Perhaps it's best to not engage the public there any more. Jeez!
I'm thinking a closed EA next time, with just those on the forums! Ha!
Also, I want the minor faction build. I don't care if my computer explodes if/when I run it.
I'd agree that for strategic, that definitely needs to go under the magnifying glass. It seems to have been a constant way to do things for Stardock, that I believe under scrutiny would work better with the institution of an actual "Wait" command. You wouldn't even need to get rid of the tab method, just add the wait option as well.
I'd like to re-iterate that for tactical, I'd like it left just as it currently is. Not that you mentioned changing that, just throwing it in.
I think it's worthwhile to have a whole discussion on the grognardism.
What I don't like seeing are games that put in superficial features to appeal to grognards to cover up very very simple games while sophisticated games get hammered as being "Streamlined" because the UI doesn't inundate the player with knobs, levers and pointless data.
I'm not sure why you'd expect friendliness when you've filled your review with semi-personal attacks and general objectively untrue statements. I just think you wanted the attention of having the first negative review. Your points are poorly laid out and some of them are literally completely untrue.
Maybe next time you should invest more time in to the game or your words. Or both. Preferably both.
Pass means pass as in - I don't want to move this turn. The TAB key lets the player move to the next unit instead. While someone is welcome to disagree with this mechanic, we've been doing it in our games for 20 years and like this functionality. It's not a bug.
I think the case could be made to add a new state to the unit (like have the unit go to GUARD mode) when you hit the space bar which ignores it for the rest of the turn but keeps its moves the same. But referring to a design element you don't like as a "bug" is exactly the kind of thing that is grating in the way you write.
--
As for the review. I think I'll pass on asking for the flag to be removed. Me thinking you are arrogant does not indicate whether we are friendly or not as developers. We're not friendly to you, mainly because you've spent your time being insulting and mischaracterizing our game.
The biggest problem with your writing is that you speak as if your subjective opinions are universal truths. Besides being off-putting, it creates an inaccurate representation of whatever the subject matter is.
I see. Thank you for your responses. I'm not sure I can say any more in my defence. (that you will listen to, even my promises to remove offending remarks).
So, the offending remarks will remain. I will see if an impartial Valve moderator can arbitrate in this dispute.
Do you mean objectively untrue statements about the game itself (not about friendliness of developers, etc.)? If yes, could you elaborate on this? I don't own the game and I'm genuinely interested.
(also, yes I'd love to see pass be renamed to something like 'wait' just to avoid the noob trap of accidentally deleting moves from a unit you want to move. It's a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things but I think it's something that would benefit all stardock games. Hence my bringing it up in the review... which until now nobody seemed bothered by.)
I appreciate your literary criticisms too Frogboy. I know my mum has called me out on sounding arrogant and condescending once (when explaining how to use the remote), and when she did I felt awful. I don't think anyone ever intends to sound arrogant, but it's an easy thing to slip into for those who never studied English at Uni and aren't very careful with their words. But it can also be a sign of passion, anger and frustration. These aren't sins. I don't ask forgiveness for being frustrated at the game, but certainly for sounding arrogant or seeming to make false claims. Which I'd clarify or correct if I were able and you point them out.
He speaks about a lack of plan on replayability that is untrue, as the plan is found in many dev logs and on the official forums everywhere. The sovereigns, spellbooks, heroes and quests are all very much capable of changing the replayability of the game.
He also speaks about the autoresolve change like it is forced on to nearly every battle. Again, that is not true. It only occurs when the player is decidedly stronger than the opposing army.
There were others and I don't have time to go back right now, but I will later. Sorry
I think a lot of the tone of your writing comes from, what I suspect, is technical writing. That is, in technical writing, (and I am guilty of this) we are not supposed to say "I" but instead "one".
The problem is, when I'm writing something that is subjective, I have to be careful to stick with the *I* article instead of the "one" or "we" because it changes the meaning from being "this is MY opinion" to "this is universal truth".
As soon as you start saying things that read as statements of facts, all someone has to do is point out that your "fact" is wrong to undermine the rest of your position.
The second part is assuming that everyone is talking about you. I wasn't that annoyed with you or your review. I was annoyed with people who hadn't bought the game who were just trolling the forum. When you post, it shows that you have the game. Any time I see that icon, I know I"m speaking to a customer. But you keep internalizing every insult/criticism that's been posted.
XwereWolfX, I appreciate you taking the time to read it. I agree saying 'no replayability' was an intentionally extreme choice of words. Replayability is about how likely you are to come back to a game, how it makes you feel, how engaging it is. Bejewelled for example has tons of replayability for my mum. To me, less so. It is a purely subjective topic, entirely opinion. I stated my opinion (in anger) and I intentionally used a ridiculous and obviously impossible extreme 'none', like saying a game is 'infinitely' replayable... although even that can be technically correct. i.e. play it once and never come back. No replayability. But the strong language here is used to provoke debate or discussion and is on an entirely subjective matter.
The Autoresolve change I see as part of a wider curbing of tactical combat. A shift to autoresolve being the expected form of gameplay. Giving you the number for combat ratings, though it seems wonderful is, in my opinion, something that can lead to more autoresolved battles... I said why and gave a more complete reply in both the comments to the review and in the early access discussion topic.
It is quite strange having to specify with every line that this is just an opinion, especially in a review by just one unhappy customer. I didn't expect many people to think the reviews were written by the developers in full and complete knowledge of each stage of development... merely "How does it feel to you? Mr/Mrs Paying customer, did you enjoy it? Why?" If you aren't expected to put a thumbs down, why is that one of the two options? Should it be removed?
[edit]
Frogboy, I appreciate your further clarification. I have done more technical writing than reviews and it is hard not to sound like I'm writing a textbook. But concerning personalisation, it's hard not to take something like this personally:
"Me thinking you are arrogant does not indicate whether we are friendly or not as developers. We're not friendly to you, mainly because you've spent your time being insulting and mischaracterizing our game."
I may be confused elsewhere, but here you clearly stated you were unfriendly to me, find me arrogant and that I insulted and mischaracterized your game. I want to be able to correct mischaracterizations and remove overt insults where it is grossly inappropriate. (Even if it were humorous like 'you're a meany poo')
Number of reviews in history we've flagged as abusive == 1. (all Stardock games, all platforms)
That's what's so amazing... I really never expected to be the worst and most insulting review you've ever had. It was meant to be a WIP, regularly updated review cataloguing the changes in the game. That was my initial intention, I just found the game very frustrating.
I don't know if it'll help but if I were able to edit the review I'd happily throw in lots of: "I think...", "I found...", "I worry..." liberally, I just assumed those were implicit in a personal opinion, informal public review. I'd even turn it into a song if that would help. I'm quite willing to bend over backwards, I really am if it's needed. But I will still explain and clarify myself. (even post up an un-edited copy of it on the early access discussion, so that I can't be accused of hiding or swapping the text for some malicious purpose). After today I'd much rather have just deleted it, but very few of my concerns have changed, only the wording of them. Nor has my opinion radically altered, I need to see the game in a more advanced state for that.
I hear what your saying, but I think we’re looking at it from two different perspectives. Many years ago, my co-workers and I were complaining about a version of Windows we had to use. An IT guy overheard us, came over, and started to defend that version. From his “under the hood” perspective, it was the best Windows ever.
Civ5 may be the holy grail of under the hood game programming that all other developers strive for, but the only thing that really matters is the end user experience. From my perspective, relative to CivIV, I did not find Civ V fun or engaging.
The *only* thing we're looking for is to not have personal attacks (i.e. don't make it about me or Stardock, or the people who make the games). Just focus on the game itself. That's all we're asking.
How you write your review is your business. Freedom of speech and all. You don't have to state something as your opinion. You can even state things that are wrong. I just don't want to be personally attacked or see my development team attacked. That's all.
Oddly enough, it was that very review that made me commit to buying SK Too much hyperbole to really convince. It came across as having a bone to pick. Anyways, I judge for myself.
Regarding "Pass" not being a "Wait" command, it's perfectly consistent with Stardock's "queueless" turn mechanism (which does seem to be universal, but that's their prerogative).
That's not a bug, it's just a different choice of UI mechanism. If you're expecting the (cursor-ish) linked-ring with multiple traversals through your units, then maybe the docs are incomplete (*boomp-chh*). But a misconception is ultimately pilot error, not a design bug.
Stardock's policy of never End early does impose burdens of its own, e.g. some GC3 testers complain that it bogs down endgames with huge numbers of fleets. So the UI could be tweaked with additional features, maybe even the ask to End early override.
I want to get involved in the discussion, but you are using to many big words.
Gilmoy, that's quite technical I'm not sure I follow it either [I struggled to follow the Influence mechanic GalCiv3 thread too, I read it twice but it didn't sink in for some reason, so please forgive me if I'm missing your point]. I merely wished that a passed unit would allow the turn to end on clicking end turn, but if you don't end the turn and instead click the unit later you can change your mind and issue another action instead. (maybe flagging the unit 'passed' or 'skipped' or changing some hidden state rather than deleting the moves.
I'm not sure that functionality is inherently limited to specific turn-order-resolutions or systems. I honestly didn't put that much thought into it... merely accidentally passed with a pioneer and a hero (when I wanted to move a scout instead) and found it frustrating. I went back to other games and realised it's like that everywhere... I thought that odd. I didn't realise it was such a controversial point.
Anyway, back to Frogboy. Personal attacks... I still think 'unfriendly' isn't a personal attack but a valid comment on the game itself. I can only give my reason why:
The 'early access experience' or one of bug reporting, listing suggestions and issues from my experience from many other companies (I like games, I am happy to go the extra mile for them) has been a fun and mentally stimulating one. (Even chatting with one Dev in the pub. Buying cookies, that sort of thing. Or going to something like fixaxicon – not that I've gone there, bit too expensive to travel. [edit] Note: not Developers I've reviewed, I couldn't be impartial there) It gives people an opportunity to make a game better* and for them to feel valued, listened to and respect shown.
*The game being better in a small, humble and entirely subjective way... though I think squashing a bug is almost always good. Good-bad bugs not withstanding. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodBadBugs)
I class some developers as friendly. It is my opinion, but I can provide examples and think it very relevant or I wouldn't mention it. I've reported bugs with other companies, had a friendly response within minutes and then had it fixed by that evening – to allow me to carry on my game unimpeded and with a smile. I've had developers comment on after-action reports or with firm encouragement at harsh criticism, a short note in the manner - 'Thank you. We want people to point out any unthematic situations or mechanics, they aren't intended and we'll look into them.' Even just 'Fixed. Thanks'
Short, sweet and to the point. It is friendly.
Blocking my review and all these threads and topics using words like troll, arrogant... etc. All the replies and all the pain is not, in my opinion, a representative example of what a good developer-customer relationship involves. The relationship is a bad one, perhaps that would be more accurate.
Could I say this instead?
“The developer-customer relationship I've experienced is a bad one, the worst of any game I've ever played. A marriage falling apart over complaints about rudeness, arrogance and personal hygiene – ok maybe no comments about personal hygiene, but lots of anger, aggression and painful arguments nonetheless.”
Watching my lumbering Iron Golems move is very fulfilling.
Having my favorite super of slugs wrapped in dandelion leaves, fulfills me something terrible.
I liked using the Jandor's set (Saddlebags + 2 others?) for bonus uncolored mana for my Fast Colossi of Sardia deck, with 9/9 Trample each. Durn AIs always crumbled before I got 3 in play ...
And some permanent-removal to kill Aladdins. I hate Aladdins.
More deeply, it is fun to spot an opportunity, design, build, and play a clockwork combination, and see it work the way you intended (or nearly so). I loved it when human opponents accused me of cheating because I beat them so bad, and I said "no, it's right here in the online help pages, here here here and here, I found it in 20 minutes the first day I read them, you have to build it like this", and they blush scarlet and have no further words. I loved it even more when my anonymous opponent used every trick I knew, correctly countered every trick I used, and afterwords we discussed them, and she says "well sure, they're obvious".
I have a cold, bottomless disdain for the teeming hordes of players who have not learned any of the combos, bring their noob game to the big dog circuit, lose like noobs, and complain bitterly that the game is out to get them. I take their points, and say "gg, it's here here and here".
I was a dev, I've run a public Beta, and I still design. That forces me to be precise. Enumerating the space of design alternatives is part of that.
I've found that it's a good way to interact with other designers, developers, and players. At the design level, it broaden the scope of thinking to encompass the design space of alternatives, and then you can judge the tradeoffs, and maybe target a niche. At a Beta level, it filters the proposed changes by considering costs (to implement), design intent, and game balance. As a player, it drives us to play the meta-game, i.e. scour the rules, numbers, units on the board (or cards in a CCG), and devise combinations, strategies, tactical tricks, and other aspects of game-play. I'm a geek at heart, and I love crunching numbers (and rules) better than the other guy.
“The developer-customer relationship I've experienced is a bad one ...”
OK, that's your experience. I'll do it my way, you do it yours.
After reading this thread 2 things occur to me:
1) Frankenfurter, you are taking general comments about the Steam forums much too personally. I've looked over your posts, and while I disagree with much of what you say and do think there is some misrepresentation in some of your posts, you are not the kind of person that people were complaining about before you started posting in this thread. The Steam forums can be a truly toxic and ignorant place, especially for games in early access. The insults were directed at those who create that toxic environment, and you are not among them, so climb off your cross.
2) There is a long tradition in journalism of not reviewing unfinished works. This applies not only to video games, but to literature, theatre, film, and books to name a few. The reason for this is that reviewing an unfinished product is not really fair to either the creator or the potential consumer of the product. Two fairly recent developments have changed this: social media, and early access. Social media, including forums, create and environment in which it is much easier for a wider swath of people to "publish" reviews. Often these are written by people who lack the training, editorial controls, and accountability of traditional reviewers. Early access means both that many more people are getting to see what an unfinished game looks like, and that developers are asking consumers to pay for a product before it is finished. Many people would argue that if a developer is accepting money for a product, it can and should be reviewed for the benefit of the potential consumer. To me this attitude, and much of the anger on Steam forums about EA, results from a misinterpretation of what Early Access is. I have seen many posts that complain that developers are expecting consumers to pay full price for a partially finished game. This is not true. The developers are asking customers to pay for a finished game, and as a bonus allowing them access to pre-release builds. When I payed my $20 for the SK Founder's Edition I was not paying for an unfinished game, I was actually getting a discount on the finished game and getting access to early builds as a bonus. This is actually a much better deal for the consumer then a traditional pre-order, which has been around forever and no one seems to complain about. The problem with many pre-release reviews is that they treat the product as if it were a finished product and hold it to the same standards as finalized games.
Imagine if Ford started a program where you could buy a car that hadn't come out yet, then offered a special bonus for gear-heads where they will build it in your garage so you can see the car as it is being built and see how all the parts are put together. You can even fiddle around with it as they build it. This could be pretty cool, but if someone published a review of the car before it was finished and trashed it for not having doors or a transmission, that wouldn't really be fair and Ford would be understandably upset.
As pertains to reviews of early access products, any product that is brought to market and sold to consumers should be fair game for a critical review. Early access is not and should not be used as armor to insulate a title from criticism, as long as that criticism is fair and truthful. One must keep in mind that early access is not a promise that a finished, polished or working game will be provided to the customer, thus it is imperative that people provide a critical evaluation of the product in question.
History shows us that the early access path is veritably littered with the following: Abandoned and incomplete games, games perpetually in early access, games that release without many of their promised features, games that are unplayable due to bugs and games that are simply cynical cash grabs. Though I do not believe any of those apply to Stardock or this game, I will say that I am extremely disappointed to see the same bugs that were unresolved in FE:LH rearing their ugly heads in Sorcerer King: Odd character and road pathing on the world map, multiple enemy units occupying the same square on the tactical map, mouse cursor getting frozen in an inappropriate form, completion of unfinished moves upon reload...etc.
As I purchased the game, it should be obvious that I do not believe that SK is simply a reskin or DLC. That being said, it is not hard to understand why some folks hold that opinion. It is the same engine with all the same bugs. Combat seems to be functionally identical to FE:LH. The game mechanics have been dramatically streamlined, while the game is currently lacking most of the core features that differentiate it from its predecessor. Fair or not, there is a perception that removed features, and indeed even the primary conceit of SK itself, are merely an effort to cope with several nasty recurring AI foibles and bugs that could not be resolved in FE:LH. Like it or not, the perception is present and the onus is on the dev team to correct that perception. I have tried with my personal friends, but they are not biting...all I can do to sell them is to show them that the age old bugs are squashed and that the core mechanics are different and enjoyable. Only the dev team can provide that, and I sincerely hope they will.
Hi,
I'm a recently returned customer to Stardock.
TL;DR after the first couple of pages the negativity also kill any desire to know what was being said. And my post is really long and parts should be in other places but I'm off to work so here they go... (I pre-forgive any TL;DRs)
I may have missed if these points were made:
1
Please don't start "forum wars" the whole "them versus us" thing should be kept where it belongs, on the game itself
I'm and others reading are on both forums so no matter what your offending someone who may be deciding if they are going to join your community
2 (As said by others, just agreeing)
Elemental was redeemed most by giving FE away
The most common comment I heard was people wish its was the originally released game
FE:LH being free for original Element buyers redeemed any remaining criticism and brought many people back.
(I play games for long stretches and miss old games so my library expands slowly.)
But there are going to be plenty of people that never "forgive and forget"
3
I'm just playing FE:LH now an I'm loving 90% of it, which means it'll probably be only of my games I go back to play long into the future
Which is why trust in a developer does matter to me. Games aren't complete anymore, there always patches and even communities that try to keep them alive.
For Example I still play Galciv usually after finding one of many Galciv 2 CDs, a great game too, but Galciv (with expansions) is more fun time than challenging.
Digital content unfortunate requires connecting online. Reasonable in some ways, but I'm old school if you "improve" something to the most common denominator, I generally hate it.
4 (I think it's been said by others but putting it into my words, for benefit of others who haven't played SK.)
If I've read correctly elsewhere on the forum, the biggest difference that people should know is SK is meant to be story driven, rather than balanced. The BBEG already won and is sucking up the world's magic, so it's OK if his forces are more powerful than others. or there could be spells that would never be good for FE:LH that take time and effort to learn but are "game-breaking"
For example if I run straight through the story, trying to strike the SK down ASAP. I'd have few forces or resources, right? Well OP spells are another resource I'm spending my time finding. Or I might sacrifice that big spell so I can unlock story content that doesn't help me win, but I enjoy going through at least once.
5ish
Finding your market is more important than pleasing everyone.
I've always hated the 0 move skip, but I'm not going to let a single programming decision stop enjoying the rest of the game.
Think of it as Marilyn Monroe's Mole.
6
Future $
I don't think the current gaming market is sane, the games making stupid amounts of money have little "game" and virtually all "play"
I think there should be a (cross-able even bridgeable) divide between games and toys.
Toys are things you play with to pass time or amuse yourself
Games "can" fill that role, but should be engaging and entertaining
(Sorry if that sounds like I'm repeating myself but I think Stardock customers will understand)
Games should cost more, because they take more, even non AAA games.
I'd love to see the following pricing structure, wish I had time to draw graphs:
First Supporters:
2nd highest pricing
Get the game and various bonuses
Why?: You're either a big fan or an early adopter, you're the cash that gets the games developed in this Brave New World
Highest Pricing
MSRP
Why?: Early adopters that waited to see the final game or heard about how the Alpha/Beta went, you took little risk
Pricing drops
Over time, try to keep it slow
Why: I generally think of Stardock games as $20 level, and should stay there until they are "obsolete" (hard to think of for art, but when the next version keeps being so much better!)
DLC
Please break it into two categories
Content worth raising the combined price back to MSRP
"Bonus content" $1-$5 worth of hey I can be a race of Steam-warriors from off-world (look very Space Hulk-ish there aren't you????) (I was going to say Zerg, but that's so overdone LOL)or here's some cool new equipment you can choose to add to your sovereign! And OP things like allowing your faction and or sovereign more points in exchange for buffing the opposition.
Why: The first supports improving the game and interest the developers have in patches and maybe even forking the game to try out a game play idea on a massive market. The second should be more fun to code for AKA busy/fun work, but reward the artists for their work.
I was busy over the weekend and only today came back to find a message from Frogboy unblocking my review. So thank you very much for that. I do appreciate the opportunity to try to write something different and hopefully now a little less personal. With more about the difference in dream and vision and the legacy of Elemental. Keeping the emotion but not being quite as angry... I think. It's hard to tell. I cut lots from that first review but it still came out far harsher than I intended. Maybe this one is even worse than the first... I can't tell.
I wrote at least 5x as much as would fit into a review just to get some of my ranting thoughts out. Whole sections on movement, pathfinding, mechanics, balance... it was a very long list... comparing SK to other games in each category with examples. Sections on pricing and DLC... all are (I think) valid issues but I've tried to put less little quibbles over current mechanics and more of an overview of the entire series and what made me personally upset. Because I do think I have views shaped from my disappointment over Elemental. (I've only recently been able to get FE and LH working... Elemental played brilliantly on my laptop, it met the original specifications but after a few years of driver conflicts and issues coupled with the advancing system requirements... well my laptop would crash during the design screens after each graphic *upgrade* it only got worse... So I've (not) been playing that stunted version of the game due to my own shoddy equipment and low funds. It's only now I've been able to come back to all of it with fresh eyes and a working computer that can play the game to victory. Hence years of silence and a sudden burst of reviews, opinions and suggestions as I've had a chance to dip into all the fun new games released.
Bemral [on point 6, pricing] - I'd love to be able to see clearly how much money a game has made and needs to raise to add new features. Also how much value for money a game represents - £/h and similar stats. Perhaps that would encourage you to tip a game that has obviously given you lots of enjoyment but still needs money for new features. I'd certainly buy that DLC for a few games I know. Also I do like Kickstarter for the kick it forward concept... donating profits to other projects to help the smaller, bold ideas. Pricing games is always a bit of black magic, since they have effectively infinite numbers of copies to sell, because of that it's completely opaque as to whether a game has recouped its costs, crashed and burned or flown off the shelves. Or how much it should cost, or how much its cost should change over time. Muddied even further by sales, bundles, special offers, currency conversions and regional pricing. (The odd Australia tax to give one example). Once a game has no more updates planned I think the price should be slashed, mostly to represent that you aren't supporting the game from that point onwards but merely buying someone a nice house. Which isn't quite what you probably had in mind when you handed over your cash.
Peregrine23. I think I was taking it too personally. I just don't like to see people ganging up on each other or attacking entire groups for any reason whatsoever (racial, religious, or merely for voicing different opinions). I was standing up for not just myself but a lot of other people that were just talking, comparing games and chatting on steam. Without malice or insults that I could see. If I had seen it (I didn't see it, except in my own review) I would have spoken up there, not here. I couldn't even change my review there so I had to speak up here.
I think people should speak up when and where they see venomous/trollish posts... talking about it here is obscure, opaque and hints without explicitly stating what was offensive. It helps no one to stay silent when abuse is going on... even if I'm the one labelled as abusive I want people to tell me - so therefore took a lot of the blame personally. I just have the view that leaving an opinion unvoiced is almost criminal, for without voicing it you can't argue with it, without argument you can't be convinced to change, or be forgiven or for differences to be reconciled. Silence then, is, in my twisted logic more harmful than harsh words. I just value honesty above all else... lawful stupid, able to do bad/stupid things if and when they stick to their own warped code of conduct. Or perhaps true neutral. Not intentionally good or evil, questioning rules while having personal rules... ah, I hate labels. Even something as simple as alignment.
Peregine23:
On the second point. At what point, during a game with constant development over many years, with different versions, updates, DLC and expansions is it ok to review it? The reviews all clearly state, as does the rest of the page early access. It is not merely implied but outright stated all over, reviews are not of the final product. I agree completely with the car building analogy but I don't see the logical connection that because it's an ongoing process it is exempt from reviews, or excused failings in design that would not be excused in a single final version. Surely the best time to complain isn't a year after a game is released but a year *before* a game is released, that's the only window in which changes can still (in theory) be made. The age of journalism as you describe is dead. The world is very different now, the rules for early access etiquette and things like steam reviews aren't set in stone. They are rough, harsh with lots of sharp edges and I expect them to change every year from now on. Kingdom Rush for example... the freemium game with a very modest price has the top rated negative review that starts: Awesome game! but... (paraphrasing liberally because I can't remember it). Which, I think shows that people would love to have more options than merely +/- Thumbs up or down. Really it's saying A+, 10/10 a great game but poor value for money because £6>£0 on Kongregate or Armor games in the Kingdom Rush example. Two different questions and answers forced awkwardly into one binary state. Steam needs more ways for users to analyse the success and failure of a game than the % of 12,000 user reviews that are one of two binary states. Or number of sales. Videos, LPs and longer reviews do that, they're a completely new form of journalism that I adore. (I've just never done an LP or video review, so stick to typing, it's also lots faster).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
