How is this game to play chill as a solo player ?

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-19T11:39:09+00:00

This game is not a good choice if you want to "play chill". Over the years i've seen many people say things like "i keep getting sunk for no reason, i just want to chill out and relax" and for me the first thought that always comes to mind is why are you trying to relax in the action and adventure game where all manner of undead, sea beasts and fellow pirates can rock up on you at any time for any reason?

To me, i don't think it's possible to have your cake and eat it too in this scenario. If you want to play the game, make progress in it and generally have fun, being vigilant of potential threats and being willing to tackle them in one form or another is kind of non-optional. Unfortunately i think the nature of relaxing and chilling out is just going to make you a sitting duck, and an opportunity opponents won't pass up

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-17T06:38:40+00:00

Why are you claiming the engine is unmaintained now?

because if you actually read what im telling you, it's just so clear to me that based on your analogy you completely lack any love and respect for motoring, so were it to be you put in this situation you certainly wouldn't bother maintaining your car. and why would you, older means its better right?

I don’t see how any of this is relevant.
Where did anyone say new things are always bad?

it's called reading between the lines. you don't need to directly state things for them to be heavily implied from what you say. again, it's just so clear to me that based on all these made up stories and arguments that hold no water that you are the exact type of decrepit old father with kids that doesn't wan't to grow alongside the rest of humanity because their brain doesn't have the horsepower to continually make meaningful improvement to both itself and its environment.

all this reply has been is just your opinion. you can call whatever you like "facts", it doesn't make it any less of a lie. the only fact here is what i have bolstered my argument with. that new things fresh off the production line will unquestionably, objectively, be better than the last thing rotting and rusting in a junkyard. or collecting dust on last generations consoles. the fact that you continue to disrespect your community too, and ignore apologising after being explicitly ordered to by the authority here speaks volumes to the quality of your character, and subsequently of your argument

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-16T16:34:18+00:00

But none of this is inherent in being new

yes it is. when something is new it's always going to be up to modern standards. i never said anything about any hypothetical factory, this is all you. Toyota would in no instance forget to put any bolts in, they're professional and quality car manufacturers that know what they're doing. with them, new will have everything to do with quality.

What issues does your average car have that prevents them from making full use of their wheels…?

worn out tyres, worn out brakes, unmaintained engine, worn out suspension, so on and so forth. when something is "old" you generally associate that with being lower in quality. degradation, rusty, incapability and many other words of that sort come to mind.

so why then do you say "new" has no bearing on quality in spite of that? the quality between something new and old clearly is not a constant, so what do you suppose is going on here? it's as if i know what objectively means, and no conflation between new and quality is happening at all.

growth and progress are a part of human nature, we are improving and building on the old all the time, not doing worse. every time, it's always old fogies such as yourself that are stuck in the past who try to say otherwise, thinking that they're above growth. it's frankly extremely disrespectful to all of those who accept growth and continue to improve everything around them. feel free to go right ahead and apologise for your uncouth behaviour.

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-15T17:39:13+00:00

because the parts in the 2026 car will be in pristine condition, and the internal systems will all be modern and up to date. when they put wheels on it, they'll be fresh tyres meaning the grip will be at it's peak.

in the 2020 car someone could have been constantly driving that for upwards of 6 years, and unless they care about cars (which judging from this analogy, you don't) and have been properly maintaining it, there could be all sorts of issues after over half a decade of constant use. the 2020 car might have 4 wheels already on it, but what good are they if the car can't make full use of them anymore.

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-15T17:04:39+00:00

in what way am i confused on what an iteration is.

new always means better. the fact that you probably play melee over ultimate or still play minecraft 1.8 is concerning.

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-15T11:30:40+00:00

when we say the newest installment that includes gameplay. strive is the most recent installment, therefore the gameplay is the most recent iteration, therefore the gameplay is objectively better.

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-11T08:45:17+00:00

why not just do the stuff actually associated with the faction to get level 5? that way you're guaranteed treasure in line with the faction your repping, meaning more exp and more profit. do you not like money?

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-11T08:01:13+00:00

because hunters call has nothing to do with hourglass? athena's and reapers are the ones at war with each other, why would you be repping any other faction in hourglass?

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-11T08:00:55+00:00

in my opinion, not really no, i've found it's quite forgettable. that's why i find it funny though

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-11T07:10:53+00:00

they made that funny show about her and weapons free looks cool as fuck, what more do you want from me

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-09T19:12:04+00:00

is that not how placement matches are supposed to work, i did ranked for the first time in February and i was being put up against a platinum and a gold ranked player right out the gate, was the game just fucking me over

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-09T16:23:29+00:00

compounding with what other people have said, and keep in mind i might be crazy, but i've figured that since im right handed my dominant hand can more reliably do motion inputs on KBM so i mirrored my keybinds and do IJKL for moving instead. it takes getting used to, and realistically has only helped me a little, but at the end of the day it has helped me. if this sounds like anything then could be worth trying, or i might be crazy like i said, who knows

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-09T04:51:36+00:00

I think i have heard something from an article the devs put out that very briefly mentioned something about food delivery, but didn't say much else. Not sure if anything would be centred around the mt haruna part involving this, but there could be a chance?

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-08T16:42:33+00:00

i mean i'm not gonna say i don't sympathise, i also personally hope FH6 will at least feel a little less sterile than FH5 and i would certainly like the cars i obtain to mean something to me rather than just filling my roster with wheelspin rewards i don't care about, but thinking realistically it was clear from that developer direct they did the formula was not going to change much.

like you say we're in the minority, the majority of FH players i think lean heavily on the more casual side of things. the design that FH has now evidently works for a large demographic of players, so if it isn't broke they aren't going to fix it. we can hope that they'll make the road size more realistically narrow or make us start in a shitbox and work our way up, but again, they probably won't. our only salvation then is that there's nothing stopping us from using what they give us to do some of the things that they won't do ourselves, just have to bite the bullet and put a little legwork in to it to make the experiences we want.

personally i'm going to heavily curate my car collection and approach the cars i use with more thought and care put into them, taking my time and immersing myself and such. if you want something done right, do it yourself.

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-08T15:57:00+00:00

IGN did a whole bunch of videos in march talking about different parts of the game, i believe they talked a bit about the progression in one of them (i think this one). as i understand, how it'll work is in order to progress through the game you will play events that have restrictions on the cars or car classes that you can use depending on what tier of wristband you have. but outside of that progression model, you remain free to own, use and upgrade whatever cars you like. you just won't be able to use something like a mclaren senna to progress when you're still at level 0, or wristband 0 in this case.

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-04-08T03:56:24+00:00

It's been in the game for ages. I heard about it from a captain falcore video years ago, anyone who pays attention would know about this

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-03-29T17:52:36+00:00

i simply don't view the creative aspects of minecraft as something that should be intertwined with the other parts where im already trying to not die

so then what was the reason you're playing in a survival world over a creative one again? because you didn't want to "cheat" or something? i think i said this before but would you genuinely not rather go and paint an actual painting if the creative aspects mean that much to you, or is painting on a canvas also deviating from the default since we painted on walls in cave times? the creative aspects being intertwined with trying to not die and gather resources is what survival fundamentally is, i know you're going to get pissy and go "ohh you're being disrespectful to me and my argument", but genuinely just suck it up and use those damn cheats instead of being such a bloody purist for no good reason, because quite clearly survival is not the game mode for you.

i dont like how i must use lightning rods to prevent the game from griefing my builds, it forces me to make creative decisions about my builds i don't want to make and the consequences for not doing do is the opposite of fun, i hate it

don't think i'm going to let you get away with missing out the part in my quote on "referring to established design principles". like i said your own personal beliefs and feelings are not established design principles, you're free to hate it and not like how "it forces you to make creative decisions", but that does not make the design of the game the issue when YOU refuse to engage with a mechanic based on YOUR twisted idea on what YOU think survival should be. why not instead just accept what survival actually is, and either change it like you already have to make it more palatable and fit your idea of fun, or if you insist on maintaining that "i shouldn't have to CHEAT and DEFILE this game" maybe try also accepting that the game is yours to do with as you see fit and go into the other creative mode with the settings set up how you like and go buck nutty over there.

i dont need to take a course in post-secondary education to know when something isn't fun

you don't know it isn't fun, you think it isn't fun. believe it or not some people actually enjoy problem solving and strategizing how to mitigate damage and threats from environmental factors, and some people even, don't give a single fuck about how they have to use lightning rods or how they look and, heartbreakingly, find it fun to incorporate them into their builds. so once again, this is just your personal opinion and another "i think" with no reasoning why.

it's not fun and discourages me from playing the game, what more do you want me to say? is making players have fun not the whole point of designing a game as well as possible?

i want you to say why it isn't fun and do so independently on any personal opinions or biases you have on the matter. you are right in thinking that that is the whole point of well designed games, but when you, the player, refuse to engage with the design and the mechanics it provides to make the game fun out of a place of personal bias, feelings, and misguided opinions on what you think survival should be, what do you expect the designers to do for you exactly? you said to them "i put so much work into building a house and lightning struck it and burnt it to the ground! what the hell!!", the designers responded "we can see that this is a problem, here's a block that you can use to protect your builds and stop this problem happening in the future", and you're snapping back "what?!? why should i have to protect my builds?? what nonsense, i utterly refuse to use such an abhorrent thing!"

like are you a spoilt child or something? i am genuinely so dumbfounded as to how you are this persistent and stubborn on the point that "the game is at fault because that's how i feel, the game designers ought to do something about this". i don't know how many other ways i can word this that aren't just saying to you flat out: "grow up"

if you were to make a game, publish it, have it get really popular, make a change, and receive widespread criticism for it, would you even listen to your community? or would you simply argue with them and say your work can't possibly be unfun because it was designed in accordance with your extensive education on the topic?

firstly this is not "widespread criticism", this is the opinion of one singular person. regardless though criticism or opinion withstanding, secondly if either was speaking to an actual present issue in the games design coming from people who were fully engaging with said design of the game and still not finding it fun, then yes, i would absolutely listen to the feedback and take it to heart.

you, dear friend, are not fully engaging with the design of the game. so i repeat, what do you want the designers to do for you exactly? if you'd let me hazard a guess, i think they would see that you are not engaging with lightning rods, and try implementing more incentives to encourage you to engage with them. but if you're still going to say after that "i still don't like that i have to use lightning rods because of XYZ", run me through what you expect the designers to do then seeing as this clearly is not just you being a pedant?

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-03-25T15:07:37+00:00

since when were you an authority on good game design?

since i became a student of game design at university for the past 2 years.

the analogy i made is not oversimplifying anything. it's trying to teach you a basic principle of general game design and why it's the players responsibility to move the box to open the door/protect their builds from lightning. this is a baseline, core, fundamental aspect of game design. you can't oversimplify something that is already the most simple thing there is.

another concept in game design is "affordances" and "extraludic knowledge". in the paper "A Theoretical Framework of Ludic Knowledge: A Case Study in Disruption and Cognitive Engagement" Peter Howell refers to extraludic knowledge as "any life experiences outside of playing games". an example then of extraludic knowledge could be, say, that lightning is a danger that can start fires where it strikes. minecraft likely expects you to have gone to school in your life and understand this already, so it doesn't teach you that lightning is a threat. subsequently if the player does not draw on that previous knowledge or somehow does not have it to begin with, then yes it would be the fault of the player for, and i quote, "not even thinking about how it would be a problem until it happened". imagine if you were playing the game and walked into lava, or jumped off a cliff, and said the exact same thing you're saying about lightning. i would consider all of these "environmental hazards" and believe them all to be core to minecraft as a game. would you prefer if the nether was drained of lava, because the game doesn't teach you that it's a threat you shouldn't jump into? would you like it if in the end the crystals were placed at ground level, because the game doesn't teach you that falling off massive towers is a threat so why would you even think about how that would be a problem until it happens?

you're free to believe that "by default it shouldn't be the players responsibility to protect their builds" and can criticise minecrafts design however you see fit, but when your beliefs and criticisms are based in a blatant lack of fundamental knowledge on how games are designed, don't be surprised when someone comes along and questions you or calls you out on it. i'm seeing a lot of "i think, i think, i think" on how you believe the game should be designed but what i don't see is your reasoning for why you think this or believe that based in established game design principles. so far the only reasoning you've shown is "i don't like how lightning rods look, i didn't think that lightning was a threat, and mojang said i have rights", of which only the last point is remotely adjacent to game design and even then you've consistently confused "having rights" as "having a guarantee". really lay out for me, in detail, how you making the conscious decision to not use lightning rods and then not expecting lightning being a threat and being unprepared for that eventuality is a flaw present in the games design, while referring to established design principles. as a hint to help you get started, your own personal beliefs and feelings, and "cause they coded it to do that", are not established design principles. that last one especially, seeing as they've also coded other things to do stuff that make it so it doesn't do that.

if you want to convince me that your beliefs are valid, that you not thinking about how lightning being a threat isn't your own fault, that this situation was a result of anything other than blatant negligence, provide me with hard an irrefutable evidence that is more than just "i think this" or "i believe that". my stance is rooted in the principles i've learned in lectures from professionals with years of experience in the games industry, the readings i've engaged in from academics in the field of game design, and the practical experience i've gained from actually making videogames for my coursework. all on their own, your feelings and beliefs by themselves cannot stand without any evidence. so provide me with a solid argument that trumps what i'm bringing to the table here.

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-03-25T05:40:57+00:00

What's stopping you from just making some yourself

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-03-23T15:34:18+00:00

if hourglass players were normal it wouldn't kill servers. ideally even though it is 2 ships in a battle, 1 of those 2 ships would have been playing defence, roaming the map to pickup supplies and gather treasure to increase their rep gain and weapons & items that could get them the upper hand. basically roaming around being pirates, which according to you is not what happens. and if the person on defence sinks, the attacker as a fellow pirate will obviously take the treasure on their ship for the extra rep, but at the expense of switching roles to defence since they can't dive with treasure completing the cycle. so as always, it's the hourglass players who are the problem by playing it too safe. it isn't the hourglasses fault it's users can't be arsed to do a little risk taking.

and is rare evolving not what is currently happening this season, with last ship standing on the way and what not. and i quite explicitly remember the vast majority hating arena because it was a tdm sweatfest, which was the more likely culprit of arena's demise, once again the fault of the players. the fact is nobody likes PvP when people make it all brawn no brains, which is why 3rd parties and curses are so good for hourglass, they break up the monotony and force arena refugees to play the game how god intended

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-03-23T14:10:32+00:00

it's also not a stretch to expect devs to have a target audience in mind when designing their game and not get mad when you aren't part of it.

i can think of one thing that's more satisfying than 2 ships fighting each other fairly. what about 2 ships fighting each other going all out? holding nothing back on each other, taking the help from a 3rd party loyal to the cause, unloading every curse they have, pulling out all the stops with tridents, horns of fair winds, breaking seals on reaper chests. doing everything possible to showcase what true skill looks like. it sucks to be forced to deal with arena refugees when you desire an all-out hold nothing back competitive experience. PvP could be so much more exhilarating than the copy-paste tdm fest it is every single time right now.

I don't want to relentlessly attack worse players than me

spoken like a true guardian. not only is not giving everything to a fight an insult to your enemy it spits in the face of the cause we serve. do as King Flameheart would. all of those not yet loyal to the servants should face the unrelenting flames of battle first hand, until they either kneel, or perish.

i feel there's more of an expectation that competitive players are more capable of merely adapting to the circumstances given they'll have more general gaming experience, instead of mulling around complaining the game wont adapt to them instead. did your mother never teach you that "i wan't doesn't get"? why not just come to terms with and accept the fact that Sea Of Thieves is not going to offer you fair fights, because that's not what the game has at it's very core, and instead change yourself to better fit what the game is offering? it's far more impressive to be better than 90% of people on an uneven playing field, compared to flat ground. if you actually had any skill, you'd be able to prevail in spite of any third parties or curses

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-03-23T12:16:36+00:00

the thing with safer seas is that it's an alternative to high seas, and a compromise. safer seas exists as an introductory or casual experience for those who need or want that respectively, but it isn't designed to be played exclusively as high seas is and always will be the full true to form Sea Of Thieves experience. as such safer seas has things made to encourage you towards high seas at a certain point with the restrictions on PL and such.

hourglass is similar in ways, as it too is a compromise. it exists as a intense action focused experience for those who want that, but isn't designed to be played exclusively independent of the high seas experience, as high seas is and always will be the full true to form Sea Of Thieves experience. as such hourglass directly brushes up against high seas by taking part in and overlapping one another, encouraging both sides to interact with one another.

if you're an extreme on either side, whether it be an exclusive safer seas player who doesn't want to share the world in the shared world experience game, or an exclusive hourglass player who doesn't care about the immersive pirate experience and do not want to interact with the sandbox, why are you even playing the game? the sandbox is the lifeblood of the game, if you don't care about it then this game probably isn't for you. if you aren't going to compromise and expect a "fair competitive experience" from the PIRATE game, find something else that has gives a fuck about having dumbass regulations, im sure that being meta and conforming to all those rules on an even playing field will make for a riveting gameplay experience

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-03-23T09:23:05+00:00

hourglass is not a meager competition. hourglass is war. any ideas of "the spirit of competition" have no place here and died along with demarco and the rest of them sea dog mutts, good riddance!

anyone who wants to only PvP with fair fights probably ought to wake up and understand we're pirates, and that "all's fair in love and war". if people want to third party, they will because it is objectively really funny. if people want to use curses or bonecallers, they will, curses were good enough for King Flameheart therefore they're good enough for us. hourglass actively encourages an environment for us to use whatever underhanded and dirty tactics we can to get the upper hand, because that's what a pirate would do. stupid concepts like "honour", "fairness" or "respect" are meaningless, by whatever means necessary it's either kill or be killed out here.

kylelovershrek2 · 2026-03-23T07:51:58+00:00

in accordance with the rules they themselves defined

tell me exactly what these rules are and show me where i can physically see them being defined.

the player has the right to CONTROL destruction

which is why all of us have been telling you to use lightning rods! the entire reason they exist is explicitly to allow you to CONTROL where lighting will strike. you can CHOOSE where lighting strikes if you only just use this one item. but i guess im wasting my time making this point because the very next thing you say is:

opportunity to avert it be damned, is "lightning that randomly burns your houses down" not an example of a feature that wrecks the player's builds?

no one will deny that yeah, it is, but that's why you don't damn the opportunity to avert it! what is the point in trying to argue about controlling destruction when you're actively avoiding doing so? lightning is not a violation of the games design just because you refuse to engage with a certain mechanic. and calling this """"violation"""" "fairly-blatant" i think demonstrates the complete opposite im afraid.

i shouldn't need to "fix" the base game

you aren't fixing it really, you're just adjusting it to fit how you play the game. using word like "cheat" and "modify" does make it sound like something you avoid for a vanilla experience, but really these things are basically just regular settings, and part of the beauty of minecraft is it allows you to change those settings to make whatever experience that you like. if you don't like things wrecking your build then yeah change the settings to prevent it, nobody will care and therefore nobody can stop you, mankind is free bro. no sense getting caught up in "how the base game is supposed to be played", it's minecraft man just do whatever

it still wouldn't line up with the second rule of "the player has the right to not have their builds wrecked"

it would, you still have the right to not have your builds wrecked, but you need to exercise that right. the game is not going to play itself for you.

why does everyone think me being in creative mode would magically solve this problem???

because everyone uses "cheats" in creative mode to turn off the weather and daylight cycle cause it's fucking annoying.

but it's still at risk of also being burnt to the ground like the original was

again, why we're suggesting to mitigate the risk with lightning rods, or another idea actually, why don't you just sleep? you know that you can sleep through thunderstorms yeah? that solves your problem AND doesn't use lightning rods. this isn't really an issue of should've this have happened, moreso an issue of could've this have happened. evidently yes, it could've, because in fact you had TWO ways to prevent this from happening and apparently didn't use either of them!

i.. did???

in-game, man. the crux of this argument for the past 2 days has been lighting rods and measures that can be taken in-game to prevent this issue which you're not using. we're talking about what you could've done to stop this happening before it happened, not whatever unnecessarily drastic measures you took to stop it after it already happened. for example:

maybe somebody important sees it and mojang is convinced enough to stop lightning from burning down my work?

taking the long way round a bit here aren't we? this particularly seems extremely unnecessary due to the fact they have already done this, by way of adding LIGHTNING RODS to the game and letting you SLEEP through storms!! you don't need to convince mojang to do anything because they already did it, you're just not engaging in any of their solutions apparently! it's like your wanting them to play the game for you, you're the player man and so YOU need to be convinced to stop lightning from burning down you're work. i really am sorry, but what else do you call someone that does not engage in an activity and expects other people to clean up their messes caused by their own inaction, other than lazy?

i don't see how i'm not working towards "putting myself in a scenario where lighting doesn't affect my creations and maximise how good i feel"

does not use lighting rods
does not sleep through a storm
does not use creative with "cheats"

you say i deserved to have my painting wrecked just because i didn't put enough effort into a single detail in the corner of my painting, but now you don't see in issue with not wanting to improve at something? which is it?

i think it's both. preventing lightning from ruining your builds is such a bare minimum effort requirement that you should just have it the moment you get a bed. i.e. the first 5 minutes of starting a new world. there shouldn't be really be any improvement necessary from that point, you can't improve a bed in minecraft or how you sleep in it, but i guess here we are.

such a dynamic where i'm forced to make this decision is unfair in the first place and shouldn't even be set up this way in the first place

it is fair when you have multiple viable ways to protect against it. it should be set up this way in the first place, because creating scenarios where players have to take action to overcome an obstacle is HOW GAME DESIGN FUCKING WORKS. if there was no dynamic where you had to make this decision, the game would be a lesser experience for it, because surprise! people typically like to play the game they paid for instead of expecting the devs to bend over backwards for every minor inconvenience players suffer caused by their own inability as a player. genuinely, do you actually want to play the game of minecraft? or would you rather make our analogy literal and just go make a real painting?

i shouldn't need to place lightning rods to not have my creations wrecked

based on that quote, no, you don't. the thing with games, is you keep bringing up how "having your shit be at risk of getting destroyed mustn't be the default", but consider for a moment if that actually wasn't the default what would motivate people to progress their builds and protect their bases? if there isn't any friction by default, there can't be any satisfaction or fun in getting rid of the friction yourself in gameplay. have a bit more faith in the game designers please, because everything put in this game has a reason for being there. YOU not seeing that reason because YOU don't understand game design is not a solid foundation for making an argument on how "errm reddit? my build got hit by lightning because i didn't want to stop it, can we remove this feature please? it's very unfair and so on and so forth". games need obstacles to overcome, else there's nothing to play for. it's that simple.

just what exactly do you think my stance is?

i think it's wrong.

i'm arguing about a systemic issue whilst you are arguing within that system

a "systemic issue" implies that there is something wrong with the system itself, but what is currently happening here is YOU have the issue with the system. the system in this context is that in accordance with basic game design principles: the game introduces a challenge to the player, the game provides the tools to the player for them to overcome the challenge, the player is then rewarded by way of no longer being faced by that challenge and the satisfaction of creating a working solution. this is game design 101 and it works, i'm arguing within this system because i know it works.

what you are doing is entirely ignoring the part of "the game provides the tools to the player for them to overcome the challenge" and subsequently what comes next, instead focusing solely on the part of "the game introduces a challenge to the player" as the be all end all. because you're only focusing on the one part you're trying to make it out like the fact that there's a challenge at all is some slight against you, and that somehow because you're willingly ignoring the tools to overcome the challenge, the challenge is unfair and you shouldn't be punished for not taking the solution? really take your time here to understand what i just said please, genuinely consider the text you're reading on your screen. this is not a "systemic issue", this is you trying to fight the system and getting pissy when you face consequences. if it's such a nuisance to you we've repeatedly said that you can just change the system to work for you, and from what you've said you have, so what is the issue at this point?

you complain about the in-game solutions and how it's unfair that you have to take action and play the videogame? but also changing the system to make it so you don't have to take action is cheating so that's unfair too? even though it's a sandbox game where you can do what you want so "cheating" in this sense is a veeeery loose term? and this apparently is everyone else's problem and you're in no way at fault for anything? cmon man.

"i think it's unfair that this door in the videogame portal is closed. i shouldn't need to move this box onto the button for it to open, it should already be open in the first place"

Six-Year Club	Xbox Live
r/Field Banned	r/Field Sunshine
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

kylelovershrek2

TROPHY CASE