-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shawn Elliott's Video Game Symposium Begins, 1: Review Scores
- Thread starter BenjaminBirdie
- Start date
HK-47 said:
Thank goodness some one mentioned Last Remnant's situation. Even going beyond typical forum goers, actual friends with experience in the genre typically viewed the game as "fun, although looking to be overwhelming at first." After playing a section personally, I could understand that the game requires a certain taste. However, looking at the vehemence proposed in most of the gaming press, I agree that the main point of contention are the technical issues. For instance, look at GameSpot's review.
GameSpot said:
Okay. It has quite a number of framerate hitches (which in of itself, while perfectly valid, is an odd point of contention, especially in the face of games like Mass Effect. I loved Mass Effect, but that is an example of a game that got a free pass for some of its technical issues). But exactly what fun could I expect to have outside of it? Then you get to things like the 1UP review that chaste the game for being "too obtuse for newcomers." Are we talking newcomers in terms of people that do not typically play RPGs? Additionally, higher scored reviews for the game like GameTrailers mentions the same things that some of the other reviewers mention, but it gets scores in the 6s by other publications.
I'm just more at a loss to this extreme disconnect between the press' opinions and the public's opinions concerning this game, unless a majority of the press simply did not aim the reviews (or were not written through) the RPG audience. *shrug*
Drinky Crow
Banned
there's some real problems with the last remnant, but you'll never see them until you're many hours into the game.
MechaX said:
Be careful how you define "public" though. GAF taste is certainly not an indication of mass market appeal. eg: Valkyra Chronicles.
I think it may be more accurate that the reviewers are not as forgiving of the game's flaws as the vocal JRPG fans on this board. And it's very easy to dock a game points for glaring technical problems. especially if you're not madly in love with the gameplay (as some reviewers were with Mass Effect. even then, the flaws were mentioned in the review text)
I haven't played TLR, but I witnessed the same disconnect with Blue Dragon. The reviews were speaking to a nebulous "typical consumer" and not necessarily to fans of an increasingly niche genre. As such, BD got a lot of sixes, but I had a blast with it, enjoying the old school but pretty game.
What dismays me is the fact that ultimately Drinky is right and the byline doesn't matter. When 95% of all hack reviewers stick to the ridiculous 7-10 scale and religiously break down all games into the same component pieces, the general public will be (and is) conditioned for only one template of criticism. When a critic breaks this template to provide something truly insightful or poignant about a game, it will only be ignored or dismissed as pretentious.
Drinky Crow
Banned
pretty sure a review should be about what a game *is*, and not what anyone, be they the teeming unwashed masses of idiots who buy the wii or the monocled archfan reviewer in his austere tower, expects it to be.
valkyria chronicles is an excellent game unto itself -- it's fairly ambitious mechanically, is somewhat ambitious artistically, and isn't ambitious at all on a technical front. it all comes together very well, though, and doesn't promise anything it can't deliver -- it moves seamlessly from presentation to play, which is something very few games do well. i only wish it was longer. a lot longer. and that it sold well enough to fund a sequel or skies of arcadia 2.
valkyria chronicles is an excellent game unto itself -- it's fairly ambitious mechanically, is somewhat ambitious artistically, and isn't ambitious at all on a technical front. it all comes together very well, though, and doesn't promise anything it can't deliver -- it moves seamlessly from presentation to play, which is something very few games do well. i only wish it was longer. a lot longer. and that it sold well enough to fund a sequel or skies of arcadia 2.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Drinky Crow said:pretty sure a review should be about what a game *is*, and not what anyone, be they the teeming unwashed masses of idiots who buy the wii or the monocled archfan reviewer in his austere tower, expects it to be.
valkyria chronicles is an excellent game unto itself -- it's fairly ambitious mechanically, is somewhat ambitious artistically, and isn't ambitious at all on a technical front. it all comes together very well, though, and doesn't promise anything it can't deliver -- it moves seamlessly from presentation to play, which is something very few games do well. i only wish it was longer. a lot longer. and that it sold well enough to fund a sequel or skies of arcadia 2.
What do you mean "unto itself"? Right now it sounds like you're trying to excuse games for things they could have done better. VC is a very good game, but man, there's some glaring issues in that game.
AkuMifune said:
This is true. But what is important is that the "pretentious" writer sticks to their guns. Gillen is somewhat guilty of not doing this. He stated his manifesto on New Games Journalism, the majority of the traditionalist press mocked him, and he backed down. This is also exemplified by John Davison's story about removing scores from CGW, only to re-instate them when reader backlash was so severe.
If you want to strive for something better, you've got to just do it. Of course the public won't like it at first. Hell, it might take years for the public to accept it. But slowly the right people will come to believe in those journalists who are taking the hard way, although I understand there are mitigating factors to consider that greatly affect how possible this is.
As a side note, I'd say the reason a lot of reviews are fairly clichéd, generic and wholly centred around a score is because the majority of reviewers are just that: reviewers, not journalists. It's been said before, I know, but it's true. A lot of the enthusiast press are gamers who write rather than writers who play games.
The quicker game review scores go by the standard 5 point scale that respected movie reviewers use, the better.
There is no reasons why games deserve a 10 or 100 point scale to differentiate between the good and the bad if a 5 point scale is good enough to distinguish between No Country for Old Men and The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Games are no more complex to rate than movies.
The 5 point scale actually gives more points to mark from than the 7-10 that seems to be prevalent today :lol
There is no reasons why games deserve a 10 or 100 point scale to differentiate between the good and the bad if a 5 point scale is good enough to distinguish between No Country for Old Men and The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Games are no more complex to rate than movies.
The 5 point scale actually gives more points to mark from than the 7-10 that seems to be prevalent today :lol
KieronGillen
Member
Care to elaborate on this? I don't remember backing down.
KG
KieronGillen said:
I recall reading something you said somewhere, fairly recently, that you considered your manifesto to be rather... ill-judged. Not a mistake but something that you should have given more consideration at the time. Of course, now that you've called me out on it, I can't remember where this was!
"Backed down" is certainly the wrong term for it, my apologies. It seems like you've taken your foot off the gas, as it were, with regards to pushing NGJ as a viable alternative, rather than taking a complete 180 and rubbishing it.
Atrophis said:
I definitely agree and I like the 5 point scale (no half stars, dammit!)
I gotta take issue with one thing Kieron said about the 100 point scale:
See, I think it's crazy, most sane people think it's crazy. But there are a surprising number of people out there who tend to take the 100 point scale very seriously. They don't see it as subjective, at all. At first, I thought they'd all be children but, after spending a bit of time on the internet, I think most of them are actually grown up (in body, if not mind).
Since I, selfishly, would like to eliminate the amount of bickering I have to read on the net concerning these 100 point scales and why Zelda is an 8.8 and not a 9.3, I'd love to see the 100 point scale die a quick death.
KieronGillen
Member
That's because I am totally him.
Larsen B: Well, I've mixed feelings about the circus around it, much like anyone who's ever accidentally made a circus, I suspect. And I never argued what I was talking about was a replacement - the manifesto* was clear that I meant it should be done in addition to traditional stuff**.
Really, I just shut up about the theory and got on with doing it. Explicitly labeling it NGJ was never the point. There's more than a little of it at RPS - not that we'd ever describe it as such***. In fact, I occasionally think of RPS' small success as a quiet revenge.
I mean, did you see the article about Planetside's 1% Quinns did? One of our most widely linked things of the year, loved by pretty much everyone and - whisper it - straight NGJ bollocks.
(That's the thing with theory talk. Gamers shouldn't really care about it too much. They should just care about what comes out the other side.)
God. What a lot of footnotes.
KG
*Always worth remembering I never called it one.
**Which didn't stop people reporting it as "AN END TO REVIEWS?".
***Our running joke is just go "Don't mention the war" any time someone brings it up in a comments thread, in our best Basil Fawlty voices.
Larsen B: Well, I've mixed feelings about the circus around it, much like anyone who's ever accidentally made a circus, I suspect. And I never argued what I was talking about was a replacement - the manifesto* was clear that I meant it should be done in addition to traditional stuff**.
Really, I just shut up about the theory and got on with doing it. Explicitly labeling it NGJ was never the point. There's more than a little of it at RPS - not that we'd ever describe it as such***. In fact, I occasionally think of RPS' small success as a quiet revenge.
I mean, did you see the article about Planetside's 1% Quinns did? One of our most widely linked things of the year, loved by pretty much everyone and - whisper it - straight NGJ bollocks.
(That's the thing with theory talk. Gamers shouldn't really care about it too much. They should just care about what comes out the other side.)
God. What a lot of footnotes.
KG
*Always worth remembering I never called it one.
**Which didn't stop people reporting it as "AN END TO REVIEWS?".
***Our running joke is just go "Don't mention the war" any time someone brings it up in a comments thread, in our best Basil Fawlty voices.
Now that's how I'd always considered NGJ, as an anecdotal addendum, but the reporting of it continually painted it as a replacement. Secondary and tertiary sources always distort the original idea and, as the misuse and subsequent proliferation of "manifesto" across the Internet seems to indicate, this has been the case.
I'm glad to hear and read that you are following your idea(l)s through. NGJ was something I could get behind and, whilst I said that I felt you were less enthusiastic about it, I certainly said it with a sigh.
That Planetside piece is very good.
I'm glad to hear and read that you are following your idea(l)s through. NGJ was something I could get behind and, whilst I said that I felt you were less enthusiastic about it, I certainly said it with a sigh.
That Planetside piece is very good.
KieronGillen
Member
I am totally him AND King Spy AND the King of Spain.
These are very old in-jokes. We're going to lose the Americans.
KG
These are very old in-jokes. We're going to lose the Americans.
KG
bistromathics
facing a bright new dawn
I am lost
Larsen B said:
The mitigating factors--i.e. the real world---are brutal though. The editors would have liked nothing better than to stick to our guns and force the change down readers' throats. But if you are at a publication/company that is struggling for survival, and you do something that suddenly pisses off a large vocal percentage of your readers, you have more than your own idealism to weigh in your decision-making. But I certainly agree with you in theory---and had we been in a better position would have liked to see it out longer.
HiFiVictor
Member
After hearing all the talk about this, I didn't understand what the hell it would turn out to be.
I finally understand, and it's great.
I didn't think "this is great" as I started reading, I thought something more along the line of "I'm not going to finish reading this".
But several pages in Kieron Gillen wrote something that wondrously clarified all thoughts I've had about the initial subject, thoughts that have been bumbling in my head since I was a kid reading these damn "reviews".
After that "experience", what I take away from this work is the revealing of how various writer's go about evaluating a game. It's very interesting to see the processes and to find that there are conflicted thoughts between personalities whom I thought would work in almost identical ways.
So far, I'm interested, and I appreciate the collection of personalities present in the discussion.
I finally understand, and it's great.
I didn't think "this is great" as I started reading, I thought something more along the line of "I'm not going to finish reading this".
But several pages in Kieron Gillen wrote something that wondrously clarified all thoughts I've had about the initial subject, thoughts that have been bumbling in my head since I was a kid reading these damn "reviews".
After that "experience", what I take away from this work is the revealing of how various writer's go about evaluating a game. It's very interesting to see the processes and to find that there are conflicted thoughts between personalities whom I thought would work in almost identical ways.
So far, I'm interested, and I appreciate the collection of personalities present in the discussion.
Ain't that the truth. Wasn't until I got 10 hours in or so that the whole Saga-style lack of direction started to bother me, and it wasn't until the end of the first disk that I discovered the traditional huge SaGa grind to the end boss. I think most reviews harped on technicalities because it is much easier to do than get into the meat and potatoes of the actual gameplay mechanics. When some reviews actually tried to dig deeper, they came up false; GameInformer's complaints about the battle system are either untrue or intentionally vague.Drinky Crow said:
Very interesting read, Shawn-- or at least some very focused parts were very interesting. I've never read anything by Kieron before, and now I have him on my watch list.
JeffGreen said:
That damned real world.
Sadly, the idealistic approach is too much of a risk for a huge, popular publication and, conversely, I can't imagine a hobbyist having the time, support or resources to dedicate themselves to it completely. It's hard to know quite where a change would come from or even if its possible in the current model.
Of course, we, as the hobbyists, are part of the problem with the model. The best articles and discourse come a few weeks or months after a game's release, but as we want things as soon as possible, it's not in our nature to wait for that discourse.
As an example of a big budget game that got the Dynasty Warriors treatment, I give you Frontlines: Fuel of War...
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/frontlinesfuelofwar?q=frontlines
As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the best games of 2008. Whether you're looking at the mechanics of the gameplay, the unique and varied single-player campaign or the fantastic online play, there's no way it should be called "mediocre", especially within its genre. It even excels in sound design and visuals.
I reviewed it, too, and if people want to criticize that, go ahead.
But what really bugged me the most about the other reviews was how few of them seemed to grasp the fundamental changes to the Battlefield formula that Frontlines made, most of them rather small on the surface but huge when you stir them in the pot. The lack of Medics especially (because really... who the hell wants to heal people in a shooter?), was a sticking point for me with other reviews. It's a HUGE change, and one for the better, that makes you play the game in a way you simply wouldn't have done in Battlefield-style games before this one.
I guess I'd like to see more examples like that brought up by these guys. It's not just the niche games that get short shrift. It's happening even to the "big" titles.
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/frontlinesfuelofwar?q=frontlines
As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the best games of 2008. Whether you're looking at the mechanics of the gameplay, the unique and varied single-player campaign or the fantastic online play, there's no way it should be called "mediocre", especially within its genre. It even excels in sound design and visuals.
I reviewed it, too, and if people want to criticize that, go ahead.
But what really bugged me the most about the other reviews was how few of them seemed to grasp the fundamental changes to the Battlefield formula that Frontlines made, most of them rather small on the surface but huge when you stir them in the pot. The lack of Medics especially (because really... who the hell wants to heal people in a shooter?), was a sticking point for me with other reviews. It's a HUGE change, and one for the better, that makes you play the game in a way you simply wouldn't have done in Battlefield-style games before this one.
I guess I'd like to see more examples like that brought up by these guys. It's not just the niche games that get short shrift. It's happening even to the "big" titles.
That is ten dollars at Best Buy right now folks!
As I mentioned earlier, it's the "real world" factor that is the biggest deal when it comes to making actual changes in publications.
For those who have hated on the symposium, look at it this way: it takes money, a willingness to invest it, and some daring business moves to actually implement any of these changes you want (basically, non-shitty reviewing with better or removed scoring systems).
In my mind, all the symposium itself can do is hope to change the hearts of readers and writers so that writers write better and readers read better writing. There is actually a lot of good game coverage out there, it's just that it doesn't come attached with epic comment threads or extensive discussion since it isn't always presented in short form or bulleted points.
Flynn said:
That'd be pretty cool too, but they'd have to make each of the issues more discrete and pointed. E.g., "Is it a good idea to use scores in game reviews?" Then they could aggregate the scores on each topic in a quick reference guide so readers could get a broad sense of the general feelings on the different issues--some might even be surprising and the views would certainly come out much more clearly like that, as it is now it's kind of a mishmash.
Well, to me it seems that the argument is either reviews are buyers' guides or reviews should be a mix of review and criticism; are there any other takes on it? (Sincere, not rherotical)
You can find places for both of those; the selection is broad.
This doesn't seem to be the challenge you think it is. If, for example, you read Mitch Krpata, Michael Abbott, Stephen Totilo, Fidgit, RPS or SexyVideogameland, to name a few, you would find no reviews and very few links to reviews, but you would learn a shitload about the games they've been playing or reviewing. As the thread mentioned earlier, RPS doesn't technically do reviews, but the coverage often fills the needs we wish reviews would. Warhammer's home page made sure to host a link to the RPS coverage of it, and for good reason--they explained exactly what the damn game is to the point the reader would know whether or not he'd want to play it. They even posted later on why they compared it to WoW (the "dirty word) when it got so many people pissed off.
People say "oh, the forums are the only good thing anymore". They are a good thing, and sadly they are (depending on the title) sometimes the best thing, but that doesn't mean there is no longer-form writing that doesn't speak in a forumish way, if that makes sense.
Still, if you insist, I like a lot of Crispy's reviews. And Action Button's, though they are only "half serious" (Tim Rogers' own phrase, I think).
Side note: MMOs required editors to figure out that the player's relationship with the game changes over time--that is why you'll see some writers and blogs cover a game numerous times. I have more interest in Nuts and Bolts not because of a review, but because of Tom Chick's repeated posting on it on Fidgit.
You can find places for both of those; the selection is broad.
This doesn't seem to be the challenge you think it is. If, for example, you read Mitch Krpata, Michael Abbott, Stephen Totilo, Fidgit, RPS or SexyVideogameland, to name a few, you would find no reviews and very few links to reviews, but you would learn a shitload about the games they've been playing or reviewing. As the thread mentioned earlier, RPS doesn't technically do reviews, but the coverage often fills the needs we wish reviews would. Warhammer's home page made sure to host a link to the RPS coverage of it, and for good reason--they explained exactly what the damn game is to the point the reader would know whether or not he'd want to play it. They even posted later on why they compared it to WoW (the "dirty word) when it got so many people pissed off.
People say "oh, the forums are the only good thing anymore". They are a good thing, and sadly they are (depending on the title) sometimes the best thing, but that doesn't mean there is no longer-form writing that doesn't speak in a forumish way, if that makes sense.
Still, if you insist, I like a lot of Crispy's reviews. And Action Button's, though they are only "half serious" (Tim Rogers' own phrase, I think).
Side note: MMOs required editors to figure out that the player's relationship with the game changes over time--that is why you'll see some writers and blogs cover a game numerous times. I have more interest in Nuts and Bolts not because of a review, but because of Tom Chick's repeated posting on it on Fidgit.
Etelmik said:
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is good (nay, excellent) game coverage available, I would use the fact that you talked about a lot of non-review journalism as examples of it to say that in "reviews", the quality of the writing either suffers or excellent writing is simply non-existent. Although how much of this is because of "reviews" not having a distinct purpose is unclear.
The best writing, the writing you talk about, is people discussing a game with no need to put a definitive number next to it. And possibly a reason why forums are considered such a good place for discussion of games instead of a review site is because they also share that open-ended debate.
Just to confuse things further, perhaps the problem with a review score is that it has to accommodate the reviewer's critical response as well as their emotional response. I think of Eurogamer's recent Saints Row 2 review where the general enthusiasm and enjoyment of the game greatly coloured the final score. And I bought the game mainly because of that enthusiasm.
Also is it presumptuous and egotistical of a reviewer to include such a personal response in a critical piece? A reader can see such self-centred writing and think "why should I care about you?" And then, to them at least, the review is worthless.*
*assuming that this person only ever reads one review about a game from the same website, which, I know, is a ridiculous way to evaluate a game's "worthiness" but I'm running on hypotheses today
NB. I'm pretty sure we agree about games journalism more than we disagree, so I'm just trying to stimulate further debate here.
If the reviewer does his job correctly, you won't necessarily care about him, but you will understand why he likes something or dislikes it and be able to use your own likes and dislikes to determine if the game is for you or not.
Every review is subjective by definition. You can't say games have a definitive objective number they should be assigned. Everyone comes at them with preferences. The key is to critique what you're playing, find the game's soul, and relate that to the reader so they can decide if they want to play that game or not.
What I think a lot of writers miss out on is that silly "soul" of the game, though it's probably the most important thing to find when you're playing.
That said, many gamers who read reviews want to break games down into numerics all the way across the board because they can't see games as anything other than a bunch of code being executed and they want that evaluated in hard facts about screen resolutions, framerates, etc.
Kieron's review of Earth Defense Force 2017 at Eurogamer, which someone pointed out over at Qt3, is a good one because he understood that game's soul and related that in a way that leaves readers knowing what to expect while also saying he really digs it.
Every review is subjective by definition. You can't say games have a definitive objective number they should be assigned. Everyone comes at them with preferences. The key is to critique what you're playing, find the game's soul, and relate that to the reader so they can decide if they want to play that game or not.
What I think a lot of writers miss out on is that silly "soul" of the game, though it's probably the most important thing to find when you're playing.
That said, many gamers who read reviews want to break games down into numerics all the way across the board because they can't see games as anything other than a bunch of code being executed and they want that evaluated in hard facts about screen resolutions, framerates, etc.
Kieron's review of Earth Defense Force 2017 at Eurogamer, which someone pointed out over at Qt3, is a good one because he understood that game's soul and related that in a way that leaves readers knowing what to expect while also saying he really digs it.
The problem with reviewing the "soul" of a game though, is it doesn't seem that's what the majority of people want from a review, unfortunately. They complain (ironically) that the review has no depth because it didn't talk about the graphics or the framerate or some other, more obvious, thing.
It seems to me that we are the problem, not the reviews.
If gamers as a whole matured or wanted more from the industry, the industry would likely rise to meet it. (Some already have, though this is my reason for why the more "enlightened" journalists are more niche than, say...IGN.)
It seems to me that we are the problem, not the reviews.
If gamers as a whole matured or wanted more from the industry, the industry would likely rise to meet it. (Some already have, though this is my reason for why the more "enlightened" journalists are more niche than, say...IGN.)
Yeah, that kind of thing pisses me off, but it's the reality of who you're dealing with on the reader side.
I think that's one of the main reasons I agreed with Doug questioning the entire symposium business in the first place. I don't think people care enough for this kind of thing to matter. Like the games themselves, the reviews are mostly throwaway entertainment items regardless of how well-written they are.
All that said, there is a balance there. Usually when I go back to proofread a few times, I'll take note of what I did and didn't talk about and if there's a glaring omission of something like the artistic design (however lackluster it might be), I'll consider throwing in one line somewhere to address that, or maybe do so in the "Pros" and "Cons" we get at a place like Crispy.
Usually though, if I'm not talking about graphics or sound or some other thing people think is a quantifiable numeric value all its own, then it's probably not significant enough for you to worry about it. I'd tell you if it blows and by the same token I'd let you know if it was awesome.
When we were doing the 300 word reviews at Computer Games Magazine (and I did my fair share of those...), you simply didn't have the space to screw around with anything that wasn't really important and didn't get to the heart of the game. With 1000 words or more, I still don't change that approach much at all. I wish more places would cut down to 800 words or less to be honest.
Also, if you've played the game enough, the "soul" is already locked in your brain. You can talk about it for hours without interruption. You know what it is that game was trying to do and how well it succeeded, and you'll be able to relate that to a new or old gamer equally well.
That Frontlines review I linked to... I wrote that in about an hour or so and barely edited what you see printed at Crispy. I don't think they edited a word of what I sent in, either. It's not the best review in the world, but I think letting you know how I arrived at those words should help people understand how much I played that game to be able to so quickly tell you how cool it is. I find the writing part to be easy... it's finding the time needed to play the game thoroughly that's hard, especially if the game is online and you need competent players to properly understand it. Fortunately, we get time at Crispy to play them with all you folks before submitting the review. Well, I have anyway...
I think that's one of the main reasons I agreed with Doug questioning the entire symposium business in the first place. I don't think people care enough for this kind of thing to matter. Like the games themselves, the reviews are mostly throwaway entertainment items regardless of how well-written they are.
All that said, there is a balance there. Usually when I go back to proofread a few times, I'll take note of what I did and didn't talk about and if there's a glaring omission of something like the artistic design (however lackluster it might be), I'll consider throwing in one line somewhere to address that, or maybe do so in the "Pros" and "Cons" we get at a place like Crispy.
Usually though, if I'm not talking about graphics or sound or some other thing people think is a quantifiable numeric value all its own, then it's probably not significant enough for you to worry about it. I'd tell you if it blows and by the same token I'd let you know if it was awesome.
When we were doing the 300 word reviews at Computer Games Magazine (and I did my fair share of those...), you simply didn't have the space to screw around with anything that wasn't really important and didn't get to the heart of the game. With 1000 words or more, I still don't change that approach much at all. I wish more places would cut down to 800 words or less to be honest.
Also, if you've played the game enough, the "soul" is already locked in your brain. You can talk about it for hours without interruption. You know what it is that game was trying to do and how well it succeeded, and you'll be able to relate that to a new or old gamer equally well.
That Frontlines review I linked to... I wrote that in about an hour or so and barely edited what you see printed at Crispy. I don't think they edited a word of what I sent in, either. It's not the best review in the world, but I think letting you know how I arrived at those words should help people understand how much I played that game to be able to so quickly tell you how cool it is. I find the writing part to be easy... it's finding the time needed to play the game thoroughly that's hard, especially if the game is online and you need competent players to properly understand it. Fortunately, we get time at Crispy to play them with all you folks before submitting the review. Well, I have anyway...
Similar threads
- Locked