Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/feature/8607/page/2

 

 

Best Indie RPG: Pillars of Eternity

(Obsidian)

Yes, Obsidian isn’t exactly an Indie Dev, when they land huge contracts like BioWare and Bethesda often. But they successfully funded their passion project Pillars of Eternity through Kickstarter, and that means we’re going to classify it as independent since its development is entirely driven by proud backers. Our full preview is coming later this week, but Obsidian set out to create a classic Baldur’s Gate and Icewind Dale style RPG from days gone by, and we think they’ve more than succeeded.  This is a game you’ll want to play, and it made many of us sad we didn’t back it when we had the chance, just to say we were there when it started.

 

 

Edited by Osvir
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, a humorless cynic would read that as "Few thought it was possible, but Obsidian has made yet another clunky, impenetrable old role-playing game again!". :p

 

..I really wish some of the retro focused sites would at least smuggle in some "rediscovering forgotten realms" line, or something. But probably shouldn't complain.

 

Re. metacritic user list. That was a bit weird. And could be a reason to justify the idea that games like PoE are actually extremely popular, and that new games that retain some elements from these games will be the ones that are the most successful. 

 

But the argument that will win out is that the folks who like these rpg-games are a very small amount of people, and a less motivated and predictable audience compared to people who like fps-games. That's been under there from the beginning. RPG fans require a dev to write huge stories and want 50 hours of gameplay, at the very least, and will be critical and merciless if something isn't fantastic. While the other audience will settle for a 4hour campaign and some popup bonuses while playing online.

 

Basically, the idea of selling PoE as something that the market actually wants, more than streamlined versions in first person formats is something that will backfire. It's been proven that it's not what people want. Or even if it is, there are other options for devs. I mean, I'd love to write that Obsidian is now spoiling us with manna from heaven, after Bethesda, EA/Bioware and Blizzard/Activision have starved us through the desert for the last bunch of years.

 

But I'm sure there are other angles here that are easier to sell, at least to people who don't enjoy sarcasm as much as I do.

 

Such as that the game focuses on exploring fictional interactive worlds, letting you have a trip through scenarios written and conducted by world-class gamemasters, for your convenience and easy enjoyment, etc. I mean, the problem here is that RPG-games are completely unimpressive from just a screenshot, don't have kill-cams (thank god), and might reward you if you stop and think for a bit.

The injustice must end! Sign the petition and Free the Krug!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah and like 1k people will care about it without a video.  Again there is a reason why ign, gamespot, polygon and co are switching to more and more videos. Do quicklooks, do video previews etc. No one reads these article anymore except the hardcore fan. And even than it is the exception.

Way to be a glass-half-full kind of person. :)

 

Where were you when the Kickstarter began?

 

"Pssh... only like 1K people are gonna back this. It's not even gonna reach 100% funding... No one cares about pitches for these kinds of games anymore..." :)

 

I think the campaign really could've benefitted from such positive thinking.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

yeah and like 1k people will care about it without a video.  Again there is a reason why ign, gamespot, polygon and co are switching to more and more videos. Do quicklooks, do video previews etc. No one reads these article anymore except the hardcore fan. And even than it is the exception.

Way to be a glass-half-full kind of person. :)

 

Where were you when the Kickstarter began?

 

"Pssh... only like 1K people are gonna back this. It's not even gonna reach 100% funding... No one cares about pitches for these kinds of games anymore..." :)

 

I think the campaign really could've benefitted from such positive thinking.

 

Again I think there is a huge misunderstanding here.

 

I will never say that this game is not worth it. Quite the Opposite I have really really high expectations for this game since they introduced the kickstarter Campaign.  And this has not changed at all.  However I just do not disagree with their transparency and ways of doing their Kickstarter Campaign.  This has nothing to do with the quality of the game.

 

And the 1K comment was about people still reading these previews. As I said it is a fact that written previews are dying and they are dying really fast.

Edited by Darji
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the 1K comment was about people still reading these previews. As I said it is a fact that written previews are dying and they are dying really fast.

Print is dying. Digital media is in full bloom. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And the 1K comment was about people still reading these previews. As I said it is a fact that written previews are dying and they are dying really fast.

Print is dying. Digital media is in full bloom. 

 

Not in written form.. Especially with previews. There are not many previews anymore compared to let us say 5 years ago.   Games media is actually shifting to more live content. Has shows, plays games, previews games through videos etc.   Giantbomb back than was a pioneer. Today everyone does this.

 

Even with reviews you can see this in the end. Mostly video not many written big reviews. may a page if its a pretty big title and you are lucky 2 pages. 

Edited by Darji
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still see many a preview (if not multiple, a few months apart... usually an initial just big presentation, followed months later by a hands-on segment), as well as review, on almost every single game that comes out... big or small. It really depends on the distribution. If it's just on someone's website somewhere, and it's a little $5000 game, it might not get covered. If it's on an app store or Steam or something, though, it usually gets covered. As I said, you can even find reviews and previews for pass-the-time phone games.

 

Since the whole world is now fueled by money, I dare say the higher-ups in charge of those journalism sites wouldn't waste money and webspace having someone write all those if relatively "no one" was reading them anymore. I can't really prove that they're not doing just that, though. Just figured I'd share my perspective.

 

Honestly, I just think that a group being merely a smaller percentage of the total consumer market sort of automatically gets exaggeratively shrunk down to "no one" nowadays, by a lot of people. Again, that's why games can sell 700,000 copies and still be considered "not a very big game," just because they're being compared to the "big" titles that sold 6 million pre-orders, much less total copies.

 

If there are 100 million gamers in the world, then yeah, 700,000 (pure example numbers, btw) isn't a lot, relative to "everyone." But that doesn't mean it's no one.

 

The goal is to utilize marketing when it's objectively beneficial. Not necessarily to reach only some minimum majority or something.

 

There are entire subscription-based magazines dedicated to extremely niche segments of the populous. There's probably a friggin' Cactus-Grower's Digest out there.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. metacritic user list. That was a bit weird. And could be a reason to justify the idea that games like PoE are actually extremely popular, and that new games that retain some elements from these games will be the ones that are the most successful.

You should not judge by Metacritic.  In the past low score reviews were much rarer, and high scores were much more common.  Gamers (and their reviewers) were also far less cynical and easier to please.  Not only that but 10-12 years ago there were a lot less reviewers too.  I am stunned BG2 somehow got to 30.  Compare to say... Skyrim.  Oh it only had 32 reviews on PC, true.  Did you know it has another 89 review scores on the Xbox version plus another 16 who reviewed it on PS3?

 

Simply put it is much much harder to get a high score today than in 2000.  If BG2 release today it would have gotten no where near a 95.  Case in point... the enhanced edition only scores a 78, and had 34 reviewers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You should not judge by Metacritic.  In the past low score reviews were much rarer, and high scores were much more common.  Gamers (and their reviewers) were also far less cynical and easier to please.  Not only that but 10-12 years ago there were a lot less reviewers too.  I am stunned BG2 somehow got to 30.  Compare to say... Skyrim.  Oh it only had 32 reviews on PC, true.  Did you know it has another 89 review scores on the Xbox version plus another 16 who reviewed it on PS3?

 

Simply put it is much much harder to get a high score today than in 2000.  If BG2 release today it would have gotten no where near a 95.  Case in point... the enhanced edition only scores a 78, and had 34 reviewers.

 

 

BG2:EE is not really a good example as it's probably being reviewed by people who are comparing it to todays games. There's also a lot of criticism for the 'enhanced edition' which has pulled down it's ranking. And magazines (reviews) 15 years ago may not be in business today. It was a different time back then and sometimes not for the better.

 

I also find it funny you say Gamers were also far less cynical and easier to please than today. There's a good thread on RPG Codex about the "The Decline of Computer Gaming" in 1996. A very informative and interesting read. There were a lot of games that copied popular games. eg. Diablo and RTS clones. And a lot of terrible games at the time as well as great games, and saw a lot of games get average scores.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
I also find it funny you say Gamers were also far less cynical and easier to please than today. There's a good thread on RPG Codex about the "The Decline of Computer Gaming" in 1996. A very informative and interesting read. There were a lot of games that copied popular games. eg. Diablo and RTS clones. And a lot of terrible games at the time as well as great games, and saw a lot of games get average scores.

Right but an average game got an average score.  I have seen review sites like Polygon (and others) take games that are solid good games where they have nothing but a few niggling complaints even the reviewer says "are minor" and give the game a 3/5 or a 6/10, both of which translate to 60-70 in Metacritic speak and are considered bad scores.  Please remember publishers consider anything that metacritics less than 80 to be a "failed game".  Not even joking.

 

Look at Child of Light on Polygon for example.  They have nothing legitimately bad to say.  Their complaint ultimately is "combat is okay but could have been more complex and I wish it had loot/equipment and it isn't "memorable"".  That's it.  No bugs, the game is fun, the story is okay, graphics are great, sound was cool... but man the combat got a little boring in my 11 hour playthrough and it isn't super memorable so that I will think back to it in two years so bam 6.5/10.  Really? 

 

Or GiantBombs Watch Dogs review where it ends saying they had fun with the game, it kept them entertained most of the time, and though all it's tricks were old tricks they still worked.  Bit it also said, "...if you don't settle for anything less than the best, you'll probably be disappointed." final score?  3/5.  Apparently being fun and liking a game is no longer grounds for a 80 or higher score, you have to be "the best" or maybe reinvent your genre.  Bear in mind the same writer gave Grand Theft Auto V a 5/5.  No offence, but the three character thing while cool didn't reinvent the genre either and GTAV still did all the same things GTAIV did just with better graphics and three characters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should mention that entire "decline" idea. Because the feeling I got when I was engaged with Sony (and could use that to fish for comments from some of their partners in a way that I couldn't when just asking as a blogger) - was that a lot of people seriously thought that if we didn't somehow manage to make zombie-shooting fps-games popular /right now/ :p, then gaming would forever become an obscure industry and die out, etc.

 

Or in more concrete terms: That the industry would never be able to support the kind of production scale they were planning for and putting into place at the moment. That practically everyone involved would lose their jobs in the short term. In other words, that the ones who sat on the investment money themselves had serious doubts about what they were financing. Just as the people who were engaging studios had very little faith in that any of this actually could result in products that could be sold to profits like they expected.

 

Part of this is about unbelievable expectations, of course. And a mismatch between the expectations for profit a creative studio will have, and the expectation an investor will have when it comes to the return from buying stocks in games as opposed to.. potatoes and milk-carton designs. Some of the successful pitches that have been made when it comes to retention, recurring visits and purchases, motivation for buying things during gameplay, etc., have been literally insane. 

 

But I think the biggest responsibility for how this stuff has gotten out of hand lies with the fact that the entire games-media as it is now essentially exists to print folksy retellings of the advertisement packages they get from their largest sponsors. And how that has led not just users but also creative studios to focus on a very small amount of people, to the exclusion of everyone else.

 

Like you point out above, there are a lot of niches out there that sustain themselves just fine. Where the synergy between the niche activity and the specialized media-coverage following it enlarges it to a point. It's possible to imagine games-media and the games-industry as a niche like that, in the way industry insiders tend to do.

 

But what has happened is that the large sites, and large magazines before that, have taken to specialize coverage too much. Kieron Gillen in PCGamerUK, for example, and his "new games-journalism manifesto" that really has survived until now. It's all about creating coverage that sounds more appealing to a wider audience. But in reality the result has pin-point specialized appeal only for the insiders who know what the heck "great gameplay" means.

 

Had a huge spat with a site-owner about this a while back, because he believed that the nomenclature that made sense to him had general appeal as long as it could semantically have been describing... something other than games, like crabs fighting on a beach, or whatever.

 

But lucky is he who can somehow sustain a review-site on just that. Just how interesting is it to read a text where the only thing you take from it is that the writer is excited about something? You know it's excitement about what you're assuming is your interest, right? You've clicked this because you're already interested in crabs on the beach, so you know it's stuff you want to read about.

 

But how interesting is it, really? Like Kieron Gillen was allowed to escape with when PCGamerUK ran into the ground as well - the truth is that the entire setup is created to please advertisers and investment partners, not the readers. The readers, it's assumed, will come anyway.

 

And when they don't. Why, it's the end of the video-game industry.

 

See the problem here?

Edited by nipsen
  • Like 1

The injustice must end! Sign the petition and Free the Krug!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right but an average game got an average score.  I have seen review sites like Polygon (and others) take games that are solid good games where they have nothing but a few niggling complaints even the reviewer says "are minor" and give the game a 3/5 or a 6/10, both of which translate to 60-70 in Metacritic speak and are considered bad scores.  Please remember publishers consider anything that metacritics less than 80 to be a "failed game".  Not even joking.

 

Okay. lets have a look at some games from the last 15-20 years which I consider good games at the time that scored under 90. You said it was easy for games to score highly.

 

I know, lets pick a year, say 1999. Here's a snapshot of some of the more popular games, and these are popular games that did sell really well. And not one scored in the 90 percent mark.

 

1999 Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun 79.68% (28 reviews).

1999 Half Life: Opposing Force 85.45 (30 reviews)

1999 Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation 75.07%

1999 Resident Evil 3: Nemesis PS 88%, PC 75%, DC 81%, GC 74% (I've taken the higher Gamerankings scores. Metacritic was lower than these)

1999 Tom Clancey's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear 86%

1999 Descent 3 84.36% Gamerankings, 89% Metacritic

1999 Team Fortress Classic 85.43%

1999 Need for Speed: High Stakes PC 83.08%, PS1 84.38% Gamerankings. PS1 86% Metacritic

1999 Heroes of Might and Magic III 87%

1999 Grand Theft Auto 2 70% Metacritic

 

So games like Grand Theft Auto 2 are a failure.

 

And what games did barely get into the 90 percent range?

 

1999 Planescape Torment 90.63% Gamerankings. 91% Metacritic.

1999 Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri 92% Metacritic

 

You said,

 

"In the past low score reviews were much rarer, and high scores were much more common."

"Gamers (and their reviewers) were also far less cynical and easier to please". 

 

No. Reviewers scored accordingly and Gamers were just as cynical and fed up back then as they are now. :lol:

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good posts in this thread nipsen (these forums rarely produce any).

 

I'm not sure what the deal was with getting a 'spot' to come and see Pillars of Eternity, but it was a pre-scheduled thing I think (probably done by Paradox?), and they managed to sneak a few others in because they had time in the schedule according to twitter.

 

One of Josh Sawyer's concerns on the E3 panel thing was that the press who were enthusiastic about the game were backers and had played the IE games before. There was also another group of press that pretty much though "So what is the point of this game in 2014?".

 

Your proposal that they should try and find the people that actually like this kind of game is a good one, I do think there are new people out there though that will be attracted to this game because of the stylized graphics. The FPS gamer is not going to care, and while FPS may be the biggest genre, a lot of FPS players are not gamers. Even Activision said that very thing in a press statement. They recognize that the majority of Call of Duty MW fans just play that style of game and that's it, there's certainly people from MOBA and MMO circles that might give it a go as well as the people that play the type of games that Paradox focuses on (macro strategy games). 

Hopefully whoever is doing the marketing and PR for Pillars of Eternity realizes that.

Edited by Sensuki
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To balance it out, here are the more popular games from 1999 that did score more than 90%. On top of Planescape Torment and Syd Meiers Alpha Centauri.

 

1999 Quake III Arena 84.13% Gamerankings, 93% Metacritic

1999 Unreal: Tournament 92% Metacritic (21 reviews), 94% Gamrankings (22 reviews)

1999 The Longest Journey 88% Gamerankings, 91% Metacritic

1999 System Shock 2 92% Metacritic and Gamerankings

 

Not a lot of games over 90%. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we can look at 1998 when BG was released and all the popular games released then. As well as 2000 when BG2 was released and compare them to all the popular games released that year. The story will be the same. You get a small percentage in the 90 percentage range and most will be in the 70 and 80 percent range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we can look at 1998 when BG was released and all the popular games released then. As well as 2000 when BG2 was released and compare them to all the popular games released that year. The story will be the same. You get a small percentage in the 90 percentage range and most will be in the 70 and 80 percent range.

Just cause you liked a game doesn't mean it was a great game.  None of the games you linked for the most part should have been 90+ when they came out, much less today.  Again my whole point, which is still true, is saying Baldur's Gate 2 is the greatest RPG of all time based on Metacritic is a meaningless statement and proves nothing because the standards it faces are not the same standards games today face and the number of reviewers as well as their outlook is vastly different now than it was 14 years ago.

 

I do like that you linked the score of Resident Evil 3 though since making fun of the bad controls and terrible voice acting from the early resident evils is something I find the internet enjoys quite a bit.  By comparison we have Deadly Premonition.  A game that came out much later, had the same sort of controls, and the same sort of whacked out voice acting as the original resident evil.  Just a far better story and better graphics.  You said the PS version of Resident Evil 3 got an 88?  Deadly Premonition with the same control style and basic gameplay on the Xbox 360 (effectively 2 console gens later) metacritics a massive 68.

 

If you asked me which game is better and which I would rather play today don't be shocked if I tell you I would rather play the 68.

 

Also finding scores would help a lot if you look at something other than just pc games.  Just saying consoles exist and have games too.

Edited by Karkarov
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just fitting for this thing Gamasutra actually posted a pretty in deep article in how Youtube is killing the traditional Games press with facts , statistics and so on. Everyone who still believes that the traditional gaming press is not dying should read this.  And if you one of these people you should be really afraid of your job. There will always be articles but soon game previews or reviews in written form could totally vanish from these sites.

 

Also If someone from Obsidian reads this. Maybe it is better to take this stuff in consideration the next time. 

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/219122/Is_YouTube_killing_the_traditional_games_press.php

Edited by Darji
Link to post
Share on other sites

Addition to already mentioned games these also have 90% or better score in metacritic.

 

1999 Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings (Metacritic 92%)

1999 FreeSpace 2 (Metacritic 91%)

1999 Medal of Honor (Metacritic 92%)

1999 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (Metacritic 92%)

1999 Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver (Metacritic 91%)

1999 Ape Escape (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Street Fighter Alpha 3 (Metacritic 93%)

1999 Syphon Filter (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Donkey Kong 64 (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Rayman 2: The Great Escape (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Beetle Adventure Racing (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Mario Golf (Metacritic 91%)

1999 SoulCalibur (Metacritic 98%)

1999 Gran Turismo 2 (Metacritic 93%)

1999 Final Fantasy VIII (Metacritic 90%)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Addition to already mentioned games these also have 90% or better score in metacritic.

 

1999 Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings (Metacritic 92%)

1999 FreeSpace 2 (Metacritic 91%)

1999 Medal of Honor (Metacritic 92%)

1999 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (Metacritic 92%)

1999 Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver (Metacritic 91%)

1999 Ape Escape (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Street Fighter Alpha 3 (Metacritic 93%)

1999 Syphon Filter (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Donkey Kong 64 (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Rayman 2: The Great Escape (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Beetle Adventure Racing (Metacritic 90%)

1999 Mario Golf (Metacritic 91%)

1999 SoulCalibur (Metacritic 98%)

1999 Gran Turismo 2 (Metacritic 93%)

1999 Final Fantasy VIII (Metacritic 90%)

Thanks for that.

 

To give a fun comparison so far in the year of 2014.... a whopping seven whole games across all platforms have hit 90 or better and we are half way through the year.  The kicker?  Three of them are iOs games that likely don't have to meet anything resembling hard standards.  Example... highest reviewed game of the year so far is VVVVVV, no I am not joking, on iOs it metacritics a insane 96.  This is a game that already came out on PC and 3ds over a year ago.  The best part?  The 3ds and PC versions strangely metacritic in the 80's.  Wonder the standards are a little lighter with those app game reviewers?

Edited by Karkarov
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just fitting for this thing Gamasutra actually posted a pretty in deep article in how Youtube is killing the traditional Games press with facts , statistics and so on. Everyone who still believes that the traditional gaming press is not dying should read this.  And if you one of these people you should be really afraid of your job. There will always be articles but soon game previews or reviews in written form could totally vanish from these sites.

 

Also If someone from Obsidian reads this. Maybe it is better to take this stuff in consideration the next time. 

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/219122/Is_YouTube_killing_the_traditional_games_press.php

Did you read this article Darji?

 

EDIT: It's a great article don't get me wrong. I'm just wondering.

Edited by Osvir
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just fitting for this thing Gamasutra actually posted a pretty in deep article in how Youtube is killing the traditional Games press with facts , statistics and so on. Everyone who still believes that the traditional gaming press is not dying should read this.  And if you one of these people you should be really afraid of your job. There will always be articles but soon game previews or reviews in written form could totally vanish from these sites.

 

Also If someone from Obsidian reads this. Maybe it is better to take this stuff in consideration the next time. 

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/219122/Is_YouTube_killing_the_traditional_games_press.php

Did you read this article Darji?

 

EDIT: It's a great article don't get me wrong. I'm just wondering.

 

I have overflown it. It focuses  on greenlight and indy games of course but we already see a shift with AAA publishers like SE who now often give games out to YouTubers to play them before anyone else. Even before official press reviews hit etc. 

 

Also I think we agree that this project is not a big AAA project but rather more big  indy like in terms of  budget etc. 

Edited by Darji
Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read it again :) and you should read it a bit more closer and not fall for "headline" bait.

I recommend everyone to read it ^^ and yes, YouTube is killing traditional gaming press. It's not killing written journalism, but the "traditional" way of doing it is going to go out the window eventually. *dramatic voice* "Life as we know it will never be the same!!!"~ jokes aside, traditional press/hype/marketing is and has been changing.

 

I have more to say but it's going to become a giant "TL;DR" post so nevermind. The Gamasutra article is already "TL;DR" for many people, so I don't want to drain your reading energy on my post :p

@Obsidian: You need to contact big YouTubers 2-4 weeks before your release date, give them the review code so that they get first-hand "Release Day" preview/review/first-impression videos. This will maximize exposure, and maximize interest for the YouTubers.

 

EDIT: Relevant to both the article and YouTubers: https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/479283553403162624

Edited by Osvir
Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read it again :) and you should read it a bit more closer and not fall for "headline" bait.

 

I recommend everyone to read it ^^ and yes, YouTube is killing traditional gaming press. It's not killing written journalism, but the "traditional" way of doing it is going to go out the window eventually. *dramatic voice* "Life as we know it will never be the same!!!"~ jokes aside, traditional press/hype/marketing is and has been changing.

 

I have more to say but it's going to become a giant "TL;DR" post so nevermind. The Gamasutra article is already "TL;DR" for many people, so I don't want to drain your reading energy on my post :p

 

@Obsidian: You need to contact big YouTubers 2-4 weeks before your release date, give them the review code so that they get first-hand "Release Day" preview/review/first-impression videos. This will maximize exposure, and maximize interest for the YouTubers.

I think you misunderstand something. I never said written article are going away. But these written article will focusing more on social commentary and other issues in this industry. I was talking about previews which we will see in tomorrow. These will more and more fade away. And yes YouTube people even get early betas of Games. Especially Strategy ones to name  a genre which is pretty great in this regard.

 

Also I never said to give them beta code but maybe be more open about the actual reception of the public. And maybe consider that these press previews are not really effective anymore. The gaming press already changes because they have to. And again you can see that on how much actual live and video content these sites already have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...