224: So Many Games, So Little Time

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Well, I have mixed opinions about such things to be honest. Of course I am by no means a "normal" person as I have explained in other messages.

For starters I will say that I have no objections to shorter, but still fairly complex, games for busy people. My problem of course being that they charge you the SAME price for those games as they do for a longer game with equal complexity that could keep you gaming for 40-80- or even hundreds of hours. There is no excuse for charging $50-$60 for a game with 8-10 hours worth of content.

This comes down to what I've been complaining about for a long time here on the Escapist: game industry corruption. Basically the game industry engages in price fixing and such so a new game, irregardless of development cost, length, or relative quality goes for the same price. A new game costs $60, it doesn't matter if it's a AAA title or a fly by night production. What's more the industry coordinates to the extent where they were able to set a $10 price hike not too long ago. This behavior is more or less illegal at least in the US, it's just that nobody cares (as of yet) in the US. People suspected of doing this with gasoline saw themselves on the receiving end of federal investigations and it was all over the news.

Sure, the industry sits there and defends this practice by talking about the sheer amount of money spent developing games. It however defends itself with the biggest and baddest titles, not the lesser ones that cost nowhere near that much. What's more in comparison to Hollywood movies and their budgets, people forget that you can own even the biggest Blockbuster for $15-$20 (oftentimes far lss), and that's including burning, packaging, distibution, and paying the stars extra money for special features for the DVDs, and who knows what else (perhaps even including a minor video game if you plug it into a DVD Rom). Heck, with the gaming industry they don't lower the prices even when they cut out a lot of that stuff with a 100% digital copy.

Basically this defense of short games is ridiculous.

As far as the "transition of life" as I mentioned above, I'm not normal. However I've noticed that for hardcore gamers the correct spouse/girlfriend is another hardcore gamer. This of course leads to questions about the numbers of girls playing (more than you think looking at organizations like the XBL 'Gamerchix' and even older groups like 'Da Valkyries'). In general, fundementally changing your lifestyle (whatever it might be) tends to end badly. I've seen many video gamers and PnP gamers quit their thing, only to be back a year or two later totally destroyed emotionally due to the breakup. I've also seen it work quite well, my father and Stepmother for example both game, and are frequently online together (we have 3 computers in the same room all with seperate accounts for MMOs and such. When I'm not online or doing something else, a lot of times they are). I also know many "couples" in guilds who game together. Oh sure, child rearing takes time, but in general if you have a relationship where one person wants to game with their free time, and the other wants to say go running around town, that's not a good thing in general.

When it comes to the frustrated, doting mother stereotype, I see it as sort of a generational thing. We're dealing with Baby Boomers who lived in a differant age and pretty much shelter themselves from reality. The majority (with rare exceptions like my father) just do not 'get' gaming, or new technology. Even if they understand it, they do not get the profound effects it has on society.

To give an example, there was one very minor bit in "The Sopranos" years ago where Tony and his son are having an arguement about his son job hunting. His son talks about putting in job applications on "the Internet" and this is treated as some kind of dodge/excuse which anyone with a deadbeat/irresponsible kid should be able to relate to. It sort of shows the generational divide among what the presumed viewers can relate to (to humanize Tony) and reality.

For example, when I worked I was not hired by "pounding the pavement" and going in and turning in job applications like someone from the 1960s or 1970s looking for a job would do. I laughed at people who talked about such things. The only times that works is during a hiring fair nowadays (which is where I've gotten hired incidently).

Today employers don't even want to see you, or have you sticking up their customer service desk chairs unless you've already through the computer. At Wal*Mart (where I applied before becoming disabled... I was refused as overqualified for the jobs I wanted) for example if you show up and ask for an application they refer you to an internet kiosk. If it's down and/or you don't have an internet connection then you get referred to the public library. Even smaller "mom and pops" stores tend to use hiring services that run internet applications for them.

The idea is that the human factor is removed, the computer sorts people based on qualifications (and dismisses people automatically with things like prison records or whatever, no chance to convince them otherwise! Lukily I don't have one of those), and then sends the applications of those fitting the criteria to the Human Resources guys to look at and then call for interviews. That is your current reality. I have been hired either this way (before retiring on disabillity) or through hiring fairs when new businesses needed massive numbers of employees (ie the Casinos down here on the East Coast where I worked for 10 years between them).

The point of this rant is that reality has changed. Parents from the 1960s and 1970s do not understand. They will never understand the world they are in. When they finally wind up retired they will be the totally out of touch old people we see clogging the halls of convelescent homes since they never learned to adapt to the changes. In many cases it's a problem with them, not the hardcore gamers.

When you have a parent "yelling down an empty stairwell for dinner, unheard due to the sounds of machine gun fire" the problem is that they will oftentimes feel it's undignified and inappropriate to walk down the bloody stairs to tell the lost in his game, gamer that dinner is ready. Unless they have a medical condition there is no excuse for it, and ofentimes discussions I've been privy to about why an upset gamer "wasn't told abount dinner' come down to someone not willing to "stoop" to going to see them in person "because of a game". This kind of thing isn't entirely on the head of the gamers.

In a differant world of decades ago, if you were loitering at a coffee shop with a dingy sweater, listening to people ramble on with bad poetry, or something similar (50s, 60s, or whenever), they would have understood. But they just can't adapt to this. To some extent argueing with them about it might be the best course if they can be made to listen.

... also again, when it comes to spouses, as much as powerful as the "carnal needs" are, we are NOT animals and can resist such things. I recommend never hooking up with someone you don't have a lot in common with to begin with. A bit of physical relief combined with massive emotional stress isn't worth it, as many people who have broken up can tell you (but the younger ones never listen). I doubt anyone will listen, but my suggestion is to remain a computer bachelor if your really all that hardcore, UNLESS you meet a girl like you, OR someone who is tolerant about becoming a "computer widow".

I didn't read the whole article. Mainly because i got thrown off right at the start. It kept saying Real gamers live with there mom and have no social life. I am a gamer and would consider myself real. So why is it i don't fit the Description 100%? well i should lol.

Falseprophet:

Mr.Pandah:
I've slowly made the transition over to what is known as the "Casual" gamer(even though I hate that term).

You're right, it's a stupid term. Is someone who watches one or two movies a week a "casual" movie-goer? Is someone who catches one or two football games on the weekend just a "casual" sports fan? Why is it only the gaming hobbies where if you put in less than 8 hours a week into them you're somehow considered lesser to those who devote large parts of their free time?

I think there's 2 separate and distinct definitions for the dichotomy between Casual and Hardcore gamers.

1) Thematic difference.

Peggle, Wii sports, Katamari Damacy, these are all relatively simple games typically attributed to the "Casual" category. They tend to be served up with lighter atmosphere as well. They're easy to pick up and play, and you can enjoy them to their full extent with a minimal investment of time and effort. Gears of War, Halo, World of Warcraft, these games are less intuitive and require a bit more from the player if they want to play the game on the level intended. This barrier to accessibility is a bit transparent for those who've been playing games for years (For example, most FPS games play the same on a basic level), but the barrier is readily apparent for those who aren't already practiced in the genre.

2) Level of commitment.

Essentially, how much time you dump into gaming. I really don't spend that much time playing games. By this measurement I would certainly be considered by most to be a casual gamer. I believe the writer is referring this definition in the article.

I enjoy all sorts of games, I identify strongly with the term "gamer". But I probably spend more time thinking or talking about games than I do playing them.

Falseprophet:

Mr.Pandah:
I've slowly made the transition over to what is known as the "Casual" gamer(even though I hate that term).

You're right, it's a stupid term. Is someone who watches one or two movies a week a "casual" movie-goer? Is someone who catches one or two football games on the weekend just a "casual" sports fan? Why is it only the gaming hobbies where if you put in less than 8 hours a week into them you're somehow considered lesser to those who devote large parts of their free time?

Precisely one of the bigger issues in the "gamer" crowd nowadays is just this. A gamer is a gamer, doesn't matter if they play WoW day and night, or Peggle 24/7. Or if they play CoD for 2 hours for one weekend. People act like its some sort of religion. Soon we're going to see someone doing this on a major Gamestop retailer.

image

Made that up myself. ;)

For me, the true sin of game length is wasting my time. It doesn't matter to me if the game will take four hours or forty hours, I just hate wasting time. I picked up Guild Wars in high school. It was $50, and I could play it for free online forever. Sounds great! I really enjoyed running through the campaign, and even started playing with a guild, but I couldn't keep playing the endgame. It was fun to get together with a big group of people and running the high-level instances, but I hit a point where to improve my character, I'd have to run countless instances of the same dungeon. I'd have to farm gold. I'd have to sit in town spamming "want to sell" messages and hoping someone would want one of my fourteen rare swords so I could buy a VERY rare sword that I needed for my build. I could not abide using my free time to sit in a fake town annoying other people with item-hawking or waiting for party members to run a raid.

I don't need that. Nobody needs that.

I really loved your article. I guess it's because you kind of descibed the very crisis I am passing thought right now, as I picture myself maybe a couple of years before you: I'm in the middle of my post-graduation course, working in the spare time, and married since last year, so I'm just missing the kids the full-time job to match you (if I sum up my course and my work it's over 60 hours a week tough).
So my dilemma, having the same background as everybody else here, is: Will I ever be able to play again? Right now, I play just as little as the neurosurgeon of the other article (and I also deal with brains but from the other way around: I'm a Psychiatrist), and I don't see it getting any better after I have children. Or if I decide to go for a master's degree, wich I certainly will. Sometimes I even prayed that there were videogames in heaven, so that I could finally 'play in peace'!
But with your article, and the comments from everybody, I realized that I'm not alone. And, there are ways to work around it - and not only the sublimation of reading about games, there's real gaming involved! I may even sound weird by writing this, but this gave me a lot of hope, you know.
Maybe some day the industry might recognize us, the 'casuals' who weren't always 'casuals' but were forced to do so because they grew up. The 'casuals' who take it seriously, who care about what they play. And maybe, from that day one, they will start making shorter, but deep, playing experiences for our complete enjoyment. At least, that's what I dream.

ZakZak59:
Ok, I see where he's coming from, but honestly I don't agree about the whole short games thing. Long games are great! Sure he may say that it'll take him months to beat the game, but whats wrong with that? I remember as a young child, getting my Nintendo 64, and taking months after months to beat games like Banjo Kazooie. It took me ages because I was young, and wasn't very good at games. But it was awesome! I'd love it if I found a game that took me a year to beat! Even if I only got to play games for a few hours a week, I'd still prefer a long game, because then, as long as its a good title, I can play the same game for months on end and still love it!

I think the problem people have with long games nowadays is that they inevitably either have A) tons of filler that could've been cut out B) a sprawling story that is hard to enjoy in short bursts. This wasn't so much a problem back in the days of Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie.

Therumancer:

For starters I will say that I have no objections to shorter, but still fairly complex, games for busy people. My problem of course being that they charge you the SAME price for those games as they do for a longer game with equal complexity that could keep you gaming for 40-80- or even hundreds of hours. There is no excuse for charging $50-$60 for a game with 8-10 hours worth of content.

This comes down to what I've been complaining about for a long time here on the Escapist: game industry corruption. Basically the game industry engages in price fixing and such so a new game, irregardless of development cost, length, or relative quality goes for the same price. A new game costs $60, it doesn't matter if it's a AAA title or a fly by night production. What's more the industry coordinates to the extent where they were able to set a $10 price hike not too long ago. This behavior is more or less illegal at least in the US, it's just that nobody cares (as of yet) in the US. People suspected of doing this with gasoline saw themselves on the receiving end of federal investigations and it was all over the news.

Sure, the industry sits there and defends this practice by talking about the sheer amount of money spent developing games. It however defends itself with the biggest and baddest titles, not the lesser ones that cost nowhere near that much. What's more in comparison to Hollywood movies and their budgets, people forget that you can own even the biggest Blockbuster for $15-$20 (oftentimes far lss), and that's including burning, packaging, distibution, and paying the stars extra money for special features for the DVDs, and who knows what else (perhaps even including a minor video game if you plug it into a DVD Rom). Heck, with the gaming industry they don't lower the prices even when they cut out a lot of that stuff with a 100% digital copy.

Funny that you mention DVDs, because last time I checked a 3 hour long blockbuster still costs the same price as an hour long indie flick. That pretty much destroys your entire argument right there.

I work full time and live with my partner and son. My gaming tends to start when he's gone bed for a few hours or when my partner takes my little boy to see her parents. This has greatly changed my choice in games.

If final fantasy 7 was released now I would not have beaten it a good 5 or so times, I dont buy RPGs any more (I made an exception for Mass Effect and will do the same for Dragon age). Online multiplayer is far more appealing. I can drop in for 2 hours of COD4, Flash point, StreetFighter 4 or EndWar (still not beaten the single player in EW) and get my fix in an evening. Its a good trade off for sitting through Xfactor with "her in doors".

More so than in other games I've noticed that some of the shine has gone from my game in titles like streetfighter, I don't have the time to put in to get to the level I used to play at. I'm betting It will be the same with Tekken 6. I used to dominate the tekken tag machine when I was 18. Jin and Gunjack, fun times.

The article really resonates with me. I have a young daughter and my wife and I are expecting our second in May. Time goes on; priorities change. For a while I found that I was still buying those 30+ hour content RPGs (I'm looking at you Persona 4), but I have a hard time getting through most of them now because it typically means a multi month commitment. I don't really have that kind of dedication for games it seems.

Funny that you mention DVDs, because last time I checked a 3 hour long blockbuster still costs the same price as an hour long indie flick. That pretty much destroys your entire argument right there.[/quote]

However, we're talking about products you buy not ones that you are renting, which is something else entirely. Interestingly getting around things like used games and Rentals which developers feel cut into their business is one of the big reasons why they want everything to go digital and effectively do away with the entire concept of physical media.

That said, when you buy a DVD the prices vary greatly, or at least when I buy them. Age, and how many they have already sold play a factor of course, but so does the overall budget/quality of the movie. For example your not going to pay the same amount for blockbuster costing a hundred million dollars, and say a release from "Ghost House Underground". At least not in most places. The former could set you back anywhere from
$15-24 depending on the retailer, the latter costs $10-12.

Oh sure, we can argue semantics back and forth, but the bottom line is that the industry is a corrupt mess that engages in price fixing, and is putting the squeeze on gamers as hard as they can get away with because unlike other consumer groups we have yet to fight back in any meaningful way.

A fear that does loom over me as this article expresses.
I do my darn right best to enjoy my games but as time moves on I have less time to do such a thing.
If only I was immortal ;D

Therumancer:

That said, when you buy a DVD the prices vary greatly, or at least when I buy them. Age, and how many they have already sold play a factor of course, but so does the overall budget/quality of the movie. For example your not going to pay the same amount for blockbuster costing a hundred million dollars, and say a release from "Ghost House Underground". At least not in most places. The former could set you back anywhere from
$15-24 depending on the retailer, the latter costs $10-12.

Hm, DVDs must be priced differently where you live because where I come from most DVDs are going to be in the $15-$25 range regardless of how much the movie cost to make ("special edition" DVDs are a little more expensive of course, but so are "collectors edition" games). In fact, I've found that indie titles are usually more expensive because summer blockbusters tend to drop in price after the first week.

Don't just look at DVDs though. It's the same for any industry. Books are never charged on page count, and CDs are the same price no matter how long the songs are.

LeonHellsvite:
I expect to stay a gamer my whole life of course as I gain more responsibilities my gaming time will be reduced but damnit I will still play them!

You'll also see your game collection and your list of 'games I must play growing on your shelves...

I've got loads of games. It's tough to see. Although, my wife still doesn't question what essentially are ornaments.

SadisticDarkling:
A fear that does loom over me as this article expresses.
I do my darn right best to enjoy my games but as time moves on I have less time to do such a thing.
If only I was immortal ;D

Finally, a solution....

I whole heartedly agree, and I don't have half those things. Between basketball, school, and girlfriends, I'm actually scared that I will Love DA:Origins

That sounds good to me. I have the weekend totally open and also wednesday and thursday off (I'm a student). I completed Uncharted 2 in that two day space, and any game that lasts even longer (currently Dirt 2) gets boring after 2+ hours a time. Plus I don't have the money to buy the short and sweet titles every month like Ronald, I need the Oblivions and final fantasys to get my monies worth!

I dont mind if its a short game if I enjoyed it and/or it has good replay value

Only problem I have with short games is they are priced more often then not the same as long games. 8-10 hour games shouldn't cost the same as a game that is 40+ hours long.

oh well, years from now, 1/2 hour games will become a standard [/sarcasm]

On one hand, I can understand some people not wishing to buy games that they will, in all likelihood, never complete. However, like GodsClown said, the price point is a bit of a sticking point. Personally, I hate the idea of spending $60 for only 8-10 hours of gameplay.

Well, I don't care about casual gamers to be honest. If I'm paying $60 for a title it had better offer alot of entertainment.

Sadly, I know exactly what he's talking about. I too no longer have any time to play games but now I have the purchasing power to buy whatever I like! 8 to 10 hour games are perfect for me because I still get the reward for beating a game even though it can take me a month to finally do it. Sadly, trolling these forums during my work day still lets me feel like I am a hardcore gamer even though secretly, I know that I relinquished that title long ago.

Why do you want to finish a game in under a month? If a game has fulfilling content then there is really no reason to reach the arbitrary 'finish line', as to me it seems that this is simply where content stops.

More content is not a negative attribute for anyone.
If you have lots of time, well done you, enjoy the game.
If you don't have as much time, play the game as much as you want, there's just going to be more to play for you in the future.

However maybe you are someone who values the act of 'finishing the game' maybe you want the achievements, unlocks or just the bragging rights. Simply put, you can't have them.
To paraphrase famous world of warcraft commentator TotalBiscuit "That's just the way the world works, the people that put more time in, get more stuff"

I'm sorry, but if you were given everything from the offset, what would be the challenge of playing the game, or the benefit of playing more, practicing or getting better?

Sorry if this was a little incoherent, I'm in a rush (ironic, no?)

I just turned 27 this month. I don't have a family of my own yet, but I work a demanding job. I am usually out of the house all day long. I work 12 hours a day on average for 6 days a week. My buying power is enormous, but my 1 day a week(today, monday) isn't really enough time to enjoy my hobby. I have so many games that I haven't even finished or even started yet. And I spent almost $1,500 to build this kick ass gaming PC this month too.
Core i7, 6GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 275, etc..

I still play L4D and I am mainly looking forward to L4D 2. But my steam games list has over 70 games on it and I barely play any of them. Far Cry 2, Fear 2, Empire total war all recent games never got the attention they deserved. And I bought Chronicles of Riddick Dark Athena and I haven't even installed it yet! I preordered Dragon age Origins from steam.

Plus I use my PC's Vista Media Center as an HDDVR (it has 2 HD TV tuners installed) to record my favorite series. I bought a 500GB hard drive to save everything up until I get a chance to watch them Even that was getting too full. So I added a 1 TB HDD. I keep telling myself I'll get to everything eventually. Maybe if I become unemployed down the road, I'll have massive hours of entertainment in front of me. Right now, I mainly just watch an hour of recorded shows when I get home, then go to bed and do my gaming on my one day off every week.

I don't understand arguments for short games. There is absolutely no way you could ever view a short game as a positive. Have a life? That's cool. That doesn't change the fact that a longer game is going to allow you to spend more time playing it than a shorter game thus increasing the value of the dollar that you spent.

And, when you have a family, things like that really matter. Instead of spending $60 a month on a new game, a longer game will allow you to spend $60 every 2 months, or, if you continue your trend, you'll have two games to play instead of just one.

All I see these arguments as is an attempt to persuade gamers that 8-10 hour games are acceptable. They aren't.

I still want at least 12 hours out of a fps single player

To me the problem never was about how long or how short a game is. Great games that existed in the past were pretty damn short. (Beat-em ups, side scrolling, fighting games just to name a few) The problem I saw was the amount of content in the game did not equal the price of the game. Whether its game industry corruption or not was not the problem. If a game comes in at 10 hours of main story than your looking at maybe $20-$30. If it has multiplayer online than possibly $40 would be pushing it. If the game lasts over 20+ hours than $50+ would suffice. It is unexcusable at the moment to shove short games on us with a price tag of $60 and say that you get your moneys worth, you don't. Increased graphics are not a good enough reason for such a high price of a game. Nor is it logical to compare DvD's/movies to a video game.

Comparing the two medias is like comparing chapter books to comics. What do I mean by this? I'll try to make it short. Chapter books and video games require ALOT more imagination and interaction than a Comic book and a movie, even though books and comics are both reading material. Though if you notice, if a book or some comics is shorter than the average book the price reflects this. There are exceptions, but the price is rarely the same for most books.

In short, we are getting ripped off, we just have not admitted it yet.

P.S. Price is not justified with games considering that now we either have to pay for connection, items, quests, clothing, etc.

I have a family, a job and a life. I have several hobbies outside of gaming (candle making, target shooting, archery, tabletop RPG's). I do play some casual games just because they are fun, but I still think that if I've paid 50 or 60 dollars for a game, it had better damned well deliver more than 10 hours of gameplay to me. If it doesn't, I consider myself to have been robbed.

The only thing I want changed in games to accommodate the reality of many gamers having less time is for games to get rid of check point saving altogether, in all games. As long as I can save anywhere I want, what does it matter if I can only play this 60 hour epic for 2 hours a day? I can pick it up where I left off.

If a publisher wants to give me a 10 hour game, they need to give me a 30 dollar price point as well. I don't go to the movies because I hate paying 6 or more dollars an hour for my entertainment, I'm sure as hell not going to pay that much for a game. My money is way to valuable to me for that.

Game times are relative. For me, I'd rather play a 6 hours game that's well polished than a 10 hour long mess of a game.
I'm in college and in between studying and other things, I'm finding myself being less able to sit in front of my boobtube and play video games for hours on end. Why? Because I want to enjoy my college life.
That doesn't mean I won't enjoy games like Borderlands (which I played all weekend), but it means that I might buy less games like Oblivion or others that take supreme dedication.

Keep on preachin' man.

I too am among the college kids who found out that, "Oh crap I actually need to work hard now." Back in High School it became regular to me to play 3 or more hours of games every night after school, half the time all day with friends on weekends. I can't wait for FFXIII but now that I think about it I'm not sure I'll have the time to keep at it all the way. I guess I'll have to wait until Christmas break to get some serious game time in. Just in time for a heck of a lotta games too.

But I still have no doubt that I am not a 'casual' gamer. Even though I don't play them as much as I'd like those that I do I love and pick them apart down to their bones. If you ask me that's the difference to a casual and hardcore gamer. Casual takes games like a little amusing thing not much different than DVD's or daytime TV. Hardcore is playing the games because we love them and because we think they're some of the best things ever.

Im a bit tired of this rhetoric from people asking for less content for the same money, although I guess shorter games tend to be more polished. There is no reason you cant complete a 30 hour game by simply slugging through it slowly, I did so with FF7 on psp recently, what a fantastic game it is. The fact I slowly digested it instead of racing through it in a week like I may have done in my youth makes it even better, you think a bit more about the plot and what is coming up next. The whole jealously of gamers with more time is also quite amusing, as even they are unlikely to sit down and try and blow through a serious rpg in a weekend.

its no different to books, people happily take a few months to get through 500 page books, you dont see people demanding 50 page books they can read in two hours.

With all that though, I think there is a place for both long games and more cinematic short games.

Yes, of course those people should have their short games, but that doesn't mean that almost every single freaking game has to be like that.

I love short games, if they have good replay value and I feel I'm getting my money's worth.
It means I can complete, trade, and play another one in a short period, meaning I never get too much of the same thing.

Although I do keep the games I "really" like.

"After all, doesn't a 10-hour game still offer more entertainment for the dollar than your average movie or DVD release? To read more about how growing older meant that "too short" becomes "just right," check out "So Many Games, So Little Time" in Issue 224 of The Escapist."

there is a huger price difference tho

I don't play games to finish them as quickly as possible. I play games to enjoy the experience.

When playing for 2hrs a day, where's the difference in finishing a game a week to spending weeks playing the same game? Why not take months to finish a game, if its any good?

Also, noone forces you to play a game from beginning to end in one clean streak. I'm 60 hours into Oblivion, been playing it for months. I take breaks from it now and then, but always get back to it.

I would definitely say I have less time for games now, but all that's done is make me more selective with the games I do play. I won't go out on a limb to try a game that could be shitty because since I have less time that time is more valuable and I want to make sure I have a good experience.

This is why I stopped buying the NHL series. I used to love the games, but I don't have the time to invest in playing a full season, playoffs, getting very good at the game, etc. I also find I don't like it when a game is too tough now either. I don't have the time to try and sit through impossibly difficult levels, figuring out every nuance.

I want the experience, but sometimes that experience involves the time you put in it. Fallout 3 was very rewarding when I finally beat it because I had put so much time into my character and exploring the world.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here