This is a really brief post came up a few moments ago. I'm reading a post on Kotaku and every once in a blue moon, they post something actually interesting. An adult (with a child) who was affected by the Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook shootings has given up on violent video games, saying they affect him too personally. Which is totally understandable and I agree with the premise of the editorial more than I don't (so Mario is too violent...ok that's strange). I haven't lost any family or friends to gun violence so it's not as personal to me but I still don't like the premise of innocent people getting shot by criminals and psychopaths.
But as usual, looking at the comments, gamers go into butt-hurt mode. This ALWAYS happens whenever some critiques the general premise of video games for any reason (from Jack Thompson's "lets ban games" to some smart kid's "games are a waste of time, go read a book")--the most common being "they're too violent." The guy never blamed violent games for anything but the imagery of people being shot is too much. "Obviously you are being too affected by an image on the screen and can't discern between video games and real life," they say, among other demeaning things.
This leads me to my point. Aren't video games considered art? I mean that's another thing gamers are adamant about--that games are some creative art form (that's passed around for sixty bucks and used to yell at other people online then disposed of...brilliant) and anyone who says otherwise is "ignorant" and just "doesn't get it." I think games are art...sort of anyway. Art in the most plain term is basically "creative expression of human beings" from things like Crayola drawings to how we rearrange our furniture around the house. So in theory, games can be considered art in the way they are visually represented, their gameplay, etc.
Therefore, if one of the main purposes of art is to elicit certain types of emotion and games are art, isn't it natural that we'd be affected by games in some way? Like if I see overly violent games and I don't like it, isn't that understandable? Hey, there are paintings (and music...and movies) with violent/macabre themes and even if they're not real, we still get moody over them. So if someone sees a video game with people getting shot, then isn't it natural for some people to have negative emotions? Even if, once again, the people are merely 1's and 0's and not real?
The amount of violence that one person can take is relative anyway. Like there's a spectrum to violence. TimeSplitters (the first two anyway) is a good example of a goofy FPS that portrays violence in a way that most everyone can digest. Then there's Call of Duty and Perfect Dark which are "okay" in terms of violence that I still have no problems playing. Then there's stuff like Manhunt, Gears of War (people getting sawed in half), and MW2's No Russian level that are beyond my taste. This isn't just based on amount of gore--slaying monsters in God of War is probably more acceptable than killing human beings (possibly innocents) in a less gory manner (we relate more with humans' emotion of course...why some of the best stories told through various mediums involve human beings). Doesn't mean I wish those games were never made (or that they're bad...I know Gears is a good game) or that I disrepect people that play them (I have many friends who play M-rated games) but personally, I'd just stay away from those if I could. To say that it's ridiculous to be hurt by video games means that anything from video games is acceptable and that's just crap. There's only so much violence people can take from games.
Meh, that's my opinion anyway. To reiterate, violent video games don't make people do violent things (hell, E-rated games like Madden or Mario Party can rile up just as much violence). I could post this on Kotaku (if I felt like dealing with hundreds of rebuttals for no reason) but A. I can't post on that site for some reason and B. there's no use dealing with those guys anyway. I'm done here.
Showing posts with label Are Games Art?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Are Games Art?. Show all posts
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Wanna Sell A Video Game? Jump Through Marketing Hoops!!!
Bro, I've been staring at lines of Assembly code for hours recently. So it's been an aggravating weekend thus far.
Now, to talk more about game design stuff that I learned at school. This is where things get really convoluted. Most everyone (including I) have had this romantic notion of video game design. That is, you think of a game, hire the employees necessary to make it, and then copied are distributed worldwide and you all walk away $800 million richer. No, it's much more complicated than that.
What's the number one thing that sells a game? MARKETABILITY!!!!!
If you want a major publisher to market your game for you, it begins with the pitch. The "best game idea" doesn't always get selected. It's all about creating that illusion of "fun" for the previewers. Get your hands on some great pitchmen & laser shows and sell that game to the guys. Find ways to inspire the audience. For instance, games like Super Mario Bros. or The Sims sound boring on paper (play a fat plumber/go to the bathroom 4 times a day) but you need to flex your creative muscles in order to sell a reasonable product. In general, the best games are the ones that are the easiest to pitch and are most likely to produce sequels/spinoffs (easy to reproduce success).
As a matter of fact, you can defy the whole game design process with a single good marketing scheme. I know I'll touch a nerve here, but games like Homefront, Duke Nukem Forever, Sonic the Hedgehog (2006), all mediocre games that sold a lot anyway because they had name recognition or were in the limelight. So remember, marketing is a BIG DEAL these days.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY HEREIN, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU SHALL HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST IN ANY ACCOUNT STORED OR HOSTED ON A BLIZZARD SYSTEM, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY BNET ACCOUNT OR WORLD OF WARCRAFT ACCOUNT, AND YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT ALL RIGHTS IN AND TO SUCH ACCOUNTS ARE AND SHALL FOREVER BE OWNED BY AND INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF BLIZZARD.
In other words, all the stuff you "own" in the game you're just borrowing from Blizzard. The day they close the servers, you can't sue them for anything because you never owned any of that stuff in the first place. It's brutal, but it's right there in permanent ink. Big servers cost a hell of a lot of money to run anyway so it's a given that they'll pull the plug on the game some day. When the game ceases to be profitable, then Blizzard will move on with it...
...
Okay, enough of this discussion, it's depressing. Hey, they are providing a service for many people so they deserve what they get paid. I'm not begrudging anyone here. Although I am turned off by many mainstream games nowadays because of their lack of ingenuity....kind of like a processed vegetable that is available for anyone to eat but has lost all of its nutritional value.
EDIT: Let me reiterate a bit. Not every big-name title is bad. Some are actually good and wholesome--everyone rallies around the game's icon (Nintendo games like Mario & Zelda come to mind). But the trend nowadays is if you pump enough money into marketing & production values, that means the game is somehow "better." I don't always agree with this. They say that money can't buy happiness, therefore, money can't buy games that can buy happiness, mirite? Or is this a logic FAIL?
Like I said before, it would be nice to flex your creative muscles and work on whatever games you want, but it's not that easy anymore. As a matter of fact, in the never-ending debate in which games are or are not art, I say that games err toward NOT art. Why?
Take a look at things that are labeled "art." Paintings, sculpture, music, poetry, literature, plays, etc. These are things that one or a handful of people have worked on. They would create these things to express themselves, to feel good, not to "sell out" or become rich.
Now let's take a look at movies/film/cinema, etc. Now that's a beautiful medium. We've had great movies that you could call "art" such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, etc. But would you say that ALL moves are art? Like would you label films such as Epic Movie and White Chicks as art??? Like games, movies have cashed in for a long time...some good, some bad, but only a handful are truly memorable over the years.
Alright, now how about our beloved video games. Well, stepping through the production process, the whole game is filtered through the minds of so many individuals...the producers, the artists, the programmers, the publishers, that it's no longer any one person's "baby"--it's just this massive abomination that many people have their fingerprints on (the more employees, the worse it gets). Then it's sold to millions of people for $60 a pop. Is that how art works? I thought art was about observing in a museum or listening to in a theatre, not paying lots of money to run home and blow up all sorts of crap on your TV (and curse out little kids thousands of miles away). And then when the game's run its course, you lose the CD or sell it to GameStop for $2. Yeah, so much for "art appreciation."
This is not to say art has never been monetized or that all games are not art. But with the way that games are so consumerized I tend to think it's arrogant that gamers are so quick to label every game as a piece of art.
Kind of sucks that you can't make a game just for "yourself." Something you can say is your own "baby." Things that I worked on alone such as Counter-Strike maps and Forza 3 cars...things I can say are "mine"--that I did to entertain myself and anyone else interested. Or not even just yourself--maybe you and some good friends or a team you know very well. That's what I thinking about. But with the resurgence of the indie game market (miniscule game studios making games like Angry Birds, Minecraft, Super Meat Boy), I think aspiring game devs have a bit of freedom to defy the traditional rules of corporate game design. Just don't expect to make any super-huge 3D games unless you have connections with a damn good producer/publisher.
...sooo, "JUST WIN, BABY!!!" Al Davis, 82 years old.
Now, to talk more about game design stuff that I learned at school. This is where things get really convoluted. Most everyone (including I) have had this romantic notion of video game design. That is, you think of a game, hire the employees necessary to make it, and then copied are distributed worldwide and you all walk away $800 million richer. No, it's much more complicated than that.
What's the number one thing that sells a game? MARKETABILITY!!!!!
If you want a major publisher to market your game for you, it begins with the pitch. The "best game idea" doesn't always get selected. It's all about creating that illusion of "fun" for the previewers. Get your hands on some great pitchmen & laser shows and sell that game to the guys. Find ways to inspire the audience. For instance, games like Super Mario Bros. or The Sims sound boring on paper (play a fat plumber/go to the bathroom 4 times a day) but you need to flex your creative muscles in order to sell a reasonable product. In general, the best games are the ones that are the easiest to pitch and are most likely to produce sequels/spinoffs (easy to reproduce success).
Then again, I'll never know how the hell this game got past the producers.
Okay, so now we assume that the game has been green-lighted and production is under away. Hire your 100+ employee team and start plugging away at this! This is where marketing REALLY hits home. Up until the official release date, publishers are finding ways to pique the public's interest in the game via screenshots, videos, interviews, demos, etc. released in timely intervals. Interest is measured from numerous variables including stats from Game Journalists (GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy) and discussion topics on message boards (GameFAQs and NeoGAF). Sometimes, devs will even post in these forums with the sole purpose of stirring game interest or garnering public opinion.
DO NOT DOUBT FOR A SECOND THAT GAME DEVS DON'T DO THIS. THEY MAY BE EAVESDROPPING ON YOU OR ME AS WE SPEAK!!!!
With consumer interest at its max point by release date, the game will go on to sell the most possible copies. Now this is something that I loathe but is apparently a big f'n deal in the industry: DO NOT DELAY OR PUT OFF THE RELEASE DATE! The schedule that the publishers have in place "guarantees" max sales at a given release date. To push it later would get rid of some that interest that you've worked to build up thus far. This means less copies sold (as well as more money to pay employees). So sadly that's how the big game devs work--release the game half-finished, patch it later, but sell lots of copies anyway.
This brings me to my next point. Let's take a look at the most wanted games of the Christmas 2011 season. Modern Warfare, Gears of War, Madden, Assassin's Creed, Batman, Zelda, etc. Now, to tell you the truth, these games are going to sell lots and lots of copies. Modern Warfare 3 will probably sell more than 7 million copies in the first 24 hours of release, a record set by Black Ops a year ago.
And certainly, upon the game's release, the bitching and whining will begin. You can almost see it a mile away--people buy Modern Warfare 3, love it, then all the glitches, game exploits, and "lack of skill" come through and then everyone hates the game.
This is the public's opinion of the game in a span of three months. So people don't like Modern Warfare 3...so what? Does Activision really care? You've already bought the game so what does it really matter? And odds are you'll go on to buy that expensive DLC no matter how "lousy" it is. Even worse, you may be charged more money upon the game's release...see Gears of War 3's Season Pass.
EDIT: I know it's late but here's three fun Reddit pics I found:
EDIT: I know it's late but here's three fun Reddit pics I found:
DLC is fun.
You don't just get the game in one piece, you get it in a million pieces...
You don't just get the game in one piece, you get it in a million pieces...
As a matter of fact, you can defy the whole game design process with a single good marketing scheme. I know I'll touch a nerve here, but games like Homefront, Duke Nukem Forever, Sonic the Hedgehog (2006), all mediocre games that sold a lot anyway because they had name recognition or were in the limelight. So remember, marketing is a BIG DEAL these days.
...
Okay, I'm making it look like members of the mainstream gaming industry are greedy a-holes who take no pride in their work. That's not true. But this is part of the reason why we get unbalanced or flawed games--because there's little to no incentive to go back and correct things when they're already out on the marketplace. Hey Treyarch, are you going to go back and patch up some of Black Ops' flaws just before Modern Warfare 3 is released? No, because Black Ops means nothing now anymore--it's in the past, no one cares, it's vestigial...
Also, see the Cracked.com article on flaws in the game industry, particularly the part about creative bankruptcy. Why get creative and bust their asses on something really convoluted when a straightforward FPS/shmup/platformer will sell just as much? Taking chances doesn't pay off as much as it did in the past.
...
Now one more peculiar topic. We're on the subject of MMORPG's--World of Warcraft the most glaring example. Now MMO's are a different animal altogether since you have to keep the game good in the long-term in order to keep subscriber sales up. So that's well and good, right? But MMO servers are shut down all the time. NOT FAIR, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ITEMS I WORKED FOR OVER ALL THESE YEARS??? Read the Terms of Use under "No Ownership Rights in Account":
In other words, all the stuff you "own" in the game you're just borrowing from Blizzard. The day they close the servers, you can't sue them for anything because you never owned any of that stuff in the first place. It's brutal, but it's right there in permanent ink. Big servers cost a hell of a lot of money to run anyway so it's a given that they'll pull the plug on the game some day. When the game ceases to be profitable, then Blizzard will move on with it...
...
Okay, enough of this discussion, it's depressing. Hey, they are providing a service for many people so they deserve what they get paid. I'm not begrudging anyone here. Although I am turned off by many mainstream games nowadays because of their lack of ingenuity....kind of like a processed vegetable that is available for anyone to eat but has lost all of its nutritional value.
EDIT: Let me reiterate a bit. Not every big-name title is bad. Some are actually good and wholesome--everyone rallies around the game's icon (Nintendo games like Mario & Zelda come to mind). But the trend nowadays is if you pump enough money into marketing & production values, that means the game is somehow "better." I don't always agree with this. They say that money can't buy happiness, therefore, money can't buy games that can buy happiness, mirite? Or is this a logic FAIL?
Like I said before, it would be nice to flex your creative muscles and work on whatever games you want, but it's not that easy anymore. As a matter of fact, in the never-ending debate in which games are or are not art, I say that games err toward NOT art. Why?
Take a look at things that are labeled "art." Paintings, sculpture, music, poetry, literature, plays, etc. These are things that one or a handful of people have worked on. They would create these things to express themselves, to feel good, not to "sell out" or become rich.
Now let's take a look at movies/film/cinema, etc. Now that's a beautiful medium. We've had great movies that you could call "art" such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, etc. But would you say that ALL moves are art? Like would you label films such as Epic Movie and White Chicks as art??? Like games, movies have cashed in for a long time...some good, some bad, but only a handful are truly memorable over the years.
Alright, now how about our beloved video games. Well, stepping through the production process, the whole game is filtered through the minds of so many individuals...the producers, the artists, the programmers, the publishers, that it's no longer any one person's "baby"--it's just this massive abomination that many people have their fingerprints on (the more employees, the worse it gets). Then it's sold to millions of people for $60 a pop. Is that how art works? I thought art was about observing in a museum or listening to in a theatre, not paying lots of money to run home and blow up all sorts of crap on your TV (and curse out little kids thousands of miles away). And then when the game's run its course, you lose the CD or sell it to GameStop for $2. Yeah, so much for "art appreciation."
This is not to say art has never been monetized or that all games are not art. But with the way that games are so consumerized I tend to think it's arrogant that gamers are so quick to label every game as a piece of art.
Kind of sucks that you can't make a game just for "yourself." Something you can say is your own "baby." Things that I worked on alone such as Counter-Strike maps and Forza 3 cars...things I can say are "mine"--that I did to entertain myself and anyone else interested. Or not even just yourself--maybe you and some good friends or a team you know very well. That's what I thinking about. But with the resurgence of the indie game market (miniscule game studios making games like Angry Birds, Minecraft, Super Meat Boy), I think aspiring game devs have a bit of freedom to defy the traditional rules of corporate game design. Just don't expect to make any super-huge 3D games unless you have connections with a damn good producer/publisher.
...sooo, "JUST WIN, BABY!!!" Al Davis, 82 years old.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Video Games (MMORPG's) Rigged To Blow (Games Are Art?)
EDITED plenty of times on 5/13-14
Okay, we're back online. Blogspot was undergoing "maintenance" not for one hour but for two days so I was completely in the dark here. And my blog's poll went from 18 to 31 votes in a matter of hours...what the hell's going on here. I do appreciate more votes, that's for sure.
-------------
But anyway, I see that the never-ending grind versus dumb mainstream games will never end. I wanted to address Scud Race but let's take care of this first.
This is on Kotaku. Now I wouldn't read this site anymore except for the fact that the other game blogs are not as comprehensive or run by complete idiots, such as G4TV which causes massive trauma, stomachaches, and erectile dysfunction. The topic of today: Why play an MMO when you know it's going to end? You pay for subscriptions, hence you are just "renting" the game. And when the servers go down, that it--the game's gone for good. Can't play it anymore so all progress made before is lost.
The typical Kotaku response: "why even bother living if your gonna die anyway??? its about the experience and social aspect more than anything!1! you're little single player games last 10-20 hours anyway so whats the difference???"
Here's what I have to say. My idea of a long-term activity should be something that leaves me with something positive and/or tangible at the "end." According to the responses, after playing some MMO until you become burnt out or the server closes down, you get the memories, a few friends, and carpal tunnel. To me, that doesn't seem worthwhile since MMORPG's long-term worthiness is stemmed in grinding levels by clicking on bad guys and talking with friends. These things I feel that I can do elsewhere, particularly with games that don't become a paperweight in 5-10 years...games that I can play "forever." Games that I can plug back in and say, "Hey, look at what I accomplished or learned to do," while going through the motions like before. On the other hand, MMO's are just wiped out for good so you can't go anywhere near them.
And as for socialization--can't you just do that on Ventrilo, message boards, chat rooms, or, dare I say, face-to-face in real life? Better yet, can't you spend some (or all) your time playing sports, making artwork, reading books, and spending time with family which can do wonders for your health and well-being? Why is it that even in the face of these revelations, people still think MMORPG's are money & time well-spent? Hey, I really don't mind if people cared so much about these MMO's but the fact they're so flippant to the idea that one of their "extra lives" will be flushed away in a couple of years is rather startling.
Or here's a theory--maybe people are hopping aboard these MMORPG's because they're like college parties with booze and strippers...get in while it lasts because it's not here for long (see the "social" aspect of these games). Though I'd opt for something with a bit more substance and integrity so no thanks.
EDIT: It just dawned on me a day later...isn't it a bit perturbing that we're comparing a MMORPG to a person's life? Just off the top of my head, you DON'T HAVE to play a MMORPG while you DO have to live your life. Come on, people.
I don't know. I've already talked about WoW before. I actually think the idea behind a MMO is interesting--creating a character to interact with other players' characters, but not how WoW or any of these big shots do it...with the fat kids, the medieval/fantasy setting, the servers going down, etc. Maybe I just don't get it but if you do then hey, who's stopping ya.... And this is my
It's too bad that many games (well, Xbox 360 and PS3 in general) nowadays are rigged to these servers. Like Call of Duty. Okay, I am somewhat guilty of this. I'm Prestige 1 on CoD4 and CoD:WaW, Prestige 4 in MW2, and Prestige 10 in Black Ops. I'm probably going to regret this later, but I'm playing these games cause I want to shoot people, not cause I want to run through the hamster wheel. I guess it's just nice that more people are opening up to the reality that they may not be able to play certain games in the future (see OutRun Online Arcade).
Thankfully, if there's one good thing I see coming out of gaming technology these days, maybe it's that they can sustain these servers longer. Send petitions and whine--maybe you can keep these games up or at least salvage something for the future (XBL achievement points??? I hope).
------------
But anyway, one of the fabled arguments in video game culture is whether or not games are art. Well, it depends. It's mostly on the developer's intent on whether to create a "unique" game or something cookie-cutter just to make mass profits. Check out this quote:
It's just terrible that up until this point, you no longer "own" a game forever; they just go away eventually which is completely contrary to the last 30+ years of game history where you could own the tangible game forever as long as you took care of it. Now you know why I'm a bit saddened by these revelations.
Pssh, I'm done here, I've gone way overboard. I hate video games.
Okay, we're back online. Blogspot was undergoing "maintenance" not for one hour but for two days so I was completely in the dark here. And my blog's poll went from 18 to 31 votes in a matter of hours...what the hell's going on here. I do appreciate more votes, that's for sure.
-------------
But anyway, I see that the never-ending grind versus dumb mainstream games will never end. I wanted to address Scud Race but let's take care of this first.
This is on Kotaku. Now I wouldn't read this site anymore except for the fact that the other game blogs are not as comprehensive or run by complete idiots, such as G4TV which causes massive trauma, stomachaches, and erectile dysfunction. The topic of today: Why play an MMO when you know it's going to end? You pay for subscriptions, hence you are just "renting" the game. And when the servers go down, that it--the game's gone for good. Can't play it anymore so all progress made before is lost.
The typical Kotaku response: "why even bother living if your gonna die anyway??? its about the experience and social aspect more than anything!1! you're little single player games last 10-20 hours anyway so whats the difference???"
Here's what I have to say. My idea of a long-term activity should be something that leaves me with something positive and/or tangible at the "end." According to the responses, after playing some MMO until you become burnt out or the server closes down, you get the memories, a few friends, and carpal tunnel. To me, that doesn't seem worthwhile since MMORPG's long-term worthiness is stemmed in grinding levels by clicking on bad guys and talking with friends. These things I feel that I can do elsewhere, particularly with games that don't become a paperweight in 5-10 years...games that I can play "forever." Games that I can plug back in and say, "Hey, look at what I accomplished or learned to do," while going through the motions like before. On the other hand, MMO's are just wiped out for good so you can't go anywhere near them.
And as for socialization--can't you just do that on Ventrilo, message boards, chat rooms, or, dare I say, face-to-face in real life? Better yet, can't you spend some (or all) your time playing sports, making artwork, reading books, and spending time with family which can do wonders for your health and well-being? Why is it that even in the face of these revelations, people still think MMORPG's are money & time well-spent? Hey, I really don't mind if people cared so much about these MMO's but the fact they're so flippant to the idea that one of their "extra lives" will be flushed away in a couple of years is rather startling.
Or here's a theory--maybe people are hopping aboard these MMORPG's because they're like college parties with booze and strippers...get in while it lasts because it's not here for long (see the "social" aspect of these games). Though I'd opt for something with a bit more substance and integrity so no thanks.
EDIT: It just dawned on me a day later...isn't it a bit perturbing that we're comparing a MMORPG to a person's life? Just off the top of my head, you DON'T HAVE to play a MMORPG while you DO have to live your life. Come on, people.
I don't know. I've already talked about WoW before. I actually think the idea behind a MMO is interesting--creating a character to interact with other players' characters, but not how WoW or any of these big shots do it...with the fat kids, the medieval/fantasy setting, the servers going down, etc. Maybe I just don't get it but if you do then hey, who's stopping ya.... And this is my
It's too bad that many games (well, Xbox 360 and PS3 in general) nowadays are rigged to these servers. Like Call of Duty. Okay, I am somewhat guilty of this. I'm Prestige 1 on CoD4 and CoD:WaW, Prestige 4 in MW2, and Prestige 10 in Black Ops. I'm probably going to regret this later, but I'm playing these games cause I want to shoot people, not cause I want to run through the hamster wheel. I guess it's just nice that more people are opening up to the reality that they may not be able to play certain games in the future (see OutRun Online Arcade).
Thankfully, if there's one good thing I see coming out of gaming technology these days, maybe it's that they can sustain these servers longer. Send petitions and whine--maybe you can keep these games up or at least salvage something for the future (XBL achievement points??? I hope).
------------
But anyway, one of the fabled arguments in video game culture is whether or not games are art. Well, it depends. It's mostly on the developer's intent on whether to create a "unique" game or something cookie-cutter just to make mass profits. Check out this quote:
"The best thing about a picture is that it never changes, even when the people in it do."
-Andy Warhol
And that's what's nice about games. You just pop in the game and it's not going to change on you. You go away to a (hopefully) magical world where you don't have to worry about germs, diseases, pain & suffering, global wars, paying bills, etc. Like Sega Racers. Daytona USA, OutRun, Crazy Taxi, just cool places to be. And that's why I made Counter-Strike maps so I can create my own "worlds" to visit.It's just terrible that up until this point, you no longer "own" a game forever; they just go away eventually which is completely contrary to the last 30+ years of game history where you could own the tangible game forever as long as you took care of it. Now you know why I'm a bit saddened by these revelations.
Pssh, I'm done here, I've gone way overboard. I hate video games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)