Tomb Raider Writer Halved Lara's Kills For Narrative's Sake Update: No, She Didn't

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Tomb Raider Writer Halved Lara's Kills For Narrative's Sake Update: No, She Didn't

image

Update: This article was based on an apparent error in transcription, which has since been corrected in the source. The original interview stated "halve the first death count," which should have read "have the first death count."

"It's very difficult to keep that good affable character when they're having to slaughter loads of people," says Rhianna Pratchett, writer of Tomb Raider and crafter of the current Lara Croft, one of gaming's more bloodthirsty protagonists. "But what we tried to do with Lara," Pratchett goes on to say, "was at least halve the first death count," in an attempt to balance narrative needs against the action-oriented demands of gameplay.

There's only so far a writer can go down that road, particularly in a game like Tomb Raider, where the combat is one of the main draws. "I'd say from a narrative perspective, we would have liked the ramp-up to be a bit slower," Pratchett says "[But] when players get a gun, they generally want to use the gun." That was why Lara spent so much time, in-game, unarmed, and why, after that, Lara still had to make do with the bow for a while before getting her hands on a firearm. Narrative demanded that restraint; but gameplay demands action, and that means a rapid increase in the body count as soon as Lara gets her hands on a firearm.

"Narrative can't always win," Pratchett admits. "[S]ometimes combat, or gameplay or whatever, has to win out." Pratchett hopes that games will start to focus more on character and characterization in the years to come, describing it as an "undercooked" area of game development. She knows there's no magic bullet but hopes that, with time and perhaps also with shifting perceptions of what a character can or ought to be, character - and with it, narrative - will become more of a focus in gaming.

Source: Kill Screen Daily

Permalink

You could have introduced a survivor nourishment mechanic so some kills would at least have been necessary for the narrative to continue. Or not left all the original ammo lying around.

VINDICATION!

Vin-Dee-Cay-Shun!

At least she's aware of it. Personally I wouldn't having minded going a lot longer without killing. However, I don't know how much I represent the typical gamer.

On the other hand, the combat was very fun. The second firefight in the shanty town was a stand out.

Nevermind that, the writer is called "Rhianna Pratchett". That is much more of a videogamey name than the actual character has.

Oh, cap is "good samaritan", same as last time, except less blurry this time

i actually would not have minded going a lot longer without guns, i love the bow in this game(despite hating it in all the other games it showed up recently).

And there lies the problem with Tomb Raider and the problem with 90% of the gaming industry;

You are trying to fit some sort of survival character driven narrative on an action game template. No matter how much you tweak it, it will jar.

The most famous games don't suffer from this, the settings and game mechanics are made side by side and fully thought through.
The first 3 Tomb Raiders are an example of this, ico, shadow of the colossus, dark souls, portal, zelda, mario, thief, hitman 1-4, and to a lesser extent even games like Halo- (shields regenerating fits the setting).

The original Tomb Raider, the classic 1996 game, you know what Lara Croft's body count was in that game? 50? 100? 1'000??!

Six

Yes, only six people does Lara actively kill. The games don't have a lot of combat and most of that is with wild animals or monster but not "people" per se. Each of them was named as a distinct character even:

Larson Conway
Pierre Dupont
The Cowboy
Jerome "The Kid" Johnson
"Kold" Kin Kade
then Jacqueline Natla

particularly in a game like Tomb Raider, where the combat is one of the main draws.

Wasn't the case for the original Tomb Raider.

Which is why I'm going to be skipping this reboot. Games didn't used to need this. So many levels in the original Tomb Raider series Lara has either lost her guns, hasn't gotten them yet, or cannot use them.

Now I like shooting people in the face as much as the next man, but that wasn't Tomb Raider's bag, baby. It was about solving a puzzle of the environment and the MOOD set by the environment, the feeling of isolation and almost survival horror level of tension sometimes.

This is the soundtrack as swimming around a capsized ship. You have to make decision like diving into water filled with hungry sharks and recover a solve a key puzzle at the same time.

Puzzles weren't obtuse "here is a gigantic puzzle box" they were navigation puzzles, formed naturally in the environment, not arbitrary combination of cogs or something like you get in Uncharted.

I think the original Tomb Raider did a better job than this reboot did at getting to the goal this writer describes.

All due respect Ms. Pratchett... huge fan of your dad's, love Discworld, and I'm well aware you're bringing the City Watch on the small screen. I will be religiously watching that show, believe you me. But, this being said, I'm going to have to call bullshit. There are ways you could have accomplished your goal without sacrificing gameplay or narrative. Some of the greatest games of all time are able to marry the two harmoniously, with each complimenting the other.

Take Spec Ops The Line, for instance. As the narrative progresses, as Captain Walker's sanity dwindles and his own soul spirals downwards into a damnation of his own making, the gameplay gradually comes to reflect this. His takedowns, which at the beginning were silent and professional, become more brutal, sadistic and barbaric. Near the end, he outright screams like a barbarian and throws any of that professionalism out the window as he just beats a man to death.

Or how about Shadow of the Colossus? By keeping the narrative minimalistic and driven by action and implication, we see how Wander is losing his own humanity in the pursuit of his quest. Each time he slays a colossus, his appearance becomes more haggard, more disheveled, and by the end of the game he's lost all trace of his earlier bishonen good looks. While there's no other way of advancing through the narrative without taking on the colossi, by simply framing the deaths of each beast in a certain way, we see the real context is that of a complete tragedy.

I can go on. Silent Hill 2, Deus Ex, Persona 4, Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne, either Portal, and so on so forth.

If you wanted to minimize Lara's need to murder people, you could have taken the Metro 2033 approach and make bullets scarce. You could have added more emphasis on stealth, Thief-it up a bit. Or how about taking the Far Cry 3 route and have Lara wrestling with the startling revelation she seems to have a great gift at mass murder? That would have added something to her character arc.

The point is, there could have been other ways of going about it.

Treblaine:

particularly in a game like Tomb Raider, where the combat is one of the main draws.

Wasn't the case for the original Tomb Raider.

Thing is their logic is its a reboot to bring Lara to the current "popular" demographic. I genuinely think that if they had stuck to the traditional formula it wouldn't have sold nearly as well.

Maybe if more time was devoted to puzzles and platforming, not having so many gunfights or other such encounters, then the kills would have had more meaning.

i do agree that this game had too much action for my liking. yes, i like a good action game and shoot down tones of bad guys but this doenst really fit in a TR game.
many people in the TR forum also wanted less action and more exploration and surviving the environment. but yet, they still enjoyed the game.
i still think they did a good job explaining the character as such, but it could have dealt with less action. keep it at least for the end, this could have worked.

I think there's a typo in the source article. "Halve the first death count," should probably be, "Have the first death count." Especially if you look at the context, it seems to make more sense that way.

Treblaine:
TLDR #YOLO

PFFFT.

Get with the times grandpa. You seriously want me to sit there and have to think and explore when I play a video game? Where's the fun in that? What if I can't figure it out and get frustrated?

You probably just need to take off your nostalgia goggles.

To be honest, I actually think playing someone inexperienced in killing people could be an interesting game mechanic. It would be interesting if the game would consider self-preservation instinct and getting used to killing.

For example, Lara would not be able to aim properly in the beginning, trying to prevent killing other living beings. When her life is threatened however (wolves in clear sight, enemy firing at her or chasing her), her aim would get steadier and she would be faster in reloading and so forth.

This would force the player, especially in the beginning, to let the enemy have the first shot, to hesitate, like someone not used to killing would, thus making the whole survival theme more apparent. Eventually, depending on how many kills she actually carried out, Lara would slowly become the jaded killer she is known as.

I'm always surprised that game designers don't work closer with the story writers in developing interesting game mechanics that are both thematic and challenging.

Karloff:
But, Rhianna Pratchett admits, there's only so much not-killing a combat heavy game can take.

*Spits feathers*

But... but this shouldn't have been a combat heavy game! If you're rebuilding the franchise from the ground up, why would you turn it into a third person cover shooter and then tack on a survival storyline? That makes no sense at all. Crystal Dynamics had a chance to make something new and interesting. Instead we get Uncharted minus the charm and personality.

Tomb Raider is about raiding tombs, that's all I wanted. Getting to see some development and character for Ms. Croft was going to be a brilliant bonus on top of that; I'm all about story and character development. But instead the whole thing came off as a bit of a failure.

It makes me wonder though, what would Pratchett's story have been like without the constraints of gameplay?

Treblaine:
Snip

I think I love you.

But seriously, you're completely right. I'm not sure why Tomb Raider 2013's huge narrative/gameplay disconnect keeps getting this free pass from people who simply say: "Well you've got to get the gameplay in somewhere!" Yeah, gameplay, as in exploration and puzzle solving. Not a John McClane style killing spree through a jungle!

Also, those people who say that the "tombs" in this game are a nice homage because the originals were too complex are complete idiots. I don't play an RTS and then complain for it to be changed simply because I don't have a knack for strategy. God damn, I hate this dumbing down for the masses. Very soon all our games will be indistinguishable from one another.

Proverbial Jon:

But seriously, you're completely right. I'm not sure why Tomb Raider 2013's huge narrative/gameplay disconnect keeps getting this free pass from people who simply say: "Well you've got to get the gameplay in somewhere!" Yeah, gameplay, as in exploration and puzzle solving. Not a John McClane style killing spree through a jungle!

Also, those people who say that the "tombs" in this game are a nice homage because the originals were too complex are complete idiots. I don't play an RTS and then complain for it to be changed simply because I don't have a knack for strategy. God damn, I hate this dumbing down for the masses. Very soon all our games will be indistinguishable from one another.

Well, they kind of aimed for more of a "survival horror" angle than the "Indiana Jones" perspective of the old games. The problem is that they essentially kept the old mechanics in place and lifted some changes wholesale from the current genre reference - Dead Space.

Problem with that: the Dead Space main character is NOT Lara Croft. There is so much more they could do with the different perspective here. If they had put some effort in synchronizing gameplay and story instead of treating them separately like they did, this game could smell much less of "been there, done that"..

As I've been saying, this disconnect smacks of trying to have one's cake and eat it. These comments just confirm it. They wanted all the cred that comes from a gritty survival storyline without having to bother working it into the mechanics properly, and the game will suffer for it.

Monsterfurby:
Well, they kind of aimed for more of a "survival horror" angle than the "Indiana Jones" perspective of the old games. The problem is that they essentially kept the old mechanics in place and lifted some changes wholesale from the current genre reference - Dead Space.

Problem with that: the Dead Space main character is NOT Lara Croft. There is so much more they could do with the different perspective here. If they had put some effort in synchronizing gameplay and story instead of treating them separately like they did, this game could smell much less of "been there, done that"..

They may have aimed for "survival horror" but it was a swing and a miss. If "survival" is about living through a hectic gun fight, then pretty much every game made is a survival game. It's like Roleplaying Games, you play "roles" in every game but it doesn't make every game an RPG, there are certain markers you need to be hitting to be in a specific genre. Tomb Raider 2013 is no more about survival than Duke Nukem is about the virtue of sexual abstinence.

There was a lot more they could have done with this game, as you rightly say. It just pains me to see yet another beloved franchise succumb to the same fate as so many other rebooted games.

Too bad it isn't the other Pratchett. I'd love to see Lara switched out with Angua.

Good pr to blame us blood thirsty gamers... i only killed 30 or so crabs... i was hungery ok :P but its true componies wanting the triple A games seem to need them guns. We can hope for a more restrained future(in many walks of life) and more peaceful solutions(also in many walks of life).

I feel like fewer kills would be a good idea in a lot of games. Red Dead Redemption, for example, would have been much better if you didn't kill hundreds of men in the progress of the story.

Proverbial Jon:

*Spits feathers*

But... but this shouldn't have been a combat heavy game! If you're rebuilding the franchise from the ground up, why would you turn it into a third person cover shooter and then tack on a survival storyline? That makes no sense at all. Crystal Dynamics had a chance to make something new and interesting. Instead we get Uncharted minus the charm and personality.

Tomb Raider is about raiding tombs, that's all I wanted. Getting to see some development and character for Ms. Croft was going to be a brilliant bonus on top of that; I'm all about story and character development. But instead the whole thing came off as a bit of a failure.

It makes me wonder though, what would Pratchett's story have been like without the constraints of gameplay?

Crystal Dynamics did make something new and interesting. They managed to breathe life back into a franchise that, let's be honest now, hasn't exactly been relevant in the game industry for a while now. Oh sure there were Tomb Raider games but the series had kind fallen out of the spotlight by the mid 2000s.

Does the combat feel kind of like Uncharted? Sure, but you have to remember that you don't fix what isn't broke. Uncharted's combat system was actually good so them using a similar system is a plus in my book.

As for the story I found Tomb Raider to have one of the better stories I have seen in a game in the last couple of years. I thoroughly enjoyed the mystery behind the island and all the hidden documents that expanded on the story of the island were great and worth my time in finding. I honestly can't wait to see what other kind of supernatural stuff they use if they explore another culture's mythology and history.

Could there have been a better focus on raiding tombs? Sure. Could the tombs that were available have been made a bit more expansive? Absolutely. That is perhaps my only complaint about this game is that the tombs aren't expansive enough. I am willing to accept the fact that this is first and foremost an origin story. This is about how she eventually becomes a Tomb Raiding badass, solving the world's mysteries. I have a strong feeling that the next installment in this new series will have a stronger focus on raiding tombs while still maintaining the satisfying combat, explorations and story.

Edit: While I can see why people find it strange that she goes from crying her eyes out and having killed a fellow human being to brazenly killing them by the dozen, I don't see it as that big of an issue. Let's be real here, yeah you'd probably be fucking upset and having to kill people. I know I would. But it's either fight back and not have them kill you or stand there and let them unload into you with an assault rifle.

Sometimes survival takes precedence over morality. If guys are trying to actively kill me I would at least try and fight back. I would probably fail but I wouldn't let them kill me because it'd make me feel upset. There is only so much one person can take before they've had enough.

Well if you didn't try to stuff your Hollywood story under another IP you might be able to do the gameplay and story properly, but as you did this ended up being two disconnected games.

The really strange thing is none of the previous Tomb Raiders had this much slaughter in them, so I doubt you really tried on that front.

DVS BSTrD:
You could have introduced a survivor nourishment mechanic so some kills would at least have been necessary for the narrative to continue. Or not left all the original ammo lying around.

You could just combine "survivor", "shooting people" and the "loss of humanity" plot points and make Lara Croft a remorseless cannibal.

Yeah, too bad that your writing didn't account for Lara Croft murdering everyone she ever met, maybe next time you go take a look at the gameplay beforehand.

Jorec:
Crystal Dynamics did make something new and interesting. They managed to breathe life back into a franchise that, let's be honest now, hasn't exactly been relevant in the game industry for a while now. Oh sure there were Tomb Raider games but the series had kind fallen out of the spotlight by the mid 2000s.

Does the combat feel kind of like Uncharted? Sure, but you have to remember that you don't fix what isn't broke. Uncharted's combat system was actually good so them using a similar system is a plus in my book.

As for the story I found Tomb Raider to have one of the better stories I have seen in a game in the last couple of years. I thoroughly enjoyed the mystery behind the island and all the hidden documents that expanded on the story of the island were great and worth my time in finding. I honestly can't wait to see what other kind of supernatural stuff they use if they explore another culture's mythology and history.

Could there have been a better focus on raiding tombs? Sure. Could the tombs that were available have been made a bit more expansive? Absolutely. That is perhaps my only complaint about this game is that the tombs aren't expansive enough. I am willing to accept the fact that this is first and foremost an origin story. This is about how she became that Tomb Raiding badass we all came to know and love in 1996. I have a strong feeling that the next installment in this new series will have a stronger focus on raiding tombs while still maintaining the satisfying combat, explorations and story.

The way I see it, they didn't fail at making a good game; they failed at making a game worthy of the Tomb Raider moniker.

This is about how she became that Tomb Raiding badass we all came to know and love in 1996.

This is more than just an origin story; it's a full-on franchise reboot. So you can forget the past 16 years of Tomb Raider games because this one renders them moot. That Lara has gone. For all we know this might be the Lara we are going to have to love now. No more tombs, no more puzzle solving. It's all set pieces, constant head-shots and press X to not die.

If that's where the franchise is headed, then I'm out. It's not a "rage quit" moment, I'm not throwing my toys out of my entitlement pram, I'm simply stating that this franchise no longer has the elements that made me love it back in the day. I'm not going to feed Crystal Dynamics money simply out of misplaced loyalty for something that once was and no longer is.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Proverbial Jon:

Jorec:
This is about how she became that Tomb Raiding badass we all came to know and love in 1996.

This is more than just an origin story; it's a full-on franchise reboot. So you can forget the past 16 years of Tomb Raider games because this one renders them moot. That Lara has gone. For all we know this might be the Lara we are going to have to love now. No more tombs, no more puzzle solving. It's all set pieces, constant head-shots and press X to not die.

If that's where the franchise is headed, then I'm out. It's not a "rage quit" moment, I'm not throwing my toys out of my entitlement pram, I'm simply stating that this franchise no longer has the elements that made me love it back in the day. I'm not going to feed Crystal Dynamics money simply out of misplaced loyalty for something that once was and no longer is.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

I just realized that was not what I meant. I mean that this story was how she evolved into a Tomb Raiding badass. Not the original Lara no, that would be silly.

Maybe they like, didn't need to make it a 3rd person action game? It's basically like every single other game. You fight like 3 enemies at a time in super slow paced combat because consoles can't handle more, you have a crafting mechanic, the new default "go to" for all AAA games. You have stupid collectables and you just follow a linear shooting gallery with some story segments, and OPTIONAL TOMB RAIDING.

Meh, good enough excuse for me.

I loved this game, turned out to be everything I hoped it was after all--Resident Evil 4 meets Uncharted.

I wish she hadn't moaned and whined so much the first two hours, though, I was starting to wish she'd grow beard stubble and put on a french sweater. Boobs coulda stayed.

Interesting thought - Die Hard is a classic violent action movie. John McClane's final kill count at the end of it? Ten.

I'd like to think that action games in the future, through better AI and clever design, could replicate something like Die Hard, where each individual enemy presents a unique challenge, the action enhances the narrative, and the narrative enhances the action.

Probably not easy to do, though.

Wait, the main draw is combat? I thought the main draws were exploration and puzzle solving. They certainly were in the original. Let's kill more bears and wolves, and fewer people.

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. Tomb Raider's main combat responsibility is to make PETA angry. They don't give two shits about humans, just animals.

Well despite that I still felt like game was too combat heavy and that it switched to full-blown action game rather abruptly. I played it on hard and it kept feeding me ammo and weapons which, combined with precision of PC controls practically destroyed all challenge and created that jarring distinction between player's skill and what Lara can actually do in cutscenes.
I would have respected developers a lot more if they emphasised survival aspect, limited the amount of ammo pickups, added some kind of nourishment mechanics, put more thought into skill trees and characterization and maybe accomodate those players who just want to sneak through level killing as fewer enemies as possible. This way it's just an average third person shooter.

Jorec:

Proverbial Jon:

*Spits feathers*

But... but this shouldn't have been a combat heavy game! If you're rebuilding the franchise from the ground up, why would you turn it into a third person cover shooter and then tack on a survival storyline? That makes no sense at all. Crystal Dynamics had a chance to make something new and interesting. Instead we get Uncharted minus the charm and personality.

Tomb Raider is about raiding tombs, that's all I wanted. Getting to see some development and character for Ms. Croft was going to be a brilliant bonus on top of that; I'm all about story and character development. But instead the whole thing came off as a bit of a failure.

It makes me wonder though, what would Pratchett's story have been like without the constraints of gameplay?

Crystal Dynamics did make something new and interesting. They managed to breathe life back into a franchise that, let's be honest now, hasn't exactly been relevant in the game industry for a while now. Oh sure there were Tomb Raider games but the series had kind fallen out of the spotlight by the mid 2000s.

Does the combat feel kind of like Uncharted? Sure, but you have to remember that you don't fix what isn't broke. Uncharted's combat system was actually good so them using a similar system is a plus in my book.

As for the story I found Tomb Raider to have one of the better stories I have seen in a game in the last couple of years. I thoroughly enjoyed the mystery behind the island and all the hidden documents that expanded on the story of the island were great and worth my time in finding. I honestly can't wait to see what other kind of supernatural stuff they use if they explore another culture's mythology and history.

Could there have been a better focus on raiding tombs? Sure. Could the tombs that were available have been made a bit more expansive? Absolutely. That is perhaps my only complaint about this game is that the tombs aren't expansive enough. I am willing to accept the fact that this is first and foremost an origin story. This is about how she eventually becomes a Tomb Raiding badass, solving the world's mysteries. I have a strong feeling that the next installment in this new series will have a stronger focus on raiding tombs while still maintaining the satisfying combat, explorations and story.

Edit: While I can see why people find it strange that she goes from crying her eyes out and having killed a fellow human being to brazenly killing them by the dozen, I don't see it as that big of an issue. Let's be real here, yeah you'd probably be fucking upset and having to kill people. I know I would. But it's either fight back and not have them kill you or stand there and let them unload into you with an assault rifle.

Sometimes survival takes precedence over morality. If guys are trying to actively kill me I would at least try and fight back. I would probably fail but I wouldn't let them kill me because it'd make me feel upset. There is only so much one person can take before they've had enough.

Couldn't agree more. With all this discussion around the franchise and Lara's character, we forget that she is essentially by nature a tough, strong willed character. She doesn't like killing, she isn't a sociopath. But when pushed into a position that means either her life or the lives of her friends, she's going to throw the first punch. This topic is exactly why this franchise in my opinion desperately needed a reboot. When people here and other places are talking about what they enjoyed about the franchise, they're not even talking about the games released this millennium. They're only talking about what the first game did. Whatever the original Lara Croft or Tomb Raider became, it seems no one identifies with either anymore or haven't in a long time. What I also liked about this reboot is that when Lara kills, it doesn't just go unnoticed. Not by Lara, Roth, the mercenaries, etc. It's actually addressed. The average third person shooter doesn't do that.

In turn, I also have a feeling that the next game with involve more puzzle solving. When the game ended, Lara wasn't talking about finding more men to kill, she was looking through her book full of archeological locations, information and facts. This was an origin story. It was about how Lara would become everything the original was. A smart, resourceful, confident, tough, strong willed survivor.

Dear Miss Pratchett,
dear Square Enix,

did you understand / grasp AYNTHING of what Tomb Raider 1,2,3,4,5 and Underworld was about?

This is exactly why I'm still a bit skeptical about the new Thief "reboot" (I'm still pissed at the notion that it's going to be a reboot... Deus Ex: HR, Fallout 3 & NV aren't reboots, goddamit!), although Eidos Montreal swears it'll retain that classic hardcore feeling of the older titles, I'm wondering how far could they go this route without sorting to appeal to "modern audiences".

IronMit:
And there lies the problem with Tomb Raider and the problem with 90% of the gaming industry;

You are trying to fit some sort of survival character driven narrative on an action game template. No matter how much you tweak it, it will jar.

The most famous games don't suffer from this, the settings and game mechanics are made side by side and fully thought through.
The first 3 Tomb Raiders are an example of this, ico, shadow of the colossus, dark souls, portal, zelda, mario, thief, hitman 1-4, and to a lesser extent even games like Halo- (shields regenerating fits the setting).

It's a strange disconnect, you wonder why they try to force these things together.

Are they making such an action focused game because they feel obliged to? Publisher pressure?

I get it that guns feature heavily in Tomb Raider marketing, but is that their basis? Are they trying to revive Tomb Raider for the people who enjoyed the games... or for the people who enjoyed the advertising?

Fasckira:

Treblaine:

particularly in a game like Tomb Raider, where the combat is one of the main draws.

Wasn't the case for the original Tomb Raider.

Thing is their logic is its a reboot to bring Lara to the current "popular" demographic. I genuinely think that if they had stuck to the traditional formula it wouldn't have sold nearly as well.

Well they are trying to have it both ways then, they want an action backed killing-is-fun shooter because shooters are popular, yet also want elements of story that clash with that.

If they knew the traditional formula wouldn't sell well... why are they using the Tomb Raider licence? Why were they using the licence?

In later Tomb Raider games, Lara's kill-count got pretty high, but rarely was she doing things like silent takedowns sneaking up behind unaware people and silently throttling them, she was reacting very much in self-defence to an immediate threat. Things like sneaking around and shooting them through the back of a cranium with a bow and arrow, that's pretty cold-blooded and ruthless. It's something the classic Lara would be more likely to do than this young unsure reboot.

PS; I don't think the survival aspect matters much. You don't need to eat that much every day, water would be the main thing you need for such an active game over a relatively short game. And really do we need to cover every bodily function? We don't need a peeing and pooping mechanic as in "I can't take this jump till I've taken a dump... oh no, I caced myself, now they can all smell me"

 Pages 1 2 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