Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for ere

Real Name ere   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname eRe4s3r
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description 3D-Modeller, Anime Geek, Internet Addict, Lurker
Homepage http://ere4s3r.deviantart.com
Signed On Jan 29, 2009, 14:16
Total Comments 7422 (Guru)
User ID 54727
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ] Older >


News Comments > Morning Safety Dance
1. Re: Morning Safety Dance Oct 3, 2014, 12:11 eRe4s3r
 
So how do these hackers think an established wide spread standard HARDWARE can be fixed? With that release they put about 2 billion devices in danger of being hacked. These people should go jail.  
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > The Evil Within Minimum Specs
13. Re: The Evil Within Minimum Specs Oct 3, 2014, 12:03 eRe4s3r
 
Not a single game ever looked amazing with motion blur .. I always disable that crap ;p  
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Game Reviews
10. Re: Game Reviews Oct 3, 2014, 04:04 eRe4s3r
 
Task wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 19:09:
And it is also reasonable that some of us will wait for a hardcore Alpha Centauri conversion mod for BE. That would be my dream come true.

If it doesn't exist for CIV5 then it will not exist for CIV:BE

That said

http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?68830-Conflict-on-Chiron-Discussion
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Pillars of Eternity Delayed
15. Re: Pillars of Eternity Delayed Oct 3, 2014, 04:00 eRe4s3r
 
nin wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 20:19:
killer_roach wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 20:07:
Cutter wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 19:13:
Obsidian is behind schedule. Gee...what a surprise.

Considering what happens when they try to hit an imposed deadline... I'm fine with a delay. (Alpha Protocol, Fallout New Vegas, and KotOR 2 all say hi.)

Exactly. Them taking their time is the best option.


Indeed... takes as long as it takes
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Stardock Fantasy Game Announcement Today
12. Re: RE: Follow up Oct 2, 2014, 18:07 eRe4s3r
 
gilly775 wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 17:55:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 17:24:
NegaDeath wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 16:56:
UConnBBall wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 16:42:
Gal Civ 3 for $99 early access now that is just down right crazy!

Keep in mind for that price that you get all future dlc and expansions for free. The high price is more like buying the game and a complete season pass. If they follow through their promise to release Dark Avatar/Arnor style expansions plus smaller DLC you'll be breaking even or possibly saving money in the long run.

"If" being the key word.

Or you just wait until next years steam summer sale so that you can save money with guarantee There is no reason to pre-order games.

Unless you actually want to play them and they're EA

Hehe, true But if you want to play them you can of course pre-order them.. I meant there is no point to pre-order if you want to possibly save money. Waiting is always cheaper.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Stardock Fantasy Game Announcement Today
10. Re: RE: Follow up Oct 2, 2014, 17:24 eRe4s3r
 
NegaDeath wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 16:56:
UConnBBall wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 16:42:
Gal Civ 3 for $99 early access now that is just down right crazy!

Keep in mind for that price that you get all future dlc and expansions for free. The high price is more like buying the game and a complete season pass. If they follow through their promise to release Dark Avatar/Arnor style expansions plus smaller DLC you'll be breaking even or possibly saving money in the long run.

"If" being the key word.

Or you just wait until next years steam summer sale so that you can save money with guarantee There is no reason to pre-order games.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
52. Re: Ships Ahoy - Watch Dogs; First Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 17:21 eRe4s3r
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 16:39:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 16:36:
Beamer wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 15:40:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 15:06:
Beamer wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 12:21:

I didn't say "anytime soon."

But the longer it goes, the more you need to consider other ways they could have spent that $2 billion (which, honestly, is less of a concern with Facebook, which has plenty of billions to spend) as well as the time value of money.

With each passing year, that number goes up. And up. And up.

Do you guys really think that Facebook will end up breaking even on this one. How many pairs need to be sold (25 million, if they make $100 profit per pair, which seems high) or how many apps/in-app purchases need to be sold?


No I don't think they will break even, but that is not how I define the success of VR To me Facebook is just a necessary evil in this. Without big corporations pushing VR ahead it would always remain a tiny market.

Maybe they will take licensing fees for the OR SDK and platform integration? After all Facebook doesn't just get (awesome) VR goggles out of this, but an entire VR entertainment platform complete with API and SDK. The goggles are just a tool....

In todays economic world, money has very little "time value" You actually lose money if you don't spend it, currently at least.

Time value is still extremely important.
It's more opportunity cost that is less important, because Facebook has enough cash that spending $2.5 billion on this isn't likely to prevent them from spending it on another project.

But that's assuming there are other projects Facebook is eyeing If they only had this 1 project to really invest in, then it makes sense for them to not expect a return of that in short or mid term.

Kinda scary Facebook has that much cash to just "throw around" though.

Kind of scary how many American companies have that cash to throw around.
Hire more employees? Pay employees better?
Nah, hoard money and pay bigger dividends!

Reminds me that I read somewhere that hoarding money, instead of hiring more employees and paying better wages, is whats currently destroying the financial and economic systems. So I guess I'd rather have them invest money in crazy ventures than hoarding it infinitely.

I am not really sure how Facebook MAKES money either.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Game Reviews
7. Re: Game Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 17:13 eRe4s3r
 
Quboid wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 16:45:
I agree with the general point that Civ:BE probably won't be very good science fiction, it's just the specific comparison that he draws in that article and takes further in the related article which seems off to me. I'd like SMAC2, a lot more than a sci-fi Civ V mod, but I won't beat Firaxis with a comparison that they've made reasonable efforts to avoid.

Well if you are assuming that this is probably the only time we will ever see an official sci-fi civ game in the range of 20 years it is imo valid criticism that Firaxis is not, in fact, making SMAC2...

In fact this game will inevitable face comparison vs SMAC simply because both have the same premise. SMAC just has vastly better writing and setting.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
50. Re: Ships Ahoy - Watch Dogs; First Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 16:36 eRe4s3r
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 15:40:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 15:06:
Beamer wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 12:21:

I didn't say "anytime soon."

But the longer it goes, the more you need to consider other ways they could have spent that $2 billion (which, honestly, is less of a concern with Facebook, which has plenty of billions to spend) as well as the time value of money.

With each passing year, that number goes up. And up. And up.

Do you guys really think that Facebook will end up breaking even on this one. How many pairs need to be sold (25 million, if they make $100 profit per pair, which seems high) or how many apps/in-app purchases need to be sold?


No I don't think they will break even, but that is not how I define the success of VR To me Facebook is just a necessary evil in this. Without big corporations pushing VR ahead it would always remain a tiny market.

Maybe they will take licensing fees for the OR SDK and platform integration? After all Facebook doesn't just get (awesome) VR goggles out of this, but an entire VR entertainment platform complete with API and SDK. The goggles are just a tool....

In todays economic world, money has very little "time value" You actually lose money if you don't spend it, currently at least.

Time value is still extremely important.
It's more opportunity cost that is less important, because Facebook has enough cash that spending $2.5 billion on this isn't likely to prevent them from spending it on another project.

But that's assuming there are other projects Facebook is eyeing If they only had this 1 project to really invest in, then it makes sense for them to not expect a return of that in short or mid term.

Kinda scary Facebook has that much cash to just "throw around" though.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
48. Re: Ships Ahoy - Watch Dogs; First Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 15:06 eRe4s3r
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 12:21:

I didn't say "anytime soon."

But the longer it goes, the more you need to consider other ways they could have spent that $2 billion (which, honestly, is less of a concern with Facebook, which has plenty of billions to spend) as well as the time value of money.

With each passing year, that number goes up. And up. And up.

Do you guys really think that Facebook will end up breaking even on this one. How many pairs need to be sold (25 million, if they make $100 profit per pair, which seems high) or how many apps/in-app purchases need to be sold?


No I don't think they will break even, but that is not how I define the success of VR To me Facebook is just a necessary evil in this. Without big corporations pushing VR ahead it would always remain a tiny market.

Maybe they will take licensing fees for the OR SDK and platform integration? After all Facebook doesn't just get (awesome) VR goggles out of this, but an entire VR entertainment platform complete with API and SDK. The goggles are just a tool....

In todays economic world, money has very little "time value" You actually lose money if you don't spend it, currently at least.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Game Reviews
5. Re: Game Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 14:56 eRe4s3r
 
Quboid wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 13:39:
That article is written on the assumption that Civ:BE is trying to be SMAC based on a quote that it's a serious setting and the author's other piece (linked to at start of article) goes as far as describing SMAC as Civ:BE's predecessor.

This seems unfair to Firaxis and Civ:BE. He says that Firaxis want the comparison when it suits them and not when it doesn't but I don't know what we can expect from Firaxis other than them to repeatedly say that it's not SMAC2. Are they banned from making a serious sci-fi game unless it is a sequel to SMAC?

If they had called it SMAC2 and then produced a simpler game with more mainstream appeal then they'd be trying to cash in on nostalgia while screwing nostalgic gamers and I'd agree but AFAIK this isn't like Thief.

I think the point was that they retained gameplay systems from CIV4/5 that don't fit their proclaimed "serious sci-fi" setting. Like the culture expansion thing. What culture? How does a culture affect your expansion in an alien colony? Or the art style of the units, which really does look like orcs vs tau vs necron vs tyranids

The article isn't about it not being SMAC2, it's about them saying its serious sci-fi and bringing up problems obvious with CIV:BE that betray it's own setting for no good reason.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Game Reviews
2. Re: Game Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 12:09 eRe4s3r
 
RDBK... never heard of it, but after reading their piece here I actually want to read more from them. It finally made my realize what bothered me with the CIV:BE video that was linked here today. It looked, felt, sounded and played.. like CIV4 with mods. And the art-style is REALLY weird to boot. Transplanting the culture range mechanic from CIV is actually extremely dumb. I think the only reason being that it promotes warfare and eliminates the need for good writing

Very good .. ehm, article. Wasn't really an review, more like an macro analysis...
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
46. Re: Ships Ahoy - Watch Dogs; First Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 11:46 eRe4s3r
 
Quboid wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 11:33:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 10:41:
But I don't have to understand the media, the media exists to serve the people, not the other way around. And Polygon is a prime example of what happens when media doesn't serve people, but ad payment click-rates. Otherwise even an OP-ED piece would not have a bullshit headline like that, quoting Pachter of all people. You might as well predict the future by reading tea leafs.

And the issue I have with this article is that you can not predict anything regarding VR. If what people who tried it say is true, then we are still at least an entire device generation away from breakthrough. And that is more or less the only thing we do know.

Your logic is circular. Polygon publishes click-bait, therefore this is click-bait, therefore Polygon publishes click-bait. But this isn't click-bait, it's an opinion piece about why this person thinks that present VR will fail so the headline is accurate and appropriate.

You don't have to understand the media to be served/exploited by it but you do need to understand it to offer suggestions on how to improve it - otherwise, you're essentially saying "I don't know what's going on, but here's what we should do ..."

Any prediction at this point will be a long shot and I agree with you in your criticisms of the article. "it won't be able to deliver the sort of holodeck experience the most mainstream of users might expect" is a strawman argument and the whole topic of physical movement is a joke IMHO. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to move around and nothing will make me feel *LESS* like whatever steroid-ed up super-soldier I'm supposed to be than my sweaty ass pulling a muscle five minutes into a mission. This insurmountable obstacle is something I have no interest in mounting, so to speak, and is a concession to reality that I've long since made my peace with. (Edit: in purely financial terms, recouping $2.5B seems ambitious. Happily, that's Facebook's problem.)

Of course my logic is circular, I am connected to the Hivemind after all

And the article ITSELF my be ok, but the HEADLINE is imo click-bait. Because it is entirely subjective what "fail" and "win" is for VR. To you I am sure, just like for me, HAVING proper VR goggles is a huge success and the holodeck would be a nightmare. And I too have no interest in a holodeck for gaming. Man that'd be a huge issue not just because of space requirements but also because of fitness. I want fully immersive goggles, maybe tacticle feedback on my hands and fingers and that's it. And I want to have a "sitting experience" Ok, maybe standing too, assuming we can harness ourselves and it's not used for walking around, but rather to have proper feeling of presence. I don't know how VR is gonna work exactly in that regard. I assume sitting when simulation env is sitting is a major factor in presence.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
45. Re: Ships Ahoy - Watch Dogs; First Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 11:38 eRe4s3r
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 11:13:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 10:41:
Beamer wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 10:10:
Quboid wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 09:32:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 05:40:
Quboid wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 12:32:
ELITE wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 10:31:
Click Bait - need some hits - get negative - that's how we do it these days...

So is any critical editorial is click-bait? Or does this only apply to editorials that you disagree with?

Everything on Polygon is unsubstantiated clickbait... a proper article would have asked "Does VR have a future?" With both sides of the argument given equal air time. What Polygon does here is agenda driven Op-ED drivel. Op-ED does give you the right to voice opinions I guess, but Polygon is a bullshit factory, so it might just as well be in their main news feed. Fits right in

It's an opinion piece, it is only supposed to be this author's opinion. Giving each side equal air time is false balance if he doesn't think it's a 50:50 issue and he evidently doesn't.

Click-bait exists but it is not an opinion you don't like, nor is it an article you didn't bother to read. Further more, if this genuinely was click-bait and you're taking a stand against it, you should not even be here. By commenting you are sending others to their site and by viewing these comments, you're telling Blue that click-bait is what we want and what gets him advertising revenue - and if you're so concerned about click-bait, you should be concerned that Blue is falling foul of this supposed disease too.

Thank you.
If one thing has come from gamergate, it's realizing how little most people understand the media. Between this and all the demands for journalism degrees...

But I don't have to understand the media, the media exists to serve the people, not the other way around. And Polygon is a prime example of what happens when media doesn't serve people, but ad payment click-rates. Otherwise even an OP-ED piece would not have a bullshit headline like that, quoting Pachter of all people. You might as well predict the future by reading tea leafs.

Ps.: And blues gets money for actual page-views, not for click through.

It's a guy's opinion, and plenty of people on this board share the same opinion. Why isn't he allowed to publish his opinion? And how is it a bullshit headline? He thinks it's bound to fail.

And what's the goalpost for failure? Facebook paid $2 billion for it, and is investing what has to be several hundred million more. Do you think that it will generate $2.5 billion in profit? Not revenue, but profit? This is ignoring even the opportunity cost of that investment and the time value of money.

So, from an investment point of view, it needs to generate at least $2.5 billion in profit to not be a failure. I am not at all convinced that's very likely.

I highly doubt Facebook wants to make 2.5b profit with this anytime soon. They create and generate their own longterm market. A new market. Whether profits can be made there or not remains to be seen, but the market wasn't there 5 years ago. Now a new market spawned, and for large corporations, a new market where it costs 2.5b to access but generates 200m per year is absolutely worth it. Money not invested is money you waste. And a market that COULD grow exponentially with barely any competition is extremely lucrative to a company.

And the article says "why... VR.. is bound to fail" and VR is not bound to fail. Any actual presence enabling VR that comes out of this is a huge success... something NOBODY had ever done before the OR. And if the first generation OR isn't total shit, it will completely change how games can be experienced.

So what if it costs 2.5b+ to make proper VR happen... without Facebook boosting this we'd not have the outlook on proper VR. Is it to you not a success that we get VR *at all* ? If Facebook hadn't thrown their weight behind OR, would others have started making competing VR goggles? And without competition, would there ever have been a chance of it becoming mainstream to begin with?

Even if this is just a side-project of Facebook, to me as a Gamer VR is a success because VR will finally EXIST. Before the OR, we had no VR at all. Only fake in your face projections. And pseudo 3d in movies.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Civilization: Beyond Earth Trailer
22. Re: Civilization: Beyond Earth Trailer Oct 2, 2014, 11:20 eRe4s3r
 
Task wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 10:31:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 05:44:

Awareness of knowledge is generally lost over 3 generations (60 years) unless efforts are made to keep that knowledge in awareness. As Overseer you would have all knowledge, but to your awareness only select few pieces would appear relevant.

It's why a Hive Mind is superior At least then everyone has the same selective awareness.

From what I understand that's what Harmony is, the end goal is to 'become one' with the living planet you reside on. Hypothetically, as the keeper of all knowledge, the harmonized humanity will connect with all the things.

Whether that is something we want to achieve or not would largely depend on what the planet actually wants and how the practicalities of the Ascension are defined though. When I say it is superior I mean on an higher level of thinking, Hive consciousness where individuality is retained but the hivemind is always there, like say, an global living planet network in your brain would be superior.

But is that something you really "win" with? Wouldn't that make you part of the planet? What about everyone else who ISN'T? They'd be part of that hive-mind too? If the hive mind is defined by ALL life wouldn't that mean that building this if your way of thinking is not the majority would essentially mean losing.

I guess I am saying, this is an odd victory condition. Not seeing how in any way this gives us an "victory" in essence we are dissolving the faction we are playing with the hope our ethics and awareness of knowledge would pass into the hive-mind, and the game calls that a victory. But it could just as well happen that other factions ethics and awareness gain dominance. (Also, how would cybernetic life-forms gain that ascension... for them they'd have to be entirely immune to this victory condition....)
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
42. Re: Ships Ahoy - Watch Dogs; First Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 10:41 eRe4s3r
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 10:10:
Quboid wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 09:32:
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 2, 2014, 05:40:
Quboid wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 12:32:
ELITE wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 10:31:
Click Bait - need some hits - get negative - that's how we do it these days...

So is any critical editorial is click-bait? Or does this only apply to editorials that you disagree with?

Everything on Polygon is unsubstantiated clickbait... a proper article would have asked "Does VR have a future?" With both sides of the argument given equal air time. What Polygon does here is agenda driven Op-ED drivel. Op-ED does give you the right to voice opinions I guess, but Polygon is a bullshit factory, so it might just as well be in their main news feed. Fits right in

It's an opinion piece, it is only supposed to be this author's opinion. Giving each side equal air time is false balance if he doesn't think it's a 50:50 issue and he evidently doesn't.

Click-bait exists but it is not an opinion you don't like, nor is it an article you didn't bother to read. Further more, if this genuinely was click-bait and you're taking a stand against it, you should not even be here. By commenting you are sending others to their site and by viewing these comments, you're telling Blue that click-bait is what we want and what gets him advertising revenue - and if you're so concerned about click-bait, you should be concerned that Blue is falling foul of this supposed disease too.

Thank you.
If one thing has come from gamergate, it's realizing how little most people understand the media. Between this and all the demands for journalism degrees...

But I don't have to understand the media, the media exists to serve the people, not the other way around. And Polygon is a prime example of what happens when media doesn't serve people, but ad payment click-rates. Otherwise even an OP-ED piece would not have a bullshit headline like that, quoting Pachter of all people. You might as well predict the future by reading tea leafs.

And the issue I have with this article is that you can not predict anything regarding VR. If what people who tried it say is true, then we are still at least an entire device generation away from breakthrough. And that is more or less the only thing we do know.

This comment was edited on Oct 2, 2014, 11:13.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Civilization: Beyond Earth Trailer
20. Re: Civilization: Beyond Earth Trailer Oct 2, 2014, 05:44 eRe4s3r
 
Task wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 13:54:
Mangrove wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 12:10:
Task wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 11:05:
...Future humans won't know about any prehumans named Ghandi or Abraham Lincoln the vampire slayer anyways. Its about creating new history of humanity somewhere else in the universe, which is more fascinating to me.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." - Some dead guy.

But as the overseer of my new Harmony colony, I am the keeper of past/present/future knowledge. I know all the things.

Awareness of knowledge is generally lost over 3 generations (60 years) unless efforts are made to keep that knowledge in awareness. As Overseer you would have all knowledge, but to your awareness only select few pieces would appear relevant.

It's why a Hive Mind is superior At least then everyone has the same selective awareness.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
39. Re: Ships Ahoy - Watch Dogs; First Reviews Oct 2, 2014, 05:40 eRe4s3r
 
Quboid wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 12:32:
ELITE wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 10:31:
Click Bait - need some hits - get negative - that's how we do it these days...

So is any critical editorial is click-bait? Or does this only apply to editorials that you disagree with?

Everything on Polygon is unsubstantiated clickbait... a proper article would have asked "Does VR have a future?" With both sides of the argument given equal air time. What Polygon does here is agenda driven Op-ED drivel. Op-ED does give you the right to voice opinions I guess, but Polygon is a bullshit factory, so it might just as well be in their main news feed. Fits right in
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Falling Skies Rises
4. Re: Falling Skies Rises Oct 2, 2014, 05:35 eRe4s3r
 
Quinn wrote on Oct 1, 2014, 17:00:
Wtf its like watching an alpha version of XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

More like a total conversion mod in the early stages of "can we do this?"

With the clear answer: "Yes, but maybe we shouldn't."
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
30. Re: Op Ed Oct 1, 2014, 18:37 eRe4s3r
 
Polygon proving again why it's on the boycott list.. bullshit stories by bullshit writers.  
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7422 Comments. 372 pages. Viewing page 21.
< Newer [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo