Given that they have you meet a cowboy at the end of that mission, it is kinda understandable. I wonder who thought that having a cowboy as a main character would be a good idea for people outside of the US.
Cowboys could easily appeal to people from Canada, Mexico, and Argentina as well. I’ve come across a disturbing number of British men who harbor secret fantasies of being wild west cowboys, so probably them too.
They were absolutely trying to appeal to Americans by making a cowboy character. Americans go nuts for cowboys. Everyone is downright obsessed with them. You can’t find a single home in the country without seeing cowboy memorabilia and they watch cowboy movies on the weekends, it’s crazy
I live in CA, literally entrenched in the history of “the old west” and I can honestly say not a single person I know has any cowboy memorabilia in their homes lol.
My dad had a little cast iron statue of a cowboy wrangling a bull on his desk at work growing up (a gift from a client) , but that is literally the only instance I can think of lol
And I also don’t know a single person who regularly watches cowboy movies, I can’t even remember the last time a cowboy movie was made in the US… I think that remake with Chris Pratt?
It’s a classic figure in western culture… and a fitting character given his story and the planet he’s from. We’ve had plenty cowboys in movies, comic strips and I’m from europe… Not my favourite setting but it works…
Whats wrong with a space cowboy? His faction is often referred to as lawless and wild. They believe in a wild sort of freedom. Astronauts are kinda space cowboys anyway. Also space cowboys are not a new concept in media. What about a cowboy would make people not get the tutorial?
It certainly put me off. Personally, I hate it when sci-fi writers use worn-out stereotypes in futuristic settings. Like the ‘Irish, but not Irish’ episode of StarTrek TNG.
I’d already seen a couple of streamers play random side quests, and this intro just made me definitively realise that this was not the game for me.
If I use a sample size of me and use my library of a measurement, it’s probably more than 25% of games I haven’t even launched let alone completing the first mission.
Dude, I put like 60 hours into Skyrim my first time before I thought “hey… where’s my shout powers and all the dragons?” Because as soon as Hadvar said “we should split up to avoid suspicion” I unchecked the active quest, said “adios!” And vanished into the trees. I had to come back at like level 30 or something to do the entire MQ from Riverwood to the end.
That’s just how a lot of people play these. I don’t wanna follow their story; I wanna make my own.
Edit: Oh and this is all besides the fact that not only do mods disable achievements, so now do console commands in Starfield. I’ve had to no clip a few times to get unstuck while jumping around with low gravity and ending up places I shouldn’t be, so there are probably some achievements I didn’t get simply because that command likely disabled them (it just gives a generic warning that some commands will disable them, but not which ones).
I don’t have this game yet but I know out of the box modding any of the Fallout or Elder Scrolls games disables achievements (but you can get around this with other mods), so I assume it’s the same here. Bethesda games being some of the most modded games of all time I wouldn’t be surprised if even a lot of first time players were using one or two mods and having their achievements disabled.
For what it’s worth, I am one of these people. I’d already watched a couple of streamers play random sidequests, but when I saw the early game I just couldn’t stomach playing any further.
I am confused by a lot of complaints about the game I’ve seen, namely “it feels barren”, “id rather have 3 good planets over the 1000 procedural generated ones”, and then theres the people with the same complaints they have every time bethesda releases something. I have seen only like 1 trailer for the game, kept away from all the press and whatnot and somehow I feel like I still had a better concept in my mind of what this game would be like than most others did? So many complaints I can just address as “it’s a bethesda space game, and this is what it’s supposed to be like”.
Many people don’t like fallout and elder scrolls, and that’s fine, but if you dislike those games why buy this one? Especially why in the hell would you PREORDER this one?
And secondly a lot of people ive seen talk about this have obviously never played a true space game before. I’ve played no mans sky, elite dangerous, empyrion, heck I’ve played most of them and they are all barren, that is the point. And if bethesda had hand crafted these planets we would have maybe idk, 5 planets id wager that we could actually explore, which is the total opposite for what bethesda wanted to do here.
So many complaints of this game I just feel are “well yeah, obviously” that I’m struggling to find the actual issues in the game. My only thing that bugs me so far is how I can’t fly around on the planets surface, and the lack of a dune buggy.
I spent five hours exploring Nesoi where my house is yesterday, largely so long because there were a few unique biomes to check out and then I happened on a random quest that had interesting stories and voiced lore snippets and things, and took me some time to complete. Also hooked into another off world quest that I’m not done yet but has been really fun.
I would put it on a very similar level to NMS, in that the world does get samey after a while… But there are biomes on the planet, so at least I can find mountains and deserts and things. Looking forward to whatever mods or dlc increase the baseline biodiversity on lush worlds but I think five hours contendedly exploring a single planet is a pretty good stat at launch to be honest. Plus the quests are actually fun and good and there’s combat with more than one kind of enemy.
My bar for their games is high and its been exceeded. I would be happier if it had every feature I can dream up but if I wanted a game that had an infinite scope and an endless development cycle I’d just pay $10k for a ship in star citizen and hope it releases before I die. Thankfully I’m able to enjoy a game made by one of the most lauded and successful video game developers in the world and not be a curmudgeon about it.
Not trying to be a dick, just seems like everyone else is. Don’t buy it if you need x feature and it isn’t there, maybe they will learn a lesson and make the game you wanted them to next time.
Feel like you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying, that statement is not to excuse bugs.
Demand better
Bro I am pleased with the game? I am having fun and I think it’s a good game, as the other guy who replied to you said my bar for this game has been either met or exceeded. I hold bethesda to the same bar as other devs, and people painting this to be as bad as the fo4 or f76 launches are just wrong from everything ive played and seen. Any bug I’ve had has been purely visual and did not hamper my gameplay, and in 20ish hours I’ve had one crash. And this is on linux even, which makes how stable the game has been even more impressive. Gameplaywise too I think it’s great fun.
you help make the entire video games industry worse.
For the record I would like more games like this one. I am the target audience for this game, I enjoy it, and if more devs made games like it I would be happy.
For the record I would like more games like this one. I am the target audience for this game, I enjoy it, and if more devs made games like it I would be happy.
That’s interesting. My personal impression was that, since the success of GTA3 and Skyrim, basically every AAA title has to be some kind of open world sandbox game with as many features as possible. Personally, I really dislike that; I want a tight narrative and strong core gameplay, and I couldn’t care less for stuff like crafting and base building. (I’m also a bit saddened by the way Bethesda took Fallout 4 and Fallout 76 in. I want to play RPGs, not looter shooters.)
Some studios, like Larian and Obsidian, are still making these games, so I’m happy with that. I really enjoyed Outer Worlds, even though people were criticizing it for being too confined (or maybe especially because it was confined). I’m hoping to get around to BG3 and DOS2 soon. But it feels like we’ve had a drought for more than a decade.
So anyway, I found it surprising to read that you feel there aren’t enough Bethesda-like games, because it feels to me like everyone is copying them. Of course, they are masters of their craft, so maybe the problem is that other studios just aren’t any good at it :P
My tastes have shifted a bit, kind of due to how bethesda has taken their games past few years. First rpg i fell in love with was new vegas, I adore that game and was really at first disappointed in how they handled fallout 4. But even though it wasn’t what I thought I wanted, fallout 4 does what it does better than any other similar game imo. That looter shooter gameplay loop with the settlements hooked me in after a little while, and now I’d rather have a game like that with complete freedom to do anything i want. It’s like comfort food for me that I can keep coming back to, don’t ask how many hours I have in fallout 4 lol.
Not to say I don’t enjoy those other games, I plan on getting baldurs gate 3 soon, my friend kind of sold me on it tonight, looks great. Outer Worlds man, I really want to enjoy but I’ve never gotten past 10 hours in save. As you said, it felt too confined for a game that gives you a freakin spaceship. You give me a spaceship, and I’m going to want to land anywhere and go anywhere, and that’s what Starfield does for me. I told a friend recently that Starfield is what I wanted Outer Worlds to be, but for the record i do fully intent to try and finish that game.
What were your favorite parts of outer worlds if i can ask?
So anyway, I found it surprising to read that you feel there aren’t enough Bethesda-like games, because it feels to me like everyone is copying them.
It’s funny you say that, cause I feel like no one else is doing what they do, atleast to the same caliber. We discussed outer worlds, other than that the only similar game I’ve really enjoyed was Kingdom Come Deliverance. That game is great, but it is pretty different, and doesn’t hold the same replay value.
What were your favorite parts of outer worlds if i can ask?
My usual way of playing RPGs is exploring the whole map, picking up every side quest I can find, and then doing them in an order that feels logical. Outer Worlds made that really rewarding: it’s actually possible to feel like you’ve covered the whole map and and all the content is interesting and fun.
Also, the story and the characters are great, and the game mechanics don’t get in the way (like how there are only three types of ammo and just no lockpicking minigame).
I think I liked the companion quests the most, because they really flesh out their characters.
The DLCs do turn into a bit of a slog near the end, when you’re just running through corridors shooting at stuff. But afterwards, your companions will want to talk about all the horrors they experienced, so at least you can share that feeling with them :P
It’s funny you say that, cause I feel like no one else is doing what they do, atleast to the same caliber. We discussed outer worlds, other than that the only similar game I’ve really enjoyed was Kingdom Come Deliverance. That game is great, but it is pretty different, and doesn’t hold the same replay value.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance is still on my backlog :) I started a playthrough a few years back, but the cut scenes were so long that real life kept getting in the way :P I only got to the castle after you flee from your village. Does it open up a lot after that?
I was disappointed in the exploration in outer worlds if i recall right, it felt closer to a bioware game like kotor than it did a bethesda game. Which is not inherently a bad thing, I like bioware games, just not as much as bethesda. This conversation does make me want to replay & reexplore this game, i recall loving how it looked visually.
he game mechanics don’t get in the way (like how there are only three types of ammo and just no lockpicking minigame)
I totally get that being a strong point for some, i however appreciate the complexity from things like starfield now having like 3 separate kinds of shotgun shells, not including all the other ammo.
I totally recommend Kingdom Come deliverance, it’s one of my favorites. The map opens up a good bit after the intro, and given that fast travel is risky in the game it makes it feel even larger. Yeah, the cutscenes can get real long, but i was pleased with the story and the voice acting so i didnt mind too much, even if Henry can be a little dull at times.
Haha, I’m also not getting any notifications because my app doesn’t support them yet xD Better late than never!
it felt closer to a bioware game like kotor than it did a bethesda game.
Now that you mention it, it does! I really liked the KotOR games, so that’s probably why Outer Worlds clicked as much for me as it did. I did try replaying KotOR a while ago, but I was bothered by how old it felt. I’ve never finished Mass Effect though, so maybe I should. And Dragon Age: Origins is said to be the last “real” Bioware RPG, so that’s also interesting.
It’s just too bad those games are all so old. I’m currently playing Fallout: New Vegas because I’d never finished it and I’m trying to get into a habit of actually finishing games, but the transition back from OW to FNV was quite a shock. It’s not just graphics; older UIs can be really bad. I tried getting back into a game of Fallout 1, but it felt like just playing the game cost way too much effort.
I totally recommend Kingdom Come deliverance, it’s one of my favorites.
Thanks for the rec! I’ve put it a bit higher on my backlog, after Disco Elysium and BG3. Great stuff ahead :)
You’re misunderstanding. At this point “Bethesda game” is its own subgenre, and many complaints about this game are complaints about the subgenre itself. If you don’t like being the Big Special Hero, you won’t like this game. If you want the game to have rich, detailed combat that stays challenging throughout, it probably won’t be this one either
If you want a huge world with lots of curious little things to explore and more side quests than you can do in a lifetime, built on a backbone of a kind of flimsy story (imo not a terrible one this time) that you are mostly gonna skip out on to go do dungeon hops and loot accumulation, then you’re probably golden with this. And by now, most of us should know what we’re paying for, I think. As long as you expect and want what they consistently make, this game delivers very well
On top of that, the combat and general mechanics are just far better than the usual Bethesda offerings this time around. It’s fun to fight in zero g. It’s an absolute blast to disable an enemy ship and then board it. The side quests are legit quite fun and exciting, with NPCs I’ve found I really enjoy and want to see again.
As long as you expect a game that is like Bethesda makes, it’s a very nice and fun one that delivers more than I had expected from them by a long shot. If you expected a deep, hardcore indie gem, you’re going to be disappointed and also you’re maybe kind of a silly person. It’s a mass produced game for a large audience, that’s the stick by which to measure it.
They’re not saying a Bethesda game is supposed to be bad. They’re saying a Bethesda game is supposed to be… a first/third person western RPG with exploration and looter-sometimes-shooter elements and a heavy emphasis on skill checks. That’s been every one of their games since Morrowind besides FO76. Expecting different at this point would be asinine, especially considering Todd and Bethesda repeatedly said this was an RPG.
Yeah I think it’s less that people are setting unrealistic expectations for a Bethesda game, and more that people are getting fed up with being told they should be happy with all the faults “because it’s Bethesda”.
Bethesda gets a really weird pass in the gaming industry and when it comes to shallow content and bugs. I think a lot of that comes from the modability of their games, so that with mods and a few years of patches, the games often end up being a lot of fun - but the fact is that the games themselves, as released by Bethesda are usually hollow shells by comparison.
For instance it always irks me when people say Skyrim VR is the best VR game - you literally need a couple dozen mods just to make it function as an actual VR game (lack of 3d audio in a VR game is just unforgivable imo, let alone any actual physics interactions).
I think people are just starting to get fed up with Bethesda’s business model of building barebones games and counting on modders to make it fun. And then people get further fed up when they say so online and get told things like “but yeah it’s Bethesda, what did you expect?”
As you can see in the other replies, I don’t think that’s what people mean at all.
I haven’t had a single serious bug in thirty odd hours so far. I, and others here, aren’t saying it’s a good game “despite it all”, we’re saying it’s a good game on its own, but if you were looking for something that is in a different style than Bethesda makes, you’re barking up the wrong tree. It’s a simplistic mass appeal looter shooter rpg in space. It’s a good one of those. It’s also subject to all the expected limitations of a game like this, that’s all. It’s not going to be something it’s not. If you expected to pay for a good one of the kind of looter shooter RPGs we expect from this company, it is what you paid for.
This article has a pretty negative slant, but is anyone actually sad they’re going? I’ve been playing on and off since 2014, and I never have enough shards. My friends that have played almost nonstop since launch constantly have more than they could ever spend, even if they masterworked every piece of gear in their collection. Seems like a good change, honestly.
It’s definitely a good change. I have so many legendary shards that the currency might as well not exist, but my newer friends are constantly running out. It’s a good change for everyone.
I have over 50k shards that I will never use so it’ll be sad to see the high number go away but other than that, I couldn’t imagine a soul being bothered by the legendary shard change. It’s honestly a great thing to help simplify parts of the games economy for new and returning players
I have way more than I could possibly need, and really don’t mind their idea to remove them. What I am a bit “salty” over is the lack of currency exchange for their removal.
I would love to trade in a bunch to get prisms, ascendant alloys or the one to get the enhanced perks (I forget the name). But Bungie still has their arbitrary limits in place. Again, I support the removal, but I did still grind to accumulate them, so not being able to turn them into something useful feels like a waste.
It’s like Cyberpunk again, people gave themselves grand ideas about what a game would be regardless of what the Devs were saying, then got upset it isn’t the game they imagined but the one they were told they were getting.
I get what you’re saying, this happens with almost every major release but cyberpunk promised far for than it delivered. The version 2.0 that released soon should have been what we got in the initial release. We were promised multiplayer, that got cancelled. We were promised multiple dlc, phantom liberty is the only dlc they’re going to release. I’m still excited nonetheless.
They would be very similar. if Bethesda was competent both games have lots of similar elements from, yes having ships to scanning resources on a planet to having a jetpack. So it is fair and understandtable to compare these games pretty much the biggest difference is that Bethesda not having seamless apace travel and I ain’t letting them off the hook for “well they are just different games 🤓” bullshit.
Depends, of you’re jumping to a system you have enough range/fuel for it is, it don’t need to be scanned to enter the sector, sometimes your forced to go though other places you may want to avoid.
I don’t think it’s unfair to point out that many of the people who were interested in Starfield leading up to launch thought they were getting more of a space sim than they did, proceeded to look for alternatives, and NMS was there being pretty good at what it does now. The OP article demonstrates this and is not a comparison between the games. In my case, Starfield just reminded me that NMS exists and I decided I’d rather be playing it. Fundamentally comparing the games is ridiculous, but it’s no surprise that NMS ended up in the conversation.
I recently started playing NMS again right before Echoes, although I didn’t know Echoes was coming up. While I never made a conscious link between seeing all of the news about Starfield and me choosing that game when I was last looking through the plethora for something to inspire me, I think it may have had a subconscious effect on my choice.
Maybe they should have paid attention to what was actually being said by the Devs then. They clarified that it wasn’t going to be like NMS/Elite/etc at least a year out from release.
NMS at least has planets without buildings or signs of life, but they're certain types of planets (eg. lifeless/airless) There are definitely some that have far fewer ships going around too.
NMS is more expansive in some ways, but also fairly shallow in terms of some of the core mechanics. There's a lot of things to do like having a settlement or building a fleet and sending the fleet on missions, but again, it's a bit shallow. At the beginning you're largely focused on resource collecting to build a base, and unlock upgrades. Over time you can automate a lot of this and focus on other things. However, if you don't like the resource collecting to unlock things, you're probably not going to enjoy it.
I think the space flight and combat in NMS feels better. For whatever reason, in Starfield space flight and combat feels very slow to me. It doesn't help that the UI in the starship does this weird laggy update. The seamlessness of flying into a planet can be fun in space combat and the ships will follow you.
NMS has way more copy-paste assets. Starfield at least has grand cities and some unique set pieces or a few different options ,but every crashed freighter in NMS is identical. The buildings in NMS have a tiny bit of variance but they're all like 1-2 room buildings. All space stations and space ports are identical (just the core race changes). There are pirate space stations, but they're the same basic one but darker and they've moved the vendors inward a bit into tents instead of stalls. A little bit of this is baked into the story of NMS to some extent, but that doesn't exactly help it.
My only quibble with this response is that in my mind ground combat is unbelievably orders of magnitude better in Starfield (you actually have access to different guns and enemy types!), and while I can understand preferring the speed of NMS space combat, I ultimately find the mechanics of it pretty shallow and enjoy the system shuffelling of Starfield, I feel like an ideal system would combine them both.
Great points! Yeah there's definitely a lot more variety and skill involved in Starfield. Most of the NMS ground combat is in the open and is easy to cheese, but it is satisfying to hop in your ship and start shooting things (though now they have it trigger incoming aircraft).
I enjoyed the planetary exploration in No Man’s Sky. Some planets have an outpost, but most don’t. In No Man’s Sky there are several alien races and artifacts they left behind you can learn their language from.
There are a huge number of planets, and some have strange reality altering properties. They have different weather and conditions. There is a ginormous amount of alien life that you can catalogue and interact with and even tame. The planets themselves show a huge variety of differences. There is even underground and underwater environments with unique life suited to those environments.
The base building is fun. You can do a lot and you can even travel to galactic hubs and worlds that other players have worked on.
Even travelling through space is more fun. You are able to fly to planets and land on them seamlessly. You can own several different space ships and even giant freighters that can contain your ships and frigates you can send to other star systems.
I do enjoy the zen of NMS (nothing like piloting alone on the surface of a planet with the sound of the rain falling on the cockpit), but even after all those years and cool upgrades, it still feels so empty… If you enjoy tabletop RPGs and have an opportunity to play one with like-minded friends, I recommend you try Traveller. It’s all those things you mentioned, in a way, way bigger and denser scope. :) Also with actual civilizations, empires, politics, commerce, wars, fleets, etc.
Lol tell this to people who are upset that every planet doesn't have a thriving colony in it. The "empty planets" are frustrating to them.
Not that you or they are wrong, it just highlights that matters of opinion on things like this are a spectrum, and sometimes you end up on the far end. I like that I can land on a planet and have something besides just rocks, but also that's it's procedurally generated so that it isn't the same every time. It's false replayability, sure, but if I like playing the game, it doesn't matter to me that the layouts are the same.
I thought this way back when i first played it. But I’ve been spending the lasts days playing and it got so much better.
The environments are no longer the same everywhere, sure you will find matching planets but they don’t all look like asteroids with hair anymore. Minerals dont stick out of the ground anymore. And underground caves exists.
The multiplayer aspect got better too (or so i hear, didn’t get to try it yet).
The stories are more engaging with specific npc’s interacting with you.
Never thought space combat sucked? It’s not to the level of Elite Dangerous, but it’s somewhat entertaining, and accomplishes what need to be done imo.
It’s an MMORPG so of course you have grinding, and for my current playthrough it isn’t boring yet. I’ve got a minecraft vibe, where you upgrade gear and ammass items for future uses.
love that you can get pets now and use them for more than simply have around, I got some kind of panther yesterday, was able to mount some guns to it and now it helps me in combat (kinda tedious to use idk if i fully figured it out yet, but sometimes the companion won’t attack).
All that and i only started playing, there’s the whole frigate thing, and also settlements to protect. I’m told you can have some kind of fleet to send on missions, and i’m certain there’s other huge content i’m missing that i dont know of yet.
I played it like 3 months ago before the Echoes update, so this isn’t based on the launch version or anything.
The environments are no longer the same everywhere, sure you will find matching planets but they don’t all look like asteroids with hair anymore. Minerals dont stick out of the ground anymore. And underground caves exists.
I mean yeah, but they don’t look any better or more varied than Starfield’s planets, that’s for sure. It’s neat that they added caves but the caves are also pretty boring. There’s not much in them beyond some more resources. You don’t have the expansiveness or endlessness of minecraft caves nor the buried mines and mob spawners and lava and more interesting underground stuff.
Never thought space combat sucked? It’s not to the level of Elite Dangerous, but it’s somewhat entertaining, and accomplishes what need to be done imo.
It’s serviceable, but I wouldn’t describe it as fun, as in I don’t actively enjoy the space combat. I find Starfield’s juggling of systems and targeting on top of standard dog fighting maneuvering at least a little more engaging, but a serviceable system that’s not that much fun kind of describes most of No Man’s Sky to me.
It’s an MMORPG so of course you have grinding, and for my current playthrough it isn’t boring yet. I’ve got a minecraft vibe, where you upgrade gear and ammass items for future uses.
I find it’s crafting to be far less satisfying than Minecraft’s or say Subnautica’s, and a lot more grindy, but that could just be me.
Again, I know they have all these different systems, but it really feels like each system is just barely enough of a system to entertain you for a couple hours, but doesn’t have the depth / polish / interweaving complexity to truly hold you.
I played it not that long ago. The comment above is still pretty much spot on. There’s base building now I guess. There’s still nothing to keep it interesting.
I literally played it like 3 months ago, before the most echoes update, but from the looks of the update notes I think my description still likely stands.
Really? You can’t fathom how someone would consider NMS a better game? Both games are barely comparable other than using space as a backdrop. Judging by the reaction online, it seems like many people were lead to believe that Starfield would be a space sim and came up wanting when it was more of a sci-fi Fallout, with mostly optional engagement with the space elements. For those people, I can see merit in recommending they check out No Man’s Sky, which has a shallow, bit widely-spread space simulation to engage with.
I don’t think it’s useful to try and argue which game is better, but I would much rather play No Man’s Sky any day of the week. Bethesda RPGs have long lost their luster for me since the Oblivion days, and now just stand as a testament of disappointing writing, stagnant technology and under-baked systems. Starfield does not show any meaningful signs of breaking the norm.
Really? You can’t fathom how someone would consider NMS a better game?
Correct.
Both games are barely comparable other than using space as a backdrop.
People who say X things aren’t comparable usually seem to grossly misunderstand how comparisons work. They’re very similar games and even if they weren’t they would still be comparable, the end result of the comparison is just that they would be different.
I don’t think it’s useful to try and argue which game is better, but I would much rather play No Man’s Sky any day of the week.
That’s fine but I still can’t fathom why. The only part of it that’s better than Starfield is flying to and from space.
Why do we need to keep pitting these games against each other, aside from being set in space they’re not even remotely similar gameplay wise. One is a survival game framework, the other is a RPG/Lifesim. There’s plenty of room for both in the market.
Title is a bit click-baity, but the core message is the game has seen a boost in users since it's recent update that was just before the starfield launch.
I don’t think it’s surprising that a sci fi game with exploration elements from a major AAA studio renewed interest in a sci fi survival/exploration game from a smaller studio. If you want more of the exploration part of Starfield, No Man’s Sky is the natural option.
Starfield held my interest for a week. It’s okay, but it’s my least favorite polygon-based Bethesda game besides F76. The aging engine just wasn’t made for a game of this scope. I tried No Man’s Sky and didn’t like it, just not my thing.
I’ve played to 150 on fo76, the funniest thing to me is that npcs were an after thought for 76 and still feel more real than starfields citizens… So odd
vg247.com
Aktywne