Creating a Camus

[Hasnbaakoajsbakaiaja]

7 hours ago, Refa said:

It'd help if the main villain wasn't the embodiment of evil.  If the conflict was a war of idealogies, you can more easily get behind a good person being on the wrong side.

This is true. My vote went to Ishtar and Eldigan. Best Camuses easily. Who on earth voted for Xander? Really?

 

Also, @Refa,

I love Girlish Number!

[Gruntagen]

8 minutes ago, 1japanfan said:

 My vote went to Ishtar and Eldigan. Best Camuses easily

Mind explaining your reasoning for the thread?

[Hasnbaakoajsbakaiaja]

1 minute ago, Gruntagen said:

Mind explaining your reasoning for the thread?

Ishtar saved the children who were going to be sacrificed to Loptyr. Endangering herself and going directly against Julius the man she once loved, and fought for that. Eldigan was an awesome childhood friend who helped Sigurd when it didn't get in the way of his loyalty to Augustria. He had great personality and wielded Mystletainn and selflessly used it to defend his country only to be betrayed in the end.

[Hardin]

Ishtar is a terrible Camus. She literally shares her bed with the embodiment of evil and plays a game to see who can kill the fastest for fun. She's a complete shithead. 

[Gruntagen]

21 minutes ago, 1japanfan said:

Ishtar saved the children who were going to be sacrificed to Loptyr. Endangering herself and going directly against Julius the man she once loved, and fought for that. Eldigan was an awesome childhood friend who helped Sigurd when it didn't get in the way of his loyalty to Augustria. He had great personality and wielded Mystletainn and selflessly used it to defend his country only to be betrayed in the end.

Okay then.

At the risk of making myself look like a jerk, I personally feel that Eltosian and Ishtar have dated on retrospect. The former prostrates himself to an belligerent usurper king and seems to be the only person in Augustria not to know about him being a usurper, and then dies because he tries to reason with Shagall over and again. The latter shows herself constantly to be just as antagonistic as the rest of her family towards Celice and co, even joining Yurius in a hit-and-run murder contest in Chapter 10, and whose only redeeming quality is just told to the audience out of nowhere by an unimportant NPC right before we fight her for the last time. Not exactly the stuff of real character substance.

[Hasnbaakoajsbakaiaja]

1 minute ago, Gruntagen said:

Okay then.

At the risk of making myself look like a jerk, I personally feel that Eltosian and Ishtar have dated on retrospect. The former prostrates himself to an belligerent usurper king and seems to be the only person in Augustria not to know about him being a usurper, and then dies because he tries to reason with Shagall over and again. The latter shows herself constantly to be just as antagonistic as the rest of her family towards Celice and co, even joining Yurius in a hit-and-run murder contest in Chapter 10, and whose only redeeming quality is just told to the audience out of nowhere by an unimportant NPC right before we fight her for the last time. Not exactly the stuff of real character substance.

Don't worry. That didn't sound jerkish and even if it did it wouldn't matter, everyone has opinions. Who would you say then? Since Eldigan and Ishtar are currently in the lead as of now.

[Gruntagen]

I don't mind it. Long as they're not voting for Xander and his utter failure to understand what the heck a Camus is supposed to be beyond the surface details of looking like Char and fighting for bad guys.

[Augestein]

1 hour ago, Thane said:

It's believable because of assumptions, you mean. We know very, very little about Garon and Xander's relationship other than Xander finding his father scary and tough but fair as a kid. We don't know how Garon acted towards Xander before or after the transformation, how old he was at the time or anything of the sort. 

However, no matter how believable it is, it doesn't change the fact that it's horribly, horribly written. If we never get to experience Garon and Xander's relationship, and if it's never the forefront of Xander's behavior or personality which is explored in depth, then that excuse simply doesn't work. Xander's supports reveal that his primary motivations are his family and his country, not obeying Garon which comes at the expense of both. In Corrin's A support, he even says he's now strong enough to stand up to him, yet we don't see that in the main game. The simple truth is that in the context of what the game wants us to think of Xander and how he acts in his supports, his main story portrayal makes absolutely zero sense, and no anecdote will change that.

And no, Xander doesn't "come around" in Conquest; he stands face to face with an evil monster and he flat out admits everything he has done up until that point has been pointless. That's not heroic, that's not a personal victory, it's a scumbag getting a convenient excuse to finally do the right thing.

I suppose, but it's hard to think that they'd have to spell out that Garon wasn't always a total nutjob-- plus some supports seem to well... Support that. And I agree that this was pretty lame on their part to not specify that. It's my biggest problem with Fates and why I actually consider it the worst of them. So much talking, and so little of it actually matters. In this regard, I can bypass things that aren't super spelled out, like we don't have to see that Hinoka trained to know that she did, we can take it at value because the game says so and has her perform rather competently over the course of the game. Some things work in this regard, some don't. It's clear that the writers' / editors don't entirely understand when / how this works as it happens at several points in the game. 

I can also agree with this, but only partially. It's a jarring concept when you consider that supports and story Xander don't really mesh together. Story Xander is very weak-willed in almost every aspect, the game says he's not selfish and willing to do what he can for his country, but seeing Garon do these things, there's no real rationality for accepting it outside of foolish sentiments. That in and of itself doesn't bother me. The issue isn't that his actions aren't believable. They are depending on the characterization-- the issue is that the character traits given to Xander in addition to his behavior is nonsensical. That's the decisive blow that makes Xander awful. It's the equivalent to saying x + 3 = 8 and the author insists that the number is 6 when throughout the story we show that this mystery x is always 5. Yet the story wants you to believe that it's not despite the fact that it's obvious it is. It's the same reasoning for why I hate Azura (even worse than Xander could ever hope to be tbh). Her whole purpose is to prevent a war between the two nations, and she's just okay with totally screwing that up in 2 of the 3 routes. At least Xander has the Nohrian bias to cloud his judgment. It's the author's insistence that he doesn't take crap from anyone that's the issue here. 

When I say "come around," I mean that in the end, he does stand against his own father. He doesn't go the way of say, Selena or several other Camus archetypes, and fight you and die (at least in Conquest). He actually comes around to supporting / believing Corrin and eventually does the right thing. He's not  heroic, but at least in the end of the day he did the right thing. Sort of like Darth Vader. Definitely not a hero, but somewhat redeemable by the end. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Augestein

[SullyMcGully]

Lloyd and Linus are the best in my opinion. Whichever one you fight first is fighting you in obedience to their father, whom they see no reason to distrust despite distrusting Sonia. When the heroes reveal the truth, that brother will begin to reconsider his position, but is quickly slain. Then the other brother is blinded by rage and is unable to be reasoned with. It makes for some of the best battle conversations in the series, because there is absolutely nothing Nino can do to change their minds, no matter what she tells you.

 

[blah the Prussian]

Ishtar in FE5 is an interesting take on a Camus that can be even better with good writing. Basically, have the Camus support the villain due to being in an abusive relationship. Alternatively, you could have a Black and Grey morality setting; others have mentioned this, but that's basically Augustria vs Grandbell. Maybe the Camus legitimately doesn't want their country to lose the war, because they have reason to believe that, should they lose, their country would get treated just as badly by the heroes as it treated the good country. To reinforce this, there can be a general ripper style leader on the hero's side.

[Thane]

14 minutes ago, Augestein said:

I suppose, but it's hard to think that they'd have to spell out that Garon wasn't always a total nutjob-- plus some supports seem to well... Support that.

He wasn't always a total nutjob, but we don't get to see it; Garon and Xander's relation doesn't get shown and what little we're told of it isn't enough to justify Xander's behavior. If anything, Garon not always having been crazy should tell the siblings that something is horribly, horribly wrong; literally one of the first things that happen in Conquest is Xander hearing his father holding an evil monologue about making Corrin suffer to the point where he'll beg for a death he won't grant them. That should set off more than a few alarm bells.

It's impossible to justify Xander's actions by using his relationship with Garon simply because there are not enough facts to support any valid theory. The game wants to portray him as being a wise, older, caring older brother and a hero in his own right, but this clashes so much with what he actually does that it might as well be some form of satire. By saying "well he's just loyal to Garon/he acts that way because he was absued" simply doesn't work because of our lack of information and how he's presented in-game.

22 minutes ago, Augestein said:

When I say "come around," I mean that in the end, he does stand against his own father. 

No he doesn't. Garon is dead and a literal monster is inhabiting his body. He's not standing up to anything, he defeats Garon just like any other Faceless. There's no emotional weight here because he gets a convenient excuse that the game frames as pardoning him of his crimes, even though the only thing that has changed is that he now knows he was following a literal monster as opposed to a metaphorical one.

[Azure Sen]

I think the best Camuses was either Galle or Lloyd and Linus. The former because he seems to be completely unaware of his boss's genocidal intentions (in fact, I don't think he and Zephiel interact at all), so it's more believable that he willingly follows the ruthless but competent Zephiel, and the latter two actually express doubts about what the Black Fang is doing and might have actually pulled a face-turn if a certain morph hadn't gotten in the way.

1 hour ago, Hardin said:

Ishtar is a terrible Camus. She literally shares her bed with the embodiment of evil and plays a game to see who can kill the fastest for fun. She's a complete shithead. 

Pretty much this. The whole "Camus because love" thing kind of rings hollow when her boyfriend is literally FE Satan. (You could say the same thing about Selena, but at least she recognized that what she was doing was wrong. Ishtar seemed to draw the line at the child hunts but otherwise had no qualms about what Julius was doing.)

[Augestein]

15 minutes ago, Thane said:

He wasn't always a total nutjob, but we don't get to see it; Garon and Xander's relation doesn't get shown and what little we're told of it isn't enough to justify Xander's behavior. If anything, Garon not always having been crazy should tell the siblings that something is horribly, horribly wrong; literally one of the first things that happen in Conquest is Xander hearing his father holding an evil monologue about making Corrin suffer to the point where he'll beg for a death he won't grant them. That should set off more than a few alarm bells.

It's impossible to justify Xander's actions by using his relationship with Garon simply because there are not enough facts to support any valid theory. The game wants to portray him as being a wise, older, caring older brother and a hero in his own right, but this clashes so much with what he actually does that it might as well be some form of satire. By saying "well he's just loyal to Garon/he acts that way because he was absued" simply doesn't work because of our lack of information and how he's presented in-game.

Of course it should. But that's just why the writing is so bad. The idea of a son not wanting to kill his own father isn't bad and is understandable, even if the father is kinda nuts. That I can believe. The issue is that we're given info contrary to it. We're to believe that Xander would openly defy his father if need be, the supports say so, and yet, at almost every given opportunity given in game, he's not doing it. That's what I'm saying. Having said that, it still at least puts Xander a little higher on the "stupid Camus" trope because at least he has some backstory with the man-- being his father and all. It's better than crazed zealots like Bryce who don't even have an actual established relationship, or Ishtar who fight because of "love." At least people like Selena have the brass to say they know they are wrong and they don't care-- which in my makes me forgive her as a character because she acknowledges her flawed logic. My biggest gripe with Xander is that the game doesn't want you to believe that Xander's mindset isn't messed up-- it is. But Xander himself on that I can partially bypass. The painting around him ? Nah. 

20 minutes ago, Thane said:

No he doesn't. Garon is dead and a literal monster is inhabiting his body. He's not standing up to anything, he defeats Garon just like any other Faceless. There's no emotional weight here because he gets a convenient excuse that the game frames as pardoning him of his crimes, even though the only thing that has changed is that he now knows he was following a literal monster as opposed to a metaphorical one.

Sure it does. Even if Garon is a literal slime monster, he still in turn doesn't allow Garon to continue doing what Garon does. I'll grant you that there's no emotional weight, and that this was definitely stupid, but it's a small bit of stupid encased around a mansion of stupid at this point. Xander could have easily turned around and been like: "he's still right, we should kill all of Hoshido." He could have been worse. Much worse. 

[Extrasolar]

39 minutes ago, Thane said:

He wasn't always a total nutjob, but we don't get to see it; Garon and Xander's relation doesn't get shown and what little we're told of it isn't enough to justify Xander's behavior. If anything, Garon not always having been crazy should tell the siblings that something is horribly, horribly wrong; literally one of the first things that happen in Conquest is Xander hearing his father holding an evil monologue about making Corrin suffer to the point where he'll beg for a death he won't grant them. That should set off more than a few alarm bells.

It's impossible to justify Xander's actions by using his relationship with Garon simply because there are not enough facts to support any valid theory. The game wants to portray him as being a wise, older, caring older brother and a hero in his own right, but this clashes so much with what he actually does that it might as well be some form of satire. By saying "well he's just loyal to Garon/he acts that way because he was absued" simply doesn't work because of our lack of information and how he's presented in-game.

No he doesn't. Garon is dead and a literal monster is inhabiting his body. He's not standing up to anything, he defeats Garon just like any other Faceless. There's no emotional weight here because he gets a convenient excuse that the game frames as pardoning him of his crimes, even though the only thing that has changed is that he now knows he was following a literal monster as opposed to a metaphorical one.

 

 

 

I can't stand the whole "Garon used to be a good guy" "justification" for Xander and his siblings' behavior. It absolutely reeks of the violation of the show, don't tell rule, which is the #1 most important rule when it comes to writing. At least, if we had been given some hints, some occasional flashes of pre-blob monster Garon's personality showing through in the main Conquest path, it would have given us audience members something to latch onto as to why the Nohrian siblings are so willing to spit in the face of their own morals and effectively destroy Hoshido for this man. But we don't. We get nothing but cackling, obviously evil Garon the whole way through, making everyone involved look like idiots, if not just as morally dead as blob monster Garon.

Having their entire justification (previous, supposedly "good" Garon) be a completely off-screen thing makes it come off even worse.

And yeah, Xander's concept is a good one...but in actual practice, he tends to come off as hypocritical at best. "Morally upstanding paladin that supposedly makes no exceptions even for his close siblings (to the point that he effectively threatens to execute Corrin if he finds out they are lying about Garon being a monster at the end of the Conquest path)" doesn't jive with "guy who's too afraid to stand up for his beliefs, and blindly follows a clearly tyrannical, evil guy because 'daddy may turn back into a half-decent guy'."

Then there's his supports with Peri, where he's terribly out of character, notwithstanding...

Edited February 26, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Thane]

11 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Having said that, it still at least puts Xander a little higher on the "stupid Camus" trope because at least he has some backstory with the man-- being his father and all. 

Yet following him goes against everything he believes in. As far as I know, most Camuses are not only at least convinced that they're right, but they're also still villains - Xander is meant to be a hero or a sympathetic character, but he's neither of these things. 

If anything, Xander's loyalty to just one man as opposed to his entire family and kingdom is a problem, not a saving grace.

 

14 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Sure it does. Even if Garon is a literal slime monster, he still in turn doesn't allow Garon to continue doing what Garon does. I'll grant you that there's no emotional weight, and that this was definitely stupid, but it's a small bit of stupid encased around a mansion of stupid at this point. Xander could have easily turned around and been like: "he's still right, we should kill all of Hoshido." He could have been worse. Much worse. 

Are you trolling me and taking the piss right now? This is not an argument; there's nothing I can say to this because you just went "yeah but if he went against his established character he could've been worse". Garon is dead and a monster is attacking them - how does that count for standing up to someone?!

[Gruntagen]

[DELETED]

Edited February 26, 2017 by Gruntagen
Jesus, I can't believe I didn't realize how rude this sounded for a whole five minutes

[Jedi]

I'm still going to stand with my Wolfguard vote despite them not being properly Camus's because thats how I feel it should be done, make their lord honorable and virtuous, but fallen from grace, maybe not as extremely as Hardin did, but some ambition or something, but also stick to their morals. 

You'd have a really solid Camus or Group with that, however only a few games could probably write this 100% properly, and FE isn't one of those. The Legend of Heroes however... Does sympathetic anti-heroes or villains quite often, and almost always well. Maybe IS should take a leaf out of Falcoms book.

[Dragrath]

Fates is super disconnected with regards to character personality depending on what support you read and what not you get completely different behavior and mentalities for one. The whole things feels like they forced an outline without thinking how to make their world more alive or their characters anything more than one dimensional. Actually it is worse because that one dimension is disjointed and disconnected)

 

Now that gets to the real issue with the Camus archetype the fact that the villains are often portrayed as absolute evil incarnate. This makes it more unbelievable for any sane man to actually side with them where as in any realistic conflict there are usually pros and cons in nearly any case. Ideally I feel it would be more impactful for a faction to have multiple Camus's each reluctant to act out as a consequence of the ideals they have been raised on as well as some valid reason for why their faction slipped off in  a particular reason rather than insane chaotic evil dragon god...

 

 

Another point worth mentioning is that in the real world good people do horrible things all the time especially in times of war.  Do note that part of why we see so much black and white conflicts in Japanese culture might have to do with their current reluctance to admit that they committed certain atrocities  during the last world war. In that case much of the public was being spoon fed towards the righteous goals of the Japanese Empire while the military was indoctrinating soldiers by making them watch and participate in horrible things so their guilt would keep them fighting/loyal as they became part of it. It has been shown that people are far more willing to do things they know are bad when a proper authority says they will take responsibility so even during the rise to tyrants through history many people have opted to do nothing and live in ignorant bliss towards how bad things are even if they really do know what is going on.

[Etrurian emperor]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

I think a big thing in Eldigan's favour is that they depicted his situation as a lot more limited in options than a lot of other Camus in the series. Sigurd is unwillingly a representative of a nation that is tearing Agustria apart so even with the friendship, Eldigan has a lot less reason to defect than most other Camus. Aside from being a Camus his only other reasonable options are to completely abandon his country and defect to a neutral one or to try and pull off a coup which would only divide his nation even more while Grandbell is sitting there (already occupying half of it) just itching to seize control. And when it comes down to it, he doesn't just blindly fight the heroes without questioning the motives of his superiors. He continues to question Chagall and even gets executed for it (unless you don't want the Earth Sword for some reason). Honestly he's probably the most reasonable Camus in the series by a wide margin.

Didn't Shagaal attack again just as Sigurd and Co were leaving. I recall Sigurd saying almost those exact words ''Just as were were about to leave''

Wouldn't Eldigan be able to take over? Take over the country and strike a deal with Sigurd who is leading the force closest to him. He is a descendant of Hezul too and the one being able to wield the holy weapon to boot. I know its non canon but the manga does adress the subject, the reasonable Augustrian commander(Zeke) wants Eldigan to take the throne and he refuses in favor of Shagaal. 

[Augestein]

37 minutes ago, Thane said:

Yet following him goes against everything he believes in. As far as I know, most Camuses are not only at least convinced that they're right, but they're also still villains - Xander is meant to be a hero or a sympathetic character, but he's neither of these things. 

If anything, Xander's loyalty to just one man as opposed to his entire family and kingdom is a problem, not a saving grace.

Not entirely. Eldigan isn't convinced but caught in a rock and a hard place. He's not sure which side to take, and you can actually have Eldigan perish not even by your own hand. Selena knows she's wrong for instance and admits as such, to herself as well as Duessel. Bryce only does it to preserve the bloodline, and doesn't care if it's right or not. Brunya is just kind of there and doesn't have any reasons really. Her characterization is honestly really poor.  To be honest, it's a bad trope in the first place, as some of the problem is that the person is borderline or beyond fanatical about their actions. Some of which are more justified than others like Eldigan, but some don't have any sort of anything but blind loyalty. 

Of which he's convinced himself loyalty to Garon is to everyone else as well. Like... It's something in comparison to many of the other ones. At least Xander is just laughably stupid-- a trait that seems to be par for the course in Fates. 

37 minutes ago, Thane said:

Are you trolling me and taking the piss right now? This is not an argument; there's nothing I can say to this because you just went "yeah but if he went against his established character he could've been worse". Garon is dead and a monster is attacking them - how does that count for standing up to someone?!

I think you're misunderstanding my point completely is the problem. The issue is that in the end of the day, he doesn't turn around and kill the heroes in Conquest. Conquest Xander isn't meant to be a Camus. Birthright Xander is, and I already mentioned that he's awful. Brunya for instance? She continues to fight for Zephiel despite him being dead. So yes, in comparison to people like Brunya, Conquest Xander in this case is in fact, better than she is despite the fact that Zephiel's entire plan is to eliminate humanity. Quite literally for Conquest Xander to be worse would require you to make Garon become the slime monster, kill him, and then Xander is like "I'm STILL going to kill Hoshido."

Edited February 26, 2017 by Augestein

[Gruntagen]

If I'm reading your post right, Augestein, you're saying you like Xander in Conquest because he DOESN'T go insane and defend a blob monster in that mode, even though he does in Birthright? 

That's...that's not even damning with faint praise. That's the equivalent of deciding not to add arsenic to a bowl of rat poison and calling it "edible" because of it.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Gruntagen

[Thane]

9 minutes ago, Augestein said:

I think you're misunderstanding my point completely is the problem. The issue is that in the end of the day, he doesn't turn around and kill the heroes in Conquest. Conquest Xander isn't meant to be a Camus. Birthright Xander is, and I already mentioned that he's awful. Brunya for instance? She continues to fight for Zephiel despite him being dead. So yes, in comparison to people like Brunya, Conquest Xander in this case is in fact, better than she is despite the fact that Zephiel's entire plan is to eliminate humanity. Quite literally for Conquest Xander to be worse would require you to make Garon become the slime monster, kill him, and then Xander is like "I'm STILL going to kill Hoshido."

Okay.

So? This doesn't change the fact that you literally went "Xander could be worse if he went against his established personality", and bringing up another villain doesn't suddenly mean Xander is standing up to his father. Me not understanding your argument might be because it makes no sense to begin with.

[Augestein]

4 minutes ago, Gruntagen said:

 

If I'm reading your post right, Augestein, you're saying you like Xander in Conquest because he DOESN'T go insane and defend a blob monster in that mode, even though he does in Birthright? 

That's...that's not even damning with faint praise. That's the equivalent of deciding not to add arsenic to a bowl of rat poison and calling it "edible" because of it

 

No. I never said I liked him. All I've been saying is that at least it's somewhat understandable that he wouldn't want to side against his father at base. The handling of it is garbage, but how many Camus types are handled well? What I'm saying is that he could have been like Selena, Brunya, or any of the other "I will fight to the death morals be damned." But at least in Conquest, he does manage to you know, not decide to destroy Hoshido. It's not much, but it puts him ahead of others that simply do it because reasons. 

It's more like this: calling a bowl of rat poison inedible but worse than rat poison filled with emetics to cause vomiting in the event that it's ingested. Like we're talking about the best of the best Camus' and the worst. At least Xander kinda has a reason in that the villain is his father. It sucks that there's some inconsistency problems, but this is also the same game that has Sakura complain that she can't escape the faceless when her sister with a Pegasus is right next to her. 

7 minutes ago, Thane said:

So? This doesn't change the fact that you literally went "Xander could be worse if he went against his established personality", and bringing up another villain doesn't suddenly mean Xander is standing up to his father. Me not understanding your argument might be because it makes no sense to begin with.

No I didn't. I said "Xander could be worse in that he could have kept following to the end." Conquest Xander doesn't. Even if it's only to fight a slime monster, he at least stops. Which is more than some of the other characters that don't. Now explain how that doesn't make any sense?  I already said that this is a problem for Xander as the game seems to have some consistency problems. That still doesn't make him worse than characters that fanatically follow to the death, even when they are presented as knowing their liege is wrong-- which again, Xander apparently does not know this.  Like my argument makes more sense than "say Xander is the worst character ever." 

[Thane]

21 minutes ago, Augestein said:

No I didn't. I said "Xander could be worse in that he could have kept following to the end." Conquest Xander doesn't. Even if it's only to fight a slime monster, he at least stops. Which is more than some of the other characters that don't. Now explain how that doesn't make any sense?  I already said that this is a problem for Xander as the game seems to have some consistency problems. That still doesn't make him worse than characters that fanatically follow to the death, even when they are presented as knowing their liege is wrong-- which again, Xander apparently does not know this.  Like my argument makes more sense than "say Xander is the worst character ever." 

What still doesn't make sense is why you bring that up; it's still a nonsensical argument. Xander has known the entire time that what they did was pointless, a convenient excuse shows up, so he stops and is still praised as a hero at the end of the game.

We were talking about whether or not Xander stood up to Garon, I said no and you said "yeah but he could've went on killing people". I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're even trying to get at with this non sequitur. It makes no sense in the context of our conversation. Do you think this somehow proves anything at all?

Edited February 26, 2017 by Thane

[Gruntagen]

In the same sense that Eye of Argon is still terrible literature even if it doesn't make spelling errors, just because Xander's scenario could be made even more cringeworthy doesn't mean he isn't already an unrelatable and unsympathetic character. I'd be tempted to say he's also unlikable, but then that'd probably get me to come into conflict with people who like him for his looks and gameplay value.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Gruntagen