Triple-A Ain't What it Used to Be

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Triple-A Ain't What it Used to Be

The decline in quality of AAA games has been a gradual process, and it is everybody's fault for letting it happen.

Read Full Article

This has been one of the better articles that I have read in awhile, and while I do enjoy playing Titanfall, I do see the hype around it quickly evaporating among my friends.

"ut I think the larger problem is that the internet has ensured that we receive a constant stream of news about companies being terrible, and then it just becomes white noise. We can't get angry about all of it, so we just accept that this is what they do"

Fucking nailed it!!

I think the future will have different categories of games: those sold entirely on the basis of (empty-)spectacle and then the more layers you add to it like playtime, story, sandbox size, the more categories you will have and therefore different audiences. And I think this will happen regardless of whether the industry heads that way or not; these games will be categorised like that informaly, via web, or other non-standard channels.

There will be games that are set-driven and then there will be better games :>

I'm not guilty of anything since I never buy games at launch, if I think it's good I will wait a few weeks until I know the general opinion.

Sabin Felea:
"ut I think the larger problem is that the internet has ensured that we receive a constant stream of news about companies being terrible, and then it just becomes white noise. We can't get angry about all of it, so we just accept that this is what they do"

Wouldn't that kind of translate to "The problem is the Escapist"?

"AAA" to me means the same thing as "blockbuster": it's massive production costs that may or may not lead to a good game. It's just slang for "we spent so much money on this, and on hyping it, that we can dominate the conversation for a brief period".

sageoftruth:

Sabin Felea:
"But I think the larger problem is that the internet has ensured that we receive a constant stream of news about companies being terrible, and then it just becomes white noise. We can't get angry about all of it, so we just accept that this is what they do"

Wouldn't that kind of translate to "The problem is the Escapist"?

Not necessarily; the Escapist is part of the visible problem, but the issue is rooted in the companies. We expect the Escapist to give us news, even if it isn't actually 'new'; we also expect that companies will change their behaviour when they get bad press that leads to losses. As it is, only the first part of that equation works. Companies often lose money on all but the best-selling AAA games because of the funds they pour into advertising and take away from actually making a good game, but they keep trying the same thing and expecting a different result. Hearing that companies are being terrible has become white noise not just to us, but to the companies themselves.

You're too optimistic Yahtzee. The companies manufacturing the games aren't unreasonably convinced that the game will be good. They don't care. They just need to sell it and will do anything to sell it. Hype, overrate, obfuscate, lie - that's all just marketing. If the marketers could sell you could sell you a literal sh*t in a box and get away with it, they would.

These days, the game industry has very little to do with actual game creation. The only thing left are some young people with big eyes willing (having) to work nonstop crunchtime just to be able to 'work on a game' because they used to thing it's gonna be fun.

Strange how Yahtzee doesn't mention any specifics when AAA games used to be good, probably because then it'd be easy to debunk his argument.

The mainstream blockbuster-like games have always been pretty generic, the great games have for the most parts either had some kind of figurehead looming over it (like Ken Levine, or Tim Schafer), be indie, and therefor extremely cherrypicked, or a company has atleast gone a little outside the extremely standard way of making games.

I don't know, I've always associated AAA with really high budget and marketed games, sort of like blockbuster movies or bestseller books, the most popular generic parts will always be a bit shite, and nothing has changed there since forever, so this complaint just seems a bit silly and I do think Yahtzee might wear a tiny Noastalgia-lens here.

That being said, I'm very happy that Yahtzee is what he is, it's very nice having a good way to filter out most of the crap, even though I do disagree with him among which the top games are, it's nice to have someone to just wipe away all the really ediocre and bad games.

Yahtzee I don't mean to be rude but there is a "Classic" tab underneath Campaign which gives you MORE things to do. Right?

Honestly it's not the "do each mission and mode" that makes it fun. It's the possibilities of approaching each objective/obstacle as to where I get my 60$ worth out of it.

Nothing has felt more rewarding than single handedly taking down a human-controlled Titan as a human myself with nothing but a Side Winder and a few Arc Grenades and the jet pack that allows me to parkour.

This article applies not just to games, but to films, books, TV. Pretty much everything in the arts that is subject to marketing. But business interests are, and have always been, separate from artistic interests. Why should that bother anyone? When you're experienced enough to see through the whole marketing facade, you're probably also mature enough to realise it's a necessary evil. Take that evil away and you've still got your good games being produced, so what difference does it make?

One thing's for sure, I'd say without the modern AAA market Yahtzee wouldn't have a career.

SecretNegative:
Strange how Yahtzee doesn't mention any specifics when AAA games used to be good, probably because then it'd be easy to debunk his argument.

That's what I was thinking.

Triple-A games have been getting ridiculous amounts of hype since the start of the 6th generation (and probably even before that, but at that time I wasn't aware of it). Anyone remember Metal Gear Solid 2? Remember how fucking crazy that shit got (before anyone got exposed to Raiden)?

SecretNegative:
Strange how Yahtzee doesn't mention any specifics when AAA games used to be good, probably because then it'd be easy to debunk his argument.

There have always been stinker games, but there was a time when a particular title was synonymous with "quality".

Need For Speed is a prime example. NFS Underground and NFS Most Wanted were the epitome of the series. Then there came NFS Carbon, NFS Shift, NFS The Drive NFS et cetera. They're all AAA titles, but the latest installments are garbage.

Sabin Felea:
"ut I think the larger problem is that the internet has ensured that we receive a constant stream of news about companies being terrible, and then it just becomes white noise. We can't get angry about all of it, so we just accept that this is what they do"

Fucking nailed it!!

I think the future will have different categories of games: those sold entirely on the basis of (empty-)spectacle and then the more layers you add to it like playtime, story, sandbox size, the more categories you will have and therefore different audiences. And I think this will happen regardless of whether the industry heads that way or not; these games will be categorised like that informaly, via web, or other non-standard channels.

There will be games that are set-driven and then there will be better games :>

It's like that in every other medium. It makes sense that video games will go there eventually.

In movies, you have Michael Bay films, and then you have big summer blockbusters that have substance to go with the style.

In magazines, you have any number of shallow gossip magazines, and then you have Popular Science.

In TV, there's reality TV junk and then there's stuff like Game of Thrones; both shows appeal to the masses taste for backstabbing and sex, but GoT delivers deeper exploration of human motivations and politics to go along with it.

sageoftruth:
[quote="Sabin Felea" post="6.846770.20883903"]"But I think the larger problem is that the internet has ensured that we receive a constant stream of news about companies being terrible, and then it just becomes white noise. We can't get angry about all of it, so we just accept that this is what they do"

This was my favorite part of the article. Maybe I have nostalgia blinders on but before the Ps3 and 360 era whenever there was news about games it was usually new mechanics, something positive, or interesting. Now 95% of the news I see about anything gaming industry related is saying how they were wrong to screw their customers over before they go and do it again, EA doing something stupid again, and the occasional sexism debate.

Gaming news in my opinion has finally caught up to other news outlets where it is all negativity all the time. What this does to gamers is exactly what Yahtzee says. 24/7 negativity has now become white noise to gamers so now no matter how fucked up the game industry treats us, people cant get mad for longer than a day because another company will be fucking them over.

It is utterly disgusting to see those who accepted a big dick in their ass just because someone is lubing up every day to have a go at them.

SecretNegative:
Strange how Yahtzee doesn't mention any specifics when AAA games used to be good, probably because then it'd be easy to debunk his argument.

The mainstream blockbuster-like games have always been pretty generic, the great games have for the most parts either had some kind of figurehead looming over it (like Ken Levine, or Tim Schafer), be indie, and therefor extremely cherrypicked, or a company has atleast gone a little outside the extremely standard way of making games.

I don't know, I've always associated AAA with really high budget and marketed games, sort of like blockbuster movies or bestseller books, the most popular generic parts will always be a bit shite, and nothing has changed there since forever, so this complaint just seems a bit silly and I do think Yahtzee might wear a tiny Noastalgia-lens here.

That being said, I'm very happy that Yahtzee is what he is, it's very nice having a good way to filter out most of the crap, even though I do disagree with him among which the top games are, it's nice to have someone to just wipe away all the really ediocre and bad games.

That time when "AAA" Games were good was known as everything from the NES to the PS2. Sure, titles like Max Payne only innovated one thing (bullet time) but was an enjoyable, solid experience. Vs say, Ass Creed 3

And you can keep your titanfall, I'll be playing Virtual On MARS. Faster mechs, laser swords, the harrowing 3D mega man craziness of the last 2 levels, then the boss fight where you can also mag-lock to the ceiling.

Casual Shinji:

SecretNegative:
Strange how Yahtzee doesn't mention any specifics when AAA games used to be good, probably because then it'd be easy to debunk his argument.

That's what I was thinking.

Triple-A games have been getting ridiculous amounts of hype since the start of the 6th generation (and probably even before that, but at that time I wasn't aware of it). Anyone remember Metal Gear Solid 2? Remember how fucking crazy that shit got (before anyone got exposed to Raiden)?

Games were getting large amounts of hype in the PS1/N64 era and they sometimes actually delivered on it: FF7, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. All games from AAA studios, made with AAA budgets and AAA marketing, but the games were actually good. So if you want a time when AAA games were actually good, that's it.

I'm surprised we don't have a "J.D. Powers and Associates" for video games yet, a company whose only purpose is to give out hundreds of pointless bought awards so that companies can brag about them in their marketing.

MinionJoe:

SecretNegative:
Strange how Yahtzee doesn't mention any specifics when AAA games used to be good, probably because then it'd be easy to debunk his argument.

There have always been stinker games, but there was a time when a particular title was synonymous with "quality".

Need For Speed is a prime example. NFS Underground and NFS Most Wanted were the epitome of the series. Then there came NFS Carbon, NFS Shift, NFS The Drive NFS et cetera. They're all AAA titles, but the latest installments are garbage.

But that's franchises going to shit, not the entire industry.

(In before "The game industry has already gone to shit")

I would agree and disagree.

On the one hand, it's hard to deny that games like Banjo-Tooie have for all intents and purposes disappeared. These days it's very rare to find a game which intertwines its world and various areas to that sort of degree in the effort of making what appears to be a living, breathing world.

But on the other hand, most games of the 80's and 90's were criminally short. Yahtzee should know better than most of us, given his track record of adventure games which he replays for the internet's amusement. Most of those games can clock in under 2 hours, and the only qualifier for it is "if you know what you're doing". Because that's how older games tended to seem like they had more content; They had such a prohibitively high difficulty curve that you could spend days, weeks, even months and never actually complete them. But once you know what to do, you can breeze through most of them in a single session.

The very late 90's/early 00's are a better comparison, because that's when you have the Deus Exes, the Baldur's Gates, the Banjo-Kazooies, but even still it's not as if there were no games made during that time which clocked in with really low average play-times. I don't feel it's a particularly new thing for games to be released with a "smaller" amount of gameplay, and I'm not sure that having less content is inherently a bad thing.

Arguably when the title is still being sold at $60+, it is, and admittedly AAA publishers are too afraid of collapsing to even dare attempting other price models that aren't somehow even more exploitative, but I often find that games which try cramming in tons of extra content to justify their price end up feeling too poorly paced or stuffed with useless filler. Arkham City's sandbox may have been relatively small, but I liked it for that because it felt like I was always making progress in one way or another, whereas in something like Grand Theft Auto or Assassin's Creed or Saints Row: The Third or even Sleeping Dogs, most of the side stuff just feels like they tossed it in because that's what sandbox games are supposed to do.

SecretNegative:

But that's franchises going to shit, not the entire industry.

(In before "The game industry has already gone to shit")

I don't think anyone would say that the entire game industry has gone to shit. There are still good games out there.

The point of the article is that is seems the majority of "AAA-games" are sold on marketing hype while the game itself contains underwhelming content. NFS is a line of games that, IMO, nicely illustrates this decline in big budget games.

That doesn't mean that there aren't good games (both AAA and indie) still being made and enjoyed by dozens of people. :)

Yeah I haven't associated "AAA" with quality in a long long time. It's just a description of budget size. Too bad mid-level development is basically dead so all we have now are tiny Indies and AAA.

And that's why I never buy AAA games until they're >$10 on a steam/gog sale, if I get them at all.

"we feel that we must accept the industry we have been given, out of fear that we will end up with no games at all."

This would explain why so many gamers begin foaming at the mouth any time someone suggests that there should be a bit more diversity in games.

But the real issue is that gamers in general are so easily swayed by advertising. Something is deemed "awesome" by the company that makes it, and suddenly every wants to hop onto the awesome train, so that they can say how much they like the awesome thing. And if anyone suggests that the supposedly awesome thing might not be awesome, they must be shouted down, because liking the awesome thing makes us feel wanted, because we're now part of the awesome group. If that thing isn't really awesome, then maybe we aren't awesome either.

We've basically come to associate AAA to budget. It's either AAA or indie. And now I'm beginning to see a trend to also associate AAA with mechanical stagnation and "indie" with mechanical experimentation. This keeps evolving as time goes by, inevitably.

When companies were able to squeeze decently rendered cut-scenes out of their technology, a big trend (that I can see just now we're beginning to overcome) was to derail games towards the cinematic. This was show-off-y and expensive, which suited big companies because they were the only ones capable of employing this gimmick as a carrot on a stick, marveling gamers with essentially, micro blockbusters peppered through out their video games. Suddenly a game needed a plot and a storyline. And in the most ham-fisted ways, a protagonist and antagonist.

Eventually it got ridiculous and games became a vehicle consisting of unimaginative gameplay and stagnating mechanics with the sole purpose to get us onto the next little vignette. QTE's being a twitchy half-assed compromise to mash gameplay and cinema together.

On the other side, the emerging indie scene, initially, had no such budget, it could not compete in terms of dazzling its audience with cinematic visuals and set pieces that would render limp the most powerful videocards. So they started focusing on gameplay mechanics and cheap aesthetics. We got our first wave of indie games on nostalgia cash-in, pseudo 8-bit, 16-bit graphics and usually based around one single gimmicky mechanic.

This is all evolving right now, as AAA seems to leverage it's economic bicep more towards the multiplayer component and its inherently costly infrastructure. And indie gaming, while struggling to overcome on its retro-aesthetics cliché, is getting a substantial boost from newer more affordable and flexible development technologies, and also its own community of developers.

The line between AAA and indie will continue to blur and both terms, opposing sides of a war, will become meaningless as more and more people are able to access development without the patronage of multi-million dollar corporations. Hopefully it all ends with corporate mandate and "Moneyball" style of development gone forever. Utopia? Pipe dream? A man can only dream. And my dream is that games are made by those who want to make games and want them to be played. Not those interested in streamlining the money milking udder mechanisms.

Guys, this article describes the universe in microcosm. The video game industry is just one more bit of our world that is falling prey to the overriding pattern. The problem Yahtzee points out is not unique; it's a symptom of the gradual entropy of human existence.

We've reached a point, I think, a kind of singularity, where things have become so self-aware and so automatic that people can't keep up anymore. We ALL know that things are not the way they should be. We all KNOW that the world could be a better place if we were just willing to change it. But since the world has become so unimaginably big in our perception, we think there is nothing we can do. And I think we're right.

It's going to be a long, slow, painstaking decline from here. Companies will become more corrupt and lazy. Governments will become more oppressive and obscure, trying to hold ever tighter on events that cannot be controlled. Morals will become more token and hollow. People will become more disinterested, disheartened, and disenfranchised.

This is a very dark thing I'm saying, but I've thought about it a lot. The future I see for our species is not a bright one. I'm not a doomsayer, I don't think the human race is going to destroy itself in some sudden nuclear war or by ruining the planet with climate change. We'll change and adapt to such physical pressures. It's the intangible pressure on our psyches that threatens us. What I foresee is a gradual decline into meaninglessness and misery.

So, have fun while you can, I guess?

TheVampwizimp:
Morals will become more token and hollow. People will become more disinterested, disheartened, and disenfranchised.
So, have fun while you can, I guess?

Cheer up, man. Just because you've thrown in the towel, doesn't mean we've all given up. Courage comes from adversity. Being courageous when all is nice and dandy is not really a challenge. Facing insurmountable odds, that's for the brave.

You know, these days the only games I look forward to seem to be indie games, things that I have kickstarted or by indie companies that I have previously enjoyed games from. I can only think of one AAA game coming out this year that I am probably going to get.

I just don't associate AAA with quality anymore, glad to know I'm not the only one.

I've never really associated AAA with quality, but that's because I'm too young (and at the same time out dated) to have looked into it much. I had a PlayStation 1 as my first console about four years after the PlayStation 2 came out and my PC gaming habits were mostly just games my Dad liked playing (WW2 shooters of the early 00s). I do find it weird that no example is given for their quality though, was Resident Evil 4 a AAA game, Half-Life, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time?

Nowadays AAA just seems to equal the amount of money flung into it. If "A" meant good, what did "AA" mean?

GAunderrated:

sageoftruth:
[quote="Sabin Felea" post="6.846770.20883903"]"But I think the larger problem is that the internet has ensured that we receive a constant stream of news about companies being terrible, and then it just becomes white noise. We can't get angry about all of it, so we just accept that this is what they do"

This was my favorite part of the article. Maybe I have nostalgia blinders on but before the Ps3 and 360 era whenever there was news about games it was usually new mechanics, something positive, or interesting. Now 95% of the news I see about anything gaming industry related is saying how they were wrong to screw their customers over before they go and do it again, EA doing something stupid again, and the occasional sexism debate.

Gaming news in my opinion has finally caught up to other news outlets where it is all negativity all the time. What this does to gamers is exactly what Yahtzee says. 24/7 negativity has now become white noise to gamers so now no matter how fucked up the game industry treats us, people cant get mad for longer than a day because another company will be fucking them over.

It is utterly disgusting to see those who accepted a big dick in their ass just because someone is lubing up every day to have a go at them.

Shoot! I really messed up that post. It looks like I hijacked someone else's post. Sorry about that.

hawk533:

Casual Shinji:
That's what I was thinking.

Triple-A games have been getting ridiculous amounts of hype since the start of the 6th generation (and probably even before that, but at that time I wasn't aware of it). Anyone remember Metal Gear Solid 2? Remember how fucking crazy that shit got (before anyone got exposed to Raiden)?

Games were getting large amounts of hype in the PS1/N64 era and they sometimes actually delivered on it: FF7, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. All games from AAA studios, made with AAA budgets and AAA marketing, but the games were actually good. So if you want a time when AAA games were actually good, that's it.

What, and they're not now?

"Gameplay times are shorter. Content is lesser. Sandboxes are smaller."

Y'know, I don't really agree that sheer volume of content is equivalent to quality. Otherwise Skyrim would be the epitome of gaming quality, and...well...it isn't. Of course I would rather that things be more organic, but let's think about context here. Linear design/setpieces don't serve some genres well, but others wouldn't exist without them. Down to tastes, I suppose, and a certain lack of diversity in the higher tiers of game development.

I 'unno, ever since I've been hearing the term 'AAA', I've only ever associated that with either long-established companies and publishers or budget and size of the team. Creating what is essentially an abstract genre to describe quality seems absurd.

Thunderous Cacophony:
"AAA" to me means the same thing as "blockbuster": it's massive production costs that may or may not lead to a good game. It's just slang for "we spent so much money on this, and on hyping it, that we can dominate the conversation for a brief period".

[

Yep, another instance in the gaming community where a label is completely misleading. If something can be labeled 'AAA', then that should indicate that there are tiers below it. But the marketers aren't going to want to here anything about it, and the more embarrassing elements of the gaming community would throw a hissy fit if you suggested their games were less than AAA.

Because clearly there are games at the top, with 10+ million sales like GTA, Call of Duty, Halo, etc. Other much beloved serious like Mass Effect or The Elder Scolls might fall into AA status. Personally I think we would be better off if this were the case. Too often in their homogenization of everything the big publishers look at these second tier and below games and say 'what elements can we add or design choices can we make to make them more appealing to the larger AAA crowd'. What's overlooked is the fact that this larger audience may not care about the core value of the game, in the case of Bioware that would be a lengthy story driven campaign and deeper character interaction, and they don't ask 'what's the best design choices for the audience of the core game principle?' And then you end up with messes like Dragon Age 2 or Resident Evil 6.

Yhatzee:
Gameplay times are shorter. Content is lesser. Sandboxes are smaller.

I didn't really agree with a lot of this article, but this was the bit that seemed most egregiously wrong to me. Assassins Creed 4 was small? Arkham Origins was smaller than the previous game? There was less content in Far Cry 3? Skyrim was just too damn short?

A lot of measures of quality are subjective, but to say that AAA sandboxes are getting smaller is just an outright lie.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
New games psychotically play up the shiny spectacle for the sake of trailers and being intriguing at the single-glance level, while the actual gameplay being offered is being systematically reduced. Gameplay times are shorter. Content is lesser. Sandboxes are smaller. Levels are more linear and set piece-driven. This is all the shit that matters to me about games, the shit that used to be sacred.

Those are the reasons why I've all but stepped away from AAA productions and that was after years of criticizing and complaining. Eventually, I just stopped buying their dross altogether, because it was a waste of time and money.

All of those were the result of the industry changing its goals from "make games, make money" to "make glossy blockbusters, make bigger amounts of money". Smaller productions were confined by budget, and were forced to innovate if they were to ever rise above mediocrity.

At the time of this post, I have FTL: Advanced Edition running, and am soon approaching 100 hours total time (so sayeth Steam anyway); a game I spent 15 bucks on in late 2012.

15 bucks would get me maybe a new mission about 1-3 hours long and a few guns from most AAA games.

Like I said, this is nothing that hasn't been more or less understood and accepted for a long time. But acceptance is part of the problem. We accept, and roll our eyes and mutter gravely about the soullessness of the whole over-moneyed business. We regard it the way we regard our dog wiping its bumhole along the carpet - not much more than an irritating inevitability of having a dog with an itchy bumhole. And by writing it off as an inevitability, we simultaneously absolve ourselves - there's nothing we can do, we are but helpless victims of the itchy bumhole fairy. Some time ago, perhaps we would've slung the dog out, or at the very least shampooed the carpets, but the itchy bumhole has always returned with such persistence that we just can't summon the energy anymore. And so our carpets just get bummier and bummier.

It's the height of insanity to keep supporting someone who has no interest in listening to you.

When someone burns a bridge with you, you do not ask to rent their boat. You walk away.
Yet, the greater market seems irate enough to whine, but too complacent to do the right thing.

Personally, I stopped buying into AAA's bullshit years ago.
(I can count on one hand the number of AAA titles I've willingly, personally purchased in the last 4 years. Usually no more than 1 per year, if any.)

This article pretty much sums up why I can't get into the hype around new Triple A's. I'm more excited about Goat Simulator than Titanfall. Please let the gravity of that statement settle in. Goat Simulator is a game (barely) that has had very little advertising or hype. I've only heard about it because of this site pretty much. But Titanfall? There's a countdown on my Xbox live home screen for it. And I could care less about it. I know the name but I'll never buy it probably unless it dips to $10 and I know I can have fun playing single player. Well written article, I whole-heartedly agree with this.

TheVampwizimp:
Guys, this article describes the universe in microcosm. The video game industry is just one more bit of our world that is falling prey to the overriding pattern. The problem Yahtzee points out is not unique; it's a symptom of the gradual entropy of human existence.

We've reached a point, I think, a kind of singularity, where things have become so self-aware and so automatic that people can't keep up anymore. We ALL know that things are not the way they should be. We all KNOW that the world could be a better place if we were just willing to change it. But since the world has become so unimaginably big in our perception, we think there is nothing we can do. And I think we're right.

It's going to be a long, slow, painstaking decline from here. Companies will become more corrupt and lazy. Governments will become more oppressive and obscure, trying to hold ever tighter on events that cannot be controlled. Morals will become more token and hollow. People will become more disinterested, disheartened, and disenfranchised.

This is a very dark thing I'm saying, but I've thought about it a lot. The future I see for our species is not a bright one. I'm not a doomsayer, I don't think the human race is going to destroy itself in some sudden nuclear war or by ruining the planet with climate change. We'll change and adapt to such physical pressures. It's the intangible pressure on our psyches that threatens us. What I foresee is a gradual decline into meaninglessness and misery.

So, have fun while you can, I guess?

Oh please, go angst and feel superior over the rest of the human race somewhere else, people have been talking about "moral decline" for more than 3000 fucking years. In fact, you can directly copy this text into ancient Greece and people there wouldn't batch an eye. They'd probably still want to call you a whiner though.

And no, this lifetime, this generation if you will is not some kind of special treadmark for the doom of humanity, this little time we're living right now will die out. We'll all die and humanity will move on, that's a fact. Now, you can either angst about it, or you can feel happy that you've actually got a chance to properly live a life in such a fantastic lifetime as this.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 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