Issues in Video Games and Entertainment

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
SquishypuffDave



Gender: Male
Age: 33
Australia

  • #51
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 13:00
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Happymeal wrote:
It seems pretty hypocritical to tout on about sexuality being good and then complain when a character expresses sexuality in a way you don't like.


I'm all for sexually empowered and sexually expressed female characters. When someone writes a female character, arguments that the character is empowered are hinged on the idea that they would consent to those behaviours if they were real. It is the responsibility of the creator to portray active consent as if the character were flesh and blood. When this doesn't happen, that's when it turns into objectification. It's usually not hard to tell the difference.

Happymeal wrote:
I never stated what was wrong or right. Get it through your head that I am not making moral judgements. Whether what's inside of art is wrong or right is irrelevant to me because audiences have preferences. I think we shouldn't force ideologies on people, especially when it comes to expression. When we start judging art based on our morals, we get very dangerous situations where people fear to express themselves.


Regardless of wrong/right, you keep saying that things I consider sexist aren't really sexist, and that's where the disagreement seems to be. I'm also interested in your definition of "forcing ideologies". What about the ideology that you shouldn't force ideologies? I never brought up censorship, if that's what you're talking about? I guess we just have different attitudes about the moral element of art. It seems bizarre to not talk about the moral element of an artwork when critiquing it.

Since you don't seem to think sexism exists in games, I guess my question would be: if games actually were sexist (a preposterous notion), and they actually had a negative social impact (simply ridiculous), should we in that situation make any attempt to influence the game designers to make less sexist products?

I think I've identified what our major difference is: your view of the world seems individualistic, discrete, binary, whereas I see everything as a part of a system, everything leaks into everything else. I don't feel like influencing artists to be more socially aware is in any way diluting their art. I'm not interested in legalistic restrictions and suppression of ideas, I'm interested in true growth and change. I think getting rid of sexist baggage will lead to more honesty, more variety, more freedom.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
benpaco
Who's gonna watch you die?



Age: 27
Location: California
United States

  • #52
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 14:02
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Happymeal wrote:
No one was complaining about depression quest.


I'm not touching 99% of this conversation with a 40 ft pole, but that's just not true. Like (and this may sound satirical - it shouldn't be), as someone who went through that stuff, that game sucked. It was a horrible misrepresentation of what depression is like. I gotta agree with this reviewer who commented:

"Depression Quest is an interactive fiction game where after each section of text you get to pick what happens next. If you’re falling into bad depression some of the options get a red strike through them so you can’t select them. The first time I played I selected all the obviously good ideas (get support, therapy etc) and finished the game in a pretty good place. In short, I told my character to cheer up, and he did.


Huh." - Daniel Hardcastle

That's not how depression works. It's not easy choices, it's not obvious choices, taking the obvious choices doesn't always work, there's unexpected bumps in the road, and while I applaud her for trying to make a game that would mean something, to me, the game was actually bad, and I'm not alone in that, as Mr. Hardcastle had these concerns before any news had come out about any journalists or sexual encounters or anything, and this post got a number of reblogs, retweets, etc.
_________________


. . . 2016 . . . 2015 . . .

Things I Make
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Happymeal





  • #53
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 14:07
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Quote:
I'm all for sexually empowered and sexually expressed female characters. When someone writes a female character, arguments that the character is empowered are hinged on the idea that they would consent to those behaviours if they were real. It is the responsibility of the creator to portray active consent as if the character were flesh and blood. When this doesn't happen, that's when it turns into objectification. It's usually not hard to tell the difference.


Lol, you can't get a character to consent, it's within a person's mind. I also think objectification is a really minimal, if not a non - existent, problem as almost everyone has their choice with their actions. Would you say a model who has consented to a billboard which puts her in a revealing outfit that was created by men is objectification or sexual empowerment? Because I've seen criticism of objectification of women due to the scantily clad woman being displayed. But she deliberately consented to being a part of that process which is also sexual empowerment (there have also been interviews with certain women that were criticized who literally stated that this empowers them) . See, the problem with the notion of objectification is it's always based on the person. I've seen women who many may consider ugly criticize woman who are generally considered gorgeous (I'm not stating how I perceive any of these people just to clarify) inside of certain roles of being the sexy female character as objectifying women yet the women in those roles are empowered by it or they criticize women who like being housewives criticized for not being empowered. This is insane. I focus on the fact people make choices and we can certainly criticize choices, but we shouldn't demonize women who choose to be housewives or sexy or whatever. We should support whatever non - harmful action they make.

Quote:
Regardless of wrong/right, you keep saying that things I consider sexist aren't really sexist, and that's where the disagreement seems to be. I'm also interested in your definition of "forcing ideologies". What about the ideology that you shouldn't force ideologies? I never brought up censorship, if that's what you're talking about? I guess we just have different attitudes about the moral element of art. It seems bizarre to not talk about the moral element of an artwork when critiquing it.


I think you comprehend what I mean by forcing ideologies. Criticizing works of art for whatever moral reason is fine by me, but that doesn't mean I think it should be done. However, controlling media and not allowing for a variety of perspectives to happen (e.g. censorship) is what I mean by forcing ideologies. I don't mind Anita Sarkesian making videos despite disagreeing with her for ex. However, I do mind whenever I see something where people are either purposefully skewing a side of an argument or censoring that side by utilizing the media as that's the biggest way to express ideas. Censorship is the devil.

Quote:
Since you don't seem to think sexism exists in games, I guess my question would be: if games actually were sexist (a preposterous notion), and they actually had a negative social impact (simply ridiculous), should we in that situation make any attempt to influence the game designers to make less sexist products?


We should criticize them like you and others have been doing. While I disagree that it's based on sexism, I do think more perceptions would be cool to see in gaming rather than the humdrum man saves woman type thing. Just to clarify, you did never directly ask about my position there so I didn't clarify it before. I'm essentially on your side, but I hate the tactics being utilized here by stating everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot or sexist or whatever people want to frame it as. Especially when most of these people aren't actually fuckin bigots.

Quote:
I think I've identified what our major difference is: your view of the world seems individualistic, discrete, binary, whereas I see everything as a part of a system, everything leaks into everything else. I don't feel like influencing artists to be more socially aware is in any way diluting their art. I'm not interested in legalistic restrictions and suppression of ideas, I'm interested in true growth and change. I think getting rid of sexist baggage will lead to more honesty, more variety, more freedom.


I agree that changing games to having a variety of perspectives will be fine, but it should be a natural occurrence of consumer stating "x would be nice to see", not "you fukin sexist misogynistic pig, I'm gonna get your game the lowest ratings possible on every website solely because it didn't have enough women in it". The ends don't justify the means.


benpaco wrote:
I'm not touching 99% of this conversation with a 40 ft pole, but that's just not true. Like (and this may sound satirical - it shouldn't be), as someone who went through that stuff, that game sucked. It was a horrible misrepresentation of what depression is like. I gotta agree with this reviewer who commented:

"Depression Quest is an interactive fiction game where after each section of text you get to pick what happens next. If you’re falling into bad depression some of the options get a red strike through them so you can’t select them. The first time I played I selected all the obviously good ideas (get support, therapy etc) and finished the game in a pretty good place. In short, I told my character to cheer up, and he did.


Huh." - Daniel Hardcastle

That's not how depression works. It's not easy choices, it's not obvious choices, taking the obvious choices doesn't always work, there's unexpected bumps in the road, and while I applaud her for trying to make a game that would mean something, to me, the game was actually bad, and I'm not alone in that, as Mr. Hardcastle had these concerns before any news had come out about any journalists or sexual encounters or anything, and this post got a number of reblogs, retweets, etc.


I was talking about the movement gamergate there. Yeah, there were critics and people responding to the game, but gamergate was never a movement about assessing the game.
Back to top
Satie





  • #54
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 14:41
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Happymeal wrote:
Lol, you can't get a character to consent, it's within a person's mind. I also think objectification is a really minimal, if not a non - existent, problem as almost everyone has their choice with their actions. Would you say a model who has consented to a billboard which puts her in a revealing outfit that was created by men is objectification or sexual empowerment? Because I've seen criticism of objectification of women due to the scantily clad woman being displayed. But she deliberately consented to being a part of that process which is also sexual empowerment (there have also been interviews with certain women that were criticized who literally stated that this empowers them) . See, the problem with the notion of objectification is it's always based on the person. I've seen women who many may consider ugly criticize woman who are generally considered gorgeous (I'm not stating how I perceive any of these people just to clarify) inside of certain roles of being the sexy female character as objectifying women yet the women in those roles are empowered by it or they criticize women who like being housewives criticized for not being empowered. This is insane. I focus on the fact people make choices and we can certainly criticize choices, but we shouldn't demonize women who choose to be housewives or sexy or whatever. We should support whatever non - harmful action they make.


You seem to think that, as Squishy is saying, objectification and empowerment exist in vacuums. There are both systemic and individual actions and purposes that are played out over every inter-personal interaction, artistic text, political action, etc. It is not as simple as this individualistic "How does this affect this one specific woman?" If a woman feels empowered sexually and expresses that in a graphic rape fantasy pornographic film, she can totally be individually fulfilled, but survivors of rape who are exposed to such films might be hurt, and men might have their perceptions of sex are affected by watching such things (even on the subconscious level of seeking out increasingly violent sex acts). Squishy put it best - everything leaks into everything. To hold creators accountable for their creations is not to damn them but to ask them to be more thoughtful and clear with intent. Rape scenes can be entirely powerful, even when written by men, if they are handled with grace and compassion and have more complicated goals. Lynch's Blue Velvet is a controversial example of a film that confronts the male gaze and asks it directly why it is titillated by the image of the madonna being raped. David Lynch is one of the least "censored" directors I know of (and as a result, occasionally makes massive gaffes - don't take this as full endorsement of all the fucked up things he's made). Why can't video games tell equally complicated stories through the incredible medium-specific dimension of player interaction? Why are these kinds of scenes relegated to B-movie Hollywood fodder cutscenes, played for jokes, used for achievement points, or otherwise belittled in their emotional impact?

Quote:
I think you comprehend what I mean by forcing ideologies. Criticizing works of art for whatever moral reason is fine by me, but that doesn't mean I think it should be done. However, controlling media and not allowing for a variety of perspectives to happen (e.g. censorship) is what I mean by forcing ideologies. I don't mind Anita Sarkesian making videos despite disagreeing with her for ex. However, I do mind whenever I see something where people are either purposefully skewing a side of an argument or censoring that side by utilizing the media as that's the biggest way to express ideas. Censorship is the devil.


What is your actual beef with censorship? I hate to take this to ground zero, but *apologizes to everyone who's spent two seconds in a political science class profusely* the First Amendment still values context. Screaming fire in a crowded theater or bomb in an airport is "censored." If there is a demonstrable societal good that comes out of repressing (through popular action, not government mandate) incredibly vile media, why should people not pursue this? To move on from this, no one even is asking for that. You keep complaining about strawmans, but you seem to equate "skewing a side of an argument" (something you haven't provided contextual examples of) as equivalent to book burning or some other weird libertarian paranoid fantasy that comes up whenever white male power is challenged in even the most benign of ways.

Quote:
We should criticize them like you and others have been doing. While I disagree that it's based on sexism, I do think more perceptions would be cool to see in gaming rather than the humdrum man saves woman type thing. Just to clarify, you did never directly ask about my position there so I didn't clarify it before. I'm essentially on your side, but I hate the tactics being utilized here by stating everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot or sexist or whatever people want to frame it as. Especially when most of these people aren't actually fuckin bigots.


Again, though, you're more afraid of being labeled as a sexist or having your allies criticized as sexist than about sexism itself. This seems like an incredibly odd, destructive stance to take. Yes, online, arguments on both sides seem to unravel into individualist attacks (mainly, I would be quick to add, based on the fact that society as a whole has become incredibly individualistic thanks to ideas like those you espouse, that structural problems have to be manifested in extreme ways in people to matter, and thus the conversation has shifted to point out lurking racism and sexism, but without the grace or nuance to constantly be stating the dialectic nature of those stances with society).

Quote:
I agree that changing games to having a variety of perspectives will be fine, but it should be a natural occurrence of consumer stating "x would be nice to see", not "you fukin sexist misogynistic pig, I'm gonna get your game the lowest ratings possible on every website solely because it didn't have enough women in it". The ends don't justify the means.


No market has ever functioned completely based on consumer demand. Never. Even if you believe in this fucking insane free market model, you have to concede that creators have to create those choices before they can be made. No one is going to create a petition to be allowed to buy a product. Marginalized people in video gaming tend to just support the least bad alternatives (games not driven by narrative or driven by otherwise non-anthropomorphised characters, for example, are big favorites of my personal gender non-binary and transgender friends because it helps distract from gender dysmorphia at best and at least doesn't contribute to it at worst) but are rarely given what they want, and I don't think the burden is 100% on them to demand it. And if it is, are videos like Sarkeesian's not the opening salvo in that demand? And what evidence do you have of some SJW conspiracy tanking games' ratings on major review sites?
Back to top
SquishypuffDave



Gender: Male
Age: 33
Australia

  • #55
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 15:08
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Happymeal wrote:
Lol, you can't get a character to consent, it's within a person's mind. I also think objectification is a really minimal, if not a non - existent, problem as almost everyone has their choice with their actions. Would you say a model who has consented to a billboard which puts her in a revealing outfit that was created by men is objectification or sexual empowerment? Because I've seen criticism of objectification of women due to the scantily clad woman being displayed. But she deliberately consented to being a part of that process which is also sexual empowerment (there have also been interviews with certain women that were criticized who literally stated that this empowers them) . See, the problem with the notion of objectification is it's always based on the person. I've seen women who many may consider ugly criticize woman who are generally considered gorgeous (I'm not stating how I perceive any of these people just to clarify) inside of certain roles of being the sexy female character as objectifying women yet the women in those roles are empowered by it or they criticize women who like being housewives criticized for not being empowered. This is insane. I focus on the fact people make choices and we can certainly criticize choices, but we shouldn't demonize women who choose to be housewives or sexy or whatever. We should support whatever non - harmful action they make.


Here's a handy-dandy article to help you:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/emp...jectified/
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Happymeal





  • #56
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 15:20
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Quote:
you seem to think that, as Squishy is saying, objectification and empowerment exist in vacuums. There are both systemic and individual actions and purposes that are played out over every inter-personal interaction,


My perspective is that individuals are the reason why a system exists. Sure, the same exact systems can have different people (or, at least, the system is perceived as the same), but without parts, there is no system. Utilizing that particular perspective, you can comprehend why I think complaining about the system and ignoring the individual is not a good idea. All problems can have solutions, but not if we speak in general terms. Systems are too general to properly solve problems when individual problems are excessive in them. Systems have parts and some are larger than others so we need to fix the parts, not the system. If your house has a broken light-bulb, do you change the light-bulb or replace the house? Better yet, if your roof doesn't possess the qualities you want to, you don't tear down the entire house and build it again, you replace the roof.

Quote:
It is not as simple as this individualistic "How does this affect this one specific woman?" If a woman feels empowered sexually and expresses that in a graphic rape fantasy pornographic film, she can totally be individually fulfilled, but survivors of rape who are exposed to such films might be hurt, and men might have their perceptions of sex are affected by watching such things (even on the subconscious level of seeking out increasingly violent sex acts).


Yes, but what solution do we have for this? We can't just say "you can't make art about this, people are sensitive to this" and think that's a good thing unless it's affecting a large majority of the group we're referring to. If 99% of all humans were rape survivors, I could comprehend your point, but I would still think it's wrong. By censoring art solely because it MIGHT affect people forces me to think you have an agenda that really isn't interested in bettering humanity, but appealing to tact which most of my favorite albums have never done. If we utilize this same line of thinking with The Moon and Antarctica for example. The line "God is a woman" could easily hurt religious people. Should we then say that because this isn't sensitive to Christians, it's subsequently wrong? Art needs criticism, not censorship and there's a huge distinction there. As for your end statement of "men might have...sex acts", first you would need to provide evidence if this is your concern. This means actual empirical evidence and not anecdotal evidence. Second, it wouldn't just affect men, you completely forget about lesbian and bisexual women.

Quote:
Squishy put it best - everything leaks into everything. To hold creators accountable for their creations is not to damn them but to ask them to be more thoughtful and clear with intent.


I agree that people affect one another. That's a basic truth, but there's a distinction between criticism and censorship. Perspectives need to be voiced regardless of how many people voice them. Certainly I can think an idea is foolish, and that's fine, but as soon I do not allow that idea anywhere in the marketplace of ideas except from where the idea came from, it instantly become a break of ethical matters on my part.

Quote:
Why can't video games tell equally complicated stories through the incredible medium-specific dimension of player interaction?


There are plenty of complex video games out there. There are certainly games that are mundane and shit, but don't demonize people for enjoying the mundane.


Quote:
What is your actual beef with censorship? I hate to take this to ground zero, but *apologizes to everyone who's spent two seconds in a political science class profusely* the First Amendment still values context. Screaming fire in a crowded theater or bomb in an airport is "censored." If there is a demonstrable societal good that comes out of repressing (through popular action, not government mandate) incredibly vile media, why should people not pursue this?


It depends on the case. I can't tell you exactly what's wrong or right in general terms.

Quote:
To move on from this, no one even is asking for that. You keep complaining about strawmans, but you seem to equate "skewing a side of an argument" (something you haven't provided contextual examples of) as equivalent to book burning or some other weird libertarian paranoid fantasy that comes up whenever white male power is challenged in even the most benign of ways.


When you perceive something as corrupt and unethical, it's never benign. I'm not stating anything about white power or whatever. I won't argue race politics here. There are better people who do that, but I think everything is nuanced and that boiling it down to very broad terms makes discussion really unhelpful in comprehending things.

Quote:
Again, though, you're more afraid of being labeled as a sexist or having your allies criticized as sexist than about sexism itself


1. Because the term sexist tends to possess the power to deter actual arguments. I've seen good points ignored because someone is accused of being a sexist. "oh, he/she is a sexist! That person can't know shit". This type of attitude is detrimental to actual progression. People shouldn't judge arguments based on the ones making those arguments, but the arguments themselves (and the subsequent evidence).
2. I do not view it as sexism like you do. I view it as a logical series of events. So, if you look at it from my perspective, people are ceasing arguments by utilizing an idea that isn't actually there. You may disagree with me about what's sexist and what's not, that's perfectly fine. However, comprehending someone's perspective is fundamental to an argument.


Quote:
No market has ever functioned completely based on consumer demand. Never. Even if you believe in this fucking insane free market model,you have to concede that creators have to create those choices before they can be made. No one is going to create a petition to be allowed to buy a product. Marginalized people in video gaming tend to just support the least bad alternatives (games not driven by narrative or driven by otherwise non-anthropomorphised characters, for example, are big favorites of my personal gender non-binary and transgender friends because it helps distract from gender dysmorphia at best and at least doesn't contribute to it at worst) but are rarely given what they want, and I don't think the burden is 100% on them to demand it. And if it is, are videos like Sarkeesian's not the opening salvo in that demand? And what evidence do you have of some SJW conspiracy tanking games' ratings on major review sites?


I'll respond to this later. I need to utilize thing that I can't access currently in order to give a complete answer to this. I'll place an edit or respond to you in another post if necessary.
Back to top
Satie





  • #57
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 15:39
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
I think we've hit a wall where this conversation really can't move any further. I can summarize my frustrations with this conversation in three points:

1. You need to explain, in the case of video game journalism, what censorship is going on, why it is inherently destructive, and why it is worse than an epidemic of sexism in the industry, as analyzed by journalists within and outside of the industry. I can provide specific articles and videos if you would like to bolster the latter part of that statement, but you seem familiar with the relevant literature, or at least you are familiar enough with it to say that it is all falsehood when held against "the real Gamergate," a movement the limits of which have still not been defined adequately to me and seem more like Squishy's "no true Scotsman" claim than anything else.

2. You need to engage with what I am saying about sexism in this argument, as I am trying to articulate the ideas of people like Anita Sarkeesian and others in a way that you might perceive as less threatening or at least more nuanced. Your replies to my direct discussions of how dialectical engagement with systems works has been to come through with vague, tired platitudes about composite parts of a system. If you need me to articulate my point further or I wasn't clear that I value individuals and systems, I can. Once you acknowledge this point, I can discuss how solutions to problems happen when you have this view of how systems are created and perpetuated and how individuals act and are affected. Until you do that, I really can't engage because we are talking past each other.

3. You seem to dance around the question of evidence quite readily. I think we can all agree that this is a matter with many affective as well as rational dimensions. All of us are speaking from both perspectives at different times. We have all presented our arguments as logical progressions. Yes, there is a time and a place for evidence, and I am more than willing to provide it, but (a.) in the context of a forum discussion, that's really asking a bit much for constant citations given that a simple Google search can usually clear up any confusion, and (b.) it seems that your calls for evidence have been entirely tactical so that you can avoid addressing concerns until the "evidence" is provided. I find this odd, because you (seemingly) refuse large swaths of evidence. You want ethics in games journalism that conform to the "objective" standards of wider media, but when that wider media points out genuine problems with that movement, they are suddenly themselves unethical. I am more than willing to provide them, but I get the feeling sociological studies on the effects of porn and video games on individuals will be dismissed as "mere interpretation," while your iron principles of ethical journalism and free market economics somehow avoid this epistemological pitfall.

No personal hard feelings (okay, some, 'cause this kind of wanton dismissal of suffering really kinda gets under my skin, but really, I promise it won't affect later conversations or interactions) but I'm probably gonna exit this thread for good after I give you a chance to respond to these concerns and send along your "complete answer." Speaking of...

Happymeal wrote:
I'll respond to this later. I need to utilize thing that I can't access currently in order to give a complete answer to this. I'll place an edit or respond to you in another post if necessary.


Just a heads up that anything you link me to that vaguely smells of Chicago School economics or some equally disgusting ideology will not get read. Anything you link me that posits humans as 100% rational actors will not get read. Anything you pull out will have to be empirical evidence from an industry that is the size of the video game industry or scalable to that size in a realistic scenario or it will not get read. That means no niche industries for the "gotcha" moment of me having to acknowledge a single industry that has changed entirely because of consumer demand. If your "complete answer" is actually going to sidestep the larger concerns of my perspective entirely and just give me a list of times that women in the video gaming industry have allegedly manipulated ratings for video games, I really couldn't give two shits, because contrary to Gamergators, I do not believe that any of this is entirely or even primarily about ethics in games journalism. Intention may be there for it to be, but the impacts are almost entirely anti-woman.
Back to top
Happymeal





  • #58
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 15:49
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
I would like to state that evidence can be provided, it's just that the evidence you ask for is not always at my disposal due to what my school stops me from accessing. While I'm not at school, I'm either sleeping, working on assignments, or relaxing which is why (I agree with the sentiment you possess about evidence and forum arguments) evidence isn't always provided when asked. Some things are really general and require a variety of different places in order to fully show everything (such as ethics in journalism and censorship) which take a while to compile.

I'll respond to your other sentiments eventually, but I don't dismiss suffering quite as readily as you think. I'm a vocal opponent in person in regards to police brutality and a variety of other incorrect things ongoing in various locations, but when I see something that I perceive as bullshit, I'll readily fight against it as well. Perhaps you find it dismissive because it's a topic that close to heart, which is fine, but I detach my feelings from arguments. All that matters is facts and evidence.
Back to top
Applerill
Autistic Princess <3


Gender: Female
Age: 30
Location: Chicago
United States

  • #59
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 16:00
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Wait, did you really compare Milton Friedmann to Gamergate?

Crying or Very sad
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Satie





  • #60
  • Posted: 05/22/2015 16:02
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Applerill wrote:
Wait, did you really compare Milton Friedmann to Gamergate?


At least Milton Friedman owns the evils of his ideology. Wink
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 6 of 10


 

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Sticky: The Games Forum Suggestions Thread Guest Games
Your Favorite Video Games? Guest Lounge
Video Games section for the Off Topic... Luigii Suggestions
Album of the day (#449): Entertainmen... albummaster Music
Album of the day (#1940): Entertainme... albummaster Music

 
Back to Top