Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Video Game Sequels - How Much is Too Much?

ShayrielaShayriela Registered User new member
I'm curious about something: the video game industry has been criticized for simply cranking out sequel after sequel with nothing new or creative. Yet some argue that these long running franchises have dedicated fans who want to continue to play within these specific, established franchises. Others say companies brand a game with a big name so they can make a profit without needing to be creative or innovative (I'm looking at you CoD). So are sequels a bad thing? Are they making our gaming experience narrow and repetitive? Or does getting to immerse yourself again and again in a world that is familiar remain fun and interesting?

Discuss!

«1

Posts

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Well, what are your thoughts on the matter?

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    There are 25 years worth of Madden games.

    Think about that.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Seventeen sequels. That is the answer.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Shayriela wrote: »
    So are sequels a bad thing? Are they making our gaming experience narrow and repetitive? Or does getting to immerse yourself again and again in a world that is familiar remain fun and interesting?

    Yes.

    PSN: allenquid
    AManFromEarthPLAmcdermottspacekungfumanMrVyngaardWassermelonezagdrobKalkinoFeralTaranisJusticeforPluto
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Malkor wrote: »
    There are 25 years worth of Madden games.

    Think about that.

    Ok. They probably don't need to do annual releases, but you know that pretty much every other version has major feature changes, right? There's way more to modern sports sims than the on-field stuff.

    a5ehren on
  • r4dr3zr4dr3z Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    There are 25 years worth of Madden games.

    Think about that.

    Ok. They probably don't need to do annual releases, but you know that pretty much every other version has major feature changes, right? There's way more to modern sports sims than the on-field stuff.
    Yet EA fails to address those things, year after year. In many cases EA just regresses and removes features.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    r4dr3z wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    There are 25 years worth of Madden games.

    Think about that.

    Ok. They probably don't need to do annual releases, but you know that pretty much every other version has major feature changes, right? There's way more to modern sports sims than the on-field stuff.
    Yet EA fails to address those things, year after year. In many cases EA just regresses and removes features.

    I disagree, but whatever.

    mcdermott
  • ShayrielaShayriela Registered User new member
    Personally, I think sequels have some merit when the developer uses it as an opportunity to make elements of the franchise better. That being said, I think it is harder to assimilate new gamers when everything that's available is a sequel. I like playing sequels because it's like revisiting a past experience that I enjoyed, and there is also a certain sense of nostalgia. But I find that the replay value and how much I like the game decreases, because generally, squeals are fundamentally the same. I think new franchises, with new and creative elements would be good, and sequels should be treated as something more special, as an opportunity for a developer to fix what they may not have gotten right the first time.

  • LoveIsUnityLoveIsUnity Registered User regular
    One of the things that I think fans of sports games forget is that these games are pretty inscrutable if you jump into the series as a casual fan. My fiancee really loves soccer, because she played it when she was younger and still enjoys kicking the ball around from time to time. She's not much more than a casual fan. She watches the world cup and the occasional match here and there, but she's not super invested in the sport or anything like that. She did, however, decide to pick up the most recent Fifa on a whim one day when she found it on sale and was really excited to play it. Playing it turned out to be way, way more difficult than either of us expected. It took me a full 30 minutes after looking some stuff up online to even figure out how to play a simple exhibition match, because they named it something that makes zero sense. I'm sure it's super easy for long time fans of the series to figure this kind of shit out, but it was super frustrating.

    sig.gif
    BrocksMullet
  • BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    I dislike excessive sequels to primarily story based games.

    Games that just have a skeleton story like most platformers or shumps can have sequels in perpetuity as long as the gameplay is good IMO.

    I'd love a Gradius VI on any console.

    MrVyngaard
  • Zoku GojiraZoku Gojira That Lizard Came from the Moon!Registered User regular
    When you're calling the sequel the same thing as the first game in the series, with only the release year to differentiate, it's time to pack it in.

    When your latest entry in the series is the videogame adaptation of an inevitable box-office failure adapted loosely from the first game in the series, it's time to put the franchise out of its misery.

    "The universe is change, life is opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Are reboots considered sequels? The latest Tomb Raider, for example, is very different from Tomb Raider: Underworld's tone and mechanics.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • ShayrielaShayriela Registered User new member
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Are reboots considered sequels? The latest Tomb Raider, for example, is very different from Tomb Raider: Underworld's tone and mechanics.

    Very true! They are using an existing framework to implement these new ideas, though in the case of some franchises (Mario, Zelda) this method may have some degree of success.

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    A poorly done sequel is just as bad as any other poorly done game, being a sequel doesn't make it worse.

    QuidzagdrobshrykeMike Dangerurahonky
  • TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    One of the things that I think fans of sports games forget is that these games are pretty inscrutable if you jump into the series as a casual fan. My fiancee really loves soccer, because she played it when she was younger and still enjoys kicking the ball around from time to time. She's not much more than a casual fan. She watches the world cup and the occasional match here and there, but she's not super invested in the sport or anything like that. She did, however, decide to pick up the most recent Fifa on a whim one day when she found it on sale and was really excited to play it. Playing it turned out to be way, way more difficult than either of us expected. It took me a full 30 minutes after looking some stuff up online to even figure out how to play a simple exhibition match, because they named it something that makes zero sense. I'm sure it's super easy for long time fans of the series to figure this kind of shit out, but it was super frustrating.

    Somewhere, in a parallel universe, a video game forum is tittering over this post, whispers of "fuckin' casuals" delivered and received in equal measure

  • ZedCavalryZedCavalry I swear, I'm not that immature. Melbourne, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    So are sequels a bad thing? Are they making our gaming experience narrow and repetitive? Or does getting to immerse yourself again and again in a world that is familiar remain fun and interesting?

    ...are sequels a bad thing?
    This can't really be answered with a "yes" or "no", seeing as each video game franchise has their own separate set of circumstances, but in today's industry, we can generalize and say yes, sequels are a bad thing, but, they haven't always been. I believe that if a sequel improved upon it's predecessor's mechanics, while contributing a significant amount to the franchise's story, then it can be considered a good sequel. But lately, we've seen that the video game industry isn't about the consumer anymore; it's about the profitability of a game, and if a formula of game mechanics work, then you bet that we'll see more of it in sequels, or even "copycats".

    Are they making our gaming experience narrow and repetitive?
    In my opinion, this question probably exemplifies a pessimistic, but true opinion. Yes, sequels narrow our experience, but, we have to think that we still have a choice in the games we play. We aren't forced to narrow our gaming horizons, but in a way, the crop of games to choose from does get narrowed by sequels. Again, the industry is more about profitability than ever, and if they see a formula that works, then the developer will keep pumping it out until they find another.

    ...does getting to immerse yourself again and again in a world that is familiar remain fun and interesting?
    This depends on your initial immersion to the game itself. We see something like the world of Tamriel, and of course we get immersed in every Elder Scrolls "sequel", but if we play with a game which bores us in terms of its setting, then it wont be fun, no matter how many sequels are there, or whether they are there at all. Immersion factor isn't an objective factor, so I can't really judge. It's like saying that games aren't fun anymore, when our ideas of fun differ individually.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Shayriela wrote: »
    Personally, I think sequels have some merit when the developer uses it as an opportunity to make elements of the franchise better. That being said, I think it is harder to assimilate new gamers when everything that's available is a sequel. I like playing sequels because it's like revisiting a past experience that I enjoyed, and there is also a certain sense of nostalgia. But I find that the replay value and how much I like the game decreases, because generally, squeals are fundamentally the same. I think new franchises, with new and creative elements would be good, and sequels should be treated as something more special, as an opportunity for a developer to fix what they may not have gotten right the first time.

    There are a jillion new franchises out there.

    A good game is a good game. Sequel or not.

    PSN: allenquid
  • CasualCasual Revolver Ocelot (Revolver Ocelot)Registered User regular
    There's no real hard and fast rule here. Some sequels are good games, some are garbage. Some push the story along, some are just a cynical attempt to continue cashing in on a proven franchise while adding nothing. I don't think we can really attach a number like "4 sequels is too much" because inevitably someone will come along with an good counter example.

    There are plenty of fictional universes out there with scope for practically infinate sequels if they have writers good enough to continue the story in an entertaining way. It's completly subjective as far as I'm concerned, if I enjoy a game I don't much care how many numbers are at the end of its name, equally I won't give a bad game a free pass because a previous game with the same name was good.

    Revolver Ocelot
    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Fallout 3 = war crime
    Fallout New Vegas = best rpg in nearly a decade.

    Not an easy issue!

    Deebaser
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    Sequels are only bad when the sequel in question is more filler than actual progression of a story line with innovative ideas and creative design.


    Can you even call Sports Game 2013 a sequel to Sports Game 2012? You certainly don't call this years season a sequel to last years.

    steam_sig.png
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X When you speak I hear muffinsRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Shayriela wrote: »
    So are sequels a bad thing? Are they making our gaming experience narrow and repetitive? Or does getting to immerse yourself again and again in a world that is familiar remain fun and interesting?

    Yes.

    Bioshock Infinite is a sequel to Bioshock and outdoes it in every way, while feeling like a totally new game. I feel like it's Bioshock 1 heritage is a big part of why I like it so much, and if I didn't have the first game to contrast to I wouldn't love Infinite quite as much as I do. But then, there aren't many franchises that handle sequels like this. See Bioshock 2. :I

    rv0c1titu3ci.pngc0ppr8iiann6.png
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I definitely don't think there are hard and fast rules on if a sequel is 'good' or 'bad'.

    For example, I think that most of the Madden games would be fine with a major release every few years (maybe once or twice per console generation) and DLC / expansions to update the rosters and add the few minor features and tweaks.

    On the other hand, some sequels are great. For example, I'm very glad that Microprose released TFTD, even if it wasn't much more than a pallet swap with the original X-Com. Or that id released Doom 2, even though it was little more than an expansion pack of Doom. You can find more than a handful of recent games that stand on their own, but a casual player wouldn't even know they were different games. Borderlands pops into my head, but I'm sure if I thought about it I could come up with more.

    As a PC gamer who buys most of their games on sale, on Steam, I'm probably bothered less by unnecessary sequels than many people, especially console gamers. There are very few games I pay the full retail $60 for at release... After all, if there are a few versions of the game out, it usually means I can pick up the original game (even if it's relatively recent) for five or ten bucks if I wait for a sale. Or, I can usually get a 'franchise pack' that will let me get two games and their DLC - usually for less than the price of one game.

    I don't know - I find more games is a good thing, even if it's basically the same game with a few minor tweaks / improvements that wouldn't even qualify as an expansion in the old days. My mileage would probably vary if I was a console gamer who didn't have the same purchase options, or I was a person who buys games soon after release.

  • AtomikaAtomika genius of the restoration Registered User regular
    I think sequels are often a good way for a company to refine the original concept into a more coherent version of the product. There are many, many examples of second and third volumes of a game finally streamlining the gameplay and story to get to a much more optimized experience; Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, and Dead Space come immediately to mind as prime examples of this, but you can take this phenomenon all the way back to the second and third Super Mario Bros. NES games from the 80s.

    Sequels allow you to distill the core concept, add in new elements that the originals would have been better for, and jettison elements that didn't work, and refine elements that could have worked better.


    Granted, there are a lot of franchises that are just being wrung out and milked for the revenue stream. Nintendo, I'm looking at you.

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    20071205vk8.jpg



    Viskod on
    3DS 0662 3838 5931 Pokemon X Water Safari
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    One thing about sequels...we often think about PC games and their limitations / strengths, but most game development and marketing is designed around releasing the game at least two of the three major consoles. Compiling for the PC is almost an afterthought for a lot of the kind of games we're talking about here.

    It's only been the most recent generation of consoles where there is anything resembling ubiquitous internet connectivity and digital distribution methods. Even then, that's been more the later part of this generation and quite a few users still aren't connected.

    In the last generation, hard drives weren't even a standard feature. I think the XBox had a small / medium sized (for the time) HDD, but the PS2 needed an expansion. The game was what was on the disk, and that was it. Might as well be a cartridge except cheaper to manufacture.

    With those limitations, anything - even the most simple patches, additional content, or roster updates become incredibly difficult to distribute. If you are releasing a 'roster update' for Madden, you are going to need to press, package, and distribute it anyway to reach most of your market. If you're going through that much trouble, it only makes sense to go whole hog - throw a new year on it and sell it for full retail price.

    I think we would / will see things change a bit with respect to sequels as / when most of the market (including consoles) have internet capability, but even then, it'll be a while before most users have the broadband connections you need for a true digital distribution model. After all, in most cases releasing a $25 expansion instead of a full retail new game is cheaper - since you don't need the same marketing and manufacturing effort.

  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2013
    zagdrob wrote: »
    One thing about sequels...we often think about PC games and their limitations / strengths, but most game development and marketing is designed around releasing the game at least two of the three major consoles. Compiling for the PC is almost an afterthought for a lot of the kind of games we're talking about here.

    It's only been the most recent generation of consoles where there is anything resembling ubiquitous internet connectivity and digital distribution methods. Even then, that's been more the later part of this generation and quite a few users still aren't connected.

    In the last generation, hard drives weren't even a standard feature. I think the XBox had a small / medium sized (for the time) HDD, but the PS2 needed an expansion. The game was what was on the disk, and that was it. Might as well be a cartridge except cheaper to manufacture.

    With those limitations, anything - even the most simple patches, additional content, or roster updates become incredibly difficult to distribute. If you are releasing a 'roster update' for Madden, you are going to need to press, package, and distribute it anyway to reach most of your market. If you're going through that much trouble, it only makes sense to go whole hog - throw a new year on it and sell it for full retail price.

    I think we would / will see things change a bit with respect to sequels as / when most of the market (including consoles) have internet capability, but even then, it'll be a while before most users have the broadband connections you need for a true digital distribution model. After all, in most cases releasing a $25 expansion instead of a full retail new game is cheaper - since you don't need the same marketing and manufacturing effort.

    Well, I do remember Sega attempting to do the updates with 2K's football games, even during mid-season with injuries, but the updates couldn't be used in online games.

    Edit: On the Dreamcast.

    Nocren on
    newSig.jpg
  • ShayrielaShayriela Registered User new member
    I wonder why people like playing sequels so much?

    For me I like the certain sense of nostalgia of revisiting a world I already know, and going back to something that I enjoyed in the past.

  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    Also, each franchise has something that it's fan's find attractive. For example, Fire Emblem is a regular turned based strategy, with the added bonus of characters with personalities, the ability to create relationships between them, and the knowledge that one wrong move could mean you'd lose them forever. Certain gamers loooove that niche, and since other games don't have all of that, only sequels will satisfy their cravings.

  • Zoku GojiraZoku Gojira That Lizard Came from the Moon!Registered User regular
    Fallout 3 = war crime
    Fallout New Vegas = best rpg in nearly a decade.

    Not an easy issue!

    O_o

    To each his own, I guess. But as someone who loves Fallout 1 & 2, and Wasteland before them, I still regard Fallout 3 as a masterpiece, and actually remember the originals even more fondly because of the way FO3 expanded upon the setting and avoided the trap of repeating Black Isle's excessive self-aware humor.

    "The universe is change, life is opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
    Feral
  • LoveIsUnityLoveIsUnity Registered User regular
    Fallout 3 = war crime
    Fallout New Vegas = best rpg in nearly a decade.

    Not an easy issue!

    O_o

    To each his own, I guess. But as someone who loves Fallout 1 & 2, and Wasteland before them, I still regard Fallout 3 as a masterpiece, and actually remember the originals even more fondly because of the way FO3 expanded upon the setting and avoided the trap of repeating Black Isle's excessive self-aware humor.

    Oddly enough, I'm a huge fan of the original Fallouts, Wasteland, and Mines of Titan (anyone else remember that?), and I didn't like Fallout 3 or Fallout: New Vegas. Sorry Chris Avellone. It's not your fault.

    sig.gif
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    I don't mind a sequel so long as it continues and helps to finish a defined story arc. Mass Effect series worked very well in that respect. Gears of War did very well in that also. I do not mind restriction of gameplay so long as it furthers story development. I want better writing in games. I want writing to be a bigger, better and more lauded feature in games and if sequels can help emphasize that, then more power to them.

    Then you have the Call of Duty series...

    Toldo wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Skinny guys fight till their burger. Screw debates lets have Barack Obama and Willard Romney rumble in the mofoing jungle.
    Obama punches Romney.
    "Okay, now wait a minute. You've had your turn. Let me have a turn. Wait a minute," Romney says.
    Obama punches Romney.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Obligatory "Turns out, that wasn't the Final Fantasy!" joke.

    Feral
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    There are worse things than CoD. After the success of Dynasty Warriors: Gundam (and it's sequel), Koei approached Nintendo with a proposal for "Pokemon Warriors". Nintendo declined, feeling that a Pokemon game should not include weapons and violent death. On the other hand, a Pokemon game including Oda Nobunaga was apparently the absolute tits:

    imagebjo.jpg

    Pokemon Conquest or, as it is known in Japan, (I really wish I were kidding) Pokemon + Nobunaga's Ambition

    This is why we can't have nice things!

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Fallout 3 = war crime
    Fallout New Vegas = best rpg in nearly a decade.

    Not an easy issue!

    O_o

    To each his own, I guess. But as someone who loves Fallout 1 & 2, and Wasteland before them, I still regard Fallout 3 as a masterpiece, and actually remember the originals even more fondly because of the way FO3 expanded upon the setting and avoided the trap of repeating Black Isle's excessive self-aware humor.

    What was your favorite part of "expanding" the setting? How super mutants were on the East Coast despite the Master being on the West Coast (and being dead)? The brotherhood of steel being on the East Coast for some reason? The Brotherhood of Steel being Jedi-knights instead of a militarized cult of techno-elitists? The fact that EVERYTHING is magically nuclear powered? Bottle caps being the currency even though they are a continent away from the Hub?

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    As a film major, my opinion is that video games are in a unique position where endless sequels are not necessarily a bad thing. When you do so with film, there are very few cases where you can keep it going on a regular basis and still keep quality at a decent level (I'd say the James Bond series is an exception, but as much as I love it, they've had to refresh the series a few times to revive it).

    With film, you have to keep the story fresh. With games, while keeping the story fresh is certainly a plus, it's more about the interactive experience. The Mario series (the main platforming series, not counting offshoots like Mariokart, Marioparty, etc) has had the same basic story since its inception, yet each game adds new elements, and often provides an experience far beyond what the previous game was capable of. It would be insanity to suggest that Mario 3 and Super Mario 64 were remotely the same experience. Both are great, and both have similar stories, but they provide extremely different experiences.

    The interactive element of games is what sets them apart, and sadly, many developers in their strive to make games more 'cinematic' have gotten away from that. Game are at their best when they embrace that. Whether it be a game that has very little narrative like Mario, or a game that uses narrative in a way that probably wouldn't work in film, like Portal (the interactive component in Portal keeps the player engaged for several hours, which are needed to build the game's narrative, while a film would struggle to keep the viewer's attention while building the same sort of world and intrigue). The portal story works so much better as a slow build, and with gradual player discovery. While it could probably be adapted as a film, it honestly works much better over the longer period of time that can only be provided through interactive player interest.

    Video game sequels are often used poorly (Madden, Guitar Hero past 3, Tony Hawk past 4, etc), but when done well, with an actual creative interest, there's far more potential for interesting long running series than there is with film, film being better suited to a small number of installments.

    TubularLuggage on
  • TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    I don't mind a sequel so long as it continues and helps to finish a defined story arc. Mass Effect series worked very well in that respect. Gears of War did very well in that also. I do not mind restriction of gameplay so long as it furthers story development. I want better writing in games. I want writing to be a bigger, better and more lauded feature in games and if sequels can help emphasize that, then more power to them.

    Then you have the Call of Duty series...

    It seems like a huge portion of the disdain for sequelitis has crystallized around the once beloved CoD franchise, but why is that exactly? I get that the way Activision treated Infinity Ward was terrible, and it looks like the former heads are going to seriously get paid (if they haven't already), but are the modern CoDs that bad? I played the original+expansion, 2, skipped three, played the shit out of MW, and beat MW2, and they've always struck me as great linear shooters polished to a mirror sheen that successfully combine spectacle with an extremely refined shooting mechanic. If it's not your thing, it's not your thing, but the amount of hatred the series generates utterly confounds me.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Tarranon wrote: »
    Rchanen wrote: »
    I don't mind a sequel so long as it continues and helps to finish a defined story arc. Mass Effect series worked very well in that respect. Gears of War did very well in that also. I do not mind restriction of gameplay so long as it furthers story development. I want better writing in games. I want writing to be a bigger, better and more lauded feature in games and if sequels can help emphasize that, then more power to them.

    Then you have the Call of Duty series...

    It seems like a huge portion of the disdain for sequelitis has crystallized around the once beloved CoD franchise, but why is that exactly? I get that the way Activision treated Infinity Ward was terrible, and it looks like the former heads are going to seriously get paid (if they haven't already), but are the modern CoDs that bad? I played the original+expansion, 2, skipped three, played the shit out of MW, and beat MW2, and they've always struck me as great linear shooters polished to a mirror sheen that successfully combine spectacle with an extremely refined shooting mechanic. If it's not your thing, it's not your thing, but the amount of hatred the series generates utterly confounds me.

    Yeah I've picked one up every two or three years. Had fun every time. Not enough to want one every year but evidently some people do so, you know, whatever.

    PSN: allenquid
  • TaranisTaranis Every time I hear this groove, It makes me wanna move.Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    We should just do away with sequels. Every game should get an annual prequel instead.

    Taranis on
    / steam profile / mwo handle: calverin / 3ds: 1349-6311-4743 /
    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
  • GodfatherGodfather Registered User regular
    There are worse things than CoD. After the success of Dynasty Warriors: Gundam (and it's sequel), Koei approached Nintendo with a proposal for "Pokemon Warriors". Nintendo declined, feeling that a Pokemon game should not include weapons and violent death. On the other hand, a Pokemon game including Oda Nobunaga was apparently the absolute tits:

    imagebjo.jpg

    Pokemon Conquest or, as it is known in Japan, (I really wish I were kidding) Pokemon + Nobunaga's Ambition

    This is why we can't have nice things!

    Everybody's rockin' legends and she gets a Jigglypuff?

    0WBv0.png
    ZealotJusticeforPluto
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    I'll play any series into infinity as long as I like the content of the game.

    3DS 0662 3838 5931 Pokemon X Water Safari
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.