IPB
356 Pages V  < 1 2 3  4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
video games, I have no intention of gazing upon the left eye
Spelster
post May 10 2010, 10:49 PM
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 3,597
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Lollipoop
Member No.: 1,135



QUOTE (Klonny @ May 10 2010, 11:45 PM) *
ALL YOU NEED IS SOME CAVE STORY OR SOME LYLE IN CUBE SECTOR
THEY'RE TOTALLY FREE TO DOWNLOAD SO GOOGLE THAT SHIT NOW


--------------------
p00p11010101002pppqoqoo10111
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Klonny
post May 11 2010, 02:03 AM
Post #42


No one should do any of this


Group: Psych Ward
Posts: 11,225
Joined: 12-September 06
From: VA
Member No.: 295



IMPLYING LYLE IN CUBE SECTOR ISN'T JUST AS AWESOME


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
farmerbob
post May 11 2010, 02:44 AM
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 2,064
Joined: 18-July 06
Member No.: 195



I pretty much stopped with video games for a few years after GameCube, but have since gotten really back into them when I got an Xbox 360 last year. I think the problem is that there are just too many damn games out there, some good and others not, but it's overwhelming to think of what to try and buy and play, and the ones we play we hardly ever finish. When we were kids, our parents got us like one game a year or something like that, no matter how great or bad, so we played the shit out of it, beat it multiple times, knew every little secret having discussed it with friends during recess, and weren't distracted by other games we might have felt like playing. That was me at least. The magic is kind of lost with information overload, and even the "secrets" themselves in games are found with a 2-second google search. So it's like, what's the point of putting all this effort into beating a game or finding out its secrets and unlocks, when we can just watch a video of it online or something? I wouldn't ever actually do that, but the fact that I can has made games lost some of their "magic."

This post has been edited by farmerbob: May 11 2010, 02:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bilwit
post May 11 2010, 02:54 AM
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 188
Joined: 20-December 09
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 10,963



It's both. People our age probably felt the exact same 15 years ago, except First-Person-Shooters or whatever aren't breakthrough ideas anymore and the entire video game industry today is in the fucking pits as more and more developers move toward console platforms with P2P extra packages, social "achievement" appeal, and little incentive to polish their games.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Klonny
post May 11 2010, 03:58 AM
Post #45


No one should do any of this


Group: Psych Ward
Posts: 11,225
Joined: 12-September 06
From: VA
Member No.: 295



Difficulty in video games today is a checkpoint every 30 seconds and bullshit trial-and-error fights.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Playacting Anarc...
post May 11 2010, 04:41 AM
Post #46


Proud citizen of the 3rd most boring city on the fucking planet.


Group: Members
Posts: 5,789
Joined: 25-May 06
From: New York
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (PetroleumJelly @ May 10 2010, 02:08 PM) *
you're an idiot. i don't play shitty games. that's my point that games these days are shitty, so i don't play them. learn to read asshole.


lolno

You played shitty, derivative games a decade or so ago. You just didn't realize how bad they were. Now you're probably still playing the same dull, mainstream copy-cat titles - the difference is you finally realize how bad they are.

15 years from now some kids are going to complain about how shitty gaming has become and ask why can't more games be like those of their youth, i.e. games today. Hell, I remember people going on and on about how the Playstation/N64 were signaling the death of gaming. Same shit, different generation.

And you are playing shitty games if you think games today lack innovation. If anything they are far more innovative today then they were 10-20 years ago.


--------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~whocares~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Playacting Anarc...
post May 11 2010, 04:45 AM
Post #47


Proud citizen of the 3rd most boring city on the fucking planet.


Group: Members
Posts: 5,789
Joined: 25-May 06
From: New York
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (farmerbob @ May 11 2010, 02:44 AM) *
I pretty much stopped with video games for a few years after GameCube, but have since gotten really back into them when I got an Xbox 360 last year. I think the problem is that there are just too many damn games out there, some good and others not, but it's overwhelming to think of what to try and buy and play, and the ones we play we hardly ever finish. When we were kids, our parents got us like one game a year or something like that, no matter how great or bad, so we played the shit out of it, beat it multiple times, knew every little secret having discussed it with friends during recess, and weren't distracted by other games we might have felt like playing. That was me at least. The magic is kind of lost with information overload, and even the "secrets" themselves in games are found with a 2-second google search. So it's like, what's the point of putting all this effort into beating a game or finding out its secrets and unlocks, when we can just watch a video of it online or something? I wouldn't ever actually do that, but the fact that I can has made games lost some of their "magic."


OMG. What if I like didn't watch a movie and just read a review in my newspaper? Or instead of doing a close reading of a text, what if I like just read like some professional companion reader?

I still have issues of gaming mags circa '92 or so that have all the cheats for a game listed in them. And you could go on usenet and read peoples guides to beating games around them.


--------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~whocares~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freeze Time
post May 11 2010, 05:59 AM
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 2,683
Joined: 25-June 07
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 649



I play games less than I was 14 but I still masturbate just as much.


--------------------
I love Life and I Love SKA. That's why I live to Skank!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PetroleumJelly
post May 11 2010, 08:10 AM
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 672
Joined: 18-January 09
From: Australia...for now
Member No.: 8,152



QUOTE (Playacting Anarchist @ May 11 2010, 05:41 AM) *
lolno

You played shitty, derivative games a decade or so ago. You just didn't realize how bad they were. Now you're probably still playing the same dull, mainstream copy-cat titles - the difference is you finally realize how bad they are.

15 years from now some kids are going to complain about how shitty gaming has become and ask why can't more games be like those of their youth, i.e. games today. Hell, I remember people going on and on about how the Playstation/N64 were signaling the death of gaming. Same shit, different generation.

And you are playing shitty games if you think games today lack innovation. If anything they are far more innovative today then they were 10-20 years ago.

you're still wrong! i explicitly said that i don't play video games at all anymore in my first post, so i'm not playing these 'shitty games' today, i just see these things happening. if you actually gave examples of games that aren't shitty maybe you would have some credibility.
and i disagree with your first point. when i was a kid i didn't think the games were shitty and i loved to play them. now these companies release games with basically the exact same concept, just better graphics/shit that doesn't actually matter or contribute to gameplay IMO(example: Crysys-i don't think anyone ever mentioned to me how good of a game it was, just that it looked amazing). please enlighten me on how more innovative video games are today! all i see is difference in appearances of the games and a focus on side quests that don't pertain to main storylines (MW2-all these stupid achievements that are extremely pointless, also the campaign is like 5 hrs long which is a fucking joke, it's all just to make money, because this game could have so easily been an expansion).
so if what you're saying is true, then video games are doomed to fail, because our generation will stop buying them, and in turn, stop buying them for our kids, because of the repetitive nature of the games.

moral of the story-when you make arguments don't just make random points because it makes you look dumb and like a douche.


--------------------
It's me snitches!

Yea, that's right I took this picture

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Playacting Anarc...
post May 11 2010, 08:59 AM
Post #50


Proud citizen of the 3rd most boring city on the fucking planet.


Group: Members
Posts: 5,789
Joined: 25-May 06
From: New York
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (PetroleumJelly @ May 11 2010, 08:10 AM) *
you're still wrong! i explicitly said that i don't play video games at all anymore in my first post, so i'm not playing these 'shitty games' today, i just see these things happening. if you actually gave examples of games that aren't shitty maybe you would have some credibility.
and i disagree with your first point. when i was a kid i didn't think the games were shitty and i loved to play them. now these companies release games with basically the exact same concept, just better graphics/shit that doesn't actually matter or contribute to gameplay IMO(example: Crysys-i don't think anyone ever mentioned to me how good of a game it was, just that it looked amazing). please enlighten me on how more innovative video games are today! all i see is difference in appearances of the games and a focus on side quests that don't pertain to main storylines (MW2-all these stupid achievements that are extremely pointless, also the campaign is like 5 hrs long which is a fucking joke, it's all just to make money, because this game could have so easily been an expansion).
so if what you're saying is true, then video games are doomed to fail, because our generation will stop buying them, and in turn, stop buying them for our kids, because of the repetitive nature of the games.

moral of the story-when you make arguments don't just make random points because it makes you look dumb and like a douche.


Can you even read?

"You played shitty, derivative games a decade or so ago. You just didn't realize how bad they were."

You may not have thought they were shitty at the time, but the games you played then were just as guilty of the things you criticize modern games for being. But feel free to respond with a wall of text that in no way addresses this point.

Now you want examples? Derivative RPGs and platformers where hyped up because of their graphics (donkey kong country, vector man, secret of mana, ect) Games have had side quests for FUCKING AGES. Like, oh I dunno, Zelda, Final Fantasy, and virtually every other RPG. Maybe you've played Final Fantasy 7 and 8 - those games were grind fests that forced you to do repetitive random battles for hours upon hours just to have a shot at taking down the next boss. Most games of this era had non-existent stories, or were just straight up rip offs of movies/games/anime topped off by equally horrendous voice acting (MASTER OF UNLOCKING). Almost all of them were linear games with one specific path and course of action for the player to follow. Almost all of them had artificially high difficulty levels to mask how short the games really were, or they just had the player do the same shit over and over.

Want examples of how games are better? Open worlds that allow the player to tackle missions/objectives/whatevsies in any way the player wants (GTA, Oblivion, ect - even crysis), open ended narratives (I know older games had these, but the current crop of titles do it much more organically), blending genres together, something you hate MW2 for doing, but it still innovation - also see Mass Effect 2, Alan Wake, ect. Much higher standards in writing, voice acting and general presentation. Menus that aren't an unintuitive clusterfuck. Oh, and mainstream, big budget games are starting to have actual subtext. Not to mention the whole crop of indie games that are trying to be 'art'

TL:DR - you're looking at the past through rose tinted glasses, so try and pull your head out of your ass and be objective. K?

This post has been edited by Playacting Anarchist: May 11 2010, 09:01 AM


--------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~whocares~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PetroleumJelly
post May 11 2010, 09:50 AM
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 672
Joined: 18-January 09
From: Australia...for now
Member No.: 8,152



just because i had an opinion as a kid that these games were good, why does that have to be wrong? it's like you're telling me that all video games suck ass across every generation. you make it sound like you're faulting most video game developers of the 80's and 90's for their lousy storylines and small portions of side quests. saying i didn't realize how bad they were is definitely telling me my opinion of NES and SNES games is completely wrong, which is very unfair to say. games of that generation are obviously guilty of the same things i criticize in modern games, BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ORIGINAL CREATORS OF THOSE-so how can you criticize it when it was completely new in that era?

the things you list as more innovative like voice acting, presentation, better menu screens, i consider irrelevant to the actual game, and that may just be me. i'm perfectly ok with others disagreeing with me on that point. when i look at a video game how it looks in terms of graphics and presentation barely factors into me liking it or not, and this is most likely different than most people and i recognize this.

so are you telling me that because of these advancements in categories that i consider irrelevant to actual gameplay, which are added to existing formulas (of games that you consider to be extremely shitty) that game developers don't take time to enhance at all, this makes video games today better? even though the substance of the game is still the exact same they just made it look better? i just don't see why better presentation=better game. i think we're both looking at this from opposite ends and our opinions will never mesh.


--------------------
It's me snitches!

Yea, that's right I took this picture

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bones
post May 11 2010, 10:14 AM
Post #52


mayor of boner city


Group: Members
Posts: 8,415
Joined: 20-September 08
From: Boner City Forever
Member No.: 1,715



QUOTE (PetroleumJelly @ May 11 2010, 10:50 AM) *
just because i had an opinion as a kid that these games were good, why does that have to be wrong? it's like you're telling me that all video games suck ass across every generation. you make it sound like you're faulting most video game developers of the 80's and 90's for their lousy storylines and small portions of side quests. saying i didn't realize how bad they were is definitely telling me my opinion of NES and SNES games is completely wrong, which is very unfair to say. games of that generation are obviously guilty of the same things i criticize in modern games, BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ORIGINAL CREATORS OF THOSE-so how can you criticize it when it was completely new in that era?

the things you list as more innovative like voice acting, presentation, better menu screens, i consider irrelevant to the actual game, and that may just be me. i'm perfectly ok with others disagreeing with me on that point. when i look at a video game how it looks in terms of graphics and presentation barely factors into me liking it or not, and this is most likely different than most people and i recognize this.

so are you telling me that because of these advancements in categories that i consider irrelevant to actual gameplay, which are added to existing formulas (of games that you consider to be extremely shitty) that game developers don't take time to enhance at all, this makes video games today better? even though the substance of the game is still the exact same they just made it look better? i just don't see why better presentation=better game. i think we're both looking at this from opposite ends and our opinions will never mesh.


I think Playacting is saying that in every videogame generation, there will be shit made for money. Remember ET on the Atari? Aladdin on the Genesis (Super Nintendo one was awesome, though)? Look at the rehashings of top-view Zeldas. Did any of them really improve on anything other than graphics and storyline? No. Remember Bubsy? Yeah, fuck Bubsy. Remember the Speedy Gonzales game on SNES? That game will always have a place in my heart, but playing it today...it's a pretty shitty game.

I could care less about graphics. Hell, my favourite 360 games are Earth Defense Force 2017 and Deadly Premonition. I don't think Playacting is saying "Games with better graphics are better", as we all know that is wrong. He's just saying, with better graphics (and better hardware in general) comes more innovation. We couldn't have a game like Heavy Rain or Demon's Souls back on PS1. We couldn't have a game like No More Heroes or Monster Hunter Tri on the N64.

Most videogames of today are the same thing rehashed for money. It was the same way back when we were younger. But the technology also allows for more prevalent innovative games, more access to games like Flower or bit.trip.

Again, the majority of games today are garbage, just like back then. Pick up something like Muramasa or Hotel Dusk and you'll see that games that don't suck are still out there. They're just buried beneath the garbage of Shoot People 483, Movie Game 25179, and Sports Game 389284.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Playacting Anarc...
post May 11 2010, 10:17 AM
Post #53


Proud citizen of the 3rd most boring city on the fucking planet.


Group: Members
Posts: 5,789
Joined: 25-May 06
From: New York
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (PetroleumJelly @ May 11 2010, 09:50 AM) *
just because i had an opinion as a kid that these games were good, why does that have to be wrong?


Do you take movie recommendations from an 8yr old seriously?

How is this hard to understand. You were a child, and the things a kid can become fascinated with are quite different then what appeals to adults, not to mention the sort of things(flaws) that go right over a childs head. Unless you've played these games recently your conception of them is based off nostalgia, which renders any opinion you have on them moot.

"it's like you're telling me that all video games suck ass across every generation."

No. Same shit, different generation. Is that hard to understand?

"you make it sound like you're faulting most video game developers of the 80's and 90's for their lousy storylines and small portions of side quests."

Who should I blame? The kid in china packaging SNES carts?

"saying i didn't realize how bad they were is definitely telling me my opinion of NES and SNES games is completely wrong, which is very unfair to say."

Then back it up. Why should I place more stock in your opinion of the SNES generation then some die hard atari fanatic who hates every game made after '85?

"games of that generation are obviously guilty of the same things i criticize in modern games, BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ORIGINAL CREATORS OF THOSE-so how can you criticize it when it was completely new in that era?"

So that absolves them of any guilt? It makes them immune to criticism? Bitch please. Thats like saying I can't/shouldn't criticize and laugh at ICP because THEY WERE THE ORIGINAL CREATOR OF HORROCORE/CLOWN RAP. If something sucks it sucks, regardless of how 'new' it is.

"the things you list as more innovative like voice acting, presentation, better menu screens, i consider irrelevant to the actual game, and that may just be me. i'm perfectly ok with others disagreeing with me on that point. when i look at a video game how it looks in terms of graphics and presentation barely factors into me liking it or not, and this is most likely different than most people and i recognize this.

so are you telling me that because of these advancements in categories that i consider irrelevant to actual gameplay, which are added to existing formulas (of games that you consider to be extremely shitty) that game developers don't take time to enhance at all, this makes video games today better? even though the substance of the game is still the exact same they just made it look better? i just don't see why better presentation=better game. i think we're both looking at this from opposite ends and our opinions will never mesh."

Aaaaand you hone in on the presentation aspect while completely ignoring the outlined advances in gameplay (open worlds, blending genres, ect) Way to argue!

This post has been edited by Playacting Anarchist: May 11 2010, 10:25 AM


--------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~whocares~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Playacting Anarc...
post May 11 2010, 10:24 AM
Post #54


Proud citizen of the 3rd most boring city on the fucking planet.


Group: Members
Posts: 5,789
Joined: 25-May 06
From: New York
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (wherearemybones @ May 11 2010, 10:14 AM) *
I think Playacting is saying that in every videogame generation, there will be shit made for money. Remember ET on the Atari? Aladdin on the Genesis (Super Nintendo one was awesome, though)? Look at the rehashings of top-view Zeldas. Did any of them really improve on anything other than graphics and storyline? No. Remember Bubsy? Yeah, fuck Bubsy. Remember the Speedy Gonzales game on SNES? That game will always have a place in my heart, but playing it today...it's a pretty shitty game.

I could care less about graphics. Hell, my favourite 360 games are Earth Defense Force 2017 and Deadly Premonition. I don't think Playacting is saying "Games with better graphics are better", as we all know that is wrong. He's just saying, with better graphics (and better hardware in general) comes more innovation. We couldn't have a game like Heavy Rain or Demon's Souls back on PS1. We couldn't have a game like No More Heroes or Monster Hunter Tri on the N64.

Most videogames of today are the same thing rehashed for money. It was the same way back when we were younger. But the technology also allows for more prevalent innovative games, more access to games like Flower or bit.trip.

Again, the majority of games today are garbage, just like back then. Pick up something like Muramasa or Hotel Dusk and you'll see that games that don't suck are still out there. They're just buried beneath the garbage of Shoot People 483, Movie Game 25179, and Sports Game 389284.


This.

Not to mention that plenty of studios are hiring actual writers to work on games, along with dedicated staff for level design, weapon mechanics, ect. Your average game today is far more playable then the average game 15yrs ago - broken controls and confusing level design are virtually non-existent in decent budget games today. Plus the expanding video game market has allowed experimental niche titles to make money and receive funding. That almost never happened 15yrs ago.

I think we'll eventually reach the point where near photorealism is attainable for fairly little investment. Then you'll start to see tons of games branch out into unique art syles, story and gameplay as its the only way to stick out from the pack.


--------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~whocares~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adsfkahsdf
post May 11 2010, 10:27 AM
Post #55


One Year Awesome


Group: Members
Posts: 9,818
Joined: 31-October 07
From: Texas
Member No.: 873



I guess I just don't play enough video games to complain. I get like a couple games a year and I research them and they are great games usually. Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario, Resident Evil, Resident Evil 4, Metroid, New Super Mario Bros Wii, Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy, and soon to be Mario Galaxy 2

This post has been edited by adsfkahsdf: May 11 2010, 10:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PetroleumJelly
post May 11 2010, 10:36 AM
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 672
Joined: 18-January 09
From: Australia...for now
Member No.: 8,152



"Aaaaand you hone in on the presentation aspect while completely ignoring the outlined advances in gameplay (open worlds, blending genres, ect) Way to argue! "
actually i didn't say anything about that point because i do agree that those are true. i should have adressed that. my bad. the open world concept is a pretty good advancement in games i will say that.

we're arguing about what sucks or doesn't sucks, which is completely subjective. you can't just say my opinion is right, yours is wrong. games like Donkey Kong Country or Mega Man were able to keep my attention when i was a kid, so i consider those good games. have i changed in 10+ years? definitely. i'm sure i wouldn't think the same of the games if i played them for the first time today, but that's not the point. that 8 year old kid was me, however, and just because an 8 year old and 21 year old don't think the same, why shouldn't i trust my own opinion when i was that old? those games were well suited for kids my age, so maybe since i'm older i've moved on.

if it's the same shit, different generation, then isn't it fair to say there's no innovation at all?

you think video games have progressed, while i think they've regressed, and that's a difference of opinion. either way, i'm most likely not going to get back into playing video games, while you will keep on playing.

i was just interested to see if people on this board share my views or not.

This post has been edited by PetroleumJelly: May 11 2010, 10:40 AM


--------------------
It's me snitches!

Yea, that's right I took this picture

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Playacting Anarc...
post May 11 2010, 10:56 AM
Post #57


Proud citizen of the 3rd most boring city on the fucking planet.


Group: Members
Posts: 5,789
Joined: 25-May 06
From: New York
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (PetroleumJelly @ May 11 2010, 10:36 AM) *
we're arguing about what sucks or doesn't sucks, which is completely subjective. you can't just say my opinion is right, yours is wrong. games like Donkey Kong Country or Mega Man were able to keep my attention when i was a kid, so i consider those good games. have i changed in 10+ years? definitely. i'm sure i wouldn't think the same of the games if i played them for the first time today, but that's not the point. that 8 year old kid was me, however, and just because an 8 year old and 21 year old don't think the same, why shouldn't i trust my own opinion when i was that old? those games were well suited for kids my age, so maybe since i'm older i've moved on.


The problem is your applying a different criteria to games of one era verses another.

QUOTE
if it's the same shit, different generation, then isn't it fair to say there's no innovation at all?


No. Same shit different generation means the underlying motivation and thought process behind developing games is still largely the same. In other words most studios only care about money, most video game developers are sheltered nerds and any popular game is going to be ripped off by tons of others even though game play has improved immensely.


--------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~whocares~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PetroleumJelly
post May 11 2010, 11:02 AM
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 672
Joined: 18-January 09
From: Australia...for now
Member No.: 8,152



QUOTE (Playacting Anarchist @ May 11 2010, 11:56 AM) *
The problem is your applying a different criteria to games of one era verses another.

how so? elaborate plz.


--------------------
It's me snitches!

Yea, that's right I took this picture

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Playacting Anarc...
post May 11 2010, 11:09 AM
Post #59


Proud citizen of the 3rd most boring city on the fucking planet.


Group: Members
Posts: 5,789
Joined: 25-May 06
From: New York
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (PetroleumJelly @ May 11 2010, 11:02 AM) *
how so? elaborate plz.


Your comparing your experience with games as a kid to your experience with games now. How the hell aren't you getting this?


--------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~whocares~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PetroleumJelly
post May 11 2010, 11:16 AM
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 672
Joined: 18-January 09
From: Australia...for now
Member No.: 8,152



you think i have to throw my past experiences out the window? i disagree. it's completely applicable. it's where my opinions of video games are founded, so why shouldn't i be able to use those experiences to help formulate my opinions of games today?


--------------------
It's me snitches!

Yea, that's right I took this picture

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

356 Pages V  < 1 2 3  4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th June 2017 - 07:12 AM