Why do Sandboxes create small worlds?

13

Comments

  • curacura Member UncommonPosts: 1,103
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by cura Yeah, thats why i dont play much mmos lately. All they offer is constant killing, pointless dialogs and shallow crafting. No adventure, no exploration, no challenge. Everything is sponfed, convenient and artificial. Waste of time.

    We could negatively spin Tolkien's work, saying that it was "spoonfed" that he didn't detail every single moment of the year-long adventure.  He was only giving us the eventful moments, and so it was spoonfed, convenient, and artificial.

    Meanwhile books and games are not real life.  They're entertainment.  They're supposed to cut out the uninteresting stuff.

    That's why there's actually a lot more adventure and challenge, actually.  Exploration tends to be rather challenge-less and empty by comparison.

    Maybe you could spin Tolkien's work that way - you definitely sound like someone who like to spin things his way - but it wouldnt prove anything. Tolkien books are an piece of art while current mmos are a piece of... well, more or less shallow garbage. Dont make any more of theese failed analogies, they wont substitute legit argument.

    Talking about uninteresting stuff. Every mmo is 90% about killing. How is that interesting? I mean, its just soooo dumb and boring. I would like to see devs cutting this in the first place. Regarding exploration, it is challengeless and empty becouse developers make it this way, and they make it this way becouse they cater to people who are fully satisfied with hours upon hours of mindless killing things.... but that doesnt mean that it has to be like this.

    Hopefully it looks like the time of shallow themeparks is nearing its end. Maybe there will be some variety in future mmorpgs.

     

  • dreamscaperdreamscaper Somewhere, NCMember UncommonPosts: 1,592
    Originally posted by cura

    Talking about uninteresting stuff. Every mmo is 90% about killing. How is that interesting? I mean, its just soooo dumb and boring. I would like to see devs cutting this in the first place. 

     

    This has been my biggest complaint about MMORPGs for some time now. Even though I spend all my time in FFXIV gathering and crafting, it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the game revolves around combat.

     

    I'm currently waiting for something like AA or AAA A Tale in the Desert, though I do have an eye on Life is Feudal at the moment. Hundreds of virtual worlds, but we can't get more than a small handful that aren't glorified warfare simulators...

    <3

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORMember UncommonPosts: 5,614


    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Foomerang If I went into an mmo expecting to experience all of its content in two hours... Maybe? But no.
    You didn't experience all of GW2's content in two hours.  You didn't experience all of GW2's content period.

    So even with the ideal of fast travel (teleports to anywhere you've been with perhaps a little travel time to set the tone and environment,) there is still a lot of content to experience.

    Let's talk about real things.  Using this "two hours" style hyperbole just makes you look obviously wrong and it's not as fun to discuss topics with obviously wrong people. :/



    Ok. I guess I just don't feel like every second of my entertainment must be content that constantly stimulates me. Otherwise it never has a change to create an atmosphere. I enjoy letting something breathe, sink in, peaks and valleys. Those create moments that matter. Plenty of ways to enjoy all types of art and entertainment. In regards to mmorpgs, a good one allows for many types of experience to occur depending on the player's mood.
    I'm not going to say you're wrong for whatever pace you enjoy. Because that pace changes with mood and it's all valid anyway.

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKMember LegendaryPosts: 17,127

    OP - how bizarre, how bizarre

     

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by cura Maybe you could spin Tolkien's work that way - you definitely sound like someone who like to spin things his way - but it wouldnt prove anything. Tolkien books are an piece of art while current mmos are a piece of... well, more or less shallow garbage. Dont make any more of theese failed analogies, they wont substitute legit argument. Talking about uninteresting stuff. Every mmo is 90% about killing. How is that interesting? I mean, its just soooo dumb and boring. I would like to see devs cutting this in the first place. Regarding exploration, it is challengeless and empty becouse developers make it this way, and they make it this way becouse they cater to people who are fully satisfied with hours upon hours of mindless killing things.... but that doesnt mean that it has to be like this. Hopefully it looks like the time of shallow themeparks is nearing its end. Maybe there will be some variety in future mmorpgs. 

    My analogies are not "failed".  They're how people generally enjoy entertainment. They're based on years spent playing and making games, and observing players playing, and observing which games succeed in the market.  I look for patterns, and make observations.  Sometimes in analogy form. 

    Either way, your ad hominem is just a distraction to avoid dealing with the underlying truth of what I'm saying: good entertainers deliberately avoid boring their audience.  The medium doesn't matter.  If anything it's even more important to avoid boredom in interactive entertainment.

    You probably understand that your dislike of combat is extremely unusual, but I imagine you might have some sense of understanding of why others enjoy it. (It's a mix of factors really.)  But for certain if the killing truly was mindless, it wouldn't be nearly as appealing.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Ok. I guess I just don't feel like every second of my entertainment must be content that constantly stimulates me. Otherwise it never has a change to create an atmosphere. I enjoy letting something breathe, sink in, peaks and valleys. Those create moments that matter. Plenty of ways to enjoy all types of art and entertainment. In regards to mmorpgs, a good one allows for many types of experience to occur depending on the player's mood.
    I'm not going to say you're wrong for whatever pace you enjoy. Because that pace changes with mood and it's all valid anyway.

    So every single second of GW2 was stimulating content to you?  Or do you maybe want to back off on the hyperbole and admit that when a game deliberately avoids these bits of non-gameplay there is still plenty of downtime?  (Except it's player-driven -- it's downtime when you want it, so you can play at your own pace.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAMember RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Ok. I guess I just don't feel like every second of my entertainment must be content that constantly stimulates me. Otherwise it never has a change to create an atmosphere. I enjoy letting something breathe, sink in, peaks and valleys. Those create moments that matter. Plenty of ways to enjoy all types of art and entertainment. In regards to mmorpgs, a good one allows for many types of experience to occur depending on the player's mood.
    I'm not going to say you're wrong for whatever pace you enjoy. Because that pace changes with mood and it's all valid anyway.

    So every single second of GW2 was stimulating content to you?  Or do you maybe want to back off on the hyperbole and admit that when a game deliberately avoids these bits of non-gameplay there is still plenty of downtime?  (Except it's player-driven -- it's downtime when you want it, so you can play at your own pace.)

    Strangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORMember UncommonPosts: 5,614


    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Foomerang Ok. I guess I just don't feel like every second of my entertainment must be content that constantly stimulates me. Otherwise it never has a change to create an atmosphere. I enjoy letting something breathe, sink in, peaks and valleys. Those create moments that matter. Plenty of ways to enjoy all types of art and entertainment. In regards to mmorpgs, a good one allows for many types of experience to occur depending on the player's mood. I'm not going to say you're wrong for whatever pace you enjoy. Because that pace changes with mood and it's all valid anyway.
    So every single second of GW2 was stimulating content to you?  Or do you maybe want to back off on the hyperbole and admit that when a game deliberately avoids these bits of non-gameplay there is still plenty of downtime?  (Except it's player-driven -- it's downtime when you want it, so you can play at your own pace.)

    The only hyperbole I see is your abuse of the word every time someone shares a view which differs from your own. There is Dev created downtime which enhances a games overall experience. Why is that some outlandish concept to you? From cleverly disguised loading screens to long travel times, a deliberate lull in action created by a game designer is a smart way to add weight and presence to a game.
  • Ender4Ender4 milwaukee, WIMember UncommonPosts: 2,247

    Because the technology is not in place for a real sandbox yet? Until you can make the world react to the players you don't really have a sandbox and no game has a world that reacts to players. Even Eve isn't a real sandbox, it just has a lot of sandbox elements to it. Eve gives players a lot of freedom to do what they want but the universe itself is stagnant for the most part.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Loktofeit Strangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.

    Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms.  So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.

    That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORMember UncommonPosts: 5,614


    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Loktofeit Strangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.
    Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms.  So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.

    That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.



    I already agree with you there. I'm just saying Dev created downtime is also relevant. Maybe you agree as well and we were simply not communicating properly haha.
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAMember RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Loktofeit Strangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.

    Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms.  So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.

    That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.

    Good point. Yeah, that pretty much describes how we played. :)

     

    Since the OP hasn't returned at all, and since the question was so patently ridiculous, I get the feeling we all just got 'hooked'.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • StoneRosesStoneRoses Seattle, WAMember UncommonPosts: 1,478
    Originally posted by Sulaa
    Originally posted by dreamscaper
    Originally posted by Sulaa
    Well sandbox is both not clearly defined and very overused term nowadays.    Good example are i.e.  Assasin Creed games which are often casually called sandboxes and there is basically nothing sandboxy about them.

     

    The term sandbox is clearly defined, it's just that people on this site have a tendency to use it to mean whatever they want it to mean, rather than what it actually does.

    Well it's not just this forum. It's quite widespread and not only amongst players but also amongst gaming media and video game developers and publishers. 

     

    The same way the term INNOVATION is tossed around.

    Real Fans of Chess don't get bored!
    Real Fans of Soccer don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of Baseball don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of MMORPGs don’t get bored!
    What's your excuse?
  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORMember UncommonPosts: 5,614


    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by Loktofeit Strangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.
    Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms.  So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck. That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.
    Good point. Yeah, that pretty much describes how we played. :)

     

    Since the OP hasn't returned at all, and since the question was so patently ridiculous, I get the feeling we all just got 'hooked'.

     



    Hook happens. I did learn some things though heh
  • rodarinrodarin camarillo, CAMember RarePosts: 1,939

    The problem is (and while not created by WOW it certainly intensified it)  GOALS. What are the goals of people in an MMO?

     

    To obtain 'stuff'? That s probably the biggest one. What kinds of stuff? That gets a little more convoluted.  But for the most part it gear, armor and weapons,  or a fancy mount or a plot of land (if the game has it). Then a house (if the game has it). Then what? Money/wealth?

     

    What is causing most MMO in general and not just sandbox types. is the lack of imagination of the players laying them. Rift is a good example. Pretty themepark but the dimensions aspect is as sandbox as it gets. Yes its instanced but some of the instances are huge.

     

    People can clamor for sandbox all they want but the vast majority of people playing MMOs/Moba/interactive games want some direction. Why? because they lack imagination and a sense of adventure. If they dont have a life line to follow then they dont know what to do.

     

    Fallen Earth had the right concept but was also still pretty themey. Have a system in place to hunt for points or skills or whatever. Not mandatory and not overly powerful (have available whatever more than the ap you can use) that way it allows people to pick and choose a direction to go and things to do. Which in turn (hopefully) opens them up to other things that arent developed but are available.

     

    If you dropped people into a HUGE world with nothing around them and said "go do something" 99% of them would quit before they found something to do. Even if there was a huge city or point of interest a 10 minute in game walk away from where they were dropped. Because they might run into something that distracts them (which is the whole idea of a 'sandbox' game) and after an hour or two of doing that (sandbox) they get 'bored' because they havent found that or any point of interest (that may now be 20-30 minutes away) but still there they just need to find it. And claim (even after 2 hours of doing something) there 'isnt anything to do" "there are no cities" "there isnt anything that interests me".

     

    So its primarily the 'fault' of the players rather than the developers. Because these developers COULD make huge worlds but why spend the money if people are going to quit because they cant have their hands held or actually have to spend time looking around to open the world up.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,195
    Originally posted by rodarin

      What is causing most MMO in general and not just sandbox types. is the lack of imagination of the players laying them. Rift is a good example. Pretty themepark but the dimensions aspect is as sandbox as it gets. Yes its instanced but some of the instances are huge.  

    There might be something to that. Or at least something along the lines of "how one leverages their imagination".

    I have a friend who just couldn't get into skyrim because he said that without a quest running throughout he was hopeless. Sure there is a main quest but if all one is going to do is the main quest then I would almost say the game wouldn't be worth it.

    He much preferred a game such as "Dishonored" which was a linear game that led you from x to y to z.

    For me, just like in my first Elder Scrolls game (no matter whether one wants to call them sandbox or not) I was taken in by the beginning bit in Morrowind where it said something to the effect of "there is a tavern on the left, otherwise you are on your own good luck!"

    That was the most amazing thing for me to see back then.

    And for me there was a certain delight just making my way through the world and finding/experiencing things as they came.

    So I think part of it is the "why" people are playing games and how different types of content is experienced by different people.




  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    I already agree with you there. I'm just saying Dev created downtime is also relevant. Maybe you agree as well and we were simply not communicating properly haha.

    Not sure what you mean by "relevant", but when downtime is both significant and mandatory, it's bad design. Basically every design element in a game should justify it's own presence, and the majority of mandatory long downtimes fail to do so, or their goals can be accomplished in another way.

    For example, EVE's player-driven economy could still be possible if NPC drones could be tasked to transport all goods and perform all mining.  You'd only have a limited number of them and they'd have limited capacity, so your ability as a player to move things around the game world would be about the same.  But you'd be freed up to engage in more interesting activities.  Meanwhile it also doesn't shut down the possibility of assigning NPC guards to your convoy with actual ships.  You could even let players jump to the convoy to take over one of the guards, should the convoy come under attack.  You'd achieve all of the key bits of gameplay without the long mandatory downtime that characterizes the game.  In fact the game would be more sandbox-like (more player-controlled) than ever.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORMember UncommonPosts: 5,614


    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Foomerang I already agree with you there. I'm just saying Dev created downtime is also relevant. Maybe you agree as well and we were simply not communicating properly haha.
    Not sure what you mean by "relevant", but when downtime is both significant and mandatory, it's bad design. Basically every design element in a game should justify it's own presence, and the majority of mandatory long downtimes fail to do so, or their goals can be accomplished in another way.

    For example, EVE's player-driven economy could still be possible if NPC drones could be tasked to transport all goods and perform all mining.  You'd only have a limited number of them and they'd have limited capacity, so your ability as a player to move things around the game world would be about the same.  But you'd be freed up to engage in more interesting activities.  Meanwhile it also doesn't shut down the possibility of assigning NPC guards to your convoy with actual ships.  You could even let players jump to the convoy to take over one of the guards, should the convoy come under attack.  You'd achieve all of the key bits of gameplay without the long mandatory downtime that characterizes the game.  In fact the game would be more sandbox-like (more player-controlled) than ever.



    That's an interesting point. But I think there are possible adverse effects that you are not taking into account. For instance, if CCP did what you proposed with mining, then the value of those materials would diminish, which would ripple the economy and could diminish the overall value of ammo, ships, etc. Which would ultimately impact the risk vs reward cornerstone of that game. If you could mine without a personal time investment, then there would be no incentive not to mine constantly.

    Bit if you have to choose to spend actual game time escorting those resources, it creates value. Similar to how a low drop rate increases an item's monetary value, so does time spent acquiring an item.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Foomerang Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by Loktofeit Strangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.
    Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms.  So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck. That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.
    Good point. Yeah, that pretty much describes how we played. :) 

    Since the OP hasn't returned at all, and since the question was so patently ridiculous, I get the feeling we all just got 'hooked'. 



    Hook happens. I did learn some things though heh

    Yeah as long as people don't get swept up discussing bad ideas, and focus on interesting conversation instead, a thread can be a success in spite of a lousy OP.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • ThaneThane berlinMember RarePosts: 2,785
    Originally posted by Robokapp
    Eve space is:

    741,198,000,000,000,000 km X-Axis
    142,796,685,000,000,000 km Y-Axis
    904,787,156,000,000,000 km Z-Axis

    not counting wormhole-space.
      That adds up to 9.5*10^49 Km^3

    yea, thought the same.

     

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghMember UncommonPosts: 5,001
    Downtime was a term defined in forums like this to describe Elements of gameplay that people don't like- games don't have 'downtime'. E.g walking in a rpg, flying between star systems etc. what they really mean is 'I don't enjoy or get why people like this'. They don't understand that not all people need A constant steam of activities and exciting choices to have fun. As somebody mentioned earlier, it's not downtime, it's simply games that provide different paces to their game, and in doing so provide context, e.g if everything is fast, what's fast?

    rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar

    Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D

  • dandurindandurin Santa Clara, CAMember UncommonPosts: 498

    Great post OP.

     

    The main reason we see smallish sandbox worlds is economics.  We're only now getting to the point where procedural generation can produce interesting terrain and architecture.  (How many procedurally generated waterfalls and castles have you seen in existing sandboxes?)  Hopefully the next generation of MMO's (Crowfall, EQ:N) will address this.

     

    If a sandbox world feels too sparsely populated, that's a flaw in the game design not terrain size.   If you include infrastructure projects that are expensive to make but highly rewarding, such as roads, aqueducts, factories, mines, temples, you'll see players cluster together out of self-interest.  Another lever is to make crafting more interdependent and travel more expensive.

     

    Virtually limitless procedural terrain is a great boon to gameplay because it allows every player to be an explorer when he chooses to be, and it allows for a frontier to exist where defeated guilds can retreat to when driven out of a major population center.

  • dandurindandurin Santa Clara, CAMember UncommonPosts: 498

    I wanted to point out that "sandbox" means different things when referring to single player games vs. MMOs.

     

    In a single player game it usually refers to how many different "ways to play" there are to achieve one's goals.  (ie, I can shape the sand into whatever I want).

     

    In an MMO, "sandbox" usually refers to how much the user can affect the shared experience.  (ie, there's only one pile of sand, and anyone can shape it).

  • dandurindandurin Santa Clara, CAMember UncommonPosts: 498

    While I would love an "infinite terrain" sandbox, I don't think it's appropriate to bash ArcheAge over it's limited housing space.  ArcheAge has a hand-built world with exotic cities, etc.  It's shooting for a particular artistic look and random spawl just doesn't fit that.  Furthermore the housing market is designed into the game.

     

    For unlimited terrain and housing you need player-generated towns and cities IMHO.

     

    Eve fans:  ok, Eve is cool.  But this isn't about empty space and random sci-fi debris.  It's easy to create procedural proto-blasmaphoobangs, very very hard to create believable earthlike conditions.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    That's an interesting point. But I think there are possible adverse effects that you are not taking into account. For instance, if CCP did what you proposed with mining, then the value of those materials would diminish, which would ripple the economy and could diminish the overall value of ammo, ships, etc. Which would ultimately impact the risk vs reward cornerstone of that game. If you could mine without a personal time investment, then there would be no incentive not to mine constantly.   Bit if you have to choose to spend actual game time escorting those resources, it creates value. Similar to how a low drop rate increases an item's monetary value, so does time spent acquiring an item.

    I don't think CCP would or should do this with EVE.  Players despise change. Realistically this is an idea for a new economy-focused virtual world type game.  It's just easier to suggest it as a change to EVE since EVE is precisely the type of game which would benefit from that type of feature (whereas follower-missions in SWTOR and WOW aren't really hooked into the core game loop, and so they're inevitably a lot flatter than they'd otherwise be...and of course they're abstract, while these automated miner/transport bots I'm talking about would exist at actual locations in the game world.)

    Value is created by scarcity.  Time is one way of creating scarcity.  Being forced to do something manually is one way of having time create scarcity.  And finally, being forced to do something boring manually is only one way to do that.

    So there are really a ton of possibilities for how to create the scarcity that drives value, and only one (possibly the worst one) involves being forced to manually do something boring. If automated miners were the only way to mine and they mined 5% as fast as a player, you can quickly see how with the right settings this system increases the value of ore (even though everyone is mining.)

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

Sign In or Register to comment.