• 20Aug 08

  Too Human reviews and other stuff.

  So the topic of the hour is Too Human, the most polarising game ever. At the time of writing (12:26 pm GMT, 20th August) it has a 69% average on Gamerankings. There's a few things about this situation which don't sit well with me.

  A sizeable portion of the Too Human reviews have been terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. They have shown an overall poor quality of writing, been full of factual inaccuracies and double standards. Look at the 1Up review:

  It wasn't even constructed as a review - The 1Up review read like an angry fanboy's blog post; it started out with an introductory paragraph which didn't function as an introduction. It was a paragraph about the game being a poor role playing game; how does that outline the purpose of the article? Anybody who has even the most basic grasp of writing knows that a good introduction is key; it tells the reader what your article is about.

  We then have the conclusion. Much like the introduction, or lack thereof, this conclusion wasn't a conclusion; it was just another paragraph. It also ended out of nowhere. When you read that review, did you look for page 2? I sure as hell did. A conclusion is meant to summarise your article without introducing any new points, but what did this do? It didn't summarise a damn thing and it introduced a new point (which is also a double standard, more on that in a second).

  We then have the body of the text, which was full of A) inaccuracies, B) bias and C) lofty unsubstantiated claims. The reviewer simply attacks every aspect of the game without fait, but doesn't back anything up. "Enemies attack with a rushing horde mentality" - they don't even do that in the demo. "The differences become less substantial" - how? "The story is rudimentary" - what makes it rudimentary? He fails to mention the advanced enemies, advanced controls, the 2nd skill tree, the Too Human dynamic, anything about the story, sound, visuals, voice acting, replay value. If you write a paper in University that A) isn't structured properly B) poorly written and C) is full of unsubstantiated claims, you will fail, but that's what passes for video game journalism.

  We have other reviews which are full of facepalm moments; one of them claimed that the game has 4 player co-op and that the face buttons do nothing unless you're jumping or evading. What about spiders and battle cries? Some say the game features a "hint" or Norse Mythology and that it features a mix of a first person shooter. Others said the game gets "unnecessarily complicated" even though the skill tree is "bland" and "there isn't enough diversity" between the ****s. Where do these people come from?!

  Then we have the mighty GameSpot which gave the game a 5.5. For those of you who may have noticed, a 7 has become the average score in recent years to the point where 180 games have been awarded an 8+ in the last 12 months. Anyway, if you watched Kevin's video review you will note that said there were many positives to the game while there were a few negatives; the combat is fun once you get into it, the skill tree is deep, the role playing elements are good, the voice acting is mostly good as are the visuals but the hub is too big, the story won't make much sense to those who don't know the mythology and there are issues like the camera, targeting and death sequence. So the game is fundamentally quite good, but there are some niggling negatives. Alright; but then he gives it a 5.5? If you take a gander at his review for Kingdom Under Fire, he barely says anything good about the game, says it isn't fun and then he gives it a 6.

  We then have the fact that Too Human has now scored the same or lower than the following games: Kung Fu Panda, Hail to the Chimp, Two Worlds, Wall-E, Alone in the Dark, Chronicles of Narnia, Bullet Witch, CSI, Incredible Hulk, Jericho, Rumble Roses XX, Lost Via Domus. Then there's the kicker; 325 XBox 360 games have scored higher than Too Human. Does anybody else see the problem with that?

  I just think that every once in a while a game comes along, that regardless of all the good things it does, people just want to crap all over it. With the delays, the decade long development, the E3 2006 demo and the NeoGaf fiasco, Too Human has unfortunately become that game. That's where the double standards come into play, which for me, is the most annoying thing because all the apparent problems in Too Human make the game terrible...but other games have had these exact problems but received an average score of 90+.

  Let's look at some of the things critics have said is wrong with Too Human.

  Level scaling: Some critics have pointed out the level scaling as a flaw of Too Human, which makes the game too easy. I didn't notice anybody criticising the level scaling in Oblivion and Mass Effect.

  Not a good action game: Apparently, the action in Too Human is lackluster and boring (despite the advanced enemies, advanced controls and deep combos). Hmm...didn't Oblivion feature extremely dull combat? Wasn't the gunplay in BioShock clunky? Was the combat in Mass Effect that good? Those games have scores in the 90's, but nobody seemed to care when they had overall poor combat.

  Not a good RPG: Too Human, despite the skill trees, the loot and deep levels of customisation, is just a poor RPG. What about Oblivion, the game which features no role playing whatsoever? And Mass Effect, the game with illusionary choices with no consequences and a poorly balanced skill system? And BioShock, the supposed FPS/RPG hybrid, which features no RPG at all?

  Targeting issues: Too Human does feature some occasional targeting problems, I'll admit that from the demo. It is an actual niggling problem...but wait! What game series has had awful targeting for 7 years but scored 9.6, 9.6, 9.6 and 10 on GameSpot? Why, it's GTA IV of course, the game which targets enemies 100 feet away when you're being shot in the face from 2 feet with a shotgun. It also targets dead people, something Too Human apparently does too.

  The 1Up glitch: This is just a small thing, but 1Up said that no game in 2008 should have a bug where you fall through the floor. Literally an hour after I read that review, I went to my safehouse in Alderney in GTA IV. I opened the door and nothing in the room had loaded; I walked in and fell into nothingness and had to reload. Crazy, eh? No game in 2008 should have a bug where you fall through the floor!!!

  Really, it just boils down to this; if critics are going to destroy Too Human for problems, they have to apply the same standards to other games too. They may not like the action or role playing, but to outright say that neither work is just silly, because they obviously do.

  Other stuff, quickly

  Pete Hines is still a dumb**** ("combat was more important to us than dialogue") and Fallout 3 is shaping up to be a piece of crap, be it a shooter, "role playing game" or a Fallout game in its own right. The dialogue looks like it was written by a teenager, by the way.

  I'll be reviewing Mass Effect pretty soon. The likely blurb is, "Beneath the epic soundtrack and cinematic presentation lies a relatively enjoyable, but deeply flawed game". I know that won't sit well with some people because apparently, everybody loves Mass Effect.

  The first Spore review is in from some crazy Australian magazine (whose readers declared CoD4 as the greatest PC game ever made); they gave it a 9 and said it was a casual game that isn't deep enough. Alrighty then...

  Apparently Leipzig starts today, who knew?! I'm not sure what to expect from it apart from the usual System Wars "ZOMG NEW XYZ SCREENS. ABC CONSOLE AM OWNED!!!".

  Some of the better System Wars posters have either left or been banned; Andrew_Xavier, Thrones, Always Honest, st1ka and the mighty B^2 are the latest casualties. Others, (Fuzzy, mjarantilla, Frozen_Liquid, Jandurin, Lafi etc.) don't seem to be posting there as much anymore. I guess the burden of responsibility is on the rest of us to keep the place from falling (further) apart.

  Brock destroyed Heath, Taker beat Edge, Khali still can't wrestle, ECW is still crap as evidenced by their 30 second DQ at Summerslam, Punk beat JBL only to have said momentum halted in the WWE's usual "you always lose in your hometown" the following night on Raw, Jericho clocked HBK's wife.

  I saw The Dark Knight; it's phenomenal, not 3rd highest rated movie of all time on IMDB phenomenal, but still brilliant none-the-less.

  My GTA IV review has 5 thumbs up and no thumbs down. I'm genuinely shocked. Although looking at some of the other user reviews...one has to wonder.

  Dead Rising Wii looks appallingly bad. Empire Total War looks unbelievably good.

  System Wars was treated to an epic thread, the likes of which we have not seem since PS_John. I couldn't help but laugh at the fact that amidst the new rules, from the very first reply everyone was on board. "Why so series?" made me lol.

  And that's me for now, back to achievement hunting in my attempt to get 10,000 gamerscore because I have nothing better to do due to the 4 weeks of straight rain.

  ...this blog, which took me 20 minutes to write, is almost three times as long as the 1Up review for Too Human. I'm series.

  EDIT: Here's a video of Kevin Pereira (from Attack of the Shows) that was just posted; if you read my blog and then watch that, you might see the exact same points being made.

  • Posted Aug 20, 2008 4:49 am PT
  • Category: Games
  • 6 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 13Aug 08

  Uhh..stuff. That's about as creative as I can be at the moment.

  Level 40

  So...yeah. I'm level 40. I find it strange how level and post count somehow add credibility to a user. I guess it's a psychological thing to take higher level users more seriously than a level 2. That raises an interesting question; if Kojima created a GameSpot account tomorrow and didn't give away who he was, would he be taken seriously?

  GTA IV Review

  I submitted my GTA IV review. I wonder how many people will give it a thumbs down just because I rated their favourite little game lower than most? Although I think the text justifies the score (which I didn't want to give), but meh.

  Since I don't really have anything else to say, I figure I'll do some top 10s. Originality FTW!

  Top 10 Games

  Fallout 2
  Deus Ex
  Planescape: Torment
  WarCraft III
  Half Life 2
  Fallout
  Grim Fandango
  Heroes of Might and Magic 3
  Metal Gear Solid
  Call of Duty

  Top 10 Films

  Fight Club
  The Usual Suspects
  City of God
  Once Upon a Time in America
  LA Confidential
  The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
  Heat
  The Insider
  Gladiator
  The Shawshank Redemption

  Top 10 Bands

  Metallica
  Megadeth
  Iron Maiden
  Led Zeppelin
  Tool
  Dream Theater
  Soundgarden
  Pearl Jam
  Judas Priest
  Guns N' Roses

  ...

  ...although if you asked me tomorrow, those lists would probably be different.

  • Posted Aug 13, 2008 6:56 am PT
  • Category: General
  • 10 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 11Aug 08

  Grand Theft Auto IV Review.

  Warning: spoilers abound. It might seem overly negative, but if I were to tackle the technical side of things it would seem more balanced. Also, it's really long, there are no pictures and I don't award a score. Take that conventional reviewing methods!

  Grand Theft Auto IV is a rather contradictory and schizophrenic game; contradictory in what it establishes within the narrative and tonal direction, and schizophrenic in what it wants to be, be-it a Grand Theft Auto game as we know it or a stand-alone game in and of itself. By taking the series in a more serious direction, Rockstar have replaced the oft-imitated sandbox we've come to love in GTA with a mission based action game that takes place in a very large city; a mission based game whose narrative and character development collapses after the first act.
  
  I'm going to skip the technical side of things; it's common sense that GTA IV looks stunning, the voice acting is great, it's sharply written, there are a few glitches and framerate concerns. So let's get straight into the good stuff.
  
  As we all know by now, you play Niko Bellic, a veteran of the Bosnian War and immigrant from Eastern Europe. Niko's motivations for coming to Liberty City are revealed in the course of the story: to work with his cousin Roman, to escape Bulgarin and to find "that special someone". When he arrives in Liberty City, Niko is greeted by Roman and is taken to Roman's "mansion" i.e. his ****ty apartment. We are then introduced the Mallorie (Roman's girlfriend), Vlad (to whom Roman owes money), the importance of Roman's business, Michelle (Mallorie's friend and the first love interest) Little Jacob (a rasta who you won't understand), Brucie (Roman's…odd friend who he met on the internet), Faustin (a major player in Broker) and Dimitri (Faustin's right hand man). These characters are introduced steadily with plenty of time devoted to them developing. We are shown their characteristics, their motives and how their relationships with both the player and eachother evolve. This is made all the better by some fantastic writing and voice acting; it's just phenomenal stuff all around. We learn to care for some characters, detest others and question the true motives of others.
  
  Take Michelle, for example. On the surface she seems to be the usual tacked on love interest that games seem to enjoy attempting these days. You meet her in a rather simple mission whereby you pick her and Mallorie up from the train station, then bring them to Michelle's apartment. When push comes to shove, Niko gets her number and takes her on a date. It is here that things get interesting. On your first playthrough you might notice something a touch odd about her, but you won't make anything more of it. When she's asked where she comes from, she stutters and says "I'm from…ohh…out East". She asks whether Roman is involved in criminal activities, if Niko can get her drugs for her friend, if Niko is involved with some bad people and so on. Maybe she's just curious, who knows. Later in the story it is revealed that Michelle is a government official tasked with keeping tabs on Niko. When you think back on those dates, all those questions seem less innocent. Credit must be given to the writers for making that portion interesting.
  
  With that said, it makes so little sense to me that they removed Michelle altogether. She was, Roman aside, the most interesting character in the game. There was an established relationship with Niko that revolved around trust and betrayal, she clearly had a troubled past if she was brought in by UL Paper Guy and she seemed capable of doing what was necessary to get her life back. There was just so much potential there for some interesting sub-plot.
  
  Anyway, from a narrative perspective, everything that occurs in Broker just works really well as an overall setup. You have characters you care about (Roman, Mallorie, Jacob), characters you hate (Vlad, Dimitri) and an established story arc (revenge against Dimitri and helping Roman get back to where he was) It's such a shame, then, that everything goes straight to hell after Roman's Sorrow. Actually, a word on Roman's Sorrow; that mission is a brilliant piece of character development. If you do not feel sorry for Roman during that drive to Bohan then you have no soul.
  
  Once you leave Broker, the carefully constructed story is replaced by reasons to go and kill a large amount of gangsters. Sure, there's loosely tied together elements (the diamond heist and the Heat mission, for example), but the development of the narrative just goes out the window. At random stages Niko will complain about a lack of money or how he just wants to find "that special someone", but instead of feeling tied together in the overall story arc, they feel tacked on as a reminder that "Hey, you're not blindly killing stuff, there's a reason for it". With that said, it's hard to feel connected to Niko's plight for more money because A) he has already amassed a quarter of a million by that point and B) there's nothing to spend money on.
  
  A rather large problem comes in the fact that Niko goes from a crushed soul who came to Liberty City to be with his cousin and escape the results of the war to a well dressed Jason Voorhees. In Broker he "is trying to make the right decisions" and he thinks that "we must only follow orders if we agree with them", yet in Algonquin he is shooting down police helicopters and murdering people for fun. Sorry, but no. It just ruins whatever connection was built up beforehand whereby I felt bad for running people over just because it's something that Niko wouldn't do; I sympathised with his attempt at keeping his life somewhat clean after the war even though he was slowly being dragged into the criminal life of Liberty city.
  
  If I'm being honest, the excuse for committing these acts and working for these people is rather full of mehsauce; they have a file on him. Niko largely forgets about the people in Broker, works with the types of people he came to Liberty City to leave behind because of money and a file. That, my friends, is bull****.
  
  What also screams of "bull****" is the special someone story arc; it's just another terrible excuse for Niko killing a million people. He does dozens of missions for these people, and at the end he slips them a small reminder that they owe him a favour for butchering half of Liberty City. That small favour is helping him find the person who betrayed him in the Bosnian War. These moments come out of absolutely nowhere; there's no build up, Niko shows no interest in this person until then and when we finally do find this person (well, two people) one of them is gay and we're given the option of saving Darko. What?! Niko gave up his soul by murdering people, ruined his cousin's life, worked for the Mafia to then have a bit of character development and ethical sense forced on him? Yeah, right. No matter what people may say, "that special someone" is a tacked on excuse for the game focusing on the mindless killing missions that occur after Broker as opposed to developing the actually narrative i.e. revenge against Dimitri.
  
  It doesn't help Niko as a character when the supporting characters drop in and out of the story at will. New people are introduced at far too quick a pace; how is Niko supposed to establish meaningful relationships with these people when they disappear for large amounts of time, and those who are there for more than 5 minutes just ask him to kill people for money? Once you leave Broker, you have: Elizabeta, Manny, Playboy X, Dwayne, Packie, Francis, Derrick, Gerald, Kate, Ray, Phil, Pegorino, UL Paper Guy, Bernie, Darko, Gambetti and other smaller characters. The sole purpose of these characters is to drive you through the city, not the narrative or establish relationships. The only person who's given any real time is Packie, and while he's a good character (especially the emotional scars from this family background) the points he's earned from me are taken away by Kate.
  
  That leads me to one the biggest flaws I've found in GTA IV; the assumption that the player is taking part in the dates/friend activities. I'll put that another way; the effectiveness of the more emotional moments of the narrative is predicated largely upon the amount of time you've put into the friend system. Just think about it; how effective is the Michelle twist if you haven't been taking her on dates? Does Kate becoming a serious romance option (and thusly Niko contacting her on whether to make the deal or not, and his reaction if she's killed) make sense if you haven't been taking her on dates? Of course not, but the game assumes you have been (I wasn't, mainly because the activities are some of the most boring hours of gameplay I've had to endure).
  
  I'm also of the opinion that the friend system is a rather poor excuse for forgetting about the well developed characters from Broker. Let's say you ignore the friend activities (most people do); from the time you leave Broker, when is the next time you see Roman, Jacob or Brucie in the story? Sure, they might call now and then, but there's a massive amount of time without seeing any of them. Even when it's helpful to see them through the activities, oftentimes just a reminder that they still exist, they're mostly one dimensional. When you go on their activities Jacob always talks about getting high, Brucie always talks about being genetically different and Dwayne is always depressing. There's just no motivation to hang out with them.
  
  Before I go into the friend system's effect on the conclusion of the story, I need to talk about 3 characters: Pegorino, Dimitri and Bulgarin. Dimitri represents the complete and utter lack of character development after the first act; we hear from him two or three times before the penultimate mission and that's it. How is that a well established villain? Bulgarin represents the lost potential of most of the characters; he's mentioned at certain stages, he has a dark history with Niko (resulting in Niko fleeing Eastern Europe), he could be established as a major character but he's demoted to making two cameo appearances. Finally, Pegorino represents the character development that occurs once you leave Broker; whatever is there is forced, dependant on money and in his own case, is contradictory. In the first mission for him, we're told that he "got to the top because I think of all the outcomes. I know all the consequences before they happen", yet he gets screwed by Dimitri or killed by Niko? No, Rockstar, that's poor character development.

  Now, let's look at the conclusion to the story. Disregard Pegorino because he comes out of nowhere. Think of the main people who are involved at the end of the game; Roman, Jacob, Mallorie, and Dimitri. Within the context of the narrative, those characters hadn't been relevant since Broker yet the crux of the conclusion depends largely on characters that you would only have seen if you were using the friend system. It would have been far more effective to remove the pointless characters (everyone in Bohan and the McReary's) and have the above four consistently featured within the story, as opposed to relegated to the friend mini-game. I think that's why the ending left a bad taste in people's mouth; they stopped caring about the characters by then. Even as a whole, half of the cast could be cut without any effect on the story whatsoever thus allowing more time to develop the important characters, especially Dimitri.
  
  There are many things which make the friend system unappealing: most of the activities fell unfinished and are generally quite boring, the conversations (with the exception of Michelle and Packie) are entirely one-dimensional, they seem to call you at the most inopportune time, even when you kindly say "no" to them they get upset and most of all, the rewards aren't worth it. Sure, Jacob gives you cheaper weapons, but Niko has enough money to buy as much ammo as he wants in the regular stores. Sure, Roman gives you free cabs, but it's quicker to get a normal one. Sure, Dwayne sends his "homies" to help you, but they're useless.
  
  A new feature to the GTA series is that at certain points in the main story you're offered the choice of killing certain characters (Dwayne included). While it's a nice touch, it's not executed all that well. For choices like this to be effective the player must A) care about the character they're about to kill/save and B) it must suit the character they're playing. In a role playing game, for example, the choice is made based on how you have defined your own character. The difference here is that the character of Niko is set in stone, so any choice must suit Niko or the player feels disconnected. Why, for example, would Niko not kill Francis? It's made very clear throughout the story that Francis is a ****, Niko does not like him and that Derrick is a far better brother. Giving the player the choice of not killing him feels silly, as if the choice is there for the sake of it, not that it's meaningful to the character or story arc.
  
  I guess it's obvious at this point that Rockstar have taken a more serious approach to GTA IV, and while I appreciate the effort, it's just not done that well. The most jarring, for me, was the stark contrast between the serious tone of the story and the completely over-the-top satire. In prior GTAs there were many outlandish elements to the story (burning a field of weed, making the lights in Vice City look like breasts, dropping porn pamphlets on the streets). What this meant was that the events that took place in the story were well suited to the setting. That, and the satire in III/Vice City/San Andreas was more subtle. In IV, for example, you could easily have an emotional experience in the story only to turn on the radio to hear about ordering babies in a box over the internet or how hot America's Next Top Hooker is. They just don't complement eachother, at all.
  
  Stemming from that is how the missions are structured compared to previous GTAs. As mentioned above, there were many memorable and unique missions in III/Vice City/San Andreas. Sayonara Salvatore, the assassination on the golf course, burning the weed, the porn studios and so on; they were just really fun and imaginative. By the time you hit Algonquin, you've seen it all as far as mission diversity goes. The vast majority of the missions require you to drive to a location, find the target and either kill him or chase him. Oh yeah, most of the chases are scripted. Let's elaborate; in a scripted chase, it is impossible to kill the target until they reach X location. No matter how many bullets you shoot at their car, they will not stop. This can become frustrating in the early parts of the game when it's nigh on impossible to tell which chases and scripted and which aren't. After a while though you can usually tell; the cars move as if a child were moving little toys while screaming "VROOM!!!"
  
  That highlights a major disappointment in GTA IV; the linearity (and repetitiveness) of the missions and the complete and utter lack of sandboxing. Take the assassination on the golf course from Vice City; you could snipe him from a distance, shoot out the tyres in his golf cart so he couldn't get away, push the carts of his body guards into the water so they couldn't chase you or any number of unique methods. In IV, however, there's usually only one way of completing a mission: Rockstar's way. By the end of the game I was pretty tired of the usual drive-kill-chase-kill approach with no way for my imagination to have any input. That approach to mission design seems counter-intuitive to what a sandbox should be about; giving you plenty of toys to play with and opening up a range of possibilities for completing missions. The missions are also in dire need of checkpoints which is something that R* have ignored for 7 years now.
  
  That sandbox has been scaled back in other ways, too. In terms of things to do, GTA IV is sorely lacking. Gone are the fire truck and ambulance missions from the previous three episodes. Gone are the businesses and purchasable houses from Vice City. Gone are the character customisation, vehicle customisation and dirt bikes from San Andreas. Gone are the jetpacks, flamethrowers, tanks, military and parachutes. While it's true that the above don't suit the "serious" world that R* wanted to create, it just goes against what GTA is all about; doing crazy **** in a huge world coupled with insane replayability. I just don't see why I'm allowed steal 50 cars in front of a large crowd or carry weapons in open daylight if I'm not allowed to parachute off the Statue of Happiness.
  
  Certain trademarks of the series, the hidden packages, rampages and hidden jumps have been changed for the worse. Rampages have been removed entirely, which is a swift kick to the nuts. Hidden package have been replaced by 200 (!) flying rats. These flying rats are an absolute pain in the ass. Why? Because you have to shoot them. Shooting them means attracting attention, and since there are cops everywhere, it gets a touch annoying when you get a wanted star every time you shoot one of the bastards. Hidden jumps are largely the same, although the cars have a tendency to flip over more often than you'd like. What's an even swifter kick in the nuts than the removal of the rampages is the removal of rewards. Remember how you'd get a weapon outside your safe house for every 10 hidden packages? Or how you'd become fireproof for completing the fire truck missions? Or how you could increase your total health for doing the ambulance missions? They're all gone. You get a helicopter when you get all 200 rats, and that's it. Thanks Rockstar!
  
  Liberty City then, while well designed, just isn't a city suited for gaming. Sure, it's very pretty and (probably) mimics New York quite well, but there's no substance to the flash; there's just nothing to do in this city. Vice City was a great city; you had plenty to do, the city suited the story that was being told (as did the soundtrack) and it was interesting to learn off. San Andreas was the same. Liberty City just seems like a place you're meant to admire as opposed to play in; but I'm a gamer, not a sightseer, so that doesn't appeal to me I'm afraid.
  
  The gameplay elements, while they've been improved with regards to a Grand Theft Auto game, they still aren't up to par with other games that are on offer. The cover system isn't as fluid as a Gears of War (and can become quite annoying when you want to switch between cover), the auto-aim still targets enemies 100 feet away when you're being shot in the face at point blank range with a shotgun and the on-foot controls are clunky at best. So while it's a step in the right direction for GTA, it's a smaller step than I would have liked.
  
  It's pretty difficult to write a conclusion for a game like GTA IV. If the entire game was of the quality of Broker and everything that occurred there I'd probably call it "Game of the Forever" and leave it there, but everything that happens on Algonquin and Alderney highlight a failing narrative, pointless characters, an unfulfilling conclusion, repetitive missions and questionable design choices. So while Broker and the quality of the overall presentation are enough to raise GTA IV to "an enjoyable game" status, it's a fairly large step back from prior episodes and a game that's mainly wasted potential.

  • Posted Aug 11, 2008 4:55 pm PT
  • Category: Games
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts