With all the work and manpower that goes into most video games today, it's a wonder that games are ever released. I think of all the time that must have gone into design, programming, sound effects, etc., and how releasing a game is an achievement on it's own. Of course as the years go by, games become more and more complex. Millions of lines of code are written to make today's games possible, and it's only expected that a few bugs will show up. To compensate for this, developers can release a patch to help fix some minor bugs/glitches that have affected a small portion of their consumer audience. However, I've noticed that more and more developers have been releasing games with a greater amount of bugs, and then spending a great deal of time working on patches after the buggy game has been released in order to meet the game's deadline. Now while I feel for developers trying to make a quality game within a specific time frame, releasing something that looks to be in the alpha stage and patching it later isn't the answer.
Some glitches are funny... I'll admit, this blog was partly born out of the technological atrocity that was Fallout: New Vegas. Don't get me wrong, the game itself I hear is pretty good, but there have been reports of so many game-breaking bugs, that I have reserved myself from purchasing it. Of course, I did expect New Vegas to contain a good deal of bugs. The game is running on the same engine as Oblivion and Fallout 3, which can create beautiful expansive worlds normally reserved for MMOs, but is also infamous for it's bugs and glitches. Oblivion and Fallout 3 had their fair share of bugs as well, but I don't recall them being as awful as the ones found in New Vegas. If a game has a bug that corrupts all of your save files, or makes characters look like they game out of The Exorcist, then the game shouldn't be released until those issues are addressed. Period. Patches are tools that are great for solving minor bugs and glitches that provide small annoyances, but don't hinder the game experience in a significant way. However, when a game like New Vegas is released, it makes me think that the "idea of a patch" was used as a crutch during development. That it provided either the developers or publishers the idea that it's ok to finish making a game a few weeks after it has been released.
...and some are just weird. Of course, the line between what is okay to release and patch and what isn't is a bit blurry. Sometimes games have bugs that can only be found after hundreds of thousands of people play the game, and game companies can only hire so many QA testers. Generally, I have found those types of bugs/glitches to only affect a minute amount of people when compared to the game's total sales, and it's understandable if the developers missed it. However, if a game has a noticeable amount of bugs and glitches that directly hinders the player's experience, then the game should be delayed until the problems can be fixed, as no likes playing a game that was released on time if it's half broken.
As of right now, most games are relatively bug free and don't rely on patches in order to be playable, but hopefully the trend of bug testing after a game's release ends here. Games are pretty damn expensive and when I pay $60 for one, I expect it to be playable, and won't crash or have frame rates that drop into the single digits. I hope game publishers and developers feel the same way.
10 Comments
Whenever someone asks "What do you want to see in the next game console?" the answers are generally along the lines of "More Polygons, Better AI, Improved Physics, etc." While those things are all well and good, I find it fun to go a bit deeper and think of some really cool things that can't be done now, but perhaps could be accomplished in the next generation of game consoles. And so, here are some of the ideas that are rattling around in my head.
Improved Wound Physics
To explain, wound physics involves things like bullet/stab/burn wounds, and they aren't found in many games. When you shoot someone in a game, most of the time there's a blood splatter and the enemy falls down with no physical indication that they have been shot. With the next generation of consoles, it would be impressive if when you Ouch... shot someone, they would bleed from hole the bullet made. Or, if you're fighting someone in hand to hand combat and they deck you in the face, you should have a bruise on the area where they hit you. I can understand why this isn't found in games today, as making every bullet being fired impacting the environment or a person in a realistic way would certainly hit a game's performance pretty hard. It would be pretty cool if you could look at an enemy's body to see exactly how they died. Now that I've successfully made myself sound like a serial killer, it might be best to move on.
Improved Environmental Effects
When I played Cryostasis, one of the most impressive things about that game was its ability to make me feel cold. I know that doesn't sound impressive at first, but think about it. When was the last time you watched something that actually made you feel cold without actually being cold? In Cryostasis, when you walked out into a blizzard It may only run at 10fps, but man Cryostasis is pretty. your gun would be glazed with ice, and once you found heat, the ice would slowly melt and run down the gun. Whenever the game Flower is mentioned, the immediate image that pops into my head, is a field where every blade of grass is influenced by the wind. These effects are what bring worlds to life and I would love to see more of them in the future.
Make Minor Characters Look Great Too
I love me a good sandbox game. Running around in a huge environment while doing crazy shit is one of the most entertaining things you can do in a video game. However, one thing that seems to plague these bundles of joy is the quality of people who aren't the main character. Look at games like Infamous or Prototype, and you'll notice that while the main character looks great, every other character in the game looks like they come from a crummier-looking world. Of course, making hundreds of characters on screen look spectacular would bring most frame rates to a halt, but hopefully as technology improves, gap between main characters and minor characters is greatly reduced.
I suppose it's worth noting that I don't think these features should be found in every future game. Games like Kirby's Epic Yarn and Braid have a distinct aesthetic to them that wouldn't benefit from having the above effects included. The effects I features I listed above are meant for games that have a sort of realism to them, so it's important to keep that little side note in mind.
So those are a few of my ideas for how the next generation of games could be improved visually. Of course these are just ideas for the future and by no means do I want the next generation of consoles to come out soon. Game developers are still making games look better and better, and I feel this generation still has a lot more to offer.
19 Comments
Hey GB community, I've been thinking about what to write for the past couple of hours, with nothing too interesting coming to mind. Many users have written about what they've been playing and so I thought I might as well write at least one blog to let you guys in on my gaming life for the past week or two. We'll see how this goes.
After playing hours and hours of Halo Reach, I thought I'd take a break from the blockbuster shooter and start back up some games that I put on hold during its release. One of those games being Civilization V.
Having never played a previous Civ game, I had some idea of what to expect from the demo, but was still unsure as to whether or not it was the game for me. But, having heard Ryan and Vinny's high praise of the game, I thought I might as well buy it and give it a shot. After playing it for 12 hours or so, I can thankfully say I made the right decision by purchasing it. That game is incredibly entertaining, and quitting out of it to do something else is truly a test of my resolve. Having completed my first game, I now
This generally replaces sleep feel comfortable enough to put that game back in the shelf (of my steam library) for the time being to focus on a game I desperately want to complete: Persona 3.
I have poured around 65 hours into Persona 3, a game which I started in summer and still remains uncompleted. I guess it's worth noting that I didn't get the original Persona 3, as that version is crazy expensive. Instead, I got the cheaper but arguably better version: FES. When I'm not writing blogs, making videos, or studying for midterms, I'm generally playing Persona 3. For those who enjoyed the Persona 4 endurance run, but don't want to play a game they've already seen beaten, Persona 3 is an excellent alternative. The story is just as engrossing, and the combat is pretty much the same as Persona 4's. There is a some level grinding needed, but I it's okay with me as I usually just mute my TV and listen to the bombcast or songs on Grooveshark. Either way, it's one of the main contributors to my god-awful sleep schedule although I'm sure it's not the only one.
The question is: How important is HD? Somewhat outside of video games, I've been looking for something to use to record game footage on a 360 and PS3. Thanks to Drew and Hamst3r, I've narrowed down what I'm looking for and have decided to get either something relatively cheap like a Dazzle, or something like a Hauppage PVR that can record HD footage but is more expensive than the Dazzle. This blog probably isn't the best place to ask this, but if you have used a Dazzle or a PVR to record game footage, please comment here or PM me about your experiences with the device and whether or not you recommend it.
Anyway, that's about all that's worth mentioning about my life for the past week. It's not the only stuff but I'd rather not bore you guys to death on the quality of pasta I had three days ago. I'm also going to be a bit lazy here and ask for some suggestions regarding the next blog topic. I spend more time than I would like contemplating what to write about and what better way of knowing what interests the community than asking you guys myself? Preferably it's something relating to video games but I'm keeping an open mind.
So there, hope you guys at least enjoyed reading this update about my life to some degree. Until next time.
1 Comments
Hey GB community! I've been writing some blogs for the past few weeks, and thought I would change things up a bit by making a video review for Halo Reach. I know the game came out a while ago, but it was the most recent game I beat and have sunk a lot of time into that game. I apologize about the less-than-stellar video quality, I'm looking into getting some video capturing equipment, but until then, I guess you'll have to settle for this. Anyway, hope you like it.
When the PSP Go was announced, it caused a stir in the gaming community, as it was the first gaming device (excluding phones) that couldn't use physical media to read games. Instead, digital distribution was the only option given to PSP Go owners, which begs the question, "Will physical media become obsolete and replaced by games that are download-only?" It's a tough question, as services like Steam, XBL, PSN, etc., have become hugely successful, partly due to the sales of down-loadable titles, yet the majority of console games are only commercially available in a disc-based format. If a download-only future is to exist, it's safe to say it won't be for a while.
While digital distribution is popular, there are many people (i.e. kids) who rely on the ability to play games without an internet connection. There aren't many young kids with
I love it for its amazing deals, and hate it for its amazing deals internet access in their rooms, and a download-only system would keep them from being precious customers. The only time games will stop being sold in a disc format is when the sales don't cover the manufacturing costs, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Another thing to take into account is the size of games. For those who don't know, most games these days are pretty damn big (usually ranging from 2-15 gigs) and can take ages to download, depending on your internet connection. If the popularity of digital distribution is to increase, then the average internet speed needs to increase as well. Many people (like me) are impatient, and like to play games immediately after they buy them. Think about it. Who wants to spend 50-60 dollars for a game and then say "Yeah! I own <insert game here>! Now I just need to wait 4 hours or so before I can play it!"? Granted, game installs from a disc aren't instantaneous, but they're a hell of a lot faster than downloading the game from a server.
Those past two paragraphs are pretty negative towards digital distribution, and to clarify, I love digital distribution. I myself am a very disorganized person and generally have to sift through my console games in order to find the one I want. Applications like Steam allow me to access all my games from one spot, instead of resorting to a full system search of "some_game.exe". Also, I would hate to think what would happen if the games I bought on Steam were transformed into game cases. Let's not go there.
If only I could get to this screen faster...and not in Windows 2000 What I would like to see happen, is what happened with Starcraft II. Allow the user to buy the game disc, install it on their computer, 360, PS3, Wii etc. and then have that game registered to that specific account so you no longer need the disc anymore. The game would be shown on your account and then you could download it from the companies' servers anytime you wanted without having to go Indiana Jones on your desk/shelf/alternate storage device. Of course, what I want and what will happen are generally two very different things. I'm guessing that if my disc/download hybrid idea ever did come to fruition, there would most likely be some sort of fee involved, as bandwidth ain't cheap. I'm not going to go into all the business mumbo jumbo of what would work best and how that particular situation should be handled, but it's something to keep in mind.
So what is the definitive answer to the blog title? Well, there really isn't one. Sorry if that was misleading, but I'm not going to lie to you and say "This is what companies are doing and it will happen at this time". However, I wouldn't say that my ideas are without merit, and maybe some of my hypotheses will turn out right. The answer to the question, "What will happen to digital distribution" rests upon you, the consumer. If more people buy games from Steam, XBL, PSN, Wii Shop Channel, etc., then digital distribution will continue to grow. If not, then it probably won't. It's up to you and everyone else regarding where digital distribution ends up.
So, that's what I've got to say about that matter. If you enjoyed the read, tell me. If you didn't, tell me why. If you have thoughts/opinions about the new age of digital distribution, feel free to share as I enjoy the discussion, but if you want to keep your precious company secrets secret that's fine too. Either way, thanks for reading!
12 Comments
With the recent announcement of Dead Space 2 to feature multiplayer, I have been wondering about different shooters and how important multiplayer is in each one. Sure you have the games that really benefit from the multiplayer like Halo and Call of Duty, but then there are those games whose multiplayer doesn't seem as necessary, like BioShock 2. Don't get me wrong, BioShock 2's multipayer is functional, and can be entertaining at times, but it seems kind of like an afterthought when you compare it to the game's campaign. It just doesn't have that same level of polish that I desire when I pick up a multiplayer game.
My theory is that the importance of a game's multiplayer really depends upon the person playing it. There are those people who buy games like Halo Reach or Call of Duty, without even touching the single player. It's the one game that they play and get really good at. They rely on the game's multiplayer to have a fun and varied gaming experience that they can enjoy for a good long time. Of course there are those of us who don't even touch a game's multiplayer, and instead focus on the game's campaign, preferring AI to actual people.
What does the community think? Should multiplayer be a requirement for most shooters? Or, should "atmospheric" games like BioShock 2 and Dead Space 2 have a more extensive single player experience?
Greetings GB community! As promised, here is the much anticipated second iteration of my blog regarding getting a job in the game industry. If you haven't read the previous article, then you can find it here.
In my previous article, I gave basic tips on what you can do to get yourself noticed, without regards to what type of field you are in. Now, I'm going to be a bit more specific and talk about what people in different fields of game development can do to show off their respective talents. Again, for those of you too lazy to click the link, I am have not worked in the game industry before. These are just things that I've learned from a myriad of game developers at the GDCs I've attended. These tips aren't guaranteed to get you a job in the game industry, but hopefully they will help you out if you wish to do so.
Design
Game designers are the guys/girls who have the big ideas, and as such, you need to able to show that you can effectively write down and explain your ideas in a clear and concise manner so that the artists and programmers are seeing the same thing you are. So, one thing to put on your blog would be some extensive design docs for a game you originally came up with. Then, go into some real detail. Who/ what is the main character? What is the main character's goal? Are there upgrades? Levels? Weapons? The ability to pee anywhere, not just a urinal? These questions plus many more, are things you will have to think about and write down. By the end, you should have a clear idea of what your game is about and how it works. If you are in college, I recommend taking some writing courses that will teach you how to write in a clear, concise, and interesting manner. Another thing you should do is buy a game that has a good map editor like Unreal Tournament 3 and design some levels to show off! There are tools out there that allow you to build levels without having to study three years of C++ or Java, use them.
Art
One of the advantages of being a game artist is the ability to really grasp the reader of your site. Quality concept art and character models have an eye-catching ability that isn't found in design docs and lines of code. This isn't to say that you will have an easier time getting a job, but it's nice that you can show off your work and impress those aren't even necessarily into gaming. If you are an artist who would rather draw with paper and paint rather than a tablet, then simply go to the nearest Kinkos and scan your drawings so that you may upload your work to your site. Also, a word of advice for those wishing to be character modelers. Making models of frightening monsters that came from the depths of Hell is fine, but one thing you can do that is truly impressive is design a good looking human. Monsters are relatively easy and fun to make because you can't really go wrong and have unlimited creativity at your disposal. But to be able to model a realistic human face giving realistic emotions is an impressive feat that not a ton of people can do. Also make sure to keep your drawing style in mind. If you draw mostly anime or things like orcs or elves, then you probably aren't going to be hired as an artist for the next Halo or BioShock.
Programming
This is the part where things get a little complicated. There many different types of programmers, and some rely more heavily on artists than others to show off their work. For example, if you program physics engines, you can easily show off a level you programmed involving different objects and how they interact with very little art assets involved. However, if you are a "presentation" programmer (i.e. programs shaders) then you need some art to program with, or at least need to make a tech demo that uses as little art as possible. Another way to handle the issue is go to the art department of a college (preferably a school that has visual arts courses) and find someone who you can collaborate with.
That's all I've got to say about the subject for now. I know what I was discussing was still pretty general considering the amount of different positions in each field, but hopefully it helped you out in some way or another. Again, if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to comment below or send me a pm. Thanks for reading!
1 Comments
Hey Giant Bomb community! I know there are many people out there who want to get into the video game industry, but don't exactly know how. So, I thought I would write a few different blog articles on what I've learned so far. To be clear, I am not an employee of a video game company, nor have I ever been one. I've been to a couple of GDCs, read a few books, and feel I feel that I have some semi-useful information that's worth sharing. Whether that is actually the case is an entirely different matter. Now, considering that the game industry is HUGE, writing one massive blog article probably isn't in the best interest of your sanity or mine. Instead, I'm going to start out with what I consider to be some of the more important tips. So, without further ado, here we go:
1. Connections Are Key
There are many jobs out there that almost require an "in", and unfortunately the game industry is one of them. Knowing the right people at the right time can be the difference between working on the next AAA title, and ending up like the guy who made "Bob's game". But how does one get to know the right people at the right time? Well, I have found the best place to be the Game Developers Conference or "GDC" which is generally located at San Francisco's Moscone Center. This event allows future game developers to put their foot through the door by talking with different developers. It's filled with people who just love video games, and want to teach others not only how to make better games, but how to get into the industry in the first place. Showing off your work, and networking with those who can get you to where you want to be, is one of the most important things to do, if you want to be noticed. You don't have to got to GDC to network with industry professionals, but it's one of the better places to do so.
2. Make an Online Portfolio
Game developers are always looking for talent, but keep in mind they are also extremely busy, and generally won't go out of their way to look at your work if you make it difficult for them. That's why it is essential to have an online portfolio. A web page that contains all of your previous work, and informs potential employers why you deserve to be hired. Don't worry, you don't need to have 2-3 years of web page design and build a website from the ground up in order to do this. Just do what most game developers do, and use sites like WordPress and Linkedin. For now I'm going to focus on WordPress. WordPress is a great place to build an online portfolio, as it allows you to write about yourself (hopefully things an employer would like to hear) and upload important files like your resume. To give you an idea of a great online portfolio, visit Jacob Minkoff's site to see how he organizes his work. Use his site as a a general guideline when making your own WordPress profile, as anyone likes sites to be clear, and easily navigable.
3. Be Accessible
Word Press also has tools that allow people to navigate your profile with their smartphone. That might not seem that important, but trust me, making your page accessible to smartphone users is essential, as that's how many game developers visit online portfolios. I've learned that since many game developers are crazy busy throughout the day, the only time they have to visit online profiles is while they are on the subway or ferry back home. Because you want your profile to be accessible on a smartphone, you'll also want to keep in mind that Flash doesn't work with everything (like the iPhone) and so if you have any video on your profile, be sure to upload that video to Youtube, and then upload the Youtube video, to your site. Nothing sucks worse than having an awesome video to show off to employers, only to have it never be seen since it's not compatible on mobile devices.
I warn you: My next piece of advice is going to sound really dumb, but trust that it will help you in the long run. Post your contact information on the site. Not just email, but your cell phone number as well. If you are still reading this, kudos! Because that was some crazy-sounding shit I just said. However keep in mind that you want to make yourself as easy to contact as humanly possible. Yes, chances are that you will get some spam, but making yourself easy to reach is key if you want to get ahead.
Those are just some of the general tips, I've learned and they certainly don't cover all everything you need to know (if you are trying to get into the game industry). Hopefully they were helpful to you and you can use them to achieve your goals. If you have any questions, comments, etc., feel free to comment below or send a PM my way and I'll try to respond as quickly as I can. Until next time, cheers!
26 Comments
I love going to the movie theater. It's a wonderful, air-conditioned refuge that allows me to kill a couple hours with my friends, while also viewing movies on a screen that is larger than my house. The only problem is that the popcorn there costs about as much as the movie itself. It's ridiculous when you consider that it costs the theater about 25 cents (if that), to make you a bucket of popcorn that they charge seven dollars for. To make matters worse, the common solution for popcorn at home is microwave popcorn, which really is only a shadow of the movie theater kind. Sure, there's microwaveable popcorn that is advertised as "movie theater quality" but when you compare the two, there really is no comparison. So how does one make cheap quality popcorn in their own home without using a microwave? It's simple, you make it the same way the movie theaters do.
I, like many people, am lazy. I'm one of those guys who groans at the thought of switching games to play multi-player with my friends, since that involves me getting up to switch out the game discs. Because of this, I settled with microwaveable popcorn for many years due to its convenience. However, a few months ago I was browsing
This will save you a lot of money Amazon for random deals, and came upon the Whirley Pop Popcorn Popper (say that five times fast). This device is the answer to those who want to quickly make awesome-tasting popcorn that is either just as good or better than the kind at the theater. After making popcorn with this for a while now, I feel comfortable giving some tips on how to get the most out of it and how to save yourself some time and trouble.
First off, making popcorn with a traditional popcorn popper will take more time than if you just microwaved it. However, it is my firm belief that the increase in quality and taste of the popcorn is more than enough to justify the small amount of extra time needed to make it. When you first get the Whirley Pop Popcorn Popper, it comes packaged with around three or so bowls worth of popcorn with a special butter-salt substance that you mix in. It's pretty good, but it's not worth the price when bought separately. To save yourself some money, buy some un-popped popcorn at your local grocery store, and use that instead of buying more expensive popcorn mix from Whirley Pop.
When you have the cheap popcorn, use one tablespoon of peanut oil (or some other kind of oil if allergic) and 1/3 of a cup of popcorn kernels. If you want to make the amount you would get for a large popcorn at a movie theater, then I would suggest using 1 and 1/2 tablespoons of oil and 2/3 of a cup of popcorn kernels. Anything larger than that amount would cause the popcorn to spill over the popper, making a huge mess. Melt some butter and add some salt if you want and you will have yourself a quality bowl of popcorn.
Something to keep in mind when using a popcorn popper is that stuff burns easily if you aren't careful. My first few tries making popcorn ended up with me popping all the kernels, but leaving some burn marks on the bottom of the pot. The burn marks can be removed with enough Bon Ami and elbow grease, but there are a couple things you Movie Theater Popcorn aka: Scam can do to keep yourself from getting into that situation in the first place. One, is to set the stove to medium heat. It may take a bit longer to make the popcorn, but you will save yourself a lot of time and clean up. Also, when the rate of pops starts to slow, take the popper off of the stove and pour the popcorn into the bowl immediately. You will have some un-popped kernels, but it's next to impossible to pop all the kernels without burning the popcorn.
Cleaning the popper is pretty simple as well. All you need to do is take a dry paper towel and clean off any excess grease or popcorn husks. Be sure to actually wash the popper every few uses to insure that it stays clean. I know it seems like a lot of information to take in for such a simple task, but the process definitely gets easier with time.
If you have any questions, comments, critiques, or ideas you would like to share, feel free to leave a comment or send a pm my way. I hope you enjoyed the read!
20 Comments
Ever since those cheesy monster flicks in the 80’s, 3D has been a symbol of the future. The thought of being “part of the experience” has brought many people to the movie theater so that they may be wowed by optical illusions. 3D-capable TVs and monitors are finally commercially available, but many tech journalists have been giving them the cold shoulder. So why is a technology that was once exclusive to movie theaters, now being shunned when introduced to the living room?
Price
3D-capable TVs and monitors are a somewhat new technology, and like most new technology, are expensive. A Samsung 43BWT 22’ LCD monitor from Falcon Northwest is $299 while a Samsung SyncMaster 2233RZ 120Hz 22" LCD Monitor from the same seller is $649. Paying more than double the price of a normal monitor is a hard sell to those who only have a mild interest in 3D. The culprit behind the large increase in price is the high refresh rate that is required when displaying a 3D image. Less expensive 3D-capable monitors are available; however, their refresh rates are significantly lower than 120Hz. This can lead to a “ghosting” effect that makes motion displayed on the screen appear blurry.
You have to be Looking Directly at the Screen
While looking directly at a screen may not sound like that big of a deal, you need to take into account the number of times you change your viewing angle. If you are leaning back, to the side, with your head tilted, then the 3D images that your computer or TV displays will look distorted and unpleasant. When sitting in the center of a movie theater, there isn’t a problem. However, if you are sitting in a chair that swivels and reclines, it can be difficult to stay in one position for very long.
3D Takes a Toll Your GPU
This is a problem that many people don’t take into account. Most 3D-capable monitors display two images in order to make something look 3D. This can take a toll on a computer’s GPU, resulting in lower quality visuals, and/or a lower frame rate. If you have a powerful graphics card already then there isn’t much of a problem, but if your card is a couple years old and is already showing its age, then 3D could be too much for it to handle. If that is the case, you will have to upgrade your graphics card if you want a 3D display. This can create problems associated with upgrading a GPU, like possibly having to get a new motherboard or power supply.
Only Certain Games can Display in 3D
Let’s be honest, pretty much the only reason someone would buy a 3D monitor would be for games. (TVs are an exception) Companies like Nvidia are pushing 3D as “The future of gaming” showing off Batman: Arkham Asylum and Metro 2033 in 3D at events like GDC and CES. One thing to notice is that those games can be displayed in 3D because the developers made them 3D ready. As of now, few games can actually be displayed in 3D. (Unless there’s some third party software I haven’t heard of) While a 3D-capable monitor can still display in 2D, it defeats the purpose of having a 3D-capable monitor.
Now, I want to make it clear that I don’t hate 3D. In fact, if I have the option, I generally pay the extra money to see a movie in 3D. It’s the reasons listed above that makes me skeptical about its move from the movie theater to my living room. While none of those reasons on their own are deal breakers, they add up to an expensive feature, that most of us don’t really need. It is my belief that until game designers can come up with something original that makes 3D a viable option to the average consumer, it will remain where it is now: At the movie theater.
Log in to comment