|
The Kemet PBP thread is up! I've saved slots for me, StashAugustine, Fat Samurai and BioTech. Jedit, if nobody else speaks up I'd love to have you, but I agree with keeping the game noob-friendly. So: that leaves one slot open for a relatively new to Kemet player. Come on in! 
The Supreme Court fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jan 22, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
bI don't even understand what the NSFW deck is going to be. How the hell do you make that game/concept "raunchy" (jokes on me it's just all going to be poop jokes and toilet humor). Speaking of toilet humor, I've got my copy of Cards against URBANITY (NOT HUMANITY) and I need a better way to store it. It came with a generic white cardboard box (the kind you can get for bulk trading cards for a few bucks) to store it, but it's too big. and everything flops around. So I've got 420 cards, standard playing card size, that I need a storage solution for. It's probably too big to make a tuck box for, even if I separate the black and the white cards. So I just need something smaller, could be cardboard, but plastic would be nice, that can hold my 420 cards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
I have no idea what "The Oatmeal" is and I'm glad for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:I have no idea what "The Oatmeal" is and I'm glad for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
I think nsfw is going to have, like, more gorey pictures of cats exploding? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:I think nsfw is going to have, like, more gorey pictures of cats exploding? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Cats with tits Cits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Not really? It was good for a couple plays in each mode (there was like 9 modes) - but none of the modes really worked. Some fun ideas, but they couldn't really make it all work. What I find interesting and what I've been thinking about recently, is denial in 3 or 4 player games where you can't affect everyone at once. For example, I've been playing lots of quick games of TTR recently on my phone, and I've tried strategies based around denying routes to other players. I completed a few small routes pretty quickly and then focused my attention on blocking Red and Yellow player routes (this is against AI). Red was obviously going a certain way so I built a couple routes to stop him from connecting his cities. When the game ended, I realized my strategy had worked extremely well... against only the Red player. Once I blocked him, since I had finished my routes he couldn't retaliate, so he just kept trying to build around it. This gave me a decent score and Red a terrible score. Yellow, though, happily built on unencumbered and crushed us both. The only way I could've won is if while I blocked Red, he tried to block Yellow, tanking their score, too. So there's this weird balance where the game would've been close only if we all went in a rock-paper-scissors circle of aggression. Any two players fighting amongst themselves just allow the 3rd too much freedom. Makes me appreciate the difficultly of balancing 3 player games in particular, since politics are inescapable and playing with people who aren't in the same headspace as everyone else can throw off the game and make spiteful kingmaking too easy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
I mean I know it goes without saying that The Oatmeal Game will be bad, but holy poo poo that game looks bad. In the video explaining the rules, they say that skipping your turn is considered to be a positive tactical choice. They are almost straight-up saying “the best way to play this game is to just not play it.” e: It's like someone sat down and said "You know what the worst part about card games is? The part where you get to play cards."
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
PopZeus posted:What I find interesting and what I've been thinking about recently, is denial in 3 or 4 player games where you can't affect everyone at once. For example, I've been playing lots of quick games of TTR recently on my phone, and I've tried strategies based around denying routes to other players. I completed a few small routes pretty quickly and then focused my attention on blocking Red and Yellow player routes (this is against AI). Red was obviously going a certain way so I built a couple routes to stop him from connecting his cities. When the game ended, I realized my strategy had worked extremely well... against only the Red player. Once I blocked him, since I had finished my routes he couldn't retaliate, so he just kept trying to build around it. This gave me a decent score and Red a terrible score. Yellow, though, happily built on unencumbered and crushed us both. The only way I could've won is if while I blocked Red, he tried to block Yellow, tanking their score, too. The best part of TTR is when you finally finish your routes and it becomes time to figure out if you're better off: -Building the longest route -Building as many 5-6 car tracks as possible -Dumping trains to end the game as quickly as possible before others can complete their routes -Figuring out other peoples destinations and blocking them 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Der Shovel posted:For ages I maintained that Talisman couldn't POSSIBLY be as bad as this thread made it sound. So I'm curious, what exactly is so bad about Talisman? I've seen it mentioned a few times as being a bad game but in all honesty I've been having a lot of fun with it; against just the AI, yeah, it's boring as sin but enough of my friends bought it during the Steam sale (and Humble Bundle, more recently) that we tend to play it a lot and get a kick out of it; I even picked up all the current DLC when it was on the Steam sale so we have all the characters and expansions and other stupid poo poo. The random swing to it has been a plus for us, because it's loving funny for everyone to be at 1 HP and then some idiot draws the Pestilence card and BOOSH, everyone's dead, no winner. Or for the one guy who was about to win the game gets hit by the Random spell, turned into a toad with no fate points, and is sent back to the tavern to be murdered by wolves and the angry farmer. Then again, my buddies and I also play WFRP 2e a lot so maybe we're just broken idiots with no taste. v  v
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
John Dyne posted:So I'm curious, what exactly is so bad about Talisman? I've seen it mentioned a few times as being a bad game but in all honesty I've been having a lot of fun with it; against just the AI, yeah, it's boring as sin but enough of my friends bought it during the Steam sale (and Humble Bundle, more recently) that we tend to play it a lot and get a kick out of it; I even picked up all the current DLC when it was on the Steam sale so we have all the characters and expansions and other stupid poo poo. I think this is a case of "anything can be fun with the right group of people." Also I imagine it's a lot more tolerable when you spend $5 on a PC version and watch the game play itself then it is when you spend $60+ on the board game then have to setup and manage all the bullshit while making zero actual decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
admanb posted:I think this is a case of "anything can be fun with the right group of people." Also I imagine it's a lot more tolerable when you spend $5 on a PC version and watch the game play itself then it is when you spend $60+ on the board game then have to setup and manage all the bullshit while making zero actual decisions. Okay yeah that's pretty fair. I've been around for the set up of Arkham Horror with all of the expansions and I can't imagine setting up fuckin' Talisman and keeping everything straight with its expansions would be anything remotely fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
admanb posted:Also I imagine it's a lot more tolerable when you spend $5 on a PC version and watch the game play itself then it is when you spend $60+ on the board game then have to setup and manage all the bullshit while making zero actual decisions. This is the kicker. $5 digital download Talisman is a great value since it's a quick game to gently caress around in and laugh at funny stuff happening and the computerized assistance makes it flow nice and quickly. $60 Talisman is a slow and painful piece of poo poo that cost way too much just to slowly process a game with no decisions and no purpose. Digital Talisman is fine, especially for just loving about on voice chat or for some time wasting against AI. Physical Talisman sucks hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
One thing that roll-to-move (then have limited options based on where you land) in a game like Talisman does is free people from having to plan turns, pay attention to what other people are doing, etc. Playing is a little like getting a multiple-choice question on your turn. It's kind of liberating not just for the player (who is FREED from things like paying attention or planning turns) but also for the host (you don't get "Oh, it's my turn? What happened? OK now what can I do?") People can just play and not have to invest much. Some people not only like that, but kind of want it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
dishwasherlove posted:Looks like Witch's Brew is getting a reprint. https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/172308/broom-service drat it and after putting together my own little version with metal coins and stuff 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:One thing that roll-to-move (then have limited options based on where you land) in a game like Talisman does is free people from having to plan turns, pay attention to what other people are doing, etc. There's no such thing as not investing much in a goddamn four hour game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Anyways, I'm always on the look out for more really well executed "almost multi-player solitaire" games, I think. Not really multiplayer solitaire but can I suggest you try Dungeon Lords? It's got that worker-placement feel but it's much harder to be a passive-aggressive jerk because there's 3 slots on each action to share between 4 players and you select your actions secretly and simultaneously (a bit like Race for the Galaxy) so it's not nearly as easy to mess up someone else's plan with pinpoint accuracy. It is still a pretty mean game in true Vlaada style, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Not really multiplayer solitaire but can I suggest you try Dungeon Lords? It's got that worker-placement feel but it's much harder to be a passive-aggressive jerk because there's 3 slots on each action to share between 4 players and you select your actions secretly and simultaneously (a bit like Race for the Galaxy) so it's not nearly as easy to mess up someone else's plan with pinpoint accuracy. You're right that it's not easy, but hoo boy is it really really damaging when someone is capable of messing someone up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
In Dungeon Lords you're a lot more likely to mess someone up by accident then on purpose. That doesn't make it less damaging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Caverna, Fields of Arle, and Orleans are all good, low conflict games. Two player Caverna was very enjoyable, and fixes a lot of the complaints this thread has levied against Agricola. As for something completely different, Keyflower is the most agressive game I've played without outright attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Rahdo does a series of videos that specializes in low-conflict Euros. I think the thread has said that he's a bit too easily amused by mid-weight Euros to be a reliable reviewer, but that makes him a lot like myself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Labyrinth of S'xsyde v1.03! With exciting new features like "intuitive table layout", "competent formatting" and "different opening image". I did a pretty massive overhaul of the Monster, Trap, and Obstacle tables so they're more consistent now, and simplified the HP-gaining rules. The game is a bit easier, but that's what the difficulty slider is for. I think this is going to be the last "main" update unless something major jumps out that needs fixing. (Thus, this is probably the last time you'll have to worry about me spamming the Board Game thread with messages about it.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
I know action blocking is a legitimate thing but I just got salty over a spite placement in a game of dungeon petz online. round 2 one cage spot and two pet spots available and green already having his second cage. since three players need two pets and he already has the empty cage, i take the pet first presuming green playing next will take the other to not miss out on the last pet of the round to yellow, who also had bought the first cage of the round and would act after green and before my next group. Green instead buys a third cage  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Ayn Randi posted:I know action blocking is a legitimate thing but I just got salty over a spite placement in a game of dungeon petz online. round 2 one cage spot and two pet spots available and green already having his second cage. since three players need two pets and he already has the empty cage, i take the pet first presuming green playing next will take the other to not miss out on the last pet of the round to yellow, who also had bought the first cage of the round and would act after green and before my next group. Green instead buys a third cage I did that the other day. To be fair, we warned him somebody could do that. And then it happened. And then he was confused and sad. It was satisfying, really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
John Dyne posted:So I'm curious, what exactly is so bad about Talisman? I've seen it mentioned a few times as being a bad game but in all honesty I've been having a lot of fun with it; against just the AI, yeah, it's boring as sin but enough of my friends bought it during the Steam sale (and Humble Bundle, more recently) that we tend to play it a lot and get a kick out of it; I even picked up all the current DLC when it was on the Steam sale so we have all the characters and expansions and other stupid poo poo. I played like 30 minutes before quitting, but my biggest problem was the lack of control for randomness. You roll for pretty much everything, and the only option you get to mitigate a bad roll is to roll again, which likely does nothing due to the way combat is calculated in this game. Compare this to say, Castles of Burgandy, where you are given the option to adjust your dice roll with an easily accessible resource. Going back to combat, the way it's calculated is Strength + Dice Roll. We've already covered why the dice part is a problem, so what happens when you pick a character with low strength? Your options are (to my knowledge) to get weapons/items to increase the stat, or use certain spells, randomly drawn, that depend on intelligence? You get those by pulling random cards, landing on spaces with cards on them, which were randomly pulled, or land on certain squares, and then roll a die to maybe get an item. There's no way to control any of that, so you're derping around chucking dice until you eventually get beefy enough to be relevant, then you hope you roll into spaces that let you use your now relevant strength. Compare that system to say, Eldritch Horror which allows you to contend with the randomness of improving your stats by being near cities that are clearly marked to have a higher chance of improving certain stats. My last complaint isn't entirely fair since I didn't read the game manual, but I had no clue what I was doing once I got into the 2 inner rings. Once I got into the innermost ring, every roll I could have gotten sent me back to the outer circle, and I saw no point to continue the game since I hate reset progress, so I quit. If you just want to chunk dice, there are many other games I would suggest in its place. Same for 'thematic experiences.' While I'm on the topic, how many people here prefer thematic games over games with solid mechanics. The only people that will play medium-weight stuff claim they would rather be thematically attached to a game than play a tight game, which confuses me a bit, and I would like help understanding. Like, I enjoy great components and art as well, but I would much rather play a shorter, more cohesive game than read a paragraph of fluff to determine that I need to roll x dice to get an item. Do you guys find that the fluff makes the game that much more enjoyable, and worth all of the finicky rules, or do you just prefer to do things other than build farms?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:drat it and after putting together my own little version with metal coins and stuff It's not a reprint. It's a new game using the same role selection design as witches brew.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
I like mechanical theme. I enjoy flavour (text) that *supports* mechanical theme. I really strongly dislike flavour for its own sake, or more specifically the assumption that a game is "thematic" just because you wrote lots of stories on your cards that have gently caress all to do with the mechanics of the game. As an aside, I wish theme and flavour were reversed in game terminology when I compare it to how I'd talk about an actual meal or banquet. "Flavour" actually relates to how a dish interacts with your palate and your sense of taste, and should be used to describe mechanics that evoke a sense of story, narrative, character or place. "Theme" is extraneous poo poo you put on to make it look like things are related to each other or to something else. If I have chips served from a pumpkin bowl at my halloween themed party they're still just chips. It's weird because "retheming" is actually understood in that way - if you retheme something you're changing the skin of a game without altering the mechanics or their associated mechanical flavour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Shadow225 posted:If you just want to chunk dice, there are many other games I would suggest in its place. Same for 'thematic experiences.' While I'm on the topic, how many people here prefer thematic games over games with solid mechanics. The only people that will play medium-weight stuff claim they would rather be thematically attached to a game than play a tight game, which confuses me a bit, and I would like help understanding. Like, I enjoy great components and art as well, but I would much rather play a shorter, more cohesive game than read a paragraph of fluff to determine that I need to roll x dice to get an item. Do you guys find that the fluff makes the game that much more enjoyable, and worth all of the finicky rules, or do you just prefer to do things other than build farms? I don't think thematic games and solid mechanics are mutually exclusive. Edit: Vlaada Chvatil is a mechanically solid thematic gangster. fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:I like mechanical theme. I enjoy flavour (text) that *supports* mechanical theme. I really strongly dislike flavour for its own sake, or more specifically the assumption that a game is "thematic" just because you wrote lots of stories on your cards that have gently caress all to do with the mechanics of the game. In system design (and video game design), you're talking in part about conveyance, or the science of transcribing an intuitive experience onto a foreign media or interface. Or to tone down the  , "How much does the thing I'm pretending to do feel like doing the thing?Space Alert is a game with high conveyance, because the panic feels like an escalating emergency. Arkham Horror is a game with low conveyance, because it boils down to a generic "roll dice to proceed" mechanism with a funny mask on top, which does nothing in particular to reinforce the supposed narrative experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Shadow225 posted:If you just want to chunk dice, there are many other games I would suggest in its place. Same for 'thematic experiences.' While I'm on the topic, how many people here prefer thematic games over games with solid mechanics. The only people that will play medium-weight stuff claim they would rather be thematically attached to a game than play a tight game, which confuses me a bit, and I would like help understanding. Like, I enjoy great components and art as well, but I would much rather play a shorter, more cohesive game than read a paragraph of fluff to determine that I need to roll x dice to get an item. Do you guys find that the fluff makes the game that much more enjoyable, and worth all of the finicky rules, or do you just prefer to do things other than build farms? Sometimes I prefer thematic games. I'm not sure what qualifies as mechanically tight here (does it have to be as trim as Tammany Hall?), but I don't always want to play a game whose sole point is to test skill. I find I enjoy exploration more - exploration of mechanics, or equally, exploration of the game's world. Games like Eldritch Horror (I'm not defending Talisman or Arkham Horror) present a world worth exploring, even if the mechanics are not that tight (and EH's are not). "Fluff" adds context, and helps to provide a more cinematic and engrossing story, which make the long play period worth it. I'd posit that the best board games all use fluff. Tammany Hall, a very tight game, is vastly improved by its theming, from the board to the political cartoons to the hats on the meeple. Vlaada's games sacrifice mechanics for the sake of theme, and are probably the better for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Prairie Bus posted:Vlaada's games sacrifice mechanics for the sake of theme, and are probably the better for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
It's similar to the background in RPGs. You can come up with a mechanic, as long as it works, and justify it however you want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:I might argue that. It's more like he's a savant at marrying mechanics and flavor. Just think of how many rules in Dungeon Petz/Lords have a tiny, but totally consistent-within-flavor justification? ('1 imp can't carry a cage by itself', 'clerics are jerks', etc.) That's sorta what I mean- do the mechanics demand that a pet removed from the market add one meat to the stalls (or vegetable, or gold)? Mechanical robustness was sacrificed there - the game would be mechanically superior without that rule. These rules add mechanical fat to the game, but they make it better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Prairie Bus posted:That's sorta what I mean- do the mechanics demand that a pet removed from the market add one meat to the stalls (or vegetable, or gold)? Mechanical robustness was sacrificed there - the game would be mechanically superior without that rule. These rules add mechanical fat to the game, but they make it better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:I think without that rule, you'd probably find the market to end up being just a little lighter on food than it should be. It's an elegant solution to a problem that would be difficult to just patch up. I think we're in agreement that it's elegant, but for the sake of argument, i maintain that it's not tight. It's an extra, easily forgotten rule. Tightness is about having less rules that easily slot into each other, not in having weird corner case rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:To add to the solo games with replayability pile, Archipelago with the single player expansion (like $10, it's a big ol' deck of cards) is my favorite SP board game. What, is this a thing? How does it work? fozzy fosbourne posted:I don't think thematic games and solid mechanics are mutually exclusive. Twilight Struggle is, without doubt, the most thematic game I've ever played. The only thing that doesn't fit with the theme is the Space Track, but everything else (Mil. Ops being saber-ratting, DEFCON, the fact that regions can be important just because your oponent makes it so, the small countries doing all they can to screw with your plans, etc). Explaining the rules is a breeze, because they just make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:What, is this a thing? How does it work? Countblanc posted:So each of the cards in the expansion is basically a starting board scenario like "you begin on the desert tile with [list of resources]", as well as an objective and time/turn limit to achieve it in. You then pretty much just play Archipelago like normal (but, obviously, without other players), but you need to fulfill the objective within the limit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:I don't think thematic games and solid mechanics are mutually exclusive. Vlaada Chvatil is a loving wizard. Playing Dungeon Lords with Festival Season yesterday gave me a minor epiphany into realising why I dislike certain games that my group play a lot and enjoy - here's the thing. I'm not as good at these games as my group. Nowhere near really, I've got to get quite lucky to come close to winning. So I value a game I enjoy even when I'm losing very highly. And I think I've worked out WHY I enjoy losing the games I do. It's when the loser doesn't do less than everyone else. The problem I have with Civ is that if luck gets you behind, your lack of available actions through not having built or through having lost cities means you get less to do on your turn, which in turn means you spend proportionately less time playing the game. The same is true of a LOT of games, even Clash of Cultures where everyone only gets three actions anyway - except, if you're doing poorly (got bad luck with city locations or your opponents' locations, or seas being in the way or w/e) it's more difficult to play and you have to spend more time researching things which aren't you're focus, to get around. And that means you don't get to the action multipliers, which means you have less to do on your turn. Same with Agricola. If you gently caress up, you have fewer family members to place which means you get less to do, and frequently wind up having to pick up food now rather than food later in order to not starve. Why I really, really like Dungeon Lords, Suburbia, Galaxy Trucker, etc; games where even the losing player is doing the same amount of stuff as the winning player. I was losing horribly in DL basically all of last night (following a hideous parade of bad luck and/or planning which led to me not being able to use 3 action spaces in relatively quick succession in a 5-round game). I knew I'd hosed up and had probably lost as a result - but a: I didn't have fewer things to do as a result, b: I still felt like I could do things to improve my score, and c: I still felt like my opponents might have also screwed up somewhere to, which meant I didn't feel left out. So yeah, there's that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Regarding XCOM: The Board Game. My girlfriend's brother is a big fan of the computer game, and he's pretty much surgically attached to his iPad so he went crazy when the board game was announced. I've pre-ordered a copy for him. The more cynical reviews basically say it's half drawing cards and deciding whether to discard them or play them (so they can be used/researched whatever) and half a push-your-luck dice roller, where you then assign the dice to whatever card you want to advance (so any dice showing Research and be put onto whatever the current Research card is etc.). I downloaded the PC version of the app to have a play with it but without the game infront of me it doesn't make much sense. All the card choosing and dice rolling is done against the clock but I can't tell what the penalty is if you go over your time. If you play as the Communications Officer, the guy with the iPad, it seems that you don't really play...anything. You're just there as a glorified Dungeon Master to shout out what's happening and place some UFOs on the board when they get spotted. I have a feeling that it'll be one of those games like Firefly, where people who are real fans of the source material will be able to easily immerse themselves in it and enjoy it regardless of mechanical flaws. I'm looking forward to playing it, but I'm going in with low expectations. In a more positive note, last night's gaming meet was very enjoyable, got in a game each of Roll for the Galaxy and Viticulture. The owner of Roll for the Galaxy gave a pretty awkward rule explanation, he'd only got the game a couple of hours before the meet, and at first I didn't really grasp how to assign my dice to the various actions. After a couple of rounds though (and some assistance from a spectator) it clicked and I started to really enjoy the game. I was lucky with the tiles I built/settled as they all gave some bonus to consumption, so I was able to keep producing goods and consuming them to keep racking up the points. I would happily play again and it'll certainly go onto my wishlist, but I don't have a niche for it my collection right now. Viticulture I thought was exceptional and easily one of the best games I've played since I started going to these weekly gaming nights last October. I won't say too much because it'll just be me gushing about it but I thought everything just worked together beautifully. I managed to come second, with my last two workers I could have finished one point behind the leader, had I drawn a wine order I could have fulfilled it right away with my last guy. Again, this is definitely going on my wishlist. Zveroboy fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:25
|
|
