• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Reviews Xenoblade Chronicles 3 | Review Thread (see staff post)

Reader mode
Put rhetorically, if a game flooded everyone's basement in the exact same way unless you emulate then yeah, I think that would be important to a review.

I do of course think that reviewers have a responsibility to use clean, maintained hardware in good working order, but I also didn't think this was a problem.
 
Comic Obsessed said:
Is just anime when is the kind of anime people don't like.
Click to expand...

I feel like this was posted as..... A crack....

But this is it. This is what it is. In its entirety.

The derogatory term 'Anime' is literally just a catch all label for bad taste tropes and cliches in anime products, (which are also literally found everywhere else), which is why clearly anime products that don't have enough of those tropes for a general consensus, don't get the label.

It's literally like, the contents of the encyclopedia of bad taste:
51nv7XU3fuL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


applied exclusively for products from Japan, while confusingly using the same name that's already used for the entirety of the medium.
 
bellydrum said:
Iunno
Click to expand...
I feel like I've been unclear. Maybe engaging with the idea of PC performance, which is inherently variable, obfuscated what I am saying.

The Nintendo Switch is a discrete platform, so as far as I am aware performance will largely be the same between multiple devices. A reviewer's experience with the technical performance of a game should be largely reflective of anyone's. You bringing up a random event as though it's what I'm saying really confuses me and honestly hurts my feelings a little bit. What did I say that made you think this was comparable to what I was saying? When was I so unreasonable?
 
Raccoon said:
I feel like I've been unclear. Maybe engaging with the idea of PC performance, which is inherently variable, obfuscated what I am saying.

The Nintendo Switch is a discrete platform, so as far as I am aware performance will largely be the same between multiple devices. A reviewer's experience with the technical performance of a game should be largely reflective of anyone's. You bringing up a random event as though it's what I'm saying really confuses me and honestly hurts my feelings a little bit. What did I say that made you think this was comparable to what I was saying? When was I so unreasonable?
Click to expand...

Hey, sorry for making you feel like your comment was unreasonable. Honestly I replied with "iunno" because you made a good point, and I didn't know how to respond. I should have been more clear about that though.

You bring up a good point that the platform of the game is invariable, since XC3 is exclusive to the Nintendo Switch and therefore its performance is going to be the same across all reviewers.

However that didn't compute for me at first, because in my mind, no game is inherently tied to its platform. In the future when the game is running on a more powerful Switch despite the software of the game being untouched, none of those issues that may have plagued it upon its initial release will be a factor. And in my opinion, the game shouldn't be reviewed differently for that. The contents of the game are still the same, and that's what I want to see being reviewed when I read a review.

Besides, it's all a matter of framing. For example, one reviewer could give the game a 7/10 due to the aliasing and the framedrops during action-heavy sequences, citing the aging Switch as bringing down the overall experience. But another reviewer could give it a 10/10, citing the mostly-even framerate and vast improvement over XC2's graphics despite its platforms limitations as a reason for the high rating.

All in all, if you believe a reviewer should be reviewing the contents of the game, agnostic of experience on its platform, you might agree with me. However if you believe a reviewer should be reviewing the experience of playing the game (in my opinion, a much more subjective experience), then I understand why you'd disagree with me.

Edit: to make my opinion clearer, I didn't think the scene transition slowdown problem in Link's Awakening should have factored into game reviews outside of performance-based analyses by the likes of Digital Foundry. This is because I want to read reviews about the contents of the game that the creators intentionally included into the game - level design, art style, combat system, rewards systems, amount of content, etc.

Otherwise, if the only difference between a review of the same game on two different platforms is the performance, aren't you really just reviewing the platform?
 
I'm pretty damn close to pre-purchase this digitally in case my copy arrives later than expected and I don't really want to because there's very little space left in my SD card (and of course, who wants to pay twice for a game).

... On the other hand, that's pretty much what I did with XC2 so whatever.
 
Comic Obsessed said:
I'm pretty damn close to pre-purchase this digitally in case my copy arrives later than expected and I don't really want to because there's very little space left in my SD card (and of course, who wants to pay twice for a game).

... On the other hand, that's pretty much what I did with XC2 so whatever.
Click to expand...
That's what I did. No way I'm not playing it as soon as possible.
 
0
A game's performance/visuals are completely valid aspects of a review IMO.

If, for example, Red Dead Redemption 2 gets ported to Switch and both runs/looks like absolutely shit, should it get the same score than its counterparts that are actually playable?

Sites like Metacritic clearly put the game's platform next to the game title so the review isn't just "what's the merit of the game" and is more like rating the experience of playing the game in said platform, which makes sense for platforms like Switch that, currently, only have 1 model so everyone will experience the same performance. That said, reviewers are always free to ignore performance issues if the merit of a game impresses them enough.
 
bellydrum said:
Hey, sorry for making you feel like your comment was unreasonable. Honestly I replied with "iunno" because you made a good point, and I didn't know how to respond. I should have been more clear about that though.

You bring up a good point that the platform of the game is invariable, since XC3 is exclusive to the Nintendo Switch and therefore its performance is going to be the same across all reviewers.

However that didn't compute for me at first, because in my mind, no game is inherently tied to its platform. In the future when the game is running on a more powerful Switch despite the software of the game being untouched, none of those issues that may have plagued it upon its initial release will be a factor. And in my opinion, the game shouldn't be reviewed differently for that. The contents of the game are still the same, and that's what I want to see being reviewed when I read a review.

Besides, it's all a matter of framing. For example, one reviewer could give the game a 7/10 due to the aliasing and the framedrops during action-heavy sequences, citing the aging Switch as bringing down the overall experience. But another reviewer could give it a 10/10, citing the mostly-even framerate and vast improvement over XC2's graphics despite its platforms limitations as a reason for the high rating.

All in all, if you believe a reviewer should be reviewing the contents of the game, agnostic of experience on its platform, you might agree with me. However if you believe a reviewer should be reviewing the experience of playing the game (in my opinion, a much more subjective experience), then I understand why you'd disagree with me.

Edit: to make my opinion clearer, I didn't think the scene transition slowdown problem in Link's Awakening should have factored into game reviews outside of performance-based analyses by the likes of Digital Foundry. This is because I want to read reviews about the contents of the game that the creators intentionally included into the game - level design, art style, combat system, rewards systems, amount of content, etc.

Otherwise, if the only difference between a review of the same game on two different platforms is the performance, aren't you really just reviewing the platform?
Click to expand...
I think the Link's Awakening example is totally different and did have reason to impact review scores. That game isn't taxing the hardware in any major way, and there's no obvious reason that slowdown couldn't have been addressed at least via a patch. XB3 on the other hand is looking the Switch hardware in the face, laughing, and pushing it far beyond what one may expect of it. Therefore, it's far more understandable that it has to make some concessions (eg. image quality) to reach its lofty goals.

In other words, I do think a reviewer has a duty to report on the experience of the game as it relates to what is possible on the given platform: crashes, bugs, unexpected or inconsistent lag are all worth critiquing as they equate to time spent during development. If they are not to be critiqued, what reason do publishers have to bother delaying games that don't pass QA? That's the exact mess the industry has gotten into regarding day one and further patches.

There's a similar discussion often had about games shipping "ready" day one, versus having a content roadmap, and whether they deserve to be re-reviewed after the fact, but that'll veer too OT so I'll leave it at a mention.

Anyhow, I do agree with @Raccoon (I think) in feeling that performance is worth mention in a review so a user can understand what they're getting into. For example, some folks have different tolerances for low frame rate due to motion sickness. As for whether or not that should impact a score - I say that scores are inherently subjective and reviewers have a right to their own "rules". For me, it's about the line that I discussed prior regarding what is/isn't possible on a platform, which of course is somewhat subjective itself but imo a reviewer should be enough of an expert in the space to make an honest call.
 
Last edited:
Comic Obsessed said:
I'm pretty damn close to pre-purchase this digitally in case my copy arrives later than expected and I don't really want to because there's very little space left in my SD card (and of course, who wants to pay twice for a game).

... On the other hand, that's pretty much what I did with XC2 so whatever.
Click to expand...

If my pre-ordered copy wont show - I'll drive to the closest store and buy a copy and return the other hah.

In recent years it happened with Animal Crossing, Metroid Dread and Xenoblade Chronicles..

so for a short time I owned 2 copies of all those games.. in Metroids case, I still own 2 copies since I just decided to keep my CE game sealed.
 
0
bellydrum said:
However that didn't compute for me at first, because in my mind, no game is inherently tied to its platform. In the future when the game is running on a more powerful Switch despite the software of the game being untouched, none of those issues that may have plagued it upon its initial release will be a factor. And in my opinion, the game shouldn't be reviewed differently for that. The contents of the game are still the same, and that's what I want to see being reviewed when I read a review.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting perspective that I should've acknowledged more clearly before. To me, this type of game review is specifically of "Xenoblade Chronicles 3 for Nintendo Switch."

I concede that ideally a review of a game would be about its contents rather than the smaller realities of playing it at a moment in time, but honestly I've never turned to pre-release reviews for that sort of analysis.

I've been bullish on this game and its reviews, but I think my detachment from the series has led me to this position. If I were more invested in these characters, worlds, and the evolving game designs that surround them, I suspect I would wholeheartedly agree that a review should be of Xenoblade Chronicles 3 the institution, rather than Xenoblade Chronicles 3 the Nintendo Switch software.
 
totofogo said:
I think the Link's Awakening example is totally different and did have a right to impact review scores. That game isn't taxing the hardware in any major way, and there's no obvious reason that slowdown couldn't have been addressed at least via a patch. XB3 on the other hand is looking the Switch hardware in the face, laughing, and pushing it far beyond what one may expect of it. Therefore, it's far more understandable that it has to make some concessions (eg. image quality) to reach its lofty goals.

In other words, I do think a reviewer has a duty to report on the experience of the game as it relates to what is possible on the given platform: crashes, bugs, unexpected or inconsistent lag are all worth critiquing as they equate to time spent during development. If they are not to be critiqued, what reason do publishers have to bother delaying games that don't pass QA? That's the exact mess the industry has gotten into regarding day one and further patches.

There's a similar discussion often had about games shipping "ready" day one, versus having a content roadmap, and whether they deserve to be re-reviewed after the fact, but that'll veer too OT so I'll leave it at a mention.

Anyhow, I do agree with @Raccoon (I think) in feeling that performance is worth mention in a review so a user can understand what they're getting into. For example, some folks have different tolerances for low frame rate due to motion sickness. As for whether or not that should impact a score - I say that scores are inherently subjective and reviewers have a right to their own "rules". For me, it's about the line that I discussed prior regarding what is/isn't possible on a platform, which of course is somewhat subjective itself but a reviewer should be enough of an expert in the space to make an honest call.
Click to expand...

Yeah, honestly the only reason I'm disagreeing with anybody on this subject is because reviewers do have their own rules, and I think we're just applying our own personal "reviewer rules" to them. Bottom line is that reviewers will most likely factor in performance to a review.

QA is a good topic, because I agree that QA should absolutely be judged in a review and it is absolutely possible for bad performance to be at the fault of the developer. We can point to every single shitty shovelware game that runs like trash on the Switch as evidence of that.

So ultimately I think it comes down to the reviewer's discretion as to whether bad performance is due to the developers, or due to the platform which is agnostic from the game. In the case of 3, I think it coupd be widely agreed upon that any performance issues are not at all because Monolithsoft didn't put in a ton of time and effort and skill into making their enormous world run well on a 2015 mobile chip set.

I guess all I can really do is describe my own critieria for reviewing a game. Can't really say anybody's wrong in their review criteria; only that I disagree that factors that are agnostic to the game itself should be included in the game's score.
 
bellydrum said:
Yeah, honestly the only reason I'm disagreeing with anybody on this subject is because reviewers do have their own rules, and I think we're just applying our own personal "reviewer rules" to them. Bottom line is that reviewers will most likely factor in performance to a review.

QA is a good topic, because I agree that QA should absolutely be judged in a review and it is absolutely possible for bad performance to be at the fault of the developer. We can point to every single shitty shovelware game that runs like trash on the Switch as evidence of that.

So ultimately I think it comes down to the reviewer's discretion as to whether bad performance is due to the developers, or due to the platform which is agnostic from the game. In the case of 3, I think it coupd be widely agreed upon that any performance issues are not at all because Monolithsoft didn't put in a ton of time and effort and skill into making their enormous world run well on a 2015 mobile chip set.

I guess all I can really do is describe my own critieria for reviewing a game. Can't really say anybody's wrong in their review criteria; only that I disagree that factors that are agnostic to the game itself should be included in the game's score.
Click to expand...
And funny enough, as much as I might say fuck review aggregates, that is sorta the beauty of them. Somewhere in that number is an opinion likely representative of your own. As long as people learn to not take the number at face value as an "ultimate decision" (which, never trust the internet to do anything lol), then it is helpful. Now, the bigger issue that underlies them is not with this concept of an aggregate but rather with the specific implementation where sites like Metacritic weigh perspectives differently and invalidate their meaning imo.
 
Raccoon said:
This is an interesting perspective that I should've acknowledged more clearly before. To me, this type of game review is specifically of "Xenoblade Chronicles 3 for Nintendo Switch."

I concede that ideally a review of a game would be about its contents rather than the smaller realities of playing it at a moment in time, but honestly I've never turned to pre-release reviews for that sort of analysis.

I've been bullish on this game and its reviews, but I think my detachment from the series has led me to this position. If I were more invested in these characters, worlds, and the evolving game designs that surround them, I suspect I would wholeheartedly agree that a review should be of Xenoblade Chronicles 3 the institution, rather than Xenoblade Chronicles 3 the Nintendo Switch software.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you describe these reviews as "Xenoblade Chronicles as played on the Nintendo Switch", I totally agree that performance should factor in.

I guess I just prefer a review to agnosticize the platform and review the contents - or institution as you put it - rather than something as timely and dateable as the game's experience on a particular platform.
 
bellydrum said:
Yeah, when you describe these reviews as "Xenoblade Chronicles as played on the Nintendo Switch", I totally agree that performance should factor in.

I guess I just prefer a review to agnosticize the platform and review the contents - or institution as you put it - rather than something as timely and dateable as the game's experience on a particular platform.
Click to expand...
Switch Pro confirmed by insider @bellydrum
 
Raccoon said:
Well, if there's any one conclusion to be drawn from this conversation it's that review scores are the worst.
Click to expand...
The only bad thing about this post is that its almost too good. 10/10
 
0
Pflaumenmus12 said:
Ideally we would creat a class system.

Nintendo games = 10/10
Every other game = 1/10
Click to expand...
That's step 1

Step 2 is get recognized by metacritic as a valid source of opinion under the guise of a fake publication and journalist (named Don (Key) Kong)

Step 3 is to then become the most heavily weighted on metacritic and dominate the industry
 
NabiscoFelt said:
This seems like a good time to bring back Raccoon Ratings (TM) (I don't think they were actually called that)
Click to expand...
I think they were called raccoon scores

I give Metacritic a single holey sock out of one of those display-only laundry baskets at Walmart that they cut the bottoms out of to prevent theft
 
bellydrum said:
Because it's like judging a movie for the theater you watched it in

As opposed to an analogy such as judging a movie for the cameras and film it used, which is something the filmmmaker actually had a choice in
Click to expand...
I'm generally in agreement with you on this but I can see where Raccoon is coming from. A game exists outside of its core audience, and while I don't think a 9/10 review of Xenoblade 3 that doesn't talk about performance at all is enough to get a newcomer invested, it's worth it to have a note about it in there if someone needs it down the line. That being said, most details of reviews fade into the void even a few months after launch.

All of this is reminding me of when Damiani docked a whole point off BOTW because of performance at launch which was only in select areas and wasn't even that bad. Felt like a very stingy cut, especially when the rest of the review was positively glowing.

EDIT: I also posted this reply super late and didn't take into account the rest of the discussion that had followed, which basically already addressed my points.
 
totofogo said:
Hold up, what if we tracked user review scores of games here and has a Famicritic aggregate : o
Click to expand...
Been considering scamming Nintendo into thinking I have any sort of clout in order to get games early.

All I need is to make all of you do the work and make reviews for Famiboards
 
bellydrum said:
Been considering scamming Nintendo into thinking I have any sort of clout in order to get games early.

All I need is to make all of you do the work and make reviews for Famiboards
Click to expand...
then you can do private live streams for all of us fellow journalists at your publication to watch along with to uh, help contribute!
 
Metacritic seems to have removed 2 reviews. It was at 67 reviews, now it's at 65.
Edit: they're back, not sure what happened.
 
If I was a reviewer, I would probably mention performance in reviews, but couldn’t I’m good conscience dock points for it
 
manfromthedam said:
Not sure if I agree. BotW is a very clean looking game and can push masses of fine detail up close. XBC3 looks quite a bit more blurry and barren.
Click to expand...
They're admittedly not directly comparable in their visual styles, with Zelda pushing much better blades of grass and other ground geometry, and XB3 pushing six characters on screen in addition to more and bigger enemies. To me that justifies the lower resolution. From the videos it looks like textures are more detailed in XB, voice acting is more common, environments are way more varied and XB3 just has a lot more going on at once.
 
0
What's really funny and obnoxious to me is that, for videogames, Metacritic's scale goes from 90+ being UNIVERSAL ACCLAIM to 89 and below being eh, generally favourable, I guess, or whatever.

That right there shows how baked in score inflation has been for too long, with too many outlets using a 7 to 10 scale.
 
Raccoon said:
Put rhetorically, if a game flooded everyone's basement in the exact same way unless you emulate then yeah, I think that would be important to a review.

I do of course think that reviewers have a responsibility to use clean, maintained hardware in good working order, but I also didn't think this was a problem.
Click to expand...

This is going to be my second post worth kicking me out of this thread for after I last said I’d see myself out

however y’all keep on bringing these innuendos and I saw this post again bc it was top of page so I must say

if a game flooded my basement, I think it would be worth an instant 10/10
 
totofogo said:
This is going to be my second post worth kicking me out of this thread for after I last said I’d see myself out

however y’all keep on bringing these innuendos and I saw this post again bc it was top of page so I must say

if a game flooded my basement, I think it would be worth an instant 10/10
Click to expand...
"I mean, the gameplay was rubbish, the story was so boring I fell asleep in every cutscene, and I don't even know if anything actually happened since the game was so blurry and glitchy nothing on screen ever made sense

But also it flooded my basement and I'm afraid of what it's capable of, so 10/10"
 
Kevin said:
How many chapters? How does the game length compare to Xenoblade Chronicles 2?
Click to expand...
Some reviews put the main story length at 40 to 60 hours; the longest playtimes I've seen have been 140 to 150 hours, because of the significant amount of side content.
 
BassForever said:
Xenoblade 2 was clearly a turning point for the series, making Xenoblade go from a niche Nintendo series to one of their bigger core gamer titles. Trying to downplay XC2's success as "only benefiting from being on Switch" is pretty embarrassing. Maybe if XC2 became the best selling game at like 1.2 million copies sold, sure, we can say "Switch popularity helped to get the series over the million hump", but the game sold over 2 million copies, more then double any other game in the series. That didn't happen because it was Xenoblade on switch, but because it reviewed well and had very positive word of mouth.

Also the real proof XC2 was a seminal game is how it continues to live rent free in the minds of so many people. I think in the past 5 years no single game has caused more thread derails then XC2 in sales threads, review threads, and even spoiler threads.



On the topic of XC3 reviews and scores, play time should only come up imo if a games length is a detriment to it's mechanics. By that I mean if a game is too short that it never feels like it dives deep enough into it's concepts to be satisfying, or if a game runs out of clever ideas at the x hour mark and goes on for another 10-40 hours past that. If you enjoyed a 5 hour game vs an 100 hour game that both did what they did equally well, the 100 hour game shouldn't get extra credit for being long, nor should it lose credit for being too long imo. Xenoblade always presents itself as a super long game, and the reviews for every entry generally shows that each game justifies that length.
Click to expand...
You should just ignore the troll, he's been making the same broken record remarks everytime XC2 is brought up.
 
Kartina said:
Xenoblade chronicles 2 it's the fire emblem awakening of the xenoblade series, you can dislike the game all you want but if you can't see how they became a breakout hit and made both franchises as big and as popular as they are today you're just blind.
Click to expand...
I do think it’s funny how Xenoblade has followed the Fire Emblem trajectory over a much smaller release schedule. Xenoblade 1 is like the pre Awakening Fire Emblem games in being less mainstream but absolutely adored by a more hardcore, smaller niche. Then Xenoblade 2 is like the 3DS FE entries in being more popular and breaking the million seller mainstream barrier whilst at the same time being divisive amongst the fan base for having too much fan service/problematic elements/being to ‘anime’.

Now Xenoblade 3 has pulled back on the fanservice and pandering in the same way Three Houses did and looks poised to follow its example in being less divisive with the core fan base and increasing its mainstream appeal.

Bit of an off topic ramble, just though it was kind of interesting to note even if it’s not exactly 1:1.
 
manfromthedam said:
Not sure if I agree. BotW is a very clean looking game and can push masses of fine detail up close. XBC3 looks quite a bit more blurry and barren.
Click to expand...
Yeah, NO.
Xenoblade 3 texture details are on another level than BOTW. Please take a look more carefully at the structure, ground, geometry, material, and vegetation details for both games. Zelda BOTW details are blurry as hell, like they forgot to properly put a high-res version of those details.

large.jpg

q0qz8tstwdz71.jpg

RzQguou.png

2017031021383300-F1C11A22FAEE3B82F21B330E1B786A39.jpg
 
Last edited:
YoboD said:
I do think it’s funny how Xenoblade has followed the Fire Emblem trajectory over a much smaller release schedule. Xenoblade 1 is like the pre Awakening Fire Emblem games in being less mainstream but absolutely adored by a more hardcore, smaller niche. Then Xenoblade 2 is like the 3DS FE entries in being more popular and breaking the million seller mainstream barrier whilst at the same time being divisive amongst the fan base for having too much fan service/problematic elements/being to ‘anime’.

Now Xenoblade 3 has pulled back on the fanservice and pandering in the same way Three Houses did and looks poised to follow its example in being less divisive with the core fan base and increasing its mainstream appeal.

Bit of an off topic ramble, just though it was kind of interesting to note even if it’s not exactly 1:1.
Click to expand...

semi related but I always kinda view X and Fates as similar in that they both are pretty bad in other areas but do the main gameplay thing I care about well enough that I just don't really care that much(Conquest anyways, I never bothered playing the other Fates games)

not that Xs story is as bad as Fates
 
I prefer XCX's barebones story to Fates's complete mess of a story (Especially one that had a lot of potential on paper. The fact they screwed it so much is still bothersome).

Also, XC2's story is better than Fates by a HUGE margin, is not even debatable. Thankfully the FE franchise got on the right track story-wise once again with Three Houses (although XC2 still had a better plot).
 
Seven said:
You should just ignore the troll, he's been making the same broken record remarks everytime XC2 is brought up.
Click to expand...
You should not call other people opinions "trolling" just because you have a different opinion.

You may like Xeno2 and every melon breast, anime cliches, and camera flights over bodys from women that often look like very young girls. You may also like the weak writing and infantile characters. Some people do not.

Anyway let us hope that Monolith go back to past heights with Xenoblade 3 after the disappointment Xenoblade 2 was for many people.
 
EnergyDrink said:
You should not call other people opinions "trolling" just because you have a different opinion.

You may like Xeno2 and every melon breast, anime cliches, and camera flights over bodys from women that often look like very young girls. You may also like the weak writing and infantile characters. Some people do not.

Anyway let us hope that Monolith go back to past heights with Xenoblade 3 after the disappointment Xenoblade 2 was for many people.
Click to expand...
Okay you're not trolling, you're just way too mad at video games
 
Though there are perfectly valid concerns to be raised here, this post comes across as an excessively antagonistic attempt to bait others into a confrontation. Please aim to voice your distaste in a more productive manner. - Aurc, hologram, Donnie
totofogo said:
Seminal’s other definition is uh, a little too perfect here.

Nintendo really wants to see men enjoy this series huh
sorry ill see myself out
Click to expand...
I don't know "men" that enjoy such hilarious bad and dumb pandering that Xenoblade 2 offers, Its probably something that some pubescent boys enjoy.
 
Even if you feel like the post you were replying to was bait, your post comes across as dismissing legitimate concerns around sexism. Next time please report the post in question and/or move along without engaging. - blondkayvon, Donnie, hologram
EnergyDrink said:
I don't know "men" that enjoy such hilarious bad and dumb pandering that Xenoblade 2 offers, Its probably something that some pubescent boys enjoy.
Click to expand...
e62.png
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please see the threadmarked staff post. Thank you.


Back
Top Bottom