PDA

View Full Version : Kapeselus Shares Thoughts on Macro Mechanics, Photon Charge Out



Gifted
02-02-2010, 10:40 AM
Full Article (http://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/580-kapeselus-shares-thoughts-on-macro-mechanics-photon-charge-out)

SickPillow
02-02-2010, 11:08 AM
Great, i didn't like photon charge. Then again i don't like Calldown MULE either.

ArcherofAiur
02-02-2010, 11:21 AM
For godsakes man can we find out what replaced PC?!?!?!?!

Sydarm
02-02-2010, 12:20 PM
where is beta omfg

ArcherofAiur
02-02-2010, 12:24 PM
where is beta omfg

How can they start beta if they dont even have the protoss macro mechanic finished yet?

Sydarm
02-02-2010, 12:26 PM
How can they start beta if they dont even have the protoss macro mechanic finished yet?



apparently TvP is whats keeping beta back to

and those doodads

and those trees

and those fucking coffee breaks

and bnet 2.0

and zerg mid game

and terrible terrible damange


when are the excuses going to end

Perfecttear
02-02-2010, 12:42 PM
Gifted you locked my icecream thread :( , that was not so very nice, didn't we have an agrement that we won't lock threads anymore in such ocasions? ;)

Nicol Bolas
02-02-2010, 01:33 PM
Photon Charge was removed in the previous build and so was Argus Link.

...

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, Proton Charge was an abomination against game design, so seeing it get the axe is all to the good. On the other hand, I had big plans for Argus Link. Like building a small array of Obelisks around my Proxy Pylon, and using that to power Phoenix Anti-Grav-based econ raids. And later, of course, my Mothership.


How can they start beta if they dont even have the protoss macro mechanic finished yet?

Who says they don't ;)

They're just not telling us about it.

Caliban113
02-02-2010, 01:43 PM
Hey PT - So obviously you're 'Tears-of-the-Moon' - ?


I had big plans for Argus Link

(Damn, whats that line about 'babies' and 'bathwater'?) :)

Yeah, me too - For me, it was going to be, "all-you-can-eat" Psi-Storm - However, very possible some of the good that came from the Protoss mechanics could end up somewhere else.

rcp181
02-02-2010, 02:33 PM
I thought the argus link part was old news? Was it in at Blizzcon? Maybe I'm just thinking of the cloak thing.

Argus link + warp-in + mothership would have given protoss some insane defensive mobility o.O Undefended expansion with pylon/obelisk instantly turns into mothership, a wall of zealots, and more than enough psi storm/vortex. No more walling off with cannons/gateway and a robo/ht behind to stop crackling squads :P:P

Gifted
02-02-2010, 02:50 PM
Gifted you locked my icecream thread :( , that was not so very nice, didn't we have an agrement that we won't lock threads anymore in such ocasions? ;)We can still stop it if it's in it's infancy and created while we were posting the news. Ultimately in this case I don't think there was much difference in subject so I did a thread merger. If the conversation in there was on a different tangent or developed to it's own ideas, I wouldn't have closed it.

Ultimately, it's was my personal judgement call.

Now that I think about it, it could be important to have a subject regarding ice cream... I might reopen it if you feel the need to compare the almighty mint-choco-chip

ArcherofAiur
02-02-2010, 03:14 PM
Keep in mind that at the moment Orbital Command not only allows the player to call a MULE for 50 energy, but also has Scanner Sweep and Extra Supply abilities that cost 50 energy each as well. This means that you have to choose between spending your energy on getting more minerals for a short period of time, scanning your enemy to gather intel or to get Extra Supply and get more units fast when you forget a Supply Depot for example.


Hmm I wonder if there is any other example he could give. Seems like thats pretty much the only use.

Blazur
02-02-2010, 03:22 PM
Hmm I wonder if there is any other example he could give. Seems like thats pretty much the only use.

Well, last we heard the supply drop permanently increases your allocated supply. So that means you're trading energy for minerals, in the case that it's casting a spell to create a supply depot (of lesser supply). A pretty big tradeoff if you ask me.

Everything about the Orbital Command introduces some value with a degree of strategic depth. If they could apply the same reasoning to the Obelisk and Queen that would do wonders for this game.

Gifted
02-02-2010, 03:24 PM
I can help with those....

Ultimately though, they are around the same idea, but still, not much more can be done regarding supply :)

It helps with not only forgetting supply depots, but doing specific tech switches. Imagine the ability to suddenly make 3 thors at the same time due to this ability. You can also use it to jump start your production when you feel that you need to react swiftly to get a correct counter going with an adequate army built up. It's not only nice to gain 8 supply fast, but to bypass the build time of a supply in a crunch.

I've also heard of a few [EDIT: Early] games where it helped a tech build swap to immediate rush builds as you save the 100 minerals and the build time of the supply, allowing a quick second or third barracks to be made. 2 supplies + 2 supply injections = 200 more minerals early to use on infantry. This might be higher value than the build time of the supply depots (and the downtime of SCVs to do so) and allow for a quick set of buildings to be made.

EDIT: I don't know the exact amount of supply injected at this time, I'm under assumption it's 6-8.

Triceron
02-02-2010, 03:36 PM
I can't say I'm for the idea of trading Energy for Minerals. I'm used to seeing abilities trade Energy for Time, but getting buildings for free is something weird, as I can't see why you wouldn't want to use this ability to save all the minerals you need.

Then again as a Terran player, I can't complain.

ArcherofAiur
02-02-2010, 03:39 PM
If the "instant supply" ability was on a race that didnt also have a mineral pathway than it would be even more useful.


I have a sketch drawn out of all the different resource pathways. Im going to post it one day. Its quite informative.

Islandsnake
02-02-2010, 03:44 PM
Oh god here we go T_T


Good update :D

Nicol Bolas
02-02-2010, 04:44 PM
The utility of Supply Drop will be seen more when gameplay starts to standardize. A few supply drops can allow you to make off-timing pushes and attacks.

And don't forget that SD also saves you the SCV that would be producing that Depot, who can now spend that time mining minerals.

Blazur
02-02-2010, 04:50 PM
And don't forget that SD also saves you the SCV that would be producing that Depot, who can now spend that time mining minerals.

Ooh, very good point. Once numbers are finalized, it will be possible to do a time analysis on how much minerals are gained from using a mule vs. wasting an SCV (and mins) to build a depot. We may find that the margin of gain from using mules is less attractive when you do the math.

n00bonicPlague
02-02-2010, 05:37 PM
Neapolitan: best of three worlds ;D

DemolitionSquid
02-02-2010, 05:40 PM
Neapolitan: best of three worlds ;D

I trump you with Laura Secord's Superkid (http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object/421/82/n2238348595_32559.jpg).

Norfindel
02-02-2010, 06:32 PM
Nonsense! The best icecream is milk caramel spread with chocolate hail (dulce de leche granizado), by far :D

milo
02-02-2010, 07:00 PM
Ben and Jerry's S'mores ice cream is pretty good

0neder
02-03-2010, 01:04 AM
HOPEFULLY they realized that warp-in IS a macro mechanic and that toss don't need another one. I will be so happy if this is true.

EDIT: Now hopefully they will realize that the tech lab/reactor switching add-ons is a terran macro mechanic.

Caliban113
02-03-2010, 01:09 AM
I agree - same goes for 'Salvage' - hopefully it can work.

Triceron
02-03-2010, 02:10 AM
HOPEFULLY they realized that warp-in IS a macro mechanic and that toss don't need another one. I will be so happy if this is true.

EDIT: Now hopefully they will realize that the tech lab/reactor switching add-ons is a terran macro mechanic.

Warp in I'll give you. Reactor/Tech lab? Not really.

Macro Mechanics are terms used for active abilities that boost macro gameplay, be it production, resources or other. You can even consider ComSat a macro ability. Warp in actually challenges the player with keeping up with cooldowns and timing. Reactors are passive upgrades to buildings that let multiple units be produced at a time, but you don't need to activate a reactor to have its effect work. It's automatic, doesn't use any extra resources (ie Energy), and doesn't change the way you make units at all.

Nicol Bolas
02-03-2010, 02:41 AM
It's automatic, doesn't use any extra resources (ie Energy), and doesn't change the way you make units at all.

I don't know about that. Reactors cost money, after all. And BR4 is proof that it changes how you make units. David Kim pulled off a move I've been predicting for years: use the initial Barracks to make a Reactor, then take the first Factory and hook it up. Bam: fast double-Hellion. My personal prediction in those days was for fast double-pumped Vikings when they were at the Factory.

What it isn't is something that requires constant upkeep and attention. It's something you base a strategy around; it isn't something you have to maintain every X seconds. Warp-In does require constant attention. So while the two do involve macro, they don't have the same effects on the player.

ArcherofAiur
02-03-2010, 07:21 AM
HOPEFULLY they realized that warp-in IS a macro mechanic and that toss don't need another one.

Warp-in is a macro mechanic and toss does need another one. Playing Protoss should have economic depth not just micro depth.

Triceron
02-03-2010, 03:38 PM
I don't know about that. Reactors cost money, after all. And BR4 is proof that it changes how you make units. David Kim pulled off a move I've been predicting for years: use the initial Barracks to make a Reactor, then take the first Factory and hook it up. Bam: fast double-Hellion. My personal prediction in those days was for fast double-pumped Vikings when they were at the Factory.


But that's like considering making a building is a macro mechanic. That's what the Reactor is, an addon (cheaper building) that mimics the workings of an actual building.

How would you separate this fine line between 2 barracks and barracks+reactor? In both situations, you're spending resources and time to allow yourself to produce more units at once. The only difference is one depends on an existing building to work - which is not a notable aspect of a macro mechanic.

ArcherofAiur
02-03-2010, 03:39 PM
But that's like considering making a building is a macro mechanic. That's what the Reactor is, an addon (cheaper building) that mimics the workings of an actual building.

How would you separate this fine line between 2 barracks and barracks+reactor? In both situations, you're spending resources and time to allow yourself to produce more units at once.

Making a building is a macro mechanic.

Triceron
02-03-2010, 03:41 PM
Hrm, I guess I never considered it as such.

ArcherofAiur
02-03-2010, 03:44 PM
Hrm, I guess I never considered it as such.

See if you can find others. You'll be surprised.

Nicol Bolas
02-03-2010, 05:15 PM
How would you separate this fine line between 2 barracks and barracks+reactor? In both situations, you're spending resources and time to allow yourself to produce more units at once. The only difference is one depends on an existing building to work - which is not a notable aspect of a macro mechanic.

There is a clear difference between these two circumstances.

Barrackses cost no gas; Reactors do. So the player making the choice for a Reactor must get a Refinery, thus spending minerals and SCV mining time on 50 gas. Yet a Reactor only costs 50 minerals, so the mineral cost difference is fairly close.

However, Reactors can be swapped between buildings. That Reactor can be used for a Factory or StarPort. A Barracks will never be anything other than a Barracks. You can't even salvage them (you can only salvage immobile buildings, which is why it's nice that the Engineering Bay is immobile). Even if you never need the Reactor after the early-game, that's fine: you can just salvage it to reclaim its cost.

Double-Barracks is faster than Barracks+Reactor. But the long-term prospects and strategy for Barracks+Reactor is greater.

Interchangeable Reactor/Tech Labs allow you to make very dynamic build orders. For example, what is the timing on Siege Tanks? Is it time to build a Barracks + time to build a Factory + time to build a Tech Lab on the Factory like in SC1? Or is it just time to build a Barracks + time to build a Factory, with the Tech Lab coming from one built by the Barracks? Fast Siege-Mode is not going to be something you're going to forget when you get steamrolled out of an expansion.

As I said, it isn't a continuous mechanic that requires constant attention. But it is a dynamic mechanic, that a wise Terran player will have to master and exploit when designing builds and performing sudden, necessary tech switches.

Norfindel
02-03-2010, 06:48 PM
I see Double-pump as a macro choice, but not a macro mechanic. It only allows you to build two units at once, so it doesn't detracts from micro.

Nicol Bolas
02-03-2010, 07:20 PM
I see Double-pump as a macro choice, but not a macro mechanic. It only allows you to build two units at once, so it doesn't detracts from micro.

This is getting kind of off topic, but why does a macro mechanic have to detract from micro?

ArcherofAiur
02-03-2010, 07:33 PM
Detract is a bad word. Its not about hurting micro so much as it is about helping macro. Its about promoting and differentiating macro playstyles from micro ones. If a player can micro and macro at the same time their is no differentiation.

Triceron
02-03-2010, 08:59 PM
Barrackses cost no gas; Reactors do.

However, Reactors can be swapped between buildings.

Double-Barracks is faster than Barracks+Reactor. But the long-term prospects and strategy for Barracks+Reactor is greater.

Interchangeable Reactor/Tech Labs allow you to make very dynamic build orders.

Basically what your saying is alternative routes (Reactor, Warp Gate) for the static production building (Barracks, Factory, Gateway) system can be considered a Macro Mechanic.

Do you agree in saying creating buildings is a macro mechanic, or must it be in an alternative form of production?

ArcherofAiur
02-03-2010, 09:55 PM
Basically what your saying is alternative routes (Reactor, Warp Gate) for the static production building (Barracks, Factory, Gateway) system can be considered a Macro Mechanic.

Do you agree in saying creating buildings is a macro mechanic, or must it be in an alternative form of production?

Just to clear up something. Their are allot of macro mechanics in Starcraft. But the specific macro mechanic we are looking to create has to full certain roles.

Norfindel
02-04-2010, 08:26 AM
Detract is a bad word. Its not about hurting micro so much as it is about helping macro. Its about promoting and differentiating macro playstyles from micro ones. If a player can micro and macro at the same time their is no differentiation.


This is getting kind of off topic, but why does a macro mechanic have to detract from micro?
What do we know about the need for macro mechanics? That macro is too easy (at least at pro-gamer level), so that allows a micro player to macro perfectly, while microing perfectly, blurring the line between the two styles.

If a macro mechanic doesn't impair micro in some way, the micro player can use it the same, and thus, nothing is solved by it's existence. This is the case of double-pump: macro is too easy, so you create a mechanic that makes macro still easier, without any kind of negative impact on unit control. Ok, it cost some resources, but on the unit control department, it's a free lunch.

Macro is already too easy. You don't really need to help macro, you need to make a player choose between micro and macro, and that isn't possible if the mechanic can be used perfectly while microing, like Double-pump. Of course, if the player is a damn god, he will be able to use both, but only in that case, and it cannot be easy. Double-pump is as easy as normal production for every kind of player, once the Reactor is built.

Nicol Bolas
02-04-2010, 02:16 PM
If a macro mechanic doesn't impair micro in some way, the micro player can use it the same, and thus, nothing is solved by it's existence.

But Reactor/Tech Lab wasn't added to solve this issue. It was added because it was a cool macro mechanic. Same as Warp-In.

It's strange to fault something for solving a problem that it was not intended to solve.

ArcherofAiur
02-04-2010, 02:35 PM
But Reactor/Tech Lab wasn't added to solve this issue. It was added because it was a cool macro mechanic. Same as Warp-In.

It's strange to fault something for solving a problem that it was not intended to solve.

Whose faulting anything?

n00bonicPlague
02-04-2010, 11:14 PM
It's funny how most of the most famous inventions and innovations are pure accidents. That explains why Blizzard goes with the philosophy of throwing random crap at a wall and seeing if it sticks. It could be, however, that their intention of artificially producing an accident is too purposeful, thus rendering their philosophy self-defeating.

Norfindel
02-05-2010, 08:44 AM
But Reactor/Tech Lab wasn't added to solve this issue. It was added because it was a cool macro mechanic. Same as Warp-In.

It's strange to fault something for solving a problem that it was not intended to solve.
We were introduced to "macro mechanics" with the geyser stuff and MULEs, Spawn Larva, and PC, that are intended to solve the "macro too easy" situation. I'm calling macro mechanics to those kind of mechanics, not to any that has something to do with unit production. It's a confusing name, but that's the name Blizzard choosed to use. Macro challenge mechanics (MCM for short) would be less confusing.

This is made worse, by the fact that macro has differing definitions. When macro is defined as a playstyle that uses a lot of units with less per-unit control, only mechanics that help to build more units, while making unit control more difficult can be called macro mechanics, otherwise they're just mechanics without any kind of macro/micro bias. I consider this the right definition of macro.
When macro is defined as everything that has something to do with unit production, construction, and resource gathering, then even things like rally-mine and MBS are also macro mechanics.

Anyways, using my new asspulled definition, every mechanic that allows you to build more units and detracts from micro is a MCM, including: MULEs, SL, PC, and construction. Maybe even Warp-in, as it makes micro more difficult.

.

Triceron
02-05-2010, 03:42 PM
That's a more focused definition that I'd like to work with. I really don't like the idea having to make a supporting argument for or against a certain Macro Mechanic, only to have the argument fall back on its face because the term 'Macro' itself is general enough to include troop rally points or making buildings.

It's difficult though, because some MCM borders on simply being 'macro' (ie Reactors acting like Buildings). On the other end of the spectrum you have abilities on spellcasters that work like Macro Mechanics. There's a very fine line between Spawn Larvae and Spawn Infested Terrans. In both cases, you're producing units, right?

Norfindel
02-05-2010, 06:36 PM
Yeah, but Infested Terrans have timed life, and don't use supply, so they're more like Broodlings, instead of standard units.

If they were permanent, they would cost resources, or things would start to get out of control fairly quickly :p

ArcherofAiur
02-06-2010, 12:59 PM
Spawn Infested Terrans falls much more into the realm of micro than macro. This has to do with several things like what the actions is, what the outcome is, what realms of the game it affects, etc...

I think people try too hard to put strict definitions on these things. A comprehensive but flexible perspective is much more useful.

Triceron
02-07-2010, 03:28 PM
Flexible perspectives make it very hard to communicate any ideas. I want to make sure we're on the same subject. I want to find those lines and make sure we're all talking about the same thing.

If the topic is about what cats like to eat, I don't expect someone to have a 'flexible perspective' and talk about lions eating gazelles.

ArcherofAiur
02-07-2010, 04:54 PM
Flexible perspectives make it very hard to communicate any ideas.

No it doesnt.

DemolitionSquid
02-07-2010, 05:09 PM
Its like everyone suddenly forgets they're talking to Archer. He's insane.

Triceron
02-07-2010, 06:31 PM
No it doesnt.

Yes it does. Don't you ever wonder why no one knows what you're talking about half the time? It's because you expect people to read your mind when you're talking about one thing while saying something completely different.

Nicol Bolas
02-07-2010, 07:00 PM
I think I've figured it out. ArcherofAiur is actually Humpty Dumpty from "Through the Looking Glass." It makes perfect sense.

Don't believe me? Observe:


`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

DemolitionSquid
02-07-2010, 07:12 PM
IQ... dropping...

Brain... melting...

Eyes.... bleeding...

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

Triceron
02-07-2010, 07:34 PM
I think I've figured it out. ArcherofAiur is actually Humpty Dumpty from "Through the Looking Glass." It makes perfect sense.

Don't believe me? Observe:

...Wow.

I never figured that something that made absolutely no sense could make so much sense.

ArcherofAiur
02-07-2010, 08:31 PM
I think we hit a sore spot with allot of people from the "what makes a unit" debate :p

Triceron
02-07-2010, 09:20 PM
Don't forget 'funny noses'. Because it obviously means full body.

ArcherofAiur
02-08-2010, 02:36 AM
Don't forget 'funny noses'. Because it obviously means full body.

Yah when I said sci fi aliens were almost always just people with "funny noses" I was clearly refering to them having literally funny noses.....

On a side note, no I am not going to simplfy my commentary just so you dont have to think before responding. If you dont understand something ask. However if you continue to say things like "oh your so stupid you said [my sarcastic comment]" then I will continue to laugh at you.

Triceron
02-08-2010, 03:39 AM
I'll stop calling you stupid when you stop saying stupid things.

If you're going to make vague statements that can easily be misinterpreted, they will be misinterpreted. If you're not going to explain your statements, then you're just going to continue to confuse people. This is especially hard to understand when you're making extreme statements without drawing a line. I shouldn't have to ask what you're talking about every time you make a statement. Your opinions should be clear to begin with.

If your funny noses comment was made towards Star Trek aliens, it would have made sense. How the hell am I supposed to know your definition of 'funny noses' included humanoids with chicken feet or hump backs? Those aren't even parts of the face. It's shit like that which makes it difficult to talk to you.

Nicol Bolas
02-08-2010, 04:02 AM
On a side note, no I am not going to simplfy my commentary just so you dont have to think before responding.

There is a large difference between simplifying commentary and accurate communication. If people don't understand what you've said, then you haven't actually said anything, so there was little point in writing something.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to learn that people process information differently from you. Take "funny noses," for example. The concept you were trying to get across was "aliens that are just modified humans." The problem with the term "funny noses" is that it isn't the most prominent example of this concept.

There's a reason why the TVTropes equivalent is called "Rubber Forehead Aliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RubberForeheadAliens)" and has a picture of Worf as a descriptive image. This is much more effective at communicating the concept than "funny noses."

If you want to effectively communicate, then you have to understand and use words in the same way as your audience will. If you want to be constantly misunderstood and leave every conversation firmly convinced of your superiority despite never having actually communicated with anyone, then please ignore this recommendation.

ArcherofAiur
02-08-2010, 10:53 AM
I'll stop calling you stupid when you stop saying stupid things.

The incredible part is that you just misinterpreted that sentence. Its like your trying to prove my point. Here go back and read the sentence. No seriously go back and read it. Pay close attention to how I say that your calling stupid a sarcastic comment by me and Im laughing that you didnt realize it.



If your funny noses comment was made towards Star Trek aliens, it would have made sense. How the hell am I supposed to know your definition of 'funny noses' included humanoids with chicken feet or hump backs? Those aren't even parts of the face. It's shit like that which makes it difficult to talk to you.

I have a confession to make. That "funny noses" term isnt even my own. It was on a 1up article I read a couple weeks ago. Now let me ask you, if I could instantly understand what 1up was talking about why did you have such trouble?




Take home point: Communication, like thinking, is an associative process. Process what your reading.


If you do youll finally be able to understand what people are talking about when they say things like "funny noses" and "units". And than you wont have to use excuses like "oh ArcherofAiur and Blizzard are bad communicators since I didnt understand what they were saying". Especially when other people understood it just fine ;)

Triceron
02-08-2010, 01:28 PM
Edit - delete meh!

Triceron
02-08-2010, 01:42 PM
Lets see if I can make it even more clear.

You made a joke. You think I didn't understand the joke. I understood you were making a joke, and are telling you it's a bad joke. I've been trying my best now to tell you to tell better jokes, preferrably ones that make more sense.

You still think the jokes were fine because everyone smiled and nodded when you told it, despite a people actually telling you it didn't make enough sense. If it really made that much sense, I wouldn't have had to call you out on it.

Your idea of 'funny noses' made sense after you explained your stance on what types of aliens you were okay with and what types you didn't like. The point is there was no way to find that out in your original statement, which is as vague as 'I don't like any aliens with a face'.

ArcherofAiur
02-08-2010, 01:57 PM
Lets see if I can make it even more clear.

You made a joke. You think I didn't understand the joke. I understood you were making a joke, but am telling you the joke didn't make sense. I've been trying my best now to tell you to tell better jokes, preferrably ones that make sense.

You still think the jokes were fine because everyone smiled and nodded when you told it, despite a couple people actually telling you it didn't make sense.

If it really made that much sense, I wouldn't have had to call you out on it.

What joke? You and Nicol are on some sort of crusade becuase you didnt understand terms like units and funny noses.

And as I already stated the funny noses came from a 1up article. Everyone else reading understood, why didnt you?


By the way you double posted.

DemolitionSquid
02-08-2010, 02:06 PM
Everyone else reading understood, why didnt you?

No, no they didn't. I sure as hell don't read 1Up.