Diablo 3 looks just like it should. Stunning.
Everything I've seen today about D3 has got me interested. I'm a fan of D2, played it in battle.net a great number of times and it kept me consistently entertained, be it the loot grabbing rushes or the neverending hordes of demons getting their ass kicked by my party.
But it was never my favorite game. It lacked dialogue, it lacked branching paths. The story was nice, but it always took backstage to the mayhem. You'd get rewarded with gorgeous cinematics, and then you'd move on to the next chapter, finishing those quests any battle.net diehard knows by heart. It got repetitive, but the skill tree, the bosses, the hundreds of items and gems and socketed items made it interesting, and the random maps kept the experience from becoming dull.
Diablo 2. Besides the change to 3d of Diablo 3, can you spot any difference?
And now we got D3. It looks the same as D2 and D1. Two orbs. Mouse clicking. Iconic classes. It looks gorgeous as well. Using the same isometric (sic) perspective. And from what I can see, people are lapping it up. People are loving it, me included. Why? Well I guess it's reassuring to see a team that is made up of several different members from D2's team (even though it's still Blizzard) behind the steering wheel of this game, and how they managed to make the game be like what Diablo III SHOULD be like, in the hearts of fans and gamers in general.
All of this disturbs me. Why? Because I'm a fan of another franchise. One where action takes a sidestep into turn-based chaos, and dialog, options, different routes, take the center stage. A game whose setting was, and still is, unique.
You may know the series called Fallout. But what the gamewebs and the magazines and the boards are feeding you, isn't what Fallout is. That's a definition I'll leave for the fans of the franchise, known throughout the net as the most rabid fans there are, "glittering gems of hatred" as one has called them.
Oblivion's speech wheel: it makes absolutely no sense.
What made me think about Fallout is that now its being handled by what I consider to be some of the worst collection of developers in this gaming age. They bring out Oblivion, with it's clunky AI, the lack of proper dialog options, the laughable speech skill, the poor combat, the repetitve content (caverns and caverns and caverns and THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME!), and everybody applauds them as the saviours of the RPG genre.
Fallout 2. Oh, how I remember the days...
They decided to scrap turn based, scrap the isometric perspective of Fallout, and are basically modding their Oblivion game with new textures, models and weapons, turning it into, you know it, Oblivion with Guns. And everybody is lauding them for it. No one is recognizing their lack of creativity and courage to bring out Fallout 3 as a turn based isometric rpg. Instead, most people are accepting their excuse that Fallout was only originally like that because of "technological impairments at the time".
So what is it Bethesda? Do you think Blizzard doesn't have the resources to pull of a Diablo III in full 3d mode, with a third person perspective? They tried something like that with StarCraft: Ghost, and when they realized it wasn't working out, they abandoned that concept. Now we have StarCraft 2, completely recognizable as a true sequel to the first RTS gem, and Diablo 3 which is shaping up to be exactly what the fans were clamoring for.
Here's how Bethesda is honoring the franchise. By using the vault suit. If it wasn't there, would you recognize this as Fallout?
Before Bethesda unleashed their screenshots and their trailer, I still held hope that they would create a new engine, and shower us with isometric turn based goodness. But I was wrong.
It would take Blizzard to show them how to do a proper sequel.
But now it's too late.
(# 0) on 06/28/2008 13:20
Bethesda took Fallout under it's wing, so why can't it treat it like Fallout and not Oblivion. For god sake's just because they make games in first person it's automatically an excuse to not even try and make a decent sequel? Take note Bethesda, Blizzard does RPG's, MMO's AND RTS's !! 3 Styles! FP might work for the Elder Scrolls Series (Because thats how they have always been!!) but it doesn't work for Fallout!!
(# 1) on 06/28/2008 13:48
(# 2) on 06/28/2008 14:10
I'm alright with Diablo 3, but it IS basically the same as the other Diablos, with a few new things. I think that's why the fans eat it up, so they'll have some new stuff, but because everything's the same as the others, so it's basically the older game, but more refreshed.
However, The Elder Scrolls series have changed from an FPRPG to an FPS, which could have turned otu for better or for worse.
Fallout, is going through the same treatment, rather than being the same with a few extra bits.
ಠ_ಠ
Done opinioning.
(# 3) on 06/28/2008 14:17
I just think this is hilarious. I'm eager to see what they do, either way I know it's not going to fail considering it's a series that's loved by many people. Bethesda wouldn't allow it to totally flop.
(# 4) on 06/28/2008 14:23
-Diablo is a straight up hack and slash.
-Fallout is about a story and role playing a character.
So in other words Diablo 3 can get the simple 3d update and barely change because if you change anything about that (like the perspective or controls or something), it is no longer the same game. Diablo is ALL about the combat so the most important part about it is the combat and it can't really change.
On the other hand, the combat in Fallout is just one part of many things that make up a Fallout game. To me the story, the interaction with NPCs, the ability to go about things as you wish and having options to a goal are what's most important when making a Fallout game and the transition to this new 3D engine will better serve ALL of those than the iso view ever could. The turn based combat I could take or leave as long as the new one isn't an action fest (which according to people who've actually played it it's not).
So yeah, two different beasts. If all you cared about was the combat in Fallout than I understand, but I personally don't think that's what defines the series. What I feel is really important to the series, from all accounts of people that have played it, is being addressed so I'm confident I'm going to enjoy it when it comes out (both of these games actually).
(# 5) on 06/28/2008 14:26
(# 6) on 06/28/2008 14:31
(# 7) on 06/28/2008 14:56
Sacrificing Fallout's combat isn't something that should be seen as trivial, because it was strategic, it was funny, it had a point, and it was different. It's part of the package. Part of why the game was created, starting of as a GURPS PC adaptation and then growing to become the SPECIAL system.
Bethesda claims to be using the SPECIAL system, but how can that be, if it's applied in a first person or third person perspective, in real time? They gutted the AP (action points), heart of Fallout's combat, into the hackneyed VATS system.
Yes, it might be early to judge. But it's the right time to lament how much developpers these days are afraid of pushing ideas that are different from the current status-quo, even a company that could take a chance like Bethesda.
As for the roleplaying, dialog options and strong story, that's independent from viewpoint or combat. What I advocate is the same respect to the Fallout series as a whole, rather than simply transplanting its shinier bits into the same old game that we see everyday: the first person / third person shooter.
(# 8) on 06/28/2008 14:57
The fact that to convince a person you had to make him laugh/admire/boast is ridiculous to me, I mean who the hell thinks up that kind of system. Fallout 3 was known for having great dialogue, full of options and level stat checks, a system that puts much of the new games to shame.
It's true that whilst I haven't played the game as of yet, I still have my doubts that Bethesda will do a good job, I hope I'm wrong because nothing would please me more than play a great fallout game again...
(# 9) on 06/28/2008 15:01
I should really start proof reading my stuff.
"Fallout* was known for having great dialogue..."
(# 10) on 06/28/2008 15:17
But nevertheless I had tons of fun with it, and the Diablo 3 announcement made my pants tight.
When it comes to Fallout 3, when I heard that Bethesda was developing it, I became sceptic.
I hope they dont fuck this up like they fucked up Oblivion.
(# 11) on 06/28/2008 15:28
I think you're giving the combat waaaay too much importance. Was it fun? Sure, but I don't feel like it was so integral that it couldn't be changed. I understand wanting the strategic-ness of the older games and I'm sure that will be sacrificed to an extent with the move to real time but I don't think we've seen enough to judge how much. I don't see why the VATS system could be considered hackneyed either when for all intents and purposes it is basically the action points system. It's just confined to the targeting and attacking now.
I also find it weird that you down Bethesda for doing the same old same old by making another third person game while simultaneously demanding just a 3D update to the original. What boundaries are they going to push by keeping the game the same as it ever was? This is technically way more ambitious than just gussying up the original with prettier graphics.
@cookiemonster
I won't deny that the Oblivion speech thing was a bit ridiculous and I'm also not going to call Oblivion the most perfect game ever but the word is that this isn't just Oblivion with guns. Obviously there are similarities but from what I've seen and what people have played it are saying is that they've learned a lot from their mistakes on Oblivion and a lot of those problems are going to be addressed. Just going off what I've seen and read, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and consider Oblivion a learning experience. We'll see though.
(# 12) on 06/28/2008 16:26
Contrary to what you might think, Bethesda Softworks makes some really innovative and fantastic games. I've always felt that the Elder Scrolls series were the pinnacle of the western RPG genre.
Many people, and you seem to be among them, simply do not enjoy that style of gaming- which is just fine. But to say that Bethesda is a bad developer is completely outlandish.
If you didn't like what they did with Oblivion, maybe you should try Call of Cthulu. It's a fantastic older game. You can pick it up for around $15 (US).
In the end, no one is forcing you to play Fallout 3 and you have absolutely no say in its development process. I'd suggest just playing through the first two again if you're not satisfied with its new direction.
(# 13) on 06/28/2008 17:16
"What boundaries are they going to push by keeping the game the same as it ever was? This is technically way more ambitious than just gussying up the original with prettier graphics."
Although I understand your point when you say that, the problem with today's PC gaming is exactly the fact that almost every single big company game is a first-(or third)person-something. I'll give you a simple example: super-hero-movie games. spiderman is exactly the same game than batman begins, wich is exactly the same than hulk, or ironman, or transformers. 3rd-personing away, using the spiderweb/batrope/hulkjump/rocketpack and webbing/batpunching/hulkpunching/energypunching the generic enemies.
I know, I know. You can say that super-hero-movie games are the bottom of the barrel in terms of PC (or console) gaming. However, there is obviously a lack of originality in most games today. Specially technical originality, as if the fact of a game not include some sort of "free-but-not-much-roaming-3dworld-to-walk-around-in-firstperson-thirperson-mode" will automaticaly be left at the shelfs by the buying masses.
So, IMO, "updating" Fallout to the XXI century 3d-something-person-prespective isn't an exercise in originality (or technical ambition). I don't understand why there aren't more 2D games nowadays. Or games than use some original (and daring) mechanisms.
Although keeping the look of fallout3 more closely related to fallout1 might be seen as some sort of "stagnation", "copying", "laziness", the thing is that fallout1, with all its shortcomings and "technical defects", its still a more original, unique and innovative game than fallout3 will ever be.
I don't blame it entirely on Bethesda. After all, the gaming (not just PC) market jumped from a "geeky hobby" to a multi-billion-bigger-than-Hollywood industry, so its only natural than companies don't want to risk that much (just like in the movie business).
Keeping the movies analogy, it's almost as if they were planning a sequel to "Memento", "Memento 2", staring Tom Cruise, Eva Longoria, the kid from transformers and (of course) Ben Kingsley, and having an "action-summer-blockbuster" feel to it.
Just my 2-cents (more like 2000 cents ehehe sorry for the rant)
(# 14) on 06/28/2008 17:21
(# 15) on 06/28/2008 17:39
"Although keeping the look of fallout3 more closely related to fallout1 might be seen as some sort of "stagnation", "copying", "laziness", the thing is that fallout1, with all its shortcomings and "technical defects", its still a more original, unique and innovative game than fallout3 will ever be."
And that's where we're just going to have to disagree. Yes the first two Fallouts were original but making practically the same exact game 3 times is not. I think I can safely say that this version of Fallout 3 will be 10x more original than a carbon copy of the old games would have been. Honestly the 3rd person perspective is the most effective perspective in this situation so why shy away from it just because there are a lot of other games that use it? The reason a lot of other games use it is because it works.
(# 16) on 06/28/2008 17:45
Well, feel free to correct me but one of the things I loved best about those games was that they were FUCKING HILARIOUS. Seriously, fetching an 'adult' magazine for an old aged zombie then being sent on a quest to find him a blow up doll to relieve his frustration? Being a 'fluffer' on a movie set for money and getting a disease from the star? Meh, I stopped looking forward to Oblivion: Nuclear edition a long time ago.
(# 17) on 06/28/2008 17:47
Infact, from the gameplay trailer that we got I'm a little afraid for it. Sure it looks great, but the gameplay seems slower and almost too easy. The biggest thing that will take Diablo 3 down is if it gets dumbed down for the WoW masses that now worship Blizzard.
The Oblivion wheel while it didn't make much sense was a fine and seamless addition to the game. You didn't even have to use it if you didn't want to, so saying Oblivion was anything less then the best in the franchise so far would be a complete lie.
(# 18) on 06/28/2008 17:57
Bethesda hates the fans, they want to create a new fanbase (which will consist mainly of oblivion whores), simultaneously destroying the old one.
A recycled retextured oblivion isnt what Ive been waiting for. Apparently they lack the skill to create anything slightly different from oblivion. They must think Im fucking braindead. Maybe Ill give it a download, I have the perfect excuse: "Otherwise I wouldn't have bought it anyway". Flawless.
Epic fail bethesda, epic fail.
(# 19) on 06/28/2008 18:09
"And that's where we're just going to have to disagree."
So we agree to disagree, that's a healthy start ;)
"Yes the first two Fallouts were original but making practically the same exact game 3 times is not."
Yes, you are right about it. Churning out carbon-copy-sequels is not such an original idea, that's for sure. When I said that a "fallout1-ish" fallout3 would be more original, unique and innovative than a 3rd-person-ish, I meant it in context with games today.
Of course that "carbon-copy" a game (even if its a good copy), is not that much original. The thing is that today, among the FPS, the FPRPGS, the GTA-Clones and all that, using a "carbon-copy" of something that seems so out of place, can eventually lead to something really original and unique.
Just an example: Super Paper Mario for the Wii. It starts by "carbon-copying" something that is out of place today (2D, old-school-platforming-Marios) and gives it some neat twists, taking advantages of today's technology. You might argue that that doesn't make it any better, or that a lousy game will be lousy no matter the "gimmicks". But one thing is for sure: Super Paper Mario *is* unique and original.
Another quick example: most of Sonic sequels. The truth is that sonic has a ton of lousy, weird and just plain crappy sequels. And why might that be? IMO, the developers strayed too much from the fundamentals of Sonic, both technically and "spiritually". A gun yielding Sonic is not sonic at all. And some of those sequels used the methods and techniques that "just worked" with the other games of their age.
We definitely live in the age of 3d-someperson-everything. Its ok, and most of the time it works. I'm a die-hard FPS fan, so I love the evolutions that we've been having on that field. But there is still plenty of room for developers that "thing outside the box", that try and break free from the technical shackles that we have today. The "wii paradox" (how can a console with hardware from the previous generation and a couple of gimmicks outsell dramatically the xbox360 and ps3 powerhouses) confirms this perfectly.
(# 20) on 06/28/2008 18:16
Fallout is the perfect "indie", "underdog" franchise, and that's why I agree that fallout3 will not appeal to old fans at all. It doesn't need the latest state-of-the-art graphics and methods, because its strength is not there.
Its strength is in a very very good environment, a very evolving storyline, huge amounts of attention to detail, and not necessarily on how many AA passes my PC will handle before I have to turn down the detail settings. That, I just leave to my gorgeous, no-brains, fun-as-hell Crysis ;)
(# 21) on 06/28/2008 18:26
I could argue though that series like Super Mario and Legend of Zelda are both proof that a drastic alteration of game play can be done while maintaining the spirit though. It's a gamble and in the end it might not pay off but we'll just have to wait and see.
(# 22) on 06/28/2008 18:40
I'll no doubt be picking both up eventually, but personally Diablo was a game i liked joining in after it had been out for a while.
(# 23) on 06/28/2008 21:10
(# 24) on 06/29/2008 07:24
@Rucksack:
When a developer promises and fails to deliver, that makes them a poor developer in my book. All the hype surrounding Oblivion made it seem like a game wrought by the gaming gods themselves. In the end? We got pretty graphics, awful AI, awful levelling system (coupled with the boring monsters-at-your-level-thingy), repetitive quests and guilds, a poor main story, a horrible dialog system, repetitive locations, loads everywhere you'd go. I'd say the only good thing about Oblivion is the horse riding. Too bad every location looks too dull to make the riding interesting.
Regarding people's arguments of the Fallout series needing a change before being brought back: have any of you played Fallout Tactics or Fallout Brotherhood of Steel? Tactics introduced real time and real time with pause gameplay to the series to disastrous and chaotic effect. Brotherhood of Steel, POS as it is known by the fans, is just bad. Two attempts at a sequel, both failling tremendously, with the fans from the start of their development, with everyone else when it got out.
So no, I don't think the Fallout series needs a change. It needs to go back to its roots. We already have too many games like that. Not every game needs to be a third person something, like X-Tremis said. Fallout definitely didn't need this. It needed respect for the game as a whole, and not just the better parts. I've seen a lot of opinions regarding Diablo 3's announcement. One idea stuck in my mind: "Don't change what worked so well previously". Both Fallout's were considered RPG's of the Year when they came out. They are always in Best 100 Games lists.
Do you think that was just based on its setting? There are games with great settings and systems but awful gameplay that makes them unplayable. Fallout isn't that kind of a game series.
Too bad the media is already making the old games seem like gems stuck in a technological trap that prevented them from being all that they could. And then we have the poorly researched articles that give credit to Bethesda for the setting.
Let's get this straight: there are no turn based isometric roleplaying games nowadays. Making one TODAY would be original. Making Fallout 3 one, would be original and gutsy.
I'm glad Blizzard is taking Diablo 3 this way.
(# 25) on 06/29/2008 14:40
I'd be interested in exploring a wasteland and ruins with many hot zones the player needs to avoid. Exploring should be a dangerious task undertaken best with a geiger counter, protective clothes, or a big supply of Rad-X.
DynamicSheep said:
I'm interested in this "Oblivion with Guns" you speak of. Is it a mod? Will I have to get a patch for the PC version, or will XBL offer DLC for teh guns?
It's a standalone expansion. You'll have to buy it just like any other game.
GuitarAtomik said:
I think I can safely say that this version of Fallout 3 will be 10x more original than a carbon copy of the old games would have been.
How very insightful of you: A carbon copy is completely unoriginal by definition.
It's also a strawman because noone asked for a carbon copy. Then again, you're clearly willing to pretend that anything short of completely changing the gameplay is a carbon copy. No, I'm not willing to debate with you. You're a man of straw, deserving only of the torch.
Timmeh said:
I remember an interview with someone from Bethesda earlier on in development where the subject of the humour found in Fallout 1/2 was discussed. I can't find it now but I recall reading that they weren't fans of all that humor and stuff in the old gamse and didn't think it would fit with their style etc.
I don't remember that, but I do remember that Bethesda's examples of "Fallout humor" were always very juvenile, consisting mostly of sex and cursing, and sometimes gore. I'll give them gore, but then Fallout at least had beautifully crafted death animations and I've yet to see any indication that Fallout 3 can achieve a similar level of detail.
(# 26) on 06/29/2008 17:44
Weeeh! D3 <3!:D
(# 27) on 06/29/2008 21:39
The problem is that the ones leading these companies aren't gamers, but businessmen. Blizzard hit the bull's eye with WOW, and has tons of credits, so the teams are given more of a freehand.
D3 is looking good ... characters seem to get more of a personality. I dont't think it will get close to D1's feeling, but most certainly will tremple over D2 in any way.
(# 28) on 06/30/2008 03:28
(# 29) on 06/30/2008 19:56
My last point is this one. When was the last time you went to leave your house only to find that you suddenly had panned out and you were controlling yourself in a third person perspective? It's called the suspension of disbelief people. The purpose of the First Person camera in any game is the sense of truly immersive totality in your environment, giving you the sense that you ARE that character. His movements, his choices, his actions, they are an extension of the person behind it. YOU. That's the very definition of progress. But then again maybe that's why a bunch of you are already whining. The thought of having to be yourself in a video game must suck for a lot of you. And this was my favorite.
"Although keeping the look of fallout3 more closely related to fallout1 might be seen as some sort of "stagnation", "copying", "laziness", the thing is that fallout1, with all its shortcomings and "technical defects", its still a more original, unique and innovative game than fallout3 will ever be."
So you've beta tested it? Played through the whole game? Explored every conceivable ending? Didn't think so. And BTW kid, more and more games feature an "open world" because that's kind of like the one we live in. I can't say that I have ever found myself waking up with a nice neat stack of mission objectives, and a sweet compass icon looming over my head, with only a pre-set string of buildings guiding me to my destination. If that were the case, going to MC Donalds would be pretty ridiculous. I'll finish my rant with this bulletproof example.
When Bioshock was announced. "WTF?!?! System Shock 1&2 was the greatest!!! How can they do this?!?!? System Shock underwater with magic?? No thanks!!!"
Then the game came out, and every single last one of you bought it, played the hell out of it, and loved it.
I'm not saying Fallout 3 is going to be great. I'm not saying it's going to be bad. But I am saying this. In an age where the PC game is dying off because of console accessibility, and piracy, don't you think that the PC Gaming community as a whole should be doing more to not shoot itself in the foot like this?
Don't judge a book by it's cover
rageofthebooking@gmail.com
myspace.com/ninjacpu
(# 30) on 06/30/2008 22:22
Blizzard didn't took 5 years, this is a brand new team, and they worked only for a couple of months on it.
well thumbs up for the generalisations, you are trully clairvoyant
thanks for the insults also, they turned out good, but lack originality.
see ya on myspace , say hi to Tom
(# 31) on 06/30/2008 22:32
August 1, 2005. Blizzard North closed, employees offered severance or a transfer to Blizzard's Irvine HQs. The one remaining ongoing project (universally presumed to be Diablo III) put on hold pending a thorough review. (Almost all of the work done by Blizzard North is eventually tossed and development is essentially begun from scratch by a new team at Blizzard Irvine.)
(# 32) on 07/01/2008 03:44
Bioshock was a success, and it was a great game. You know what changed in gameplay from System Shock 2? Hell, even in terms of story progression. You know what changed? The setting. And they simplified the inventory for all you console kiddies that can't play with your thumbs unless they're stuck to a control pad. The rest? It's pure System Shock 2. The way the bad guys were revealed, the eerie feeling of dread, character progression with earned points, audio logs all over the place, an ominent presence talking to you throughout the whole game, and you barely saw people alive. And ghosts. All of this was in the original.
So don't go using Bioshock as an example, especially since Bioshock was produced and developed by many of the same people of System Shock 2, hell, it was the same COMPANY, wouldn't you know?
If Fallout 3 would be a saviour of PC gaming as you seem to imply, then Bethesda should take the Blizzard route and do a console only game. We already know that the game will have many flaws due to its consolization. It happened with Oblivion. With Deus Ex: Invisible War. With Thief 3. So it's nothing new. Bioshock surpassed that problem with teams dedicated to the UI of the PC version. Even Mass Effect's port failed in that aspect.
In an age of console sticks, Blizzard went and brought back our mouse as the primary means of control. That's awesome. Now go back to your open world games.
(# 33) on 07/01/2008 03:49
(# 34) on 07/01/2008 08:34
((They bring out Oblivion, with it's clunky AI))
AI in fallout was non-existent
((the lack of proper dialog options))
EXACTLY the same dialog tree setup in Fallout
((the laughable speech skill))
As opposed to just checking against a stat? At least they made it interesting
((the poor combat))
Not sure what you consider "poor" about it...
((the repetitive content (caverns and caverns and caverns and THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME!))
As opposed to Fallout, where every vault looked the same, every town looked the same, etc... right.
(# 35) on 07/02/2008 11:15
I'll completely peg my age here, and I liked Fallout as much as the next guy, and got some enjoyment out of Fallout 2, but I always preferred Wasteland. 90% of Fallout (the post-apocalyptic setting, mutated/irradiated monsters, robots, skill trees, guns/explosives, witty/adult humor, religious zealots (anyone remember the Citadel?)... everything was cribbed directly from Interplay's Wasteland, with the main difference being 'yet another veneer of shiny graphics' (tm).
Ah well. Here's to hoping that Bethesda borrows more from Wasteland than Fallout (yeah, fat chance).
(# 36) on 07/02/2008 12:23
I find it hilarious how you completely missed the point of the article.
The point he is trying to make is, Bethesda stated that they were taking the fallout franchise into a whole new direction give it a new fresh perspective if you will. "Innovation" was the buzz word they gave it!
Which on it's own is already complete bullshit (Proof DIABLO 3!!!), how many true CRPG's do you have in this day in age compared to WW2 shooters and GTA clones?
Another point I find hilarious is the fact that we are condemned and judged because we want more of the same. I agree that evolution and new things are great, but then why did Bethesda pick an already proven franchise (not to mention with pretty rabid fans)? And not create something new? (I can already see the "Because they already have a fan base to work around" reply).
Another point you take is immersion, the perspective doesn't affect immersion what so ever in a CRPG. You know what does? Good fuckin' writing thats what! (Go play Planescape Torment if you need any proof).
The argument of isometric (or a still camera in a 3d environment or whatever you want to call it) is simply for the tactical combat elements that fallout presented and that old school game play that some of us wish we could replay in an age filled with first person and third person action games.
Is that too much to ask really? Probably it is to some of you...Anyway I'm done ranting.
(# 37) on 08/26/2008 05:23
Saggo
http://www.diablo3x.com
(# 38) on 08/31/2008 00:37