The School Shooter Mod

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Fully on Bob's side for this. Pretty much reflects my opinion on the game. Nobody really has any right to prevent it from being created, but that doesn't stop it from being terrible in every way.

"A game like School Shooter couldn't survive in a world where the gamers (not the Jack Thompsons, who can safely be ignored at this point) don't raise an eyebrow."

If it hadn't come up on the Escapist (twice now), I would never have heard of this mod, and I still don't care. Does that mean I'm the exception since the game hasn't imploded and vanished from existence?

They brought up some interesting points, especially relating to the hypocrisy of any stance. I've railed against John Wayne in the past and the Western genre in general for trying to depict the practical genocide of the Native American culture as the justified killings of mindless savages, bringing up that i'm of Native American heritage, but then having no problem with giving Nazis roughly two dozen new assholes in Medal of Honor despite being of German heritage as well.

Anyway i'd like to comment on the School Shooter mod, but i'm not entirely sure what it's merits are. You could logically argue that such a mod would be justified as an attempt to better understand just what extreme mental strain the shooters must have been under to commit such atrocities and maybe better prevent them if we can understand the mindset, but at the same time there's no denying that there are psychopaths who would make such a mod because they would go on a shooting rampage themselves if they had access to guns and weren't afraid to die. And then you've got the third point, immature morons so desperate for attention that they do stupid things like claim to be members of the Taliban, make school shooter mods, and post spoilers online relating to the fate of Dumbledore. I'm not entirely convinced of which group the mod falls under and can't really make a comfortable stance when i don't have an answer to the basic question "WHAT THE FUCK, GUYS?!" I need a little more context. Mind you i might come to regret that if it's a depraved lunatic or someone who is socially retarded... still, this isn't something that should be taken lightly, and i'll be the first to scream opposition if a filmmaker is allowed to make a movie relating to a massacre but video games are denied publishers because of the naysayers who think video games magically turn anyone who touches them into spree killers.

I say next conversation you guys go to the other end of the spectrum and talk about the artistic merits of Shadow of the Colossus or something.

Not going to make a big massive post, because Bob and James both absolutely nailed it on the head. I totally agree, and think that while the game " 'deserves' " to exist, it's utter shit and "shouldn't" exist.

Yatzee please come back to Extra Consideration, wee need you. Just look who's replacing you.

It's like when Kramer went ballistic on a black person; it's less about how rasist he was, and more about how he was no-longer funny. I don't see how School Shooter is a fun game on it's own, If you have played "Fallout 3" then you have probably gone on a rampage in Megaton, but when you were done or dead, you reloaded your game and went back to playing the game like you normally do, well Unless you were planning on nuking the town later, then it was icing on the cake.

people tend to forgive the racie, or sociopathic, only becus the person going it was able to make it eather fun, funny, or thought provoking. When it is non of theses, then it sould be left to vanish into obscurity, not given an honor to be plastered all over the media.

It's not thematically the same as what James suggested, but there IS a "second person shooter" game called Second Person Shooter Zato that was posted on JayIsGames a few weeks ago. I haven't played it much, but it's quite neat having to shoot at the camera and seeing yourself through the "eyes" of the enemies. Actually, I suppose it's the opposite of what James suggested, but then would it be a second person "shooter" if you did nothing but have someone shoot at you?

And while I'd rather not bother with it, I suppose I should say something about School Shooter. MovieBob's statement at the end that "shit has its own integrity" about sums it up. Looking at the interview with the developer, he seems to think that games are toys for children and/or mindless entertainment. Exactly the kind of garbage the industry needs to get rid of. Pawnstick, come back when you've remade the game for people who don't want to shoot innocent, defenseless AI. There's a lot of things to say about school shootings, but "killing innocent people is fun!" is not one of them.

Considering he obviously doesn't want to make any kind of intelligent statement, I suppose we can just forget this thing ever existed and keep playing games that are actually good.

I must say, Sterling surprised me twice, with this one. First by showing up unannounced. Then by making a point I agreed with: that it would be hypocritical to attack the game in question but defend Grand Theft Auto and the like.

But then he just had to go and do this:

Jim Sterling:
I've always held the belief that the only way to combat offensive content is to not be offended. It's our negative, hurt, upset reaction that gives offensive content the advantage. Why are racial slurs so powerful, for example? It's because of how we react to them. If we could casually write off such slurs, or even learn to laugh at how inherently meaningless and silly they truly are, then racists would be robbed of their biggest weapon.

Really? 'Don't be offended' is the advice here? I get that the creator of the game is a troll, and he should be ignored for that reason. I also get that some people might want to reclaim slurs in order to take away their power. But you do not get to tell people to not be offended. Words do have meaning, especially when those words are meant to let you know that people hate you. This is 101 stuff.

And this:

[...]leads me to further question why School Shooter should be singled out for being so honest about its violent, amoral content.
[...]we're stuck talking about this one and not about, say, the sexual abuse implications in Killer7[...]

If there is a problem in gaming, we have to single out games. Sure we could have a discussion about other games, but sooner or later you have to look at particulars. The 'why is this one being singled out' line can be applied to any game you choose; if it is so applied it effectively shuts down discussion about the issue. Not that there are other reasons not to single out School Shooter; I'd agree with Portnow, in that the reason to ignore this game is because of the audience its creator will get as a result. But I get the feeling that Sterling does expect or even want a conversation about the troubling sexual abuse implications in Killer7.[1] After all, why should that game be singled out?

In other news, I love MovieBob. Between this and his "Skin Deep" clip, he really has been rocking the good points lately.

[1] I'm not sure if I have interpreted the second part of this quote correctly. I take it to mean that we should be talking about troubling aspects of games by referring to good games, like Killer7, but there is certainly room for disagreement.

Sorry Jim, your arguments are so weak, I could hardly call them arguments at all. You compare this piece of shit to games like CoD or GTA, but let me point one thing: Killing innocent people is not the one and only reason to play these games, its not even the main point of gameplay. You are talking about running over Grannies in GTA, but thats not the point if this game, you dont have to do this. While killing school kids is the only thing you can do in "school shooter".

Just a quick reply concerning he "words only have power if you give it to them", a.k.a. "asshole" is just a word, you decide how it affects you: It's too shallow thinking, because the word is, usually, conveying that the speaker wants to insult or degrade you and this intention behind the word is what upsets and hurts people. Language is but a transmitter, correct, but our emotional interpretation isn't concerned about that. That's why it doesn't matter if you'd translate asshole, it still means the same thing and your brain gets the same reaction.

Just wanted to get that out of my system, thank you very much for skipping this.

My opinion on the game itself: Not worth the attention, really. "So Bad It's Horrible" stuff and "stunts" or attention-whoring stuff has been around forever, in any medium. Just look through the gallery of contemporary pop stars, many are there *because* of just attention-whoring. It's a working concept.

Concerning antagonists in videogames: Antagonists are almost always like that in fiction. You can only convey so much in a set time without boring the consumer and newer mediums *seem* to attract less patient audiences. Not to say that's a good thing, in fact I'd like to trade some reflex-friendly games for some of thought and patience in the gaming landscape, but it's how it is. Combine that with many writers that are not used to writing for this medium and what you end up with is a cast of characters that isn't fleshed-out very well in general. The protagonist-side is often a bit better fleshed-out because we spend more time with them; it's incredibly rare to find an example of any medium where protagonist's and antagonist's motivations and characters are explored to the same level.
That's because many people just like simple stories that are easily accessible, that's why they are so much more enjoyable than the complicated wicked mess called real life. The closer we get to reality, the further we stray from escapism and the less attractive things become - for some people.

Personally I think a good mix is always the best way - both a mix of escapism and realism in a single "piece of entertainment" as well as many different pieces of entertainment in the spectrum between escapism and realism. Realism is generally harder to write while still keeping it interesting, so I actually value it greatly in some places - but sometimes I just want to relax and outwit people wearing a different color, be it red and blue TF2 mercenaries or black and white chess figures.

Well, as much hate as I'm going to get for this, hear me out.

To me, it sounds like you guys are asking two totally different questions, so I'll give my thoughts and opinions on both of them.

First, should this game exist? Of course it should. I could ramble on and on about "Freedom of speech" or point to examples like the infamous "Airport level" in Modern Warfare 2, but the fact of the matter is, if Call of Duty, Manhunt, Postal, etc. can get away with putting worse content in *retail* games, then why can't we grant the same courtesy to a group of gamers making something that wouldn't have gotten many downloads in the first place?

Second question: Is this game *appropriate?* Hell no. Just like so many other games out there, it offers nothing more than brutal violence for no reason other than a few laughs. I'm sure we've all gotten bored and murdered a town or two full of innocent civilians in Fallout, or tried to see how high we could get our wanted level in GTA just for shits-n'-giggles. Those games are perfectly acceptable for a worldwide audience, yet we rage at indie developers who try to make a statement about this type of thing.

In conclusion, there's no way I'd support something like this. It glorifies horrible events like the Virginia Tech Massacre or the Columbine Shooting, but what I *do* support is the choice to make and play something like this. If we had the exact same scenario in, say, an industrial warehouse, would we be any more outraged? I doubt it. We'd see it as a fun little distraction from the dullness of our lives, instead of an over-exaggerated "murder simulator."

Jim is really insightful when he's not doing his normal vulgar routine, hope he stays on extra consideration.

While there is definitely a debate to be had about the ethics of FPSs, school shooter is no more worthy of it than Serbian Film is as an avatar for free speech. Don't most shooters at least present an opponent that fights back? Some sort of narrative context- war, invasion, defence of home- to at least thinly justify the violence? Not saying there isn't one, but I can't remember that last game that was entirely bent on mowing down defenceless citizens until the authorities show up to put you down. Yes, there are games like GTA that enable the option should the player think to do so (sorry Jim, guess I'm in the minority who don't see it as an itch to scratch), but at least Rockstar also offer you a buttload of better and more rewarding things to do with your time. There is a modicum of difference between making murder of innocents an option vs making the sole focus.

And it isn't just gamers that worry about this shit either- this is precisely the sort of game that is fodder to moral-majority types that know jackshit about gaming, but have enough legislative influence to BAN THIS SICK FILTH!@!!!@! As someone living in a country where one pearl clutching attorney general can hold up the entire censorship reform process, this crap can have an effect.

I will defend the artistic merit of games like GTA, but this gets a 'they have a right to make it and thats all' from me. Do it if you must, but don't pretend you are doing anything more useful that trolling for attention.

One other thing:

Why are racial slurs so powerful, for example? It's because of how we react to them. If we could casually write off such slurs, or even learn to laugh at how inherently meaningless and silly they truly are, then racists would be robbed of their biggest weapon.

Apart from their actual weapons. Ask a gay kid who has been beaten by a gang of homophobic thugs how meaningless the word 'fag' is. Slurs dont exist in a vacuum, part of their power is in the actions that sometimes back them up- it only takes one out of ten to follow through on the threat to make it real.

The fact that we are having such a deeply moral discussion over such a young medium makes me proud to be alive when video games are evolving.

Reading what the developer said on it, I think this mod shows more then anything the affect media has on our society. They said they built their games based on what the media reported on. Think about that for a moment, everything needed to emulate that event, was gotten from news outlets.

There are always reports of how violent games cause real life violence, but here is an example of how real world sensationalist media caused this mod to be brought into existence. I wish this would help bring to peoples attention that going into graphic detail on acts of mass murder and saturating all news outlets with these events for weeks causes alot more harm then "killing" non-existent people by tapping a button.

In my defense, I had completely forgotten that this game was still... in existence, or whatever it was. It made for an interesting news day when Gret Tito interviewed the guy, but ultimately, I simply moved on. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one.

I blame these three folks for having brought it up again. That's right: I blame Jim, Bob, and James.

Seriously. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. :P

Giest4life:
snip

Which is why said "finely honed blades" and not swords. You may be looking at it just from the Western, European, post Dark Age perspective. Blades (knives and swords) have been used for a wide variety of purposes: surgical equipment, symbol of statues, family artifact, killing, and preparation of food are all included.

I agree, but there's still the problem of symbolism. A knife and a sword have very different implications. One is a tool that can be used as a weapon, the other is weapon and nothing else. Same with guns. Also, there's the a big difference in a guy being in love with guns and the extent that the US is in love with guns. If I came across a guy who was into torture equipment, I'd think it interesting, if macabre. If I came across a country who had a love affair with torture equipment, I'd be severely off-put. The symbolism of the item is everything.

Guns were never made to do anything but kill other humans. They were eventually repurposed to kill animals when they weren't being used to kill people. Using a gun for anything else is inefficient and frankly, stupid. You never saw a country be in love with the bow and arrow the way the US loves its guns and they serve EXACTLY the same purpose (guns are just better at it). I'm not a gun hater, all I'm saying is that when you hold up an item on a pedestal and it's only purpose is suffering, you shouldn't be surprised when people start looking nervous.

another note; games like this are ones people could care less about, and moreover, one were people would take the map for it, and use it for a zombie survive game. GTA is a better game to go on rampages with, because after I rampage I can go off and play the game normal, which still involves shooting at people.

Giest4life:
snip

Unfortunately, stating that necessary evil exists doesn't make it any less evil. I'm neither anti-gun nor anti-war. I understand, accept and even like certain aspects of them (guns ARE pretty f'ing sweet IMO). But even if destruction is required for an act of creation and peace may only be obtainable through violence, this doesn't mean we should hold violence on a pedestal. Guns are the modern personification of violence. Simple, efficient and easy to use. What's not to love? Oh right, the whole violence thing. By glorifying violence, we encourage it. By raising guns to an esteem that is damn near (and sometimes full-on) fetishistic, not on a personal level but on a cultural one, the country gives-off an air of violence to the rest of the world. Which, I don't know if you've heard to rest of world's opinion of the US, is pretty accurate.

this mod still exists?
why? -.- *sighs*

I'm on bobs side here, its got the right to exist, but really shouldn't

also:a some what deeper response:
Jim's argument was amusing, but wrong even putting this on the same level as GTA is laughable, and i hate GTA an game where you 'can' murder innocents, but don't have to is not the same as a game where murdering innocents is all you got, it was made purely to push buttons and should be treated as such IE ignored till it gose away

also2:the me as a gamer response: who'd wanna kill defenseless targets? wheres the fun if they can't fight back, sounds boring to me :p gimme targets that are armed and a dangerous and I'll show you the kinda of 'digital murderer' i am,
(hint:: the kinda that enjoys the glory of battle and the feeling one gets when killing a worthy foe)

JamesBr:

Giest4life:
snip

Which is why said "finely honed blades" and not swords. You may be looking at it just from the Western, European, post Dark Age perspective. Blades (knives and swords) have been used for a wide variety of purposes: surgical equipment, symbol of statues, family artifact, killing, and preparation of food are all included.

I agree, but there's still the problem of symbolism. A knife and a sword have very different implications. One is a tool that can be used as a weapon, the other is weapon and nothing else. Same with guns. Also, there's the a big difference in a guy being in love with guns and the extent that the US is in love with guns. If I came across a guy who was into torture equipment, I'd think it interesting, if macabre. If I came across a country who had a love affair with torture equipment, I'd be severely off-put. The symbolism of the item is everything.

Guns were never made to do anything but kill other humans. They were eventually repurposed to kill animals when they weren't being used to kill people. Using a gun for anything else is inefficient and frankly, stupid. You never saw a country be in love with the bow and arrow the way the US loves its guns and they serve EXACTLY the same purpose (guns are just better at it). I'm not a gun hater, all I'm saying is that when you hold up an item on a pedestal and it's only purpose is suffering, you shouldn't be surprised when people start looking nervous.

I wrote a lengthy response then deleted it when I realized how pointless it was because our difference is metaphysical: you believe in Evil, I don't.

However, if you think the US loves its guns, you have yet to visit the Pathans of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Seriously, I'm not even joking. Secondly, the difference between knives and swords and bows and arrows is purely a Western phenomenon. The Parthians were and the Bantu are positively infatuated with their bows and arrows. While the Sikhs have a very, very different view of swords as opposed to knives.

The world is pretty damn big, there are always exceptions to a rule.

Whenever I had to read the MovieBob parts, my mind just went blah blah blah blah till the end.

Nelson LaQuet:
I wholeheartedly agree with Jim on this one.

Squarez:
This is the point where Jim Sterling officially lost any and all respect from me (his awful, awful show notwithstanding). He argues that the only way to combat offensive content is to just not be offended by it, which is stupid in a plethora of ways. The first being that if this line of thinking continued on it's logical path then we as humans would never be shocked or offended by anything, which would be a. not possible and b. completely stupid. The second and largest logical fallacy in his argument problem is that he implies that people can choose what to be offended by, which just makes me foam at the mouth at how someone can POSSIBLY think that.

Out of this entire post where you repeatedly stated how illogical Jim was being, you make a single coherent (yet, misguided) point: "[...] implies that people can choose what to be offended by [...]"

Jim doesn't _imply_ that. He outright states it as fact. Because it's true. Part of being an adult is having control, or (at the very least) understanding, of your emotions. We learn how we react to things, and we make choices that steer us away from the things we find distasteful. This is a perfectly healthy and natural behavior - I believe that everyone has the right to avoid situations that they feel uncomfortable with.

But let's not loose sight of the fact that the things we find distasteful have the right to exist; given that they do not bring physical harm to a person or a person's property. Some people may in fact enjoy this game, and who are we to not let them? I would stay away from it because it would make me feel uncomfortable. But I am not so consumed by my gut reactions to get up in arms about it. If enough people decide simply to ignore it on the basis that they personally don't find it enjoyable, it will become forgotten.

Uh uh. I'll say the "grown-up" speech doesn't work here. You can control your physical reaction to an emotion as an adult, sure, but you'd be retarding yourself to simply ignore it (there's at least a slight insinuation that this is the choice to make, from both this article and agreeing forum posts).

If you, a perfect stranger, were to call me a nigger in a demeaning fashion, I may not slug you in the face immediately, but I know I, one, would be 1) obviously hurt, from the cultural backlash and retardation from not only my own countryman (assuming I'm in the same country) but of my fellow human being as well, and 2) would not let you near my personal space. As with all cases that are offensive, they attempt to demean the target, regardless if the insult is meant from their core to or just trolling.

Case in point, you can shrug off trolls and offensive shit like this school shooter mod, but I advise you don't think it as "gone". Concerning the mod, while the developers had the right to make it, but it still leaves a bad scent in the air.

Every time I read something by Movie Bob, I just fall even more madly in love with him.

In a strictly professional... ahem... manner, of course.

While Jim isn't without some validity here, I have to side with Bob.

I honestly don't like how "free speech" has become the cover for all sorts of shitheaded behaviour. While once it meant that the government couldn't censor you, it has devloved into not only no one being able to censor you, but not even negativly critique what you say. Freedom of speech is supposed to invoke debate, not stifile it, and it doesn't work when it's one sided. As Samual Johnson Said: Every man has the right to utter what he beleives is the truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it.

So it is with School Shooter. Not exactrly a stylized for art Tarintino film, or a capible yet punishable action like GTA, or making some satiric point like South Park, or even justified somewhat by in game narative like any WW2 game, it seems more and more like it was developed by the kind of person that liked to drop their pants in front of company when they were kids. And with respect to James, as much as I'd like to ignore this behaviour away, this is the internet, where no matter how deparaved your antics, you will find people to support and encourage them.

The game does have the right to exist, and we have the right to not play it, and the right to give the creator a hard time about it. Preferably intelegently as attention seekers thrive on "you suck" e-mails. Jim is right that a lot of outrage does come from a place we don't always get. No one can tell me why Fuck is an offensive word as compared to other terms for the same activity (banging, bopping, boning, screwing, drilling....) so our own case can't be helped by an attitude like the old like "I know it when I see it".

The only real justification for the thing I see is a pornographic level of fantasy bahind the game, but no one wants to say that out loud as people that admit to violent fantasies of that level are usually put on medication or locked up for observation.

Scrumpmonkey:
Bam! suprise jim! And i though i could contain him by just refusing to watch his show.

I think the same thing about MovieBob.

Anywho, Bob's stance is flawed, especially considering he spends so much time talking about the evils of censorship and whatnot. Though I'll (begrudgingly) give him this: he's NOT wrong for disliking the mod, nor is he wrong for thinking it shouldn't be well-received by the gaming public.

I'd like to know what MovieBob's problem is with gun porn. It seems that the people into gun porn aren't interested in shooting people just guns in general. What's the harm in that?

I think Bob and James made good moral arguments, but Jim made the logical one. Yeah, it's probably in poor taste, but I don't think we as a mass culture can make an objective statement about taste without kowtowing to the lowest common denominator. And that gets a bit too close to the blandest-of-the-bland society in Fahrenheit 451.

(And we seriously coddle children these days. Look at an early 80s movie aimed at teens or preteens--like Goonies, Adventures in Babysitting, Gremlins, Labyrinth, Monster Squad, Cloak and Dagger. Could any movie today get away with half of what happens in those films?)

Android2137:
My issue with the mod isn't its existence. It's its reason for being and treatment of the topic it's addressing. I myself have never played GTA or any games like it, but I think the reason why people don't mind killing defenseless NPCs in those games is because there has never been a similar incident in real life (Or at least not to my knowledge. Feel free to correct me.). We're not replicating any real life massacre that we know of or can remember.

You are very wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spree_killers_by_number_of_victims.

Wow look Escapist, people like Jim when he's not making tasteless and over the top jokes to camera! Now I've been able to see his arguments presented without the bad 'humour', he does raise some interesting points. Still, I feel that Moviebob, Yahtzee and the guys over at Extra Credits handle this stuff better.

Just...look, so you wanna make a big thing of Jim, but give him his own column or something, and let me judge him on the merit of his intellectualism and arguments, rather than the vapid 'entertainment' of his videos.

Redd the Sock:
While Jim isn't without some validity here, I have to side with Bob.

I honestly don't like how "free speech" has become the cover for all sorts of shitheaded behaviour.

It isn't, it's just that every time something like this gets made some people will demand it gets banned, and not just a small group of Jack Thompsons. Even on the Escapist some people will say something along the lines of "this crosses the line and needs to be banned". And quite honestly there's a lot more discussion value in debating/yelling at those people then just agreeing with everyone that the game is disgusting.

Redd the Sock:

While once it meant that the government couldn't censor you, it has devloved into not only no one being able to censor you, but not even negativly critique what you say.

Ok we've all seen the cracked list of internet arguments but those guys aside, if people just said "this is disgusting I'm not playing it" nobody will go 'but free speech'.

Redd the Sock:

Freedom of speech is supposed to invoke debate, not stifile it, and it doesn't work when it's one sided. As Samual Johnson Said: Every man has the right to utter what he beleives is the truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it.

If by knock him down you mean criticize/insult someone for it than yeah absolutely. If you mean hit someone then no (I think it's supposed to mean the former but I'm not sure).

Redd the Sock:

So it is with School Shooter. Not exactrly a stylized for art Tarintino film, or a capible yet punishable action like GTA, or making some satiric point like South Park, or even justified somewhat by in game narative like any WW2 game, it seems more and more like it was developed by the kind of person that liked to drop their pants in front of company when they were kids. And with respect to James, as much as I'd like to ignore this behaviour away, this is the internet, where no matter how deparaved your antics, you will find people to support and encourage them.

Yeah but you can still do your part of not giving them free press.

I'd have to say in this dispute, Jim is victorious, James runs a close second, and MovieBob takes massive penalties for being preachy, uptight and having a 'Holier-than-thou' attitude.

I'm just going to echo some comments on Jim's contribution here: no, you're neither as funny nor as shocking as you wish you were. No, racial slurs do not cease to be hurtful or awful if you pretend they are not hurtful or awful. And no, you definitely should not be taking the place of the funnier and more intelligent Yahtzee on this site feature.

And in general, hate speech should not be protected speech. You're not expressing anything except your own ignorance by spreading it.

Giest4life:
snip

I can agree with that, difference in opinion I suppose. I should point out that the only reason I pointed to the US as an example is because (in this case) most video games are made in the US, or at least the gun-porn shooters mostly are. They aren't the only ones who are infatuated with there weapons, but they and their western point-of-view is probably more relevant to a "violence in video games" discussion since that's probably the largest demographic of players, people with western backgrounds and symbols. Not to say it isn't relevant in other cultures, just that the difference in symbolism affects a far smaller number of people.

i usually love this segment of the escapist, but this week was just bland. it is unfortunate that you all had to discuss such an uninteresting topic. although i should say that it is unfortunate that such a topic needed discussion. i look at School Shooter as a sort of necessary evil. without someone pushing the boundary's of bad taste, games will not be taken seriously as an art form. that being said, i find School Shooter as a game to be poorly made. controversial garbage, while somewhat useful, is still garbage.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 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