You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Scenario Design and Discussion
Moderated by HockeySam18

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.68 replies
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Scenario Design and Discussion » Official Review Guidelines Discussion Topic
Bottom
Topic Subject:Official Review Guidelines Discussion Topic
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Kor
Busschof Happertesch
(id: Derfel Cadarn)
posted 09-06-08 06:21 AM CT (US)         
Hello everyone,

After the previous discussions on the review guidelines, in a topic started by Andrew Dunn/Mechstra, part of the community drafted a proposal for adjusting the guidelines in a way we were relatively sure would be acceptable to the site management. I contacted Aro about it and a few more people discussed the changes, and now I am happy to inform everyone that our proposals (with two or three tiny wee adjustments) have been accepted! You can read them here.

Now, Aro realised that discussions went a little further than what is written in these new guidelines, and he suggested that we have an all-out discussion on the guidelines, which he asked me to kick off. This discussion is no holds barred (well, apart from those bits and pieces the Rules tell us about, so keep it civil!) and so you can even discuss adopting a different number of categories etc.

The goal here is to create a set of guidelines the community wants (and can get a concensus on), so it is important that you speak out, even if you don't see the need for improvements, or if you only want a single sentence altered.
It is important to keep in mind the double purpose of reviews: informing downloaders what a scenario/campaign is about, and giving the designer a clue what bits of his project are good and what bits aren't.

All suggestions are welcome!

Oh, and as I understand it, the new policy regarding official reviewers is now in place, which means everyone with over 20 reviews can contact [AOKH]Official Reviewer Request>Aro and ask for a promotion!

Kor | The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.

[This message has been edited by Aro (edited 09-07-2008 @ 08:41 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
morgoth bauglir
Squire
posted 09-06-08 06:25 AM CT (US)     1 / 68       
OOookay.

Just keep in mind what the review guidelines are about.

Actually, it's okay.

Morgoth Bauglir/Quaazi - BORINGMETAL HEADTWAT
Huidin's Belief - The Siege (4.4) - 2475 - Birth Of The Uruk-Hai (4.1) (Best Sound of 2008)
Signature currently under construction. If you want to help out and provide me with the resources needed, download from the above links.

[This message has been edited by Quaazi (edited 09-06-2008 @ 01:59 PM).]

Julius999
Imposter
posted 09-06-08 08:04 AM CT (US)     2 / 68       
Brilliant, Kor. You've done what most people thought was impossible. Well done also the staff members who actually implemented this.

For now, I'm happy with the current guidelines (but then I drafted a decent portion of them so no surprise there), but it will be interesting to see any new ideas that get raised here.

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios
Powery
Squire
posted 09-06-08 08:48 AM CT (US)     3 / 68       
I read these guidelines again and I immediately thought of something that is worth to mention, regarding the playability:

When reviewers ponder the score, they naturally recall what was good and what was bad in the scenario, however, often forgetting what playability is all about: the entertainment.

I thought of a situation where a reviewer has played an extremely amusing scenario but remembers some flaws or minor lag in it; this should not be a reason to lower playability score if the player's entertainment attained remains high despite the lag or bugs.

There could be misunderstandings making people think that possible flaws directly affect the playability when, actually, possible flaws might affect the entertainment itself which then again affects the playability.

[This message has been edited by Powery (edited 09-06-2008 @ 08:48 AM).]

Jatayu
Squire
(id: Sword_of_STORM)
posted 09-06-08 01:28 PM CT (US)     4 / 68       
Yay, thanks Aro for actually implementing this ( and all those who contributed to the guidelines. )

Powery:

Yours is a good point, look at these two examples where I awarded the scenarios high points despite having bugs.

Seige of Osaka castle

The pirate outcast

,
Jatayu O===|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯/
`
Battle of Saraighat, 1671|Atlantis, the Lost Realm|AOE Roman Modpack|My profile
ि
StormWind Studios

[This message has been edited by Jatayu (edited 09-06-2008 @ 01:33 PM).]

Lord Basse
MI6 Scenario-Making Machine
posted 09-06-08 01:47 PM CT (US)     5 / 68       
Newswriters, gather around!

The new guidelines are a great improvement to the old ones, and worthy to celebrate! *orders cake*

__[]_________
|||||||||||||||||
The ||||||||||||||||| Hus
OF | [/ \] |¯| [/ \] | ME
______________________________________________________________________________ |__ _ |¯|____|_______________________________________________________________________________
The Relics of Athalën (5.0) | AoK Opus - 90,000+ downloads | StormWind Studios | "I consider the conversion of Basse to be one of the great triumphs of my modding crusade" - Matt LiVecchi
AnastasiaKafka
Squire
posted 09-06-08 02:20 PM CT (US)     6 / 68       
Now, Aro realised that discussions went a little further than what is written in these new guidelines, and he suggested that we have an all-out discussion on the guidelines, which he asked me to kick off. This discussion is no holds barred (well, apart from those bits and pieces the Rules tell us about, so keep it civil!) and so you can even discuss adopting a different number of categories etc.
OK, I'll return the kick.

One important aspect that was missed in our first discussion was Moderation of reviews. That is I think all should understand the goals of the Review Moderators, and that they be made more transparent. In other words the new Review Guidelines, and all the changes to the guide will have little meaning if the Moderation is not consistent for all designs, and designers, reviews and reviewers. This has been one of the main concerns for Reviews in the community. What I suggest is that the Moderators create a mission statement that would also include a way to respectfully challenge their decisions on the basis of precedents.

I also think we lost an important aspect of the original guide when we removed Spiney's intention that we not review game types that we don't enjoy. Here is my suggestion for including it:
Playability is probably the most subjective element of the scoring. It is simply a gauge of how much fun you had playing this particular scenario, in other words, an overall score of how enjoyable you found it.
However, there are many kinds of games, and what is fun for some might be tedium for others. To be fair we should not review scenarios with a style of play that we know we don't enjoy. For example: If we detest Blood scenarios then we shouldn't review them.

-- Also for the Balance category, we should make clear that reviewers only need to play a scenario once on one difficulty level to review. That is we could explain that using something similar to what Stephen Richards or myself proposed for the category guide. I think we should try to improve the Balance category by revisiting it.

-- Last but not least, I think we should tweak and improve the "General Guidelines" as the preface to the category guides. This is an important tool for the Review Moderators, and is essential in keeping reviews meaningful. Here is a quick draft of what I think the General Guidelines should be:
General Guidelines

Reviews serve a double purpose. They are written for both the scenario designer, and for the site visitor who is considering downloading the file. As such, reviews need to help the designer by noting aspects that are done well, and pointing out areas that might be improved. Reviews also need to provide enough information about the scenario so that visitors will know if the scenario matches their interests. Obviously, don't spoil the scenarios by revealing plots or secrets that should be discovered while playing, but let the visitors know what to expect.

Reviews must also take the design's original intention into account, and give the design the benefit of the doubt. If the design's intention is to provide a specific game type or experience, like a scenario that is mainly puzzles, or a map design that is obviously intended to be abstract (like a Blood map), then we must consider those intended aspects. It is meaningless to suggest that one type of scenario be improved by things that would only be found in another type altogether. In short, a review should help the designers improve the designs they have submitted, and not the design of the reviewer's dreams.

Reviewers may point to examples from other designs when suggesting improvements. However, a Review should never make a comparison with another design to justify a deduction or score. Keep in mind that Reviews are not a contest or a poll of our personal favorites. Also, while it can be helpful to note preferences for certain aspects of scenario design, no deductions should ever be made that could be considered merely a matter of personal preference.

Reviewers should also avoid vague statements, and not make a mere wish list with the suggestions for improvements. Obviously if a design is extremely undeveloped then more general ideas for improving would need to be suggested. However, suggestions for improving a design do not always warrant a deduction. If some minor improvement is being suggested for an area that is otherwise well developed, then a deduction would not be warranted. In other words, the more developed a scenario is, then the more specific in pointing out major issues that negatively impacted the design is in order. An important note here, is to not assume the role of director when reviewing.

Reviews are to be taken seriously, and are subject to removal by the Review Moderators. Reviewers must follow the Review Guidelines.

"I take it that this is the Anastasia Scud pines for?" - Epic Commander
"What Ana said. Use sugar and the whip." - aka the Pilot
"I think you will realize the emphasis was on Ana and Cake." - Monk

[This message has been edited by AnastasiaKafka (edited 09-06-2008 @ 02:22 PM).]

Aro
AoKH Dictator
posted 09-06-08 03:05 PM CT (US)     7 / 68       
I updated the link in the main post Kor (I got rid of the "_new"). The link on the main Blacksmith page now redirects to the new guidelines. I also posted a news entry on this for all interested.

Keep in mind to those who wish to become official reviewers: "Any reviewer who has written 20 reviews (counting only those for scenarios, campaigns and unfinished projects) can be promoted to this position if they request this."

Welcome to Jatayu and Basse to the Official Review team by the way.

» Your attractive master.
» "Because I before E is a LIE!!!"

[This message has been edited by Aro (edited 09-06-2008 @ 03:08 PM).]

Lord Basse
MI6 Scenario-Making Machine
posted 09-06-08 03:19 PM CT (US)     8 / 68       
Thank you .

__[]_________
|||||||||||||||||
The ||||||||||||||||| Hus
OF | [/ \] |¯| [/ \] | ME
______________________________________________________________________________ |__ _ |¯|____|_______________________________________________________________________________
The Relics of Athalën (5.0) | AoK Opus - 90,000+ downloads | StormWind Studios | "I consider the conversion of Basse to be one of the great triumphs of my modding crusade" - Matt LiVecchi
UnnamedPlayer
Squire
posted 09-06-08 03:38 PM CT (US)     9 / 68       
This is good news.
YoshiX100000
Squire
posted 09-06-08 08:40 PM CT (US)     10 / 68       
I'd love to be an official reviewer, but I'm still waiting for my first review to be approved...two weeks later! There really ought to be something about this in the revised guidelines...

As far as my two cents on the revisions...In several categories 'default' ratings for adding certain things have dropped down (story is an automatic 3, not 4; random maps are 2, not 3, etc.). This seems a little unfair to those less accomplished designers (though many of them could probably care less), especially for map design: what now seperates a horrible map from a bad map that's less than a random map? I don't like the idea of having "*.5" scores, because this becomes very limiting I think in terms of it becomes much harder to score 5.0 since reviewers can knock off a half-point for the smallest things. No matter what anyone says, a lot of people would love to get that 5.0 (myself included of course ). I would like to see a six-point based system, therefore. This would, I think, allow for the spirit of the changes mentioned above, while changing the letter to allow more space for the "bottom half" of scenario design. Obviously, the logistical requirements are staggering, but if anyone were to come forwards with such a proposal, I would be happy to support it.

YoshiX100000~AoKH's Official Playtester of All Short, Funny Viking Cutscenes by Varied Equine Species, PhD-Emeritus-Magna-cum-Laude-Esq.
Now in Fuschia!!

"I wish I knew what Yoshi's doing on the roof, especially in winter." ~Sissi
"Yoshi lived up to his name and split into 100000." ~Rocking Doom

[This message has been edited by YoshiX100000 (edited 09-06-2008 @ 08:42 PM).]

AnastasiaKafka
Squire
posted 09-06-08 10:18 PM CT (US)     11 / 68       
Heya Yoshi,
I have similar sentiments about the "automatic" ratings. I wanted them removed altogether. Like you I think there should have been more room made at the top, but not for the sake of fairness with regard to less accomplished designers, but for the sake of not limiting creativity.

"I take it that this is the Anastasia Scud pines for?" - Epic Commander
"What Ana said. Use sugar and the whip." - aka the Pilot
"I think you will realize the emphasis was on Ana and Cake." - Monk
Jatayu
Squire
(id: Sword_of_STORM)
posted 09-06-08 10:44 PM CT (US)     12 / 68       
Hey Aro,

I tried giving a dummy review today. Apparently the software still wants me to give points for the 5 categories.

,
Jatayu O===|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯/
`
Battle of Saraighat, 1671|Atlantis, the Lost Realm|AOE Roman Modpack|My profile
ि
StormWind Studios
Aro
AoKH Dictator
posted 09-06-08 10:56 PM CT (US)     13 / 68       
I tried giving a dummy review today. Apparently the software still wants me to give points for the 5 categories.
Dang, I dropped the ball on this one. It's hard-coded into the Blacksmith that all reviewers, including Official Reviewers, must use the pre-set scoring categories on Campaigns. I was under the impression that there was a work-around through the Blacksmith's config file, but apparently I'm wrong. =/

I'll e-mail Pecunia about it so I can see if we can get it changed; in the meantime, any work-arounds anybody can think of (i.e. achieving a "category-less" review while still adhering to the system)?

» Your attractive master.
» "Because I before E is a LIE!!!"

[This message has been edited by Aro (edited 09-06-2008 @ 10:57 PM).]

Mapppp
Squire
(id: Jimmy2)
posted 09-06-08 11:22 PM CT (US)     14 / 68       
The only thing I could think of is ignoring the "insert Playability rating here" prompts, writing one review with a final score in mind, then playing with the 5 categories to get them to average your score. If you were looking for a more technical solution, then I can't really help much.

◓◓◓◓◓
Aro
AoKH Dictator
posted 09-07-08 00:29 AM CT (US)     15 / 68       
The only thing I could think of is ignoring the "insert Playability rating here" prompts, writing one review with a final score in mind, then playing with the 5 categories to get them to average your score. If you were looking for a more technical solution, then I can't really help much.
No technical solution necessary; few people know how the Blacksmith is coded anyway.

And I was thinking of that type of work-around too, but the problem would be scores that didn't mean anything, which might confuse the designer. And if you adjust the scores to mean something, well... you'd be right back to where you started.

I sent out a mail to Pecunia. Hopefully we can get some clarifications; for now, I'll comment out the part of the new Guidelines that state official reviewers can review without needing to use the score system, since at the moment, it's a technical impossibility. (Sorry again for that. >.< )

Would you like me to sticky this, Kor?

» Your attractive master.
» "Because I before E is a LIE!!!"

[This message has been edited by Aro (edited 09-07-2008 @ 03:03 AM).]

Kor
Busschof Happertesch
(id: Derfel Cadarn)
posted 09-07-08 05:35 AM CT (US)     16 / 68       
I sent out a mail to Pecunia. Hopefully we can get some clarifications; for now, I'll comment out the part of the new Guidelines that state official reviewers can review without needing to use the score system, since at the moment, it's a technical impossibility. (Sorry again for that. >.< )
That's a shame. Perhaps just relax the guidelines on official reviewers in general for the moment, then?
Would you like me to sticky this, Kor?
That would be great.
Heya Yoshi,
I have similar sentiments about the "automatic" ratings. I wanted them removed altogether. Like you I think there should have been more room made at the top, but not for the sake of fairness with regard to less accomplished designers, but for the sake of not limiting creativity.
Sp that's another vote for a rating system with a 6 as a maximum attainable score?

Kor | The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.
Jatayu
Squire
(id: Sword_of_STORM)
posted 09-07-08 06:23 AM CT (US)     17 / 68       
I sent out a mail to Pecunia. Hopefully we can get some clarifications; for now, I'll comment out the part of the new Guidelines that state official reviewers can review without needing to use the score system, since at the moment, it's a technical impossibility. (Sorry again for that. >.< )
I was afraid of that, I don't think any other heaven even has a dual review policy. Well right now the 'official reviewers' part of the guideline sucks, it doesn't explain who they are or what they do.

,
Jatayu O===|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯/
`
Battle of Saraighat, 1671|Atlantis, the Lost Realm|AOE Roman Modpack|My profile
ि
StormWind Studios
AnastasiaKafka
Squire
posted 09-07-08 09:03 AM CT (US)     18 / 68       
Sp that's another vote for a rating system with a 6 as a maximum attainable score?
No, my comment was not a vote for a rating system with a 6 as a maximum attainable score.

Sorry, my comment about more room at the top was unintentionally misleading. Anyway, I am not a advocate of overall score, nor was I ever interested in dicking around with the point system. I always liked the 5 categories and the scoring method we have, only I liked them better when we didn't have to structure the review in any particular way.

"I take it that this is the Anastasia Scud pines for?" - Epic Commander
"What Ana said. Use sugar and the whip." - aka the Pilot
"I think you will realize the emphasis was on Ana and Cake." - Monk

[This message has been edited by AnastasiaKafka (edited 09-07-2008 @ 09:13 AM).]

Taichi San
Squire
posted 09-07-08 09:25 AM CT (US)     19 / 68       
Aren't here going to be TOO much so called sticky topics?
We got aload here now, normal forum topics are unnessesarily pushed downwards
Luke Gevaerts
Squire
posted 09-07-08 11:32 AM CT (US)     20 / 68       
It will stay pinned until we've resolved this situation.

Luke Gevaerts » Website · YouTube · Backloggery

"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that.
I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." - Frank Zappa

OD · AoKH
Mash
Huskarl
(id: Mashek)
posted 09-09-08 07:14 AM CT (US)     21 / 68       
Balance:-

For scenarios with no interactivity, such as cutscenes, this category should be considered purely as another indication of Playability. This achieves a more accurate overall score.
I'm confused with this statement regarding rating cut-scenes in balance. Are we cutting the balance category from the review altogether, or are we still rating balance? If so, by what merit? Do we base balance on the aspect that the cut-scene is consistent with flow, or are we basing our judgment off the notion that the cut-scene followed the author's intent as rated previously? It would be pointless to retrace what was already mentioned in playability.
UnnamedPlayer
Squire
posted 09-09-08 01:35 PM CT (US)     22 / 68       
The statement as written means balance = playability score, so that playability for cutscenes has double weight.

A better solution would be to get rid of the bogus category and double the playability score if that is what you want to achieve. Calling it balance just confuses people. Giving a score to something that can actually relate to balance is just nonsense for cutscenes.
Mash
Huskarl
(id: Mashek)
posted 09-09-08 06:30 PM CT (US)     23 / 68       
The statement as written means balance = playability score, so that playability for cutscenes has double weight.
That seems a little pointless. How about a new category other than balance altogether? As matty mentioned earlier in the previous thread? (e.g. rating on consistency of flow)
YoshiX100000
Squire
posted 09-09-08 06:41 PM CT (US)     24 / 68       
One huge way to measure balance in cutscenes that everyone misses is the text! Is the text long and boring history/life stories, or is it too scarce to make any sense? Is the amounts of text vs action balanced? Etc.

YoshiX100000~AoKH's Official Playtester of All Short, Funny Viking Cutscenes by Varied Equine Species, PhD-Emeritus-Magna-cum-Laude-Esq.
Now in Fuschia!!

"I wish I knew what Yoshi's doing on the roof, especially in winter." ~Sissi
"Yoshi lived up to his name and split into 100000." ~Rocking Doom
UnnamedPlayer
Squire
posted 09-09-08 08:41 PM CT (US)     25 / 68       
That seems a little pointless.
it is imo
Mr Wednesday
Cavalier
(id: matty12345)
posted 09-09-08 10:53 PM CT (US)     26 / 68       
That seems a little pointless. How about a new category other than balance altogether? As matty mentioned earlier in the previous thread? (e.g. rating on consistency of flow)
Outside of the two of us, my idea wasn't terribly popular.

"And Matt is a prolific lurker, watching over the forum from afar in silence, like Batman. He's the president TC needs, and possibly also the one it deserves." - trebuchet king
Mash
Huskarl
(id: Mashek)
posted 09-10-08 05:04 AM CT (US)     27 / 68       
Well, I really don't see why not. It was a good idea.

And if not flow, how about something else more central to cut-scenes? Like...
UnnamedPlayer
Squire
posted 09-10-08 12:54 PM CT (US)     28 / 68       
what you should be doing is figuring out what you want to say is universally important for custscenes.

for some reaosn, you seem to be trying to trying to force something somewhat related to the current categories, and making 5 of those as equal weight.

there's nothing that says a game needs 5 components. cutscenes aren't even games. make it 4 if that's all that matters. nobody will rage. playability shouldn't even be called playability since there's no playing.
Mash
Huskarl
(id: Mashek)
posted 09-11-08 08:13 AM CT (US)     29 / 68       
Perhaps a category such as ENTERTAINMENT would better justify a cut-scene than playability.
YoshiX100000
Squire
posted 09-12-08 06:37 PM CT (US)     30 / 68       
So we have four categories: Entertainment, Creativity, Map Design, Story. Personally, I think this might be a good area to introduce a 6-point system, except for the fact that it wouldn't fit in with the rest of the reviews . In a cutscene, since the player does not play all of these aspects must be enriched. a 5.0 would be a cutscene of the same quality of a 4.7-5.0ish scenario/campaign; a 6.0 would then represent this enriched quality; am I right?

YoshiX100000~AoKH's Official Playtester of All Short, Funny Viking Cutscenes by Varied Equine Species, PhD-Emeritus-Magna-cum-Laude-Esq.
Now in Fuschia!!

"I wish I knew what Yoshi's doing on the roof, especially in winter." ~Sissi
"Yoshi lived up to his name and split into 100000." ~Rocking Doom
UnnamedPlayer
Squire
posted 09-12-08 11:09 PM CT (US)     31 / 68       
cutscenes should have their own category separate from campaigns and scenarios
AnastasiaKafka
Squire
posted 09-13-08 07:14 AM CT (US)     32 / 68       
It would be pointless to retrace what was already mentioned in playability.
The idea for repeating the Playability score is to be able to give a score for the non applicable category (Balance) that will best reflect the experience without changing the software.

The other idea (in use) is to give an automatic 5. There is merit to both, but using the Playability score penalizes (potentially) the designs more than using an automatic 5 rewards them.

So the goal is to come up with a way to fill in the Balance score so that we can Review cutscenes.

I favor the automatic 5, because when we looked at the math in the past it made the most sense -- in that it worked best to keep the intended hypothetical scores we tested.

"I take it that this is the Anastasia Scud pines for?" - Epic Commander
"What Ana said. Use sugar and the whip." - aka the Pilot
"I think you will realize the emphasis was on Ana and Cake." - Monk

[This message has been edited by AnastasiaKafka (edited 09-13-2008 @ 07:15 AM).]

Powery
Squire
posted 09-14-08 04:59 AM CT (US)     33 / 68       
Why not just give balance score depending on the average of all other categories? With it we can minimize the margin of error without too much work. (Anybody here who doesn't know how to count an average from something?)

Automatic 5 isn't fair solution. It affects too much when it comes to low-quality cutscenes.
TIEdup14
Squire
posted 09-16-08 08:24 PM CT (US)     34 / 68       
I know I'm late to the party, but I just want to put my two cents in.

I like the "points" system as it's structured. I've found the scores to be very accurate, and they help me download the best campaigns.

If a score is lacking in a particular area, that is also a great help to me. For example, if a campaign is lacking in story, I know I probably wouldn't enjoy it too much. If it's lacking in balance, then I may be more inclined to give it a shot. Just examples.
Aro
AoKH Dictator
posted 09-16-08 09:09 PM CT (US)     35 / 68       
Not sure if you guys are aware of this yet, as I'm stumbling in here, but a possible cut-scene category (files submitted as a cut-scene; AFAIK, the scoring programming is category dependent) could have it's own set of guidelines and scores created. This would be similar to how RMS files are scored with their own unique guidelines, and it'd be no problem at all as long as you guys composed something that everyone would be happy with.

Since it relates to what kind of category a file is submitted as, of course, it'd have to be something Tanneur approves of.


Edit -- revisions, to make sure you understand what the hell I'm talking about. - Aro

» Your attractive master.
» "Because I before E is a LIE!!!"

[This message has been edited by Aro (edited 09-16-2008 @ 09:20 PM).]

« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames