Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jul 2017
O
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
O
Joined: Jul 2017
So, what, in your opinion, is lacking in DOS/DOS2, and how could it be improved?

Having played both, I hold the following opinions:

Story/Plot Execution: One of the weakest aspect of the game. There was a significant improvement between the 1st and the 2nd game, but it is still lacking, when compared to a game like Dragon Age: Origins. I am not really criticizing the main ideas of the plot/story, but rather how it is presented and executed. Dragon Age had quite a simple plot in essence, but it was very well executed, with multiple factions being involved, with their own agendas. The lore, the factions and the characters were all strongly interconnected. We can see, for instance, how the concept of the "Fade", the mages, the belief system and the actual plot of the game are connected, despite how distinct they were developed. We can look at the local politics, and intervene so that it help us fullfill the main plot. We see plenty of interesting NPCs, cool dialogues, camera angles and plenty of options to choose, from the lawful good guy, the defiler of sacred artefacts, to the absurdity of selecting your dog to be your champion in a deathmatch against the throne usurper. More interestlingly, all NPCs react appropriately to your decisions, up to a certain extent (e.g. a religious fanatic companion turning on you, while an asshole companion laughing loudly about your evil decisions)

Companions: This one was definitely where Larian improved the most in comparison to the first game. All companions have their own purpose, they all have some relevance to the main events of the game (besides being the chosen ones), and they are not uninteresting. While I find them much less interesting than companions such as Shale, Leliana or Sten, there is no question Larian has gone in the right direction. I can only hope that the next iteration will feature more companions with more distinct alignment and relationship with the world. The game should also feature party banter, so we get to be more connected with all the characters.

Combat: The one thing that Larian has no competition. I find DOS1 combat more interesting than DOS2 combat, due to the introduction of the new armor system. But DOS2 combat is still stellar. In terms of improvement, I can't really give any suggestions, as I think the combat of this series is pretty much the best there is out of any C-RPG, so there isn't much to compare. I do, however, think, that combat abilities should be somewhat more tied to the lore of the game. If you can use a Medusa's head, Medusas must exist in the game, and you should have the opportunity to fight them. If you can create wings and fly away, then I would like to see named NPCs using such abilities during story moments when it makes sense to do so. If you are using a High Level, rare-to-see spell, I would like to see people commenting on that, even during combat.

Character Creation/Progression: more face options. I like the current skill progression system, but I think perhaps less points should be available, so you actually feel a stronger trade-off between generalist and specialists. A single point in Pyro/Hydro gives you too much for too little investiment to simply pass it.

Joined: Oct 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2017
I've thought to myself there should be a thread like this where we gradually build up ideas that would be "cool" for the next Divinity game, if it's going to be a thing, and hopefully Larian actually pay attention to the thread.

There are a few things I wholeheartedly support:

1) More companions, with more unique traits. This is one of the things that have always let me down big time. Even in SWKOTOR where your party has only 3 members, you have a total of 8 companions to choose from. Now since in the Divinity games you can build characters in any direction, what differentiates one character from another will naturally have to be personality, unique traits and skillset, and personal story.

I think trying to tie companion stories too tightly to the main story or major events in the game puts a lot of restraints on this. It makes it hard to squeeze in more characters and more stories. At least this is what I think after playing DOS2. IMO, character stories can totally be their own thing, without anything to do with main story. As long as they are interesting, have decent length, and have significant impact on the personal development of the character, then that is fine. They don't all have to be squeezed into the starting area, either. Just another unnecessary restriction.

Think about it, wouldn't it be cool if companions develop or learn unique traits or skills as you progress through their personal quest? Traits and skills that are fun and useful in a general manner. I'd add "acquire unique items", but they would be outdated after two levels anyway.

2) Party banter. By party banter I mean companions talking between themselves from time to time, exchanges both general and event-specific. The old Baldur's Gate games did this just fine. The Dragon Age games did a really good job in this department. Even Dragon Age Inquisition does one thing right: party banter. Back when I was playing DAO, I would stay near a banter trigger point, swap party members, and walk up to the trigger point over and over just to listen to all the banters among party members.

In DOS2, even though each companion has their own identity and story, they are completely isolated from one another. There is nothing going on among party members whatsoever. They might as well exist in three different parallel universes. Your avatar can interact with any of them, but they CAN'T ever interact with one another. There is no personality conflict, love/hate relationship, insulting someone they hate, complimenting someone they admire, making fun of someone. All these nuances bring your party to life. I'd prefer the reason for my party selection be these nuances, rather than because this dude has Time Warp and that chick has Flesh Sacrifice.

If you have played BG2, you know that Minsc will ask Aerie to be his witch and will go berserk if she falls in combat. That is just totally amazing.

In fact, personally, I'd prefer that companions feel alive and "human". In DOS2, companions feel a bit too... I'm not sure how to put it, too "formulaic", perhaps? Or maybe too "rigid", or "forced".

3) A better developed crafting system, with more depth. Maybe the ability to "upgrade" items. Many of the craftable items feel more like fillers, being there just for the sake of being there, rather than actually having a clear purpose of being there.

4) Combat. Now there are numerous things we can discuss over as far as combat is concerned, and pretty much all of them have been brought up before. Defense system, skill system, stat scaling, which stat does what, combat stealth, etc etc. You probably need a separate thread for EACH of these factors. For now, I'm just going to say that, while I have never vocally complained about the whole "armor system" issue on the forums, personally I do prefer the old resistance-based system which naturally has more depth and nuances to it. It has been an interesting experience, but no I won't miss the armor system when it's gone.

5) Summoning. I really, really hope they come up with a more solid Summoning system. I want different monsters at various power levels, each monster is more powerful than the last. But each of them has their unique traits and abilities that make them always useful in certain situations. Otherwise once you can summon a new monster you can completely forget about the previous one. If you have played TES Oblivion, or Neverwinter Nights, you probably know how FUN and exciting Summoning can be. It's true that it's easy for Summoning to be too dominating, and you have to be careful about implementing it, but that doesn't mean you can't make it fun.

6) In my experience, there are numerous miscellaneous things that I think should be better defined and have better consistency. Interaction between skills and statuses, for example. What cancels out with what, what prevents what. How come Silence prevents monsters' natural abilities? All such things. Or the fact that Necromancy half of the time feels like some sort of blood magic, rather than actually involves the manipulation of life force.

7) Better focus on specific "builds". This should be done in a systematic manner. The question here is, "What kind of playstyles can a player possibly come up with?". A two-handed style juggernaut, a single-weapon duelist, a classic sword-and-board warrior, Gandalf-style with one-handed staff and one-handed straightsword, a grenadier, an elemental master, etc. With the Attributes and Abilities systems, we can arrive at a generic build. Then the Talents system is what gives these "generic builds" the flavor and the "cool factor". For example, you can make a generic sword-and-board fighter by leveling up STR, CON, One-Handed and/or Warfare. But HOW do you make this specific playstyle more interesting and appealing? By taking advantage of the Talents system: one or two Talents that grant bonuses to this specific build. There could also be rare modifiers on unique or high quality items that support the build that the items are meant for. For example, a rapier with a property that increases crit chance if your off-hand is free.

Or, we know for a fact that there is no reason whatsoever to go with a single-weapon style. It's simply inferior to any other style. The only reason here is that you like it. But even then, when your preferred style feels inferior to any other style, and you realize that, "There isn't such a thing as "single-weapon style" in this game", you just feel disappointed. Solution: one or two Talents that grant bonuses to this specific build, making it competitive against other builds.

What if you want to play as a grenade-slinger? As it is right now, grenades feel extremely underwhelming. In the majority of cases you use them for the status effects. It's a huge wasted potential. At least there ARE the Ambidexterity (even though "Ambidexterity" seems like it should give a different kind of benefit) and Slingshot Talents that support this grenade throwing style. But then again, grenades are too underwhelming in terms of damage. Maybe except when they are used by enemies on harder difficulties.

What if you are a mage specializing in elemental schools? I'm sure we could come up with a bunch of Talents that benefit a character when they specialize in at least two elemental schools at the same time. Something like a Talent that requires a certain number of points in several schools at the same time, but grants bonuses that involve those specific elements.

My point is, I feel that Larian could have taken much better advantage of their own systems, and also could have been a bit more... imaginative.

8) More enemy variety. Not required, but always good.

9) More epic boss fights. Bosses that will wipe out your entire party unless you have a *very* good idea what you're doing with your toons. Bosses that become signature enemies whenever the game is mentioned.

10)...

Last edited by Try2Handing; 16/09/18 10:54 AM.

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Joined: Oct 2017
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Oct 2017
The two weakest part of divinity 2 for me were by far how the gameplay, progression and story just fell off a cliff after act 2. These parts feels so unpolished and weak in every aspect that they approach 'unenjoyable levels', because of the huge contrast in comparison to the earlier ones (which are very good).

My second big gripe is decisions regarding combat, ranging from a very poor armor implementation, talent/skill balance, and an out of this world awful stat scaling system (in terms of decision making). Skills are also very lacking in both ingenuity and action economy, damage and what not, which hampers it further. You could of course make the argument that skills are lacking because of the armor system, but they could easily have created seperate effects from cc's, depending on the armor state of the enemy to name one example.

Honorable mention; The game has a LOT of tedious elements tied to it, because of the constant need of equipment replacing and civil ability re-allocation. This is especially prevalent if you play a solo run with a full team.

inb4 "You could just not respecc". This is indeed true, but given the gold cost of the items in the game, it's obvious they've been balanced around this possiblity in mind, which is understandable because of how easy it is. Constant respeccing also has the side effect of removing character uniqueness, which is a very valid cricism as well.


Last edited by Lenny2k3; 19/09/18 07:31 PM.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Why are you respeccing constantly? There's no need for that at all. Just pick one civil ability for each character and stick with it, and there is no need for respecs. I ran a Thievery/Persuasion/Barter/ Loremaster party, I only really stole from people I was going to kill anyway, but even that gave me far more gold than I knew what to do with.

Sure level 9-11 was tight on resources, but it was workable.

Joined: Oct 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2017
I also try not to abuse the respec mirror, myself, and live with the shortcomings of my party. I did one party-wide respec after Act 1 (of course) and once or twice more as adjustment. Other than that, I only do "test" respec when I come up with some idea I want to experiment with right away.

I'd prefer that the "respec" thing is not such a predominant element throughout the game. I think the way they do it in The Witcher 3, for example, is fine. It's not completely free, and not so easily accessible. The important thing is that you don't feel that you're pushed into respeccing every few hours or so by the game.

A major general issue in DOS2, as I stated in another thread, is inconsistency. And you are right that it all comes down to decision making at the end of the day. In my case, there are countless times I have to ask myself, "Who decided to make it work this way?" or "Who thought this was a good idea?". There are just numerous questionable design decisions that make you think, "This. Just. Doesn't. Make. Sense."

Try this: if you have a character specializing in Warfare, have all the Warfare skills available, then cast Silence on him. See what skills remain available, and what becomes disabled.

My main was silenced, I had one AP left, I thought, "Ok I'll unequip my offhand wand and Sucker Punch this guy." Guess what, when I freed my offhand, Sucker Punch became greyed out and it greeted me with "Muted. Can't cast." What do you mean by "Can't cast"? Cast WHAT? You mean throwing your damn punch? Needless to say, I was in a tight situation, and that part totally screwed up the fight. Even if they actually intended for Sucker Punch to be a "spell", just like Shield Bounce, that decision is just...questionable.

I wish in the future Larian would take *closer* look at individual things involved in each mechanics they implement. More attention to details, finer adjustments in individual cases, and overall better decision making would help solve many problems in the game: inconsistency in how things work, irrelevant/underwhelming mechanics (including encumbrance, equipment durability, skills, talents, crafting), creature variety, overall fight variety, etc.


Last edited by Try2Handing; 20/09/18 03:24 AM.

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Joined: Oct 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2017
The insane jump in everything - health, damage, equipment stats - is likely an attempt to make each leveling up feel significant.

I think this can be handled by a different implementation of skill progression: independent skill system, no more skillbooks sold by merchant. Upon leveling up you get to learn new skills, depending on your relevant abilities. As simple as that. There's nothing wrong with taking the traditional route here. To be honest, the whole idea of "to learn skills you have to buy books from random merchants" is just weird to me.

Items can still be randomized, but I'd be fine with item stats being more static.

That being said, I'm not claiming a new implementation of skill progression would be an improvement by itself. This is just one area in which I'd prefer that the Divinity games is similar to the vast majority of other RPG's.

Last edited by Try2Handing; 20/09/18 03:42 AM.

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Okay, I've been thinking about this as well for a while, and I've got a bunch of ideas. But it turned out that the post was really, really long, so I decided to put it in its own thread:

Stabbey's ideas for tweaks to mechanics in DOS 3

The short short version:

1) Give back a second selectable Talent Point at character creation
Builds just take too long to get going, especially with near-mandatory Talents like Opportunist and Pet Pal eating up an early game slot. If that means getting one fewer Talent point later, I'd gladly lose the one at level 18 and get it at level 1 instead.

2) Remove Opportunist Talent, make Attacks of Opportunity universal
The combat system is designed so that this Talent is mandatory to make an effective main-line fighter combatant. It feels very bad to have a fighter without this Talent. Every enemy has this Talent anyway, so just lose the Talent and make it free for everyone with a melee weapon equipped (including daggers).

3) Increase the amount of Civil points given out, cap base amount per stat based on level
Right now the optimum strategy is for each person to take one and only one Civil ability, they can't split them because that loses effectiveness on both. On the other hand, just handing out more points without a temporary cap will lead to people maxing points out sooner. So give out one Civil point every two levels, but cap the amount you can put into any one ability, forcing you to spread them around a bit.

4) Warfare only affects Shields, 2H weapons and non-dagger 1H weapons.
Warfare affects too much now. If you are dealing any physical damage, you are objectively doing it wrong if you are not maxing Warfare first. It reduces build diversity. A simple tweak so that it does not affect daggers, bows, and Necromancy would make weapon specialization more attractive.

5) Change armor to only block status effects, not damage to vitality
Keep both armors to make combat more interesting and promote target selection in mixed parties. All damage penetrates armor and reduces both vitality and armor by the same amount. Enemies can have more physical or magical armor than their vitality, thus being effectively immune to statuses of that type because they'll be dead from damage first.

6) Add more Talents that diversify builds
Please, please, please, try and get Talents right in the third game. There are too many lame Talents and others are so good they're basically mandatory. See some suggestions at the link.

7) Add a specially-coded Vendor for crafting items
The crafting system has a big problem with supply of ingredients. A new vendor selling 20-ish different randomly selected crafted items, and coded to refresh each time they're interacted with would allow players to drop excess gold onto that vendor and get useful ingredients needed for crafting.

8) [MODDING] Redesign the cobbled-together Talent system code and to allow for modding of Talents
It would really help the modding community if they could actually make proper use out of one of the game's key systems: Talents. Right now the game is not set up to allow for proper addition and modification of Talents.

9) Boost the potency of food items
Food should be a different way to heal than potions. Letting them heal a lesser amount each turn, but for multiple turns would be a good way to do that. Restrict it to only allow one food and one drink item to be consumed at a time until the last one is done.

10) Telekinesis should be more than just a gimmick
This is a lame civil skill, only good for a Barrelmancy gimmick. Have points invested in it grant a 0-Memory skill which lets you interact (not pickpocket) with items and things at [Max Telekinesis Distance]. This lets you trigger traps, pull levers and other such things.



Originally Posted by Try2Handing
I've thought to myself there should be a thread like this where we gradually build up ideas that would be "cool" for the next Divinity game, if it's going to be a thing, and hopefully Larian actually pay attention to the thread.

There are a few things I wholeheartedly support:

1) More companions, with more unique traits. This is one of the things that have always let me down big time. Even in SWKOTOR where your party has only 3 members, you have a total of 8 companions to choose from. Now since in the Divinity games you can build characters in any direction, what differentiates one character from another will naturally have to be personality, unique traits and skillset, and personal story.


Unique Talents on Companions is a really interesting idea. Larian briefly had that idea for Ifan with his Drudanae addict Talent, which they wisely dropped because it sounded like it would be obnoxious, but something similar which is not obnoxious could be pretty interesting.



Quote
I think trying to tie companion stories too tightly to the main story or major events in the game puts a lot of restraints on this.


I definitely got irritated when at the very end of the game,
one of the Big Bads name-dropped Fane to my Fane-less party
. If they're going to be that key to the main plot, make them mandatory. If you don't want to make them mandatory, then don't tie them into the main plot. It's that simple.


Quote
2) Party banter. By party banter I mean companions talking between themselves from time to time, exchanges both general and event-specific. The old Baldur's Gate games did this just fine. The Dragon Age games did a really good job in this department. Even Dragon Age Inquisition does one thing right: party banter. Back when I was playing DAO, I would stay near a banter trigger point, swap party members, and walk up to the trigger point over and over just to listen to all the banters among party members.


There was actually banter between companions in DOS 1, but it's not in this game for some reason.

Quote
3) A better developed crafting system, with more depth. Maybe the ability to "upgrade" items. Many of the craftable items feel more like fillers, being there just for the sake of being there, rather than actually having a clear purpose of being there.


Yes, definitely this. One big problem is that ingredients are so random to find that it's hard to craft specific things when you want them.


Quote
4) Combat. Now there are numerous things we can discuss over as far as combat is concerned, and pretty much all of them have been brought up before. Defense system, skill system, stat scaling, which stat does what, combat stealth, etc etc. You probably need a separate thread for EACH of these factors. For now, I'm just going to say that, while I have never vocally complained about the whole "armor system" issue on the forums, personally I do prefer the old resistance-based system which naturally has more depth and nuances to it. It has been an interesting experience, but no I won't miss the armor system when it's gone.


I do like the status-blocking armor, but I think that the system could be tweaked more.

Quote
7) Better focus on specific "builds". This should be done in a systematic manner. The question here is, "What kind of playstyles can a player possibly come up with?". A two-handed style juggernaut, a single-weapon duelist, a classic sword-and-board warrior, Gandalf-style with one-handed staff and one-handed straightsword, a grenadier, an elemental master, etc.


A million times this. The combination of limited Talents, single-use attributes and Warfare, the One Ability to Rule Them All creates too many cookie-cutter builds where you are objectively doing it wrong if you aren't building in one specific way.

Joined: Oct 2017
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: Oct 2017
My idea for armor would be centered around breakpoints, which would allow both hybrid and specialized characters to shine.

Short explanation would be that armor skills/spells with status effects apply a status effect, depending on the penetration of the attack, much like how we have shocked -> stunned or chilled -> frozen right now.

So, let's pretend we have a big bad warrior with 100 phys armor but 25 magic armor. This player would easily be targeted by status effect from spell casters and receive more damage from this type for obvious reasons. Naturally it would be the opposite for characters with how magic armor, but low phys armor.

Naturally such a system wouldn't have a degrading armor like right now, but rather have a static reduction to damage of some sort. Hybrids would be viable, since they would be able to target the weakest armor to increase their damage and cc potential, while specialized classes would be stronger against targets lacking in their preferred type.

Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
The insane jump in everything - health, damage, equipment stats - is likely an attempt to make each leveling up feel significant.


Sadly, this made only the getting the level itself important.

Attributes and skills on the other hand turned into near pointless 'choose your color of damage increase'. You could assign class and let characters autolevel their attributes, and there would not be much lost in my eyes. The gain from attributes feels like a drop on a hot stone compared to the gain by the level up itself.


and the party banter got thrown out of the window together with real coop feeling for the sake of 'competative gameplay' possibilities.

Joined: Oct 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Kalrakh

and the party banter got thrown out of the window together with real coop feeling for the sake of 'competative gameplay' possibilities.

I vaguely recall this being mentioned somewhere before. To me this is just another instance of poor design decision, if I'm to be blunt.

To be honest, playing this game again, I feel companions are pretty much machines scripted to say one generic line - exactly one line - at specific points in the game, and exchange a few lines with specific NPC's when they run into them. Other than that, they don't care what you, the main character, do whatsoever. This gets old fast. They don't care if you're being kind, or cruel, or nice, or mean, or rude, or reckless, or when you're making a dumb decision. They really feel like puppets or programmed bots. You can go on a killing spree and kill everyone in the game and they wouldn't give a whit, unless you're killing the NPC's they're scripted to interact with.

Believe it or not, to me, companions in DOS2 are rather.... soulless. I wish they'd make companions more like the kinds in Baldur's Gate or SWKOTOR. Those are the kinds of companions that are remembered by players for generations.

Originally Posted by Stabbey
I do like the status-blocking armor, but I think that the system could be tweaked more.

Actually, yes, it's not the "armor" that's the real problem, but the binary nature of its implementation in this game. The armor thing could work, if it's tweaked to have more complexity.

Last edited by Try2Handing; 21/09/18 05:53 AM.

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
I could have been me, who already said it. It is my opinion since EA and did not change. I never thought their implementation of cooperation and competition was well done. If A talks to an NPC and plays with B cooperatively, B can still talk to the same NPC and get the same stuff heard as if A never talked to him. Also B never joins into a conversation, like it was possible in DOS1. (Also probably because it would be much harder with up to 4 players.)

Also companions now totally refuse to talk to you, if you not recruited them. I can't remember, that this happened in the first game.


Everything in regards of combat sadly got transformed into binary low bar implementation, which you would expect in a 5 bucks indie game. In the first game putting attributes felt always as it matters, because every attribute hat more than one use. In this game I often did not really cared about them, i never looked forward to this part of the level up. Changing the 'cc resistance' systems and AP-system cut them of a lot of great options in regards of character developement and they failed to find a meaningfull replacement. In DOS1 you also had to max out a skill tree to maximise it usefullness so you had to dedicate yourself, but in DOS2 only Summoner rewards you for doing so, as far as I recall.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Online Happy
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
I'd like to see a bit more of companion interaction and bonding personally. I absolutely love DOS2, but the whole "Only one can be divine" never really clicked with me as I much prefer being friends with my... Friends. Sure there is an option for everyone to "live happily ever after", but it isn't really a choice when it's only one choice.

Part from that, most of my wishes are already in some nature mentioned already. I do however, would like skill / stat progression to not narrow you down so much. For an effective character (playing legit without trainers or mods), you can't really focus on more than 1-2 skill trees (pyro, warfare, etc). I myself have always liked playing hybrid characters, mixing a bit of everything to create my ultimate pool of skills and utilities.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
The competitive element of that bit really rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed a bit forced and artificial, and even if it has any merits, I prefer the old fashioned "pulling together to thwart a common foe", while taking a dim view of those who would take advantage of that situation. Same applies to my own character: I don't want her to be the de facto saviour of the universe, just to be someone who does the right thing. Whatever that is, in the context of RPGs.

There was also a recent comment (I forget whose, sorry) about the characters being a bit too obviously programmed. I think is was compared to DOS, though it immediately had me thinking about e.g. Dragon Age Inquisition, where certain triggers and banter felt much more organic. Okay, that had its own problems with the persistent party banter bug but I think the companions did feel much more "real". Not even because of the dialogue and certainly not its voicing (not least since it and DOS and DOS:II share their most well-known VA), but just a matter of how it happened, I think.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2016
Location: Germany
Banter is one of the fun things about Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Even in Mass Effect Andromeda they did it quite well. Depending on who took with you on a mission the banter was always different during the drives.

Joined: Oct 2015
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2015


  • [1] more fantastical level environment art direction
    [2] faster paced but still challenging gameplay
    [3] immersive and mysterious world of magic
    [4] lesser wall of text, more interactivity
    [5] more environment storytelling than reading

Last edited by cyseal; 22/09/18 03:57 PM.

Moderated by  gbnf, Kurnster, Monodon, Stephen_Larian 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5