pktechgirlbackup: (pktechgirl)
EA defends always on DRM ruining SimCity by claiming playing alone is pathetic and soulless. With bonus classic extrovert mistake "you can only have variety if you involve other people."

In other news, did you know that survival horror games are absolutely brilliant for recovering introvert points?
pktechgirlbackup: (pktechgirl)
I can find neither my post on the game toy continuum nor the article I originally stole the idea from, so I'm going to give a quick recap. Games have specific rules about how you are supposed to play them, toys are things you make up games with. A doll is almost entirely toy, "monopoly" has very specific rules and is very much a game (although the prevalence of house rules makes it more toy like than other, more complicated games). Despite the name, table top role playing games are very toy like. The computer game concept "linear" translates to "game" pretty well.

Which brings me to Civilization 5. I had previously played 2, 4, and Colonization. It is perhaps instructive to note that I loved Colonization to death for letting me make elaborate supply chains, but always quit when they got to the part of the game where you rebelled against your colonial masters. That was partially because it was so unwinnable I assumed I fundamentally misunderstood the game, but maybe also because I just don't care. I was never very interested in the military portions of traditional civ games either, unless it was civ 2 and I was playing the Germans in the World War 2 scenario, because you could just crush everyone.

A lot of people have complained that Civ 5 dumbed down the concept, but I do not think that is fair. I think that what Civ 5 did is move closer to toy. They got rid of a lot of fiddly bits and gave you the choice to automate many others. When I play, I find myself obsessed with harvesting resources. I research technologies mainly with an eye towards revealing and using more resources. Some of these resources have strategic value, but I don't really care. I just like imagining the diversified economy they would create.

Alas, the you can't automate war the way you can automate landscape improvements. This means I either have to stick to the easiest AI levels (who can be bought off or defeated without effort) or invest a bunch of time on a bunch of stupid military units. Their weird decision to make units unstackable doesn't so much make the game harder or easier as make the payoff curve for thought investment really lumpy. For Civ 6, I seriously want them to implement a way to specify military spending, possibly the cities involved in building, and then have the AI worry about building and directing units. This would allow me to focus on my core competency, finding new sources of citrus.

I have several friends who love this toyness of Civilization, many of whom don't otherwise play video games. I have a single friend who really loves 4x games in general, but never warmed to civ. So my conclusion is that Civilization 5 is a mediocre game but a bang up toy. The UI design is fantastic, the graphics are pleasant, and if it's a little slow even on my new 200 gb SSD*, it is a cost worth paying.


*I didn't buy civ 5 myself because it was over my $5 limit on games, a friend bought it for me for New Years. But once I had it, and I accidentally stabbed my OS in the heart around the same time, it totally seemed worth $250 to upgrade to a full size SSD so I could stop constantly fighting to get programs to run from secondary drives. And play civ significantly faster.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
Tropico 4 is basically Tropico 1 with a few fiddly bits added and better graphics. That's okay; Tropico was a good game, and I have gotten used to the inferior UI of 4. I'm told the Modern Times expansion pack differentiates it, but the only reason I own a game as new as T4 is that it was a birthday gift, you will never convince me to pay that much for a game. Tropico (any iteration) is mostly an economy management game in which you play the dictator of a banana republic, trying to develop your economy while fulfilling your populace's need for religion, medicine, and booze.

I enjoy the game, despite never quite seeing eye to eye with it. I like the challenge of the delicate balance of having enough people of the right sex with the right education level. The game keeps dumping new people on me and I don't think there's anyway to get education such that a real number of high schools produces new graduates at exactly the rate they keep dying off. The game is also obsessed with the size of my swiss bank account, and I just don't care.

distinguishes itself from other economy games by being lumpy. You don't get paid the second you manufacture something. You have to wait until a boat picks it up from the dock, but it won't even get to the dock until your teamsters pick it up from the building that created it. If you have a multi-stage supply chain (and g-d knows I love me some multi stage supply chains) and some bad luck, it could be decades before you get paid for a piece of wood. But your workers are paid immediately, so you have to keep a cushion with which to pay them. This is not a particular problem in the early game, because you get annual foreign aid and are allowed to go into debt. But neither of those numbers scale with your payroll. If your teamsters miss a high-payout export for a few months in a row- which is trivial to do- you can end up in game-destroying debt. Especially if there's a natural disaster as well. You can try to fix this by hiring more teamsters, but it doesn't actually earn you more money.

The other solution is to incorporate an industry that generates smooth payouts and isn't dependent on teamsters: tourism. I don't know how much of my prejudice against tourism is that it took forever to be profitable in the original, and how much is the absence of intricate supply chains, but I wouldn't otherwise be very interested in tourism. The jobs are low quality, it's a pain to keep the workers happy without exposing the tourists to local color, and the money isn't that good. But it's steady.

This is but the best example of some really thoughtful game design in Tropico. It's not a thrill-a-minute game, but it is solid.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
"I know it's steam sale and all, but let me be clear: Heroes of Might and Magic 6 would be overpriced if Ubisoft paid you $50"
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
The first comedian to be funny about video games:



"Oh my G-d, I'm in a gun battle. Which one of these buttons isn't crouch?"

And while he's talking about unlockable content, this covers my current feelings on RPGs as well:

"I'm 38. I unlocked it in a shop with a credit card"
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. A few years ago I was reading Ocean, by Warren Ellis, and there was a character I couldn't figure out. All signs said fat butch, but then something wouldn't fit in with it. This bothered me for half the book until I realized the problem: she had short hair and was drawn with the proportions of an actual human being. Then I went and looked at the book I'd just finished, which was one of the Fables. Fables was an excellent series with many interesting, unique, believably flawed female characters, all of which were either withered crones or had stomachs like trampolines and C-cups, at a minimum (for example, Snow White is their mayor. And while looking for that picture, I discovered they're launching Fairest, devoted solely to the pretty members of the cast). Ever since then, I've been a lot more sympathetic to the argument that impossibly pretty characters in art are subtly influencing our expectations even if we rationally know that not every mayor looks like a lingerie model. At the same time, I'm not going to claim that the size of Leon's arms in Resident Evil 4 didn't make the game slightly more enjoyable. And I can't claim it was anything other than physical appearance because wow, in the real world that guy would be too stupid for me to feel comfortable with him holding a firearm.

One of the arguments is that hot male characters aren't as problematic as hot female is that the men are drawn as muscular and powerful, which isn't the same thing as objectification. Which is true as far as it goes, but is really an extension of the fact that the standards for hotness differ by gender- witness the fact that Tony Soprano, who has the physical constitution of a slug, is a minor sex symbol, but they made his female Italian counterpart a traditional bombshell. So the real problem is that hotness works synergisticly with other good traits (intelligence, strength, power, money) in men , but antagonistically with those same traits in women.* Arguably hotness and sexiness are antagonistic even with another set of stereotypically female traits (nurturing, caring, emotional intelligence). This problem extends far beyond video games, or nerd culture in general, and I don't have an immediate solution to it.

Also, I'd like to propose a guideline that you can't bring use bad things from the past in your art unless your art is about those bad things. So Song of Ice and Fire's rape and violence against women is okay because it's part of the point,** but The Witcher giving you trading cards representing the women you've fucked is not. Mad Men's omission of black people in the 60s is okay because it's a very subtle comment on how upper middle class white people interacted with black people at the time, Star Wars: The Old Republic giving you a slave girl to torture is not***. In fact, in general you shouldn't put that sort of sensitive, subtle subject in your MMO because people are dickheads.


*Which doesn't meant that there are no men who find intelligence or physical strength attractive. But Michel Phelps is getting way more offers than Amanda Beard.

**Although I'm unthrilled with how the options for girls are being awesome tomboys or girly girls who are into marriage to the exclusion of everything else because they're pants-on-head-retarded and not because that really is their only option.

***no, seriously. I am not kidding about this.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)


On the minus side, the cat will sometimes silently grab your leg during the scariest part, or use his toy that sounds just like a monster walking directly behind you. You take the bad with the good.

I could give a more detailed review, but basically it comes down to: do you enjoy being scared? If so, purchase Amnesia: The Dark Descent, ideally waiting for it to go on sale for $4. If no, proceed directly to watching people play it on youtube, because this is hilarious. My favorite is Screaming like a girl Season 2, but is more popular.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
This is an extremely first world problem, but... my vacuum cleaner broke my xbox 360 headset. No big deal, replacements are $4 on amazon- but got to get it quickly, because online play with live gold is the only reason to have a headset, and I only have a monthlong trial to determine if it's worth paying for. I order it on Friday, along with some other stuff that's not really urgent but would be nice to have. Monday, I start wondering why amazon hasn't sent me a ship e-mail. I check my order status and it lists the delivery time as 1 to 2 months out. I call, and find out that even though the head set is listed as in stock, they have to get it from their supplier, and that takes several weeks.

Customer service rep says that this is noted on the webpage. I don't call her on this because the following things have conspired to make talking to her just a little too difficult:

  1. She's just a little too quiet
  2. Call quality is just a smudge too low.
  3. She's either got a very mild accent I've never heard, or is almost-but-not-quite disguising a more serious accent, so in the middle of an otherwise easy-to-process sentence they'll be a word that completely throws me.

But all of this pales in comparison to Amazon's true genius: take forever to explain things.

Me: My order ship date is four weeks out and I wanted to know which item was holding it up so I can cancel it
Rep: One moment please... your order has several items, one of which will take much longer to ship, and that is why the ship date is one to two months away. It takes so long to ship because we need to get it from our suppliers, and that can take one to two months. The item is your XboX 360 doodad who cares about the specifics Headset. If you cancel the XboX 360 doodad who cares about the specifics Headset the other items will ship faster, because they will not have to wait for the XboX 360 doodad who cares about the specifics Headset to come in from our other supplier, which takes one to two months.
Me: okay
Rep: We apologize for the inconvenience, and... (long pause in which I think I might be getting some money back) ... you are free to cancel the XboX 360 doodad who cares about the specifics Headset so you will not have to wait on our supplier and your items will ship faster.

She's technically being helpful, but takes so long to do it that I'm really, really discouraged from asking follow up questions. So I didn't call her on her LIES that the wait time was listed on the item page.

I did, however, use the feedback form on the website to explain my complaint that such a long wait time was not listed on item page. Amazon nigh immediately e-mailed, telling me that... it took so long to ship because they had to wait for their supplier. Which sounds a lot like "out of stock" to me, but I don't care, I just want a way to know the wait time before ordering.

UPDATE: Amazon e-mailed back, the person successfully interpreted my order history and gave me a shipping upgrade on the replacement headset I ordered after cancelling the first one. Suspect the first reply was a bot. So... I guess my whining accomplished something?
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
I'm playing Condemned, a game the clerk warned me I'd need to play with the lights on so I didn't piss myself in fear, but thus far (20% in) seems to mostly just be startling and poorly lit. And when I say poorly lit, I mean poorly lit- there's some collection side quest(dead birds, seriously), and even when they give me a detector and I was walking right over one, I couldn't see it, because the bloody flashlight beam was too narrow. This made it easier to be startling, because I couldn't flashlight sweep faster than the antagonists (crazed homeless people, seriously) could reach me. Finally I had the bright idea to mess with the tv contrast and brightness, and now the game is much more playable.

The interesting thing is that rendering the world viewable also made it scarier. Previously, I was forced to adopt an attitude of "well, the crazed homeless people are going to hit me, and I'm going to flail around with my length of pipe, and either I survive or I don't." It was be fatalistic or ragequit. Now that I have a chance of seeing them coming, preparing, and fighting with some sort of strategy, it's scarier, because there's time for a sense of dread to build. I feel like there's a lesson for survival horror games here.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
I'm not a big fan of computer RPGs now, but I loved them as a kid. Some of that was because my mom wouldn't let us play FPSes, and my poor darwinfail tendons couldn't take action games in general and I talked myself into second choice. But I assume I also genuinely enjoyed them for gameplay reasons. Now I pretty much don't because, and I mean this in the best possible way, I already have a job. By which I mean not that RPGs feel like work (although grinding really, really does), but that I already have an activity in which I can solve challenges in a variety of ways, level up my skills to face progressively harder challenges, and have to make decisions with incomplete information. I know some people play RPGs for the story, but in order to be more fun than books they'd have to deliver information at a competitive speed. What life doesn't fulfill is my desire to shoot a bunch of zombies in the head and have a little alert come up telling me what a good job I did.

And that is why I play Left 4 Dead.
pktechgirlbackup: (amen)
I like consoles because they make things simple. If I want to futz with exactly what hardware I have, I'll use a PC. Consoles Just Work. That is one reason I didn't get a grown up console (PS3 or XboX 360)- too many choices as to exactly what hard drive size I wanted, and too expensive to fix after the fact. I could save money by modding it myself, but that's a lot of... not exactly work, but a lot of decisions and anxiety, plus with the red ring of death so common you really didn't want to void your warranty. Meanwhile, the Wii was there, telling me it was a perfect black box I never needed to think about. But then the Wii kept making up new peripherals, and the cost of the xbox proprietary hard drives dropped to the point that I don't feel like I'm being ripped off for lacking the can-do spirit to mod it myself. Microsoft and Sony have both introduced motion control peripherals since then, but somehow it seems less daunting now.

Meanwhile, games keep coming out for consoles. No AAA game coming out this year could play on even a top of the line computer built in 2006 (year the 360 was released), but they're all out for the consoles. They can do this because advances in the algorithms expand the horizons of what they can do- most obviously in graphics, but I'm sure in other gameplay aspects as well. If you showed me Silent Hill 2 (2001) and Resident Evil 4 (2005) side by side, I would bet you money they had significantly different hardware requirements. RE4 just looks so much better, even though SH2 is wrapped in fog to lower the computational power needed. But unless there are little gremlins swapping out the processor when I change the disc- and I'm not ruling that out- it has to be software advancements.

I feel like this is vaguely good for the moral character of developers. No, you can't just require everyone to overclock their processor, you have to think about what you're doing. If you really genuinely need something for game play reasons, invent some new math. It builds character.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
My old assumption was that video game prices followed an S curve: extremely expensive at first, little to no price movement for a while, fairly quick deceleration, then stabilization at the low end (if they don't simply disappear). I based this on: the years and years I waited for the price of Civ IV to go below $50, the $9 I paid for Resident Evil 4, and the $3 I paid for boxfulls of atari games at church garage sales. As it turned out, none of these were good data points.

Based on more thorough research at gamestop, the actual curve seems to be more like a parabola: high at first, plunging downward, and then going back up at unknown speed. 6-8 year old PS2 games are equivalent in cost to two year old XboX 360 games, and double the price of three year old 360 games. PS1 games, by which I mean Silent Hill 1, are at surely-you're-joking prices, if you can find them at all. Admittedly, I'm looking at only the best loved PS2 games (Shadows of the Colossus, Katamari, Silent Hill 2)- but I'm also looking at the best reviewed 360 games. I'm astonished at how fast games move to be collector's items. The only other explanation is that more copies of each xbox game are printed. That could explain why RE4, which is the only PS2 game I want that is still available new, is half the cost of other games of similar quality, despite having 5x the gameplay time.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
It was half an hour in before I got to do anything but listen to other people talk. But don't think I was uninvolved- I had to keep hitting X so they'd keep talking.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
For a game I criticized for not living up to its own standards of writing, I go back and watch Portal 2 walkthoughs a lot, just to enjoy the dialogue (So. How are you holding up? Because I'm a potato ). I'm considering replaying it to grab the other achievements and re-earn the dialogue for myself. Something doesn't fit here, and I think I've figured out what it is.

Portal 1 was such a creative game, in both mechanics and writing. I think that's why large parts of Portal 2 bothered me tremendously. All the scenes I rewatch are the robots talking. Those are brilliant. But anytime the human was onstage, all the oxygen got sucked out of the room (metaphorically). It doesn't help that his voice overs were on the worst levels, and they got the most cliched voice actor possible.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
So this was going to be my review of Portal 2, but that's going to be pretty quick: great mechanics, puzzles that are fun but not as fun as the first*, dialogue that lacks the memeability of the first but is guaranteed to give you at least one thing you can't stop saying**, and a completely unnecessary explanation for questions NO ONE WAS ASKING. I'd heard the multiplayer did a better job at living up to the fun puzzle hunting feeling of the first, which was a terrible thing to tell me because it meant that both parts of the game labored under the massive expectations generated by the awesomeness of its predecessor, rather than just the single player. It's a good game, but don't pay retail for it. My $30 for a used copy was tolerable, $50 for a new copy is too high, if you can find a portal buddy to wait for a price drop with you do that.

Portal 2 is fundamentally a puzzle game, and playing puzzle games with someone who has already solved them sucks, so you need to pick out a friend ahead of time and promise yourselves to each other. Pick someone you like, because communicating plans is difficult and they will kill you several times. If at all possible, pick someone who's roughly as good as you. My portal buddy B scored well on the "liking each other" and "unlikely to stab each other" metrics, but got stuck once in the entire single player game, compared to probably a dozen times for me. The first 80% of the multiplayer campaign was us walking into a room, him telling me where to put portals before I'd even seen what was happening, and then us suddenly being done. It was pretty much the same experience as playing with someone who'd played it before.

But the last 20% is where it got interesting. The difficulty curve in Portal 2 is pretty good, and suddenly he could no longer just see the answer. And it turns out, he had no backup strategy. Meanwhile, I had built up my figuring things out skills through the single player campaign, leading to conversations like this:

Me: [mechanic] the [mechanic] over there.
B: Why?
Me: I dunno, but it's clearly set up to do that, so let's try it and see what happens.
B: But... then what?
Me: That's a problem for future us.

This didn't reverse the discrepancy by any means, since he had as good a chance as I did at seeing the next move. At best it maybe got to 60/40 in my favor, 50/50 is also plausible. But this portion was a lot more fun, which makes me think that the whole thing would have been a lot more if I'd been playing with someone of equal skill.

Related Anecdote: I am pretty good at math, but my brother is amazing. He took an IQ test in elementary school and scored perfect on the math section. I had to be taught math, he would just see it. But that meant that when he eventually got to math he couldn't just see (and this took till high school, but it did happen), he was screwed. He had no problem solving method beyond looking at the problem and knowing the answer. Meanwhile, I'd been developing my "writing things down" and "intermediate steps" methods for years, and ended up going much farther in math than he did, and with much less frustration.***

I think people or at least Americans tend to conflate initial skill level, rate of learning, and skill level ceiling, and I think it does us a disservice. I know I've flat out given up on some things- remembering names and faces, having some sort of directional sense- that I'm now pretty sure I could improve on if I put effort into it. It's amazing what a difference conceiving of something as learnable makes.


*Note to developers: where is the one patch of portleable wall? is not a puzzle. It's an annoyance.

**For me? Aristotle vs. MASHYSPIKEPLATE. and "I literally don't have the energy to lie to you." For my friend? I'm in space, which I didn't appreciate at the time because I missed the context, but is steadily growing on me.

***Interestingly, B reported the same experience at math as my brother. I really want to insist that he can't have been visualizing things to the extent my brother was, but some of that is that my brother's right-brainness really screwed him in ways B has not suffered from, and it would be unfair if B also had superior math skills.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
Me: I like video games because I'm bad at them. Usually when I'm bad at a thing I have to work really hard to get better at it, but I can just use brute force and walkthroughs and that's okay because it's a video game.
Friend: Yeah. You've done everything you need to by putting the disc in. And if you can't do that, there's Steam.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
This is me, explaining Katamari to a co-worker who said he was tired because he spent all night playing Starcraft.

Me: Yeah, I've been playing Katamari lately.
Him: What's that?
Me: you roll around a ball and it picks up stuff that's smaller than you and it makes the ball bigger.
Him: And then you use the ball to...?
Me: Nothing. I mean, you turn it into a star, but that's just the story, not a mechanic.
Him: but when you pick up certain items, they make you roll faster or shoot lasers or something, right?
Me: Nope. You just get bigger.

The point being: Katamari is an excellent game, but I have probably given up all chance of ever being a hardcore gamer by saying that. Also by being bad at it.

What I learned from Resident Evil was that killing things was fun, but exploration for the point of stealing things was just as fun if not more so. Katamari cuts out the middle man by having a single action that could be construed as both exploring, stealing, and killing, which lets you grow bigger and kill/steal more things. And because you're in the same environment the entire time, you have the satisfaction of moving from running away from things, to absorbing them, to absorbing their houses and then eventually godzilla. It's short, but I refuse to consider that a negative unless a game costs a lot of money, and I borrowed this game from a friend for free. According to the internet Katamari is chauk full of replay value, but I don't seem to be good enough to do anything but make the same mistakes over and over again, so I gave up.

The incessant talking between levels was my biggest complaint. It has that obnoxious old-timey thing where you have to hit a button twice to skip each sentence, with pauses between sentences. If you were lucky. The fact that I found myself leaving to empty the litter box between levels is probably a bad sign. The worst were the levels where, for reasons that don't matter, finishing early meant you'd done poorly. I wanted to retry the level, but I couldn't take listening to my father drone on more than twice, knowing that a gust of wind could have me fail out the next one in 30 seconds too.

Katamari represents a personal triumph for me. I basically had to give up everything but god games because of my weak, inflammation prone tendons. 3 years ago I tried Katamari and loved it, but couldn't play for more than 10 minutes before my wrists caught on fire. This week I played it with no problems. Hurray for healing.

Take home message: stealing things is fun and crushing things is fun and combining them into a single action is awesome.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
Resident Evil 4 in review: Extremely good game. I criticize it for being a little long (~50 hours of gameplay), but I keep attempting to play the minigames I unlocked afterwards, so maybe its length was fine. Speaking of the minigames: I am absolutely terrible at them. The fact that the main game stayed at a challenging but achievable level the entire time is a testimony to its fantastic autoadujusting difficulty. The story, dialagoue, and voice acting are complete crap, but it comes off as adorable, not grating. The graphics are past the mystical point where graphics affect my enjoyment of the game, so yay. The level design is fantastic, I might make some minor changes to how maps are displayed but by and large they do a great job at allowing and encouraging exploration without leaving you lost. The final boss fight violated the cardinal rule of story telling by having a pivotal moment driven by another character, but it was still fun. I am in continued awe of the fact that I used four gun types (with two others I ignored) and each served their own individual purpose.

What really stands out is how many different ways there are to beat a particular challenge. You could be a fantastic shot, a good tactician, or spend a lot of ammo. I got a lot of milage out of arranging things so when I shot an enemy, they fell a long way, letting gravity save me some bullets. Boss fights often give you the option to dodge attacks, or climb off a ledge they pushed you over. The quick time events were annoying but tolerable.

In conclusion: totally worth the $9 I spent on it.
pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
Thus far (~30% through), Resident Evil 4 is a fantastic game. I enjoy the shooting of things that are trying to eat me, I enjoy the puzzle games, I enjoy the strategy that's required when several things want to eat me at once, and some of them have figured out what that little red laser emanating from my gun means. I enjoy the way my cats lessen the survival horror experience by cuddling me, then heighten it by surprise hugging my head while I'm fighting a giant invisible crustacean. The autoadjusting difficulty is amazing.

But the game suffers from two major flaws: one is that you turn your head agonizingly slowly, especially when you have your weapons out, so it's really easy for monsters to sneak up on you during a firefight. The second is that the girl you are tasked with rescuing is designed to make you hate her. Her self defense skills are limited to ducking (slowly) if you point a gun at her, and running, but only to or behind you, never on her own initiative. They gave her the worst effing dialogue and a whiny voice actress. Thus far she has done two useful things, but I'm pretty sure one wasn't intended by the game designers, and the other features her continuing to turn a crank right up till the very moment a zombie grabs her. I guess she had a lot of faith in my sniping abilities, even though I was very actively and loudly involved in shooting some zombies that were trying to eat me. Basically, the designers did everything short of tattooing "useless twat" on her forehead.

I understand that they didn't have the AI to make her smart at the time (or now, really, depending on who you ask about the AI assistant in RE5), but there was still a simple way to solve one flaw with the other. If an enemy is getting close and is out of your field of vision, have Ashley shout "to your Left" (or right, or behind, if you were stupid enough to engage multiple enemies with open space behind you, you idiot). That way you would have a reason to miss her when she gets herself re-kidnapped. If she could spot the invisible monsters better than you she might even move up to useful.

Oh, and make her shrieks for help a little less grating. That would be great.

Thanks,
-me

Profile

pktechgirlbackup: (Default)
pktechgirlbackup

May 2014

S M T W T F S
    123
45 678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 09:18 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios