default header

Theory

The hobag thread

Moderator: JC Denton

The hobag thread

Unread postby icycalm » 21 Dec 2008 20:59

This is a catch-all lol thread for female game journalist quotes.

No More Heroes is still one of my favorite games of the year, and yet I hear from a lot of people who were annoyed there wasn't more "to do" in the city; they would have liked to have seen it more interactive, a perspective that makes less sense to me when you consider it's a game that thrives on its artistic experience and the addictive simplicity of its fighting mechanic.


I don't like flOw (as a player, while I like it as a journalist, if that makes sense)


Especially as we're hoping to see games proliferate into the culture at large, I think the idea that everything needs to be terribly, universally complex is unhelpful, and I wonder where it comes from.


Let me explain this to you: It comes from people with large brains.

http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2 ... s-bad.html
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Spain

Unread postby Vert1 » 23 Dec 2008 06:01

I don't see anything lol-worthy about one of her favorite games of the year being No More Heroes. It may be a flawed game, but it is still pretty fun. Perhaps it is a favorite simply because of it's "uniqueness" on Nintendo systems: the lack of exclusive hack-and-slashers and the extreme violence--which could be her criteria for judging it.

I'm surprised you didn't give her some credit for saying fighting mechanic instead of fighting "lameplay". Maybe she read one of your articles.
User avatar
Vert1
Banned
 
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 18:27

Unread postby Bradford » 23 Dec 2008 16:41

Vert1 wrote:I don't see anything lol-worthy about one of her favorite games of the year being No More Heroes.


It's not lol-worthy because it's her favorite game of the year (well, maybe it is - you can laugh at people for having bad taste - but as far as I'm concerned she's allowed to enjoy whatever game she wants).

It's funny because the reasons are complete nonsense.

"it's a game that thrives on its artistic experience" is retarded, and if Icy's review is to be believed (because I haven't played the game) the fighting mechanic's "simplicity" would only be "addictive" to a six year old.

Vert1 wrote:Perhaps it is a favorite simply because of it's "uniqueness" on Nintendo systems: the lack of exclusive hack-and-slashers and the extreme violence--which could be her criteria for judging it.


No offense, but that's a ridiculous criterion to judge a game with. That's like saying "this steak covered in shit is my favorite steak this year because it's the only steak on the menu at the restaurant I'm eating at right now."

While you're at it, you could also say that "I hear from a lot of people who were annoyed that there wasn't more of this steak covered in shit that was edible, a perspective that makes less sense to me when you consider that it's a steak that thrives on its artistic experience."
Bradford
 
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 18:11
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA

Unread postby Vert1 » 23 Dec 2008 19:06

Look at what has been underlined. If I am coming into a thread about lol-worthy comments then anything underlined should point out something stupid to make fun of (or be off-topic). There is no maybe. All the other underlined comments support this.

If she was reviewing games of the year for Nintendo Wii and decided to say "This is a favorite of mine. There is nothing really like it on the system," you would fault her on that? She wouldn't be comparing the game to all existing hack-and-slashers or violent games, but what is available on the system--which games stand out. It's not the best. It is different and she likes that.

Why do we have to use tired examples of shit representing things that are different as if everything different is or will be void of substance? I think it makes more sense saying that "this burger is the best burger I've ever tasted, if only because it's the only burger I have ever tasted." In either case the criteria is honest and true (feels like I am quoting someone here). Aren't those qualities we want of our criteria?

She makes the game look bad with her defense (the lolworthy part), but her "list" (favorite games of 08) is based on what she has been exposed to--what she has liked playing throughout the year. It's not trying to help us pick out great games out of a specific genre; it's just about the girl's likes and dislikes.

So, can games be ranked in favorability due to unique content or should they stick to genres? Is it not acceptable to differ from the latter? Also, can we not say out of two "equivalent" games, the one with more charm would be the one to play?

Icy has pointed out that people rank games based on all sorts of criteria that aren't comprehendible. There's one lol game "feature" in this article:
I liked Mercenaries 2 because it was something I could see putting into the hands of any of my friends
Last edited by Vert1 on 23 Dec 2008 20:37, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Vert1
Banned
 
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 18:27

Unread postby Bradford » 23 Dec 2008 20:34

Vert1 wrote:Look at what has been underlined.


Icycalm wrote:
No More Heroes is still one of my favorite games of the year, . . . it's a game that thrives on its artistic experience . . . .


These are related (they're even part of the same sentence!). If one thinks No More Heroes was a bad game (as Icy did), then the first part is funny. Regardless of whether one thinks No More Heroes was a bad game, the reason given for the first part is funny.

No one said she's not allowed to think it's her favorite game, but everyone else is definitely allowed to mock her for thinking it if they are so inclined.

Vert1 wrote:I don't like your analogy. You haven't played the game and are making analogies that the game is shit. Why do we have to use tired examples of shit representing things that are different as if everything different is void of substance? I think it makes more sense saying that "this burger is the best burger I've ever tasted, if only because it's the only burger I have ever tasted."


Perhaps my use of sarcasm clouded my point, which I thought was obvious. Around these parts, folks judge how good a game is based on THE GAME. Whether a game is good or bad is not altered by which system it's on, how many similar games to it there are, how it smells when you open it, etc... "Uniqueness" does not make a game better or worse, and is a useless and ridiculous criterion. My analogy was right on, and you're really missing the point if all you can see is that I called the game bad without playing it.

Now I'm sure you'll remind me that this was just a list of her favorite games, and not a list of good games. Please try to understand that if one's favorite games are not also games one thinks are good, then one is either a giant retard, a masochist, or both.

Vert1 wrote:In either case the criteria is honest and true (feels like I am quoting someone here). Aren't those qualities we want of our criteria?


No, this is childishness. We want criteria that are useful. See above. "Honest and true" might be necessary conditions for usefulness, but are far from the focus.
Bradford
 
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 18:11
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA

Unread postby Vert1 » 23 Dec 2008 21:24

Bradford wrote:Perhaps my use of sarcasm clouded my point, which I thought was obvious. Around these parts, folks judge how good a game is based on THE GAME.


I know this. I have read all of the articles on this website. The one where icy talks about how this guy must really hates games because he thinks the music of the game (Castlevania) is the best part comes to mind. I have pointed out a new example of this fallacy with the liking of a game based on someone else being able to play it.

"Uniqueness" does not make a game better or worse, and is a useless and ridiculous criterion. My analogy was right on, and you're really missing the point if all you can see is that I called the game bad without playing it.

Now I'm sure you'll remind me that this was just a list of her favorite games, and not a list of good games. Please try to understand that if one's favorite games are not also games one thinks are good, then one is either a giant retard, a masochist, or both.


Whether a game is good or bad is not altered by which system it's on, how many similar games to it there are, how it smells when you open it, etc...


I thought that an enjoyable game would be inherit in determining good/favorite games. What I meant to get at was that people are attracted to "freshness". If someone invented a new genre in games, it might not be the best made game out there, but the difference could produce an enjoyable reaction in the player. People want to play good games, but I think there is a desire in new experiences. New experiences can lead to favorable reactions, if only temporary. The person could eventually grow to like the genre better than all the other ones if the genre was more explored.

What exactly is a good game anyway? I think the Wii Sports tennis game (maybe she could have used that in her example of "simplicity") is a terrible game. I'd rather be playing Mario Tennis, Virtua Tennis, Top Spin, etc. But every time I play Wii Sports I have a good time playing it (maybe b/c of the controller swinging, the absurd animations, idk). I'm having what I would call "stupid fun", but I'm still enjoying myself. So, I can understand how people could say that one of their favorite games isn't actually that good without being deficient in some manner.

On the other hand, Etrian Odyssey is well-made game. I've enjoyed playing it for hundreds of hours. But now I realize I have something called "pokemon syndrome" where I play the rpg for hours then everything becomes outdated or I just simply stop caring. What am I leveling up for? Then I start to not enjoy the game. What do you call a well-made game that you now think is a terrible waste of time?

But game developers striving to be different doesn't impact the player's game experience, right? If there is no game to compare a game to, then what do you suggest ranking it with? How good can the game be if we cannot create criteria to rank it against other genres and games within it's genre? For some people who have not experienced Ninja Gaiden 2, they may be living in a world where No More Heroes is the hack-and-slasher of the year. For instance, I don't expect a site like planetgamecube to start reviewing games on all systems when they are dedicated to one system.

And you know what else? I don't understand how icy loves killer7 so much and hates nmh. I enjoy both games a lot, but usually people will hate killer7 and enjoy nmh. They will say stuff like this about killer 7 "teh gameplay is terrible. if it wasn't for the story i wouldn't even play the game".
Last edited by Vert1 on 29 Dec 2008 20:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Vert1
Banned
 
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 18:27

Unread postby Bradford » 23 Dec 2008 22:51

Vert1 wrote:What exactly is a good game anyway?


I think that's really the whole question, and it doesn't really seem like either of us knows the answer.

I do think that the terms "good," "fun," and "favorite" are too interrelated for a game to have one but not all three, as a matter of logic (for a person who was not impaired in some way).

With your Wii Sports tennis game example, perhaps you're confusing 'bad but fun' for 'dramatically lacking in possibility space but amusing and novel.' If it is likely to cease being fun after enough play, it is a bad game that is not fun. If it doesn't stop being fun after extensive play, perhaps it is not so bad, after all.

You're also asking what value "novelty" has in determining the three terms above. I don't know exactly, but I can't conceive of a bad game which is otherwise novel being enjoyable to reasonably perceptive person for more than a limited period of time, and more importantly, to an expert. I'd love to hear someone try and explain why, though - I'm feeling a little stuck on this one.

The only other point I'd like to make is regarding this:

Vert1 wrote:For some people who have not experienced Ninja Gaiden 2, they may be living in a world where No More Heroes is the hack-and-slasher of the year.


Going back to the original underlined quote that Icy posted, we're only talking about Leigh Alexander, here. If Leigh Alexander has such a small amount of experience in the genre as the "some people" in your example, above, but holds herself out as someone whose opinion is valuable or useful anyway, then it is reasonable to laugh at her when her opinion is stupid, and more so when it is based on nonsense.
Bradford
 
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 18:11
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA

Unread postby Bradford » 29 Jan 2009 20:30

Persona 4: Reflecting the Self

I haven't played the game, so for all I know there are some brilliant insights here, but whatever is in there is buried in so much inane garbage or moronic phrasing I could barely stand to read it.

"main core gameplay concepts"

"a functional part of the core gameplay"

"starkly nihilistic in its own way"

"encouraging players to visualize relating to themselves within a video game"

And this:
"it often encourages the player to do a truthful self-evaluation and to make an emotional investment"
which would be fascinating if she could articulate how it does that.
Bradford
 
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 18:11
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA

Unread postby Worm » 30 Jan 2009 01:13

You don't have to guess whether or not she's making this stuff up; she's rather explicit about it:
http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2 ... oices.html

Making tons of menu selections between things like "thank you," "I don't want this" and "..." can seem rote and meaningless at a glance, especially when you note that your answer has little or no effect on the gameplay.
What else would a "meaningless" decision be, if not one that has no impact?

Of course, the preference for games that will very quickly respond and reward your input in mechanics-driven, visible ways is wholly natural. Most people like video games because they like that when they press an input button, something quantifiably responds.
Yes, it's almost as if they realize that otherwise they're just playing make-believe.

I don't like the easy dismissal of games that are structured so that when you put thought in, you can get emotion back. Maybe on some level games are responsible for engaging and satisfying the player, but I don't care to invalidate the idea that a game is a framework within which a player can elect to engage with themselves. The game won't do it all for you, and you can play your own role in what you yourself take away from it.
You can do this in any game; I can "play my own role" as a pacifist in Mario by not stomping on the goombas, and pretend the fireworks are a celebration of my kindness. To praise a game for allowing me to make shit up is asinine.
User avatar
Worm
 
Joined: 20 Dec 2008 21:06

Unread postby Jon R. » 01 Feb 2009 20:11

More evidence that contemporary games writing is about desperately trying to find ways to make shit games sound better. It's not the ability to find meaning or merit that matters, it's the ability to attach them to whatever you're writing about that apparently gets the cred points.

God I need to get my notes back.
Jon R.
Banned
 
Joined: 18 Jul 2008 18:39

Unread postby icycalm » 02 Feb 2009 01:14

Jon R. wrote:It's not the ability to find meaning or merit that matters, it's the ability to attach them to whatever you're writing about that apparently gets the cred points.


Yes, but don't forget also the boobs!
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Spain

Unread postby icycalm » 12 Jun 2009 04:47

User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Spain

Unread postby JoshF » 12 Jun 2009 08:01

Hilarious. I suspect the lol thread will fill with lots of fat virgin white knighting soon.
User avatar
JoshF
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:56

Unread postby Smithers » 12 Jun 2009 13:36

Hey Kierkegaard, I fully agree with what you said - and I love your site in general - but there is one thing that bothers me. Why did you decide to make it such a personal, some might even say childish attack? Leigh Alexander is a tool, and fully deserves to get called out for the vapid, irritating nonsense that she writes, but the vitriol and sexual slurs weaken your argument, you're going down to her level, even though you know sex should be irrelevant.

This isn't a criticism, I did really enjoy it - just wondering what influenced that style decision.
Smithers
Banned
 
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 13:30

Unread postby Lochlan » 13 Jun 2009 00:09

Smithers wrote:the vitriol and sexual slurs weaken your argument


Only for those who are easily offended and/or clinically retarded.

Smithers wrote:you know sex should be irrelevant.


http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_women/
User avatar
Lochlan
 
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 06:07

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Jun 2009 00:21

Smithers wrote:Why did you decide to make it such a personal, some might even say childish attack?


As I just finished typing in another thread, at the end of the day everything we do is personal -- a human being, or any being whatever, is physically incapable of acting impersonally. The very phrase "impersonal act" is a contradictio in adjecto.

As for my attack being childish -- what can I say? I am indeed a child. I keep forgetting how old I am, or how young I may yet become. I am more childish than anyone, and yet at the same time -- and because of it -- more serious than anyone else could be. Seriousness and childishness are far from opposites, you know. Common people think they are, but they are not. Etc. etc. I could keep going on about this for ages. The main point to take away is that, just as extreme happiness goes hand-in-hand with extreme sadness, so does extreme seriousness go hand-in-hand with extreme childishness.

Smithers wrote:Leigh Alexander is a tool, and fully deserves to get called out for the vapid, irritating nonsense that she writes, but the vitriol and sexual slurs weaken your argument


What argument? You don't really think there were actual arguments in there, do you? Arguments are things we need when faced with complex, difficult to judge situations. We don't need arguments to decide on whether the sun rises in the east, or on whether 1+1=2. All I did was copy-paste their babbling and surround it with lols -- no argument was necessary.

As for the sexual slurs, I actually looked up "slut" in the thesaurus and tried to use all similar words.

Smithers wrote:you're going down to her level, even though you know sex should be irrelevant.


I think I went far below her level, while still towering immeasurably above her. Ask yourself: how is that possible?

Smithers wrote:This isn't a criticism, I did really enjoy it


It is criticism. You just don't know what the word means.

Smithers wrote:just wondering what influenced that style decision.


Another thing I've already talked about here (in the "Icy's Genius" thread). Style is not a "decision". Only someone who has never created anything could think that it is. Style, as Schopenhauer somewhere explains, is a direct reflection of the author's character. And character is NEVER a decision. It is "an order of fate" as Baudrillard would put it. All I did was express myself as genuinely, as honestly, as directly as I could.

Man, it gets tiring having to clear up the same little misunderstandings for people again and again. I live on a planet with 6 billion people, all of whom operate under a number of unfathomably crude and simple-minded assumptions. What is education doing, eh? Still teaching people about "equal rights", "freedom", "justice", "proofs" and other such mythical beasts no doubt.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Spain

Unread postby Mathis » 13 Jun 2009 00:22

Sixth paragraph, first sentence of "Cocksucking Videogameland":

The more clued-in readers (and this is meant by no meant as a compliment, because it should be considered shameful to be clued-in on matters such as this)


I enjoyed reading the article, too, thanks.
Mathis
Banned
 
Joined: 03 Mar 2009 07:10

Unread postby Molloy » 13 Jun 2009 02:59

Remember when Sega got sued for claiming advertising the Dreamcast was connecting you with 6 billion other people, assuming they all bought a console? You've written an article with the potential to annoy 3 billion women, so I don't see how you can be surprised to have to clear up the same arguments over and over. If you continue to write provacative articles you're going to keep drawing idiots into the forum.

Your writing style is indeed somewhat abbrasive but people who get offended by that kind of thing are usually idiots, so it only serves to weed them out before you waste time responding to them.

When it comes to analysis I think women do have the potential to be experts, even if it seems to be less common than it is in men. My girlfriend comes from a family of people steeped in music and she seems to have a stronger focus on one area of that subject, whereas I tend to dabble in different areas and never really gain a deeper understanding in any one topic. Although my discussion about niches did make the front page. Now I just need to do one about Nietzsche.

This specific women is a fucking idiot anyway. It's just a symptom of how awful games journalism has become. If it was between her and N'Gai Croal I'd go with the boobs.
User avatar
Molloy
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 20:40
Location: Ireland

Unread postby JimmyJames » 13 Jun 2009 20:18

What is with all the sexist slurs? You're throwing around "slut" and worse when you would never (I hope) use similar racial epithets.

The frustrating part is that I agree with what you're saying re:her writing, but your language conflates valid complaints on that front with off-putting animosity towards the fact that she's a woman.

Why not supplement your sexist Schopenhauer posting with some racist or anti-Semitic tracts? It would be just as (in)appropriate, and there's plenty of material -- most renowned Western philosophers fell prey to the prevailing (bigoted) opinions of their day concerning race and gender: http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com/?cat=4
JimmyJames
Banned
 
Joined: 13 Jun 2009 20:02

Unread postby icycalm » 14 Jun 2009 00:59

I banned you because you didn't bother to read the thread before posting in it -- or if you did read it then you were not intelligent enough to see that several of your questions had already been answered.

I also banned you because it is clear from your other comments that you are one of those people (usually Americans) who use words like "sexist", "racist", etc. as if they were insults. Such people are beyond instruction (and hope) and would not last here long, so I spared both of us the aggravation.

JimmyJames wrote:The frustrating part is that I agree with what you're saying re:her writing, but your language conflates valid complaints on that front with off-putting animosity towards the fact that she's a woman.


More retardation. Because Clare Edgeley is not a woman.

JimmyJames wrote:Why not supplement your sexist Schopenhauer posting with some racist or anti-Semitic tracts? It would be just as (in)appropriate and there's plenty of material -- most renowned Western philosophers fell prey to the prevailing (bigoted) opinions of their day concerning race and gender


Yes, Schopenhauer is inappropriate, but random modern philosophasters wouldn't be. For your information, it is the anti-racists and the anti-sexists who are the bigots: there is no more racist person than the anti-racist, and no more sexist than the anti-sexist. Example: all the so-called "anti-sexists" who have been linking to this article and lambasting me for taking on a girl with the same ruthlessness I would have taken on a man. I MEAN DO THESE BITCHES WANT EQUALITY OR NOT? THIS IS EQUALITY -- SUCK IT UP.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Spain

Unread postby Smithers » 14 Jun 2009 05:28

You didn't tower above her at all. You're right about 'criticism', that was a massive error on my part - especially since lurking has taught me well regarding the rapacious (but productive) responses incorrect structure brings on here - but you're wrong about 'argument'; even the crudest statement can be technically defined as an argument, as long as it expresses a position. Also, OF COURSE style is a decision - or what is pastiche?

I think the main reason I'm pissed off is that the way you wrote it made it much harder to defend on forums, Twitter etc. So it's mainly just hugboxing :(
Smithers
Banned
 
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 13:30

Unread postby Strifer » 14 Jun 2009 09:37

Smithers wrote:I think the main reason I'm pissed off is that the way you wrote it made it much harder to defend on forums, Twitter etc.


You'd have to be stupid to disagree with this article. "I hate people who hate women that do not know what they are talking about and yet make a living out of it." The article could end after the first paragraph, but of course the Internet would bitch and moan at Icy's rampant misogyny, and it would be a waste not to attack some of the more cringe-inducing statements, so there you have it.

Smithers wrote:hugboxing


What does this even mean?
Last edited by Strifer on 16 Jun 2009 19:53, edited 4 times in total.
Strifer
Banned
 
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 08:58

Unread postby sadinotna » 14 Jun 2009 13:20

Hugbox:
"...a machine wherein an aspie crawls inside, and is squashed by two giant labial folds, thus producing the feeling of being loved, because a machine that looks like a torture instrument did it with an industrial paper printer is perfect at simulating real love, amirite?. It is also a very profound metaphor for LiveJournal and many other online forums. "

You know those places bad artists go to verbally masturbate with other bad artists about how no one else truly uderstands Art witout letting anyone else speak? Those are hugboxes.
More retardation. Because Clare Edgeley is not a woman.

Quick question, how are you defining "woman"? The stuff at the end of the article made it sound like some sort of Evopsych biotruths nonsense, but this sounds more like gender role.
sadinotna
Banned
 
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 13:40

Unread postby icycalm » 15 Jun 2009 03:15

Smithers wrote:You didn't tower above her at all.


You must be very, very stupid to not see this. :(

Smithers wrote:but you're wrong about 'argument'; even the crudest statement can be technically defined as an argument, as long as it expresses a position.


Strictly speaking, every statement "expresses a position", even the statement "the sky is blue", so yes, technically even that counts as an argument. In this sense every sentence in the article is an argument, but this is the sense I mentioned earlier, the 1+1=2 sense -- i.e. the stupid sense. In the strong sense of the word "argument", however, the main article, which deals with the hobags, does not really contain any arguments.

Smithers wrote:Also, OF COURSE style is a decision - or what is pastiche?


I like it when I post something profound and some random retard replies with all-caps. Look kid, it is obvious that you have never created anything in YOUR OWN style -- which is the only way in which a genuine creator creates. If you also lack imagination in the bargain (which you obviously do) there is no way to help you understand what I said. You will forever remain one of the common people who naively fantasizes that style is a decision, and that creative people simply pick and choose which styles to use and at what time out of perhaps a catalog, a database of available styles. Enjoy your delusions!

Smithers wrote:I think the main reason I'm pissed off is that the way you wrote it made it much harder to defend on forums, Twitter etc. So it's mainly just hugboxing :(


Oh now the retard is pissed off :( What are we going to do about that? Let´s see, maybe ban him so that he will no longer be able to waste our time with his boring bullshit?

Oh and lol at you "defending" my ludicrously self-evident article. The day when I need to be defended by the likes of you will be a freezing day in hell indeed.

sadinotna wrote:Quick question, how are you defining "woman"? The stuff at the end of the article made it sound like some sort of Evopsych biotruths nonsense, but this sounds more like gender role.


Whoever presumes to type "Evopsych biotruths nonsense" in this forum, and especially in response to comments in one of my articles, does not deserve to have posting privileges here. Goodbye to you too.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Spain

Unread postby icycalm » 15 Jun 2009 23:47

http://kotaku.com/5234167/the-path-for-art-games

Leigh Alexander wrote:artfully violent MadWorld


Leigh Alexander wrote:the art game scene


I can't call her an artfag, so maybe artlesbo will do?

Leigh Alexander wrote:It's not all bleak news for art right now.


lol

lol lol lol lol lol

lol and lol some more

IS THIS WOMAN TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF WRITING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BULLSHIT? Props to anyone who can quote her doing that.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Spain

Next

Return to Theory