|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
An excerpt from a rather convoluted essay that caught my attention.
An ex-drug-dealer (now a video game industry powerbrain) once told me that he doesn’t understand why people buy heroin. The heroin peddler isn’t even doing heroin. Like him or not, when you hear Cliff Bleszinski talk about Gears of War, he sounds — in a good way — like a weed dealer. He sounds like he endorses what he is selling. When you’re in a room with social games guys, the “I never touch the stuff” attitude is so thick you’ll need a box cutter to breathe properly. http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/
The social games industry doesn't subscribe to the programmer's dogma of "eat your own dog food" (i.e. believe in what you make, and use what you create). This is incredibly telling of the true nature of social games, right down to the people who create the 1's and 0's of the experience.
The social games space has been around for maybe 10 years (and that's being generous). The general video game space has been around for 40. I understand that right now, selling to the duller segment of the population is bringing in massive money. However, is this really sustainable in the long run? I have to wonder...
While I'm happy that Starcraft is a game that can be played for hundreds if not thousands of hours with just the initial deposit of $50 or so, I'm truly worried about the ability of game publishers to continue making such great games while these social gaming companies continue to lop away at the most casual of game consumers.
It's akin to the vicious cycle in any industry, where a newcomer will bite away at the low-end segment of your market, and steadily inch up towards you until you can't sustain your business anymore. Japan did this to American manufacturing in the 80's, and Korea is doing it to Japan right now. China will continue to do this to everyone else in the world.
If the traditional gaming industry doesn't way to become marginalized by social games, I feel that some sort of innovation will be necessary to erect a defensive barrier around itself. What that may be, I don't know.
  
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
Social games are these facebook-type games, right? I never understood the appeal. There's very few casual games I can enjoy. Mostly, when I play something, be it a computer game or a board game, it's more complex games. In general I play a very tiny amount of different games, and often just stick to just one game for months or years (how else would I have ended up being in the Starcraft community for 10 years^^).
If I wan't to play something for 5 minutes I'll just open minesweeper instead.
Edit: reading the article now and I want to punch something.
Edit 2: oh, there's like 5 more pages, gonna read the rest later -.-
|
Canada5565 Posts
I think that the value and appeal of social games have marginal overlap with traditional games and will prove to be more of a gateway drug to traditional games than an impediment.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On October 17 2011 16:25 Carnac wrote:
Social games are these facebook-type games, right? I never understood the appeal. There's very few casual games I can enjoy. Mostly, when I play something, be it a computer game or a board game, it's more complex games. In general I play a very tiny amount of different games, and often just stick to just one game for months or years (how else would I have ended up being in the Starcraft community for 10 years^^).
If I wan't to play something for 5 minutes I'll just open minesweeper instead.
Edit: reading the article now and I want to punch something.
Edit 2: oh, there's like 5 more pages, gonna read the rest later -.-
FYI I think the author does a poor job at presenting his case. (the writing could be much improved)
However, it does give us some insight into what the heck is going on behind the scenes.
And yes, social games are the Zynga-type games. I actually think that Travian (which may TL'ers played) was one of the precursors to this business model.
I myself enjoy complex, brain intensive games like StarCraft or Settlers. However, I have many friends who say that they don't want to think hard when they play games. They seem to prefer easy, instant gratification and braindead gameplay. (and these are smart, highly educated people)
These social games cater to this crowd incredibly well. Consider the number of people who couch potato and watch TV in America, the number of people who think this way is MASSIVE.
I know someone who has played Freecell to cure his boredom for YEARS. (his current laptop has thousands of games logged in the history lol)
|
The advent of social games is a large part of what has kept me from really pursuing programming/Computer Science at the university level. I know how to program and enjoy it a lot, but I just can't get passionate about these dinky games that are just out to make money.
People tell me a lot that I should make apps for money or something, but it's like writing songs that I wouldn't want to listen to all day myself. It would leave me empty inside at the end of each day.
I really, really, really hope that we don't hit another gaming crash, but social games almost look like they could do it...
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On October 17 2011 16:27 Xxio wrote:
I think that the value and appeal of social games have marginal overlap with traditional games and will prove to be more of a gateway drug to traditional games than an impediment.
I respectfully disagree, because social games are by nature very passive in terms of critical thinking and dexterity. The traditional games require strategy, reflex, awareness, and immense focus. The social games on the other hand cater to the opposite crowd, who enjoy the instant gratification of the game mechanics without having to invest hours into understanding the complex game balance and control mechanics to excel at a traditional game.
The inner workings and reward structures of the two types of games differ so drastically, that I personally don't think the vast majority of social gamers will ever pick up a traditional game and become hooked.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On October 17 2011 16:36 Hikko wrote:
The advent of social games is a large part of what has kept me from really pursuing programming/Computer Science at the university level. I know how to program and enjoy it a lot, but I just can't get passionate about these dinky games that are just out to make money.
People tell me a lot that I should make apps for money or something, but it's like writing songs that I wouldn't want to listen to all day myself. It would leave me empty inside at the end of each day.
I really, really, really hope that we don't hit another gaming crash, but social games almost look like they could do it...
I totally resonate with you and sympathize with your situation.
If you enjoy programming, perhaps you can pursue a career which actually makes the world better. Google and Apple come to mind immediately, and there are a small number of startups here in SV which have non-retarded mission statements as well.
|
On October 17 2011 16:36 Hikko wrote:
The advent of social games is a large part of what has kept me from really pursuing programming/Computer Science at the university level. I know how to program and enjoy it a lot, but I just can't get passionate about these dinky games that are just out to make money.
People tell me a lot that I should make apps for money or something, but it's like writing songs that I wouldn't want to listen to all day myself. It would leave me empty inside at the end of each day.
I really, really, really hope that we don't hit another gaming crash, but social games almost look like they could do it...
I am in a similar boat. I initially enrolled in computer software engineering in hopes to develop the Starcraft of the next generation, but the video game industry isn't so hot right now. I might recommend going into browser or operating systems development instead.
Question for the OP, if social games and traditional games differ so vastly as a product and consumer base, how much impact do you think social games will eventually make on the market of traditional games?
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On October 17 2011 16:48 Chairman Ray wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 16:36 Hikko wrote:
The advent of social games is a large part of what has kept me from really pursuing programming/Computer Science at the university level. I know how to program and enjoy it a lot, but I just can't get passionate about these dinky games that are just out to make money.
People tell me a lot that I should make apps for money or something, but it's like writing songs that I wouldn't want to listen to all day myself. It would leave me empty inside at the end of each day.
I really, really, really hope that we don't hit another gaming crash, but social games almost look like they could do it... I am in a similar boat. I initially enrolled in computer software engineering in hopes to develop the Starcraft of the next generation, but the video game industry isn't so hot right now. I might recommend going into browser or operating systems development instead. Question for the OP, if social games and traditional games differ so vastly as a product and consumer base, how much impact do you think social games will eventually make on the market of traditional games?
I think I answer your question here in a previous reply:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=276344#6
I personally think the correlation will be negative, with social games eating at the most casual consumers of traditional games, while the vast majority of social gamers who were recruited from the non-gaming crowd will eschew traditional games because they're not attracted to the mental and physical demands of traditional games.
I think social games is the American Football of video games in many ways. Created for commercialism, maintained by commercialism, and provides instant gratification to the consumer.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On October 17 2011 16:34 thedeadhaji wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 16:25 Carnac wrote:
[...]
Edit: reading the article now and I want to punch something.
Edit 2: oh, there's like 5 more pages, gonna read the rest later -.- FYI I think the author does a poor job at presenting his case. (the writing could be much improved) However, it does give us some insight into what the heck is going on behind the scenes. [...]
It is because of this insight that I want to punch something, not because of how he presents it. 
You mentioned Settlers, that's exactly the type of game that appeals to me. Settlers, Diplomacy, etc. Anything strategy with some complexity and depth I generally find fun.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On October 17 2011 16:56 Carnac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 16:34 thedeadhaji wrote:On October 17 2011 16:25 Carnac wrote:
[...]
Edit: reading the article now and I want to punch something.
Edit 2: oh, there's like 5 more pages, gonna read the rest later -.- FYI I think the author does a poor job at presenting his case. (the writing could be much improved) However, it does give us some insight into what the heck is going on behind the scenes. [...] [...] You mentioned Settlers, that's exactly the type of game that appeals to me. Settlers, Diplomacy, etc. Anything strategy with some complexity and depth I generally find fun.
Yup
I basically only enjoy games where I have to think critically about the best decision. Unfortunately, I think we're in the minority 
|
You can see why the developers of these games don't want to play them though. It's not designed to be a fun or engaging experience. Everything in the game is made to optimise user retention and the money spent on the game.
I don't really play social games myself but they're made for a different audience. I like games where the skill of the player is proportional to the reward received. Games like Starcraft where the more skilled player wins the game (depending on who you listen to this may/may not be true). Not just multiplayer games though. I'm having fun with Titan Quest currently where it gets ludicrously difficult by the final playthrough. It requires some clever planning/gameplay to be able to just continue through the game let alone finish it.
|
Social games and business oriented development are one of the biggest reasons why I stick to personal projects and will never enter the industry. Not for modeling, not for voice acting, and definitely not for actual development. It's just not worth it to me. I don't care about money. I care about the experience and making something I genuinely enjoy playing or watching. I've already turned down several indie game commission requests and I will continue to turn them down.
|
Eh, I think your industry analogy isn't entirely accurate, that is a case of lower prices on the same products, but this is more a case of two mostly distinguishable markets. As you said, the two groups of gamers who play social games and play console and PC games are quite different in terms of their psyche and preferences, and it's really only the social market is only just being exploited by Zynga et al, to their shareholders' delight.
I'm worried about games developers dedicating their attention to these social games instead, leading to poorer quality releases for consoles and PCs. (You could argue that developers have dedicated too much to consoles and lead to poorer quality PC games, and this precedent could repeat itself with the social gaming developers)
Also, there's this "socialisation" of console and PC releases. From the FB integration in Steam and B.net to the microtransactions in EVE and Portal 2 and TF2 to the paid-content like DLC packs and that COD Elite thing, many features of new releases are starting to resemble these much-hated (around here, at least) social games, and while some attribute it to pure greed from Activision and frenemies, it could be argued that it's "inspired" by Zynga and friends.
As for the article, I'm a fan of Tim Rogers' (sorry, I meant tim rogers') never-capitalise, off-the-hook, nonsensical and IMHO hilarious writing style. Some of his older articles on (whisper it) Kotaku were quite entertaining, like his perspectives on Japan, and his appearance at E3(? I can't be sure) in a green tracksuit around the time of the Lakers-Boston NBA finals.
|
China3334 Posts
I understand when industry folks on Gamasutra and hardcore gamers on Kotaku make fun of "social graphic games", denying social game as a genre of video game. Similar thing happened after Zynga updated fiscal results of the most recent quarter to SEC, people are happy to see the figures decline and think "Told you. It's not real game, it won't last long."
However, I don't think Zynga-ish games grab the "low-end" segment of video game market. The target audiences are very different and the overlap is small. Someone may switch from War3 to SC2, or play a lot of WoW at home and a bit Farmville in office (or on mobile). It's also reasonable that someone who played Cooking Mama on DS now plays Restaurant City or The Sims Social. But have you heard someone drops any hardcore game, say COD, because of Farmville? No, they are different gamers.
Big corporations will follow any profitable trend in the industry, diversify their business and lower risks. That's why EA acquired Playfish for $400 million two years ago. It doesn't mean they are giving up core business, as long as the "traditional" core business is still profitable. Video game is not really a high margin business (except MMO segment, and specifically I'm talking about Chinese MMOs), neither is social game: surprisingly Zynga's operating margin is less than 10%. Believe it or not, Zynga's R&D expense accounts more than 30% of its total revenue, which respectably high for any gaming company.
As for the emerging countries biting away market of developed countries, I believe it is a different battle from social game vs. (hardcore) video game. Almost everything you buy in Walmart is Made-in-China is simply because it's the cheapest.
|
I don't like most social games, but what I find particularly surprising is how much some people are willing to spend to make their farm as big as humanly possible. No wonder everyone's trying to make social games.
Edit: They won't milk it out too quickly, it depends on how media treats it for a while and if there's some new "big thing" to take its place.
|
Unfortunately, the events you are describing thedeadhaji are what is happening, and I have been able to witness it being a game programmer myself.
I have worked as an indie developper, working hard with a devoted team to produce a high quality game up to the standards of PC gaming. However, it costs a lot of resources, requires you to be surrounded by talented and dedicated people. And after 2 years of work, you will hardly get back on your investment.
Game development has been a very unstable domain, companies which seemed very healthy can go bankrupt a few months later, and in the middle of that the success of the social game companies is a very powerful temptation.
Those games are a lot simpler, development time is a lot shorter and the cost is extremely low. The quality is often forgotten, and companies try to push out as many games as possible hoping one of them will be the new "FarmVille".
I had a job interview at a social games company, the people there were absolutely the type of your drug dealer, they make fun of the people who play their game. That seemed so wrong to me, and it still does...
No way I'm ever doing that, and I hope we keep on having developers big and small who will work on games they like to play, because it all started decades ago for fun, not for money.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On October 17 2011 17:32 IskatuMesk wrote:
Social games and business oriented development are one of the biggest reasons why I stick to personal projects and will never enter the industry. Not for modeling, not for voice acting, and definitely not for actual development. It's just not worth it to me. I don't care about money. I care about the experience and making something I genuinely enjoy playing or watching. I've already turned down several indie game commission requests and I will continue to turn them down.
Makes perfect sense to me. Time is our most valuable commodity, and if you're going to sell off your time for something you don't believe in, it better be something you believe in...
If only we were all as strong...
On October 17 2011 17:37 Mobius_1 wrote:
Eh, I think your industry analogy isn't entirely accurate, that is a case of lower prices on the same products, but this is more a case of two mostly distinguishable markets. As you said, the two groups of gamers who play social games and play console and PC games are quite different in terms of their psyche and preferences, and it's really only the social market is only just being exploited by Zynga et al, to their shareholders' delight.
You know what, you're right. A better analogy might be how cell phone bills and monthly fees have eaten away at people's paychecks in Japan to the point where it has contributed to a decline in automobile sales. Another example is the notion that any service that competes for our time is in indirect competition with one another, eve if they are actually in seemingly different industries.
I'm worried about games developers dedicating their attention to these social games instead, leading to poorer quality releases for consoles and PCs. (You could argue that developers have dedicated too much to consoles and lead to poorer quality PC games, and this precedent could repeat itself with the social gaming developers)
Also, there's this "socialisation" of console and PC releases. From the FB integration in Steam and B.net to the microtransactions in EVE and Portal 2 and TF2 to the paid-content like DLC packs and that COD Elite thing, many features of new releases are starting to resemble these much-hated (around here, at least) social games, and while some attribute it to pure greed from Activision and frenemies, it could be argued that it's "inspired" by Zynga and friends.
Agreed. It's alarming, worrying, and troubling.
As for the article, I'm a fan of Tim Rogers' (sorry, I meant tim rogers') never-capitalise, off-the-hook, nonsensical and IMHO hilarious writing style. Some of his older articles on (whisper it) Kotaku were quite entertaining, like his perspectives on Japan, and his appearance at E3(? I can't be sure) in a green tracksuit around the time of the Lakers-Boston NBA finals.
I like his "voice", but I wish his writing were a bit more streamlined :O
Flashes of brilliance for sure.
|
I'll admit to playing a couple of zynga games like farmville and fishville or whatever it is called. It's definitely a type of video game. Just one that is casual and fun to spend 10 minutes on a day. Haven't played any for 2 years though. He definitely brings up an interesting point, though.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On October 17 2011 17:48 Emlary wrote:
I understand when industry folks on Gamasutra and hardcore gamers on Kotaku make fun of "social graphic games", denying social game as a genre of video game. Similar thing happened after Zynga updated fiscal results of the most recent quarter to SEC, people are happy to see the figures decline and think "Told you. It's not real game, it won't last long."
However, I don't think Zynga-ish games grab the "low-end" segment of video game market. The target audiences are very different and the overlap is small. Someone may switch from War3 to SC2, or play a lot of WoW at home and a bit Farmville in office (or on mobile). It's also reasonable that someone who played Cooking Mama on DS now plays Restaurant City or The Sims Social. But have you heard someone drops any hardcore game, say COD, because of Farmville? No, they are different gamers.
Big corporations will follow any profitable trend in the industry, diversify their business and lower risks. That's why EA acquired Playfish for $400 million two years ago. It doesn't mean they are giving up core business, as long as the "traditional" core business is still profitable. Video game is not really a high margin business (except MMO segment, and specifically I'm talking about Chinese MMOs), neither is social game: surprisingly Zynga's operating margin is less than 10%. Believe it or not, Zynga's R&D expense accounts more than 30% of its total revenue, which respectably high for any gaming company.
We agree to disagree on the effects of social gaming on the most casual segment of traditional games, since I will willingly admit that it is at best just my personal opinion.
I do think that there may be a reallocation of human and capital resources from traditional games towards social games. EA is demonstrating this as de speak. It's hard to see as a 3rd party but some thinking leads me to believe that this is just as alarming (if not more) than the shift in consumer demographics in the gaming space.
|
I was an avid video games player, owned every console, etc. Then I discovered BW and battle.net in 2004 and never bought any other game since. I only play some games on my Android phone once in a while (mostly emulated SNES RPGs).
I tried a few games on Facebook because my wife was playing them. Never got caught up because of the terrible lack of skill required. I did play Ogame in hardcore mode for a year, and when I quit I had never felt I had wasted that much time in my life before.
I believe social games is just a natural evolution, following the recent debilitating trends, they're just to classic games what TV reality shows are to standard shows. Have any of you seen the movie Idiocracy ? I believe people are becoming dumber and dumber (no offense to people who just want to watch something retarded to relax after work, I can understand that one may not wanna play BW competitively or watch scientific documentary after a hard day working day), but still overall the trend is there.
I mean when I was a kid, I got interested in a lot of stuffs, because my parents bought me a lot of books, didn't watch much TV etc. But nowadays, why would a kid be interested in reading books, or invest time in anything when his parents just sit on the couch watching retarded shows. People are only looking for an instant gratification. Many friends think I'm kidding when I say I spend so much time reading Wikipedia, or studying poker theory or anything that does not provide an instant reward.
Sad.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
>endy
I gotta check that movie out...
Also, your words remind me of the recent Al Jazeera article on America's grow thing anti-intellectualism.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/2011109112727162598.html
I think one of the great blessings in disguise was when I was weaned off of TV during college. Similarly, getting myself off of Facebook and onto critically-thinking news aggregators like Hacker News has been a boon to productivity and my intellectual breadth.
I don't think I've ever read so many books in my life before either.
edit: and yes, it's quite sad. But on the other hand, this proliferation of technology has allowed us to find others who take steps to swim against the tides of anti-intellectualism. This, I think has been a wonderful development.
|
Idiocracy was a moderately fun movie, conceived as a satire. But the more I think about it, it holds some unsettling truths.
|
There are a few TED talks about gaming. (maybe like 8 or so) there is one in particular that talks about social games in depth and how they are infiltrating everything in life (and its a good thing). Things like earning points using cards or cashback rewards at grocery stores etc. Its all sort of game like and they presume that it will be more and more gamelike as time goes on.
|
This is not specific to social games.
Final Fantasy is a good example too. The storyline and artistic work is decaying, favouring immediate satisfaction (character's perfection and attractiveness, perfection, easy challenges, constant care to the player's feelings). Even though FF VII marked the beginning of this trend, it still did not hesitate to shake the player up (Aerith's death), or portray weak beings (a mythomaniac being the hero).
To me, most of the industry is behaving like a bunch of drug dealers, and most players consume games just like they would consume cocaine.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On October 17 2011 20:09 Kukaracha wrote:
This is not specific to social games.
Final Fantasy is a good example too. The storyline and artistic work is decaying, favouring immediate satisfaction (character's perfection and attractiveness, perfection, easy challenges, constant care to the player's feelings). Even though FF VII marked the beginning of this trend, it still did not hesitate to shake the player up (Aerith's death), or portray weak beings (a mythomaniac being the hero).
To me, most of the industry is behaving like a bunch of drug dealers, and most players consume games just like they would consume cocaine.
Reminds me of the fact that I quit FF after FFVIII 
Like an addict who cut the habit, I haven't looked back!!
Interestingly, when you mentioned "did no hesitate to shake the player up", I immediately thought of the manga series "Once Piece", which is very predictable and seems to gratify the reader.
|
On October 17 2011 19:26 thedeadhaji wrote:
>endy
I gotta check that movie out...
It's been criticized by some as a "Nazi" movie because it implies intelligence is inherited from one's parents, hence confirming eugenics theories. But it's really worth watching it in my opinion.
I don't know how to interpret that. I lived most of my life in France and this is definitely not happening only in America.
My mum was a teacher in elementary school, and that's really something she noticed about her pupils. There was a huge correlation between the will to learn, discover things, and the parents intelligence / behavior with their kids. Doesn't sound surprising, but often people will refuse to admit it.
On October 17 2011 19:26 thedeadhaji wrote:
I think one of the great blessings in disguise was when I was weaned off of TV during college. Similarly, getting myself off of Facebook and onto critically-thinking news aggregators like Hacker News has been a boon to productivity and my intellectual breadth.
I don't think I've ever read so many books in my life before either.
I don't own a TV since 2001 and I know exactly what you mean
On October 17 2011 19:26 thedeadhaji wrote:
edit: and yes, it's quite sad. But on the other hand, this proliferation of technology has allowed us to find others who take steps to swim against the tides of anti-intellectualism. This, I think has been a wonderful development.
You can't imagine how glad and grateful I am to be a member of TL.net.
At the meantime, if I weren't on TL, I would probably be talking to "less smart people" (damn I feel so bad using this term) and maybe show them how Farmville sucks and how they should play Starcraft instead (replace Farmville and Starcraft by any relevant hobby). It's not a real segregation as it's not enforced, but it's quite close.
There are so many interesting people on the internet, I don't feel the need to talk to less interesting people. At the meantime, when I claim reading encyclopedias for fun, I am perceived as an elitist intellectual and people don't even wanna talk to me. I even sometimes feel like Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory....except that my social skills are pretty good.
|
good lord, convoluted doesn't even begin to describe that article. The discussion in here is much better.
anyway, I tend to agree with this, specifically the part about traditional or hc gamers dropping their title of choice for Farmville
On October 17 2011 17:48 Emlary wrote:
However, I don't think Zynga-ish games grab the "low-end" segment of video game market. The target audiences are very different and the overlap is small. Someone may switch from War3 to SC2, or play a lot of WoW at home and a bit Farmville in office (or on mobile). It's also reasonable that someone who played Cooking Mama on DS now plays Restaurant City or The Sims Social. But have you heard someone drops any hardcore game, say COD, because of Farmville? No, they are different gamers.
Big corporations will follow any profitable trend in the industry, diversify their business and lower risks. That's why EA acquired Playfish for $400 million two years ago. It doesn't mean they are giving up core business, as long as the "traditional" core business is still profitable. Video game is not really a high margin business (except MMO segment, and specifically I'm talking about Chinese MMOs), neither is social game: surprisingly Zynga's operating margin is less than 10%. Believe it or not, Zynga's R&D expense accounts more than 30% of its total revenue, which respectably high for any gaming company.
I would think that you'll see some bigger companies adding social games to their line up, but overall, the trend won't change too much. I think the demo that this stuff hits are women and people around our parents' age—people who never played much to begin with. I don't think the audiences overlap too much, and if anything, I think it increases the chances that someone tries a more traditional game somewhere down the road.
I think another interesting discussion is how microtransactions are finding their way into traditional games. EA loves this shit with its sports titles. NHL12, if you play EASHL (the 6v6 league) you can buy boosts for your players or earn them in game. There's also another game mode within NHL12 which you can do this. Pretty sure it's the same for FIFA as well.
I think the concern is not that developers will shift away from the traditional market that we all love, but that they will find a way to bastardize it with shit like that.
|
The last paragraph of the essay really feels like it applies to Starcraft 2, in my opinion at least. Bnet 2.0 being the most obvious connection, but the game design itself somewhat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
