I recently played through the entirety of Dragon Age: Inquisition on PlayStation 4 again. I had never finished all of the expansions, and I had the urge to go back and see how it's held up after three years. When it first launched in 2014, I reviewed it and awarded it a 9/10. It was a high score that, at the time, made sense - at least to me. I thought it was the best role-playing game on Sony's console, so I gave it a score that reflected that. In short, I thought it was great.
But Inquisition is absolutely one of those games that you can look back on and pick apart all too easily. When I was actually playing it, I was loving the character interactions, the amount of player choice, and all the cool story moments. After I had finished it for the first time, all I could think about were the nightmarish fetch quests and maps stuffed with objective markers.
Skip ahead to August 2017 and I'm playing it again, only this time, I'm simply ignoring anything that sounds even remotely tedious. "The refugees are starving," one guy standing over a suspiciously full cooking pot tells me. "You can help them by gathering some ram meat." Yeah, I'm not chasing sheep across awkward terrain for 20 minutes for a slight experience point boost, mate, soz. The quest gets added to my journal, but it can get stuffed.
I played the whole game like this, and honestly, I thoroughly enjoyed it. My second playthrough lasted about 30 hours less than my first, and that was with the final expansion that I hadn't played before. By cutting out all of the crap that doesn't actually matter, Dragon Age: Inquisition is a better game - a much better game. So why the hell is it packed with trash in the first place?
That's a question I started to ask myself, but I'm not sure the answer matters all that much. The takeaway here is that some open world games actively try to sabotage themselves. They tempt players into hunting down flavourless optional content, opting for quantity over quality. But the real problem is that all too often, we fall into the trap. We see an objective marker on a map, and we go to it. We check off lists of filler missions just so we can say that we've got 100 per cent completion. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see everything that a game has to offer, but when you're brainlessly hopping from one quest to the next with no enthusiasm and no immersion, it's best to stop and ask yourself if it's really worth it.
And this is what I like to call open world OCD - the compulsion to track down every little objective marker even though you stopped having fun ten minutes ago. Getting sucked into the side quest vortex is a dangerous thing, and it's something I mentioned in our Mass Effect: Andromeda review - another BioWare game that suffers hugely from having way too much fluff. Once you're down the rabbit hole and you're committed to clearing every point of interest off a map, it's difficult to just say no.
However, when you're purposefully trying to avoid whole chunks of a release just so that you can actually enjoy playing it, surely that means the game's overall design is seriously flawed to begin with. It's this acceptance of a title being poorly constructed that kind of made me stop caring. When I played Andromeda for review, I started off completing every side quest that came my way in the hope that the game would get better. If anything, it just made it worse, and once I convinced myself that no, I probably wasn't going to miss out on anything important by skipping all of these sh*t missions, it's like the shackles came off. Okay, so Andromeda still turned out to be pretty rubbish, but you get what I mean.
Now, this isn't to say that every open world game gets it wrong. Regular readers will have known this was coming, but The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is, for me, the standout example in the sense that it presents its side content so well. I did absolutely everything in Geralt's adventure not to clear out every entry in a journal, but because I wanted to be a part of each scenario.
Ultimately, this is what it's all about. Open world games have to capture our imagination and make us feel involved, like we're a part of them. If a title's side content isn't able to help accomplish that goal, then I question its purpose. Sure, I think there's still something to be said for finding satisfaction in clearing a list of objectives, but for me, that kind of thing has the potential to really hurt an otherwise enjoyable experience. And in that sense, I'm glad that I've finally escaped the clutches of open world OCD.
Has open world OCD ever ruined your enjoyment of a game? Do you get sick of chasing down objectives across huge maps? Just enjoy yourself in the comments section below.
Comments 52
I know Persona 5 isn't open world but I feel like it's biggest flaw was that it just didn't end. It's one of my favorite games but man the last 20 hours of the game just felt like a chore which was a shame cause I wanted to know how the story panned out. They could of cut it down a little and made a better experience that was shorter but kept you invested and ready for more.
@ShogunRok Nice article, Robert. I have been in this same boat for probably since DA:I as you mentioned. Could be my old gaming age, but I have grown tired of these games that become mindless. Even games like Destiny and Warframe with their repetitive "missions" for loot systems. I have yet to finish MA: Andromeda, but I think I'll go back and play; inspired by your OCD-Free play-through.
For me, it's the inventory system that makes/breaks an open world game. The amount of time I spent dealing with my inventory in Horizon was staggering and really took away from the game for me.
Sure, give me a million things to do, but allow me to manage the loot efficiently. I don't care if it doesn't make sense that I'm carrying 3 sets of armor and 6 swords. Make getting rid of 'trash' items easy... keep crafting items to a minimum (looking at you CUL on FFXIV).
Completely agree with the article. But on the flip side, how many times have you seen comments on the Internet that are like, "20 hours? Not buying this game if it's that short!"
It's stupid because less is often so much more, but people also want value for money. But do we determine value by the number of hours we spend with the game or the quality of those hours while we're experiencing them?
Having played Far Cry 4, I don't mind because I do have OCD. I mean, 900 Korok seeds for golden poop, Ill do nearly anything!
But Far Cry 4 also showed me the problem a lot of these games have. There is no incentive for it. At least with the Korok Seeds you didn't have to get them all, but getting just over half was hugely beneficial. In something like Far Cry 4, a lot of it...does nothing, actually. No boosts. No gear. Nothing. It just is.
And Far Cry 4 also showed me that some twit put the collision for finding a landmark under the ground, so you cant reach it and get 100% anyway!
So @ShogunRok if it is an solace at all, most companies and QA teams don't bother to do everything in an open world game either!
Even the best open world games are really guilty of this. BOTW had so many bland side missions that were nearly all fetch quests of some sort that gave very little of anything I couldn't get elsewhere. I loved Horizon, and I think that did very well on side quests, but even so, lots of hunting for crafting materials and metal flowers etc. were a bit boring.
To me, 'filler' missions (which are really what side quests or collectibles are) need to do one of several things - be varied and entertaining, playing with the games mechanics. They should also reward me for doing them - give me enticing skills, upgrades, resources or even deep story points that make me want to.
I think that the tide is turning. It is a bit like food, some people equate quantity to quality. As in, this place is really good, I had more microwave chips then I could possibly eat rather than, wow that place had loads of good food. Some of the best meals do both, be tasty AND fill you right up but it doesn't mean every meal has to.
Length and quality are different and as long as the gamer is aware that a game is of a rough size and it is priced accordingly, then this is ok.
Bought DA:I recently and actually fell out of the game because of the boring side quests. After I committed to my love interest, got bored and played Final Fantasy XV, which kinda had the same problem, but not to the same extent in my opinion. Maybe it didn't bother me that much because I actually rushed a bit through the game and then went to do what interested me in the post game.
Edit: Also, completely forgot about Zelda BOTW. It has its fair share of stupid quests. But It's biggest accomplishment is not having a map full of question marks. It doesn't make you feel like you HAVE to complete every single thing on your way. And it's just a great game overall.
Great article, I completely agree. I recently replayed Dragon Age Inquisition myself earlier this year, and noticed a lot of the same issues as you mentioned. I played that immediately after playing Final Fantasy XV. Again, same issues. I have played through a bunch of open world games this year, and they are all littered with fetch quests, boring collectathon sessions, and annoyingly slow traversing to make these things a chore. As far as open world games go this year, I played FFXV, Dragon Age Inquisition, Breath of the Wild, Mass Effect Andromeda, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Shadow of Mordor, and all three Arkham games.
Right now, the term "open world" does not sound at all fun or appealing. I have had my fill of pressing X at point A, slowly crawling to point B and pressing X again before returning to point A. The games mentioned above all do this to varying degrees, and some are better about it, but I'd rather have a shorter and tighter experience instead of a bunch of ! markers on the map with nothing interesting to show for it.
*cough*cough*The Witcher 3.
I know I shouldn't complain given I spent over 350 hours on TW3, but that game legitimately almost killed me. Clear up one patch of question marks & two dozen more appear. It was never ending...
One of the reasons I preferred FFXV over it. There was a lot of exploration, but it still felt manageable.
I do get that people usually like to equate £'s to hours spent. I do it myself, but sometimes less is more.
I have no problem spending £50 on a 15-20 hour game. As long as the quality speaks for itself & not the marketing.
Personally I'm burned out on open world games. It's gotten to the point where it's an actual turn off. Often it's just a big 'empty' space that just goes on & on. Horizon did it right, but personally I'd much prefer the semi open world of FFXIII or Uncharted TLL.
The problem is people put far too much value in the more hours of content the better, especially when it comes to price. The Order 1886 was chastised for daring to charge full price for a "short" length and no apparent replay value (though trophies is as good as a reason as any) And No Mans Sky was equally criticized because an "indie" charged full price despite offering an entire universe. It's no wonder that developers and market researchers are given the impression that they have to throw everything content wise in because everybody wants open world games apparently. And it actually hurts several games too, I mean did Mafia 3 an Agents of Mayhem need to be open world affairs to justify itself. Both Horizon and The Witcher are the best examples of open world (especially RPGs) games because they made a world the fitted it's mechanics, characters and story. Other games create a world then they try to fill it with stuff.
Games that I've played that do it well:
The Witcher 3
Horizon Zero Dawn
GTA
Red Dead Redemption
i think it can, too much content and people forget to play the main game and get "lost" in it instead
of course too little and the game can feel lifless
finding the correct balance is hard and in my opinion very few Open World games have got it right
Absolutely agree with this! A few people have mentioned this before, but more effort into the actual world would be great. By that I mean, not making white picket fences unassailable or being unable to get past a wooden door when you have a RPG strapped to your back or even an axe!! Just improve the immersion. I am sort of looking forward to playing AC Origins, imagine if they actually got the assassination part of the game down to a tee...., but those games are 70% filler and I ain't got time for that anymore.
Nice article, especially since I just started Horizon Zero Dawn few days ago for the first time. I'm 24 hours into HZD but the stats say I'm only 23%, this because I've never used fast travel and playing on Very Hard with no hud. Same thing happened with Fallout 4. I think difficulty is really important for an open world game: roaming around in a fantasy/scifi/realistic setting may lose all its fun if you can simply breeze through everything, while having to know the world you move into, using all the mechanics the game offers is the real deal.
Nice piece. I don't mind fetch quests in games as long as the immersion to do it is there. A perfect example was a quest in Horizon where you had to fetch cables from some mech beasties whilst two lovebirds swooned over each other. Aloy even makes a quip about having to do everything herself.
Not complaining, just asking, was there a point to the article I missed - some new game coming out, or old one going on sale, new genre? I'm fine if there isn't one, just feel like I missed something.
I'm 25 hours into KoA:R. Man that game has A LOT of side stuff. I read online it was a 30 our game, but 25 hours in I've only covered about 20% of the map, and there are still tons of missions i have opened there. So yeah, to much stuff to do. 10 books, 6 corpse remains, 5 plant seeds. There are a couple of really good side story lines I'm enjoying way more than the main one - Warsworn and Fae - but I dont' want to steal some old guys shoes.
But the worst. The absolute worst, is probably 5 of my 20 hours have been inventory management. And I'm not even exaggerating. It's the worst system I've ever come across and I've been gaming non-stop since FF7 in 1997. So many side missions, a gazillion drops, but only 70 spots for everything? I even filled up my stash house, still fill up constantly. I junk, I sell, I leave stuff behind, but it's constant non-stop management, I can barely do anything but.
So yeah, too many quests, but it would seem much better if I could just drop stuff. Or not count items. Or something. I just played Zelda for 155 hours, that had inventory management as well, but besides things breaking it went very smoothly, and I did most of the side quests in that game and enjoyed almost all of them. Only 250 korok seeds but who cares.
Reading Horizon has inventory issues has me nervous now, but it just can't be as bad as KoA:R, it just can't. Every decent game I play has management issues, but KoA:R is a freaking disaster.
This is why I find it hard to get into open world games. There's too much given to you and and it might not be worth it. I'm never too keen on sidequests unless I'm sure the reward is helpful. Red Dead Redemption was one of my favorite games, but the only thing I did outside of the main story were the stranger missions. And I can forget getting everything in an RPG.
Right now, I'm playing Yakuza Kiwami, and I admittedly feel overwhelmed by the content it has. 78 substories, a checklist of food you need to eat, minigames, and Majima being a crazy effective stalker isn't helping. I also have Batman Arkham Origins on PS3, and I was overwhelmed by all the stuff the game just tosses at you. This is someone who got City's platinum, I should add.
I've always said quality over quantity and that's why I couldn't understand the hate for The Order. I found that quality and the length perfect.
Most open world games I'm bored with half way through and they just become a grind so I can see the end. Even worse if I want the plat!
An example that comes to mind is Mad Max. I would have rated that game much higher if was half the size...
Edit - I should have said a long/big game is fine if it can be varied enough to keep your attention but most don't imo, at least for me...
@zimbogamer yup I hear you buddy.
Well the big problem for games right now is every one requires a ridiculous amount of commitment.
Back in the 90s you had one big RPG of between 45-60hours length which was considered long every 6-12 months and a load of shorter games. Even the great games at the time were considerably shorter than today. MGS 12ish hours to soak in enough, Half Life 8 hours, FF7 50 hours, Ocarina of time 30 hours etc.
Dont get me wrong it was a different time and expectations were less. Yet since last December 6 games including Persona 5 have eaten 600 hours of my life. Its too much of a commitment.
The games are too long.
Persona 5 has a completion rate of 36% according to my trophy list. Its potentially the best game out there and that stat pretty much says it all.
More content is good, just as long as the content is good. If they make the game longer by adding mediocre side quests, then that's going to make the game seem more tedious to me.
I love that there is content but add a little variety to the side quests pls don't be like Metal Gear 5 Phantom Pain 156 sidequests almost all of them were to capture a soldier or something.
Best Open game for me is Gravity Rush 2 it doesn't have content as witcher or other Open world games but that game is so good on it's own right.
Agree with the article. For me, the best sidequest in open world game is nier automata, there's no filler side quest, it's all world building, it's the only game that I actively search for the sidequest.
I hate assassin creed like sidequest that filled my map with overabudance of icon.
I usually do feel inclined to do everything in a game, but I'm honestly beginning to feel like I don't give a rat's arse for long games at all let alone long games filled to the rafters with obnoxious side quests. I'm still playing Final Fantasy XII and while it is an exceptional game, it is also a tad too long. I played the original when I was 21 and this time round I don't have quite the same stamina.
Last year I played Fallout 4 for over 400 hours and although I did enjoy most of my playthrough, it did start to get to the point where I thought to myself, "I've been playing this for five months, I need this to end so I can do something else!".
Even Breath of the Wild adopted a couple of the more tedious elements of modern open world games. The side quests, for one thing, are dreadful. I did start off doing them, but once I decided it wasn't worth breaking my best weapons for an opal or some carrots, I was better off ignoring them altogether. And the game is more enjoyable as a result. Thankfully the world itself is a joy to traverse and so exploring for its own sake never gets dull. It doesn't need to be packed with side quests or collectibles to be fun.
I do feel that for many games being open-world has led to somewhat sloppy design. It is usually typified by filling out these enormous worlds with collectibles and irritating "side-stuff" so that there are things for the player to do. I would much rather play a tightly designed linear game driven by a strong narrative. I'm also starting to really appreciate shorter games.
But this is the problem isn't it, if you can call it a problem? The Witcher 3 came along and showed everyone how it's done. I loved Dragon Age Inquisition, but that's because I played it before I went on that amazing adventure with Geralt.
Anyone going into Inquisition now after having played Witcher 3 will be like: "oh okay I've got to go and pick this plant, it'll probably be part of a massive underground monster that will burst out and transform into a witch and put a curse on me and turn me into a demon-dragon-ghost-baby and oh no it's just a plant."
@Gremio108 The Witcher is just as bad in my opinion. I haven't played Zelda but I'm pretty sure it's the better open world game.
@kyleforrester87 Honestly, The Witcher probably had plenty of unremarkable quests that I've forgotten about, but it threw so many curveballs that I was happily taking on any old objective that came my way, just to see what twists it took. Personally I don't think DAI's quests come close to The Witcher 3's best moments.
But yeah, I haven't played Zelda either. If I could afford a Switch I'd be all over it.
This is my biggest annoyance, years ago games started getting rated based on the hours it would take to complete a game, value for money was key in winning public oppinion and games lasting 6-8 hours were shunned.
Now we are saturated with uninspiring filler content, that I feel obligated to complete and ultimately switches me off the thought of gaming any time soon. I have absolutely loved games like Titan Fall 2 and Uncharted Remastered Collection.
Quality over quantity is a must.
I have this problem as well; the compulsion to 100% open world games has basically turned me off from playing them altogether. Arkham Knight broke me when they had like, 100 riddler trophies and other BS that weren't viewable due to riddler informant bugs. Needless to say I haven't completed, or really played a major open world game to completion since then. Horizon sits unfinished, as does watch dogs 2, far cry primal, witcher 3, mass effect Andromeda, dragon age inquisition, toukiden 2, FF12.....etc etc
@Gremio108 The problem with the Witcher is, in my opinion, it would have been a better linear adventure. The main story and side quests, though well told, would have been more effective if the game around it was more restrictive. The open world elements, as with so many similar games, were rubbish in my opinion. Going around the map ticking off question marks that are already highlighted on your map? Why? The game should let you pick a direction and come across this stuff more naturally.
I dunno, I got beef with open world games, I always have. I like the idea of them, I just hate the boring mechanics that most of them seem to adopt.
@kyleforrester87 I know what you mean. I tend to turn a lot of the icons and things off. With The witcher 3 I turned off most of the HUD, a game that good-looking deserves as much screen space as possible. Without the mini-map I had to learn the layout of the game world and like you say, I stumbled across things more naturally. Maybe that helped.
I never play two open world games in a row, for the reasons you've said. A few people have mentioned it already, but I'm replaying The Order this week for the platinum. It's nice not to worry about going out of my way for objectives and stuff (although I did have to do some serious exploration today for one of the collectibles. It was on a table, all the way on the other side of the room)
@Gremio108 To be honest I should look into disabling some of the nonsense on those type of games to see if I get more out of them. I tend to keep the default settings on.
@kyleforrester87 Yeah, The Witcher 3 is a different game with all of the assists turned off. Though I'll admit, I did turn the map back on occasionally, when I was having to navigate using the position of the moon. It all got a bit Bear Grylls at one point
@Gremio108 haha sounds good actually
@Pocky No one ever said OCD was a "cool" disorder. If your comment is aimed at the article, then I apologise for any offence caused.
@kyleforrester87 Just don't try it in Bloodborne. Moons all over the shop
I completely agree with what you've said here, @ShogunRok. It's one of the reasons I've sworn myself off long, open world games for a while. I'm actually kind of sick of them. I want shorter, more focused experiences now.
The Witcher 3 dealt with side quests a lot better than other games but in the end most of them boiled down to this: get the quest, use the witcher senses to find out something is not like what you expected/not like the quest giver told you, slay the monster(s).
Ironically as a result I started feeling annoyed by the long winded
quest introductions and kinda started missing the DA: Inquisition checklist kind of deal. Look, I just need the exp and the loot, don't come out with all these paraphernalia. I know right, you can never really win as a programmer XD
@zimbogamer very nice point and I think it can be extended to a lot of JRPGS. Those ending parts when they discover the civilisation of the ancients (that were actually a very advanced civilisation)/ slay some gods to forge their own destiny / break the reincarnation cycle of an evil infra dimensional being... just leave it be at the political/human level for once and spare us 10-20 more hours of your beautiful but terribly slow paced game ;_; plz?
The Witcher's side content nicely plays into the main quest. Other games just want to work hard to keep you busy. I don't understand why this Assassins Creeding of maps must happen in the first place. Great article!
For me open world and sandbox became advertising buzz words to tick off the checklist a long time ago. While they generally still get a positive response, I generally think of the games mainly being huge spaces devoid of anything interesting to do.
If you think about it logically you'll probably realise the best bits in these games is the main story missions and the reason for that is they are highly scripted and designed to be tackled in a mostly linear manner. Think about that, the best parts of an open world game are the bits that ignore the main selling point.
There is a definite expectation these days for a game to last at least over 20 hours, with higher numbers being better. This isn't solely a problem in open world games though and I think there could be just as interesting article on that fact. Take something like Nioh, the game is great for a good while, but repitition sets in long before the end with enemies and areas repeated far too many times. Then take Ratchet and Clank which constantly throws new stuff at you for its sub 10 hour duration, but is fun through out. Out of the two I know which one left a better final impression with me.
Great article, and totally agree with the points raised. I am tired of repetitive filler side quests that literally add nothing to games; and yet my ocd makes me worry that I am missing out if I dont try to do everything. I mean half the superfluous stuff in games like infamous ss, skyrim, ffxv etc was ridiculous. Heck, im playing trails of cold steel on my vita atm, with a walkthrough on my phone to try and make sure im not missing secret missions or content. Its ridiculous and it does spoil my enjoyment at times. Thats why I have really been enjoying titles recently such as life is strange, until dawn, ratchet, Sonic Mania, which are just delivering a strong narrative or gameplay experiences, so I dont need to worry about what I might be missing. Open worlds have gotten out of control and they are neither needed or wanted in every game. I will try to play DA:I as you have suggested when I finally get round to it
Weeeeell! Maybe that was the thing that made me not finish Dragon Age Idk I was really enjoying it but after some time I moved to other games without reason!
Also, I never actually finished the last missions of Witcher 3 lol sorry! I was loving the game and was doing all sidequests like I usually do but in the end I moved on!
I love RPGs, I love games that give me hours and hours of content, but after some time I think I have enough and look for a linear 20 hour max experience!
Could not agree more, I can't stand open world anymore.
The Witcher 3 is the game of the generation, so it was an exception. But to me more linear nowdays is better.
Just look at persona 5, FFXII Zodiac age or even a musou game, it's was direct to the point. You can do side stuff, but the point of the game is in your face!
I could not even finish Zelda Breath of the Wild.
Great article and so very true. Many games these days are beeing stretched out by giving players more sidequests and things to do but rarely does it help you feeling imersed in the world and completing them all starts to feel like work. Witcher and rockstar games are the few where i dont mind the side quest because they are written great and give something extra
@Pocky All true, but OCD doesn't have to take on the form of a serious condition. Very minor OCD behaviour is incredibly common, even to the point where people aren't even aware that they have it, and I think that can extend to gaming in some areas.
In open world games I gather all the map data first, climb the towers or whatever. Then if needed I unlock all fast travel points if they're not tied to map data. Then I just pick a point of interest and continue moving, in a pattern that minimizes travel between points.
Be organized, respect your time, and if you aren't having fun put the game down and figure out if its your current mood or the game just blows.
Excellent article, reflecting my thoughts exactly. I will add another one of my own: I don't think it's necessarily OCD. The hook of not knowing what's around the corner, at the end of the quest - the immediate reward - is what keeps us chasing those marks on a map etc. I imagine it's linked to the hormone release in our brains every time we achieve something - you need that sword or armor, you want to earn it. The bigger picture that is emerging, however, is exactly as you say. Paraphrasing: the balance is completely lost between story and side-content, the challenge developers have is striking a perfect one.
One exception to this are games that manage to create big worlds, which make us feel like visitors, strangers almost, playing only a small part in the grand scheme of things. The world truly has to be the main character in the game, then it works well I think. I think I've yet to experience a game with a big world and relatively small , but interesting, storyline (small as measured by the impact on that world). Something more character-driven, maybe? I'd love to play such a game.
Loved Dragon Age Inquisition did not not enjoy witcher 3 at all. Never felt the need to do all side quests or get all trophies for any game. I guess thats where the problem arises. The need to get trophies drives you to do smething that never needs to be done. Side quests are just that. It makes the end game boss easier because you are higher levels but it also makes the game last for longer for those that are enjoying it. I would rather have more content and not play it. If you want t whizz through an open world game then its fine by just doing the main quests.
Like you said, the quests are optional. It gives the player the impression of creating their own game story. Everybody has a different experience and more options (lets not get too crazy) is often better than a forced route.
Really good article. I'd argue that what makles a good open-world game is focus - lots of developers treat the optional activities as meaningless checkpoints or rush them through, but a good OW game gives them equal treatment to the story, unique activities, strong storytelling, great characters.
A good open world fleshes out the game itself, and poor on is just bland filler.
Lol, I never finish everything in a game; I don't have a single platinum trophy and I'm proud of it. No OCD here
Funny times we're living when games are "too big". Given that many classic games from the 80's and even 90's can be beaten in 20 minutes.
But it's reality now. We've had bigger and bigger games after the whole open-world thing and many times I see myself hesitating when starting a new game, just because I know it will take lots of time and probably some pointless wandering just because you can. While I was blown away back in the days by the titles like GTA3, I've slowly started to enjoy linear structure more.
I still enjoy freedom in games but then it must have something else to enjoy as well. This is a tricky subject and an important one as well.
Tap here to load 52 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...