游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

Patrick Wyatt分享《魔兽争霸》制作过程(2)

发布时间:2013-11-05 14:03:39 Tags:

作者:Patrick Wyatt

上篇文章中,我叙述了使暴雪娱乐成为世界上最著名和最受玩家喜爱的游戏公司之一的《魔兽争霸》是如何诞生的。

但《魔兽争霸》如何从想法变成羽翼丰满的游戏?让我来告诉你吧,这不是从概念到发布的线性过程。许多游戏的设计是随着时间一直在改进的,想法要经过讨论、测试、争论、修改、争论、重新测试,最后才变成完整的游戏,但在这个过程中,有些想法最终被放弃了。

这个过程中会发生大量争执,但那未必是坏事。虽然有时候会变成人身攻击、怨恨和道歉,但只有经过多次争论的想法才是经得起推敲和考验的。

即使存在争议,我们的合作中仍然充满友好的情谊。我们一起工作,一起玩,参加游戏展时挤在同旅馆的同一个房间,有时甚至住在一起:在加州,我和三个同事住在同一个房子里。

最初的提案

当我启动《魔兽争霸》项目时,暴雪手头上至少还有四款游戏在做,而当时只有20名员工,大都都忙着赶进度。对美工、程序员和设计师来说,同时做两三个项目算是家常便饭了,当然,我们唯一的音乐师/音效师Glenn Stafford什么项目都要参与。

但我们定期抽时间进行头脑风暴和讨论公司的发展大计,我们称之为“今日商业计划”。

在上一篇文章中,我已经说过我们制作一款类似《沙丘魔堡》的即时策略游戏的动机,那我们又受到另一个想法的刺激。

这个刺激源是公司联合创始人兼总裁Allen Adham在我们的头脑风暴活动中萌生的一个想法。他想制作一系列战争电脑游戏,全部放在几乎完全相同的白盒子里出售,大标题就叫“Warcraft”,至于各款游戏的副标题,就取材于历史事件:罗马帝国、越南战争,等等。

为什么要装在相同的白盒子里?这是因为许多个白盒子堆在货架上会非常抢眼,让玩家在拥挤的零售环境中一眼就看到我们的游戏;类似于SSI的《龙与地下城》的金盒子系列,那款游戏在80年代大获成功。新玩家会被抢眼的盒子而被吸引到货架前,而喜欢游戏的老玩家也很容易知道在哪里找到它。零售商店:与现在的应用商店和Amazon网上商城相比,真是老古董了,是吧?!

Ron Millar和Sam Didier是公司的元老级美工,二人对历史模拟的想法非常有兴趣,且都喜欢幻想游戏如《战锤》和《龙与地下城》。看一眼Sam的美术作品就知道他非常迷恋幻想题材。所以会议快结束时,他们提议,这个系列的第一款游戏应该发生在兽人和人类共存的幻想世界里,他们有更多机会创作新的游戏美术,而不需要遵循历史的传统。于是,二人的提议被采纳了,成为该系列的第一款游戏:《魔兽争霸:人类与兽人》。

warcraft 3(from comicbook.com)

warcraft 3(from comicbook.com)

初期游戏设计

许多人认为,游戏设计师只负责概念,也就是“制作游戏设计”,这对某些开发团队来说也许没错。设计师确实必须充满创意,自己就能把游戏中的各种元素想得活灵活现。

但设计师也必须擅长倾听别人的想法:如果团队中的其他人并不参与游戏的设计阶段,那么在执行自己的工作时就不会有太大的积极性。此外,也许最伟大的创意正是由非设计师的人想出来的,谁知道呢!所以,设计师必须愿意倾听别人的想法,这样其他的好创意才不至于被埋没。

在《魔兽争霸》的开发初期,我们的非正式设计过程非常有效率。我们在走廊聊天、用餐、抽烟和晚上玩游戏后也经常进行头脑风暴。公司的所有人都贡献了自己的想法。在没有任何正式的过程和设计文件的情况下,每过一个月,这款游戏都更加完善。

Ron作为美工进入游戏行业,他当时是暴雪游戏的核心人物。尽管他当时正忙于为Super Nintendo开发一款横版射击游戏《黑色荆棘》,仍然腾出时间为《魔兽争霸》收集创意。

Stu Rose是暴雪的另一名元老级美工。个人认为,他在大部分方面与Ron持相反的观点,他作为设计团队中的一员,经常与Ron意见不合,尽管他们都同意对方的观点是不可反驳的。

结果这两人在整个设计过程中都各干各的,独立开发游戏世界的文明和剧情、定义游戏的单位、规定玩法机制、想象魔法施放方式、设计游戏的任务、编造地点名称,等等。尽管各自为政,但二人的工作对最终成果都做出贡献。

后来,几乎无法判定谁开发了哪个部分,除非让整个团队投票和分析许久以前发生的争论。甚至在那之后,我们也很难确定游戏设计的荣誉应该归功于谁,最终做了最公平的决定,最高荣誉归于集体。所以,《魔兽争霸:人类与兽人》的盒子上写的是“游戏设计:暴雪娱乐”。顺便一提,说Moby Games网站上列出的《魔兽争霸1》制作职员表完全是胡扯,因为他们把Macintosh和1998年版的和1994年的DOS版的混淆了,所以很多人的工作都搞错了。

虽然我自己的记忆也很模糊了,我最近看了一份标着“Chaos Studios”的、日期为1994年的初期设计文件,这意味着它诞生于1994年初,那时现在的暴雪还没改名为“暴雪”。到1994年2月,我们有了一系列(仍然非常粗糙的)设计文件已经经过若干次迭代,包含了这款游戏的关键概念。

不可否认,如果于1993年9月前先完善设计开始编程,结果会更好,但因为在真正有趣的游戏部分可以开发以前我必须做这么多“基质”,缺少设计并没有成为那个阶段的障碍,特别是因为我们已经从《沙丘魔堡》中借鉴了许多游戏元素。

削减了什么

虽然今天仍然(极少)可以玩《魔兽争霸1》,但与后来的RTS游戏相比,乐趣太少了。使游戏在现代计算机上运行的困难导致过高期待,然后当看到游戏分辨率只有320×200象素时,期待就破灭了。这个分辨率仅为现代高分辨率显示器的二十分之一。更别说UI和玩法平衡远远劣于我们后来的游戏。

但通过玩《魔兽争霸1》,仍然可以看到那些经过数次设计迭代过程而幸存下来、出现在最终的游戏中的想法。在许多方面,《魔兽争霸1》与这个系列的后来的游戏并没有太大不同。

现在的玩家所熟悉的经典的魔兽单位如兵营、市镇厅、伐木场和金矿,都保留到后来的游戏中。这些标志性单位留下来是因为它们的名称和功能对于生活在现实世界而非艾泽拉斯的人来说,是很容易理解的。

但我们的早期设计文件中包含的许多想法都没有出现在最终的游戏中。有些是因为明间不够——游戏必须赶在1994年圣诞节发布,我们差不多是赶上了。有些想法被淘汰了是因为我们又想到了更好的替代方案,或者因为没有得到强烈的支持,或者太费时间,或者需要太多钱,或者不够有趣。

我想你们可能很好奇有什么想法胎死腹中了,比如Mason’s Hall(需要石料)、Dwarven Inn(更需要石料)、Elven Fletcher(升级弓箭手)、Tax House和Ale House。

这些建筑的作用都是次要的,有些可以在其他地方实现。所以,我们把它们的功能添加到已有的建筑中,而不是为一个功能创造专用的建筑,例如,把Dwarven Inn和Elven Fletcher合二为一。

我们放弃Mason’s Hall是因为我们认为使用石料作为第三种资源(除了金矿和木材)太复杂了。我们在《魔兽争霸2》中修改了这个想法,但在实际执行(编程)时又再次放弃它了。

Ale Stand的目的是增加战士与黄金的生产比率。我不知道通宵加班加点设计的东西怎么会被放弃,但我想一定因为艾泽拉斯大陆存在特殊的法则和魔力,所以我们删除了Ale Stand。

NPC角色如蜥蜴人、大地精和Halfling也处于设计阶段,但最终被丢弃了,基本上是因为绘制和动画的问题。

游戏开发是一个权衡的过程——好游戏不必什么东西都做,但必须有一些东西做得很好。

成形阶段

一个经过多次讨论但最终没有执行的设计想法就是“队形”,这个想法最终被淘汰是因为太难执行。

有些复杂度导致无法执行:队形单位都以同样的速度前进,这样走得慢的单位就不会被落下——这就导致编程上的复杂。队形必须能够转向,这样包含走在后面的矛兵和射手的队形在朝南前进时,如果遇到从东边过来的敌人,才能与之面对面,且射手仍然在矛兵组成的防护墙后面——这就导致UI上的复杂。考虑到完成这个功能所需的时间太长,我们还是把时间放在完成更多基本的功能上。

我确实执行“编号小队选项”了。玩家可以选择一组单位,然后按下Ctrl键加数字键(1-4),然后当需要再次选中这些单位时,只要按下对应的数字键。但那些单位可以独立活动,尽管只能集体选中。

战场上的玩家角色

另一个讨论了很久但没有执行的想法是,用一个单位代表地图上的玩家:这个玩家角色会随着一个接一个的任务的完成而进步。

为了让游戏角色代表玩家,它在完成若干任务的过程中,应该从脆弱的单位成长为强力英雄,这样玩家才会产生进步感。为了顺利进展,这个角色只有在充分利用的情况下才会越来越强大。没有被充分利用的玩家角色始终很弱,而一直在前线战斗的玩家角色会变得越来越强。

把单位从一个任务带到下一个任务,增加了玩法平衡的任务的复杂度。优秀的玩家会让自己的角色在任务中变得更强大,而随着玩家角色力量的增强,任务会越来越容易完成。相反地,那些水平不高的玩家的角色越来越弱,以至于无法完成后面的任务。这两个问题都可能导致玩家流失——前者是因为游戏缺乏挑战性,后者是因为受挫,毕竟鲜有玩家会为了游戏后面的任务而返回去重做之前的任务。

我们的竞争者的产品叫作《War Wind》,比《魔兽争霸》晚发布了几年,它允许玩家把单位从一个任务带到下一个任务;这款游戏的设计师允许玩家运送四个单位,但通过保证这些单位足够强大以影响玩法,解决了玩法平衡问题。

英雄

我们还考虑在《魔兽争霸1》中加入英雄单位,他们有自己的名字如Illusion Thief、Barbarian、Huntress和Juggernaut等,有专属技能。最终,我们大大削减了游戏单位列表,可能是因为设计和动画的时间受限。

对于那些玩《魔兽争霸3》不多的人来说,看到英雄的设想最终在在这个系列中实现了,一定很有趣;尽管《魔兽争霸3》的英雄的设计起源并不是这个——而是来自分散在《魔兽争霸1》的设计文件中的想法。

简单地说,《魔兽争霸3》一开始是叫作《魔兽英雄》,与我们已经发布了五次的传统RTS不同,它是一款以《魔兽争霸》的世界观为背景的组队战斗游戏。这款游戏不同于传统的RTS,但保留了英雄元素——在开发进展到一半时改变了团队领导的设定之后。

Warcraft III(from giantbomb)

Warcraft III(from giantbomb)

明快的色调

如果你想想《魔兽争霸》系列的美术设计,你一定会觉得与《暗黑破坏神》(游戏邦注:只有在昏暗的房间里才能看出其美术设计之美)相比,实在太炫目了。色彩鲜明、卡通风格的美术设计不同于当时的许多PC战争游戏——它们往往坚持更写实的色调。

这样的差异部分归因于美工们过去的经验,他们做过几款Super Nintendo和Sega Genesis游戏的游戏,那些游戏要求更明快的色调,因为当时的电视显示器在色彩显示方面落后于PC显示器。在电视上显示的游戏机游戏分辨率更低,色彩经常溢出,只有对比度高的图像才能显示得好看。

另一个原因是Allen的命令,他要求所有美工在明亮的环境下作画。他经常在公司的办公大厅巡查,打开电灯和百叶窗。

他的观点是,大部分人是在明亮的房间里玩游戏,所以我们的美工应该使玩家觉得我们的游戏在那样的环境下很好玩。他指出,画出在光线不足、外部光源不能干扰显示器的情况下看觉得很好的美术作品是很容易的。但当电脑美术与明亮的光冲突时,就很难好看了。日光灯是最恶劣的光,因为这种灯光一直闪烁,使眼睛疲劳。

所以美工办公室的灯总是开着,迫使美工在那样的环境下创作出色调明快的画。这种工作环境曾激怒一些(所有?)美工团队,但最终使他们创作出不输当下游戏的好作品。

现在,你知道为什么《魔兽争霸》的美术设计看起来那么“糖果色”了吧?

总结

在本系列的第一篇文章中,我承诺在本文探讨几个话题,但我又写成了长文且还是没有说到点上;我将在以后的文章里继续推进。但给我更多时间吧,因为我最近迷上《DayZ》了,我需要更多的时间玩游戏!(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

The making of Warcraft part 2

by Patrick Wyatt

In my previous article about Warcraft I talked about the beginnings of a series that would come to define Blizzard Entertainment and lead it to being one of the best-known and most-loved game companies in the world.

But how did Warcraft go from an idea to a full-fledged game? Let me tell you, it was not a straight-line path from conception to launch. As with many games the design evolved over time, with ideas being argued, tested, argued, changed, argued, retested and some eventually killed.

You probably gathered that there was a lot of arguing along the way, but that’s not always a bad thing. While sometimes they devolved into ad hominem attacks, hard feelings and apologies, the debates ensured that ideas were likely to be well forged.

And even through the disagreements, there was a sense of camaraderie that pervaded our efforts. We worked together, played together, partied together, slept 10 to a hotel room for trade shows together, and in cases even lived together: I shared a house with three other Blizzard-folks which was the first of many similar dorm rooms scattered throughout Orange County, California.

Initial proposal

Blizzard was working on at least four other games when I started on the Warcraft project, and as the company numbered only 20 everyone was mega-busy keeping those projects on track. It wasn’t uncommon for artists, programmers and designers to be working on two or sometimes three projects at a time, and of course our sole musician/sound-engineer, Glenn Stafford, worked on everything.

But we regularly found time to meet in large groups to brainstorm and discuss company strategy, so much that we called our efforts the “business plan du jour“.

I already discussed our motivation to create a Real Time Strategy (RTS) game modeled after Dune II in a previous article, but one other key idea propelled us forward.

The other impetus for the game started with a proposal that Allen Adham — president and company co-founder — made during one of our brainstorming sessions. He wanted to build a series of war games that would be released in near identical white boxes under the banner “Warcraft”, with subheadings announcing the historical context for each game: The Roman Empire, The Vietnam War, and so forth.

The goal with the identical boxes was to control a large section of shelf-space that would be easy for players to spot in a crowded retail environment, similar to the Gold Box series of Dungeons & Dragons games from SSI, which enjoyed great success during the late 1980′s. New players would be drawn to the section of games by its dominating shelf-presence, and veteran players who enjoyed one game they would know where to find the next. I know; retail: so archaic compared to app stores and Amazon, right?!?

Ron Millar and Sam Didier, two of the early artists to work at the company, weren’t excited about the idea of working on historical simulations, they enjoyed fantasy games like Warhammer and Dungeons & Dragons. One glance at Sam’s artwork is enough to demonstrate his passion for the fantasy milieu. So at a later meeting they proposed the idea that the first game should be set in a high-fantasy world of Orcs and humans, where they’d have more opportunity to create innovative game artwork instead of being required to conform to the tenets of historical accuracy. The idea took hold, with the first game in the series becoming Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

Initial game design

Many people believe that a game designer is solely responsible for all idea conception and actually “creates the game design”, and this may be true for some development teams. Designers do need to be highly creative and bring to life many of the elements of the game personally.

But equally important is for designers to be receptive to the ideas of others: without some involvement in the game’s design the rest of the team has less motivation to do their best work. And beyond that, it’s never possible to know where the next great design idea is going to come from. It’s critical for designers to listen so that the best ideas of others aren’t stifled.

Our informal design process during the early period of Warcraft’s development worked effectively in that regard. Many brainstorming sessions occurred during hallway meetings, lunches, smoke-breaks, and after late evenings of game playing. Everyone in the company contributed their thoughts. With little formal process and no single design document, the game design evolved with each passing month.

Ron, who had started his career in the game industry as an artist, was at that time our go-to guy for design on Blizzard games. Though he was finishing up the development of Blackthorne, a side-scrolling shooter for Super Nintendo, he devoted time to generating ideas for the game.

Stu Rose was another artist who became one of Blizzard’s early staffers. From a personality standpoint he was the polar opposite of Ron in most respects, and his efforts as part of the design group occasioned conflicts of opinion with Ron, though during the times they did agree they were an unassailable force.

These two ended up as the book-ends for the entire design process, each working independently to develop the world’s culture and plot overview, define the game’s units, specify the play mechanics, envision how magic spells worked, develop the game’s missions, choose place-names, and finalize other minutiae that are nevertheless important to make games comes to life.

At this late date it’s not possible to document who developed exactly which idea without canvassing the entire team and sorting out arguments over events that happened so long ago. Even back then we had difficulties determining how game-design credit should be shared, and ultimately decided the fairest, most egalitarian solution was to credit everyone, and thus the Warcraft: Orcs vs. Humans box credits include “Game design by Blizzard Entertainment”. Incidentally the Moby Games credits for Warcraft 1 are completely borked because they mix the much later Macintosh and 1998 releases of the game with the original 1994 DOS release, so many folks are mis-credited.

While my recollection of the exact timing of events is dim, I’ve recently seen an early design document dated 1994 and labeled “Chaos Studios”, which means it was generated in early 1994 before the company had been renamed Blizzard. By February 1994 we had a set of (still very rough) design documents that had been through several iterations and contained the key concepts for the game.

Admittedly, it would probably have been better to have a design in place before I started programming in September 1993, but with the amount of “substrate” that I needed to build before the actual fun-n-game parts could be developed, the lack of a design wasn’t a show-stopper at that stage, particularly since we already pulled many of the game’s elements from Dune 2.

What got chopped

While it’s still (barely) possible to play Warcraft 1 today, it’s not much fun compared to later RTS games. The difficulty of getting the game running on modern computers leads one to high expectations that are then crushed when viewing a game with a screen resolution of only 320×200 pixels — one twentieth of the resolution of a modern high res monitor — and with user interface and play balance that are markedly inferior to our later efforts.

But by playing Warcraft 1 it is possible to see the ideas that survived through the design winnowing process into the game’s final release. In many ways Warcraft 1 isn’t so much different from later games in the series.

Today gamers are familiar with classic Warcraft units like Barracks, Town Halls, Lumber Mills and Gold Mines, all of which survived into future releases of Warcraft games. Those iconic units persist because their names and functions are easily comprehensible to those of us who live in the real world instead of Azeroth.

But many of the ideas that our early design documents contained didn’t come to fruition. Some of this was related to the brutal timeline — the game had to launch for Christmas, 1994 and we barely made it. Ideas died because better alternatives existed, or didn’t have strong advocates, or were too time-consuming to implement, or would have required too much memory, or weren’t fun.

I thought folks might like to know about ideas that ended up on the cutting room floor, like the Mason’s Hall [required for stone buildings], Dwarven Inn [greater production of stone], Elven Fletcher [upgrades for archers], Tax House and Ale House.

These buildings all served secondary functions, some of which could be combined elsewhere. We instead added their functionality to existing buildings instead of creating buildings solely dedicated to one function, as for example the Dwarven Inn and Elven Fletcher buildings.

The Mason’s Hall was dropped because we considered using stone as a third resource (in addition to gold and lumber) an unnecessary complexity. We revisited the idea again for Warcraft 2, and dropped it again after actually implementing (programming) the idea.

The Ale Stand was designed to increase the rate at which soldiers and gold would be produced. I’m not sure how we can rectify that design idea with the amount of work that actually gets done after a night of heavy drinking in our world, but I imagine there are special rules of magic at work in Azeroth. Or maybe that’s why we cut the Ale Stand.

And NPC races like lizard men, hobgoblins and Halflings were also on the drawing board but were ultimately rejected, almost certainly due to the effort of drawing and animating the figures in DPaint.

Game development is about trade-offs — great games don’t have to do everything, they have to do a limited number of things well.

Formations

A design idea much discussed but never implemented was “formations”, where units would stick together on the battlefield. Formations are difficult to implement so the feature was chopped from the spec.

Some of the complexities that prevented implementation: units in formation all move at the same speed so slow units don’t get left behind — this created programming complexity. Formations need the ability to rotate — or “wheel” in military parlance — so that a formation heading north comprised of infantry carrying pikes with archers following behind can turn as a group to face an enemy detachment approaching from the east, with the archers still lined up behind the protective wall of infantry — this created user interface complexity. Given enough time we could have completed the feature, but we needed the development time for more basic features.

As a stand-in, I did implement “numbered group selection”. A user would select a group of units and press the Ctrl (control) key plus a number key (1-4). Those unit-groupings would be remembered so it would be possible to later re-select those units by pressing the number key (1-4) by itself. But those units would move independently even though selected as a group.

A player-character on the battlefield

Another idea much discussed but never implemented was that of having a unit that represented the player on the game map: an avatar that would progress from mission to mission during the game.

For a game-avatar to represent the player, it should morph from a weak unit into a mighty hero over the course of several missions to create a sense of progression. To do this properly would require that the character would only become more powerful if utilized. An underutilized avatar would remain weak, while an avatar constantly at work on the front lines would become stronger.

Carrying a unit over from one mission to the next adds to the difficulty of play-balancing missions. A great player will graduate a strong avatar from each mission, and that avatar’s strength will make succeeding missions seem easy, while a less-skilled player’s avatar could be so weak as to make winning later missions impossible. These two problems would lead players to drop out of the game — in the first instance for lack of challenge, and in the second due to frustration, as few players want to go backwards and redo previous missions in order to survive a mission later in the game.

A competitor’s product named War Wind released several years after Warcraft allowed units to be carried over from mission to mission; the game’s designers allowed up to four units to be transferred, but finessed the play-balance problem by ensuring that these units weren’t powerful enough to affect gameplay, somewhat the antithesis of what a heroic player-avatar is supposed to represent.

Heroes — in Warcraft 1?!?

We also considered including hero-units in Warcraft 1; they had names like the Illusion Thief, Barbarian, Huntress, and Juggernaut, each with specialized skills. Ultimately we trimmed the list of game units substantially; probably due to design and art-animation time constraints.

As someone with limited involvement in Warcraft III, it was interesting to see the idea of heroes finally implemented in the series, though the design genesis of heroes in Warcraft III comes from a different source — that is, not from ideas re-hashed from Warcraft 1 design documents.

Briefly, Warcraft III started out as a game called Heroes of Warcraft, which departed from the type of traditional RTS we had already launched five times before (W1, W2:ToD, W2:BtDP, SC, SC:BW) and was instead a squad-based tactical combat game set in the Warcraft universe. This game morphed into a more traditional RTS — but retained the element of heroes — after a change of team-leads halfway through the development.

Warcraft’s bright color palette

If you consider the artwork of the Warcraft series, you’ll see that the colors are shockingly loud in comparison to, say, Diablo, where only in a dim room is it truly possible to see the beauty of the art. The bright, cartoony art-style was different from the style of many other PC war games of the era, which hewed to more realistic color palette.

Part of that difference can be explained by the past experiences of our artists, who had worked on several Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis console titles, where games required more dynamic colors since televisions of that era were so much worse at displaying colors than PC monitors. Console games on TVs, which had lower pixel resolution and color bleed, needed high-contrast artwork to show well.

Another reason was at the behest of Allen, who charged all the artists with drawing artwork in bright conditions. He’d regularly stalk the halls of Blizzard turning on lights and opening window-blinds.

His view was that most folks play games in bright rooms, so our artists should be authoring our games to play well in that environment. He argued that it’s easy to draw artwork that reads well when viewed in a dark room with no outside light can distract from the monitor. But when computer art is competing with bright lights it’s much more difficult to see. And fluorescent bulbs are the worst form of light available — the cold, flickering glow of their tubes tires the eyes and washes out colors.

So the lights were always on in the art rooms to force artists to compensate for terrible lighting by creating art that accounted for those conditions. These working conditions chafed on some (all?) of the art team, but ultimately led to artwork that stood out compared to products of the day.

Now you know why Warcraft artwork looks like it has been candy-coated!

What about …

In the first article of this series I promised to address a bunch of topics in this article, but I’ve written another long post and didn’t quite make it to those points; I’ll continue to press forward in future articles. But give me a wee bit because I’ve become addicted to DayZ and need more play-time!(source:codeofhonor)


上一篇:

下一篇: