Zero Punctuation: FTL: Faster Than Light - Exploding Spaceships

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Ah yes rouge-like games, the digital equivalent to self flagellation using a whip powered by a slot machine. While they can be fun I get bored pretty quick, usually after the 50th time playing chicken with the brick wall.

I disagree with the notion that its impossible to play FTL like a decent person and still win, you have less scrap but you typically get some other things to aid you, the hardest part is deciding if you allow pirates and slavers to surrender so that they can pirate and enslave another day, or blow them up adding another body to the uncomfortably fast growing pile.

Silentpony:
This game was a huge waste! And Yatzhee said the critical line, but like every other indie lover, glanced over it. Its a game meant to be replayed over and over, but two hours is a lot of investment. YES! Why is no one angry about that?! Why is it a free-to-play game that's designed to be slow and painful is considered the lowest of the low in programming, but a indie game designed to be slow and painful is 'all about the journey' and 'you just don't get it'.
Same damn problem I had with Papers Please. I'm tired of people saying 'Its not about the game or having fun, its about the etc...'
Its a game. Its supposed to be fun.
FTL is not fun.
And I just checked my Steam. I've played FTL for 17 hours. And I've beat the game once and I've never unlocked something. Ever.
What a waste of my time.

Wait, you've beat the game but you don't have any unlocks? you unlock a ship just for reaching the 5th sector.

Also you can go ahead and explain how a free to play game that deliberately slows down gameplay so that you have to pay to unlock stuff quicker is at all similar to this.

Fun fact, I've recently started playing the game with a program called "Poke" that allows me to get near unlimited scrap.
Yet, The Rebel Flagship can STILL kick my ass on fucking EASY if I don't take out the missiles first q-q

Still, I kinda wish there was an "Endless" mode, I know that there is a mod for it, but it repeats itself so much...

Amaror:
It's not really a problem with the mechanic itself, as it is with the way the new xcom was build. In the OG you had 12 soldiers from the beginning and were getting more with better aircraft. That means, enemies getting lucky and you getting unlucky could still very well happen. But it wasn't such a big problem, because you only lost 1 guy out of 12. 1 guy out of 4 can easily ruin the entire battle for you, so the RNG is a much bigger problem.

the RNG was equally annoying in the original x com, mostly because reaction shots are a terribly designed mechanic.

So that's where Jam comes from... or did HEPL send it to space after the jampocalypse?
I wonder how Mary is doing

FTL is a fun little game to play in when you've got a few moments in a day. A couple of jumps will burn off five or ten minutes, depending on the complexity of any fights you might get into, and you even have the option to save and quit out for the next time, which I tend to do often. I will admit that, even when the RNG drops a space cow on me, I accept what it for what is--a cold, uncaring universe with a tendency to drop space cows on people whether they deserve it or not. That and giant alien spiders.

If I have to quibble, I'd say that there are two things which irk me a bit. One is the slight lack of internal rules consistency, AKA The Computer Is A Slightly Cheating Bastard. Most of the time, enemy ships follow the same rules you do, in that the two of you will try to kill each other legitimately (by which I mean the game's combat is, strictly speaking, fair enough that you could control the other ship through the same means as your own if you were them) except for one thing. Enemies getting multi-room targeting with burst weapons while we're stuck with hammering on one room with a multi-shot laser is a bit unfair since it means they could theoretically take out your piloting, oxygen, and medbay simultaneously with a bit of luck.

The other is the space-cow-gods-be-damned final boss. I'm not complaining that it's too hard, but rather that it's too predictable. Having won the game more than a few times by now, it's ever so slightly disappointing that the real meat of the challenge against the Flagship tends to boil down to whether you have a defense drone and some way to bypass shields, such as a crew teleporter or decent missile launcher. If you do, well, you're really only going to be worrying about the triple ion and maybe the triple missile launcher. If you don't, you're much more likely to be boned in this encounter, especially when the second phase comes around and boarding drones want to come and say hi. In a game where all other enemies are effectively randomized in loadout, it's rather disappointing for the boss to be so easy to gauge in terms of difficulty. A bit of variety in the boss would be nice.

But I suppose that's what mods are for.

Saika Renegade:
If I have to quibble, I'd say that there are two things which irk me a bit. One is the slight lack of internal rules consistency, AKA The Computer Is A Slightly Cheating Bastard. Most of the time, enemy ships follow the same rules you do, in that the two of you will try to kill each other legitimately (by which I mean the game's combat is, strictly speaking, fair enough that you could control the other ship through the same means as your own if you were them) except for one thing. Enemies getting multi-room targeting with burst weapons while we're stuck with hammering on one room with a multi-shot laser is a bit unfair since it means they could theoretically take out your piloting, oxygen, and medbay simultaneously with a bit of luck.

I dunno about this. You can exploit beam weapons that cross rooms a WHOLE lot better than the AI can. Every full beam weapon you can target 5 rooms OR MORE in a single shot - the AI never does that. Plus you can choose which systems you want to take out - the AI as far as I can tell just fires randomly which gives you a huge advantage. If the AI focused on your shields and then your weapons the game would be nearly impossible.

The AI slightly cheats at times, but is intentionally dumb to compensate.

Thanatos2k:

Saika Renegade:
If I have to quibble, I'd say that there are two things which irk me a bit. One is the slight lack of internal rules consistency, AKA The Computer Is A Slightly Cheating Bastard. Most of the time, enemy ships follow the same rules you do, in that the two of you will try to kill each other legitimately (by which I mean the game's combat is, strictly speaking, fair enough that you could control the other ship through the same means as your own if you were them) except for one thing. Enemies getting multi-room targeting with burst weapons while we're stuck with hammering on one room with a multi-shot laser is a bit unfair since it means they could theoretically take out your piloting, oxygen, and medbay simultaneously with a bit of luck.

I dunno about this. You can exploit beam weapons that cross rooms a WHOLE lot better than the AI can. Every full beam weapon you can target 5 rooms OR MORE in a single shot - the AI never does that. Plus you can choose which systems you want to take out - the AI as far as I can tell just fires randomly which gives you a huge advantage. If the AI focused on your shields and then your weapons the game would be nearly impossible.

The AI slightly cheats at times, but is intentionally dumb to compensate.

Oh, I don't doubt it. I'm well aware that humans can handle beam weapons more accurately, among other factors, such as focusing fire. The AI is admittedly much like the rest of the game, rather randomized, but at the same time, I like a game that's internally consistent on its own rules and setting. I don't begrudge the developers having to fudge it a bit for a relatively simple AI in a randomized system, due to inherent nature of its limitations. I will admit I still prefer the sort of games where the field is openly level for all parties involved as far as the rules of play are concerned, even if that means a five-shot burst laser ends up reducing my backup battery to a fine metallic paste.

Silentpony:
Its a game meant to be replayed over and over, but two hours is a lot of investment. YES! Why is no one angry about that?!

I'm not angry because I can't imagine anyone actually taking two hours just to finish a single play through. I only have 15 hours clocked on Steam, but I've played at least 30 times, won 5 or 6 times, and unlocked maybe half the ships and layouts (almost all that before the patch). It's not designed to be slow and boring, it's designed to be the game they wanted to make. If you happen to play it slowly and don't enjoy it, that's absolutely fine, but there's no point expecting all the people who do enjoy it to start raging just because you have different taste.

gamegod25:
Ah yes rouge-like games, the digital equivalent to self flagellation using a whip powered by a slot machine. While they can be fun I get bored pretty quick, usually after the 50th time playing chicken with the brick wall.

That's why I don't play many roguelikes. But personaly I'd consider £7 for 25-50 hours entertainment to be pretty good value for money, so even if I do get bored after that it's still money well spent.

I had to stop playing this game as my fragile ego can't take playing a game that utterly crushes you 19 out of 20 times you play. If you want to play a game where you at least have an even change to win this is not the game for you. If on the other hand your a masochist and like being randomly stomped into paste after several hours of play then your really going to have fun with this.

The game play is quite fun and engaging, well until the game suddenly spits up an enemy who is 50 times stronger than you and you have to start from the beginning. Yeah that got old very quickly.

I've been playing FTL quite a bit since the new content was added. It managed to make an already great game even better.

For those who've beaten the game fair and square, I highly recommend checking out the mod that removes the fleet creep. It's a whole different game when that mod is added. It is obviously easier to beat the end, but the new challenge becomes fuel and ammo management as well as exploration. Plus it's just plain fun to explore every sector thoroughly rather than the quick few jumps to the end you get during the game proper.

It can be found on the FTL website in their MODS forum if anyone is interested.

Hah Yahtzee plays like Khan fights - brutally, efficiently, with strategies involving suffocation and sucking your enemies into the vacuum of space. Ooh now I suddenly have an urge to play FTL, if only it weren't a roguelike.

I like the game. It works well as a casual "oh, I have 45 minutes on the train for my commute, might as well blow up some space pirates"

Oh and do not forget that you can basically quit the game, mid-game, and then come back on and continue... so that 2 hour play-through can be split up into many bits

That said, I've played the game so much on my laptop that i've unlocked everything - and its so much fun with the various playstyles you can do.

Do you invest in a good ol' straight up shields and guns ship? How about instead of guns, you go all in for drones? Or hacking, mind-control and teleporting over boarding parties?

Oh, and if you have a cloning bay instead of a med bay you can just sacrifice your boarding parties like an unlimited supply of redshirts to throw at your enemy. Choke their engines with their corpses!

RickF7666:
I had to stop playing this game as my fragile ego can't take playing a game that utterly crushes you 19 out of 20 times you play. If you want to play a game where you at least have an even change to win this is not the game for you. If on the other hand your a masochist and like being randomly stomped into paste after several hours of play then your really going to have fun with this.

Why are people who enjoy games like FTL and Dark Souls always called "masochists"? That implies they ENJOY the suffering.

That's not the case at all. What we enjoy is overcoming challenge. We don't like the 19 times when we lose, but we play for that 20th time when we succeed.

Again, a difference between fun and satisfaction. FTL does not have much fun in it, but it has a ton of satisfaction.

... I've had fun playing FTL. Loads of fun. I wouldn't play it if I didn't.

man, I LOST it at that Colbert picture! That and using big rigs for enemy flagships. I've been on the fence about getting FTL, as I fear I'd go through the same song-and-dance I did with Evil Genius: build a base/spaceship how I want (if I can afford it) and hope against hope I won't be OP'd by whatever the computer throws at me to fuck my shit right up.

@, Yahtzee. @ is the single, greatest graphical representation of the roguelike genre - it's just tradition.

SonOfVoorhees:
Especially when you missed an alien with a shotgun from one square away... Chance is fine, but it should be based on the skills you have eg a shotgun should hit from one square away 100%.

To be fair, that is somewhat realistic, cause at close range a shotgun essentially fires a single projectile, and can therefore be easier to miss if you don't aim properly than at longer ranges where there's a bit more spread.

Thanatos2k:

RickF7666:
I had to stop playing this game as my fragile ego can't take playing a game that utterly crushes you 19 out of 20 times you play. If you want to play a game where you at least have an even change to win this is not the game for you. If on the other hand your a masochist and like being randomly stomped into paste after several hours of play then your really going to have fun with this.

Why are people who enjoy games like FTL and Dark Souls always called "masochists"? That implies they ENJOY the suffering.

That's not the case at all. What we enjoy is overcoming challenge. We don't like the 19 times when we lose, but we play for that 20th time when we succeed.

Again, a difference between fun and satisfaction. FTL does not have much fun in it, but it has a ton of satisfaction.

Except some of us (I'd say a lot more than your type really) don't like the concept of losing more than we do winning, at least not to an even extent, I don't mind if I tie or win quite a bit, if I lose 19-20 times however I'm most likely not having fun if at all, that one singular mere small win doesn't do anything to my brain, it doesn't invoke that Stockholm syndrome like feeling that I'd truly just saved the world from the tyranny of some great evil and that I should feel overwhelmingly accomplished at having that one tiny win over the 19 other losses, no I feel that I had truly wasted my time.

That isn't a hard concept to understand, the reason why we say BDSM/masochist is because there are indeed people out there who love to "lose" and be "dominated", whether it be via a person or some other means, that can also apple to those that love that tiny little ounce of victory, evolution doesn't like losing, it likes to win as often as it can, so does mankind which explains why most people who like to win far outweigh those that like to lose often and like to treat that tiny victory as if all those losses meant nothing/ never existed in the first place.

I like to play games for fun,story,scenery and sometimes if I really want to, a possible challenge which is rare at times because I don't see gaming first most as a challenging medium, I see it as entertainment, not a gladiators challenge arena, those that think so can do as they please, but don't try to say that's what all gaming is/ should be because that heavily implies that all gaming is never about fun/entertainment but about some weird hardcore challenge we must all go through like some "coming of age" ritual.

Also satisfaction comes in all sorts of different forms and to some people different levels of it, to say that the game objectively offers mostly good satisfaction is false, to say that over rules everyone else's personal form is also false, that's just not how it works.

Also there can be both fun and satisfying games, not satisfying because of only a challenge, there are other forms of that do exist out there.

That last bit about light (in the end comment of the vid).

Yahtzee. Mate. Light is actually fairly slow, compared to the vast size of the universe. For example, it takes a bit more than 4 years for light to travel from our sun to Alpha Centauri.

So your ship is definitely travelling Faster Than Light.

Shadow-Phoenix:

Thanatos2k:

RickF7666:
I had to stop playing this game as my fragile ego can't take playing a game that utterly crushes you 19 out of 20 times you play. If you want to play a game where you at least have an even change to win this is not the game for you. If on the other hand your a masochist and like being randomly stomped into paste after several hours of play then your really going to have fun with this.

Why are people who enjoy games like FTL and Dark Souls always called "masochists"? That implies they ENJOY the suffering.

That's not the case at all. What we enjoy is overcoming challenge. We don't like the 19 times when we lose, but we play for that 20th time when we succeed.

Again, a difference between fun and satisfaction. FTL does not have much fun in it, but it has a ton of satisfaction.

Except some of us (I'd say a lot more than your type really) don't like the concept of losing more than we do winning, at least not to an even extent, I don't mind if I tie or win quite a bit, if I lose 19-20 times however I'm most likely not having fun if at all, that one singular mere small win doesn't do anything to my brain, it doesn't invoke that Stockholm syndrome like feeling that I'd truly just saved the world from the tyranny of some great evil and that I should feel overwhelmingly accomplished at having that one tiny win over the 19 other losses, no I feel that I had truly wasted my time.

All video games are a waste of time though. Only playing games where you make savable "progress" would exclude many wonderful games. Especially multiplayer games.

That isn't a hard concept to understand, the reason why we say BDSM/masochist is because there are indeed people out there who love to "lose" and be "dominated", whether it be via a person or some other means, that can also apple to those that love that tiny little ounce of victory, evolution doesn't like losing, it likes to win as often as it can, so does mankind which explains why most people who like to win far outweigh those that like to lose often and like to treat that tiny victory as if all those losses meant nothing/ never existed in the first place.

This really isn't the appeal of these games at all. These games are not for people who WANT to lose. They are for people who ACCEPT they will lose on the way to victory. It is not a tiny victory when you finally break through and win. Especially in FTL it's a monumental occasion. I always take a screenshot when it happens. I've beaten FTL 5 times in who knows how many tries and I remember each one.

You allude to evolution, and these games are indeed Survival of the Fittest. The weak are weeded out, and the fittest persevere and succeed.

I like to play games for fun,story,scenery and sometimes if I really want to, a possible challenge which is rare at times because I don't see gaming first most as a challenging medium, I see it as entertainment, not a gladiators challenge arena, those that think so can do as they please, but don't try to say that's what all gaming is/ should be because that heavily implies that all gaming is never about fun/entertainment but about some weird hardcore challenge we must all go through like some "coming of age" ritual.

Also satisfaction comes in all sorts of different forms and to some people different levels of it, to say that the game objectively offers mostly good satisfaction is false, to say that over rules everyone else's personal form is also false, that's just not how it works.

Also there can be both fun and satisfying games, not satisfying because of only a challenge, there are other forms of that do exist out there.

So you don't like challenge. Got it. But people who do are not masochists - they don't like the failure, they enjoy the successes that are not handed to them - the successes that are earned. The successes that not everyone will attain.

Many people don't last 5 minutes in "I Wanna Be The Guy." They immediately conclude "This is stupid" and write the game off. The people who don't immediately see a puzzle worth solving. They are different people than you.

Earthfield:
That Colbert picture has to be my new avatar!!!!

Lol, and damn it looks good.

I love FTL and I love any game that lets me rename characters after my friends. I've sent a few text messages to people letting them know they were eatin by giant spiders or apologizing for giving them a space plague and having to quarantine them on an alien planet.

None of that really sells the game to me. Sounds like too much work.

FTL is like most roguelikes, if you're a hipster wank 'rogue-lites,' is that after the learning curve has been taken in, the real joy of the game is making due with what you're given and the RNG matters far less. I've beaten FTL multiple times, with almost every ship type, and can say that the number of times I've been screwed over by early RNG shenanigans I can count on one hand. Much the same way as Binding of Isaac, Spelunky, or Desktop Dungeons, the game is actively trying to give you stuff, but sometimes it's intent isn't clear. Those are the cases where you feel you got screwed by RNG.

Or you just screwed up hardcore and won't admit it. That's definitely an issue I see with a lot of FTL complaints.

We already know you love FTL. Your poem on YouTube says it all.
But Yahtzee, what about Shadow Warrior? Is it a step back to the glory days of FPS or is it a complete mess?

I've been getting into Rogue-likes (and Rogue-like-likes if you wish) for the past few years. There's something I find extremely compelling about games that are both shorter-form and very intense. I appreciate that they just won't let you save-scum; every decision counts, no take-backs. Most of them feature a ton of variety, both in options and in terms of the procedural generation. And it's one of those genres where you really feel yourself getting better, where you see how skill really matters (I love RPGs, but few "standard" RPGs make me feel this way). A person who is *really* good at a game like FTL will only rarely specifically due to the RNG. While you take a character/spaceship/small naked child from zero to hero every time you start anew, it's you, the player, who grows and becomes better at the game as you keep playing it(assuming you're willing to learn from your mistakes).

I found it interesting that Yahtzee found the FTL games to be a bit too long for his tastes, since there's a game, Desktop Dungeons, that was inspired (in part) by its creator's desire of being able to play his favourite roguelike, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, without having to forsake social life and sleep. (As an aside DCSS is free and is one of the best and most interesting, playable and accessible "traditional" rogue-likes out there; check it out, it's awesome and even has a version with tile graphics instead of ASCII). I'm bringing it up here in case the review draws players that might enjoy such a game. I've been obsessed with Desktop Dungeons for the past two years (it was in Beta until last fall, when it released on Steam) and I genuinely think it's one of the most well-designed, clever games out there. It's basically a mini-roguelike puzzle-y game where individual "runs" last about 10 to 20 minutes (with some of the truly difficult dungeons being longer). Dungeons take up a single screen and the pacing is very cleverly managed by the mechanic wherein exploring the dungeon (revealing tiles that can contain monsters, items, magic spells)is the primary means of regenerating your health and mana.

I'm curious to know if anyone else here has played it... I don't know too many people who've tried it out. I basically have to stop myself from mentioning the game in every gaming-related conversation I have, since I love the game to pieces, but it feels relevant enough to bring it up here. (Also I should probably mention that there's a free alpha version which is perfectly playable and enjoyable as its own game that gives a good idea of what the game is on the game's website.)

My buddies and I write a captain's log every so often for our FTL voyages. In the beginning there was much burning to death, suffocating, getting blasted by hails of missiles. But, as we went on our voyages turned into really fun stories of hardship, sacrifice, and Kevin always getting killed by space spiders. FTL is like being an actual ship captain, sort of like firefly, sort of like star trek, sort of like Battleship.

Easily one of the best games I've ever played, ever.

FTL is a great game. Yeah, you basically live or die by the RNG, but the experience is generally memorable no matter the outcome. Once you get better at the game, death generally becomes the result of such unbelievably bad luck that you will forever recall the time when you jumped into an system with a pulsar and an enemy with two flak guns. On the other hand, when a ship offers you the Weapon Pre-Igniter as a token of surrender, you'll jump onto the nearest forum to brag about it.

Thunderous Cacophony:
Faster Than Light: Yeah, It's Alright.

I never got into roguelikes (a bad Dwarf Fortress incident soured me on them), but FTL always seemed like the kind of game that might bring me into the fold. If this content patch is worth it, I might pick it up on steam.

FTL is certainly the one that got me to try a Roguelike. That may be because of the premise, though: micromanaging equipment and the like in RPGs is tedious, but running a starship{footnote]and micromanaging it[/footnote]? Yeah, I'll try that.

I'm not that good, but it's still fun to play it.

Bindal:

Nope. 75% off is the maximum on this one.

I'm assuming HC means through the Humble Bundle or similar.

Silentpony:
Why is no one angry about that?!

I'd imagine because it's not true.

Why is it a free-to-play game that's designed to be slow and painful is considered the lowest of the low in programming, but a indie game designed to be slow and painful is 'all about the journey' and 'you just don't get it'.

Because Free-To-Play games are designed to make you spend money? Where's the comparison here? Did FTL add IAPs? You can finish multiple games of FTL in the time it takes to complete one task in one of those games, for the record, which may have something to do with it. Oh, and you're an active participant.

Its a game. Its supposed to be fun.

Gaming as a media has evolved to the point where it's no longer just about fun. Sorry, but the novelty of the 90s arcade is gone. Just like Schindler's List and Law and Order: SVU probably don't make you all smiles, a game isn't required to be fun. Though it get me to play, it should be. Which brings me to the other point:

FTL is not fun.

I have fun. Seems a lot of other people have fun.

And I just checked my Steam. I've played FTL for 17 hours. And I've beat the game once and I've never unlocked something. Ever.
What a waste of my time.

So do you need to win to have fun with a game? Or is it the sense of progression? I'm trying to nail down the issue here, because it seems like you're making blanket statements about something that's different for everyone.

Smilomaniac:
I think I've watched all of Yahtzee's reviews here... is it me, or do these "reviews" become more weird and have less actual reviewing content than they used to?

It's you. Or rather, some days he's more random than others. But it's not so much a progression as it is "Yahtzee being Yahztee."

as far as I recall, you unlock a new ship just by beating the game. On easy even.
Either you barely remember it, or you haven't played it at all.

There's one for winning and one for reaching sector 5, which I think is unavoidable too, innit? I mean, if you've beat the game and all....So yeah. That's...

It's kind of interesting that he complained its too long, because actually an hour or two per game is generally nothing in roguelike terms.

However, because most roguelikes are so much longer the chances of just having an unlucky game are greatly diminished. Sure, maybe one game you'll find a +5 sword of awesome and in another you'll be stuck with a mere +3 sword of mediocrity but the game is long enough that the odds are you'll be able to get something. The player can be reasonably sure that they will get enough equipment/money/whatever to theoretically prepare for any challenge, it's just a question of how long it takes them to get impatient or to overestimate their own strength or just stand in the wrong tile or whatever it is that finally finishes them off.

This is in my opinion the strength and weakness of FTL when compared to other roguelikes. On one hand, it's much more exciting. It isn't just hours and hours of careful grinding through only to see it taken away because you made a mistake, on the other hand the randomness is much more in your face, and it's possible to play well (concentrating for an hour is not difficult) and still lose to numbers.

But hey.. that's a pretty interesting tradeoff, and I respect games which go either direction.

Does the fruit machine dispence regular badgers or honey badgers? If they're honey badgers, I'm staying away.

I have a hard time playing FTL. Not because I dislike it, but because if I start playing I won't stop until long, long after I should have.

Damn fun game, even if I've only ever beaten it once. On easy. >_>

I'm an easy beater too...

Great video Yahtzee, but just not as good as your poem.

I have to find somebody to play for me while I give them orders though, that does seem like fun.

Smilomaniac:
I think I've watched all of Yahtzee's reviews here... is it me, or do these "reviews" become more weird and have less actual reviewing content than they used to?

Obviously I don't take them seriously or use them for actual reviews that help me decide whether or not a game might be interesting, it's entertainment after all, but apart from mentioning the update he didn't say anything about it, or the large amount of mods you can get for it (which would be relevant since he seems to be mostly a PC gamer).

Just to further disclaim and avoid useless comments; I get that you can glean whether or not he likes something and he does bring up the occasional point, but I'm curious to whether anyone else thinks this has gone a bit too far to the whack side of things.

The actual review content seems to vary in relation to how bad he hated/loved the game, plus how likely it is everyone on earth has already heard about/purchased/played the game before his review comes out. It seems to me that it gets really obvious when he wants to make a point (good or bad) about industry practice or has nothing new to say on a game (because its sequel XX or like this game, just an update), but swings the other way to in depth review analysis when he finds a game that he pops a massive hate/love boner for.

Personally I tend to use most of his reviews to inform my choices. If I can listen to him bitch about a game for 5 mins and I still think I might like it, the game will probably be a winner for me. If he gushes about a game for 5 mins and it does nothing to quell the bunging staff of my dislike, then I wasn't going to enjoy the game no matter what.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.