Homefront Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

SomebodyNowhere:
Did they actually put the wilhelm scream in their video game?
I know a lot of things were covered in the article and video, but that's what stuck with me most.

FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-, Ninja'd so hard, man!

I may get Homefront if it's on sale on STEAM. I had my worries about the game when the writer, a renowned Hollywood writer, said that games are his new medium or whatever. While it's an admirable try for him, you can't write a video game like a film or vice versa. Homefront does look interesting, but I don't think it takes enough risks in the gameplay department or story department, and it's a shame because it does look like it could.

throumbas:

SenorNemo:
You can debate whether the events Kaos outlined leading up to 2027 are sound from a foreign policy standpoint (though I really haven't seen anyone give a well written, logically grounded blow-by-blow about why each individual milestone is impossibly far fetched)

Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
Milestone 2: Korea assimilates Japan. What?
Milestone 3: Korea invades the US. And they have an EMP. And no other countries intervene.
And they have the manpower to do this. And the firepower. Ok. This is not far fetched.

Well, for your first point I hope you realize that there are political forces on both sides that would want this to happen, well against US wishes, even though it's a minority position right now. Would the US actually act to prevent a peaceful reunification? For that matter, do you think all S. Koreans want the US to remain?

As for your second point, they force the Japanese to surrender, as they've presumably been abandoned by their allies, the US. And I doubt the writers of the story factored in the recent tragedy which has placed Japan in a much, much weaker condition.

The third of course relies upon fifteen years of access to the manufacturing capabilities and technical resources of conquered southeast Asia.

So many of the greatest conflicts and losses of life throughout history come from what couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't happen. I wish more people would at least realize this.

throumbas:

SenorNemo:
You can debate whether the events Kaos outlined leading up to 2027 are sound from a foreign policy standpoint (though I really haven't seen anyone give a well written, logically grounded blow-by-blow about why each individual milestone is impossibly far fetched)

Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
Milestone 2: Korea assimilates Japan. What?
Milestone 3: Korea invades the US. And they have an EMP. And no other countries intervene. And they have the manpower to do this. And the firepower. Ok. This is not far fetched.

Heh, I didn't think anyone would take me up so quick, but this still isn't quite what I had in mind.

The following is only a brief examination, mind, not column length or anything. Don't expect and brilliantly defended points or counterpoints ;)

Milestone 1: "No, just no" isn't a proper argument, but I actually agree. I do see it as very unlikely, and this is probably the most contentious part of the backstory. The recent incident with the artillery attack on South Korea, likely related to Kim Jong-Un's inevitable and ever nearer succession, isn't a big indicator that he'll be any more open to unification than Kim Jong-Il, even if it is part of a long term strategy to establish Korea as a major world power. Still, we don't know hardly anything for certain yet. The biggest issue that makes this unlikely is social inertia. North Korea has used hatred of the outside world as a unifying force for so long, that not even two and a half years is a long enough time to change the public attitude towards reunification, no matter how it was spun. That's not even mentioning South Korea, which has a considerable number of hawkish political figures that would never condone reunification, and reflect a similar general attitude. So milestone one is unlikely in two and a half years. Ten years, maybe, but not two and a half. Yet, it wasn't too long ago that South and North Korea were almost on the verge of reconciliation. Maybe it was something to do with the announcement of Starcraft 2. Only time will tell.

Milestone 2: This is more plausible given the intervening events, which are follows:

2015: The effects of peak oil are felt as gas prices reach up to 20 dollars a gallon due to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia cuts off all oil trade with Europe. Survivalist literature become bestsellers in America. China's influences diminish.
2016: America withdraws its military from Japan and other countries overseas, focusing on its instability back home. Texas splits from the United States, border bloodshed takes place as refugees from other states attempt to enter Texas.
2017: Martial law is declared in the United States as its infrastructure crumbles due to financial deficiencies.

None of these are far fetched. There are already significant political forces in Japan that want American garrisons out, and with Korea seemingly a diminished threat, and America undergoing its own significant domestic problems, the decision seems plausible. Texas succeeding is kind of unlikely, but not unimaginable given the circumstances. I imagine that Mexico's horrific and very literal drug wars will have spilled over into Texas by then (in this alternate universe at least), combining with other world events to create a much more survivalist - and therefore independent - attitude. In a post peak-oil world, the financial woes of the United States are mostly credible, if handled poorly enough, so by 2018, I can pretty easily see America as unable to help Japan. Of course, Japan has a very powerful arm...err...self defense force, but given Japan has almost no access to domestic oil and is powered to no small extent by international trade, I can see them suffering even worse in the post-peak oil world as America.

Milestone 3: Lol, not far fetched at all. But seriously, a nuclear device built solely for generating an EM pulse wouldn't be too far fetched by 2027. Most modern American military hardware is EMP hardened, but I'm imagining that a lot of the military hardware we're currently using has aged, and in the economic and domestic crises, was replaced by less secure, unhardened hardware. Still, I don't imagine an EMP attack being nearly as effective as is depicted in Homefront either. No other countries intervene because no other countries can intervene, or have an interest in intervening. Keep in mind that America itself didn't intervene in the Second World War until we were actually attacked, and our depression era economy wasn't nearly as bad as the economic condition of any other powers that could conceivably spare the resources to help in the Homefront timeline. Also keep in mind that from what I've read, the Koreans don't have the manpower to fully control the United States, they have to pick and choose very carefully what resources and targets they take. After all, I imagine (I haven't played the game) that Homefront tells the story about how the Koreans failed to invade America. That's something a lot of people around here tend to forget, that the Koreans didn't succeed, that even though they got as far as controlling several major urban centers, they were eventually pushed back.

So, is is likely? No. Plausible? Maybe. Within range of suspension of disbelief? For me, anyway. I understand that it may vary.

D_987:

sibrenfetter:
I was actually a bit disappointed about the review (especially the video supplement). While funny it seems to me strange to put up a review when you have not even spent enough time on an important part of the game (in this case multiplayer).

The one thing about this game that stops it from being a Modern Warfare clone is the storyline; that's its sole gimmick. Where is this gimmick not used? The multi-player - so why exactly is the games focus on its most generic aspect?

How is the multiplayer a COD clone? Becuase it has guns?

veloper:
The most rediculous premise ever cannot save a very generic MW clone.

We never expected that.

The most "rediculous" part of this post here is calling Homefront a MW clone, when it actually has vehicles, a decent story for once, and doesn't kill of a character pretty much every chapter to make you go "OHH NOOO!"

Homefront isn't amazing, and the campaign is lacking, but it's still better than Modern Warfer 2's. And the multiplayer blows MW's out of the water from all the different games I've played. Why? Because it's actually fun, not "camping simulator 2000."

Russ Pitts:

SomebodyNowhere:
Did they actually put the wilhelm scream in their video game?
I know a lot of things were covered in the article and video, but that's what stuck with me most.

Yes, they actually did. We counted two of them in just the 30 minutes or so we were capturing video.

It's also in Red Dead Redemption and I think Vanquish.

I've got it. It's not completely shit, but it's not super great either. The multiplayer is decent.

Also, the enemies seem to have laser guided grenades. They throw them from 20 feet away and it skids to a stop right in front of you. It's kinda annoying, but meh.

Yet another COD clone. Looks rubbish.

i beat homefronts campaign in 4 hours but i enjoeyed it all the way through. its a shame that they didnt hit on the multiplayer in the review because it is AMAZING!!!!!

Ardenon:

vrbtny:
It's sounds a bit like Metro 2033 (Good setting, shitty gameplay)

I beg to differ, Metro 2033 had good gameplay

I definitely thought it was the weakest part of the game. The fact that Knives can't puncture basic clothes, grenades are really fiddly and the enemy spams 'em like heck, the guns have questionable damage(even with the ranger pack DLC), the two-tier ammo system is really annoying in combat, the stealth sections, the punishment for trying to fight through stealth section, the silly pneumatic weapons, etc...

Admittedly, the gunplay is very good whenever your not facing any humans. It's really quite good against the beasts.

I'm sad and surprised to hear that the campaign for this game was so short. Although I have read about some new multiplayer features, I have always felt that the main distinguishing factor for this game was the setting. I would have thought that they'd make a bigger deal out of that.

As for the Koreans invading America being unrealistic. Yeah, maybe. Personally I would have gone with China, but a lot can happen in 25 years. Also, at least for me it is easy to overlook the exact explanation of who did the invading how. Right now with my limited information it seems to me that the United States is by far the most powerful country in the world and is in no danger whatsoever of actually being invaded by any group of other countries. A couple of years ago I heard that the US defense budget was as high as the combined budgets of the top 25 countries in the world. But that doesn't mean that "war on your doorstep" is not an interesting concept to explore in a game. I'm okay with some hand waving as to how it actually happened and focus on what it would be like after it did.

SenorNemo:

throumbas:

SenorNemo:
You can debate whether the events Kaos outlined leading up to 2027 are sound from a foreign policy standpoint (though I really haven't seen anyone give a well written, logically grounded blow-by-blow about why each individual milestone is impossibly far fetched)

Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
Milestone 2: Korea assimilates Japan. What?
Milestone 3: Korea invades the US. And they have an EMP. And no other countries intervene. And they have the manpower to do this. And the firepower. Ok. This is not far fetched.

Heh, I didn't think anyone would take me up so quick, but this still isn't quite what I had in mind.

The following is only a brief examination, mind, not column length or anything. Don't expect and brilliantly defended points or counterpoints ;)

Milestone 1: "No, just no" isn't a proper argument, but I actually agree. I do see it as very unlikely, and this is probably the most contentious part of the backstory. The recent incident with the artillery attack on South Korea, likely related to Kim Jong-Un's inevitable and ever nearer succession, isn't a big indicator that he'll be any more open to unification than Kim Jong-Il, even if it is part of a long term strategy to establish Korea as a major world power. Still, we don't know hardly anything for certain yet. The biggest issue that makes this unlikely is social inertia. North Korea has used hatred of the outside world as a unifying force for so long, that not even two and a half years is a long enough time to change the public attitude towards reunification, no matter how it was spun. That's not even mentioning South Korea, which has a considerable number of hawkish political figures that would never condone reunification, and reflect a similar general attitude. So milestone one is unlikely in two and a half years. Ten years, maybe, but not two and a half. Yet, it wasn't too long ago that South and North Korea were almost on the verge of reconciliation. Maybe it was something to do with the announcement of Starcraft 2. Only time will tell.

Milestone 2: This is more plausible given the intervening events, which are follows:

2015: The effects of peak oil are felt as gas prices reach up to 20 dollars a gallon due to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia cuts off all oil trade with Europe. Survivalist literature become bestsellers in America. China's influences diminish.
2016: America withdraws its military from Japan and other countries overseas, focusing on its instability back home. Texas splits from the United States, border bloodshed takes place as refugees from other states attempt to enter Texas.
2017: Martial law is declared in the United States as its infrastructure crumbles due to financial deficiencies.

None of these are far fetched. There are already significant political forces in Japan that want American garrisons out, and with Korea seemingly a diminished threat, and America undergoing its own significant domestic problems, the decision seems plausible. Texas succeeding is kind of unlikely, but not unimaginable given the circumstances. I imagine that Mexico's horrific and very literal drug wars will have spilled over into Texas by then (in this alternate universe at least), combining with other world events to create a much more survivalist - and therefore independent - attitude. In a post peak-oil world, the financial woes of the United States are mostly credible, if handled poorly enough, so by 2018, I can pretty easily see America as unable to help Japan. Of course, Japan has a very powerful arm...err...self defense force, but given Japan has almost no access to domestic oil and is powered to no small extent by international trade, I can see them suffering even worse in the post-peak oil world as America.

Milestone 3: Lol, not far fetched at all. But seriously, a nuclear device built solely for generating an EM pulse wouldn't be too far fetched by 2027. Most modern American military hardware is EMP hardened, but I'm imagining that a lot of the military hardware we're currently using has aged, and in the economic and domestic crises, was replaced by less secure, unhardened hardware. Still, I don't imagine an EMP attack being nearly as effective as is depicted in Homefront either. No other countries intervene because no other countries can intervene, or have an interest in intervening. Keep in mind that America itself didn't intervene in the Second World War until we were actually attacked, and our depression era economy wasn't nearly as bad as the economic condition of any other powers that could conceivably spare the resources to help in the Homefront timeline. Also keep in mind that from what I've read, the Koreans don't have the manpower to fully control the United States, they have to pick and choose very carefully what resources and targets they take. After all, I imagine (I haven't played the game) that Homefront tells the story about how the Koreans failed to invade America. That's something a lot of people around here tend to forget, that the Koreans didn't succeed, that even though they got as far as controlling several major urban centers, they were eventually pushed back.

So, is is likely? No. Plausible? Maybe. Within range of suspension of disbelief? For me, anyway. I understand that it may vary.

You are awesome!

I guess the US kinda don't get the whole invasion thing as other countries who have been historically invaded do.

Cause I saw way better explorations of that theme. To put it short - it lacks desperation and hopelessness.

What strikes me is how much it looks like Left 4 Dead 2.

To an extent the setting dictates that, but when even the lighting and textures look alike you're in trouble.

THQ is on my sh!t list after Metro 2033. Went into that expecting a decent shooter with a cool setting and oh did I kick myself afterwards.

I mention it because this strikes me as another novel shooter that should be average if nothing else. I won't go for a rerun of last time though.

I'm not going to say "I called it" but... well... "called it".

vrbtny:
It's sounds a bit like Metro 2033 (Good setting, shitty gameplay)

I rather liked Metro 2033; it had enough new features (the gas mask mechanics were awesome.) that it didn't get too boring. Still, YMMV.

Saucycardog:

D_987:

sibrenfetter:
I was actually a bit disappointed about the review (especially the video supplement). While funny it seems to me strange to put up a review when you have not even spent enough time on an important part of the game (in this case multiplayer).

The one thing about this game that stops it from being a Modern Warfare clone is the storyline; that's its sole gimmick. Where is this gimmick not used? The multi-player - so why exactly is the games focus on its most generic aspect?

How is the multiplayer a COD clone? Becuase it has guns?

I think a lot of people here just want it to be a COD clone and want it to fail, I think the game will succeed however on it's own merits.
(dives for cover!)

Hmm... Well it looks like the wiki article on North Korea just got edited by... North Korea?

http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/North_Korea

Anyways, it's a shame this game didn't do as good as I hoped, the multiplayer looks fun at least.

Bleh so wanted this to be an awesome epic stroy fps like bioshock shame it's cod level mp focused short rubbish, the stroy seemed really appealing as somehing interesting. I do like cod just it's story is unspectacular and generic even is soap is awesomely scottish.

i assume you only reviewed the sp and not the mp?

yea, this seems like a cod clone, single player was horribly short, beat it first time, (from when i started the game to when i closed it, with out skipping any cinematics, on normal) in 2.2 hours
hopefully the multiplayer is good

this looks quite good I think

throumbas:

SenorNemo:
You can debate whether the events Kaos outlined leading up to 2027 are sound from a foreign policy standpoint (though I really haven't seen anyone give a well written, logically grounded blow-by-blow about why each individual milestone is impossibly far fetched)

Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
Milestone 2: Korea assimilates Japan. What?
Milestone 3: Korea invades the US. And they have an EMP. And no other countries intervene. And they have the manpower to do this. And the firepower. Ok. This is not far fetched.

I think they should just have gone all the way with it and had an alternate reality where the coalition lost the Iraq war and have the occupying power be Iraqui instead of Korean.

Narratively is not a word. Even the freaking spell check caught it. You used it at least twice.

Now I'm not saying we're all perfect, but if someone going to present a text review, he or she (like all writers) has an obligation to adhere to correct writing.

Chunko:

VitusPrime:

Chunko:
It seems like a passable game, but I feel like I would have trouble taking its message seriously if the bad guys were Korean. Even if North and South Korea combined there is NO WAY they would ever have the facilities to invade the U.S. China would make a more believable enemy, but even they would be a stretch (because we rely on each other for economic reasons).

Oh for the...All of this complaining about how the plot 'isn't plausible' is just getting silly now. Who honestly cares if it's realistic or not honestly? They have actually explained how this scenario which the game takes place in...and seems alot better than alot of other shooters. The games out, and the reviews are saying the game is meh so just get off the soap box of this game's plot being unrealistic.

I'm alright with silly plots, deadrising is one of my favorite games. It's just that the reviewer said that the plot was trying to be serious and send a message. If it's trying to do that get a more plausible enemy than DPRK. Do they seriously expect that North Korea and South Korea would ever merge?

John Horn:
NEWSFLASH:
NORTH KOREA ATTACKS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Yeah... that's very likely to happen from a hermetically sealed impoverished country, just approaching 1980s technology. The whole of North Korea possesses 6 to 8 nuclear weapons.
Woopdeedoo.

A Curious Fellow:
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait wait wait. Wait. The NORTH KOREANS are the enemy? No. The North Koreans do not have the means to invade the entirety of the United States. No. That is stupid.

throumbas:
Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
Milestone 2: Korea assimilates Japan. What?
Milestone 3: Korea invades the US. And they have an EMP. And no other countries intervene. And they have the manpower to do this. And the firepower. Ok. This is not far fetched.

Look guys, if you aren't just trolling then read the bloody plot before commenting on it, geeze. If you'd paid more than a passing interest in it you'd know all the relevant details that create the fictional future where a united Asia, the economic powerhouse of the world, is capable of waltzing into the States to casually molest everyone.

It's fiction, deal with it. Or do you complain that one guy single-handedly takes on a Covenant armada? That a middle-eastern warlord blows up a nuke and kills a bunch of yanks? That a Marshall can lead a rebellion and fly a seriously kick-ass battleship whilst consuming that much whiskey? At least these guys bothered putting together a timeline for you :/

I'm still optimistic, I mean who knows? Maybe it'll turn out to be a cult classic in the next few years? I'll be borrowing it from a friend when he finishes.

hey guys, what was the name of that crappy game where some evil country invades America?

I cant remember...

The opening would've been cool if (for me) it wasn't just Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction meets Modern Warfare 2.

Wicky_42:

Chunko:

VitusPrime:

Oh for the...All of this complaining about how the plot 'isn't plausible' is just getting silly now. Who honestly cares if it's realistic or not honestly? They have actually explained how this scenario which the game takes place in...and seems alot better than alot of other shooters. The games out, and the reviews are saying the game is meh so just get off the soap box of this game's plot being unrealistic.

I'm alright with silly plots, deadrising is one of my favorite games. It's just that the reviewer said that the plot was trying to be serious and send a message. If it's trying to do that get a more plausible enemy than DPRK. Do they seriously expect that North Korea and South Korea would ever merge?

John Horn:
NEWSFLASH:
NORTH KOREA ATTACKS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Yeah... that's very likely to happen from a hermetically sealed impoverished country, just approaching 1980s technology. The whole of North Korea possesses 6 to 8 nuclear weapons.
Woopdeedoo.

A Curious Fellow:
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait wait wait. Wait. The NORTH KOREANS are the enemy? No. The North Koreans do not have the means to invade the entirety of the United States. No. That is stupid.

throumbas:
Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
Milestone 2: Korea assimilates Japan. What?
Milestone 3: Korea invades the US. And they have an EMP. And no other countries intervene. And they have the manpower to do this. And the firepower. Ok. This is not far fetched.

Look guys, if you aren't just trolling then read the bloody plot before commenting on it, geeze. If you'd paid more than a passing interest in it you'd know all the relevant details that create the fictional future where a united Asia, the economic powerhouse of the world, is capable of waltzing into the States to casually molest everyone.

It's fiction, deal with it. Or do you complain that one guy single-handedly takes on a Covenant armada? That a middle-eastern warlord blows up a nuke and kills a bunch of yanks? That a Marshall can lead a rebellion and fly a seriously kick-ass battleship whilst consuming that much whiskey? At least these guys bothered putting together a timeline for you :/

I saw the intro cutscene. It's still not believable.

Does anyone remember how Red Dawn was actually a pretty terrible movie? Or was that just me?

OT: Really, it makes me realize how much of a good single player Modern Warfare 2 had. Yeah, nonsensical at times, but damn.

Really was some great design.

Chunko:
I saw the intro cutscene. It's still not believable.

Key word? Fiction. Disbelief? You must suspend it, just as you must with any other piece of fiction. It's tiresome to hear people chundering on about 'hurr, third world country could NEVER invade the US!' when that's completely irrelevant. Anyway, whether you can groove with the plot or not doesn't really matter - the backstory interested me more than the actual game plot and the game play was done and perfected easily by MW1, so not a lot left for this game to sell on in my opinion.

Tdc2182:
Does anyone remember how Red Dawn was actually a pretty terrible movie? Or was that just me?

OT: Really, it makes me realize how much of a good single player Modern Warfare 2 had. Yeah, nonsensical at times, but damn.

Really was some great design.

Just watched Red Dawn - yeah, pretty crappy; everything from direction to script to acting to special effects and sound was lacking blatantly in at least several places. then again, it was some sorta propaganda piece - what you gonna so? ;)

Wicky_42:

Chunko:
I saw the intro cutscene. It's still not believable.

Key word? Fiction. Disbelief? You must suspend it, just as you must with any other piece of fiction. It's tiresome to hear people chundering on about 'hurr, third world country could NEVER invade the US!' when that's completely irrelevant. Anyway, whether you can groove with the plot or not doesn't really matter - the backstory interested me more than the actual game plot and the game play was done and perfected easily by MW1, so not a lot left for this game to sell on in my opinion.

Normally that wouldn't be a problem for me, but read my earlier post.

Chunko:

Wicky_42:

Chunko:
I saw the intro cutscene. It's still not believable.

Key word? Fiction. Disbelief? You must suspend it, just as you must with any other piece of fiction. It's tiresome to hear people chundering on about 'hurr, third world country could NEVER invade the US!' when that's completely irrelevant. Anyway, whether you can groove with the plot or not doesn't really matter - the backstory interested me more than the actual game plot and the game play was done and perfected easily by MW1, so not a lot left for this game to sell on in my opinion.

Normally that wouldn't be a problem for me, but read my earlier post.

I'm pretty sure the intro says N Korea annexed S Korea - more conquering than merging. That seemed to be the first hurdle in your protest, the rest fall like dominoes if you just go with the flow. Seriously, there's bigger thing to complain about in that game than a quite interesting back story.

Wicky_42:

Chunko:

VitusPrime:

Oh for the...All of this complaining about how the plot 'isn't plausible' is just getting silly now. Who honestly cares if it's realistic or not honestly? They have actually explained how this scenario which the game takes place in...and seems alot better than alot of other shooters. The games out, and the reviews are saying the game is meh so just get off the soap box of this game's plot being unrealistic.

I'm alright with silly plots, deadrising is one of my favorite games. It's just that the reviewer said that the plot was trying to be serious and send a message. If it's trying to do that get a more plausible enemy than DPRK. Do they seriously expect that North Korea and South Korea would ever merge?

John Horn:
NEWSFLASH:
NORTH KOREA ATTACKS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Yeah... that's very likely to happen from a hermetically sealed impoverished country, just approaching 1980s technology. The whole of North Korea possesses 6 to 8 nuclear weapons.
Woopdeedoo.

A Curious Fellow:
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait wait wait. Wait. The NORTH KOREANS are the enemy? No. The North Koreans do not have the means to invade the entirety of the United States. No. That is stupid.

throumbas:
Milestone 1: North Korea merges with South Korea. No, just no.
Milestone 2: Korea assimilates Japan. What?
Milestone 3: Korea invades the US. And they have an EMP. And no other countries intervene. And they have the manpower to do this. And the firepower. Ok. This is not far fetched.

Look guys, if you aren't just trolling then read the bloody plot before commenting on it, geeze. If you'd paid more than a passing interest in it you'd know all the relevant details that create the fictional future where a united Asia, the economic powerhouse of the world, is capable of waltzing into the States to casually molest everyone.

It's fiction, deal with it. Or do you complain that one guy single-handedly takes on a Covenant armada? That a middle-eastern warlord blows up a nuke and kills a bunch of yanks? That a Marshall can lead a rebellion and fly a seriously kick-ass battleship whilst consuming that much whiskey? At least these guys bothered putting together a timeline for you :/

I don't read these. I watch the videos. I have shit to do. Sue me.

Hmm, thanks for saving me sixty bucks. I had high hopes for this game, but oh well. Didnt know the golden gate bridge was all that important.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 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