Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Back to the OP's question, on my end I feel I need to give Deadfire another go to properly answer this, as I've only played it once back in its vanilla, pre-2.0 form and not following the DLC content and the likes. As it is, I have pretty different appreciations for both: I feel Pillars is more in line with what I like to see Obsidian tackle, i.e. a more thematically heavy game that isn't afraid of opting for weirder or more oneiric approaches to a particular setting or genre. I feel a very distinct Mask of the Betrayer-esque feel to it that I feel is often quite particular of Obsidian games and which no other company really delves into, at least with the degree of success they do. Deadfire I feel isn't as evocative when it tries to get weird and also didn't quite tickle my mind to the degree Pillars did, so to speak, and as part of a greater "franchise" narrative it did feel like it was content with being more of a bridge between two beefier and more interesting episodes in the saga. But on the other hand, as a more freeform adventure filled with its own specific conflicts regarding colonialist tensions, a "Dorado" fever and so on, it was hugely immersive and enjoyable as well. I recall that at some point Pillars was described in its KS campaign to be a game with the scope of adventure of the Baldur's Gate saga, the dungeon-crawl depth of Icewind Dale and narrative and thematic ambitions of Planescape: Torment, and in some way it does resemble what a hybrid between all these three sagas would look like; Deadfire on the other hand seemed to pick one of these aspects and double down on it, and in doing so turned out to be what in my opinion is the closest a game since Baldur's Gate II has come to being its actual spiritual successor, with an insanely rich world and a seemingly endless offer of quests and side-adventures, many of them as beefy and involving as the likes of a Cult of the Eyeless or de'Arnise invasion. This one kind of experience it aims to offer, to me it executes far better than any of its predecessors, be they direct or spiritual, did, and that probably makes it into the better game - but it is all slightly bittersweet as I feel I'd rather have had the saga double down on a different aspect instead, and left this sort of straight-forward adventure sprawl to the likes of a Pathfinder or Divinity instead.

 

So with all of this said, I right now feel Deadfire might be the better game, but I don't feel I enjoy it quite in the same ways I do Pillars, so both have room with me.

 

Some other more minor preferences for one or the other:

 

  • The visual approach to Deadfire is not just a step up in terms of graphics or being more aesthetically pleasing, it's stunning to see how much they *tell* of the setting, the factions and characters and the conflicts between them. The approach to every single faction, be it the more lavish and ostentatious Vailians, the very stripped-down and functional Rauataiians, the exotic Huana where the rudimentary present and some thriving cultural past meet and blend, all this speaks volumes of the intentions, values and attitudes of each culture without even needing to ask anyone about them, and their usual juxtaposition is vibrant but at the same time paints a picture of how tense and uncongenial their co-existence proves to be. Pillars looked lovely itself of course but the visuals were never quite this expressive or crucial to the overall storytelling, in what is a product of an audiovisual medium.
  • Despite some wonderful maps and specific dungeons in Deadfire, I by and large preferred Pillars' approach to the same, giving greater predominance to large unique exteriors and dungeons instead of smaller bite-sized areas which often be cookie-cutter to contain otherwise 'unique' encounters. I don't believe this sort of exploration feels as organic, immersive or rewarding as a more hands-on exploration of larger areas insted. Meanwhile I will also agree with other complaints about the dungeons feeling often a little thin - even the allegedly "beefier" dungeons the likes of Drowned Barrows, Oathbound Sanctum or Splintered Reef felt somewhat shorter and less eventful than the likes of a Temple of Eothas or Dyrford Ruins. And much like I criticized Pathfinder: Kingmaker about this too, I *hate* the fact that we do not get to see the exterior to several of the dungeons present in Deadfire either (granted, however, Deadfire did at least make the effort of introducing each through their own specific scripted interactions) - to go back to visual storytelling, seeing the place you are entering can do a *lot* to enhancing its allure, be it by making it look mysterious, epic, creepy and so on. One of the more memorable dungeons in Deadfire has this precisely: the Poko Kohara ruins. The massive construction you are about to enter to find the adra pillar within is one that immediately hooks you due to its very ancient, mysterious and grand look. The aforementioned Oathbound Sanctum could have been *much* more had we managed to *see* the pyramid instead of just reading about it.
  • Pillars did a much better job with the companions than Deadfire did, no doubt about it. Deadfire is not without its positives in this regard, but whilst somewhat interesting in theory it ultimately didn't feel like the relationship system worked to its favour at all, instead reducing each character and their reactions to a pretty strict set of quirks or traits that, in injurai's words, only served to flanderize the characters. Moreover I feel the first Pillars did a much better job at creating characters that themselves added an interesting perspective on the central conflicts, and also had pretty interesting and concise arcs through which they also experienced a transformation and so on. In comparison, a few of the companions in Deadfire felt like they added very little to the story, their arcs seemed very scant and pointless, and didn't feel like they ultimately experienced any change. Yes, I'm looking specifically at you, Maia.
  • Stealth in Deadfire was *awesome*. Not only was it extremely fun to use, I also loved the fact that it allowed for more options to resolve quests that didn't merely involve dialogue options or straight combat. I loved the fact that in the events I *did* resolve such quests by stealthing about, the game recognized my actions too. More of this is always welcome, and it's a great part of why I consider Deadfire the first game to actually do Baldur's Gate II better than Baldur's Gate II.

 

Pretty sure I'm forgetting other minute comparisons between the two, but these are my thoughts at the moment anyhow.

  • Like 3

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Fallout 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pillars of Eternity 1 was far more engaging in story and the overall adventure. I also found the npc's more interesting as well. The world had more allure.

 

Pillars of Eternity 2 is far more interesting when it comes to combat, so I play that more than 1. Unfortunately the story and everything else is not very good. I don't like the world, the adventuring, I dislike most of the companions and the story and its delivery is very poorly done.

Edited by AeonsLegend
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

algroth, I think you're overplaying the importance of the change aspect in the companions a bit. I mean, it's a well-known psychological fact that very few people undergo any significant changes in adulthood. For example, the general happiness level of almost everyone undergoes a great change if they win the lottery or lose a limb, but after approximately six months it is, astonishingly enough, back at the old base line.

 

However, I do agree that the companion quests could have been a lot more interesting and contained more narrative surprises. Were there even any?

Link to post
Share on other sites

algroth, I think you're overplaying the importance of the change aspect in the companions a bit. I mean, it's a well-known psychological fact that very few people undergo any significant changes in adulthood. For example, the general happiness level of almost everyone undergoes a great change if they win the lottery or lose a limb, but after approximately six months it is, astonishingly enough, back at the old base line.

 

However, I do agree that the companion quests could have been a lot more interesting and contained more narrative surprises. Were there even any?

 

People don't necessarily change, but characters do. I think it's pretty crucial to see a way in which a character is affected by the decisions we've made and the things they've done through their own personal quests and they way they've interacted with the story and game in general. This is a fundamental aspect in storytelling and character design, whether or not it alligns with psychology studies on real human beings.

 

 

With regards to surprises, I can count the revelation in Aloth's personal quest, where we see Thaos at play and so on. There's revelations in other quests but I don't feel any of them were necessarily surprising, memorable or that relevant ultimately. Maia's questline is probably the worst because it does manage to have a half-shocking revelation at the end of it, and yet even after confronting Maia about the fact, even after helping her out with her doubts regarding the ethics of her actions and so on, we are *not* able to influence her position on the matter in a way that is reflected by her response or actions in the rest of the game and so - regardless of choice and outcome - nothing is learned, nothing changes and the whole endeavour is ultimately pointless and unsatisfying.

 

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Fallout 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

algroth, I think you're overplaying the importance of the change aspect in the companions a bit. I mean, it's a well-known psychological fact that very few people undergo any significant changes in adulthood. For example, the general happiness level of almost everyone undergoes a great change if they win the lottery or lose a limb, but after approximately six months it is, astonishingly enough, back at the old base line.

 

However, I do agree that the companion quests could have been a lot more interesting and contained more narrative surprises. Were there even any?

 

People don't necessarily change, but characters do. I think it's pretty crucial to see a way in which a character is affected by the decisions we've made and the things they've done through their own personal quests and they way they've interacted with the story and game in general. This is a fundamental aspect in storytelling and character design, whether or not it alligns with psychology studies on real human beings.

 

yeah, like lesson #1 about storytelling is having a character arc. you can try to make a point in a story by having a character with no arc, but that pretty much has to be the point, otherwise it's a story with no meaningful impact or progression.

 

we as real people may change far less than we might hope, but ahem this is why people also like to participate in storytelling and mythmaking.

Edited by thelee
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So now, and honest question arising from curiosity: do you consider that any of the characters change meaningfully in PoE?

 

I haven't seen all of their quests to the end, but I don't think they do. However, I would say that some of them have very satisfying character arcs. Eder and Sagani in particular. Aloth would also, except for the fact that the choice you make in the very end appears to have no consequences (correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that it doesn't really matter what you choose at the end of the examinations in the sanitarium). So Aloth is left hanging in the air a bit.

 

In BG2, only Viconia and Sarevok have potential for real change (Anomen to a lesser extent), but nearly all NPCs have excellent character arcs. Yoshimo is superb. Edwin is hopelessly unsatisfactory.

Edited by xzar_monty
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So now, and honest question arising from curiosity: do you consider that any of the characters change meaningfully in PoE?

 

I haven't seen all of their quests to the end, but I don't think they do. However, I would say that some of them have very satisfying character arcs. Eder and Sagani in particular. Aloth would also, except for the fact that the choice you make in the very end appears to have no consequences (correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that it doesn't really matter what you choose at the end of the examinations in the sanitarium). So Aloth is left hanging in the air a bit.

 

In BG2, only Viconia and Sarevok have potential for real change (Anomen to a lesser extent), but nearly all NPCs have excellent character arcs. Yoshimo is superb. Edwin is hopelessly unsatisfactory.

 

depends on your definition of "meaningful" I guess.

 

possible spoilers (all these assume you actually do their quests):

1. Grieving Mother, yes, significantly.

2. Durance, hell yes, significantly.

 

probably no coincidence that both GM and Durance have companion quests that largely run through conversation with them. they're basically short stories.

 

3. Maneha, yes, but in a "cheat" sense (i.e. basically amnesia)

4. Devil of Caroc, yes

5. Zahua - honestly I didn't even know he had a quest (I thought he was basically a "sidekick") until Deadfire came out and I was building a custom history to import and saw decisions to make about Zahua's fate. whoops. shows how you could play for hundreds of hours and still miss something obvious.

6. Hiravias - yes

7. Kana Rua - eh, not really. this is more of an "ending slides" kind of character arc which is a cheat.

8. Eder - I would actually consider him also a "not really" and more an "ending slides" change. Though in this case I thought the lack of resolution and change in his quest to be the point of his narrative.

9. Sagani - yes, potentially a lot depending on how you resolve her quest

10. Aloth - yes (but also heavily weighted towards ending slides).

 

edit - Yoshimo? Really? He dies!

 

edit 2 - are you talking about "meaningful" from a gameplay perspective (both Viconia and Sarevok can change alignment, so can Anomen (and iirc Anomen can also lose or gain stats)? Then no, unless you count importing effects into Deadfire. Personally I think real gameplay impact from character arcs to be suboptimal, because then that encourages metagaming personal quests for particular outcomes. which doesn't seem great

Edited by thelee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that a lot hinges on the definition of "meaningful". My understanding is that our general sense is not that different, we simply have a different idea of what is meant by this "meaningful" change. A lot of the time, the way I see it, a character arc is not so much about changing, rather the character becomes more clearly what they were in the beginning, i.e. their main characteristics are tested and therefore honed (hopefully) as the story unfolds. Sam is a classic example of this in LotR. In the end, he is what he was in the beginning, only a lot more so -- he is the same but from the point of view of experience, not innocence or ignorance anymore. (Frodo does change, though.)

 

Durance was a very interesting one for me: because the game was so easy that I didn't need to camp in the wilderness, I never got to the end of his quest. (I understand it was precisely sleeping in the wilderness that triggered his dialogues.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So now, and honest question arising from curiosity: do you consider that any of the characters change meaningfully in PoE?

 

I do. To use the examples you gave, Edér at the start of the game is troubled by the rumours regarding his brother and the side he chose in the Saint's War - this is a crucial element to his story that causes him to doubt his faith and what he believed to be right throughout his life and when he took part in that conflict. Woden acted as that beacon of righteousness for him, and he fully believed he'd taken arms against Waidwen, decrying him as someone usurping Eothas' name. Throughout his storyline we learn more about what Woden did, we learn he indeed took Waidwen's side, and the question becomes "why". By the end an actual answer remains elusive (as do many for many other companions in the game) - but through our reflections with Edér and through what we learn of Eothas, the Saint's War, the Hollowborn plague and so on, Edér's faith can change pretty radically, from gaining an appreciation and growing closer to the core beliefs of a faith, be it Eothasian or in general, to changing his faith to a more humanist one and so on. The change doesn't radically alter who Edér is, but by the end of the game the doubts and concerns he had about Woden are gone and his moral drive is also now up to him and not up to what Woden would have done, so to speak.

 

Likewise, Sagani's arc is based on a conflict between on the one hand her role as a huntress fulfilling the traditions and duty for her community, and that of a mother and head of family tying her back to her home and so on - many conversations with her delve with the duality between the importance of her hunt keeping her in foreign lands for several years, and the yearning of seeing her family again and so on. Again, through your responses and "guidance" you eventually determine which side or concern is ultimately stronger for her, and it has a huge impact on what happens to her once she heads back to Naasitaq.

 

Aloth's changes are also pretty huge throughout, be it in his relationship with Iselmyr and what it sort of represents to him, his relationship to the Leaden Key and so on. With regards to the events at the Sanitarium, to me it's not so important that the game doesn't specifically change following that event - or at least I haven't noticed any response or action on his behalf change based upon the decisions we make there. But it is important to me in the way it informs from a narrative standpoint the way that he is in later moments in the game, so that when we finally confront Thaos directly and he gets his moment to spout something back at him, even if those same words would have been said by Aloth regardless of how we played out the previous sequence, to those who would encourage him to learn a bit more from Iselmyr it'd be a satisfying moment where he's standing up and trying to assume a more authoritative stance.

 

To me each ot the character in the original Pillars had similar situations arising from pretty clear conflicts. In Deadfire those conflicts seem often more distant, or less relevant somehow. I'm far less sure about what Edér's sidequest, or Serafen's, or Pallegina's, really said about them or in what way it ultimately affected their arc, whilst Maia's offered a vague arc and opportunity for change but remained completely unaltered by the same - if I'm not mistaken her end slides basically only reflect whether she's successful in her mission or not, and whether the RDC ends in power or not. Ultimately Xoti, Aloth and Tekehu were the only ones who seemed to show some change by the end of the game, and whose quests felt relevant to the main story and themes at play.

Edited by algroth
  • Like 1

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Fallout 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, what I find interesting and not sure any of these stories ever really capture this though they might, is that all of these personal adventures happen in a state of war ... if we are talking about adults changing, I think immense change is inevitable with the situations they are put in, how could they not change ... and the change could be drastic.  For instance, I love my Devil of Caroc breastplate ... sorry bad joke.   But honest I am surprised that they didn't have a Durance goes insane ending, with all he did and went through in that past and dealing with the present, that man had to be on the edge.

 

Edit:  I take that back Durance did have insane endings, I just Googled it ... I forgot.  My point being that many of these endings often never capture the horrible things they go through ...

Edited by bringingyouthefuture

“How do you 'accidentally' kill a nobleman in his own mansion?"

"With a knife in the chest. Or, rather, a pair of knives in the chest...”

The Final Empire, Mistborn Trilogy

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me each ot the character in the original Pillars had similar situations arising from pretty clear conflicts. In Deadfire those conflicts seem often more distant, or less relevant somehow. I'm far less sure about what Edér's sidequest, or Serafen's, or Pallegina's, really said about them or in what way it ultimately affected their arc, whilst Maia's offered a vague arc and opportunity for change but remained completely unaltered by the same - if I'm not mistaken her end slides basically only reflect whether she's successful in her mission or not, and whether the RDC ends in power or not. Ultimately Xoti, Aloth and Tekehu were the only ones who seemed to show some change by the end of the game, and whose quests felt relevant to the main story and themes at play.

yeah, I think I have to modify my original post about PoE1 vs Deadfire to more generally say that I think the companions were handled better (I think the affinity system ultimately weakened how much they could do with companion narratives in Deadfire) and not just call out specific PoE1 companions like GM or Hiravias.

 

I would actually disagree re: Xoti and Eder. I found Xoti basically a flat, uninteresting character. Her personal quest she basically has no ounce of personal agency (I mean, granted, this is an RPG so you call the shots regardless) - things are just happening to her all the time. And when she does meet Eothas in person, it basically doesn't even register to her at all what Eothas is saying. Meanwhile, with Eder, you get to see his character reflected in circumstances and those circumstances reflected back onto Eder, even if whatever growth or arc in Deadfire is kind of minimal compared to PoE1. Some nice touches - if you save Bearn Eder has the line of like "hey kid, Eothas owes you an explanation, not vice versa" and while wandering the map Eder can have chatter like "i've been chasing eothas my whole life and he doesn't even know who I am", and then when you meet Eothas, Eothas absolutely does know Eder by name (and calls him out as a exemplar for the kith), and you (and Eder contributes with his own chatter) are able demand an explanation from Eothas. Really helps flesh out Eder as a real character in the world, and even if you get to call all the shots as the player, he seems much more of an active participant in his personal quest as well.

 

edit - one of my favorite narrative tools I've learned (from a Red Letter Media review of Phantom Menace) is to try to describe a character without referencing their appearance, actions in the story, or their job - basically explain the character to someone who has never even gotten near an RPG or Pillars before - and that basically gives you an idea of how well you've developed the character (the review puts this to comical effect by asking people who have seen Star Wars to do this about Han Solo (lots of answers) and then like Queen Amidala (stumped silences)). I think this might be a better test than "does a character change or have an arc" since this is a game where you call the shots and not a novel. I think using this rule, I could tell you all about the different characters in PoE1, but would really struggle with some companions in Deadfire (Maia - she's... a stoic soldier? [buzzer rings, reference to job]);  I think I can only comfortably do this test with Tekehu and Eder (Aloth and Pallegina I feel like I have to lean on PoE1 for their characters). Ironically I think I could do way better with some of the sidekicks (Fassina, Vatnir) than with even Maia. 

Edited by thelee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Eothas' words do not even register with Xoti. However, this does not make Xoti uninteresting as such, although it quite possibly makes her irredeemable and unreachable. I think the Eothas encounter nicely illustrates the extent of zealotry that Xoti has got herself into. In other words, her faith controls her to such an extent that even cataclysmic outside facts don't register anymore. In a sense, this is comparable to a flat-earther or a conspiracy theorist presented with evidence against their beliefs and unable to see, hear and understand it.

Edited by xzar_monty
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, I just went through some of the White March yesterday and thought that bloody heck, at least half of these battles should have been dropped. They were just filler. Luckily, Obsidian did just that in Deadfire.

Perhaps. Didn’t play it after playing Deadfire. It was certainly way better than PoE1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think more of Pillars I characters had quests that matched the theme of the game: seeking meaning in existence and finding that the only order is artificial.  Sagani, Eder, and Durance's quests matched the theme quite nicely.  Hirviras, Grieving Mother, Zahua, and Kana weren't quite as close, but you could definitely make out thematic influences of seeking order to find it meaningless.  Pallegina's quest was a mess, but her dialogue with Hylea greatly matched the theme of the game.  Devil, Aloth, and Maneha didn't really get it for me.

 

Pillars II characters are split because the plot is far more split.  It can't decide if it wants to be about colonialism or God squabbles.  Pallegina hits both.  Xoti, Takehu, and Vatnir are godbotherers  (Eder and Ydwin sort of).  Maia is purely colonialist.  The rest of them don't really hit either one.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My first time through POE 1, I got the "Aloth becomes Leaden Key Grandmaster" ending and was confused as hell because I'd never gone far enough with him to find out he was a member. For better or worse, Deadfire doesn't really allow you to come across anything like this.

 

In terms of comparing the games, I would put the first game's Eder, Durance, Sagani, and Grieving Mother arcs well ahead of anything in Deadfire. Companion quests in Deadfire mostly feel like they were thrown in to be able to say they existed, though there are some improvements in reactivity to quests that aren't explicitly for a companion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I enjoy PoE more then Deadfire.

That said, Deadfire was an improvement in almost all aspects visually and gameplay, although I prefer PoEs darker and medieval european setting. However as an rpg I found the story lacking and the characters where shallow in Deadfire.

 

Thaos story and how it is connected to the Watcher is infinitely more insteresting then Eothas emo rampage, "I'm all about rebirth, but f*** rebirth". To be honset I can't even remember his reasoning, maybe it was some logical thought behind it but I didn't really care about his reasons in the end.

Also as been said many times companions and characters in PoE multiple ways more interesting then Deadfire characters / companions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In Po2, I keep getting this sense that one faction, one sequence of quest progression, one endgame choice is THE right choice, the writer's favorite choice.

 

It really surprised me in finale. All factions were more or less equal in good/bad things in their politics and then Ruatai suddenly tells me: go drown one city block in blood while we bomb civilians in another. And I was "What?! Are you crazy, no sane person will agree to do this."

 

It was like writer decided to tell me: 

No matter they are right about incompetent Huana leadership that hurts its own citizens more then helps. No matter they have a point about how stupid it is to mine Luminous Adra.

They are bad! Militaristic countries are bad! Invasions are bad! 

Look how bad they truly are! 

 

With same level of subtlety.

 

what would you expect

militaristic thugs decide to annex deadfire with nice word cute bird and power of friendship?

if not war then coup

it's only reasonable

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ha, I just went through some of the White March yesterday and thought that bloody heck, at least half of these battles should have been dropped. They were just filler. Luckily, Obsidian did just that in Deadfire.

Perhaps. Didn’t play it after playing Deadfire. It was certainly way better than PoE1.

 

In many respects, my sense was that White March was intended as a nostalgia trip down Icewind Dale lane, which had a quite a bit of filler combat. I didn't have an issue with that, even though the XP system is (mostly) no longer oriented toward rewarding battle.

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

rjshae: That's where the problematic paradox lies in the White March. It has an overabundance of battles, but you don't get any reward for them. One or the other would need to be different for it to feel justified.

Edited by xzar_monty
Link to post
Share on other sites

rjshae: That's where the problematic paradox lies in the White March. It has an overabundance of battles, but you don't get any reward for them. One or the other would need to be different for it to feel justified.

 

At least in IWD2, due to how it ended up implementing 3e's scaling xp rewards, by mid-late game you could also be fighting lots of battles and gettnig no rewards for them (it made level-squatting a very effective metagaming strategy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to like IWD2, because of Baldur's Gate 2 and because it had the same actor who'd done Jan Jansen, but there was just no way: it was terrible. It also hammered home the fact how important (to me) NPCs are. I found I had no interest playing with a full custom-made party. Creating it was fun, no question, but actually playing was not.

 

Wasn't the AI also really very bad? I mean in terms of who the enemies targeted, how they moved, and so on. I'm not sure about this, but that's the way I remember it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that for some people NPCs are important as a motivation. I however liked IWD and IWD a lot. I just couldn't bring myself to play them more than twice for whatever reason.

 

Actually I liked nearly all D&D themed RPGs, from Pools of Radiance over Eye of the Beholder up to NWN 1 and 2 and so on... although I actually don't have any gaming experience with the Pen & Paper version of D&D (I only read the rulesets etc. and found the lore and worldbuilding kind of silly most of times). In Germany "The Dark Eye" used to be the dominant system - which is equally silly at least. ;)

Edited by Boeroer

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm enjoying Deadfire much more with a majority of my party custom. The NPCs just don't have much going on after the first 10 hrs (w the exception of Tekehu and ofc Eder, da boyz). Just requires some imagination

Edited by Verde
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...