Evidence-Based Design

Comments (36) left to “Not Again”

1. Psychochild wrote:

   Hmm. Let’s see:

   * Incorrectly identifies later game for earlier game’s activity? Check. (According to Raph, “massively multiplayer” was coined during UO.)
   * Makes his own stupid acronym? Check. (PEG? WTF? *smack*)
   * Criticizes “boring” gameplay? Check. (~2M players in North America would make console game makers happy.)
   * Ignores technology restrictions? Check. (What Sara points out in her post above.)

   Blah. I couldn’t read that crap. Just skimmed after the second page. Yeah, looks like someone is trying to pretend that they were paying attention when they were not. *rolls eyes*

   Same as it ever was….

   Posted on 26-Mar-07 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

2. Michael wrote:

   If it makes you feel any better, I commented along these lines to Simon after I read it. Then I posted a link to it on Slashdot so I could have the pleasure of reading the comments.

   Sometimes I love my job.

   Posted on 26-Mar-07 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

3. Jessica Mulligan wrote:

   Agree with everything Sara and Brian said. One small correction: Dale Addink coined the term “massively-multiplayer games” in 1994 or 1995 to explain the difference between Warbirds and other online games to potential investors and the press.

   Posted on 27-Mar-07 at 4:45 am | Permalink

4. John Scott Tynes wrote:

   I know the conventional wisdom in the MMO design community seems to be that user content is an irredeemably phallus-ridden affair, but I have to disagree. Our peer-reviewed approach has successfully processed several thousand user-created textures which players are now happily using in the beta of our project. It’s essentially the HotOrNot.com approach, or more trendily the Wikipedia one: give players the ability to comment on and even gatekeep the submissions of other players and they do a good job, reducing our staff review & approval pass to a tiny amount of work. I know the proof is in the pudding but the theory has held so far.

   Posted on 27-Mar-07 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

5. J. wrote:

   I’ve already given my editor at Gamasutra crap in e-mail about even letting this garbage through.

   It is a “soapbox,” and I guess it’s managed some degree of reaction, but … some people ought to not follow the oeuvre of “clueless CEO of company no one’s ever heard of.”

   Posted on 27-Mar-07 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

6. GT wrote:

   For the most part I agree with Sara’s assessment, but I do disagree with the “different players, same experience” model.

   Yes, getting a dynamic and still fun MMORPG right is going to be a royal pain to do well and is going to be a risky endeavor, but the current model, while it works, is fundamentally an outgrowth of the single player experience and not any kind of genuine multiplayer experience.

   In the simplest terms, everybody saving the princess is equivalent to nobody saving the princess.

   Many games have and many games in the future certainly can and will be successful with this model, but it is hardly the only possible successful model.

   Posted on 28-Mar-07 at 10:20 am | Permalink

7. Sara Jensen wrote:

   John: that’s really interesting! I’m looking forward to seeing how it works out. Having a devoted community certainly makes it easier.

   GT: It’s just important to realize that the current status quo is what it is for a reason. Other models can be successful, I’m sure, as long as you understand what makes the old models work. That’s where the links to Damion’s blog come in.

   Posted on 28-Mar-07 at 10:51 am | Permalink

8. GT wrote:

   Absolutely, Sara. The core argument is unassailable - if you want to innovate, understand why the existing dominant model is successful.

   The larger problem, I think, comes from a lack of recognition among those who do not deal with the industry on a day-to-day basis - innovation is great, but it is also enormously risky, and for every innovation that winds up working there will be nine others that fell flat on their faces. The more money a publisher is sinking into a development effort, the less excited they are going to be about uncertain, risky approaches.

   This inevitably creates a conflict as an MMORPG designer - you have to innovate, but as it has been said, you have to innovate cautiously and with understanding of the context.

   As much fun as it is to bash the basic ignorance of the original article, there is a small kernel of truth amidst all of the misunderstanding and naivetee - designers are frequently quashed for being innovative, yet our job description is fundamentally based on our ability to innovate.

   Posted on 28-Mar-07 at 11:01 am | Permalink

9. Neil Sorens wrote:

   Hi, thanks for the correction on where the term “massively multiplayer” came from. I guess my memory did not serve me correctly after all. Still, I would argue that it’s a fuzzy definition that doesn’t accurately describe the main attraction common to games such as World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, and Diablo 2.

   I agree that the innovation I would like to see is risky, and that the current reality is that people won’t pay for it. The whole point of the article is not to bag on MMOs, which I think have their place and which I still play sometimes (just quit Vanguard recently, and played the LOTRO beta for a while). That’s just an unfortunate side-effect of promoting non-MMO PEGs (this juxtaposition is why I had to come up with a new term). The article’s purpose is 1) to demonstrate that what makes MMOs successful (persistent entity) can be applied to other genres, 2) to point out that there is a lot of money to be made by expanding the audience for persistent-entity games, and therefore a good reason for the people with money to push innovation, and 3) to provide concrete details on design elements that can be changed to attract new customers to this type of game.

   Sara and GT, I think you are absolutely right about understanding what allows MMOs to succeed. I submit that the current model’s success is attributable more to the persistent-entity aspect of MMOs than the “MM” aspect, that this success eludes most MMO developers and will continue to do so if they do nothing but make more WoWs, and that the success is just a fraction of what it could be. There are, in fact, many people who play video games but who do not play MMOs or who play them only because the game they really want does not exist.

   As far as my development knowledge goes, I am not as ignorant as you would like to believe. Sure, I was an EQ GM for 3 months back when Kunark came out, but everyone has to start somewhere. I was also the sole game designer for World Series Baseball 2K3, which is at 89.3% on GameRankings. And I did the high concept design/pitch for more than a dozen games currently in production across next-gen and handheld platforms (this is what my company does), so the ad hominem approach isn’t one you should be taking.

   I also understand the limitations hardware places on games with network play (which is one reason that “massively multiplayer” is a hindrance instead of a benefit). And I look at games that overcame those limitations, like Planetside. (Planetside failed because it suffered from a monthly fee–Guild wars proved that this is not always needed–and poor game design in areas other than those I brought up in the article. I also could easily have used Shadowbane as an example of doing certain things right, but it would have made it more time-consuming to argue that those things lead to success.)

   Anyway, sorry for offending everyone here with the article, but if you’d like to get away from the groupthink and insults and have a reasonable discussion, you can reach me at neil@dancingrobotstudios.com.

   Posted on 28-Mar-07 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

10. Neil Sorens wrote:

    Also, I would like to point out the irony of saying “you haven’t worked on an MMO; you are clueless about them” when you were in the same situation (but without the 6 years of game development experience) at Lum the Mad. (”Lietgardis” or something similar, right? I used to read that site, Tweety’s bowl of mice, etc. religiously in the UO/EQ days.)

    Posted on 28-Mar-07 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

11. J. wrote:

    Neil,

    I admire your ability to get paid for your depth of knowledge.

    Sincerely,

    J.

    Posted on 29-Mar-07 at 10:46 am | Permalink

12. Lum wrote:

    > Also, I would like to point out the irony

    My website was a fan-run snarky commentary site.

    Gamasutra is not.

    Also, I don’t think arguing you actually are an experienced designer helps your case for justifying a very shallow and flawed overview of the MMO market. Sara’s analysis is dead on (I plan to expound on it with my thoughts later this week), but if anything, your asserting that you actually are an experienced game designer makes such a poorly concieved overview of the massively multiplayer marketplace even more unfortunate.

    Posted on 29-Mar-07 at 10:55 am | Permalink

13. Lum wrote:

    And yes, I repeated myself. Blame being interrupted halfway through!

    Posted on 29-Mar-07 at 10:56 am | Permalink

14. Sara Jensen Schubert wrote:

    I said plenty of stupid things back in the day, and then I spent a few years on a live team. Live team experience will make anybody a cynical bitch.

    From the outside, it’s easy to think that the traditional MMO business is a tiny Austin circlejerk, where everybody sits around and re-documents existing game systems and draws their own Visios of the WoW UI. This is true for some teams. But even those of us who sit back and really think about why people play and like these games still end up coming to a lot of the same conclusions, and it’s not because we’re taking the easy way out.

    I can spend days drawing on the whiteboard and thinking about exactly how and why somebody would want to use System X, and I’ll still end up with something that looks a lot like WoW because they got so much so damn right. I don’t like it, but it’s true, and I’m not going to do a system that’s less user-friendly or doesn’t deliver what the player expects just because I want to be “innovative.”

    There’s room for the genre to grow in other directions, but the classic EQ-style MMO isn’t going anywhere for now, and millions of people worldwide think that it doesn’t suck. Millions of people worldwide think that Britney Spears and McDonalds don’t suck either, and that’s fine. You could certainly market a better pop star or make a better hamburger, but you’re still well-served to look at how and why those products were successful.

    Posted on 29-Mar-07 at 11:40 am | Permalink

15. Rasputin wrote:

    > Planetside failed because it suffered from a monthly fee–Guild
    > wars proved that this is not always needed–and poor game
    > design in areas other than those I brought up in the article.

    Guild Wars has proved that making an action game partially online works. It’s not an MMO by any stretch. Or to use your term, “PEG,” except there’s almost zero persistent content.

    It’s only proven that Diablo-alikes are quite profitable, and that episodic content is viable. Beyond that, you can’t really compare anything Arenanet’s done with it…and if Guild Wars 2 is any indication, they’re aware that it needs to change, too.

    Posted on 29-Mar-07 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

16. Neil Sorens wrote:

    I’ll agree that MMOs in their current form are not going away, and that 10 years from now you’ll still have the dominant players turning profits.

    I think there must be some sort of fundamental miscommunication on my part, because you think I’m advocating that we take current MMOs and tear them up and kludge my ideas on top of them. That’s not it at all. The point is that there is an addictive quality found in MMOs that, with some design skill and imagination, can be applied to other types of games. The supporting point is that there are millions of gamers who prefer game mechanics and design elements unlike those found in MMOs.

    You can already see the beginnings of what I’m talking about in games like Test Drive Unlimited and Chromehounds, whose servers seem not to have caught fire yet (to be fair, TDU had some problems with various online features, but that was a result of poor initial planning). Now, the core game design for both games has many flaws, but these games prove that the concept of a persistent entity can be incorporated into games of other genres, increasing the appeal of those games at a reasonable cost. “But those aren’t really MMOs,” you say. Exactly.

    I read Damion’s site regularly, and it’s clear that you guys know that MMOs have fundamental design issues that reduce their mass appeal. But instead of saying, “we should do something about this,” you fall back on flawed assumptions such as the necessity of time sinks to keep people subscribed, the necessity of a persistent world, the lack of interest in MMOs on the part of people who prefer “skill” games, etc. The reasoning for why you do things the way you do boils down, frankly, to a lack of imagination and willingness to rethink the appeal of these games on a more basic level. You endlessly perform these exhaustive yet myopic examinations of the most arcane topics and somehow conclude that WoW is near-perfect, while a 12 year-old kid who plays Mario games could walk up to the game and explain in three words why it’s not.

    The magic of game design–and the design of commercial products in general–is not giving people what they ask for or what they liked in the past. It’s figuring out what they want but don’t realize or can’t articulate. Naturally, anyone who claims to know the latter will be mocked by purveyors of the former as being ignorant, out of touch, unrealistic, etc. Who knows? I might be, but on the other hand I might be right.

    Posted on 29-Mar-07 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

17. Neil Sorens wrote:

    Hmm…I wish I had not written that second-to-last paragraph. I think what you all do in terms of design works, it makes money, and people buy the game. So I can’t criticize you for making what sells; in fact, I think it’s great. If I criticize MMO designers for not taking advantage of game mechanics from other genres, I would also have to criticize designers from other genres for not taking advantage of the concept of the persistent entity. And this article is not about telling people that they suck; telling successful people they suck says more about the speaker than the target.

    What I tried to communicate, and it probably ended up with too hostile a tone in the article, was that there is an opportunity here, a next logical step for the industry, that it’s bigger than people realize, and that it’s worth a publisher’s money to take a risk on something unproven because the potential rewards are so great. I apologize for the harsh words.

    Posted on 29-Mar-07 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

18. Psychochild's Blog wrote:

    The appeal of MMOs…

    Sara Jensen Schubert points to a recent Gamasutra article where, as she put it, “Former EQ GM complains that we keep rehashing the same old shit.” (http://www.lietcam.com/blog/2007/03/26/not-again/) The blog entry is appropriately entitled “Not Aga…

    Posted on 29-Mar-07 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

19. Dave Rickey wrote:

    Umm…. Okay, I started my career as an EQ GM as well (back at the launch). But I noted the same flaws everyone else did in your article.

    To get specific, focusing on the persistant character aspect is probably a bit too narrow, “persistant character” applies to a lot of games that are not MMO’s (including every CRPG ever made that allowed save games that could be copied from one computer to another) and does not include some MMO’s where the character has no attributes beyond a name and appearance that persist.

    Community, on the other hand, is vital. Community is what gives it all *context*, validates the user experience, reinforces the collective illusion. I would say the defining attribute of an MMOG is game experiences with persistant effects that are shared among large number of people (both the experience and the effects). Take away the game experience, and you have a social networking or community discussion site, not an MMOG, take away the persistant effect and you have a casual games hub, not an MMOG, take away the large number of people and you have an ordinary multiplayer game, not an MMOG.

    –Dave

    Posted on 30-Mar-07 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

20. Neil Sorens wrote:

    Dave,

    I agree that single player games have “persistent data”. I did say in the article that the games I was talking about needed to have “a multiplayer environment of any size.” I did not get into a lot of detail about why the multiplayer was necessary, but your reasoning is exactly right. So you are right in that there do need to be *some* other players, but I disagree that online games featuring persistent character development also need to be “massively multiplayer” (large number of *simultaneous* players in the same area/world), but having a large player base from which to draw certainly helps make the game more attractive.

    As far as the defining attribute goes–it’s certainly going to differ from game to game and player to player. Each game offers something different, and each player values game elements differently. When I look at the games and players collectively, though, I see a common thread that runs through Diablo 2, Phantasy Star Online, World of Warcraft, and many other online titles. Everyone likes the character building–everybody. They like leveling up, getting new abilities, getting new loot. On the other hand, many players play them as minimally multiplayer games whenever possible. In Diablo 2, players often play passworded battle.net games with just themselves, only bothing with multiplayer games when it allows them faster advancement (Baal runs, passing difficult quests, getting to the next difficulty level, etc.). In MMOs, multiboxing and soloing are quite common even when they are less rewarding in terms of advancement than grouping.

    MMO designers must know this is true deep down, too, because it is clear that a huge amount of their time goes into aspects of the game related to character-building, far more than goes into the social aspects of the game. You could argue that there are a few games where this isn’t true, but for the most successful ones it is–and that is what the article is about: distilling the essence of success in MMOs and applying it to a broader category of games.

    I’m certainly not saying that community-based games can’t be successful, only that they represent just one part of the potentially huge “PEG” sector.

    Posted on 30-Mar-07 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

21. Dave Rickey wrote:

    But the number of players does make a difference, or these primitive and kludgy examples we are surrounded by would not have gained any traction at all (after all, battle.net predates Ultima Online). Retro-fitting persistance and battle.net matchmaking into single-player games doesn’t make them MMO’s, nor does it make MMO’s as we’ve known them a subset of this new chimera. They are different offshoots from common roots, and there’s no reason to believe they are bound for convergence any time soon.

    The essence of success of MMO’s as distinct from the examples you point to *is* the “Massive” part of the name, larger social environments are different, richer, and provide a greater sense of validation and social standing. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater (ditching the design restrictions of large populations in a single world by getting rid of the large population) does nothing, it runs directly *away* from what makes these games succeed.

    Now, there *is* a subset of online games that does precisely what you’re talking about, where what you have is a small multiplayer game overlaid with a really *pretty* version of battle.net that mimics some of the properties of an MMO, but frankly I think it’s a kludge defined more by the limitations of technology and design craft than by any inherent worth.

    Social design issues are hard to get a handle on, because the players never *say* things like “the problem with this game is that the underlying group dynamic fails to reinforce the intuitive social order”, but they do spend a great deal of time bitching about character advancements, but that doesn’t mean that character development is more important than social dynamics.

    Characer advancement systems tie directly into the fundamental brain-reward systems that subjectively feel like empowerment, fun, “progress”, etc. But in a social vacuum that advancement feels empty and pointless, and the problem of a single-player game is how to tie that off (generally by averting the End Of The World in some form) before it feels like a complete waste of time. But in MMO’s the end of the world never comes and yet the validation persists, strictly from social consensus.

    “Persistant Entity Games” is not a good label because it describes a property (persistance of apparent progress) that can be integrated into many games of all different kinds, and in fact that process has been underway for decades. The mistake is not in identifying character development as a unifying element, but as using it as the *defining* element, and saying the problems with what we refer to as MMO’s stem from their failure to be enough like other games that also have character development, when they evolved from exactly such games.

    –Dave

    Posted on 30-Mar-07 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

22. Flame-retardant suit? Check. Fire extinguisher? Check... « Voyages in Eternity wrote:

    […] Friday, March 30th, 2007 in General Design, Linkage There’s a bit of a flame war going on out there in the blogosphere revolving around a recent Gamasutra soapbox article (reg. required) which took a few stabs at the MMO status quo, and has received some less-than-positive responses in return at locations such as here and here.  Other luminaries such as Scott Jennings (Lum the Mad) and Jessica Mulligan have chimed in as well in comments.  Just figured I’d rant a little rant of my own… I’d hate to be left out… […]

    Posted on 30-Mar-07 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

23. Neil Sorens wrote:

    If I’m not mistaken, you’re saying that the more simultaneous people existing around you within the primary game area (as opposed to in lobbies or instances or whatever), the better people enjoy character advancement. Therefore, because the appeal of advancement is dependent on the number of players, number of players must be the more important of the two. The contention I am making is that in most cases, that relationship is either non-existent or unnecessary, assuming that a multiplayer environment of some size is in place. If you argued size of player base instead of number of simultaneous players, I would be more inclined to agree with you. But saying that a game needs to have lots of people logging in is much different from saying that it needs to be massively multiplayer.

    PEG is a good label exactly for the first reason you say it isn’t. I suppose it could be PEM or MPEG (taken!) or PEO or whatever if you wanted to specify the multiplayer nature of the game. I agree the the persistent entity should not be the defining feature of a game. So I wouldn’t use the term as a game’s primary classification, and if that’s what you meant be it not being a good term, then I agree. It’s just a shorthand way of referring to, as you said, games of all different kinds that possess a particular property.

    As a side not, character building doesn’t feel empty and pointless in a social vacuum. That’s why CRPGs exist in the first place, and why modern non-RPGs like GTA:SA incorporate it heavily into their design. You’re right that its value increases with other players around, though, especially for certain personality types.

    Posted on 30-Mar-07 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

24. Moorgard.com » Blog Archive » Blog Fight! wrote:

    […] But don’t take my word for it; plenty of other folks have taken Mr. Sorens to task for his questionable conclusions and silly acronym, and more have promised to chime in. Sorens has defended his conclusions in long comment posts, so be sure to scroll down to see the fireworks. […]

    Posted on 30-Mar-07 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

25. The Robots » Blog Archive » MMO article up wrote:

    […] Some interesting follow-up discussion here and here. […]

    Posted on 31-Mar-07 at 12:20 am | Permalink

26. Dave Rickey wrote:

    No, I’m saying that character advancement becomes a secondary factor, a common enemy that the players unite to do battle with, in the process forming relationships that transcend the process.

    Don’t judge the MMO experience just by the “uber” players who race to the maximum level, hardcore raid guilds, etc. They’re an important part of the social fabric, but the majority of the players aren’t like that. The majority of the players in most Diku-derived MMO’s (which includes EQ, DAoC, WoW, Anarchy Online, City of Heroes/Villains, and most others) do not *ever* reach maximum level. Of those that do they are, in those games I have had access to the data-mining on, less likely to quit than the rest of the players.

    Gameplay isn’t doing it, as you’ve pointed out the grind of advancement, as implemented in these games, is all wrong compared to a non-MMO. Yet people play these games more, for longer, than any single player game will see from it’s typical player. That’s not gameplay, that’s not character advancement, that’s social links keeping them in there.

    Most people abandon the GTA character advancement well before they reach the end. And most people who finish most “character development” single player/small multiplayer games do so with the aid of a walkthrough or with cheat codes that completely negate the character advancement process, they aren’t playing to advance, they’re advancing so they can get back to playing.

    In MMO’s, advancing is something to do while you hang out with your friends and chat about the latest drama involving the guildmast, his RL girlfriend who plays the highest-ranked healer, and what happened when he mis-telled something to her that was meant for the hawt night-elf (who is really played by a guy).

    –Dave

    Posted on 31-Mar-07 at 12:50 am | Permalink

27. Neil Sorens wrote:

    I’d have to see the data itself before I could try to make any conclusions on it. I’ll just throw in the fact that quitting is equal to throwing away all your advancement, something that is more galling when you’ve put the effort in to max out the character. If I had to hazard a guess without seeing the data, I’d say that the people who never make it to max level (a large group, as you say), generally play for the accomplishment factor and quit when the character building doesn’t feel rewarding anymore.

    There are 3 distinct components of character advancement’s appeal (I’m sure it’s possible to drill down even further, but 3’s good for now). One is the feeling of accomplishment that you experience when you advance (”I did it!”). Another is the novelty of the ability, item, or other reward provided to you for this advancement (”Oooo, look what I can do now!”). And the last is the lure of future rewards (”Can’t wait for work to be over so I can log in and get level 20″). You can probably see without any explanation on my part how these different types of appeal could grow or shrink as the player spends more and more time with the game, depending on how it was designed.

    Let me give you an example of another instance in which player behavior was severely affected by the desire for advancement. You remember Lower Guk, right? Players would wait in long lines for groups, all day, every day. They would often wait hours, unable to do much in the meantime, as they would lose their place if they strayed too far. Once they got into a group, they would stay as long as humanly possible to get the most out of it…and I am not referring to the group chat punctuated here and there by an actual battle. No, these people didn’t brave such tedium both waiting for the group and participating in the group because of the community’s appeal; they did it for experience and loot. People would deprive themselves of sleep for 24+ hours to try to get their hands on a Flowing Black Silk Sash, a Short Sword of the Ykesha (my necro’s pets needed a constant supply! yes, he was hated), a Thick Banded Belt. People would never go to such extremes just to hang out with their buddies, yet it was routine for players to do so for the sake of advancement.

    You’re absolutely right that in many other games, the appeal of advancement is secondary to that of other game elements. That’s how it should be.

    We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on which type of appeal is stronger in MMOs. I guess at the very least we can agree that people don’t come back for the minute-to-minute enjoyment of pressing 1-2-3-4.

    Posted on 31-Mar-07 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

28. robusticus wrote:

    WTB AAA MMO Fighting Game & AAA MMO RTS.

    In SL, you see most genres supported. It makes a certain sort of sense that a virtual world would.

    But I do like that “walk a mile in my live team shoes before you step on my toes” theme. What does a CSR make, anyway? It’s sort of like politics, you can’t pay the bills but people do it anyway because of other reasons than the money - art and community.

    Still, an 80% pay cut is hard to stomach (unless it was Flying Labs, Go Seahawks!), so I guess we should just STFU and let y’all make all the status quo mistakes you want, happily.

    Posted on 01-Apr-07 at 11:07 am | Permalink

29. J. wrote:

    “You remember Lower Guk, right?”

    Not going to happen again in any MMO, and you know it.

    Posted on 01-Apr-07 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

30. Neil Sorens wrote:

    I agree.

    However, I wasn’t using it as an example of how EQ was poorly designed (and by extension , MMOs in general). Rather, it’s an example of how much sway the lure of advancement has over players’ behavior. People don’t “poopsock” (figuratively) because they like each other so darn much.

    Posted on 01-Apr-07 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

31. Valium prescription online. wrote:

    Valium no prescription….

    Online no prescription valium. Valium no prescription. No prescription valium. Valium prescription online. Buy valium without prescription….

    Posted on 05-Sep-07 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

32. Tramadol. wrote:

    Tramadol….

    Tramadol hydrochloride. Cheap tramadol. Tramadol hcl. Tramadol. Cheapest tramadol….

    Posted on 25-Nov-07 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

33. Oxycontin lawyer columbus. wrote:

    Oxycontin….

    Oxycontin withdrawl. Oxycontin. Purchasing oxycontin without a prescription. Oxycontin pharmacys….

    Posted on 02-Feb-08 at 1:30 am | Permalink

34. Hydrocodone. wrote:

    Hydrocodone apap….

    Hydrocodone….

    Posted on 08-Mar-08 at 10:20 am | Permalink

35. Ambien us pharmacy. wrote:

    Ambien….

    Ambien cr 12.5 photo. Ambien online. Ambien cr….

    Posted on 22-Mar-08 at 9:02 am | Permalink

36. MenSeigneEgog wrote:

    Growling, he braced on his arms and shifted his knee to get better leverage. Salin told me that he was awake, but hes not come out of his suite. It may mean nothing to you, but I must say that Im proud of you. She held her breath when Arkir dived underneath Lanthans arm, caught him in a hold. Someone was there to help her. Miraculously, no one seemed to notice. She had neither seen nor asked after Tykir, Lanthan, nor Brevin. She curled her fingers and found that core of sensation. First Gala, then Radin crowded close, surrounding her with warmth. Her being uncomfortable was part of her atonement. They wanted her to bleed? She probably deserved their scorn, but really, enough was enough. Lanthans grip eased on her wrists, only to be replaced by Tykirs hold. Before she could curse him again, he took her mouth, properly and completely this time. Chuckling, Brevin slid arms around Tykirs chest. I can live with that. Except that she is not a goddess and could not have maintained such power. But I knew theyd eventually leave me. She was so close He wrapped strong arms about her waist, crushing her against him as he stood.

    Posted on 28-Feb-10 at 10:50 am | Permalink

Post a Comment