Valve Admitting L4D Single Player Mediocrity Through Multiplayer Piracy Moderation?

darkpower - 403 days 9 hours ago

Then why not just make it (and CS, for that matter) a MP-only game like Warhawk or WOW? If we're not supposed to play the story mode, then why the hell include the mode to begin with?

@1.2: If that's how it worked, then WoW and Final Fantasy XI would've had a single player mode included within it. If it's just going to be an afterthought, then don't waste your time and don't include it. I don't think they are as different, as well, because they are in the same boat as L4D. Warhawk and Socom: Confrontation are two more games we can use as examples of those that don't have a SP campaign yet do rather well (Socom is beginning to pick up a little bit of steam and it IS MP-only).

Plus, to me, anyway (not saying you're to blame of it), that is just an excuse as to why the single-player mode sucks.

@2.1: MGO is another game entirely. It is treated as a game that was in MGS4, and wasn't MGS4's MP component. That and you're in the minority with that opinion (though you have every right in the world to think and express it just as someone in the majority would). Alot of people enjoyed MGO once they got through some of the hoops to actually get to the game itself.

So I think you're comparing two different things here.

@ZEEBO4LIFESTFU: And...you're in the Gamer Zone with that half-assed reply...WHY?

Judging by your comments on 4 and 6, your bubbles (as well as your Gamer Zone residence) isn't going to last too long on this site.

Agree(16) | Disagree(5) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 403 days 9 hours ago

Because that's how PC games work. I dunno. It's just a convention.

Hardcore PC games are never as ''ready for the masses'' as console games. They always have this kind of ''home made'' feel and I like that.

The problem with WoW and FF11 is that they are MMOs and they are casual games. That makes a big difference.

Agree(1) | Disagree(7) | Report

BRACHATTACK - 403 days 9 hours ago

Good game, single player sucked.

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

ps3king - 403 days 9 hours ago

Left For Dead's single player campaign mode is the Multiplayers's Internet-Less luxury. Valve does a good job of making your friend-bots work well though. They do funny things that try to replicate mistakes like what a human players might do. Then again, buying Left for Dead to only play the single player campaign is like buying a PS3 just to watch movies on.

Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report

cmrbe - 403 days 9 hours ago

but you are not suppose to play it?.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

AclayPS3 - 403 days 8 hours ago

@Timesplitter14,

MGS4 didn't have the best multiplayer, but the core gameplay in MGS games have always been the single player. Metal Gear Online was a separate component from MGS4 and I don't think that reviewers even included MGO in their review of MGS4.

But honestly, if L4D is so focused on multiplayer, I think that it should have been a multi-player only game.

Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report

Andras84 - 403 days 8 hours ago

What do you mean we are not suppoesed to play the single player??? If we are not supposed to than it should be blocked or not even made. It takes a very long time to create that single player. Valve just f-ed up with it. Don't try to protect that lazy @ss Gabe.

Agree(8) | Disagree(2) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 403 days 8 hours ago

ok, just take another example, then.

Like singleplayer only games.

I guess I know what you'll say and why you'll say that. (that singleplayer games stay focused on what they're good at) And you're right. But when you look at it in a very rationnal way, getting this bonus multiplayer or singleplayer just can't be a bad thing. It's a bonus. It doesn't really matter if it's good or bad.

Agree(0) | Disagree(7) | Report

TheIneffableBob - 403 days 7 hours ago

Left 4 Dead was designed as a multiplayer game. Single-player was included because, well, why not? They already created the bots to use in multiplayer to fill up empty slots, so why not just have them play with you offline? Single-player is good for laptops where you might not always have an Internet connection. It was an addition that took little effort but made it much more accessible in more situations.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

Tony P - 403 days 3 hours ago

Prime reason why I did not purchase the game.

I'm probably one of the few left who prefers a good single-player campaign over cooperative play. Many games have managed both adequately, but L4D doesn't seem to be one of them.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

Some_One_Plays - 403 days 3 hours ago

With XBOX 360 games they have to incorporate single player campaigns because you pay for online. The PlayStation 3, PC, and Mac have free online this is their advantage. With persistent online games the network topology it's expensive to maintain so people pay to keep the online going. This is very similar to XBOX Live it's expensive to keep going so they have people to keep it going.

Shadowrun is the only XBOX 360 game that I know of that forces you to play for XBOX Live. As Timesplitter14 that's just stupid they have a campaign but it isn't suppose to be played. It's like saying Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots has online but you're not suppose to use it. This game is like Unreal Tournament 3 the campaign is just second thought. You're suppose to play it but not spend most of your time on it the downfall of a paying service.

In the end it's because PlayStation 3, PC, and Mac players play for free we can have online only games without forcing anyone to paying a fee. It's that simple and will be the ideal platforms for persistent online games since we don't pay a fee on top of a fee.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

pixelsword - 403 days 2 hours ago

...I say that because if L4D, a console exclusive for the 360, specifically made single player because some 360 owners don't have access to the internet, then they should've assured a great single-player experience.

That's just plain sloppy to do otherwise... tack on a single-player mode touted for the consle then make excuses when the single-player sucks.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

kwyjibo - 402 days 17 hours ago

We have arguments claiming that if the single player is not as accomplished as the multiplayer, then Valve shouldn't have included it at all.

Well, you're totally wrong - you do not have any sound backing for that argument. Left 4 Dead includes bots, AI controlled teammates which means players can seamlessly drop in and out of the match. These bots are an integral part of the game, if you would like to play with these bots alone, then you can. Valve have rightly included that option for those who choose to play with bots.

The argument that because playing alongside bots is not as satisfying as playing alongside friends is true, it's also blindingly obvious, and does not mean that single player botmatch should be dropped. Do you think that including a botmatch mode in Unreal Tournament or Quake 3 was a bad thing? Bot support in Counter-Strike should be dropped, so you can't, even if you choose to, to play offline?

No, of course not. Those arguing that it should have absolutely nothing to back up their stance, other than QQ, QQ.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Legion - 402 days 9 hours ago

Your statement "Shadowrun is the only XBOX 360 game that I know of that forces you to play for XBOX Live" is incorrect. Do you even have an XBox 360? You can play the game solo with bots. Or you can use system link over a network even. Which may of us do so in the desert when deployed.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 403 days 9 hours ago

How would you rate MGS4, then?

MGS4 had a really crappy multiplayer. Does that mean it should've been rated 7 or 8/10?

I think not. If a game's awesome, it's awesome.

Agree(3) | Disagree(11) | Report

BRACHATTACK - 403 days 9 hours ago

MGS4 had great online, too complex for your small brain

MGS4 - amazing single player AND multiplayer

L4D - crappy single player, amazing multiplayer

Agree(8) | Disagree(7) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 403 days 9 hours ago

Brachattack....

MGS4 is my favorite game ever. You don't need to pump out fanboyish arguments to convince me. But I just don't think MGS4's multiplayer is ''too complex for my brain''. That's just... no.

It was made by a completely different team and Konami ruined it. Subsistance was better.

Agree(4) | Disagree(7) | Report

ps3king - 403 days 8 hours ago

The game is great. So much fun. I will be playing this game for a long time I hope, as long as the dedicated server continue to run.

After Playing this game, some parts of me really want a full fleshed out FPS Single player story involving Nothing but fast Zombies. But then again that would undermine what great the Multi-player is.

I hope they make more episodes though. One in a Mall...

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

callahan09 - 403 days 5 hours ago

No, it's not that there is such a thing as too high of a score for this game because it's multiplayer is the focus of it. The real issue if you want to talk like that is the double standard in reviews today. They talk about Resistance 2's single-player sucking (and, by the way, that's a load of crap, because it doesn't suck) and then dock points because of that, then they praise the multiplayer aspects but barely delve into discussing them, as though they're not important. But with L4D, they don't judge it on its single-player, they judge it on its multiplayer (as well they should, it is intended to be a multiplayer experience). My point is, why don't reviewers rate all games on the same sort of basis?

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Some_One_Plays - 403 days 3 hours ago

All components of a game must be counted in the final review it doesn't make sense to just look at one aspect of the game and call it a day. You call that bias the only downfall of Metal Gear Solid 4 was the signing out for a Konami account other wise an amazing multiplayer experience. You do everything that you can do in single player.

Example: Lets say Halo 3's campaign is amazing but the online was so laggy that you couldn't play. This should be counted in the review otherwise it's bias because you only looking at what's good in the game. They call it confirmation bias because they're only looking at the aspects the confirms their choices.

Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report

callahan09 - 402 days 21 hours ago

I think they should just start reviewing the single-player & multiplayer portions of games separately. I mean, do it all in one review write-up, but give the two components separate scores. They already break it down like:

Presentation
Graphics
Sound
Gameplay
Longevity

Or whatever. They shouldn't have Gameplay... they should have Single-Player and Multi-Player scores in place of that. If a game is single-player only, then obviously they shouldn't give it a multi-player score, and vice-versa.

Because if I'm about to buy the new Halo game, I don't really give a damn if they give the Single-Player a 5 out of 10, as long as they give the multiplayer a 10 out of 10. In other words, I'm looking at the review to find out if what I want out of the game is good. If I'm looking for a multiplayer game, I don't want to see a 7 for gameplay because they thought multiplayer was perfect but singleplayer sucked. That doesn't represent the fact that WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR should be scored a 10 for gameplay, because I'm only interested in the multiplayer. So, separate the scores, and you'll make everyone happy. Seriously.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 403 days 9 hours ago

Since when is this a ''360 game''?

That's just laughable

Agree(9) | Disagree(1) | Report

ps3king - 403 days 8 hours ago

He is stating a fact isn't he. Left for Dead is on the XBOX 360. Therefore by process of association: IT IS A 360 GAME!!!

Man so dumb.

Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report

TheIneffableBob - 403 days 7 hours ago

Well, yeah, but it was designed as a PC game first and foremost.

Saying Left 4 Dead is a 360 game is like saying Gears of War and Metal Gear Solid are PC games when referring to them because they're on the PC.

Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 403 days 9 hours ago

Altough I agree that singleplayer is better, I really do believe that L4D 's multiplayer is worth 9/10+

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report

ps3king - 403 days 8 hours ago

There is a stigma with gamers. Bioshock had a great single player with great reviews, but criticized at for having no Multiplayer. L4D is the exact opposite... I applaud both games for having a vision in mind of delivering the best experience in either arena the game-play is aimed at. Valve can clearly do both MP and SP games amazingly well. But Valve puts more polish in their games then a lot of companies do. Why play Half-life 2 MP when I could be playing CS or TF2.

When was the last game that delivered flawless SP and MP in one package?

Please don't say Resistance2, Halo3, Mario Kart, Gears, Goldeneye, etc..

Last game I can think of that did this well was... duke nukem 3d.

Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report

darkpower - 403 days 4 hours ago

Where did you rent this? I didn't know Gamefly did PC games.

Note that I'm assuming it IS Gamefly because I can't remember any other rental chain that does this, unless I've been out of the rental loop for that long.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

callahan09 - 403 days 4 hours ago

"Please don't say Resistance2, Halo3, Mario Kart, Gears, Goldeneye, etc.."

Pick a number between 1 and 10, but please don't say 1, 2, 4, 6, or 9.

Also... nothing is flawless.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 403 days 9 hours ago

''you and your anti-religious arguments are a joke''

If I broke your dreams yesterday, talk about it via PMs. Not here

EDIT : You don't need to be a PC fanboy to like PC games, do you?

You're just one of those rare individuals who really believe in ''console exclusives'' and you don't understand that this expression doesn't make sense.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

kwyjibo - 402 days 17 hours ago

I thought the site had some appearance of legitimacy when I first clicked on the article. It turns out it's nothing more than an inflated platform for darkpower's skewed and broken views because the domain name gives him the mirage of respectability that mere comments on N4G don't.

The people who approved this story have approved nothing more than an ill informed forum post, or some niche "my very first" blog post, something that falls way outside N4G's guidelines for contributions.

Taken from darkpower's blog - "Everyone should know how to weed out the crap from the thought out blogs", we obviously don't at N4G, because this crap has made the front page.

Those who approved this story, you have done N4G a disservice.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

darkpower - 402 days 16 hours ago

"This is why we N4G's "hot" system is flawed. It allows uniformed idiotic stories such as these to bubble up to the top, by using flame baiting falsities to attract emotive response from imbeciles. Like Digg, N4G needs a bury system so these stories can be killed off."

So this sort of thing should never be discussed? You just want criticism of Valve to be killed so no one will be able to discuss it?

"The whole point of this story, was not to present a reasoned argument, but to provide a platform for an uninformed argument to generate idiot hits at all costs."

It's a reasoned argument. You don't think DRM-related articles should be made, and you don't think this phenomenon is worth talking about with L4D?

"Not only is the article filled with poor attempts at FUD such as pretty much everything they write within brackets. For example, Steam makes distributing patches trivially easy for Valve, so of course they update often, and have done for all their games. Yet the article pushes the FUD that this is in fact some sort of "draconian" method to enforce anti-piracy."

Read what else was said. What is stopping an error in judgment from happening, or from them insisting that someone is hacking when they are not? That and it still doesn't make any damn bit of sense. Why not just PUT the DRM on the disc if they want people to pay for the multiplayer? There are other ways they can make this possible, like making the game subscription based. That and Steam is still not the easiest thing to use. You're forgetting to mention all that what was said here.

"It's not draconian, if you have a hacked version of the game, then Valve have every right to stop you playing the game."

As you will bring up later, they don't stop anyone from hacking the single player. More on that later.

"And then it brings up the Hamachi method of creating a virtual LAN, as if the fact that this method exists negates any methods of detection used by Steam. Everyone knows that compared to a single crack, that the virtual LAN method is going to be a hoop too far for most."

Yet it's something a LOT of them have used. There is still ANOTHER way that I found out last night that they are trying, and so far, it's working. I'm not going to mention this here, but here's the thing: These people ARE willing to jump through hoops, no matter what they are, just as everyone is to find out how far they CAN go. The harder someone tries to keep things legit, the harder they are challenged by those that are willing to push them further.

"Game Gazette uses the fact that Valve has not disabled cracked Left4Dead games though Steam as some kind of concession that the single player campaign is worthless. Yet it fails to mention that Valve have never sought to disable any of their games through Steam, even their single player games. You could, and Game Gazette probably would, use this argument to suggest that Valve thought Half-Life 2 was a rubbish single player experience."

Actually, I had thought of that, as well. However, there are a few things you're forgetting to consider here. For one, when HL2 came out, the whole DRM piracy issue didn't have as much fire as it has now. Plus, Valve wasn't getting as much criticism about how they make games and how they act about the gaming industry as they are right now. That and there ARE criticisms about L4D that are listed in the article, which actually makes this possibility that they are conceding even more possible. Please consider all the facts before going on the rant.

"Do you know why Valve don't bother disabling offline games? Because it'd be absolutely futile, people can hack the game, and then set their Steam emulator to offline mode, and then you'd have access to single player forever. Game Gazette don't know this though, because, they're idiots gasping for lowest common denominator hits, rather than trying to provide any meaningful commentary."

Nope, that's not the point you're trying to make here. I know all about the offline mode of Steam, but that's not the point of the article. Like I said, you have other ways and you can just as easily brick the hacked game if you want through the service. Since all of these people want to go into the multiplayer service, they obviously have that opportunity to do something about them playing ANY part of the game, and with piracy getting so much mainstream exposure right now, you have to believe that Valve might be concerned about any part of their game being hacked or compromised.

This was a nice try, but you actually missed and didn't explain key points that actually says exactly what this article is talking about. You're trying to say whatever you can to discredit this article, but you're actually sounding as if you didn't like that this was VALVE that was being criticized for something. Why are they always immune to ANY criticism? I don't get that.

EDIT: And about your reply to your own comment, does that make the point any less valid. You're trying as hard as you can to do this character assassination bit and distracting people because you didn't like the opinions that were told (not to mention that people might want to be aware of these things and it deserves to be talked about, something you're not understanding). Thing is, so many people have right now caught on to this distracting and assassination that they usually don't pay attention to someone who does that. And you're telling me that every single person that has commented on this article and have actually discussed the real issue here shouldn't be and instead talking about someone's supposed lack of cred? You're saying that this isn't worthy of discussion? WHY? If you thought that, then why the hell DID you comment to begin with?

And even that, you made all those points that someone might've took a bit seriously, and then you ruin it all by replying with something like that. Why do that when, even when you were doing the same on your other post, you were doing so well?

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Strelnikov - 402 days 16 hours ago

I agree with kwyjibo, mostly in that this article is complete bullshit.

I'd like to point out a couple things. It's been stated already that Steam allows for easy updating of games, and that is what Valve is doing with L4D. How is it wrong or a concession of defeat when a company patches an exploit in their game? I simply do not understand this assertion, it's ridiculous. Secondly, Steam is not the least bit un-friendly. It's lightweight for what it is, has a myriad of useful features, allows for effortless updates, and has a great digital distribution system with an excellent library of games backing it up.

Stop blaming publishers for your failings and throwing around words like "draconian". I'm sick of hearing it and in a case where it does not describe the actual situation, it's unacceptable.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

kwyjibo - 402 days 15 hours ago

First things, Steam is easy to use. It sorts itself out pretty easily, games such as NBA 2K use Steam in their retail copies. That game not even available from Valve directly, and shows the confidence other publishers have in the Steam solution. The guy picking up a sports game, or the Popcap games aren't exactly going to be part of the computing literati.

It's very difficult present a false negative on someone else's legitimate copy to make it seem hacked. And even if it were the case, Steam has copies of all the recorded licenses that you own, so if you own the game but somehow have a corrupted version, it'll just get updated with the correct files. But these two issues were tangential anyway, and don't really relate to how broken your argument is.

There's the law of diminishing returns, you can only close up the obvious ones, the hardcore pirates will continue. Closing up a simple crack will put a lot of the more casual pirates off, Valve are OK with that.

You try and dismiss the counter-argument that Valve has never bricked up any other single player game, by claiming that when Half-Life 2 was released, "DRM piracy" wasn't as big an issue. It was, but even had I bought into your pathetic argument, you'll find that The Orange Box, and it's constituents had the same deal too.

Are you telling me that in one year, the goal posts have moved on so much, that Valve would abandon their stance and try to brick single player games? That's your argument, and it's false. Did you pen an article last year entitled "Valve admitting Portal mediocrity through lack of piracy moderation"? Because issues regarding DRM, be it Starforce or Sony's XCP have been going around for a lot longer than just Spore. Did Infinity Ward admit to the inferiority of Call of Duty 4 because they didn't offer Bioshock's limited installations? I could continue down this route ad infinitum, given that your logic is so flawed.

Asking me to reconsider the facts, when you've not even considered them at all is a bit hypocritical. This is just Valve carrying on as normal, the story would be more accurate had it just stated "Valve still confident in Steam solution", but that wouldn't get you all those degrees on N4G would it?

You know nothing about Valve's take on piracy. Listen to Gabe speak, read about their approach to piracy through Steam. It's not really an issue for them, they have flatly stated that multiple times. The reason Left4Dead ships with no DRM but Steam itself, is because all the data on the disk is encrypted and you have to unlock it online. Steam is the only DRM needed. You don't even need the disk in to play, which is what most DRM tries to ensure anyway.

There's nothing wrong with criticising Valve. There are some very legitimate complaints, some of the unfair pricing on Steam or lack of updates to the console versions of their games. I have criticised them many times on their own forums, including today, when I complained about Valve allowing other companies to put SecuROM products on Steam, even though it's absolutely needless.

No, my problem has absolutely nothing to do with criticism of Valve. It's to do with ill informed FUDdy rubbish, self promoted by someone who knows nothing, using a domain name to create a facade of respectability whereas in reality the website is nothing more than an overinflated platform for darkpower's N4G comments.

The bury button, we need you now more than ever.

----

EDIT: Of course my second post doesn't make your argument less valid. But given that my original post quite bluntly stated that your argument was invalid in the first place, I didn't think there was anywhere left for it to go. Negative validity? It's like dividing by zero isn't it?

It was a very simple comment, that your off-N4G has about as much legitimacy as your on-N4G blog, which includes a criticism of Valve for not "reiventing the wheel", the first time I've ever heard that as a negative.

I'll save the youtube videos for the next "Game Gazette" post that I'll pick apart. They make for an exceptional ad hominem.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

MelaDarkwood - 402 days 17 hours ago

I definitely agree. When I first got L4D, I played through one campaign, just to learn how to play, before I joined any multiplayer games. Because, really, who wants to play with someone who doesn't know what they're doing? It works well for getting achievements, as well. Say by some bad luck you keep dying before you reach the chopper on No Mercy, but you really want the Mercy Killer achievement. Just load up single player, put it on normal (or easy, if you really want), and survive. The bots are really good at coming to your rescue, and they won't shoot you in the face by accident. Having humans to talk to and think with is better by far, of course, but the bots have their good points. I vastly prefer multiplayer over single player, but I wouldn't say that Valve "ruined" the single player. It works as well as it's supposed to.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

darkpower - 402 days 15 hours ago

Yeah, I know it's a load of crap, but if Valve seriously wanted to strike back against piracy, then they should've chosen a less conceding way to do so than this.

Though I'm not surprised that the Valve Defense Force has come into this thread trying to do whatever they can to discredit a viewpoint (in which brings up actual facts, too). It's kind of disheartening when you see that someone thinks that a developer is SO much immune to criticism that they insult anyone who does so like this. It's really pathetic, if you ask me.

EDIT: I do think that there this misconception that people who criticize Valve are only doing it because of Gabe's comments about the PS3 (which we don't know if he still feels as strongly about that opinion as he did before anymore). There's also this misconception that if you like Valve's games, you have to absolutely HATE the PS3, and vice versa, to the point that it feels like if you like one thing and then decide that you want to even play the other, much less like it, that you would have to go take a shower afterwards. This shouldn't and doesn't have to be the case. A friend of mine likes both the PS3 and Valve games and, when I told her about the comments Gabe made on the PS3, she responded in a way which makes me think that she could be one of THE people that could convince Valve about the value of having a Valve game on the PS3 (not that I would buy L4D on the PS3 anyway since the game so far hasn't impressed me as there are some errors in judgment in game design that are killing it for me so far). I'm hoping people like her speak up more, and that the misconception can be killed soon. This is why I think this console war is so much nastier and bloodier than any other generation's console war I have seen...EVER! It has to stop!

@kwyjibo: "I'll save the youtube videos for the next "Game Gazette" post that I'll pick apart. They make for an exceptional ad hominem."

THANK YOU for exposing yourself right there by bringing up the YouTube crap. It really shows yourself for what this really is all about with you, because there's only one small group of people that tends to always bring it up. Why dig the hole when you HAD some good points? You did that to yourself, man. No one got you to bring them up, you did that yourself, and you need to realize when it's best to just shut up. Make the point and be done with it.

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 403 days 9 hours ago

I agree

But I think they should give this free pass to every game, and in both scenarios : ''singleplayer only'' games like MGS4, and ''multiplayer only'' games like L4D.

If the game's awesome, just give it a good score. Sure MGS4 had an online mode, but it was really bad. Just like L4D's story mode. That didn't prevent it (and SHOULDN'T prevent it) from being awesome and deserving AAA scores.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

likedamaster - 402 days 14 hours ago

Piracy is that exactly, piracy. Why would they not protect their product? Another misleading title FTL. Xbox fans don't defend Valve, they make great games...period.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

darkpower - 402 days 13 hours ago

This is worthy for discussion, though. You're talking about it, though. See, I didn't say that Valve said this, but they might be implying it.

I am happy that I'm getting people to talk about something that would've never even been brought up if I hadn't said it and submitted it. I'm thinking it's a thing that if I don't bring up these topics, not many people will.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

ZEEBO4LIFESTFU - 403 days 9 hours ago

that?

what a dumb thing to say

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 403 days 8 hours ago

Why is this conversation so.... unclear?

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Timesplitter14 - 402 days 13 hours ago

ok but I don't see any X360 exclusive around here in this article

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report