Should POE's Final release have been called "Early Access?"

[abaris]

It was fine, compared to the general state of the game industry.

 

The general state of the game industry is... not great.

 

 

You can't compare this game to the bunch of the game industry. It was made with a relatively low budget compared to so called AAA titles, that are still bugfests in their vast majority when they hit the market. If I buy a game at release, I expect it to be bugged. And not only since yesterday but at least for a decade. This isn't a new phenomenon and for me the more important issue at hand is how any given company deals with the bugs in their product. And that's where Obsidian is way more consumer friendly than most other game companies. Probably because they don't have an empty suit for a CEO, who's only responsibility is to the shareholders and his own end of the year bonus for making a dime by selling the proverbial on a silver platter.

Edited May 29, 2015 by abaris

[nipsen]

@abaris: Junta is talking about what customers apparently seem to accept when they buy a finished product. The general idea is that as long as the faults are not game-stopping -- that they stop you from continuing -- then the bugs don't really matter.

 

And we end up with a general rule that dictates how the development process should have very few "best practices", and quite a lot of "should probably not have done that" conventions. But it's kept that way by a combination of old habits kept by some, and maintained by time-pressure and lack of experience with building projects on the other. A lot of examples exist where developers deliberately choose an uncomplicated set of mechanics, only because this makes the process of building the game quicker.

 

But when customers don't care about smooth playback, solid animation, etc. And in fact complain to high heaven when they're served something that is dynamic and fantastic but not photorealistic, rather than a pre-rendered cut-scene with fake lighting that looks smoother. Then this is where we end up in the gaming industry: the best selling and most expensive development budgets go to making cut-scenes.

 

While people complain until they roll around about how a single physics object in a massively complex simulation has a coarse shadow-map during occlusion filtering. Etc. We get what we deserve, in other words. And, in the case of PoE, also what we don't deserve, and not what we ordered and were promised. But be that as it may.

 

 

@PrimeJunta: Well.. a lot of the easily seen bugs that were in the release build didn't exist in the beta.. Meanwhile, 90% of the fixes in each of the patches are pure balance tweaks.

 

 

So I don't think it's unfair to point out that even if the foundation was solid enough 10 months ago, that woouldn't really matter when Q&A frenzies with the reach of the tweaks towards the end of the development process.

 

Basically: Limited fixing - of course that would have been a great idea. Unlimited game-mechanical tweaks five months before the game is launched --- usually not a good idea.

Edited May 29, 2015 by nipsen

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Also, why was the physical disk version released only at patch 1.04 if patch 1.01 was the finished version? Put 1.01 on the disk, its finished right?

 

 

I think you don't know what finished version means.

 

According to Obsidian:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/7/entry-184-patch-notes-106-in-progress/

 

"The product was deemed a finished product because Obsidian considered it a finished product. It is really as simple as that."

 

I disagree.

 

Simple as that.

 

 

So you don't finish things when you decide that they good enough or you don't have anymore time or money to put in them. So for example in your standards people can't finish school if their results weren't perfect. Or maybe better your employer can argue that you haven't finished your work before you have given them perfect results and they don't need to pay you for hours that you have done for them.

 

Finished product is product that product's maker thinks is good enough to be claimed to be finished, sometimes makers are forced to claim products that they aren't satisfied with as finished because of financial, material or time constraints.  Simple as that. You can claim otherwise but that is just arguing against reality, which usually don't lead anything productive. 

 

Finished don't mean perfect or that there is no room to improve or that there isn't flaws in product. And it don't even mean that developer of product can return on later date to fix flaws in the product or even that developer can continue to improve the product outright after they release finished version of product and release new improved finished version in later date. In digital products customers that bought first version of the product often have benefit to get improved versions of product at least until certain point with out needing to pay extra for those improvements, if product is commercial.

[Baladas]

 

 

 

 

Also, why was the physical disk version released only at patch 1.04 if patch 1.01 was the finished version? Put 1.01 on the disk, its finished right?

 

 

I think you don't know what finished version means.

 

According to Obsidian:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/7/entry-184-patch-notes-106-in-progress/

 

"The product was deemed a finished product because Obsidian considered it a finished product. It is really as simple as that."

 

I disagree.

 

Simple as that.

 

 

So you don't finish things when you decide that they good enough or you don't have anymore time or money to put in them. So for example in your standards people can't finish school if their results weren't perfect. Or maybe better your employer can argue that you haven't finished your work before you have given them perfect results and they don't need to pay you for hours that you have done for them.

 

Finished product is product that product's maker thinks is good enough to be claimed to be finished, sometimes makers are forced to claim products that they aren't satisfied with as finished because of financial, material or time constraints.  Simple as that. You can claim otherwise but that is just arguing against reality, which usually don't lead anything productive. 

 

Finished don't mean perfect or that there is no room to improve or that there isn't flaws in product. And it don't even mean that developer of product can return on later date to fix flaws in the product or even that developer can continue to improve the product outright after they release finished version of product and release new improved finished version in later date. In digital products customers that bought first version of the product often have benefit to get improved versions of product at least until certain point with out needing to pay extra for those improvements, if product is commercial.

 

Aaanndd you managed to make it complicated.

 

Again....

[nipsen]

Aaanndd you managed to make it complicated.

 

Again....

 

..how complicated is it, though.. 1. You're not ever going to get a perfect, ideal product with no room for improvement. 2. The question is what sort of improvements it's responsible to let be sorted out after the final release. Or, what you can responsibly shift to the customers.

 

You could for example say that core game-mechanics should be set in stone way before release, and all core functionality should be in place before the product hits beta (you know, "old school" definitions). And then say that within a certain context, you can adjust the user interfaces and functions to customer specification after customers become involved late in the process. 

 

Or, you can say that you're pushing a simple prototype to the customer as quickly as is possible, to get valuable customer feedback involved in shaping the final product.

 

A combination, such as starting over again every time someone complains about a particular function -- might not be a good choice. In that it requires rethreading of already completed code, where you really are just doing the first job over again, and hoping that it'll go quicker since the developer is familiar with the code target. A good project will therefore typically make sure that you establish a foundation, and then build extra functions on top of that if that is possible without needing to change the foundation later. While rejecting outright any tweaks to the core functions, since that then means you need to implement specific addons over again every time you change the foundation.

 

But the more common combination in the games-industry is to limit the complexity of the foundation to get it developed and quickly shift it out to the consumer. And then add functionality in a limited way over time, as long as it doesn't require changes in the foundation. 

 

And people seem to be happy with that, sadly.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

 

Also, why was the physical disk version released only at patch 1.04 if patch 1.01 was the finished version? Put 1.01 on the disk, its finished right?

 

 

I think you don't know what finished version means.

 

According to Obsidian:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/7/entry-184-patch-notes-106-in-progress/

 

"The product was deemed a finished product because Obsidian considered it a finished product. It is really as simple as that."

 

I disagree.

 

Simple as that.

 

 

So you don't finish things when you decide that they good enough or you don't have anymore time or money to put in them. So for example in your standards people can't finish school if their results weren't perfect. Or maybe better your employer can argue that you haven't finished your work before you have given them perfect results and they don't need to pay you for hours that you have done for them.

 

Finished product is product that product's maker thinks is good enough to be claimed to be finished, sometimes makers are forced to claim products that they aren't satisfied with as finished because of financial, material or time constraints.  Simple as that. You can claim otherwise but that is just arguing against reality, which usually don't lead anything productive. 

 

Finished don't mean perfect or that there is no room to improve or that there isn't flaws in product. And it don't even mean that developer of product can return on later date to fix flaws in the product or even that developer can continue to improve the product outright after they release finished version of product and release new improved finished version in later date. In digital products customers that bought first version of the product often have benefit to get improved versions of product at least until certain point with out needing to pay extra for those improvements, if product is commercial.

 

Aaanndd you managed to make it complicated.

 

Again....

 

is that a joke?  

 

want simple?  game publishers don't believe you.  with every game release, a number o' folks complain o' bugginess.  so what?  the complaints is just so much noise until people change their purchasing practices.  the genesis poster is an ideal example o' the fail on the part o' consumers and why the industry don't care about his complaints.  the genesis poster knew o' endemic bugginess o' software releases.  nevertheless, instead o' waiting for a few patches to ensure stability or researching tech support boards to see what kinda bugs existed at release and afterwards, the genesis poster wanted to play poe 'cause o' his bg "nostalgia" and a couple unnamed positive reviews.  regardless o' his s'posed reluctance to make early purchases o' new releases, he wanted to play poe, so he ignored all the links and advice he has shared after the fact.  the genesis poster bought the game.  so endeth his ability to bring about change.  he is now a statistic-- just another irrational purchaser who complains 'bout buggy releases but continues to buy 'em.  

 

complaints 'bout bugs don't matter if you do not change your behavior.  heck, the genesis poster claims that he did change behavior.  before poe he were a cautious and reluctant purchaser o' early releases, but he went ahead and purchased regardless.  so, what is the actual message your behavior were sending to publishers?

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70927-480-discussion/page-10?do=findComment&comment=1582604

 

we accurate guessed the situation before release.  how much less excuse do you got to be claiming surprise when you had access to tech support feedback post release?  made a bug list?  HA! why not do that before purchase? 

 

kis... s.  this ain't complicated. change behaviour or be a statistic that shows you is another irrational purchaser who complains 'bout buggy releases but buys 'em anyway.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

Unlike consoles - and IMO - you're never going to have a PC release that is bug free because no developer can ever have as many combinations of equipment as the end users do.  And even though consoles don't have the different configurations they still come out with bugs.

 

And at some point its a law of diminishing returns.  Two, three, four months isn't going to find all the bugs. A year isn't either.  And at some point the company is going to see some financial relief.  Maybe its Early Access.  Maybe its a full release and patch.

 

Both have their good/bad points.  Early Access may have more forgiving players (hey they knew it was going to be rough).  But you're also allowing them to see all the surprises the game has - at that time.  No Secrets are left.  Full release means all the interested parties start with less spoilers, but they have a rougher experience.  Given Obsidian's desire to minimize spoilers (so much so that the Beta was a non-critical game chunk to avoid spoilers) its not that surprising they went the release and patch route to me.

[Nakia]

I agree with Gromnir until consumers change their behavior we will get buggy, unpolished, unfinished games.  When I backed the game in the Kickstarter I knew I was taking a gamble.  I did it based on the fact that I had played games made by Obsidian that I liked, that many of the Leads' names were known to me from older games.  

 

As for buying other games after being one of the statistics that Gromnir mentions I have made a rule for myself, wait until the game is out for a while, check what those who have played the game have to say.     Consumer beware.

[Bryy]

 

 

 

 

 

Also, why was the physical disk version released only at patch 1.04 if patch 1.01 was the finished version? Put 1.01 on the disk, its finished right?

 

 

I think you don't know what finished version means.

 

According to Obsidian:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/7/entry-184-patch-notes-106-in-progress/

 

"The product was deemed a finished product because Obsidian considered it a finished product. It is really as simple as that."

 

I disagree.

 

Simple as that.

 

 

So you don't finish things when you decide that they good enough or you don't have anymore time or money to put in them. So for example in your standards people can't finish school if their results weren't perfect. Or maybe better your employer can argue that you haven't finished your work before you have given them perfect results and they don't need to pay you for hours that you have done for them.

 

Finished product is product that product's maker thinks is good enough to be claimed to be finished, sometimes makers are forced to claim products that they aren't satisfied with as finished because of financial, material or time constraints.  Simple as that. You can claim otherwise but that is just arguing against reality, which usually don't lead anything productive. 

 

Finished don't mean perfect or that there is no room to improve or that there isn't flaws in product. And it don't even mean that developer of product can return on later date to fix flaws in the product or even that developer can continue to improve the product outright after they release finished version of product and release new improved finished version in later date. In digital products customers that bought first version of the product often have benefit to get improved versions of product at least until certain point with out needing to pay extra for those improvements, if product is commercial.

 

Aaanndd you managed to make it complicated.

 

Again....

 

How about actually responding instead of just making a vague "you're wrong" statement.

[player1]

On original poill:

Should the POE that was released have been more appropriately called and Early Access Game, rather than marketed as a finished product?

 

Hell no. Game was feature complete and shipped with intention of being as such. It had bugs not because it was planned to be buggy, but because issues were not found before release.

 

Now, on the other hand, for those with short memery:

Was it buggy on realase enough to not recommend it playing?

 

Hell yes!

Stats corruption bug, animal companion bug and few others were big enough to not recommend game for playing, or to freeze any current playthroughs until further update.

 

If critical game bugs were not propmptly fixed with 1.03, which made it pretty stable, I would still not recommend playing it at all.

 

Luckly, it only took 10 days to fix these critical bugs and enjoy game immensly, so all is great IMHO.

Edited May 30, 2015 by player1

[Rubarack]

On original poill:

Should the POE that was released have been more appropriately called and Early Access Game, rather than marketed as a finished product?

 

Hell no. Game was feature complete and shipped with intention of being as such. It had bugs not because it was planned to be buggy, but because issues were not found before release.

 

Now, on the other hand, for those with short memery:

Was it buggy on realase enough to not recommend it playing?

 

Hell yes!

Stats corruption bug, animal companion bug and few others were big enough to not recommend game for playing, or to freeze any current playthroughs until further update.

 

If critical game bugs were not propmptly fixed with 1.03, which made it pretty stable, I would still not recommend playing it at all.

 

Luckly, it only took 10 days to fix these critical bugs and enjoy game immensly, so all is great IMHO.

It really should have been delayed by those ten days if that was possible. Of course they probably didn't know ahead of time that it was 10 days short of being reasonably complete, and they may not have been in a position to delay it even that long. That still makes it a weird candidate for early access though, at launch it was early access at best, and by a strict interpretation not even that. 10 days later it was fit for release.

[nipsen]

But then again - considering the amount of crap they sorted out very close to the physical release, they did a good job.

 

Outside of that, they also sent out a notification to the backers where they explained the need to get a final version ready before the physical release could be shipped. And that they were tipping in favor of delaying the physical release for a short time, while rolling out the digital release with some issues.

 

So complaining about 10 days without being able to double-click loot to equip it is... a bit much. If you wanted to compare this release to, say, Battlefield 4 - which you probably wouldn't want to do, but still - then PoE is, in relative terms, somewhere in the realm of "Supreme Heavenly Perfection".

 

In fact, it's the only disc release for a game that would be playable without going online to patch it on "day-1" since the gods know when. Old school. You know - for the fans.

 

Outside of that, I still think they should have fired the Q&A department in October last year, and rolled back the build they had and simply went on with tweaking the writing and the location scripting instead. Talking about "wasted effort" here is like calling emptying the pacific into the atlantic ocean with a spoon "a long term project".

 

So please - some context. Always helps... so to speak.

[Baladas]

OK.

 

So so far approximately 20% of POE customers consider that the game should either have been either:

 

a) Released as early access.

b) Released later to finish production.

 

Since Obisdian themselves did not make a physical disk version of the game until version 1.04, which is the version that would have been released if we hypothetically did not have digital downloads, I believe that saying the 1.04 version was the "Finished" (or "Final") version of the game and 1.01 - 1.03 beta versions released for consumer testing, is a fair comment.

 

Quote:

 

"Outside of that, they also sent out a notification to the backers where they explained the need to get a final version ready before the physical release could be shipped. And that they were tipping in favor of delaying the physical release for a short time, while rolling out the digital release with some issues."

 

So they themselves admitted that the digital version, (Version 1.01-1.03) had "some issues" and was not the "Final version".

 

Therefore I think we need another category of games that get released with bugs and are sold to the consumer who then acts as a beta tester.

 

So, not early access but something else. Then the "Final version" of the game is promoted as such, the actual final version.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Baladas

[nipsen]

No, look. They sent an e-mail to all the backers (even the moderator tantrum exiled backers like me) where they explained they would delay the physical release, and push the digital release. Which they did.

 

For the reason that the physical release is forever. And the digital release can, with very little effort, be updated.

 

There is no issue with this of any kind! It's like complaining that your orange juice is ruined because it doesn't have a parasol.

[Baladas]

No, look. They sent an e-mail to all the backers (even the moderator tantrum exiled backers like me) where they explained they would delay the physical release, and push the digital release. Which they did.

 

For the reason that the physical release is forever. And the digital release can, with very little effort, be updated.

 

There is no issue with this of any kind! It's like complaining that your orange juice is ruined because it doesn't have a parasol.

 

So they wanted to "push the digital release" which had "some issues" and they needed to get a "Final version ready" before shipping the physical release.

 

OK.

 

That fits my understanding that they released a beta test for consumers before the "Final version" was released.

 

Maybe not your understanding, but it fits mine.

[MunoValente]

 

It really should have been delayed by those ten days if that was possible. Of course they probably didn't know ahead of time that it was 10 days short of being reasonably complete, and they may not have been in a position to delay it even that long. That still makes it a weird candidate for early access though, at launch it was early access at best, and by a strict interpretation not even that. 10 days later it was fit for release.

 

 

But it likely wouldn't have been at that state 10 days after release if they just sat on it for 10 more days, getting the game out allowed far more people to play it and find issues much faster a small QA team would have.  I have no doubt the game will be in better shape 6 months after release than if they just waited and tested it internally for 6 more months.  Several hundred thousand play testers is way better than a couple dozen.

[Nakia]

I agree with  MunoValente.  Video games are no washing machines but software written to go a multitude of complicated and diverse machines.  There is simply no way developers can find or anticipate all the problems that may arise.  Professional testers do miss things which when played by thousands of players will turn up.

[yaggaz]

It should be the called "F--- Y--" access to those of us who paid nearly 3 times as much as the lowest tier, but are still waiting to get our boxes and CD.

[PrimeJunta]

TBH I really don't get the angst about this.

 

Some of us want to get in early.

 

Others want a polished experience.

 

As things currently stand, the first group has to tolerate a certain amount of rough edges, and the second group has to wait. In other words, everybody can get what they want simply by adjusting their behavior.

 

In other words, this strikes me as yet another pointless argument about semantics -- what something is called. Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that day-1 purchases are almost always pretty rough. Making a day-1 purchase and then loudly complaining that it's rough just seems... puzzling, like gulping down scalding hot coffee and then complaining that it burns.

 

If you really feel that the state of the industry is wrong and the general quality level of games on release should be much higher than it is now, then don't buy games on release. Buy them a year later, after the patches are in and you'll get them at half price. If enough people agree, publishers will take notice -- they'd rather sell it to you full-price, and earlier -- and we'll start seeing more polished releases.

[Baladas]

TBH I really don't get the angst about this.

 

Some of us want to get in early.

 

Others want a polished experience.

 

As things currently stand, the first group has to tolerate a certain amount of rough edges, and the second group has to wait. In other words, everybody can get what they want simply by adjusting their behavior.

 

In other words, this strikes me as yet another pointless argument about semantics -- what something is called. Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that day-1 purchases are almost always pretty rough. Making a day-1 purchase and then loudly complaining that it's rough just seems... puzzling, like gulping down scalding hot coffee and then complaining that it burns.

 

If you really feel that the state of the industry is wrong and the general quality level of games on release should be much higher than it is now, then don't buy games on release. Buy them a year later, after the patches are in and you'll get them at half price. If enough people agree, publishers will take notice -- they'd rather sell it to you full-price, and earlier -- and we'll start seeing more polished releases.

When I owned an Xbox and PS2 I also had a gaming PC.

 

During that time I used to buy games on release and I very rarely experienced the amount of bugs that are present in games nowdays as practically standard.

 

It simply was not this bad.

 

Now it is bad and getting worse.

 

This is the first game I have brought on release since the time of the Xbox and PS2. I normally wait.

 

I have not had the experience of how bad games are on release simply because I have not brought them on release since the time of the PS2 and during that time games were generally more polished on release.

 

So how games are released now cannot be compared to the times of PS2, about 7-10 years ago, at least in my experience. For that reason to say that it is "normal" for games to be released "buggy" is not correct since only 7-10 years ago, in general, the state of a game on release was not like the state of a game on release today.

 

In the time of said Xbox and PS2 buggy games really stood out and were widely reported as such. Nowdays almost all games released with  bugs on release are tolerated. They were not tolerated in this way only 7-10 years ago.

 

Digital release has made Games programmers lazy and reliant upon a customer base to notice bugs for them.

 

In my opinion there is not proper justification for this.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Baladas

[ROMEO]

Thank you Baladas. The poll is clear and this means that the game was correctly released for the most of the customers.

[FlintlockJazz]

OK.

 

So so far approximately 20%

Good attempt at trying to twist the polls to fit your agenda, work in politics?  The fact of the matter is that almost 70% disagree with you and think it was a final product and almost 10% don't give a ****.  End of discussion.

[zombo]

 

 

Amentep

 

"I voted no, albeit I actually don't care one way or the other but there wasn't an option to choose that."

 

Don't care added.

 

Don't care would have been the right option for me as well if it existed when I voted.

 

 

Should the POE that was released have been more appropriately considered Early Access, rather than marketed as a finished product, based on these comments:

 

"Since the release of the game with have fixed around 1000 bugs with the help of the community."

 

Why were 1000's of bugs in a game that was released as a finished product?

 

"There are many of you, with many different playstyles. It isn't something that we can easily replicate on our side so we will gladly take any help that the community is willing to give us."

 

So why not early access?

 

The description of Early Access suits the released version of Pillars of Eternity perfectly, especially version 1.01:

 

"Early access, alpha funding, or paid-alpha is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can pay for a game in the early stages of development and obtain access to playable but unfinished versions of the game, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue work on the game."

 

"This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development."

 

"These are games that evolve as you play them, as you give feedback, and as the developers update and add content."

 

 

Playable but unfinished version of the game: Check (Version 1.01 was not even playable due to some bugs.)

Pillars of Eternity is not complete: Check

Pillars of Eternity may or may not change further: Check

Pillars of Eternity is Evolving as we play: Check

Pillars of Eternity developers are getting feedback from the players and updating and adding content: Check.

If you (i.e the customer) are not exited to play this game in its current state: Check (for many customers)  then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. (POE is developing further, with UI tweaks, bug fixes, additional features, balances and so on, except this was not mentioned as a disclaimer for POE, it was marketed as a completed product, which it is not.)

 

So next time, please release the game as early access and spare paying customers like me who do NOT want to get involved in the development of an unfinished product and who simply want to play the game.

 

This poll is solely related to POE, please do not make comparisons to "other" buggy released games to justify the label "Finished product." Simply weigh up the state of completion of POE on its release and consider the amount of changes and fixes brought into the game based on both community feedback and developer input. Also consider whether the game is "Playable but not complete." and if it is subject to "Further development" or not.

 

Thanks.

 

I love when pc gamers criticize bugs. I understand when it's a console game. For the pc? With multiple operating systems, hardware configurations, software conflicts, and a multitude of other problems I didn't mention how can anyone expect a clean game? There will be bugs, and many of them are technically considered bugs, but 99.9% of players never see and are never harmed by them. It's insane how entitled players feel.

Edited June 1, 2015 by zombo

[PrimeJunta]

@Baladas First off, I'm not at all sure that games now are any buggier than 7-10 years ago. I can certainly think of a bunch of games from back then that were in far worse shape on release than P:E was. That's anecdotal of course, and I've never owned a console so I have no idea if console games are less buggy on average than PC ones.

 

But if they are, I can think of several reasons. In particular, ubiquitous broadband Internet, plus services like Steam, Origin, GoG Galaxy, and the consoles' online services. They make patch delivery much cheaper and easier than it was back then. 

 

In any case, if this poll is any indication, by and large people seem pretty happy with the current state of affairs. If you're not, that's your prerogative of course.

Edited June 1, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[McPartyson]

Well, it's my opinion this game was not ready for release and I think it was coded by a bunch of kids to be honest. For almost the same price, I got the Witcher 3...compare those 2 games for a second. PoE is a friggin joke when you compare the 2.

 

I played 20 hours of the game according to Steam, and that was because I kept re-rolling a new character due to running into bugs with each save. I never made it passed Act 1, character was never more then lvl 4 and I just got frustrated, so I ditched it and kept playing Dragon Age Inquistiion. Then GTA V came out, then Witcher 3 came, so I never went back to it...maybe 1 day. It just sits there as my lowest played Steam game, lol.

 

This game got a lot of 8/10 and 9/10...but I really think the high scores were due to the nostalgia of Baldur's Gate...

Edited June 1, 2015 by McPartyson