Feature | Critical Hit: Remasters of the Universe

By David Lovato 08.03.2015 20:42 15

A new category is appearing on end-of-the-year award lists across the gaming industry. This award, however, isn't for an exciting new advancement in software design or a never-before-seen genre of videogaming; it's an award most outlets label "Best Remaster." What are they, are they a good inclusion in today's world, or is it a case of lazy development? Cubed3 takes a closer look in this latest edition of Critical Hit.
Image for Feature | Critical Hit: Remasters of the Universe
What is a remaster? The title was popularised heavily in part by the release of The Last of Us: Remastered. The concept was simple: take the critically-acclaimed PlayStation 3 exclusive, The Last of Us, and upgrade its graphics and performance for Sony's new console, the PlayStation 4.

"Remaster" conjures images of mastery, so it's a fitting title in this case, considering the heavy praise the game received upon release. However, now just about every HD port of a game is being referred to as a remaster, even if the changes are as subtle as the addition of higher-definition textures.

Semantic argument aside, where are all of these remasters coming from, and why are there so many that it bears adding an entire category to "best of" shows and articles? At what point does a remaster become necessary?

The Last of Us was released in June 2013. The Last of Us Remastered was released in July 2014, just over a year later. To Sony's credit, the PlayStation 3 was the lowest-selling of the major consoles last gen (although it should be stated that it didn't sell poorly by any stretch of the imagination), meaning a lot of gamers never got a chance to play this title. This is probably also the mindset behind Nintendo's development of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD. The game premiered on the GameCube, Nintendo's worst-selling home console of all time. Suffice it to say, re-releasing it a decade later on a new console made sense. Similar things can be said of The Last of Us: not everyone had a chance to play it, and most would agree everyone should.

Image for Feature | Critical Hit: Remasters of the Universe

What about a game like Grand Theft Auto V? It was released in September 2013 for PS3 and Xbox 360, and re-released about a year later for PS4 and Xbox One, complete with better graphics and a new first-person mode. How necessary was it, though? This wasn't a console-exclusive by a second-party studio like The Last of Us was, it's GTA. This game was in the top 100 bestselling games of all time within hours of its release. This isn't some runaway hit that not enough people had a chance to play, it's one of the biggest videogames in history.

Perhaps that's reason enough in favour of an HD port, in the end. The games industry is supposed to be moving into a new generation, and it's always unfortunate when a title releases at the tail-end of a generation of hardware. This can bankrupt a smaller company (although it's clear Rockstar was never in danger of such a thing happening). What happened, though, is that the floodgates were opened, and there's no sign of quelling the following tidal wave of remasters and ports. Gone are the days where a game being made at the end of a generation would simply be delayed into the next one, like Resident Evil Zero was back in the N64/GameCube era. Now, it's becoming a common practice to release a game as-is and then release another version of it a few months later.

Here's an off-the-cuff list of games that have been, or are being, remade for the newer wave of hardware: Darksiders 2, The Binding of Isaac, Bayonetta, Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Injustice: Gods Among Us, Kingdom Hearts 2, Xenoblade Chronicles, the entire Devil May Cry series, the entire Halo series. The Last of Us, Grand Theft Auto V, and Tomb Raider all received the remaster treatment when they were barely a year old. At any given point in time multiple Final Fantasy or Resident Evil titles ports to some platform or another can be expected, the latter culminating in Resident Evil HD, a remaster of a remaster.

Image for Feature | Critical Hit: Remasters of the Universe

One counter-argument that pops up frequently is that remasters aren't hurting anything or anyone if they are not taking development time from newer projects. It's not a bad argument, but it is one that's easily countered: no game is made without a developer devoting their time to it. If a developer is working on a remaster, it is not working on a new game, at least not in an undivided fashion. Even if a larger company buys up a smaller one to make remasters for them, that's one more game company that isn't making new games.

Take, for example, the Japanese studio Grezzo, founded by videogame legend Koichi Ishii. Ishii created the Mana series, as well as performed key work on the earliest Final Fantasy titles. Surely Grezzo is behind several ground-breaking, sure-to-be classic fantasy games of epic proportion?

If only. Grezzo has produced exactly four fully-fledged games, and three of them are Zelda remasters. Not to belittle the company, as it has made extremely high quality remasters, but it can't be helped thinking if this studio is being at least somewhat underutilised.

Another example is the Resident Evil series. Ignore for a second the fact that the first game has been remade no fewer than six times, and focus on the last five years of releases in this franchise. Since 2010, new titles include Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (which is itself a remaster of portions of older games), Resident Evil: Revelations, Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City, Resident Evil 6, and Resident Evil: Revelations 2. This doesn't seem innocuous at first glance; in five years, there have been five new games, even if only one received main series number status. However, then look at the number of remasters released in that time: Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition, Resident Evil: Revelations (HD console port), Resident Evil Chronicles HD Collection (a double remaster), Resident Evil 4: Ultimate HD Edition, Resident Evil 0 (Wii port), Resident Evil: Code Veronica X HD, and the new Resident Evil HD. Seven remasters compared to five new releases. It simply can't be said that development time isn't being taken from newer games to work on remasters; someone had to port those games.

Image for Feature | Critical Hit: Remasters of the Universe

It's not wrong of fans to want remasters; videogames get dated as technology advances, and presenting classics to a new generation of gamers is a crucial part of preserving videogames as a form of art and entertainment. That being said, it's somewhat jarring to see fans of current games clamouring for those games' remasters instead of new ones. A quick Reddit search, for example, will yield no end to fans asking for remasters of games like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Fallout 3, despite the fact that Bethesda Game Studios undoubtedly has its hands tied with a potential The Elder Scrolls VI and Fallout 4. Sure, they could pass porting duties on to one of Zenimax's other studios, but that means fewer hands to work on a new Wolfenstein, or The Evil Within, or Dishonored, and all for a slightly better-looking version of a game that still looks pretty good, all things considered, and even better when it comes to PC modding.

There's no clear-cut right or wrong time to remaster an old game. It could be argued that remastering a game as new as The Last of Us was just as important as remastering a classic like Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. That aside, not every single game made for last-gen consoles needs to be remastered for current-gen ones. Take into account the extremely small number of current-gen-exclusive titles, and it becomes clear the driving factor behind the current rash of remasters is fear. Publishers simply don't want to take a chance on making a new game; they don't even want to take a chance on making new entries in established IP on new consoles. The last generation of gaming yielded three of the bestselling consoles of all time, so some of that fear is justified, but the absolute refusal to move onto the current generation, now over a year into its lifespan, is startling to say the least.

Image for Feature | Critical Hit: Remasters of the Universe

Fear of change in the industry is nothing new. Sometimes it's safer to, say, take a new horror-themed game and turn it into Silent Hill 4 or Silent Hill: Book of Memories, or make a dino-exploration game into Star Fox Adventures. Even most developers would probably rather see their game converted into an existing IP than be cancelled altogether. Lately, though, this fear of that bright, shining, risky wilderness known as "something new" has gotten out of hand, and has culminated in over a year's worth of last-gen games being ported up or simply remade after a few months' wear and tear. Countless dollars and man hours are being put into not creating a new game, but making sure an old one has had every last cent squeezed out of it. How about the gamers? Well, they will buy them because that's all there is. People are shouting for Skyrim on the PS4 because there's no comparable big, sweeping, open-world fantasy RPG on the PS4. They want Resident Evil HD because there is no other fixed-camera survival horror zombie game.
 
It's no coincidence that at the same time the industry is seeing a massive number of remasters, it's also witnessing an explosion in popularity for indie developers with their new concepts and ideas. With a few exceptions, they are the only ones putting out new games. That aside, most don't have the money to produce games as large or as long or as visually polished as the heavy-hitters so intent on releasing the same game with better textures over and over again.

What's to be done then? Grabbing pitchforks and encouraging boycotts isn't a necessary route, but maybe gamers should be encouraged to not buy any old remake or port that comes along - sticking to the best of the best and skipping the less necessary ones might encourage developers to slow down a little and shift more focus toward new games.

Whatever the case, fear on the part of developers and complacency on the part of gamers can't be the future of the industry. Sure, remasters are cheap, they are convenient, and sometimes they are necessary. On the whole, though, it's time to stop remastering old games and start mastering new ones.

Are you for or against remasters? Should the rate of releases be slowed down or are they a welcomed addition to new consoles? Be sure to share your opinions in the comments section.


Comment on this article

You can comment as a guest or join the Cubed3 community below: Sign Up for Free Account Login

Preview PostPreview Post Your Name:
Validate your comment
  Enter the letters in the image to validate your comment.
Submit Post

Comments

I am all for remasters if, and only if, the game is more than at least 5 years old, preferably it should at least be 8 years old. Otherwise like in the blatant rerelease of a ONE YEAR OLD GAME (TLoU) so is it heavily unneeded. Same goes with GTA V remake, even though I see that more like a port.

To me it would be better if studios focused on creating NEW experiences. While I personally never liked TLoU that much so do I feel that those who did would be happier if a new game was being made in the same spirit of TLoU rather than just a remake.

It is sad, and the PS4 really REALLY needed a new game at the point of TLoU rerelease over a simple remake to keep it relevant and a system worth to get. But if it really are years in between the releases, go ahead. But do NOT release last years game and put a full price tag on it. That is perverted and pushing it too far.

The difference between illusion and reality is vague to the one who suffers from the former and questionable for the one suffering form the later.

I totally see where you're coming from with this one, David. I'd only just got around to trying out The Last of Us on PS3 and all of a sudden the Remastered version was out on PS4! Then there are those games, like Grim Fandango, that apparently aren't even 'remastered' - as Ofisil and Al both found out with the PC and PS4 versions, respectively.

Surely working on great new experiences would be preferred? Especially in the Grim Fandango example, where I'd much rather have seen Episode 2 of Broken Age finally come out... Smilie

Adam Riley [ Operations Director :: Senior Editor :: Cubed3 Limited ]
Word of Adam | Voice123 Profile | AdamC3 on Twitter

I think Game Freak has an interesting model going, where they trade off between a new game and a remake (and it's an entire ground-up, hardware-exclusive remake, too). The Pokemon remakes are usually upwards of ten years and two handhelds old, so the remakes make sense. Ubisoft also tried a new model, making a new AC for old consoles and a different game for new ones.

I just groan every time I see a new remake of a less-than-three-year-old game announced. I think there have been three or four more just since I wrote this article. It's getting out of hand, lol.

I guess I don't get the logic. If I'm someone on the fence about the new generation of consoles, why would being able to play games I've already played make me upgrade to a PS4 or Xbox One? And anyway, whatever happened to good old backwards compatibility?

I can see maybe putting out an old game just so you have content on the new hardware while you work on new stuff, but that's not what's happening. We're over a year into the new generation and companies are still announcing ports of old games. Capcom isn't making a new Devil May Cry, they're porting all of the old ones. Valhalla hasn't confirmed a new Darksiders, but they're putting Darksiders 2 on the new systems. The Xbox One's first killer app wasn't a new Halo, it was a port of all of the old ones. PS4's first killer app was a PS3 port.

I just want some new games already!

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com

Guest said:
Don't see the issue with this to be honest. With console games being super expensive to develop for, hd remasters seem like the way to go. If it weren't for them all we'd have is action games and indie games. Do you think theres any chance of us getting a new sin and punishment, or f-zero. No. I couldn't justify the risk to the accountants either. But a hd rerelease is much more likely. We'd all love a new installment of our favourite series but with games having to sell a million copies to break even now a days its just not realistic

I sincerely disagree. Nintendo releases new, creative, high profile titles very often. Just look at Xenoblade Chronicles X and Captain Toad for example. That is neither action games nor indie games. Same with pretty much every game they make. Then we have developers like Atlus, Bandai Namco, Compile Heart, ZUN and 07th Expansion who almost always succeed to make interesting and great games, even though they are sometimes pretty low budget. You seem to argue from a reality in which each game has to focus on hyper-realistic graphics. That is not where I think the future in gaming rests though.

Hopefully once that the developers have came over their urge to test boundaries so will they also figure out that one does not have to push a console to its limits to create a great game. I think the future of gaming rests within this kind of companies and developers that knows that it is not the cost of the resources that determinates the value of the art, but the cultural pleasure they give to the viewer.

Currently it feels like the industry tries to make paintings using materials such as pure gold, dinosaur blood, black diamonds and anti-materia when normal water colours would do almost just as fine. Console games does not have to be super expensive. Gaming does not have to be super expensive to be enjoyable and the future belongs to those developers that will understand that in time.

The difference between illusion and reality is vague to the one who suffers from the former and questionable for the one suffering form the later.

Side point: Do you guys think that the lack of backwards compatibility on XBO/PS4 has contributed to the increase in remakes? It sort of makes sense when you think about it.

Cheesing It Up said:
Side point: Do you guys think that the lack of backwards compatibility on XBO/PS4 has contributed to the increase in remakes? It sort of makes sense when you think about it.

Exactly what I was thinking - and some cynical types might even think that dropping the backwards compatibility was part of the plan, similar to what Sony did with Vita.

Adam Riley [ Operations Director :: Senior Editor :: Cubed3 Limited ]
Word of Adam | Voice123 Profile | AdamC3 on Twitter

Cheesing It Up said:
Side point: Do you guys think that the lack of backwards compatibility on XBO/PS4 has contributed to the increase in remakes? It sort of makes sense when you think about it.

No, I do not. This seems to be new. I have not seen anything quite like it, and there has been many many console generation shifts without backwards compatibility and there has never been this many remakes that sells at full price so close to the original games release. I smell cheap money grab, and sadly for the evolution of the industry it works...

The difference between illusion and reality is vague to the one who suffers from the former and questionable for the one suffering form the later.

Hard to say. I've seen hardware arguments against backwards ocmpaitiblity, but I've seen those same arguments torn apart. And when you look at The Xbox 360, which had backwards compatibility but it got patched out, you can't help but wonder. I think that has more to do with the advent of downloadable backlogs / PS Now, though, but I'm sure it doesn't help with the remake/port situation, either.

Do you guys think Nintendo will forgo backwards compatibility now that they've jumped into downloadable titles, or not? The Wii U plays Wii games but also offers them for download, so maybe the two can co-exist nicely.

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com

crackedthesky said:
Hard to say. I've seen hardware arguments against backwards ocmpaitiblity, but I've seen those same arguments torn apart. And when you look at The Xbox 360, which had backwards compatibility but it got patched out, you can't help but wonder. I think that has more to do with the advent of downloadable backlogs / PS Now, though, but I'm sure it doesn't help with the remake/port situation, either.

Do you guys think Nintendo will forgo backwards compatibility now that they've jumped into downloadable titles, or not? The Wii U plays Wii games but also offers them for download, so maybe the two can co-exist nicely.


No matter how much I like Nintendo so do I have to say that I would not put it past them. It is not the most likely reality to occur, but it is a reality that can exist and is not extremely unlikely to occur.

The difference between illusion and reality is vague to the one who suffers from the former and questionable for the one suffering form the later.

With Nintendo it tends to include it from the get-go to give faithful players something to play during any downtime between big releases, and then eventually phases out the compatibility with future revisions. It happened with the GBA (micro didn't play GBC) and DS (DSi ditched GBA support), and even Wii eventually (both later model Wii consoles and Wii mini dropped GC support).

At least Nintendo gives the option at first...

Adam Riley [ Operations Director :: Senior Editor :: Cubed3 Limited ]
Word of Adam | Voice123 Profile | AdamC3 on Twitter

There's actually a lot of current PS4 owners that shifted over from the Xbox 360 last gen (myself included) that never got to experience ANY of the big PS3 franchises so I for one am grateful that I finally got a run through the definitive version of 'The Last of Us'. It would've been fairly dumb of Sony not to capitalise on the mass exodus of former Microsoft customers so releasing these upgrades makes perfect sense. I do see how it could annoy long time PS3 owners though

Personally though I'm all for it. I'm hoping there's an remastered Uncharted Trilogy on the way too Smilie

While obviously resources are required to make these upgraded versions it can fairly minimal compared to the actual development process as they've pretty much already got the complete game in the can. It just needs the required tweaks / graphical overhaul, a lot of which can be farmed out to third parties anyway leaving the Devs free to crack on with whatever it is they're working on with the added benefit of another revenue stream providing the funding for it. I believe the most recent Tomb Raider reboot only actually became profitable with the remastered versions

As for GTA V it would be a real shame for that game to die with the last gen consoles given that there is literally years worth of play in there for those so inclined. I've never been the biggest fan of the series tbh but the amount of detail in there is staggering and it's absolutely gorgeous to look at. I'm glad I skipped it last gen Smilie

FiDRoC said:
There's actually a lot of current PS4 owners that shifted over from the Xbox 360 last gen (myself included) that never got to experience ANY of the big PS3 franchises so I for one am grateful that I finally got a run through the definitive version of 'The Last of Us'. It would've been fairly dumb of Sony not to capitalise on the mass exodus of former Microsoft customers so releasing these upgrades makes perfect sense. I do see how it could annoy long time PS3 owners though

(For the record, I'm one of them. I didn't own a PS3.)

I agree that some remasters are totally justified. The Last of Us is definitely one of them, for this reason. That said, Sony has PS Now. They're the only game company with a service like that; if anyone doesn't need to be porting their older games to their newer hardware, it's Sony.

Personally though I'm all for it. I'm hoping there's an remastered Uncharted Trilogy on the way too Smilie

I read an interesting post on reddit a while back about how an Uncharted Trilogy is probably not going to happen. Something about the architecture differences being pretty hefty; but I don't see how that would make Uncharted any harder than a game like TLOU or GTA, personally. On that front, I plan to either get PS Now temporarily or use the free trial and blaze through the Uncharteds before 4 comes out. The rest of Sony's exclusives I can do without, or play them on PS Now. The play-all-you-want for a monthly fee plan is pretty attractive; it costs about as much as Gamefly but you get as many games as you want at a time with no mail time between. That said, you're limited to Sony games, but that's not a terrible thing. I think PS Now is an interesting experiment and I hope it works. It's like a hybrid between backwards compatibility and video game rental, and it can work.

While obviously resources are required to make these upgraded versions it can fairly minimal compared to the actual development process as they've pretty much already got the complete game in the can. It just needs the required tweaks / graphical overhaul, a lot of which can be farmed out to third parties anyway leaving the Devs free to crack on with whatever it is they're working on

Yeah, but then that third party has their hands tied. It puts an unfair burden on new or smaller studios. Taking on a remaster of a classic game should be a foot in the door of the industry, but instead you see them get bogged down, like Grezzo, or Treyarch did back when they had to handle every other CoD and all of the Wii ports. Another example could be Warner Bros. Games Montreal; they developed the Wii U port of Arkham City concurrently with Arkham Origins, and the latter received heavy criticism for being unoriginal and buggy. One can't help but wonder if working on the Arkham City port took time from Origins development or debugging. No way to prove it of course, but you can't simply sweep the possibility under the rug. Ports take development time that could be spent on something else. If the port is unnecessary, that development time is as good as wasted.

with the added benefit of another revenue stream providing the funding for it.

In a way this is the entire problem; publishers are deciding to re-release every game as quickly as possible for as little money as possible to squeeze every last penny out of gamers who will keep buying them because there's nothing else out there.

I see the benefit; I just also see a dangerous precedent here. A game company's primary revenue source shouldn't be in re-hashing old content, or the industry is going to become a trash heap. I'll point toward the film industry here, where almost every movie these days is a sequel or reboot by a huge margin. Those studios aren't using the revenue from their blockbuster carbon copies to produce new, risky content; they're using it to produce more blockbuster carbon copies. I don't think the video game industry will fare much better. If a company ported an old game to use the money to fund a new game they weren't sure of, I'd be all for that. But they don't. They use it to make easy money on it while concurrently developing games they were going to make either way, or else they take those new games and skin them with old franchises. Look at Splatoon; we were an inch away from that being yet another Mario spinoff, instead Nintendo took a chance and made what's looking to be one of the most original games of the generation. If companies were porting old games to fund projects like that, I'd be all for it. But that's not what I'm seeing.

I believe the most recent Tomb Raider reboot only actually became profitable with the remastered versions

I don't think there's sufficient data to support this. The remastered versions came out about 10 months after the original; it's hard to say how well it would've done without the remastered versions existing. Even then, the original game sold over a million copies in two days; if it didn't make a profit, it's because it was mis-managed. If your game sells a million copies in two days and you lose money, you're doing something wrong, and it's not in not remaking that game ten months later. Given Square Enix's troubles lately, I'd argue it has more to do with that; after a few weeks on the market, Tomb Raider had sold 3.5 million copies, but Square Enix declared it had failed to meet expectations. Most games are successful if they reach half that. I don't know what SE was thinking if they set a game up to fail if it sold less than 4 million copies; that would've put it in the top dozen or so selling games on the Xbox 360, for example. How do you declare a game a failure if it isn't one of the twelve best-selling games of a generation?

I think this speaks to a publishing problem more than a development problem. I can't think of any other publisher who would hit 3.5 million copies in three weeks with the most successful game in a franchise and think "oops, we didn't sell enough copies!"

As for GTA V it would be a real shame for that game to die with the last gen consoles given that there is literally years worth of play in there for those so inclined.

That was never at risk of happening. The PS4 and X1 both lack backwards compatibility, so fewer gamers are going to immediately abandon their old console in favor of a new one. The fact that games are still coming out for the old hardware to this day is indicative of that. I think the biggest multi-platform game not being made for old hardware is Arkham Knight, and that's not out until this summer. Then there was AC: Unity, but Ubisoft offset that with Rogue for old consoles (and dropped the ball with Unity anyway).

Not to mention, it's Grand Theft Auto. They could release a new game for the Playstation 1 tomorrow and it would sell 20 million copies. GTA V was one of the best-selling video games of all time before it even released. There's no way it was ever going to die with the last gen consoles.

I've never been the biggest fan of the series tbh but the amount of detail in there is staggering and it's absolutely gorgeous to look at. I'm glad I skipped it last gen Smilie

I'm torn on it. I see the value it adds; that's a huge game that'll bring a lot of value to the newer hardware, especially since there's a good chance a new GTA won't be out anytime soon. That said, I feel like there's something inherently disingenuous about releasing a game you know you're going to release a superior version of in less than a year. GTA is big enough that it warrants putting on both gens if it releases in-between like it did. One could argue the same for any big title dropping between generations, like Destiny or Far Cry 4 or Call of Duty.

But we're not between generations anymore. It's been over a year. If you're releasing a game that can run on the old hardware, that means you're not using the new hardware to its fullest potential. Same goes for porting games from the old hardware onto the new one.

Again, I'm torn. I get it. People would love to play Mass Effect Trilogy on their PS4 while they wait for Mass Effect 4 to come out. You can make this argument for any game; someone out there would love to play it. I think it makes sense as an offset to high development costs or games dropping on the verge of new hardware. But we're past that point. It's becoming less of that and more of an industry-wide cash grab. I'm not arguing there's no place for remasters, just that it's getting out of control. We're literally seeing more ports and remakes than new games now, with more being announced every day.

My hope is that it's an issue of perception; anyone can announce a port at any time, while new game announcements are saved for big events like E3. That said, if E3 rolls around and I see port after port after port, that's going to be severely depressing.

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com

Over 90k want CoD:MW2 remade Smilie

https://www.change.org/p/activision-infinity-ward-jason-west-robert-a-kotick-remaster-modern-warfare-2-for-next-gen-consoles#petition-letter

Adam Riley [ Operations Director :: Senior Editor :: Cubed3 Limited ]
Word of Adam | Voice123 Profile | AdamC3 on Twitter

Activision just re-organized their COD devs to try to improve the quality of each game; I sincerely hope they're not going to just can that idea and start remaking old ones again.

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com

Adam Riley said:
Over 90k want CoD:MW2 remade Smilie

https://www.change.org/p/activision-infinity-ward-jason-west-robert-a-kotick-remaster-modern-warfare-2-for-next-gen-consoles#petition-letter


Is this true... I mean wow... Just wow... Well, at least the game is old enough to justify a remake, but still.


( Edited 11.03.2015 18:41 by Andre Eriksson )

The difference between illusion and reality is vague to the one who suffers from the former and questionable for the one suffering form the later.

Subscribe to this topic Subscribe to this topic

If you are a registered member and logged in, you can also subscribe to topics by email.
K-Pop Korner - The Best of Korean Music
Sign up today for blogs, games collections, reader reviews and much more
Site Feed
Who's Online?
Azuardo

There are 1 members online at the moment.