Going Gold: Practicalities Makes Perfect

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I've never understood the fascination with 10/10 games - a game will never be perfect.

The whole idea of "a 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect" is ridiculous to me - I never knew reviewers could simply break the laws of Maths and do things how they want.

Either score properly (like PC Gamer), or don't at all (like The Escapist).

GonzoGamer:

Of course reviewers are the reason so many games are overrated: they are the ones who rate. I think we just need more sarcastic and jaded reviewers that can focus more on details rather than their opinion.

Quoth:

Having been a gamer since before the advent of consoles and home PCs I wonderer on the age of reviewers these days; where's their heritage? How did they earn the right to criticise and where's the credentials that allow me to merit their opinion?

Is this true? Are we talking about reviewers in the sense of critics of the art form? Or are we talking about people who are there to tell us whether we should buy the game or not? Those are two very different roles. Is the 'perfect 10' or 'five stars out of five' there to rate something to locate it in video game history, or is it there to let you know if you should buy it?

ccesarano:

The only thing I will say for certain is I miss the oddball absurd concepts you had for games back in the day. Mega Man, Clayfighter, Donkey Kong Country, Harvest Moon, EarthBound, can you imagine any publisher hearing these concepts and turning them into a reality today?

How about "we're going to make a game about Ayn Rand's Objectivism"? That was...kinda oddball!

No though--I do agree with you that there should be concern for losing the 'oddball' game. However, I wonder if this love of realism isn't just a phase brought on by how good the graphics and physics are. Remember the Car Combat games? Well, my theory is that we had Car Combat games because it was way easier to create a good model of a car than a human being back then. The reason we moved on to human(oid)s in shooters is because the technology progressed to where we *could* put people in a shooter that looked as good as the people in a fighting game.

So I wonder if (well, sort of hope) that the main reason we're not seeing oddball games is because the technology to make super realistic games possible is still pretty new. I also think it has to do with gaming shifting from Japan to the West, and with how the progress of the technology has made it possible not only to put humans in a shooter, but to tell a story with humans. It's harder to make an oddball game when you're trying to get the audience to have an emotional reaction beyond the "awww" one can feel for the Prince in the Katamari games.

Also, I think some of this has to do with genres. I think the people who see the most change are people who are into platformers and such. For those of us in the 4X and RTS and, well, whatever you want to call those games from Paradox (in board game terms, they'd be called Grand Strategy or Monster) genres, gaming looks very different. The Civ expansion Beyond the Sword to me is the best thing since Master of Orion. Those Europa Universalis games keep chugging along. Mount and Blade got made by donations from fans in large part. This is something to keep in mind too: a game used to be fish in a small pond. These days, gaming is one big ass lake. So is it that the fish is getting smaller? Or does the fish just look smaller because it's in a bigger body of water?

Woodsey:
I've never understood the fascination with 10/10 games - a game will never be perfect.

The whole idea of "a 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect" is ridiculous to me - I never knew reviewers could simply break the laws of Maths and do things how they want.

Either score properly (like PC Gamer), or don't at all (like The Escapist).

It doesn't break the laws of maths--it's just that in such a scoring system, the numbers are ordinal, not cardinal. In other words, when a game gets a score, that indicates not how perfect the game is, but where it ranks. A game that gets a 10/10 might not be perfect, but it's so good, no game will be so much better than it that it would be ranked above it.

I'm a big fan of games being rated in such a way: is any game ever perfect? Should it be like gymnastics, where you just need enough elements in your routine plus perfect execution to get a 10/10 (or 17/17 these days)? To me, that penalizes both ambitious games and really focused games: Tetris' 'routine' wouldn't have enough 'difficulty' in it for it to qualify for a perfect score; on the other end of things, Civilization had too many holes in the gameplay to qualify as perfection in execution. Yet, would we deny either of those games a perfect score?

How else do you define perfection other than 'flawless execution of a certain minimum number of elements' in an objective scoring system? Focus only on the number of elements and you leave out Tetris; focus only on flawless execution and you leave out Civilization.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:
I've never understood the fascination with 10/10 games - a game will never be perfect.

The whole idea of "a 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect" is ridiculous to me - I never knew reviewers could simply break the laws of Maths and do things how they want.

Either score properly (like PC Gamer), or don't at all (like The Escapist).

It doesn't break the laws of maths--it's just that in such a scoring system, the numbers are ordinal, not cardinal. In other words, when a game gets a score, that indicates not how perfect the game is, but where it ranks. A game that gets a 10/10 might not be perfect, but it's so good, no game will be so much better than it that it would be ranked above it.

I'm a big fan of games being rated in such a way: is any game ever perfect? Should it be like gymnastics, where you just need enough elements in your routine plus perfect execution to get a 10/10 (or 17/17 these days)? To me, that penalizes both ambitious games and really focused games: Tetris' 'routine' wouldn't have enough 'difficulty' in it for it to qualify for a perfect score; on the other end of things, Civilization had too many holes in the gameplay to qualify as perfection in execution. Yet, would we deny either of those games a perfect score?

How else do you define perfection other than 'flawless execution of a certain minimum number of elements' in an objective scoring system? Focus only on the number of elements and you leave out Tetris; focus only on flawless execution and you leave out Civilization.

The amount of 10/10s that are handed out by some sites makes that redundant anyway.

And a game with holes in its gameplay/plot/whatever would most certainly NOT get a 'perfect' score.

Woodsey:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:
I've never understood the fascination with 10/10 games - a game will never be perfect.

The whole idea of "a 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect" is ridiculous to me - I never knew reviewers could simply break the laws of Maths and do things how they want.

Either score properly (like PC Gamer), or don't at all (like The Escapist).

It doesn't break the laws of maths--it's just that in such a scoring system, the numbers are ordinal, not cardinal. In other words, when a game gets a score, that indicates not how perfect the game is, but where it ranks. A game that gets a 10/10 might not be perfect, but it's so good, no game will be so much better than it that it would be ranked above it.

I'm a big fan of games being rated in such a way: is any game ever perfect? Should it be like gymnastics, where you just need enough elements in your routine plus perfect execution to get a 10/10 (or 17/17 these days)? To me, that penalizes both ambitious games and really focused games: Tetris' 'routine' wouldn't have enough 'difficulty' in it for it to qualify for a perfect score; on the other end of things, Civilization had too many holes in the gameplay to qualify as perfection in execution. Yet, would we deny either of those games a perfect score?

How else do you define perfection other than 'flawless execution of a certain minimum number of elements' in an objective scoring system? Focus only on the number of elements and you leave out Tetris; focus only on flawless execution and you leave out Civilization.

The amount of 10/10s that are handed out by some sites makes that redundant anyway.

The question is whether those sites are functioning as Art Critics or Buyer's Guides: are they scoring in such a way as to establish a metric to compare games across time periods, or are they trying to let you know how much fun you'll have with the game if you buy it now?

And a game with holes in its gameplay/plot/whatever would most certainly NOT get a 'perfect' score.

That's my point: the score does not indicate perfection. It indicates that no game will ever be so much better than it that we'll need a higher class to rank it.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:
I've never understood the fascination with 10/10 games - a game will never be perfect.

The whole idea of "a 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect" is ridiculous to me - I never knew reviewers could simply break the laws of Maths and do things how they want.

Either score properly (like PC Gamer), or don't at all (like The Escapist).

It doesn't break the laws of maths--it's just that in such a scoring system, the numbers are ordinal, not cardinal. In other words, when a game gets a score, that indicates not how perfect the game is, but where it ranks. A game that gets a 10/10 might not be perfect, but it's so good, no game will be so much better than it that it would be ranked above it.

I'm a big fan of games being rated in such a way: is any game ever perfect? Should it be like gymnastics, where you just need enough elements in your routine plus perfect execution to get a 10/10 (or 17/17 these days)? To me, that penalizes both ambitious games and really focused games: Tetris' 'routine' wouldn't have enough 'difficulty' in it for it to qualify for a perfect score; on the other end of things, Civilization had too many holes in the gameplay to qualify as perfection in execution. Yet, would we deny either of those games a perfect score?

How else do you define perfection other than 'flawless execution of a certain minimum number of elements' in an objective scoring system? Focus only on the number of elements and you leave out Tetris; focus only on flawless execution and you leave out Civilization.

The amount of 10/10s that are handed out by some sites makes that redundant anyway.

The question is whether those sites are functioning as Art Critics or Buyer's Guides: are they scoring in such a way as to establish a metric to compare games across time periods, or are they trying to let you know how much fun you'll have with the game if you buy it now?

And a game with holes in its gameplay/plot/whatever would most certainly NOT get a 'perfect' score.

That's my point: the score does not indicate perfection. It indicates that no game will ever be so much better than it that we'll need a higher class to rank it.

In which case the scoring system is exceptionally inept, and about as far-sighted as my arse.

Woodsey:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:

The whole idea of "a 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect" is ridiculous to me - I never knew reviewers could simply break the laws of Maths and do things how they want.

It doesn't break the laws of maths--it's just that in such a scoring system, the numbers are ordinal, not cardinal.

And a game with holes in its gameplay/plot/whatever would most certainly NOT get a 'perfect' score.

That's my point: the score does not indicate perfection. It indicates that no game will ever be so much better than it that we'll need a higher class to rank it.

In which case the scoring system is exceptionally inept, and about as far-sighted as my arse.

Maybe, maybe not; however, just because a scoring system is "exceptionally inept" or "about as far-sighted as your arse" does not necessarily mean that it must "simply break the laws of Maths."

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:

The whole idea of "a 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect" is ridiculous to me - I never knew reviewers could simply break the laws of Maths and do things how they want.

It doesn't break the laws of maths--it's just that in such a scoring system, the numbers are ordinal, not cardinal.

And a game with holes in its gameplay/plot/whatever would most certainly NOT get a 'perfect' score.

That's my point: the score does not indicate perfection. It indicates that no game will ever be so much better than it that we'll need a higher class to rank it.

In which case the scoring system is exceptionally inept, and about as far-sighted as my arse.

Maybe, maybe not; however, just because a scoring system is "exceptionally inept" or "about as far-sighted as your arse" does not necessarily mean that it must "simply break the laws of Maths."

It does when you look at it from my view. Or as I like to call it, "the view that makes sense because it follows what is already accepted mathematically and as it is mathematical it should therefore be treated mathematically".

I'm err.. Working on the name.

From the article:

"Picking at random a blockbuster movie from Metacritic (I chose 2012, as it's about as smart as the average videogame), look at the reviews that are being collated: they come from the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post, Slate, Time, Salon, the Village Voice. Looking at an equally random videogame, (I chose The Saboteur on Xbox 360) we have Destructoid, IGN, GameDaily, Gamespot, 1Up. Spot the difference."

This was interesting to me at first and then I realized; all of those publications that reviewed movies have someone on staff who is versed in the language of movies, understands how and why they work in core ways that laypeople do not, interacts with members of the industry, and then proceeds to write about it.

Just. Like. Videogames.

The ONLY difference is that the videogame sites concentrate on videogames, whereas the other sites are there to report the news (or other subjects)-but they all have people who are experienced in the medium working on the criticism. And even that's changing-though perhaps not on Metacritic yet-there are reviews of videogames at the Onion AV club for example and appearing in local indy papers in my city (so I'd imagine any other large city with an indy paper would have at least some videogame reviews as well.)

My point is; this particular distinction really isn't that big of a deal because you're still dealing with specialists, and the reason you're dealing with the specialist gaming media is because the rest of the world is still catching up on videogames and how they impact us. When places like Time or Salon or the NYT decide to start reviewing videogames where do you think they're going to get reviewers? It's not like the relationships made while working in the gaming media are suddenly going to evaporate.

Considering the writer says this is "one glaring problem" (and I'd agree it does suggest something could be askew) I don't see more than a paragraph supporting this idea and I would've hoped to see more, instead of having to infer what it may or may not mean.

Woodsey:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Woodsey:

The whole idea of "a 10/10 doesn't mean it's perfect" is ridiculous to me - I never knew reviewers could simply break the laws of Maths and do things how they want.

It doesn't break the laws of maths--it's just that in such a scoring system, the numbers are ordinal, not cardinal.

And a game with holes in its gameplay/plot/whatever would most certainly NOT get a 'perfect' score.

That's my point: the score does not indicate perfection. It indicates that no game will ever be so much better than it that we'll need a higher class to rank it.

In which case the scoring system is exceptionally inept, and about as far-sighted as my arse.

Maybe, maybe not; however, just because a scoring system is "exceptionally inept" or "about as far-sighted as your arse" does not necessarily mean that it must "simply break the laws of Maths."

It does when you look at it from my view. Or as I like to call it, "the view that makes sense because it follows what is already accepted mathematically and as it is mathematical it should therefore be treated mathematically".

I'm err.. Working on the name.

I think you should work on the logic first ;-D

Believe it or not, ordinal numbers are "already accepted mathematically"!

I mean, that's the thing: before we can talk about whether someone is doing a good job scoring games, we have to figure out what we consider 'scoring games' to be in the first place.

Personally, the way I see game reviews is as such:

There's no such thing as a perfect game. Ever.

You think MW2 is perfect? Or how about New Super Mario Brothers Wii?

No. They're not perfect. No game is ever perfect. Otherwise every single person who owns a console would buy them. But the truth is they have flaws.

It's all based on perspectives. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, then don't play it. I wouldn't rely on another's opinion so wholeheartedly.

i stopped looking at scores and starting reading the reviews. but still obviously there is bias... then i look towards the cons the game has.

I loved Computer Gaming World. It was the best PC game review magazine out there. They weren't stingy with perfect scores. And they weren't stingy with bad ones either. The reason I loved them was because they were unbiased, And EVERY game I bought was well worth the money, thanks to their review. I never regretted a purchase. Also the writing was intelligent, and informative.

They gave half-Life 5 out of 5 stars. It deserved every damn one of them.

Also the fact that they were dedicated to PC gaming helped a lot. It seems websites like gamespot try to review them as console games...somewhat.

Take for example the strategy game stronghold. Gamespot gave it 7.6 out of 10. They complained about some technical problems, the interface, and such. Nothing major though.

CGW gave it 4.5 out of 5. I picked it up and it's one of the best strategy games I've ever played. If I had listened to gamespot, I would have missed out on it.

So yes, we do need more independent journalism. We also need more intelligent journalism.

To be honest, I'd give my right arm to see that magazine back in print.

Smokescreen:
From the article:

"Picking at random a blockbuster movie from Metacritic (I chose 2012, as it's about as smart as the average videogame), look at the reviews that are being collated: they come from the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post, Slate, Time, Salon, the Village Voice. Looking at an equally random videogame, (I chose The Saboteur on Xbox 360) we have Destructoid, IGN, GameDaily, Gamespot, 1Up. Spot the difference."

This was interesting to me at first and then I realized; all of those publications that reviewed movies have someone on staff who is versed in the language of movies, understands how and why they work in core ways that laypeople do not, interacts with members of the industry, and then proceeds to write about it.

Just. Like. Videogames.

The ONLY difference is that the videogame sites concentrate on videogames, whereas the other sites are there to report the news (or other subjects)-but they all have people who are experienced in the medium working on the criticism. And even that's changing-though perhaps not on Metacritic yet-there are reviews of videogames at the Onion AV club for example and appearing in local indy papers in my city (so I'd imagine any other large city with an indy paper would have at least some videogame reviews as well.)

My point is; this particular distinction really isn't that big of a deal because you're still dealing with specialists, and the reason you're dealing with the specialist gaming media is because the rest of the world is still catching up on videogames and how they impact us. When places like Time or Salon or the NYT decide to start reviewing videogames where do you think they're going to get reviewers? It's not like the relationships made while working in the gaming media are suddenly going to evaporate.

Considering the writer says this is "one glaring problem" (and I'd agree it does suggest something could be askew) I don't see more than a paragraph supporting this idea and I would've hoped to see more, instead of having to infer what it may or may not mean.

The problem with your dissection is that being qualified wasn't Christian Ward's issue, it was that

The specialist gaming press is massively dependent on advertising from publishers to stay in business. Meanwhile, publishers are dependent on the specialist gaming press to advertise and hype their product, both in the ad pages and in the previews. This leads to a relationship between the two groups that can be described as symbiotic at best and parasitic at worst.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
How about "we're going to make a game about Ayn Rand's Objectivism"? That was...kinda oddball!

That's one of the positives I see in story-telling being pushed forward. I see Bioshock and Final Fantasy Tactics (the original not the sequels) as games whose tales and settings are deep enough you can compare them to some of the greatest literature in the past Century. However, those are the only two games I can think of with stories good enough to write a real paper on in terms of analysis. While there are plenty of other games, both from the West and from the East, with really good stories, few of them are just that friggin' good.

Of course, given my history as a console gamer I'm also used to people talking down my thoughts on Bioshock since I've never had the opportunity to play System Shock, but in terms of story and setting those games seem drastically different to me than all the social statements made in Bioshock. It's also why I wish they just made a new IP instead of Bioshock 2. Sure, the gameplay looks great, but the premise sounds cheap. I am a skeptic of the story, and therefore have little excitement for it.

But that's also just me being a pretentious cock monkey.

No though--I do agree with you that there should be concern for losing the 'oddball' game. However, I wonder if this love of realism isn't just a phase brought on by how good the graphics and physics are. Remember the Car Combat games? Well, my theory is that we had Car Combat games because it was way easier to create a good model of a car than a human being back then. The reason we moved on to human(oid)s in shooters is because the technology progressed to where we *could* put people in a shooter that looked as good as the people in a fighting game.

So I wonder if (well, sort of hope) that the main reason we're not seeing oddball games is because the technology to make super realistic games possible is still pretty new. I also think it has to do with gaming shifting from Japan to the West, and with how the progress of the technology has made it possible not only to put humans in a shooter, but to tell a story with humans. It's harder to make an oddball game when you're trying to get the audience to have an emotional reaction beyond the "awww" one can feel for the Prince in the Katamari games.

Also, I think some of this has to do with genres. I think the people who see the most change are people who are into platformers and such. For those of us in the 4X and RTS and, well, whatever you want to call those games from Paradox (in board game terms, they'd be called Grand Strategy or Monster) genres, gaming looks very different. The Civ expansion Beyond the Sword to me is the best thing since Master of Orion. Those Europa Universalis games keep chugging along. Mount and Blade got made by donations from fans in large part. This is something to keep in mind too: a game used to be fish in a small pond. These days, gaming is one big ass lake. So is it that the fish is getting smaller? Or does the fish just look smaller because it's in a bigger body of water?

This is all true. As stated, there was a massive phase of fuzzy animal mascots in the 90's, and once we hit 3-D all of a sudden a ton of Mario platformers that all but vanished with the PS2, Xbox and GameCube. Gaming has suddenly "grown up", and in some ways it disappoints me. In others it delights me.

In truth, the industry is still figuring out where it belongs while publishers are seeking out the highest source of income. For some, it's making cheap games looking to imitate Nintendo's success on the Wii. For others it's trying to compete with the big "hardcore" games like Call of Duty, Halo and God of War. When I look at what is available I try to find something my niece can enjoy that would teach her to game like I had learned, such as Mario. However, the cold truth is, the industry is not what it once was, and my best bet is to get her Nintendogs and hope that, somehow, it will be a gateway into games like Mini Ninjas, something I would have eaten up at a young age.

Still, while I feel the industry is still figuring itself out, I do think the current press is not helping push things forward. The Spike VGA awards were an insult to my brain, even though I know everything on there appeals to what is, for the most part, the modern mainstream gamer. But the modern mainstream gamer is not sophisticated, and in fact is primarily in there for competition. Yet right now this is who the game magazines are marketed to, as well as G4 and who the publishers are seeing as their biggest mark.

We're lucky to have TheEscapist to encourage deeper analyzation of the industry, but there needs to be more. Not enough markets are being spoken to, and while plenty of us hobbyists don't need to be marketed to in order to enjoy this industry, there needs to be more out there for all audiences. There need to be more big name critics who appeal to the non-gamer, more who appeal to the intellectual, etc. Unfortunately, the games journalism and writing field is already cluttered with websites trying to mimic GameSpot, IGN, 1Up, Joystiq, Destructoid, Kotaku...it's a flood of the same old, same old. The industry definitely needs diverse opinion, and it's not getting it.

That's only going to slow down the growth of the industry, the way I see it. Then again, I'm only 24 and am speaking primarily out of my obnoxious mouth, so what the Hell do I know?

Dhatz:
games are getting shitter since the numbers of who think they can do games multiply. also nobody thinks what he would do in the game situation, and so games don't make fuken sense. games stopped being games after 2006. look at what own inventions GTA VC had, and compare them to the boringness and tiredness of GTA IV. Murderous problem is that noting better is produced nowadays.

I got a message for devs: don't show screenshots, they don't make any sense.

I disagree. There are good game that are out in the current time. Patapon, Metal Gear Solid, Fallout 3, and Mass Effect stand out in my mind as good examples. To say games as a whole are getting shitter is an unfair generalization. Now games might be less original nowadays, but that doesn't mean it's bad. I mean, Ninja Blade reminded me a lot of God of War, but it was a good game none-the-less. And as for nothing better being made, I point you to Stranglehold as a fun original shooter (to the best of my knowledge)

I did enjoy this article, it was very informitive and, if anything, taught me to judge a game based on my own personal tastes and not reviews. No matter what they say, Dungeons and Dragons Tactics was good, goddamnit!

Anyway, that's my two cents.

ccesarano:

That's only going to slow down the growth of the industry, the way I see it. Then again, I'm only 24 and am speaking primarily out of my obnoxious mouth, so what the Hell do I know?

Heh--no, I agree with a lot of what you said. Crazily enough, about the closest thing I've seen to The Escapist isn't in the industry press, it's in the mainstream press. Granted, these are people already in the video game end of the press (one of their frequent contributors has written articles for this site, too), but, still--I get the feeling people who enjoy The Escapist would enjoy Slate's coverage:

http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&cp=2097086

Hope it's okay to mention them: last thing I'd want to do is take eyeballs away from The Escapist, but I figure people here being aware of other quality work on gaming can only be a positive, synergistic thing.

Good games are getting better, but that doesn't really mean that every game is getting better.

Reviews are getting much more numerical, changing up the way the industry works, because bean counters don't know anything BUT numbers. I'm sure they understand 4.7 million copies.

Xelanath:

Smokescreen:
From the article:

Considering the writer says this is "one glaring problem" (and I'd agree it does suggest something could be askew) I don't see more than a paragraph supporting this idea and I would've hoped to see more, instead of having to infer what it may or may not mean.

The problem with your dissection is that being qualified wasn't Christian Ward's issue, it was that

The specialist gaming press is massively dependent on advertising from publishers to stay in business. Meanwhile, publishers are dependent on the specialist gaming press to advertise and hype their product, both in the ad pages and in the previews. This leads to a relationship between the two groups that can be described as symbiotic at best and parasitic at worst.

I bolded the part that was relevant to your post. You're correct; it isn't exactly about being qualified-but now find me the media that uses advertising that isn't reliant on that advertising. While the relationship between videogame reviewers and producers might be glaringly obvious, that relationship exists in many, many other places, and I wish the writer had given the subject more time.

If the games get better, so should our standards.

Maybe the reviewers get into the hype of AAA titles too much before they play them, which we then see in their ratings. Sadly spreading the hype is part of what game magazines publish so they can't just ignore it.

Great article and kudos for pointing out that "symbiotic"/"parasitic" relationship.

Sidenote:
Movie and Music ratings age a little bit since they don't match our culture anymore and since our current technology (mostly CGI for movies) advanced since then;
Games age much much faster.

Some years ago I looked at rotten tomatoes for movie ratings, but I found their accumulated rating to differ from the reality a lot and assigned the problem to the professional movie critics.

Then I started looking at the imdb score instead. It's not perfect but mostly a far better match to the reality.

Maybe we need an igdb and then the industry would look to it's score instead.

Silva:
Creativity in games is at best stagnating

Exactly.
We've been playing the same dozen of games over and over for decades now with only very few additions to the pool.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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
Registered for a free account here