www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The games of 2007
Readers of this blog might be excused if they think that this is a World of Warcraft blog. It isn't. This is a blog about whatever MMORPG I am currently playing, and the MMORPG I'm playing since 2 years now is World of Warcraft. I'm not always sticking to the same game that long, 2 years is breaking the previous record held by the original Everquest. In other years I might play a dozen different MMORPGs.
But for the moment I play WoW, and I'm looking forward to the first expansion early next year, so chances are that I will continue playing WoW until at least the first half of 2007. Whether I will continue after that, and whether I will reach the 3-year mark, I simply don't know yet. It is possible that all the new games coming out are not so great, and I'll stick with World of Warcraft. Or it could be that I'll get bored with WoW, and jump onto the next big thing as soon as it becomes available. So what would my options be?
One option would be Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, presumably out early 2007. Well, you know how reliable announced release dates in this business are. Vanguard was developed by a bunch of ex-Everquest developers, lead by Brad McQuaid. They started developing Vanguard for Microsoft, but in an ironic twist of fate ended up back with Sony Online Entertainment. The general idea behind Vanguard is that modern games have grown too soft and carebear, and Vanguard will specifically target the hardcore players, bringing back the original feel and "The Vision" of Everquest, with graphics more fitting for 2007. Unfortunately "The Vision" is all about making players suffer, so they feel closer social bonds to each other. That includes lots of downtime and timesinks, and heavy penalties for failure, like naked corpse runs. That doesn't sound very attractive to me, call me a carebear. Even more disheartening are reports from the beta testers that while the graphics have a high polygon count (and thus run badly on all but the most expensive computers), they are artistically rather bland and ugly. On the positive side Vanguard promises to be rather rich in features, having lots of races and classes, and every imaginable fantasy MMORPG feature up to and including player housing. I'm just not sure it will be any fun.
Something completely different is promised for Pirates of the Burning Sea. No more elves and orcs, in this game you get to play a pirate. Presumably out in June 2007. This is a big unknown, the developer Flying Lab Software hasn't got any previous experience with MMORPGs. As every player controls a complete ship, and combat is ship-to-ship based, the gameplay is probably much different than what you're used to from character-based MMORPGs. I sure hope that this will be good, it would be fun to play something completely different for a change.
Did you notice that most players solo all of the first part of a MMORPG? So did Funcom, the developers of Age of Conan, to be released Q2 2007. And as you solo the first part anyway, they just split their MMORPG into two halves, and turned the first half into a single-player game. So you play a classical single-player RPG, and at the end you are released into a massively multiplayer world. Interesting concept. Other major improvements promised over previous MMORPGs are the more interactive combat system, where you will actually need to target zones of the enemy's body, instead of just starting auto-combat and going for a cup of coffee. Would be great if it worked, but could be totally horrible if it gets messed up by lag. Unlike lets say WoW, Age of Conan will also have collision detection, that is you can't just run through another player. That could do a lot for realism, but you'd have to find a way to prevent some players standing in a doorway and blocking the access to the bank or something other important. I have no information how good or bad AoC is. The only thing that scares me a bit is that it is heavily PvP-centric.
A more PvE-centric game will be Lord of the Rings Online, from Turbine, expected for "spring" 2007. This one has my toes tingling. Turbine isn't my favorite MMORPG company, they produced too many bad or mediocre games. But who wouldn't want to walk on Middle Earth? And surprisingly leaks from beta testers seem to indicate that the game is more fun than you'd expect from the Turbine label. The difficulty will be to find the right balance between playability and being true to the Lord of the Rings license.
Also expected for 2007, with no release date given, is Tabula Rasa. This game is playing in a science fiction setting, and will presumably resemble more a shooter game than a classic MMORPG. Lead developer is Richard Garriott (aka Lord British), of Ultima Online fame. Personally I'm not a big fan of science fiction, but I can see how the combination of shooter elements with a MMORPG could make a great game. Could. Not sure that Tabula Rasa will be it, but there is always hope.
And that isn't an exhaustive list of the games of 2007. There are a couple of other ones, like Gods and Heroes, playing in ancient Rome. And half a dozen Korean games. Will any of these games kick World of Warcraft from its throne? Probably not. But I kept the game that is most likely to gain a solid market share from WoW for last:
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning is also announced for 2007. Although honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it slipped into 2008. Developer is EA Mythic, previously Mythic Entertainment, whose claim to fame is having produced Dark Age of Camelot, which by many people is still regarded as the best PvP MMORPG ever. And just like DAoC basically took Everquest and added good PvP to it, WAR is trying to take WoW and add good PvP to it. Whatever you might think about developing a game whose screenshots looks suspiciously similar to World of Warcraft, and has the familiar dwarves, orcs, and elves, you can't help but wonder how successful WoW could have been if it had better PvP. In the end World of Warcraft came to its current prominence by being a better Everquest. It wouldn't be surprising if WAR would beat it by being a better WoW.
- posted by Tobold @ 8:48 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
I was wondering, as someone who has played many different MMORPGs, how "samey" is it to play other games when you have played WoW (or EQ) so much ?
I have only ever played WoW, and just wonder how different other games are. Not just scenery, but the mechanics of play.
I have only ever played WoW, and just wonder how different other games are. Not just scenery, but the mechanics of play.
# posted by 
: 26/10/06 11:16
: 26/10/06 11:16
Only Warhammer is on my radar for now, but i do think too, that this one will slip into 2008. EA will probably watch WoWs performance in 2007 and if Blizzards shows weakness e.g. people burnout, they will push Warhammer out no matter what.
As someone who played hand full of MMOs, even side-by-side, i dare to say the mechanics are all the same. Grind here to get there: quests, XP, mobs, items. The recipies are all the same. The difference is the final taste of the meal. So yeah, if you seen one you saw the majority of principles of that genre.
Actually the only reason for me to leave WoW is it's awfull community, and it´s the main reason i do set my hope on Warhammer. Not only cause the license is rock solid, but cause the DAoC community is/was quite comfortable.
As someone who played hand full of MMOs, even side-by-side, i dare to say the mechanics are all the same. Grind here to get there: quests, XP, mobs, items. The recipies are all the same. The difference is the final taste of the meal. So yeah, if you seen one you saw the majority of principles of that genre.
Actually the only reason for me to leave WoW is it's awfull community, and it´s the main reason i do set my hope on Warhammer. Not only cause the license is rock solid, but cause the DAoC community is/was quite comfortable.
# posted by : 26/10/06 11:58
: 26/10/06 11:58
Pirates of the Burning Seas along with Tabula Rasa are the games that I’ve been looking forward to since I heard about them, Tabula Rasa above most.
Vanguard I’m not to sure about, after the easy ride of the past few games I am looking to sink my teeth into something slightly more hardcore, it all depends on the time commitment that’s going to be required.
Warhammer, finally another game made from the ground up with PvP in mind, no game has managed to hold me since DAoC. I’m a PvPer at heart, dislike PvE raids, and it’s looking like this will be my NBT.
So yeah, Warhammer and Tabula Rasa, with maybe Vanguard till they are released.
Vanguard I’m not to sure about, after the easy ride of the past few games I am looking to sink my teeth into something slightly more hardcore, it all depends on the time commitment that’s going to be required.
Warhammer, finally another game made from the ground up with PvP in mind, no game has managed to hold me since DAoC. I’m a PvPer at heart, dislike PvE raids, and it’s looking like this will be my NBT.
So yeah, Warhammer and Tabula Rasa, with maybe Vanguard till they are released.
# posted by : 26/10/06 12:43
: 26/10/06 12:43
Definitely Warhammer for me. It was the similarities of the Warcraft world and look to Warhammer that got me interested in WoW in the first place. I find it rather ironic when people imply WAR is copying WoW :P
Tobold, how many mails telling "it is actially Warcraft that is copying Warhammer" you have gotten so far? :)
Anyway, WAR looks the most interesting to me of the punch. The best looking as well, though it still achieves with more polygons no more than WoW - maybe even slightly less.
Anyway, WAR looks the most interesting to me of the punch. The best looking as well, though it still achieves with more polygons no more than WoW - maybe even slightly less.
# posted by : 26/10/06 15:38
: 26/10/06 15:38
Which one was first depends on what exactly you compare. As a MMORPG WoW obviously came first. Whether the graphical style of the Warcraft series is copied from the graphical style of the Warhammer universe is a completely different question.
Anyway, it all dates back to the 1940's and Tolkien. Making a game with dwarves, elves, and orcs and claiming it was original doesn't work.
Anyway, it all dates back to the 1940's and Tolkien. Making a game with dwarves, elves, and orcs and claiming it was original doesn't work.
Anyway, it all dates back to the 1940's and Tolkien. Making a game with dwarves, elves, and orcs and claiming it was original doesn't work.
Exactly, I hardly know anything about LoTR except all the cliched stuff, but a friend of mine says its amazing the things that WoW copied from Tolkien. For a player not in the know, like me, you'd think WoW is awesomely original! :D
Exactly, I hardly know anything about LoTR except all the cliched stuff, but a friend of mine says its amazing the things that WoW copied from Tolkien. For a player not in the know, like me, you'd think WoW is awesomely original! :D
Although many elves'n'orc games borrow from the LOTR mythology - it has to be remembered that Tolkein borrowed a lot from Northern European mythology. At least from our point of view, it is at least part of our "history". I believe Tolkein even provided translation notes to explain how to make the language "fit" into other cultures.
For me the best bit about WoW is that it is light on all the "Doest thou have the flambard that though hast seekest for the longest tyme O'Wiggly" - I like the "modern" characterisation of the voices and the nods to the outside world in terms of tv/fiml/book references.
I wonder if we will see (and maybe it is there already ?) the same thing happening in MMOs as did in FPS - games being built on "engines" such as Quake.
Not an expert by any means, and my experience is limited, but it does seem that the Doom/Quake like movement, and the interactions with objects are so natural that you need not change so much from game to game.
For me the best bit about WoW is that it is light on all the "Doest thou have the flambard that though hast seekest for the longest tyme O'Wiggly" - I like the "modern" characterisation of the voices and the nods to the outside world in terms of tv/fiml/book references.
I wonder if we will see (and maybe it is there already ?) the same thing happening in MMOs as did in FPS - games being built on "engines" such as Quake.
Not an expert by any means, and my experience is limited, but it does seem that the Doom/Quake like movement, and the interactions with objects are so natural that you need not change so much from game to game.
# posted by : 26/10/06 16:24
: 26/10/06 16:24
Regarding Vanguard (and other games): whenever I read about "more realism", I interpret it as "more opportunity for griefing".
The harsher the rules and penalties, the more it will just be a huge grief fest for the little brats out there - because the penalties will never be real enough. Penalties (for dying, for instance) will only be enough to discourage the people more interested in having fun and cooperating, but never be enough to discourage the people who want to grief and harass others.
There are other issues like boring grinding and slow advancement that realism often entails.
There's a point where I do not want more realism. I'm playing a game to get away from reality.
The harsher the rules and penalties, the more it will just be a huge grief fest for the little brats out there - because the penalties will never be real enough. Penalties (for dying, for instance) will only be enough to discourage the people more interested in having fun and cooperating, but never be enough to discourage the people who want to grief and harass others.
There are other issues like boring grinding and slow advancement that realism often entails.
There's a point where I do not want more realism. I'm playing a game to get away from reality.
# posted by : 26/10/06 16:25
: 26/10/06 16:25
WAR is the game I am looking foward to the most, although I might give AOC a whirl. Warhammer is, to my mind, the best possible franchise for a MMO. A game of constant back and forth battles makes sense in the Warhammer Universe, where it doesn't really seem that it does as much in something like Lord of the Rings. Also, any game that can create basic play that is as satisfying as WOW, but include meaningful PVP, should be amazing. I think we all know that WOW's main flaw is that it transitions from a great 1-59 game into a level 60 game where your options are a raiding structure about which feelings are definitely mixed, a poorly thought out pvp system, and unrewarding rep grinds.
The potential pitfall of the WAR is that it is coming out after a WOW expansion that can potentially fix WOW's pvp problems. If BC considerably improves WOWs pvp, a big if, then WAR might have trouble grabbing the casual audience that would ensure success.
The potential pitfall of the WAR is that it is coming out after a WOW expansion that can potentially fix WOW's pvp problems. If BC considerably improves WOWs pvp, a big if, then WAR might have trouble grabbing the casual audience that would ensure success.
# posted by : 26/10/06 16:26
: 26/10/06 16:26
I'm semi interested in Tabula Rasa, as what I've seen so far is enough to get me curious. I wouldn't go near Vanguard for all the cheese in Wisconsin though. Brad's Vision needs to stay dead.
# posted by : 26/10/06 16:26
: 26/10/06 16:26
Re Yunk:
I agree with you about Vanguard, they are trying to roll back the clock to a time pre-WOW. The massive casual audience isn't going to be interested in a game that markets itself as "Much harder than that idiot WOW game". I certainly won't look at it. To my mind, Vanguard is positioning itself to maybe grab the part of the MMO market that existed pre-WOW, if even that, and so condemning itself to a couple of hundred thousand subscribers at best. They can make money at that level, so that's fine if they want to have a more niche game, but I don't think that Vanguard will ever be as big a player as WOW and some of the other new games coming out.
I agree with you about Vanguard, they are trying to roll back the clock to a time pre-WOW. The massive casual audience isn't going to be interested in a game that markets itself as "Much harder than that idiot WOW game". I certainly won't look at it. To my mind, Vanguard is positioning itself to maybe grab the part of the MMO market that existed pre-WOW, if even that, and so condemning itself to a couple of hundred thousand subscribers at best. They can make money at that level, so that's fine if they want to have a more niche game, but I don't think that Vanguard will ever be as big a player as WOW and some of the other new games coming out.
# posted by : 26/10/06 16:30
: 26/10/06 16:30
The choices for 2007 look interesting enough to at least try. That may end up meaning allot of spare boxes laying around the house, but you don't know until you try right?
Vanguard already has people in my guild ready to just say NO to BC. For all the "hardcore" reasons you mentioned. Only one Character per server though??
Age of Conan and Warhammer, are the two that I am looking forward to the most. AOC for the multi point targeting system, and Warhammer because the developers are claiming PVP quests.
It is quite probable that many of the 2007 MMO's will require a higher end PC than WOW to run so I'm thinking that WOW will probably keep a strong player base regardless of how well any of the previous games fare simply because of budget issues.
Vanguard already has people in my guild ready to just say NO to BC. For all the "hardcore" reasons you mentioned. Only one Character per server though??
Age of Conan and Warhammer, are the two that I am looking forward to the most. AOC for the multi point targeting system, and Warhammer because the developers are claiming PVP quests.
It is quite probable that many of the 2007 MMO's will require a higher end PC than WOW to run so I'm thinking that WOW will probably keep a strong player base regardless of how well any of the previous games fare simply because of budget issues.
Warhammer is still on my list to check out. I suspect a late 2007 release.
Vanguard came off the list after seeing the graphics. It's definitely off the list if what you say about the penalties is true.
Conan? Meh, not enough new stuff to warrant a purchase.
I'm very intrested in Huxley at the moment.
Vanguard came off the list after seeing the graphics. It's definitely off the list if what you say about the penalties is true.
Conan? Meh, not enough new stuff to warrant a purchase.
I'm very intrested in Huxley at the moment.
# posted by : 26/10/06 18:05
: 26/10/06 18:05
Pirates sounds like a oceanic EVE Online...or is it just me?
I got burnt out on WoW and the whole orcs and elves thing which is why i went to EVE. Course you can't help but love having 20K+ concurrent users to play with.
I totally agree with the comment on reality and death penalties, etc. Am I the only one that thinks that the "spoiled brats" really ruin the fun at times?
I got burnt out on WoW and the whole orcs and elves thing which is why i went to EVE. Course you can't help but love having 20K+ concurrent users to play with.
I totally agree with the comment on reality and death penalties, etc. Am I the only one that thinks that the "spoiled brats" really ruin the fun at times?
# posted by : 26/10/06 19:59
: 26/10/06 19:59
No love for MTGO 3.0? ;)
Lets say little trust that it will come out in 2007. The release date of MTGO 3.0 has been "in 18 months" for as long as I can think.
Lets say little trust that it will come out in 2007. The release date of MTGO 3.0 has been "in 18 months" for as long as I can think.
Interesting. Not one mention of "The Chronicles of Spellborn", coming Q1 2007.
http://tcos.com/
Very interesting twists on the MMORPG idea. The F.A.Q has some good information.
http://tcos.com/
Very interesting twists on the MMORPG idea. The F.A.Q has some good information.
# posted by : 26/10/06 22:53
: 26/10/06 22:53
I think Vanguard may not be as bad as has been mentioned so far. I checked their website and found a quote from BradM that said while they want it to be challenging, they are still conceding a lot of the things that made EQ1 suck:
Relying on others to bind yourself I think did more harm than good. Staring at a spellbook while medding, while more realistic, turned out to be ‘going too far’. Long, boring ship rides were *not* the best way to keep the world epic and travel meaningful. Super long downtimes between battles, where people finished Robert Jordan novels, were simply unnecessary – while downtime is important such that player have a chance to socialize, or plan for that next battle, or to use the restroom or grab a coke, they really didn’t need to be *that* long nor become longer and longer just because the player was leveling up. The possibility of permanent losing a corpse was also taking things a bit too far, creating more fear of death than is really necessary. Likewise, losing levels and skills by dying we don’t think is necessary to make dying truly sting and something to be avoided.
Sammy
Relying on others to bind yourself I think did more harm than good. Staring at a spellbook while medding, while more realistic, turned out to be ‘going too far’. Long, boring ship rides were *not* the best way to keep the world epic and travel meaningful. Super long downtimes between battles, where people finished Robert Jordan novels, were simply unnecessary – while downtime is important such that player have a chance to socialize, or plan for that next battle, or to use the restroom or grab a coke, they really didn’t need to be *that* long nor become longer and longer just because the player was leveling up. The possibility of permanent losing a corpse was also taking things a bit too far, creating more fear of death than is really necessary. Likewise, losing levels and skills by dying we don’t think is necessary to make dying truly sting and something to be avoided.
Sammy
# posted by : 27/10/06 04:25
: 27/10/06 04:25
Has anyone heard anything about modding and whether it will be permitted or not with these upcoming titles?
Part of what made WOW so great was being able to actually keep track of where you have been and where the NPC's are.
Part of what made WOW so great was being able to actually keep track of where you have been and where the NPC's are.
# posted by : 27/10/06 16:13
: 27/10/06 16:13
If they're going to "make dying truly sting" then it seems like this requires two big innovations which would make them stand out from WoW, or if they don't make those required innovations it just means they'll sink without trace.
* PvP combat with significant death penalties but somehow without the effect other games saw where you're left with just the 500 hardcore PvP fans on each 50 000 player server and they're whining that there aren't enough noobs joining for them to slaughter. I have no idea how to do this, most "solutions" I see are written in total ignorance of basic statistics, which tell us that your typical players are going to die a LOT in PvP and don't (even if they claim otherwise) enjoy getting killed by people who are much better at it than they are.
* Raid content without piles of corpses. End game content must block progress, or you can't write it fast enough to keep up with your median player groups. Up to now most games achieved this by requiring you to gear up to a ridiculous extent or practice specific tactics for each fight or a combination. How do you punish players who don't have enough skill or gear? You either don't let them participate at all or you /kill/ them over and over again. But even with its minimal repair costs WoW annoys a lot of players who are trying to learn Naxx (or, for that matter, AQ20).
Unlike PvP I do have an idea for raid content, it should be possible to create encounters that are sophisticated enough for a failed attempt not to need lots of deaths. By moving from the "there's a monster, it's in our way/ has good loot/ smells bad, let's kill it" model to something more strategic you can make the failure mode less immediately fatal. For example let's rewrite the much loved & hated Ossyrian fight as a "no deaths unless you're an idiot" fight...
- Ossyrian guards a complex system of say 8 magical crystals
- Once a player triggers the one near Ossyrian other crystals pop up one at a time in a random walk around the arena
- Crystals take say 30 seconds to "activate"
- Ossyrian smashes/deactivates crystals, but to do so he must reach them during 30 second window.
- Players must either kill Ossyrian as quickly as possible (so he only smashes a few crystals)
- or they can slow him down (he can't be stopped), so that he doesn't reach some of the crystals in time
- If Ossyrian reaches a crystal in plenty of time he uses stun/ silence/ fear/ incapacitate effects on his attackers while looking around for the next one
- Once the crystal sequence stops, Ossyrian loses interest in the players altogether and returns to his throne, healing 100%
- If players choose to attack Ossyrian after (or before) the crystal sequence, he turns his rage on them and is disproportionately hard
- Ossyrian himself drops only mediocre loot, equivalent to an Elite
- Players can only progress (door opens, whatever) if AT LEAST FOUR crystals activate, they get loot for each extra crystal activated
Now this is a serious fight in which the boss has a good reason not to concentrate on killing players and the players are doing something a bit different to their usual generic boss tactics. The fight can be tuned by altering Ossyrian's natural walking speed and his resistances to various slow effects. I'd also want to ensure that it's not survivable to try to kill Ossyrian separately (thus making the crystals trivial) until your raiders are well past level 60. Most importantly this fight lets you continue as soon as you're sort-of-OK at it, but then gives better rewards as you improve. So you get to see more of the instance early in your raid development, but you still have an incentive to practice and a way to measure your achievements. That seems like a recipe for reducing burn-out.
* PvP combat with significant death penalties but somehow without the effect other games saw where you're left with just the 500 hardcore PvP fans on each 50 000 player server and they're whining that there aren't enough noobs joining for them to slaughter. I have no idea how to do this, most "solutions" I see are written in total ignorance of basic statistics, which tell us that your typical players are going to die a LOT in PvP and don't (even if they claim otherwise) enjoy getting killed by people who are much better at it than they are.
* Raid content without piles of corpses. End game content must block progress, or you can't write it fast enough to keep up with your median player groups. Up to now most games achieved this by requiring you to gear up to a ridiculous extent or practice specific tactics for each fight or a combination. How do you punish players who don't have enough skill or gear? You either don't let them participate at all or you /kill/ them over and over again. But even with its minimal repair costs WoW annoys a lot of players who are trying to learn Naxx (or, for that matter, AQ20).
Unlike PvP I do have an idea for raid content, it should be possible to create encounters that are sophisticated enough for a failed attempt not to need lots of deaths. By moving from the "there's a monster, it's in our way/ has good loot/ smells bad, let's kill it" model to something more strategic you can make the failure mode less immediately fatal. For example let's rewrite the much loved & hated Ossyrian fight as a "no deaths unless you're an idiot" fight...
- Ossyrian guards a complex system of say 8 magical crystals
- Once a player triggers the one near Ossyrian other crystals pop up one at a time in a random walk around the arena
- Crystals take say 30 seconds to "activate"
- Ossyrian smashes/deactivates crystals, but to do so he must reach them during 30 second window.
- Players must either kill Ossyrian as quickly as possible (so he only smashes a few crystals)
- or they can slow him down (he can't be stopped), so that he doesn't reach some of the crystals in time
- If Ossyrian reaches a crystal in plenty of time he uses stun/ silence/ fear/ incapacitate effects on his attackers while looking around for the next one
- Once the crystal sequence stops, Ossyrian loses interest in the players altogether and returns to his throne, healing 100%
- If players choose to attack Ossyrian after (or before) the crystal sequence, he turns his rage on them and is disproportionately hard
- Ossyrian himself drops only mediocre loot, equivalent to an Elite
- Players can only progress (door opens, whatever) if AT LEAST FOUR crystals activate, they get loot for each extra crystal activated
Now this is a serious fight in which the boss has a good reason not to concentrate on killing players and the players are doing something a bit different to their usual generic boss tactics. The fight can be tuned by altering Ossyrian's natural walking speed and his resistances to various slow effects. I'd also want to ensure that it's not survivable to try to kill Ossyrian separately (thus making the crystals trivial) until your raiders are well past level 60. Most importantly this fight lets you continue as soon as you're sort-of-OK at it, but then gives better rewards as you improve. So you get to see more of the instance early in your raid development, but you still have an incentive to practice and a way to measure your achievements. That seems like a recipe for reducing burn-out.
# posted by : 28/10/06 13:13
: 28/10/06 13:13
WoW has passed DAOC's in the best PvP game ever category. DAOC's RvR was extremely boring after your first few keep raids and with the excessive exploiting with radar programs etc the rest of the PvP wasn't all that much fun. WoW is already better and the expansion looks like it will make it better by miles.
Vanguard will not be out until at least late 2007, the game is nowhere near done and they are moving at an extremely slow rate.
Post a Comment
Vanguard will not be out until at least late 2007, the game is nowhere near done and they are moving at an extremely slow rate.
# posted by : 12/11/06 21:28
: 12/11/06 21:28<< Home
