Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Well.... yes. But after that I would like to retreat to my digital fantasy world and have a good time - not wrestle with UI, nor deal with a teenage angst of my companions.

Joined: Sep 2017
E
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
E
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by teclis23
Literally.

Like wtf this game is seriously groundbreaking i have never seen anything like it. There is literally nothing like it available on the market and i would associate it with the equivalent of GTA5 but for a RPG. BG3 is the GTA5 for RPGS.

The combat is unreal, the writing is unbelievable, the graphics are the best. It is immersive like no other game before it. It is far better then both BG2 and DOS2 easily, no contest.

To back up my claims BG3 is currently outselling cyberpunk on steam and cyberpunk is in full release and BG3 is in EA.

Due to BG3 apparent success i am hoping to see more from larian involving forgotten realms and D&D.

WOW so impressed

Nice sarcasm lol



Originally Posted by teclis23
PS Larian you need to tone done the wokeness in BG3, we dont need all this diversity and equality BS in our faces. In my opinion i generally tune into games like this to tune out from the world and relax i dont want to see political issues thrust in my face. Apart from this well done 100%.

Not gonna happen, woke is the current norm and Larian is making a AAA game which means they want to reach the widest audience possible. If anything the woke is going to get even worse.

Joined: Mar 2021
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by crashdaddy
The draw to you maybe. You're in no position to generalise about everyone else.

The main story to BG2 isn't that complex. Mad wizard abducts you, you escape, rescue Imoen, get back your soul, kill baddie. The story to one is even more bare. You go through 60% of the game before you hear the name Sarevok and 90% before you realise he's the same guy you met that killed Gorion. Nothing drives you as a player to follow the main story, except quest givers and it's a videogame, so why not?

...

Story wise Planescape Torment and Mask of the Betrayer are better arguably thematically with more player agency, a more complex central conceit. But BG is regarded as more of a classic. That's because BG did other things right too, especially 2. Great battles, puzzles, a great performance from David Warner, a few superb dungeons, interesting enemies.

The core story of BG1/BG2 is simple but delivered in a very solid narrative. The writing and voice acting were very solid and sometimes even stellar. But what really stood out was the political background and all the lore that was detailed for you throughout the world. It made feel you were in a living world. That was the charm of BG1/2 story.

I like the main ideas for BG3, but I feel the writing is off. The characters seem immature with some silly dialogues. I feel that Raphael and Astarion should be menacing but they sound comical.

The story of Baldur´s Gate is great because they have great characters, not a great plot. The lore that made it look like a living world and great character more than compensate for a "simple" story.

I stop reading shingeki no kyojin because it´s the complete opposite of Baldur´s Gate, that is complex plot with A LOT of characters that I dislike, profound dislike.

Last edited by Nameless´s Fan; 09/03/21 03:42 PM. Reason: .
Joined: Mar 2021
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by eLeF
Originally Posted by teclis23
PS Larian you need to tone done the wokeness in BG3, we dont need all this diversity and equality BS in our faces. In my opinion i generally tune into games like this to tune out from the world and relax i dont want to see political issues thrust in my face. Apart from this well done 100%.

Not gonna happen, woke is the current norm and Larian is making a AAA game which means they want to reach the widest audience possible. If anything the woke is going to get even worse.

I will ONLY buy indies games then or enjoy more than 1000 roms from SNES to playstation 2 that I have in my external HD.

As I said before, if it´s like Pillars of Eternity, then Ok, it´s great. But, if it´s like Pathfinder Kingmaker or Siege of Dragonspear, forget.

Joined: Mar 2021
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by crashdaddy
The draw to you maybe. You're in no position to generalise about everyone else.

The main story to BG2 isn't that complex. Mad wizard abducts you, you escape, rescue Imoen, get back your soul, kill baddie. The story to one is even more bare. You go through 60% of the game before you hear the name Sarevok and 90% before you realise he's the same guy you met that killed Gorion. Nothing drives you as a player to follow the main story, except quest givers and it's a videogame, so why not?

What made them popular to my mind was they were first games that married (for then) decent graphics, with videogame concepts and the world of d%d and Faerun. Done with humour. And, when it came to BG2 great characters. And yes, romance. I remember reviews making a big deal of it back then.

Story wise Planescape Torment and Mask of the Betrayer are better arguably thematically with more player agency, a more complex central conceit. But BG is regarded as more of a classic. That's because BG did other things right too, especially 2. Great battles, puzzles, a great performance from David Warner, a few superb dungeons, interesting enemies.

Overall you have to look at BG as a whole, 2 1/2 games to judge its story. You're comparing this to one act of EA. The story of BG3 is the thing that's got me most excited.

Also, if you rate the romances in BG2, try out Anomen's. You're in for a shock.

I quite like the Shadowheart scene. You share a bottle of wine, looked at the stars and she may or may not confide a bit in you

A lot of people enjoy dnd because it let's you roleplay a character. Kinda sounds like you look down on these types of people.

The core story of BG1/BG2 is simple but delivered in a very solid narrative. The writing and voice acting were very solid and sometimes even stellar. But what really stood out was the political background and all the lore that was detailed for you throughout the world. It made feel you were in a living world. That was the charm of BG1/2 story.

I like the main ideas for BG3, but I feel the writing is off. The characters seem immature with some silly dialogues. I feel that Raphael and Astarion should be menacing but they sound comical.


A solid narrative does not a classic make. Apart from that the points you mention are more or less what I said. The attention to detail and the sense that this world was really alive is what sold BG.

As for characters, don't forget this series had Quayle, Tiax, Jan Jansen and even Khalid. Sure, a few of these were comic relief, but look at a fan favourite, Edwin. He's a lawful evil Red Wizard straight up murderer. Yet he's also bumbling, pompous and very very funny. Bioware weren't afraid to write characters different from 'how they're supposed to be'.

Astarion shouldn't sound menacing at all. He should be *charming*. He's never tasted human blood, feasted on nothing but rats and insects for 200 years. He's pretty pathetic at the start of the game. But he maybe should have the potential to be menacing, show a hint here or there. So should Gale to think of it. I personally really hate bringing Astarion along as a character, but I do recognise he appeals to the "I can save him" tumblr crowd. Which is okay in my book. Why shouldn't someone with different interests to mine also be catered for?

The devil should instil wariness more than fear. He's not a demon, violence isn't his m.o. Like Innateagle says I think the companions' reactions are right with most wary and Gale thinking he's clever enough to outsmart him. I hope it blows up in his face smile

I'm more a fan of the lore than the minutia of mechanics. I really don't care if they change a few things here and there. What excites me about this game is the lore and the possibilities. At it's heart it has Shar (possibly Selune too), Jeargal and the Dead Three, githyanki, mindflayers, the hells and devils, the Black Network, hints of the Shadow Thieves. This is the first game since BG that could only have been set in Faerun, rather than have that backdrop added like a coat of paint the way NWN 1 and 2 did. I'm pretty sure that of all the current companions Shadowheart is going to be the only one I take along on my first full playthrough of the main game.

I have a feeling also that WotC have learned from their mistakes and are going to integrate the lore of this game into campaign lore in a way they never did until recently.

Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
An 'Evil' play through of BG2 is the single best way to show how to properly handle the Evil alignment I have ever seen in text or games.

They are all distinct characters, with depth, and history and motivation that is far beyond Chaotic Stupid.

The romance option there, blows anything in this game out of the water.

Honestly it's a meme to compare this game to BG2. It's not close.

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Oh yes, Astarion and tumblr. You think over there BG3 is a synonym for Astarion smut. I don't get the appeal frankly.
I think the first two games did a lot right, as someone mentioned, the stories are simple, but well executed, the side quests are good, some nice companions... not Anomen though, he is the worst. Only Sebastian in Dragon Age 2 is close.

I want to join the appreciation for the voice actors in BG3, they are really doing a great job.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
Originally Posted by crashdaddy
A solid narrative does not a classic make. Apart from that the points you mention are more or less what I said. The attention to detail and the sense that this world was really alive is what sold BG.

As for characters, don't forget this series had Quayle, Tiax, Jan Jansen and even Khalid. Sure, a few of these were comic relief, but look at a fan favourite, Edwin. He's a lawful evil Red Wizard straight up murderer. Yet he's also bumbling, pompous and very very funny. Bioware weren't afraid to write characters different from 'how they're supposed to be'.

Astarion shouldn't sound menacing at all. He should be *charming*. He's never tasted human blood, feasted on nothing but rats and insects for 200 years. He's pretty pathetic at the start of the game. But he maybe should have the potential to be menacing, show a hint here or there. So should Gale to think of it. I personally really hate bringing Astarion along as a character, but I do recognise he appeals to the "I can save him" tumblr crowd. Which is okay in my book. Why shouldn't someone with different interests to mine also be catered for?

The devil should instil wariness more than fear. He's not a demon, violence isn't his m.o. Like Innateagle says I think the companions' reactions are right pO most wary and Gale thinking he's clever enough to outsmart him. I hope it blows up in his face smile

I'm more a fan of the lore than the minutia of mechanics. I really don't care if they change a few things here and there. What excites me about this game is the lore and the possibilities. At it's heart it has Shar (possibly Selune too), Jeargal and the Dead Three, githyanki, mindflayers, the hells and devils, the Black Network, hints of the Shadow Thieves. This is the first game since BG that could only have been set in Faerun, rather than have that backdrop added like a coat of paint the way NWN 1 and 2 did. I'm pretty sure that of all the current companions Shadowheart is going to be the only one I take along on my first full playthrough of the main game.

I have a feeling also that WotC have learned from their mistakes and are going to integrate the lore of this game into campaign lore in a way they never did until recently.

Jan Jansen was spectacularly written as was Edwin. Old Bioware humor was very different and didn’t make characters sound silly as in BG3 and this was a time before dark fantasy was popularized by Game of Thrones. So it makes Larian’s writing even more inadequate. I think pathetic as you said was a very good description. Raphael doesn’t need to be violent, but should sound manipulative. They tried, but to me he is still comical.

I loved the political intricasses of the first games and i think Larian premise is creative and interesting. Who doesn’t like Mind Flayers? But im afraid the plot will probably derail into Gods battleground again.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Raphael doesn’t need to be violent, but should sound manipulative. They tried, but to me he is still comical.
That's a really good point... why is that however? Is his VO bad? I don't necessarly think so, I did like his delivery lines. Is it because his writing is campy? So was Jon.

At least to me, I think it is, because how hard games tells you how powerful, scary, and manipulative his is... while he actually does bugger all. Transporting us is impressive but after that he is all bark and no bite. Deal he is selling is so obviously rotten and he sounded like a "used car salesman". As a sinister character (be it classic or modern, like Master Mirror from W3) he is just doesn't make a great first impression - unless, he is supposed to look like someone who postures as someone far bigger and powerful as he actually is. Though, even intentionally humiliated Loki had more presence.

Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by crashdaddy
Originally Posted by Scribe
The story of Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 were absolutely the draw.

It wasn't the romance.

The romances in BG2 make an absolute embarrassment of this games romance options BTW.

A lot of people enjoy dnd because it let's you roleplay a character. Kinda sounds like you look down on these types of people.
Will you explain this a bit more? It seems that you are implying that someone who doesn't like romance is looking down on people. You can roleplay a character just fine without that stuff if that is what you want to do. With DnD it is quite possible the rest of the group will thank you for it since the hormonally maladjusted player tends to make others uncomfortable. With a single player video game, none of us who don't care about that stuff are saying you are wrong for liking it, we are just expressing our opinions that happen to be different to yours.

Originally Posted by Nyloth
Wow you guys... That was joke about lizard lol. But not a joke about the discussion, otherwise there would not be so many guides on romance. Even if game doesn't have romance functions, people are more likely to discuss about characters, express sympathy or hatred. Of course, I'm talking about more mass social networks, and not some forums. Nowadays, few people use forums to communicate and spread their word. To be honest, I can't remember the last time I saw the message "mechanics in this game were amazing!!"on Twitter. Yea.
I was amused not annoyed, hard to project tone in text. Just try to understand for people who are not interested in this sort of thing and who are playing a game that is not advertised as a dating sim, it gets depressing to hear a minor aspect of it mentioned as if it is the most important thing ever when there is so much more that needs to be done before release. Would be the same for anyone not interested in a specific part of the game no matter what it is. I avoid most sites that discuss games mostly because they turn into echo chambers. Prefer forums where discussions are actually possible, sometimes Reddit but not for this game for obvious reasons. :P

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Scribe
An 'Evil' play through of BG2 is the single best way to show how to properly handle the Evil alignment I have ever seen in text or games.

They are all distinct characters, with depth, and history and motivation that is far beyond Chaotic Stupid.

The romance option there, blows anything in this game out of the water.

Honestly it's a meme to compare this game to BG2. It's not close.
Scribe, I mean this in the *nicest* way possible. What are you doing here, man? You've mentioned you gave up on the game ever being good. What makes you tarry here any longer if this game is something you dislike? I'm not trying to be rude, I genuinely want to know.


I honestly hope you have a most marvelous day!
Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by DuskHorseman
Originally Posted by Scribe
An 'Evil' play through of BG2 is the single best way to show how to properly handle the Evil alignment I have ever seen in text or games.

They are all distinct characters, with depth, and history and motivation that is far beyond Chaotic Stupid.

The romance option there, blows anything in this game out of the water.

Honestly it's a meme to compare this game to BG2. It's not close.
Scribe, I mean this in the *nicest* way possible. What are you doing here, man? You've mentioned you gave up on the game ever being good. What makes you tarry here any longer if this game is something you dislike? I'm not trying to be rude, I genuinely want to know.

Waiting. There is no way Larian just let's this game flounder while they focus on romance options.

So I'm waiting for the updates that will make me log in again. I'm already satisfied I can fix a lot of the issues so what I specifically want is.

Paladin.
A way to skip cut scenes.
Better movement system.

I'll take 2 out of 3....

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Very funny to me that people think BG3 NARRATIVE is grade AAA material. I think its slightly worse than BG2, but better than BG1. Basically, they are in the same ballpark.
To put things in perspective, Planescape: Torment surpasses all of these games.
And Disco Elysium is on a totally different level.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 10/03/21 03:37 PM.
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
Originally Posted by Wormerine
That's a really good point... why is that however? Is his VO bad? I don't necessarly think so, I did like his delivery lines. Is it because his writing is campy? So was Jon.

At least to me, I think it is, because how hard games tells you how powerful, scary, and manipulative his is... while he actually does bugger all. Transporting us is impressive but after that he is all bark and no bite. Deal he is selling is so obviously rotten and he sounded like a "used car salesman". As a sinister character (be it classic or modern, like Master Mirror from W3) he is just doesn't make a great first impression - unless, he is supposed to look like someone who postures as someone far bigger and powerful as he actually is. Though, even intentionally humiliated Loki had more presence.

As no surprise, I am huge David Warner fan and the tone inflexions that he does to convey disdain, arrogance and condescendence are priceless and save all his lines. And he has some good lines too.

I think Raphael VA is very good. And I agree that he sounds like a used car salesman rather than someone negotiating your life. And I think it is multifactorial (writing, directing, Mo cap).. His transformation is more comical than anything. maybe they should invest in his sinister human form more.

Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
Very funny to me that people think BG3 NARRATIVE is grade AAA material. I think its slightly worse than BG2, but better than BG1. Basically, they are in the same ballpark.
To put things in perspective, Planescape: Torment surpasses all of these games.
And Disco Elysium is on a totally different level.

I think every of these games has its charms.

BG1/2 with political intricacies of the sword coast.
Planescape with its original and surreal story, cast and setting.
Disco Elysium with its psychedelic philosophical writing.

Im a huge fan of BG2 characters and world, planescape story and DE dialogue writing.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by IrenicusBG3
Originally Posted by Wormerine
That's a really good point... why is that however? Is his VO bad? I don't necessarly think so, I did like his delivery lines. Is it because his writing is campy? So was Jon.

At least to me, I think it is, because how hard games tells you how powerful, scary, and manipulative his is... while he actually does bugger all. Transporting us is impressive but after that he is all bark and no bite. Deal he is selling is so obviously rotten and he sounded like a "used car salesman". As a sinister character (be it classic or modern, like Master Mirror from W3) he is just doesn't make a great first impression - unless, he is supposed to look like someone who postures as someone far bigger and powerful as he actually is. Though, even intentionally humiliated Loki had more presence.

As no surprise, I am huge David Warner fan and the tone inflexions that he does to convey disdain, arrogance and condescendence are priceless and save all his lines. And he has some good lines too.

I think Raphael VA is very good. And I agree that he sounds like a used car salesman rather than someone negotiating your life. And I think it is multifactorial (writing, directing, Mo cap).. His transformation is more comical than anything. maybe they should invest in his sinister human form more.

It's also a byproduct of this game's pacing being all over the place. Like, the stakes are high but don't feel that way, and therefore Raphael sounds, as Gale puts it, like the one who needs us.

Personally, i think the encounter would have been better if the tone was cooler and Raphael himself more quietly manipulative or just full blown cool dude being cool. Think President Snow from Hunger Games or Al Pacino from Devil's Advocate.

The sneaky devil the companions build him up as, basically.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I think the problem with Raphael is how he is introduced and inserted into the current narrative.

The entire scene just feels those random extra sequences that movies add in so they can add it to a trailer to say "and we've got devils too!"

He enters the narrative with little to no introduction or foreshadowing, and worst of all, completely abandons it immediately after. It feels totally random as there's no clear cause and effect for him showing up (i.e. if he had shown up due to the player tampering with the soul coin, etc, that would make more sense). There are also serious tonal issues with the scene, since it feels like the developers are genuinely trying to surprise the player. However, Raphael's disguise is wax-paper and the transition to the "reveal" happens only seconds later. It's utterly predictable in a hilarious way, but the story seems to want to frame it as serious.

Overall, at this point Raphael feels disconnected to everything else this point - his scene contributes nothing - no new obstacles, no new characters motivations, and no consequences.

This is coming from someone who does not feel like every D&D adventure needs to start slow, mundane, and within a Tavern. I'm perfectly okay with the more high-stakes, cinematic premise that Larian has chosen. HOWEVER, even within that context, Raphael's introduction feels like a DM randomly yelling "If you thought hell, dragon, giths, and mindflayers weren't enough, and now a devil shows up!"


Compare Raphael to a certain character from the Witcher 3 (Spoilers):


Gaunter O'Dimm is a fantastic example of how to properly introduce a Faustian bargain with the devil into the narrative.

Witcher 3 takes the time to introduce both the character and the legend separately in bite size pieces, seeding them both into the player's mind until it all converges into a reveal when it was ready for the narrative spotlight. It serves a purpose in the story because it pays off a series of hints and promises made to the player along the way.

Note, it's not a matter of whether the reveal is surprising or not that makes it good - it's the fact that it feels earned and meaningful.

The delight a player feels with the Gaunter reveal doesn't solely comes from the fact that "I knew it all along", but the fact that "I can't believe these little clues/foreshadowing actually have so much meaning."

Last edited by Topgoon; 10/03/21 10:29 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Topgoon
I think the problem with Raphael is how he is introduced and inserted into the current narrative.

The entire scene just feels those random extra sequences that movies add in so they can add it to a trailer to say "and we've got devils too!"

He enters the narrative with little to no introduction or foreshadowing, and worst of all, completely abandons it immediately after. It feels totally random as there's no clear cause and effect for him showing up (i.e. if he had shown up due to the player tampering with the soul coin, etc, that would make more sense). There are also serious tonal issues with the scene, since it feels like the developers are genuinely trying to surprise the player. However, Raphael's disguise is wax-paper and the transition to the "reveal" happens only seconds later. It's utterly predictable in a hilarious way, but the story seems to want to frame it as serious.

Overall, at this point Raphael feels disconnected to everything else this point - his scene contributes nothing - no new obstacles, no new characters motivations, and no consequences.

This is coming from someone who does not feel like every D&D adventure needs to start slow, mundane, and within a Tavern. I'm perfectly okay with the more high-stakes, cinematic premise that Larian has chosen. HOWEVER, even within that context, Raphael's introduction feels like a DM randomly yelling "If you thought hell, dragon, giths, and mindflayers weren't enough, and now a devil shows up!"


Compare Raphael to a certain character from the Witcher 3 (Spoilers):


Gaunter O'Dimm is a fantastic example of how to properly introduce a Faustian bargain with the devil into the narrative.

Witcher 3 takes the time to introduce both the character and the legend separately in bite size pieces, seeding them both into the player's mind until it all converges into a reveal when it was ready for the narrative spotlight. It serves a purpose in the story because it pays off a series of hints and promises made to the player along the way.

Note, it's not a matter of whether the reveal is surprising or not that makes it good - it's the fact that it feels earned and meaningful.

The delight a player feels with the Gaunter reveal doesn't solely comes from the fact that "I knew it all along", but the fact that "I can't believe these little clues/foreshadowing actually have so much meaning."

Your comparison is spot-on, especially considering that character's reveal is very much similar to Raphael's from a purely narrative stand point. They both go from affable, to eerie, to fucking evil. It's just that in the Witcher 3, like you said, they take their time to introduce every facet while in BG3 it's everything at once.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
The worst thing about Raphael is the "What's better than a devil you don't know? A devil you do" line. And it's presented as if it's clever. Awful.

That's said, I think you're being too harsh on the scene. Everybody knows that making deals with with devils never work out well; it's not going to be possible to introduce devils -- especially cartoonish dnd devils -- in a way that doesn't make them come off as used sale carsmen unless you do it in a much slower paced way. The problem to me is less in the way Raphael is presented and more in the way that the tadpole is presented -- it doesn't feel like a grace condition so you don't feel like you even have to consider taking Raph's offer. You get one little scene of your character being ill at the campsite and that's it. If they wanted to make the condition seem serious they would have to make the characters be like that one scene, except all through the day too.

I do think the entire scene would be better if he just stayed in human guise all throughout though.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
I think one of the ways that Raphael could be introduced better and have more of an effect on the story as a major player is if Korilla Hearthflame was better used. Right now, she's a one-off character who Raphael sends to bail you out if you get captured by Priestess Gut, but she could work very well as a right-hand woman to Raphael who shows up more frequently, preferably before you even meet Raphael himself. If at certain scenes she just showed up to check in and offer commentary, that'd be cool! Like after the Auntie Ethel debauchle, if Korilla was just leaning against the wall in the other room and mentions how "My boss Raphael could have this sorted out in a jiff if you'd just let him.", and also would act as a decent foil to him with her more muted, less theatrical personality. It's an easy way to keep Raphael relevant to the story without cheapening his actual appearances.


I honestly hope you have a most marvelous day!
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2020
Location: Boston , MA
Originally Posted by Dexai
The worst thing about Raphael is the "What's better than a devil you don't know? A devil you do" line. And it's presented as if it's clever. Awful.

Oh gosh, yes. Between all his terrible lines, this is the worst.

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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