to me the narrative importance of these characters, kind of like the ME2 companions being specialists in their fields, and that they have that existence outside of Rook the devs keep talking about. If they die but something functionally takes their place or they leave and then come back without really having done anything except wait for us to get to the end so they'd rejoin the picture, that sounds kind of disappointing to me.
|
|