|
Dead Space is honestly a lot more gun focused then RE4/5, which isn't bad but isn't what I really enjoyed. If Dead Space ripped off the RE4/5 melee engine then I'd be a lot happier. Although I'm not sure how you could do that with the Necromorph gimmick.blackguy32 posted:Actually, Dead Space let you strafe and aim and shoot at the same time. Its really what a RE game should control like. Mercenaries does this too. v  v It really didn't feel like an improvement to me. It just made it focus a lot more on gunplay and that was pretty dull. Dead Space works because it has a lot of weird gimmicky weapons and so the gunplay feels a bit more refined. Simply adding move-and-shoot doesn't change RE to be Dead Space, you have to redesign the game.
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:The plasma cutter is arguably the best weapon in the game, and it functions like a basic pistol would. Its so good, that I have only ever used it and the plasma rifle ever. But even still, it would probably be for the better if Resident Evil abandoned many of its now archaic systems of movement. As for lost in nightmares, I am wary about giving it that title yet, since the scenario only has one enemy type It's the best weapon in the game but also the most boring and generic. It basically just makes the game a TPS where you shoot the legs instead. Which is fine, but it got boring for me quickly. Hell, they even said it was a problem that the Plasma Cutter was so good in DS1 and tried to tone it down in 2. (I don't think they succeeded, but whatever.) I really hope that RE doesn't drop its melee-focused gameplay but I get the feeling it will. RE:R looks to be all about the gunplay and you can't even stun enemies for followup attacks from what I've seen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:How in god's name did the new Bloodrayne game manage to pass with a T rating. I'm decapitating people left and right and throwing them in spinning bladed. I don't actually care, but it's downright confusing that this didn't get an M. Cartoony graphics + no 'humans' dying + no nudity + no curse words = safe!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
Kilometers Davis posted:From reviews it seems like it's basically the same thing the entire time. That's why I passed. That's kind of bullshit. It doesn't suddenly become a new genre but each level is designed pretty differently and has different obstacles and such. You don't get many new weapons or abilities (only two) but the levels are markedly different. It's the 'same the whole way through' in the same way that like, Castlevania or Ninja Gaiden or Strider is. It doesn't really have replay value unless you enjoy score attacks tho'. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Sep 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
TaurusOxford posted:Well I just found a gamebreaking glitch in No More Heroes. During Dark Star's motorcycle sequence, I hit a box, and instead of spazzing out of control for a second and then regaining it, I completely fell off the bike and was forced to go into combat mode with my katana, similar to what happens in Bad Girl's stage. Your avatar somehow is incredibly appropriate for this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
TaurusOxford posted:Pretty sure they average the same length as the other God of War titles. They are significantly shorter. I ran through both in a single day.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Bayonetta was good but it also isn't getting a sequel and as much as I love it I can't play it for infinite. Ninja Gaiden 3 is a pile of poo poo from what I played at E3. Everything good about the combat system has been replaced by a Win Button.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:What makes you think that? I just assumed it would eventually. Bayo's adventures had only just started. Because Platinum doesn't really make sequels. Even their Madworld 'sequel' is a psuedo-sequel that only happens to contain some of the same character (but alternate-dimension versions of them). You might see Bayonetta show up in another game but there's nothing saying it will be a Bayonetta 2 or even a similar game. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:They only have three games out and one in development, how can you be so sure about that? They mentioned to me at E3 that they don't like to do sequels which is why Anarchy Reigns isn't Madworld II or whatever. They liked the characters and wanted to reuse them but didn't want to make a sequel. Thinking there should be only one game in a genre, especially when the developer who makes that game is a small developer who makes other games too, is pretty silly. Even if they make a Bayonetta 2, it'll be after other stuff and might not even be the same kind of game. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
Yeah, Team Ninja actually isn't to blame for Other M, as surprising as that is. Sakamoto is very vocal about it being his baby. (The baby. Baby. baby. BABY.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Sakamoto wasn't the only one that developed it. It was co-developed and it seems that once Goons latched onto the story that Sakamoto was responsible for all of the game's problems, people just kept repeating it and repeating it until became the truth in all of their eyes. Judging by Sakamoto's past work and Team Ninja's recent work, I am comfortably fine making that assertion. They've flat-out said he is responsible for things like the controls, the visual design, the story, the upgrade system, the scenario design... pretty much everything that is bad about the game can be traced right to him. I'm not saying Team Ninja would have made a good game without interference but the worst poo poo is directly attributed to him by his own admission.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:He came to them and suggested that they use the Wiimote, and Team Ninja agreed with that approach. He 'suggested' in that he was the project lead and basically demanded it and then refused to go back as literally a point of honor to prove that it could be done.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:That sounds like a big jump and you projecting a bit to me. But I am not going to argue with you about it anymore. Err, no. He literally said as much in an interview. Nintendo Power v255 (July 2010) Sakamoto posted:There were certainly some members on the staff who weren't entirely comfortable with committing to a single control scheme, so they would ask question like, 'Couldn't we just make it possible to connect the Nunchuk and have an alternate control scheme in the game?' But I felt like that was essentially the wrong way to think about it. Like if you have to tack on other options like that, then you are really admitting defeat as a game designer..." There was a bit internet stink about it when it happened. He flat-out said in an interview that it was a personal goal of his to make a game with "a relatively limited amount of buttons."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:What???? They didn't changing the loving dodge o the stick? How loving lazy are they? I mean the shoulders worked well enough on the PSP version because they had no other choice but come one! How hard would it have been to change it? Dodging is done with the right analog stick, no concern.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
Eh. Those are both Hollywood cliches and if anything they work better in games then they do there. Realism often makes for lovely mechanics and "crouching = stealth" or "tranq guns = nonlethal" allow for simple to grasp gameplay mechanics that can be worked around and implemented into the game. It's the same as things exploding when you shoot them or Silencers somehow muffling all the sound from a gun or the various ridiculous ways of stealth killing someone or... well, all the unrealistic stuff. They make good gameplay mechanics and that's more important then being realistic. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Sep 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Yes, but games are not Hollywood. There are at least some movies that subvert this trope, none of the games I can think of do. I mean its usually done to add some complexity, but at times it doesn't even make sense. Pretty much nothing in a game is realistic and appealing to movie/book/television/whatever cliches makes it easier to teach the rules to people because it functions under a certain kind of logic that people are already trained to expect. Games are... well, games. They're not trying to be realistic. They are functioning under unrealistic rules by their basic design. They are forced to compensate for the fact that they are in an artificial world with very set rules and limitations and using cliches to teach the rules to the player is pretty important. While something might not be realistic, it can feel natural simple through media absorption. It's not ever going to make sense but rarely does anything in media make sense. It is more important for it to function to compensate for the media. Realism is rarely beneficial to a product, especially a video game where realism tends to make for poor mechanics. Yeah, you're a badass super spy but your job isn't to put the bad guys to sleep. It also isn't to single-handedly kill the population of a small country or sneak into conveniently placed vents that go everywhere in the world. It's just the nature of a game that you're not approaching things realistically, since realistic stealth would be pretty dull. Adding tranquilizer or stun darts to a game allows you to approach things differently if you so wish and that's good game design. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Sep 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Yes, but MGS got by fine with only lethal means of eliminating people. And really for all intents and purposes, outside of boss battles, its actually easier to tranquilize every body. MGS didn't have only lethal means tho'. You could sneak up and UHUHUHUHUH them to knock them out. Not to mention that one of the big emphasis of the game that you're scored for is getting through without killing anyone, which Tranq Guns play into. I agree that tranquilizing enemies should have more mechanical difficulty to compensate for it being higher scoring, but that's something else entirely from it not needing to exist. H:BM is awesome but it's focused around a specific kind of stealth. (In particular, 'public stealth') It wouldn't work for everything because not every game is designed like H:BM. ... Although I wish more were. H:BM was fantastic. SpacePig posted:I always figured crouching/sneaking being the same button came more from the number of buttons on the controller. Like, you could have crouch and sneak as separate, but smoe other aspect of the game would lose fuctionality. If crouching has to mean sneaking for the rest of the game to work well and be fun, so be it. Crouch = sneaky was around even on the PC. It's convenient but it didn't start on consoles. It really is just because is a convenient shorthand for "your character is being stealthy" more then anything else. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Sep 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
TaurusOxford posted:Someone clearly hasn't played Chains of Olympus, GoW1, or Ghost of Sparta... No, he's still pretty much a dick there too. Chains of Olympus tries to make him sympathetic without pointing out that he was a warmongering rear end in a top hat and that was the direct cause of him killing his own daughter. Like, he's had a lovely life but he is also pretty much responsible for a huge chunk of his lovely life. Zeus is admittedly responsible for the rest but a lot of it is just Kratos.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
bat duck posted:I wish all developers would ruin my game for me after I just bought it from them. If you bought Dark Souls, a game that literally advertises itself as "We will loving kill you," and then are upset that the developers kill you, you may be buying the wrong game. Seriously, I'm surprised that "ni-unkillable super monsters run by the developers" isn't a DEFAULT feature of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
Some of them are good but a lot of them have aged really badly. The PS1 was the weird era where RPGs were more complex and lengthy then their SNES counterparts but before they became faster and more streamlined like PS2 RPGs. The end result is that they're often rather slow, plodding and awkward. The PS1 was really the era of RPGs that could do with remakes. Of course, most of the PS1-era remakes they've made suck for other reasons...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:I think this Dark Souls info needs to be reposted in this thread in case anyone is on the fence about this game. Here is some multiplayer pvp info originally posted by Nelson Mandingo. There's spoiler tags around it in case you want to know absolutely nothing about the game, but it's really almost solely about multiplayer information. The multiplayer is shaping up to be incredible and I'm just floored by how unique some of this stuff sounds. This all sounds loving incredible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
Pipski posted:Don't get it if you play with inverted y-axis. The stupid fuckers forgot to include it as an option. Why on God's green earth would any developer in this day and age forget to loving include things like this? It's as bad as not including subtitles. (Looking at you, Wolverine.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
The Dirty Burger posted:http://www.siliconera.com/2011/09/26/dead-space-3-takes-place-on-a-frozen-planet-first-details-inside/ Dead Space 3: Lost Planet. (I'm honestly glad they're changing the environments up.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I guess we've talked about this in this thread before, but an ideal situation is when the game delivers you story stuff while you are playing. I hope for a future where games never have a period of time where you just set your controller down and watch. Japanese games have the furthest to go in this regard but a lot of Western games are guilty too. The problem there is that while it's a nice idea in theory, delivering story stuff while playing tends to be troublesome. If it's important stuff, you don't want it getting lost amongst the action of the game or else you'll have people who missed something important because it was revealed while they were fighting a thousand Swarmtroopers. And the alternate choice, slow down the action while important things are happening, is dumb. It's exactly what gives us "Issac Clarke stands quietly while the guy behind the invincible glass rants at him" syndrome. Cutscenes, when used well, provide a convenient break the action while also being something that can be skipped on future replays or by those who don't care about the plot. The problem is when they're unskippable, too lengthy or too frequent.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Ineffiable posted:Though, isn't the prime example of this: Half Life? Nope. Half-Life absolutely loves to do long sequences where Gordon Freeman can jump around or whatever but you're still stuck in a cutscene where you have to watch characters talk at one another. It's honestly worse to me then a lot of cutscenes because you can't even just put down the controller, you often have to follow someone around and watch them blab at one another. Half-Life is really bad about this honestly in that when it wants to delivery story to you, the gameplay is going to loving stop dead but not in an interesting way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
Chard posted:Maybe I'm a big babby idiot but I actually like the way HL did its cutscenes. You don't get to put down your 'controller', the action stops in a way that makes sense considering you're basically an MIT physicist having a really bad day, and the voice and facial animations are quite good. So I don't really get it, but YMMV. Because you're not a MIT physicist having a really bad day. You're a mute who is incapable of communicating and has no impact whatsoever on the cutscenes. (As shown by the fact that you can go off and throw things at wall for the entirety of the cutscene and it continues on without caring.) Everyone in the Half-Life cutscenes talks at one another and occasionally 'at' you. It's no different from any other cutscene except you can throw poo poo at a wall while the characters pretend you're following the script and it's longer and unskippable. HL2 is a LOT worse about this then HL1 to be fair. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Sep 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Chard posted:As a person who plays story-driven games at most 2, maybe 3 times, this has never felt like a huge problem for me. Clearly some people are bothered more by it, and I understand their complaints, but I for one thought that HL did a good job of making the (admittedly mute) player character feel like they weren't being forcibly removed from playing the game, even when the only thing happening was exposition. If the NPCs ignore you throwing a chair at a wall for five minutes, it's just because they know Gordon is a little Then why allow players interactivity during a cutscene if you're not going to allow them to interact with it? I don't quite get this. What's the difference between an actual cutscene and one where you sit around doing nothing if the characters around you act the same way and you have no possible way to interact with them, ask them questions, alter the tone of the conversation or even get them to react to the fact that you're more interested in staring at newspapers on a wall instead of listening to their world-shaking events. I'd rather have a cutscene where I can interact with the actual scene, but obviously that isn't viable in every situation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2011 13:43
|
|
and they have more important things to do. There's no reason to accommodate a player loving up a cutscene, IMHO, except for allowing them to skip it.
|
Feenix posted:Sorry, not to bring it up again, but I posted pretty late last night. Yes. There are items and abilities which can increase the speed you move at. Attack speed depends on the character and weapons equipped. Heavy weapons are obviously slower then lighter-but-weaker weapons, and there are tricks you can use to attack even faster
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:So uh...why should I even consider buying a game where the DLC is more expensive than the game itself? I am not a fan of the concept of DLC in general and that just drives me right up the wall, even though I love Castlevania. Because the alternate result is limiting developers to releasing only a set amount of DLC as long as it doesn't go above (x) cost where (x) is the current price of the game? It's fine if you don't think it is worth the cost but your judgment shouldn't be "there is enough DLC to exceed $10/15/20/whatever cost." I mean, not to be a jerk, but that's a really dumb measure of DLC. It's fine to say "A new character isn't worth $5" or whatever, but especially for a $15 game, that's going to be a fairly small limitation. Even if each level was $2 and each character was $1, you'd still have DLC costing more then the actual price. (Actually, IIRC, each character is $1 you just have to buy them in packs of two, but that still equals $2 to me.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Sep 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Failing to see the problem with this. I guess it's fine if you don't actually want developers supporting their game after release, but considering that I rather enjoyed the DLC for games like Fallout, I'm not too quick to jump upon that. It seems pretty stupid to say "I want developers supporting the game, but not TOO much." Like I said, there's nothing wrong with saying "This poo poo isn't worth what they're asking for it," but it seems utterly ridiculous to say "developers should only support their product up to a certain amount." ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Sep 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Why? I think developers need to find an appropriate balance when it comes to handling additional content for their games, and it's something that many companies are still doing very poorly. The complaint I was addressing was someone who wanted to know why they would buy a game where there is DLC that, all combined, costs more then the core game. Underhanded stuff is dumb no matter what but in the case of Castlevania, the only real one to make an argument for is Julius and Maria and the Pyramid Stage (all of which I believe come with the core game in the PS3 version), the rest was added over time. Believe me, I'm not defending bullshit where they cut stuff out of the game. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:But that's just it, when it's that much DLC, how am I supposed to believe that the game is complete without it? The thing is that it isn't a matter of complete or incomplete. A product can always have extra content added to it, for good or for ill. A movie can have sequels or spinoffs or Director's Cuts or whatever which add new content or change things or whatever. Same for novels in fact, where I can go out and buy changed or updated versions of one-off novels released later. "Complete" is a nebulous term that lasts only until whatever point someone decides to add further to the product. Samurai Sanders posted:Well, these days it's an expectation that is built up based on past experience. In many cases I know that that the thing you buy on the disc and put in your PS3 at launch isn't going to be the entire product of that dev's work on the game, like it would have been in years last. That's what bugs me. The thing is, you're assuming a basic A or B thing here. There are certainly developers who cut poo poo out of their game to be sleazy, but some of it stuff that would have been flat-out cut if DLC didn't exist due to budget or time constraints. They used to do this stuff on PC games too where you'd get Expansion Packs later that contained content that wasn't ready or cut from the core release and got added in a for-pay product you could buy later. Again, there's a very real difference between "We're selling DLC that wouldn't exist if we didn't have DLC as an option" vs "We're selling DLC because gently caress you give us $5." The latter is bullshit. The DLC is additional characters and harder levels with new loot. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:If you are someone who actually LIKES director's cuts and sequels and updated versions of novels, then I guess this conversation doesn't have anywhere to go. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. You're talking excited about Dark Souls, which is a sequel to Demon's Souls in everything but name, so I guess I don't get the "I don't like sequels" stuff from you. But as for director's cuts or improved versions: Sometimes they can actively improve upon the product. I remember that you enjoyed the PS2 remakes of the Super Robot Wars Original Generations titles for example. The initial version is not always the best nor does it match the creator's intent. And the thing is that a movie, a novel or a video game is not that simple. It's very rare that a creator can include everything they want, especially in a product made by a large number of people on a limited budget. I think it is a fairly rare situation for a creator to look at something they made and go "Yes, this is exactly what I intended." I would make an argument that almost no video game created is exactly what the creator intended when setting out. DLC can be lovely, but it can also be used as an honest improvement to the game. It can add new levels or new content that extends the value of a game and compliments what is already a stand-alone product or to adjust for the weaknesses and flaws of a game or to allow a developer to finish something they couldn't have normally. In a perfect world, every creator would have perfect control, an unlimited budget, unlimited time and would never make mistakes, but it isn't a perfect world. These additions to completed versions can make a product honestly better. I'd rather play FFXII-International Edition over the original any day of the week. I'd rather watch the Director's Cut of Alien 3 over the original theatrical version any day because it is a legitimate better film, and I'd rather GOOD DLC exist that can improve upon a game rather then a developer just letting fun ideas fade away. lovely DLC remains lovely no matter what however. I'm not defending any of that at all, and a lot of DLC is really lovely. I think Horse Armor or Pay $20 To Buy Sunglasses For Your Anime Girl or $15 characters obviously ripped from the game are all trash. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Egomaniac posted:I realize that, but foregoing the DLC has yet to render a game unplayable. As long as it has a beginning, a middle and an end (with gameplay!) it's a complete game. I think it's worth pointing out that sometimes it doesn't have this. Assassin's Creed 2 actually cut out a few levels and sold them as DLC later because they couldn't finish them, and there are several games with endings which are unsatisfying at best unless you buy DLC to improve upon them. There's also games like Mass Effect 2 or Kingdom Hearts where the DLC/Expansion Packs can add content that is important to the sequel but is only available in the expanded version of the game, leaving those who didn't buy it missing part of the story or potential extras. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:edit: part of the reason I have that respect is that I don't see it in myself; I keep editing my own posts over and over again. Anyway, I want incentives that cause more development energies to go into new and fresh products rather than continuations of previous ones, and I see DLC as an incentive AGAINST that. I can sort of understand this but it's worth noting that the development necessary for DLC is extremely different from the development necessary for a new game. It isn't an either/or situation. Development teams can work on only so much at once and not everyone on a team is equal. It's also worth noting that extending the value of a game is different from creating an entirely new game. Someone who wants Game A may not want Game B and DLC allows Game A to continue to receive new content. For someone who has relatively limited tastes in games or doesn't buy a lot of new titles or whatever, getting a $10 DLC to their favorite game is a lot more appealing then a $60 game they don't want to play.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
I had heard that Yazuka The End wasn't very good. Did I hear wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
Chairman Mao posted:Jeez, there's practically enough there to make another loving game. Cars, missions, game mechanics cut entirely. It pretty much was the entire game. Mafia 2 is loving ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
nominal posted:I never played the original Dead Rising but I have been sitting on Dead Rising 2 from Gamefly from way too long, and I decided to give it a second chance before I sent it back. I went through the mall level. screwing around with most of the shops I saw off to the side and whatever other diversion I could find, and even then had to hang out in the safehouse basically doing nothing, and still had to wait an hour before it'd let me feed my daughter Zombrex or whatever. Then I did some mission outside where I had to go to the Arena or a Hotel or something and there are way more zombies than I have weapons to kill. I figured, okay, that's probably part of the game, I guess I should scrounge for objects in the environment to use to kill these bastards, but even then, there is no god drat way I can kill all these zombies between the crazy redneck dude with the shotgun (that I guess I am supposed to save?) and his wife and/or daughter (wasn't paying enough attention to the plot to know and/or care))and I'm not even sure if I have the time to kill all these zombies what with the Army coming in a few days and all and even if I DID have time, this game is still not even remotely fun. Am I playing it wrong, or something? You can't kill all the zombies. Ever. Your goal isn't to kill all the zombies, it's just to make a path through them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
Policenaut posted:Albert Wesker's dead, but RE5 and Lost in Nightmares introduced the "Wesker Children" concept. LiN has Alex Wesker who is the only Wesker child unaccounted for, was working for Spencer and supposedly discovered an immortality serum. That is exactly who we're going to get.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
I own all those games and I'm considering purchasing them again. I am a bad person.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 20:32
|
|