bit-gamer.net

Who benefits from the idea of gamers?

Posted on 5th Sep 2014 at 10:39 by Rick Lane with 23 comments

Rick Lane
The last few weeks have been a dismal time for many people involved in the games industry. A combination of vicious personal attacks on important female figures in the industry, torrents of accusations regarding journalistic ethics and rampant paranoia over the perceived destruction of gaming itself has all bundled together in one great snowball of malevolence, misinformation and outright misery. I'm not going into the nitty-gritty of recent occurrences in this article, but these pieces here and here here give a pretty good summary of events.

Most recently, the debate has turned toward concept of the gamer, with critics like Leigh Alexander explaining why the traditional image of the gamer - namely young, white men - has not been universally applicable for some time. Instead they are now merely one section of a much broader audience, many of whom do not identify as gamers at all, either because gaming is only a part of their lifestyle, or because that traditional image does not apply to them. The gamers, meanwhile, are worried that this growth in gaming appeal means a shrinkage of games that will appeal specifically to them.

Who benefits from the idea of gamers? Who does being a gamer benefit? The Gamer - Image by Martijn van Dalen

I'm not writing this to debate the ins and outs of these particular arguments, although personally I feel that many of the anxieties that have got gamers so worked up are needless, that the "more for others means less for them" fear is not remotely approaching a reality. The personal attacks, meanwhile, are unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. No caveats. No clauses. End of discussion. But there is one aspect of this I'd like to explore in more detail, and it is this - who benefits from the idea of "gamers" as a class of individual?

I've always felt that labels are for clothes, not people. But there's no question that a lot of folk feel differently about themselves, that belonging to a particular class, religion, nation, group, club, or whatever is an important component of their personal identity. I'm a Socialist. I'm a Christian. I'm a Scotsman. I'm a dancer. I'm a foodie. I'm a film-buff. I'm a bookworm. I'm a gamer. Being part of a culture of like-minded individuals is reassuring. It negates a lot of social awkwardness because there's an immediate bond of understanding established between you. "I'm a gamer." "Hey, I'm a gamer too! Let's talk about games!" And the conversation goes from there. There's also the flipside of that, where, if someone comes along to challenge that culture, whether justified or unjustified, there's a group of people alongside you ready to defend it.

It's a form of tribalism, I suppose, and that has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is security and a feeling of control. The disadvantage is that is often exclusionary toward people who don't speak the same dialect, or wear the right warpaint, even when they might be interested in joining in. This can be damaging to the tribe itself, as they might exclude someone who has invented a new fire-lighting technique because they looked different or sounded different. Perhaps they were too short, too meek, an elderly person, a woman. And you might say "Well, we like our old fire-lighting technique!" but that needn't be replaced by the new one, it's simply an alternative, a complement to the knowledge and skills the tribe already has.

Who benefits from the idea of gamers? Who does being a gamer benefit? The ongoing controversy has been dubbed Gamergate. This is my favourite gamer gate.

Then again, that's what control is, in the end. It's the ability to allow certain individuals access to something, and deny that access to others, or allow people access to some things but not others. And I think that an awful lot of what we've seen over the last few weeks, boils down to an issue of control.

This is particularly the case with the whole "journalistic ethics" conspiracy theory, the idea that there's some kind of secret cabal between games journalists, a journalism Illuminati, where critics dressed in scarlet robes and pointed hoods collude with PRs and publishers, and vast sums of money are exchanged alongside gnomic handshakes in order to fix the entire system of reviewing and scoring games. The truth is of course the complete opposite. Most games journalists can barely control the immediate environment around them. Rent, electricity bills, food, these are aspirational items for a worrying number of games critics. Acquire all three and you should unlock an achievement. World domination is something we'll revisit in another century or two.

The reason for this lashing out toward games writers and those industry figures painted as "social-justice-warriors", is all down to a feeling of loss of control. Games have flourished and diversified enormously in the last few years, opening up to a host of new voices, many of whom do not necessarily identify as gamers per-se, but are instead interested in games as a way of exploring new themes and topics. This in turn has excited many critics who have spent years witnessing the same ideas recycled over and over - a whirlwind blur of guns, swords, and cars. Amongst some gamers, this has given the impression of an industry under assault, in which the cultural controller has been yanked out of their hands. Consequently, they must defend their place in gaming with a righteous zeal.

Of course, the kicker is they were never in control in the first place.

Who benefits from the idea of gamers? Who does being a gamer benefit? Where you see this symbol, a games journalism Illuminati meeting is taking place - image by Miki Yoshihito

All the time this debacle has been ongoing, as the "tru4lyf" gamers pelt writers and developers with insults and threats, demanding they reveal the truth of their conspiratorial facade, sat silently in the background are the people who really are in control. The publishers, the marketers, the manufacturers. These are the real gatekeepers, guarding all the doors and holding all the keys. This isn't some grand conspiracy either, I should clarify. It's just the way things are. They build the hardware and make the software, and they can allow and deny access to it at will. Journalists can and will reveal when a publisher acts unscrupulously or unethically, and gamers can rant and rave as much as they like, but neither group can force the hands of the businessmen.

It's also these people who truly benefit from the idea of the gamer. A few of them, anyway, those with the largest marketing budgets and the narrowest view of what a gamer is. Those who market their products with slogans like "by gamers, for gamers" as if they're Gamebraham Lincoln, before showcasing the most depressingly limited reel of games. Drive the car, shoot the gun, kill the man. For years upon years they have peddled the message that this is what gamers are, this is what gamers should be. Concepts such as "console wars" further fuelled tribalism amongst that core audience, the idea of an "us" and a "them", and an undying allegiance to a particular brand.

Nothing is more beneficial to the marketing department of a major publisher or manufacturer than being able to guarantee that a group of individuals will purchase their games. The larger and more powerful a company becomes, the more risk-averse it becomes as the need to please its shareholders increases. Appealing to a market morphs into an attempt to control that market, to put it in a box on a shelf so that it is always there, always ready with its wallet in-hand. To these corporations, such guarantees become more valuable than breadth. The near-certainty that these specific people will buy their games becomes of greater worth than the potential for many different kinds of people purchasing their games.

Who benefits from the idea of gamers? Who does being a gamer benefit? By gamers, for gamers, but also for your money. In fact, mostly for your money.

So they focus all their energies on this small group, their "hardcore" audience, constantly catering to their every whim and desire before charging them £49.99 a pop for the privilege. The conflict arises when these gamers go online, and see that this isn't what the critics are talking about all the time and forever, that this isn't what the games are like all the time and forever, like the expensive TV spots show and the people stood on stage at E3 discuss. They get confused, they get scared, and then they get angry.

This is the ultimate victory for a company's marketing. To take a word that means "person who plays and enjoys games" and rework it to mean "person who only plays our games, and strikes down with great vengeance and furious anger anything that is not our games." And that is, sadly, what the word gamer has come to mean. It isn't the same as "film-buff" or "bookworm", which refer to someone who immerses themselves in a medium unconditionally, who possesses specialist knowledge of a topic through experience which is both broad and deep. Put it this way, you don't see bookworms sending death-threats to feminist authors. Or film-buffs accusing Mark Kermode of corruption because he wrote a positive review of a film he enjoyed.

There's a chance that you're sat here reading this, quietly thinking "Well, Rick, I think of myself as a gamer, but I'M not like that at all!" That's great! Voice your unconditional love of games, the pride your take in enjoying every facet of this industry. It's a sad fact that the nastiest, most narrow-minded people in our culture also tend to be the loudest. The idea of being a gamer should benefit everyone who likes games, not simply those who make the most money, or are filled with the most hatred.

23 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Spreadie 5th September 2014, 12:03 Quote
Quote:
Most recently, the debate has turned toward concept of the gamer, with critics like Leigh Alexander explaining why the traditional image of the gamer - namely young, white men - has not been universally applicable for some time. Instead they are now merely one section of a much broader audience, many of whom do not identify as gamers at all, either because gaming is only a part of their lifestyle, or because that traditional image does not apply to them.
I agree that the stereotype no longer holds true for the majority, but knee-jerk reactionary adolescent males are still a significant and very vocal element. Like it or not, they will always represent part of the gamer community, and those outside will continue to tar us all with the same brush.
hoochy 5th September 2014, 13:06 Quote
Fantastic article. I can not only relate to this as a 'gamer' but also in the wider context of my current working life

This did make me smile....
Quote:
as if they're Gamebraham Lincoln,

:D
adidan 5th September 2014, 13:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
I agree that the stereotype no longer holds true for the majority, but knee-jerk reactionary adolescent males are still a significant and very vocal element. Like it or not, they will always represent part of the gamer community, and those outside will continue to tar us all with the same brush.
Yup, you may be knee-jerky and vocal mate but you're far from adolescent. :)
John_T 5th September 2014, 13:40 Quote
I think the important thing to always remember when talking in online forums with people you don't really know is that, while most people are relatively 'normal' and reasoned, there are some who, regardless of their age or whether they disagree or agree with you on any given subject at any given time, are simply stark raving mad!

Even more worryingly: They almost certainly don't know it themselves.

I do disagree with the second from last paragraph though - as I'm pretty sure you do see film reviewers, feminist authors and the like receiving abuse and death-threats. In fact, I'd happily stick twenty quid on feminist authors receiving abuse and threats of the kind that the average game reviewer / programmer has only ever had nightmares about.

This kind of behaviour sadly applies to every single solitary field in existence, not just gaming and 'gamers', (although perhaps in differing quantities, granted). Short of demanding some kind of IQ / compos mentis test to be allowed onto the internet, I'm not sure if there's really a cure for the problem.

I know it's easy and somewhat glib to say 'take it with a pinch of salt', but, (direct threats or sustained abuse aside) I think you generally have to. For the sake of your own sanity if nothing else...
Spreadie 5th September 2014, 13:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
I agree that the stereotype no longer holds true for the majority, but knee-jerk reactionary adolescent males are still a significant and very vocal element. Like it or not, they will always represent part of the gamer community, and those outside will continue to tar us all with the same brush.
Yup, you may be knee-jerky and vocal mate but you're far from adolescent. :)
Damn you! I shall immediately whip up a smear campaign and name you as a hateful girl gamer (not too far from the truth!). :p
Anfield 5th September 2014, 15:20 Quote
So "gamers" have succeeded in pushing back the date where you can openly admit in real life that you sometimes play video games without repercussions by another couple years.

Congratulations, Not.
Red 5 5th September 2014, 18:20 Quote
If you play football, you're a footballer. If you ski, you're a skier. If you read, you're a reader. If you manage a workplace, you're a manager. If you play games, you're a gamer. It really is that simple. Some people wish to attach more to it than that, but some people wish to associate 'football fan' with 'football hooligan'. Just because there is a problem, doesn't mean everyone is the problem. Does that sound like #notallgamers? Does it sound defensive? Well, people tend to become defensive when they're under attack. What a shock.

But there in itself is a problem in perception of who the attack is coming from. The press/websites are reporting that "gamers" feel under attack from "non-traditional gamers" but the situation has moved on and it's actually the press and websites who are now doing the attacking. When the press and websites associate "gamers" with sexists and racists you are creating your own definition, and yes it will piss off people who aren't. What method of response do those people have? Somebody writes an article, it's on the front page of the website, it says "you're all disgusting" and there is no method of response which will gain equal prominence. The articles in recent days have been saying exactly that, in addition to "you're wrong, we're right", but if anyone wants to say "actually, I think we both have valid points and are both right" it's lost in the fog. I have yet to see one article address the recent issues and "Gamersgate" (I hadn't read the term or knew it was a 'thing' until yesterday) which hasn't in the process launched attacks against people who are innocent of the allegations. When the press say gamers are racist, sexist, make death threats etc. etc. you sound no different from Jack Thompson, or Putin saying homosexuals are paedophiles.

The problems which have arisen aren't a "gamer" issue, they're an internet issue. You say book writers and film critics don't receive similar levels of abuse. Do you know that as fact, or are you just making an assumption? Unless you closely follow those industries as you do games, you probably don't know what gets said. I'd go the other direction and assume the dickwads of the world will threaten anyone for any reason, especially while anonymous. I know people receive abuse and death threats for voicing opinion on Scottish independence but I don't think Salmond has expressed a preference for either Xbox or Playstation.

Another problem is over-reaction to criticism. Gamers have over-reacted to criticism of themselves, as you and multiple other journalists have pointed out, but the industry believes itself immune. Using your book example, plenty of people have said 50 Shades of Grey is rubbish and EL James is a hack, and that's accepted by society. People criticise and joke about Harry Potter and Twilight, and again it's accepted. People criticise Depression Quest and they're sexist, end of story, no discussion allowed. People criticise the press and websites not allowing that discussion and they're sexist too. "This press/website is above criticism, it knows best, shut up". And then you wonder why people get angry. Except you don't wonder, you instead decide to turn the word "gamer" into a slur and tar everyone who complains with it.

In case it needs saying, yes I am opposed to harassment, bullying, death threats and everything along those lines. It is completely unjustified. As I've been typing this I've been listening to various NATO and Ukraine related press conferences and getting mightily pissed off at how Putin has gotten away with his ****. I cannot stand bullying of any form. This is also why I found the open letter going around a few days ago so amusing. Websites tripping over themselves to sign up to people having the right not to be abused and everyone having the right to criticise, either oblivious or pretending that they're guilty of bullying and stifling criticism themselves and knowing full well they won't abide by it. "Oh no, this letter isn't about us, we're in the clear. It's about everyone else" they think, like Billy Connolly's antelope which thinks it's a zebra.

There was probably more but I've been at this for over an hour and have forgotten other things to say. In conclusion: Bullying: no. Bullying while pretending not to be: no. Fair criticism: yes. Stifling fair criticism: no.

Being able to call yourself a gamer without false connotation: yes.
d_stilgar 5th September 2014, 18:50 Quote
I've tried to stay out of this "#Gamergate" mess, but there is one journalist who, I believe, has been the champion for people like me. You can read his articles on the subject here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/08/zoe_quinn_harassment_a_letter_to_a_young_male_gamer.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

He seems to simultaneously recognize and acknowledge the issues from both sides, championing those who support both struggles, while vilifying those who have turned the issue into horrible personal attacks or threats of violence.
pimlicosound 5th September 2014, 19:13 Quote
I think there are legitimate things for gamers to be angry about.
- Gamers seem to get their consumer rights trampled on with buggy or incomplete games, and games journos don't raise enough red flags over these issues.
- A lot of games journos seem to take a perverse pleasure in deliberately taunting/teasing/trolling their audience. There's very little respect and love in the community, and unfortunately I often see the media making it worse.
- Business models in gaming are turning towards microtransactions, the scourge of every right-minded gamer to remembers paying once and getting access to all of a game, forever.
- Some genres of game, often loved by people who have been gaming for a long time, aren't made much any more. I personally lament the fact that RTS games barely exist outside of microtransaction-fuelled mobile nonsense.

So I don't think it all comes down to tribalism and infantile rage. There are plenty of legitimate concerns in the gaming community, and sadly I think the media does little to champion these good causes or stand up for the very people they claim to represent.

(Not BitTech, of course - you guys are always cool.)
BLC 5th September 2014, 19:39 Quote
The industry isn't immune to criticism, but those making accusations need to make sure they have solid evidence otherwise they're going to be ignored or dismissed out of hand.

"Gamers" - whatever that even means any more - aren't immune to criticism, but they need to not react to fair criticism with hostility.

Games themselves aren't immune to criticism either, and that criticism is now starting to come from wider parts of society than those already involved in games.

There isn't going to be an easy way out of this; at least not while the 4chan/reddit/twitter/whatever hate machine is in full swing and people are forced out of their own homes for fear of their personal safety.
Pliqu3011 5th September 2014, 21:38 Quote
Great article, very calm and reasonable. This whole #gamergate thing is really tiring me, and most of it is indeed bordering on conspiracy theory.

We should get "gamer" back to mean what it originally meant: a person who plays games.
Nowadays I would never call myself a "gamer" to anyone, it just has too many bad connotations.
Mr_Mistoffelees 6th September 2014, 15:55 Quote
All this just confirms what I have believed for a long time: Anonymous trolls and their stupidity, are not easily parted.
Umbra 6th September 2014, 18:05 Quote
Quote:
The problems which have arisen aren't a "gamer" issue, they're an internet issue. You say book writers and film critics don't receive similar levels of abuse. Do you know that as fact, or are you just making an assumption? Unless you closely follow those industries as you do games, you probably don't know what gets said. I'd go the other direction and assume the dickwads of the world will threaten anyone for any reason, especially while anonymous. I know people receive abuse and death threats for voicing opinion on Scottish independence but I don't think Salmond has expressed a preference for either Xbox or Playstation.

Exactly, Caroline Criado-Perez got rape threats on Twitter after she took on the Bank of England because historical women were being wiped off banknotes, she succeeded in getting this changed but then the hate started, there doesn't have to be a reason it's just the trolls, who are some of the most socially inept and dis-functional people in society, being trolls, and it's good to see some of them have been prosecuted.
supermuchurios 6th September 2014, 22:16 Quote
I am a person who plays games. I am not a gamer.
Playing games doesn't define what or who I am as a person.

It is simply an enjoyable way to pass the time, as is reading, cycling and playing football.
I do all of them but I am neither a footballer, cyclist or 'reader'
Beasteh 7th September 2014, 14:51 Quote
Loved the article. Reading around this has been so depressing. So much hate from a vocal minority of gamers. So it was encouraging to read this on BT. The "Gamer Gate" raised a few giggles :)

In fact, I welcome critique of videogames, whether through a feminist lens or otherwise. It's proof that games are finally being taken seriously by society. The same goes for new game types, like Gone Home or, indeed, Depression Quest. They're driving the medium forward, adding more and more diverse voices, so that games reflect and appeal to a wider cross section of society. Representation is important - isn't it annoying when games are dismissed as being only for teenage boys?

Speaking of teenage boys, the dudebro shooter isn't going to go away any time soon. CoD and BF4 have made far too much money to be ignored, so it's not like the Steam Store of 2020 will be rammed full of "walking simulators" with no room for anything else. Families picking up the Wii didn't kill off the rest of the games market, it made it bigger. Sames goes for Gone Home. With that in mind, the claim that "outsiders" are "ruining gaming" is ludicrous.

The "Gamer" identity seems to be designed to keep people out (tribalism) when there's no reason it should be that way. I'd extend that to including people who play casual games or console titles. Games are games, and games are fun. Games should be for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
So "gamers" have succeeded in pushing back the date where you can openly admit in real life that you sometimes play video games without repercussions by another couple years.

Congratulations, Not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliqu3011
Great article, very calm and reasonable. This whole #gamergate thing is really tiring me, and most of it is indeed bordering on conspiracy theory.

We should get "gamer" back to mean what it originally meant: a person who plays games.
Nowadays I would never call myself a "gamer" to anyone, it just has too many bad connotations.

+1. I'd never tell people I spend my free time playing games, there's just too much baggage associated with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
I agree that the stereotype no longer holds true for the majority, but knee-jerk reactionary adolescent males are still a significant and very vocal element. Like it or not, they will always represent part of the gamer community, and those outside will continue to tar us all with the same brush.

Is there not any way to shun these arseholes? Can we (not just Bit-Tech, but people who make and play games) create spaces where women and minorities feel welcome? Where rape and death threats, even in jest, aren't tolerated? Is a little bit of proactive moderation too much to hope for from community admins?
Umbra 7th September 2014, 16:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasteh
+1. I'd never tell people I spend my free time playing games, there's just too much baggage associated with it.

As a biker for over thirty years I've heard all the preconceptions, misconceptions, general hatred and insults, but it goes with the territory, I couldn't give a toss what anyone thinks about me because I ride bikes and if they also want to add a few more stereotypical misconceptions because I tell them I play games, that's their problem, F*** them, really, why would I give a S*** what anyone thinks because I play games.
Oh great, 'Born to be wild' not heard that for a while, that's original
Spreadie 7th September 2014, 16:21 Quote
I don't care about admitting that I'm a forty-something gamer - If anybody asks, I just tell them I grew up with games and games grew up with me.

You want to judge me? Fine, but stop watching Big Brother first.
GeorgeStorm 8th September 2014, 19:04 Quote
If someone were to judge me on being a 'gamer' before judging on who I actually am/what I actually tell them about myself then I don't think I'm that bothered about them liking me :P
ajfsound 9th September 2014, 12:33 Quote
I second a laugh at 'Gamebraham Lincoln'!

Interesting point that this could be a result of big publishers 'marketing to the predictable audience for monies' (to attempt paraphrase). In part I wonder whether all the analysis, write ups and hypothesis for why this has happened gives too much credit and explanation to what is essentially a load of clueless immature teens with no real perspective on life.

What's so sad is that their voice is so loud - but I guess that's often the case with kids :p
adidan 9th September 2014, 21:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
I don't care about admitting that I'm a forty-something gamer - If anybody asks, I just tell them I grew up with games and games grew up with me.

You want to judge me? Fine, but stop watching Big Brother first.
Ditto ^

For those that look surprised I just say the games I play are often like interactive books, good stories that keep your brain active (I tend not to mention the shoot them in the face games, no need to give them ammunition for their ignorance)

TBH the only ones that have ever been surpised I game or even own a PS3 have been by mates kids.

Edit: Oh and don't worry Dave, gaming would be well down on the list of things to judge you on :)
ajfsound 10th September 2014, 11:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajfsound
I second a laugh at 'Gamebraham Lincoln'!

Interesting point that this could be a result of big publishers 'marketing to the predictable audience for monies' (to attempt paraphrase). In part I wonder whether all the analysis, write ups and hypothesis for why this has happened gives too much credit and explanation to what is essentially a load of clueless immature teens with no real perspective on life.

What's so sad is that their voice is so loud - but I guess that's often the case with kids :p

Having just read this - https://storify.com/brett_douville/extending-the-branch - I not sure I agree with my comment here that it's all a bunch of kids...
woods 15th September 2014, 23:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
I don't care about admitting that I'm a forty-something gamer - If anybody asks, I just tell them I grew up with games and games grew up with me.

You want to judge me? Fine, but stop watching Big Brother first.

As a 48 year old starting gaming on Pong and Space Invaders when 11 years old I agree with this and would never deny being a gamer due to the behaviour of others
Corky42 18th September 2014, 10:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajfsound
I second a laugh at 'Gamebraham Lincoln'!

Interesting point that this could be a result of big publishers 'marketing to the predictable audience for monies' (to attempt paraphrase). In part I wonder whether all the analysis, write ups and hypothesis for why this has happened gives too much credit and explanation to what is essentially a load of clueless immature teens with no real perspective on life.

What's so sad is that their voice is so loud - but I guess that's often the case with kids :p

I would have been in the same camp as you, thinking it's just a load of per-pubestent teens venting their angst and that it would just blow over so i didn't give much attention to these so called "gamers".

But like ajfsound I'm starting to doubt my first assessment, normally something like the attacks first mentioned in the opening of this Bit-Tech article would have quietened down by now, but that doesn't seem to be the case, in fact the accusations seem to be gathering more evidence of something untowards going on in the upper echelons of the gaming press.

The following article seems to be saying there is some secret mailing list, now i don't agree with the premiss of the article that some gaming journalists are shaping industry-wide attitudes, far from it.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite
Exposed: The Secret Mailing List of the Gaming Journalism Elite
Quote:
Several prominent gaming journalists across America are part of a secret mailing list on which they discuss what to cover, what to ignore, and what approach their coverage should take to breaking news, Breitbart can reveal.

High-profile editors, reporters, and reviewers from heavyweight gaming news sites such as Polygon, Ars Technica, and Kotaku use the private Google Groups mailing list, which is called Gaming Journalism Professionals or GameJournoPros, to shape industry-wide attitudes to events, such as the revelation that developer Zoe Quinn had a sexual relationship with at least one prominent games journalist -- a journalist who had mentioned her and her products in his reporting.

Like i said i don't agree with the conclusion of the above article, am i missing something or being naive ?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums
The Evil Within Review

The Evil Within Review

21st October 2014

Wasteland 2 Review

Wasteland 2 Review

17th October 2014