What is the worst gaming review you've read?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Guitarmasterx7:
I mean reviews in general rub me as blind praise a lot. "Popular Bland Game Sequel 3" won't get a lower score than an 8 pretty much anywhere. I don't really look at them for scores I look at them for how well they give me an idea of what the game is like.

The only thing that comes to mind specifically is the GTA 5 review I read here on the escapist, probably because it was really recent and I don't get frustrated with reviews very often. I was sort of on the fence about the game, so I went in looking for a review that would talk about actual gameplay, features, areas of improvement over 4, things like that. 3/4ths of it was spent going "I DONT LIKE PLAYING AS BAD GUYS" and what should have been a short bullet point with maybe a sentence or two of justification became the center of the whole review.

What I hate about that type of review is that gameplay should always be a far bigger factor in a game like GTA V. You can ignore/skip the cutscenes if you want, mute the sound and just enjoy the game. It shouldn't have any real affect on the rating.

dontlooknow:
Gamespot's review of Spec Ops: The Line was embarassing - complaints about bad gunplay, over-macho characters and the level of violence. I can understand a difference of opinion - that happens all the time with reviews - but it's disquieting when the reviewer comes off as simply quite dim.

It's not a matter of being dim, I can understand a person "not getting it" and still being an intelligent person, just not looking for the deeper themes because they don't expect it from such a game.
The problem I could see with that is how obvious they make it towards the end of the game. Not a really long game, you can beat it within a weekend rental, and he basically announced through his review that he is reviewing it before getting anywhere near the end. It sounds like he didn't even reach the halfway point.

Klagnut:

Guitarmasterx7:
I mean reviews in general rub me as blind praise a lot. "Popular Bland Game Sequel 3" won't get a lower score than an 8 pretty much anywhere. I don't really look at them for scores I look at them for how well they give me an idea of what the game is like.

The only thing that comes to mind specifically is the GTA 5 review I read here on the escapist, probably because it was really recent and I don't get frustrated with reviews very often. I was sort of on the fence about the game, so I went in looking for a review that would talk about actual gameplay, features, areas of improvement over 4, things like that. 3/4ths of it was spent going "I DONT LIKE PLAYING AS BAD GUYS" and what should have been a short bullet point with maybe a sentence or two of justification became the center of the whole review.

What I hate about that type of review is that gameplay should always be a far bigger factor in a game like GTA V. You can ignore/skip the cutscenes if you want, mute the sound and just enjoy the game. It shouldn't have any real affect on the rating.

I strongly disagree, although you can have fun without viewing the story, the story is a huge part of GTA and that's not just the new games but with Vice City and any GTA after.

The story is actually really good but that's just my opinion, the fact is it provides necessary context for a lot of the stuff you do.
That in mind, if somebody did that and called it a "pure gameplay review" and made it clear to people that they skilled all cutscenes, that would be an interesting idea.

Still, that's like saying you can play Mass Effect and just skip all the cutscenes because only gameplay matters.

I wrote an abysmal "review" of Psychonauts that I'm not proud of. I've gotten much better.

Other than that, I instantly loathe any review that dares to use the term "objectively".

Almost anything from gamespot, they have a deep hate against jrpg but yet review almost all that gets released to NA and most of the time they just write up a review that will get them a lot of traffic,usually by having someone do a review on something they hate/dislike or have no clue about.
All in all a pretty awful place to go to for reviews,imo.

I remember reading some A LOT of user reviews on Gamefaqs and, since I do still post there from time to time, I'm not going to talk about some of the more "serious" reviews with "low scores" attached to them... (2/10 for KH1 due to it being boring, repetitive, stupid camera and controls, and disgracing both the Disney and Final Fantasy brand? "Okay...")

Other than that, most of the "worse" reviews I read are usually in video form (IGN, Gamespot, Escapist) and the only one I can think of that was "worse" was X-Play's Persona 3: Fes review... I know that their review of Persona 3 was pretty mixed in terms of how the review was presented... but their Fes review is where things got kinda more negative... mainly because they spoil the ending to Persona 3 no more than a minute into the review...

Now, at the time, I was still in the middle of playing my high school friend's copy of Persona 3, so when I saw that review I initially thought they were joking... Man, was I wrong... (At least they did not spoil P3's climax, otherwise I would have hated them forever for a few days afterwards...)

The original fictional Duke Nukem Forever 'review' by Yahtzee.

Sure it was fun but then it won the 'Best ZP episode' poll, which made it clear how little can people appreciate real well done reviews such as most of the other work by Yahtzee.

Also, Gear of War on GameSpot, praised by the same author who trashed Kane & Lynch. That dude obviously knows how to MAKE games (Bastion), but as far as reviews go, he was terrible.

Well there was that one Amy review, I think it was from IGN, that said "Amy is Ico with zombies and it's brilliant" which I think we can fairly call BS on.

For me personally though, it would have to be Susan Arendt's Mass Effect 3 review. I say this as someone who played the game (post extended cut) and then read the review. There are just so many laughably inaccurate lines in it like:
"Mass Effect 3 does a masterful job of calling back to the first two games, their DLC, and even the Mass Effect novels."

"Mass Effect's core strength has been its story, which is particularly well crafted in Mass Effect 3",

"Rather than leaving options open for a sequel, the game makes the most of the chance to take the sum of your decisions and show you the outcome."

"Everything you do feels important - every side quest, every scan, every conversation, every shot fired feels like it impacts your likelihood of success in a very real and tangible way."

I understand that most reviews only receive copies of the game a few days before release and they need to get them out quickly to maximize the view count, which is especially difficult with an epic length game like Skyrim or GTA. However when you have something that's demonstratively inaccurate then there are serious problems and it's part of the reason why angry fans accuse reviewers of being corrupt.

Also, to those who are throwing around the "it's only opinion so you can't debate the accuracy or merit of it" please stop using that as a shield, especially when genuine criticism is being leveled instead of barely comprehensible rage (why yes I do appreciate the irony of that statement).

Any review that bashes any RPG for screwing around in menus in stead of "standard gameplay", at any point in the review, for any reason. NAME ONE rpg that didn't use its non combat engine menus as a main gameplay feature. ONE! Item crafting, EXP Allocation, Squad management, Item management, Ability selection, Mon breeding, Dialogue trees, Journal or notes pages, and in Game lore. All of those are menus. A typical RPG has three elements to it: cutscene, combat, and its micromanagement system. Two out of those three require menus to optimize player experience.

Reviews that praise open world games that are so glitchy that they barely work, see any review that gave a Bethesda game higher than a zero. Yes, I am STILL bitter about my PS3 port of Skyrim. Superman 64/Sonic 2006 level bad.

Reviews that bitch about linearity. My favourite games are Persona 3&4, Bioshock, Portal 1&2, and FF XIII. I love me a game that makes the concept of linearity and fucking with the player experience and expectations and makes it the central tenant of the plot.

One's that I remember? Hm, I'd have to say Game Informer's review of Sonic Generations. IIRC, it was something along the lines of Sonic on last legs, shitty gameplay, uninspired, just let Sonic die already. I don't hate a review for having opinions that differ from mine, but I feel like that reviewer just missed the point of the game completely.

Also, CGRundercrow's review of Tales of the Abyss, because that one legitimately was wrong about a lot of things pertaining to the game. It was clear that he didn't play far enough into the game, because one of his biggest complaints/his main complaint would have been clearly addressed had he actually played more than a third of the game. If the entire game had consisted of only the first 5 or so hours that he had played, then he might have had something, but there was a lot more to go on than that. As much as people like to make rule of thumbs for knowing whether or not you will like a game after playing a certain amount, some games just don't fit into that kind of filter, and you need to play to a certain point before that particular aspect you hate will do a 180 in favor of what you want to see get corrected.

I can't remember which online gaming site published it (and it's no longer showing up on google searches) but I recall a killer7 review which was hilariously bad. One paragraph started "wahh, puzzles on easy mode are too easy" which is very true, and followed it up with "wahh, puzzles on hard mode are too hard, I can't get past the first one and I think it's broken" despite the puzzles being only slightly tweaked.

Carpenter:

But that's all opinion, where it bugged me is where he said things that were demonstrably false. He didn't say he didn't like the motivations of the characters, he said they had no motivations. That's a bold claim, and a false one, they had pretty clear motivations throughout the game.
He talks about past GTA games, even vice city, and tries to claim that the protagonists of those games all had some level of morality. He said that Vercetti in Vice City was fighting for justice, kind of wondering why he brought up Vice city if he hadn't played it.

And of course, life invader. He claims you are never told what will happen, Lester explains what will happen before you do the mission. He says a reason is NEVER given for doing it, Lester gives a few reasons before the mission and tells you the real reason after.
The problem is that a lot of what he said was not a matter of opinion but, as I said, demonstrably false and it starts to paint a picture that suggests that he was skipping all the cut scenes to fly through the game, which is fine unless you are doing a "professional review" and do nothing but complain about a lack of story.

This. people can talk about differing opinions all they like, but when a game reviewer is posting obviously false "facts" about a game to justify an opinion, their opinion doesn't mean shit.

Adam Locking:
I can't remember which online gaming site published it (and it's no longer showing up on google searches) but I recall a killer7 review which was hilariously bad. One paragraph started "wahh, puzzles on easy mode are too easy" which is very true, and followed it up with "wahh, puzzles on hard mode are too hard, I can't get past the first one and I think it's broken" despite the puzzles being only slightly tweaked.

Carpenter:

But that's all opinion, where it bugged me is where he said things that were demonstrably false. He didn't say he didn't like the motivations of the characters, he said they had no motivations. That's a bold claim, and a false one, they had pretty clear motivations throughout the game.
He talks about past GTA games, even vice city, and tries to claim that the protagonists of those games all had some level of morality. He said that Vercetti in Vice City was fighting for justice, kind of wondering why he brought up Vice city if he hadn't played it.

And of course, life invader. He claims you are never told what will happen, Lester explains what will happen before you do the mission. He says a reason is NEVER given for doing it, Lester gives a few reasons before the mission and tells you the real reason after.
The problem is that a lot of what he said was not a matter of opinion but, as I said, demonstrably false and it starts to paint a picture that suggests that he was skipping all the cut scenes to fly through the game, which is fine unless you are doing a "professional review" and do nothing but complain about a lack of story.

This. people can talk about differing opinions all they like, but when a game reviewer is posting obviously false "facts" about a game to justify an opinion, their opinion doesn't mean shit.

Exactly, It's accidental misrepresentation at best, completely dishonest at worst.
I know I am repeating myself to an extent but I can't get over how disgusting it is that Escapist continued to defend that review by attacking the fans of the site and the constant use of strawman attacks. I know this sounds silly, but Jim Sterling doing it was really sad. I guess I thought better of him. The whole "fans don't like it because it didn't get a perfect score" strawman is so annoying. It shows that they really have no valid merit to defend it on because they need to make up a stance to argue against.
Yes we are aware that the score wasn't that low, hence why it's confusing that the reviewer did nothing but rail on it about the story and "immorality" and btw, don't use that "well we know you will read other reviews" excuse because a lot of people (such as myself) make the idiotic mistake of thinking that they don't need to read a bunch of other reviews before yours just to get a full review. Many of us, and I know this is shocking, don't like to see ten reviews and completely ruin any sense of surprise before playing a game, some people like to read one written review from a source they considered trustworthy or at the very least professional.

That killer 7 thing gives me a laugh. Ok I know this is cheesy, but killer 7 wasn't just wacky for the sake of wacky, there was a story and a meaning in that game, it was style and substance and I loved it. I can give anyone a pass for hating on it in a review because it's not for everyone. It's not just a game, it's a personal spiritual experience, it's a game that's meant to be played by yourself IMO, experiencing it fully and not trying to run a tally on the cons and pros.

I forgot where but I read a negative review of Borderlands 2, where the only reasoning the reviewer gave for giving Borderlands 2 a low score was that "Black Ops 2 was coming out in less than 2 months"

I was like... but you haven't even reviewed Black Ops 2 you don't know if it's going to be good, or even remotely similar to Borderlands 2

Susan's review of Mass Effect 3 on this sight was pretty terrible. Full of lies and such. "You get closure for all the characters you cared about" Uh... what?

I disagree with a lot of reviews but have rarely found any without any merit, however anytime a reviewer brings up the ethics of a game, seeing it as despicable and shouldn't exist, I have issue with those.

I can't name specific ones but read through the reviews for Manhunt and Manhunt 2 for what I mean. The Manhunt series is controversial, it was made by Rockstar, the core gameplay mechanic is the act of executing people, and again, it was made by Rockstar.

The games have issues, awful graphics, especially the second one, terribly stupid AI, and some really stupid control decisions. The game can be slammed to hell and back for those. The game can be critiqued for its idea, the games revolve around murdering people, that is not exactly good and is something that can be disagreed with. My issue is that a lot of the reviews from "professionals" end up sounding like the were written by Jack Thompson in how they insist the games are trash and shouldn't exist.

My opinion, OPINION, is that while reviewers can disagree with concepts in a game, it doesn't seem right to state a game shouldn't exist. Even games like Rapelay could be defended and be justified to exist, however the review that covers the quality of the game isn't the proper place to discuss the merits of a games existence, in my opinion.

I refuse to take any game review seriously that gives the game a 10/10. 10's no longer mean anything. No game is perfect so if you tell me it is I won't believe you.

I can't remember where I'd read it but it was a review for Final Fantasy X-2.

Fair enough whoever it was didn't like it but he refered to Yuna as "a horny teenager looking for her boyfriend". I can't help but feel that horny is the absolute last word I would ever describe Yuna as, therefore I couldn't take anything he said seriously at all.

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned before, but Adam Najberg's review of Borderlands 2 on the Wall Street Journal was laughable. He was asking for sixteen-player co-op because one NASCAR game he'd liked had that. He was asking for CoD-inspired graphics and wondered why the game wasn't tailored towards quickscopers. He also wondered why he couldn't just stick to one set of weapons through the whole game.

In short, he didn't just miss the point - he sailed over it while standing astride a winged tiger and playing a kickass Power Rock anthem.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/09/18/game-theory-borderlands-2-fails-to-cross-ove/

Phrozenflame500:
Go onto Metacritic.

Go to the user review section of any triple-A release, the more highely praised the better.

Find the most negative review, bonus points if the reviewer states "he only rated it such to counter all the 10s".

There was a user review for Little Big Planet that made me chuckle. He gave it 0 because the game was so awesome that 10 wasn't a good enough score so it rolled over to 0.

OT: 1UP's review of Super Smash Bros. Melee. They gave it a mediocre score (not a bad one) because it was just a reskin of the original adding nothing new.

Twice the amount of characters, lots of new moves, new items, more diversity in stage selection and an overall change in the combat's flow, adventure mode, Allstars mode, mission mode, collectibles, new game modes, improved the AI, dynamic stages and it also looked a lot prettier. I am probably forgetting something here, but saying it didn't add anything new is one of the few things that can be said is objectively wrong when it comes reviews. Not liking the game is fine, that's an opinion.

Mikeyfell:

Susan's review of Mass Effect 3 on this sight was pretty terrible. Full of lies and such. "You get closure for all the characters you cared about" Uh... what?

this, maybe there where more worse ones but then I removed them from my memory.
Susan suffered a major face loss with this in my book. After that she was never was the same to me, again.

I once read a Metacritic user review (I get the impression that you know what comes next) on the highly divising Civilization V, that - apart from being particularly incoherent rage - stated that the idea of not having to build boats to send units across water was indicative of 'casualization'. Pretty much the only point they made.

My all-time favorite is IGN's take on FFX.

It's not an objectively bad review, but the reviewer and I see things completely differently. Everything I hated he loved. Take this bit:

"FFX manages to create a remarkably engaging cast, though, despite the fact that Nomura has well and truly topped himself in the outlandish accessorization department... favorite bits would be the long blue ribbons hanging from the back of Rikku's shirt, and naturally Lulu's amazing floor-length skirt. "

Oh, and this gem:

"Rikku provides the chirpy comic relief without grating too badly (as her Japanese voice actor did at times), and Wakka, wader-clad goofball though he may be, is probably the best-cast and best-acted of the lot."

I wont say much but when reviewers call a game 'repetitive' and 'clunky' without further explanation, he/she is not doing a very good job.

I guess reviews of Mass Effect 3 should have said the game felt a bit rushed and the ending was bad, but I don't remember any review that was particularly wrong. Maybe Haze, which was kinda generic but IGN destroyed the game.

canadamus_prime:
I refuse to take any game review seriously that gives the game a 10/10. 10's no longer mean anything. No game is perfect so if you tell me it is I won't believe you.

A 10 out of 10 is not saying the game is perfect.

I have tried explaining this to the people that say that same line.

So you think it should be 1/9? Then a 9, on your scale, would be perfect and therefore a sign of a horrible reviewer.

See we all know that no game is perfect, it would still be stupid to have a 1/10 scale if you never use the 10.

BloodRed Pixel:

Mikeyfell:

Susan's review of Mass Effect 3 on this sight was pretty terrible. Full of lies and such. "You get closure for all the characters you cared about" Uh... what?

this, maybe there where more worse ones but then I removed them from my memory.
Susan suffered a major face loss with this in my book. After that she was never was the same to me, again.

Yeah but don't worry, the Escapist staff, as they always do, came rushing to the defense of Susan and Mass Effect 3.

As I said before, they love their strawmen.

"People are just angry because they didn't get their happy ending. Prostitution/massage joke, repeat."

Pink Gregory:
I once read a Metacritic user review (I get the impression that you know what comes next) on the highly divising Civilization V, that - apart from being particularly incoherent rage - stated that the idea of not having to build boats to send units across water was indicative of 'casualization'. Pretty much the only point they made.

I love that, considering the very first Civilization was far more "casual" than any of the sequels. I can understand the game not being your thing but the gameplay gets more and more complex as it goes through sequels.

A lot of reviews of God Hand were pretty bad, but IGN's has gone down in infamy for how badly the reviewer missed the point of the game.

More recently, and on a similar note, a lot of reviewers were very critical of W101 for having inconsistent controls, despite gamers who own the game putting out videos showing just how consistent the controls are. The game actually inspired an article from one of the developers of the Penny Arcade game, about how some styles of games are poorly suited for the current method of games reviewing, ie- they're geared more towards getting a player to learn and master the mechanics through replayability, whereas most game reviews are based on a short amount of time playing the game, with many not even reaching the end of the game.

It's why we've seen a trend of critics heaping more and more praise on the more linear, 'cinematic' style games, and games with deeper mechanics being written off as more 'niche'. It's easier for a review to blast through Uncharted from start to finish and write up an impression than it is for them to get a handle on the mechanics of something like Vanquish. With a linear action game, everything is surface level, which makes it much easier to understand and therefore critique. Whereas the genius of God Hand or W101 lies in the intricacy of the mechanics, which require more of an investment to really understand.

If anyone ever saw Judgement Day they'd know why I'm bringing it up.

First off, The Smash Bros. Melee review. It got a 3/10 from them. Why? Because Kirby was in it. I shit you not. That douche Tallarico kept bashing it because Kirby was in it. That was it.

Their Rave Master review can be summed up by the first line in the review. "It's a game based off of an anime I've never heard of, therefore it sucks."

Then he gives a bad score to Psychonauts for one reason, it's too cartoonish. Then he gives a 10 to another game, Advent Rising. By the way, guess who did the soundtrack for the latter? Hint: Tallarico.

RaikuFA:
If anyone ever saw Judgement Day they'd know why I'm bringing it up.

First off, The Smash Bros. Melee review. It got a 3/10 from them. Why? Because Kirby was in it. I shit you not. That douche Tallarico kept bashing it because Kirby was in it. That was it.

Their Rave Master review can be summed up by the first line in the review. "It's a game based off of an anime I've never heard of, therefore it sucks."

Then he gives a bad score to Psychonauts for one reason, it's too cartoonish. Then he gives a 10 to another game, Advent Rising. By the way, guess who did the soundtrack for the latter? Hint: Tallarico.

Oh god, Judgement Day was awful. Didn't they call the show something else for a while too?

Yeah I remember as a kid watching it and still realizing how stupid it was when they did the burnout revenge review and the "Tommy" guy insisted that it deserves an 11 because it's "better than perfect"

Which is stupid in so many ways.

That same guy also skipped cutscenes and complained in games like LA Rush (or whatever it was called) that he doesn't know why he can't use all of his rich guy cars.

Geoff was his co host. If people don't recognize that name, he, I believe, runs the Spike TV video game awards. Let that sink in.

As a kid I knew the reviews were awful but I didn't have internet and I was able to watch new video games on tv, it was worth sitting through the idiotic commentary.
People complained about xplay, go watch a few videos of Judgement day.

I heard a comment on a podcast that upon hearing i feel is rather true. Reviewers are usually terrible at reviewing character action games (read bayonetta, wonderful 101, etc) The reason is usually two fold. The first is that the reviewer is a best a general video game fan rather than an expert in the genre. This results in the reviewer not being able to recognize the true depth of the game. And the second issue is that the reviewer doesn't have time to learn the depth.

I think this logic can be applied to any genre honestly, if a reviewer is not literally an expert in the genre of the game, he/she will have alot of difficulty gauging the depth and overall mechanics of the game. For example, I would not be able to recognize a bad fighting game within an hour of play (trying everyone). However someone that is really into fighting games would be able to discover a broken/bad fighting game within 30 seconds or less.

The second argument is pretty self explanatory, how can you give an accurate review of a game that you played for 6 hours, if the total game time for the main game and no side quests is 60?

In terms of worst review I've ever read, im not sure, because most of the time they are opinions by a person that doesn't really understand the genre or didn't have the time to, so i guess i cant feel too mad.

gamecritics Skyward Sword review.

It's just bashing, the high and low just proves my point, he wasn't being a professional, quite the opposite, he should be fired for that. Heck after reading it, I thought a 6 was too high and that he would give it a 3 or something.

Any review that gave 10/10 to GTA IV

Any Nintendo game review made by Gamespot.

The first 3 minutes of this is an embarrassment. It's more of an advert. (or maybe I just find it annoying because the game made me want to shoot myself)

Yahtzee's Last of us 'review' has an anti console agenda and is hypocritical when you consider the spec-ops the line review.
I also felt Polygon playing the 'woman handled badly' card for Last of Us was twisted to suit an agenda....now I sound like I'm butthurt :(

There's plently of reviews I strongly disagree with (every positive Hitman absolution review & Susan's Tomb Raider review) but the ones above are a joke.

In defence of Susan's Mass effect 3 review; not everyone is going to be as heavily invested into the lore and see straight through the plot holes and contrivances like some of us hardcore fans. At least she didn't have an agenda. .

See, I don't mind when certain critics give a good review to a bad game or vice versa; diversity of opinions is good, and if they can justify why they're going against the grain, then I'll respect their opinion even if I don't agree with it. The Susan Arendt Mass Effect 3 thing is a good example- you may not agree with what she's saying, but the point is that she genuinely believes it and can point to examples that support her argument. Similarly, Joab Gilroy's less-than-positive review of Halo 4 on Gamearena (which seem to have been taken down, surprise surprise); he went against the grain, but he clearly knew what he was talking about.

What I hate is when reviewers write like all they're trying to do is make waves. He's not a gaming reviewer, but this is where Moviebob's reviews really fall flat for me.

I don't remember where, but I read a review for Ace Combat 5 that complained about the anti-war messages in the story... aka the entire point of the game. There was a line to the effect of "I just want to have a badass dogfight without hearing my wingmen whining about the injustice of war." Yeah.

Carpenter:

RaikuFA:
If anyone ever saw Judgement Day they'd know why I'm bringing it up.

First off, The Smash Bros. Melee review. It got a 3/10 from them. Why? Because Kirby was in it. I shit you not. That douche Tallarico kept bashing it because Kirby was in it. That was it.

Their Rave Master review can be summed up by the first line in the review. "It's a game based off of an anime I've never heard of, therefore it sucks."

Then he gives a bad score to Psychonauts for one reason, it's too cartoonish. Then he gives a 10 to another game, Advent Rising. By the way, guess who did the soundtrack for the latter? Hint: Tallarico.

Oh god, Judgement Day was awful. Didn't they call the show something else for a while too?

Yeah I remember as a kid watching it and still realizing how stupid it was when they did the burnout revenge review and the "Tommy" guy insisted that it deserves an 11 because it's "better than perfect"

Which is stupid in so many ways.

That same guy also skipped cutscenes and complained in games like LA Rush (or whatever it was called) that he doesn't know why he can't use all of his rich guy cars.

Geoff was his co host. If people don't recognize that name, he, I believe, runs the Spike TV video game awards. Let that sink in.

As a kid I knew the reviews were awful but I didn't have internet and I was able to watch new video games on tv, it was worth sitting through the idiotic commentary.
People complained about xplay, go watch a few videos of Judgement day.

I only saw the Rave Master one when it was on. I rarely watched G4 only good thing was Code Monkeys. But they fucked that over.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked