Jump to content

Reflections on A6 (SPOILERS)


*i

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Are there two users named Thuryl here?

 

I swear to the gods... reading from the start of this thread to the finish, I understood Thuryl until one of his recent posts veered in a direction I couldn't follow. If I have the willpower to go back and search for where I went astray, I'll quote the confusing statement here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something odd going on with the discussion, though. The criticisms of storytelling in the older games seem not to be leveled at the newer games. Jeff isn't really getting suggestions at all; he's getting praise for his advancement. And yes, we all want the ponies of completely realistic characters (why not run by strong AI?), but people seem generally happy.

 

—Alorael, who will keep playing his broken record on his hobby horse and ask what, exactly, was wrong with the backstory characters in A1 and A2 (and a bit in A3). They're there. The details they give and have about Avernum and how it got to be the way it was are tantalizing but incomplete. Some people will want more, and some people will not. Those are not the same as accusing the characters of being poorly drawn and unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Alorael, who still doesn't see the mages as Chekhov's gun. They exist as backstory, and they serve that purpose admirably.


So then are there any main (not backstory) characters in A1-3 besides your party and the villains?

Having all of this supposed magical talent lying around and not using it at all except in minor and mundane ways sounds like Chekov's Gun to me. I'm not saying everyone needs an active role, just that somewhere along the way, somebody important should do something.

Quote:
...and ask what, exactly, was wrong with the backstory characters in A1 and A2 (and a bit in A3). They're there.


Absolutely nothing other than that everybody is therefore a backstory character. I'm okay with characters who exist for backstory. That's wonderful. Not everyone should do things in a realistic world; being "retired" is a valid character option. Again, if you want your world to be believable, people other than you should actually do things. Generally speaking, good storytelling usually has this be the main characters.

Quote:
I don't lack imagination at all. I simply recognize the limitations of an indie game developer that doesn't have the resources to do all the things I would want in a game.


Yet, somehow Jeff seems to be able to pull it off in A5 and A6. Really, when you boil it down to it, all I'm saying is this: Good work Jeff! I liked this specifically. May I please have more?

Really, I don't think this is unreasonable. smile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been posting here occasionally for years about my beef with zero-to-demigod games in which no rationale is ever given for how the PC can become so powerful, so quickly. And I've complained even more about the games where nobody in the game notices that the end-game PC isn't an insignificant apprentice any more.

 

I've been particularly annoyed with how in the Geneforge series Jeff passed up a glorious opportunity to right these glaring wrongs. Half a dozen pop-up paragraphs about idiosyncratic canister reactions, and a cosmetic re-working of the major mission dialogs, could have made the basic game mechanic of levelling, and the basic Geneforge theme of rapid power gain, mesh perfectly. But Jeff left it almost entirely up to the player to connect these dots. There would be a chilling little paragraph about the corrupting effect of power — over a canister that gave one point in Firebolt. Yet I could gain forty levels by shredding rogues and no-one batted an eye, even though this unique PC ability to gain levels from combat made canisters themselves look like Gatorade.

 

But I did find this all worked quite a bit better in A6, because the party's advance in power was just less in focus. The plot advances by accomplishing meaningful tasks, and entering new areas. The enemies in the early game include various zombie-like things, tough sliths, and magicians; they're not so different in kind from the enemies you fight right through the game. It wasn't that I started killing three large rats and ended up killing the entire enemy army singlehanded.

 

So although my understanding of the game mechanics let me know that my endgame party was maybe a hundred times stronger than it had been in the demo, my impression from within the game was that I had only become reasonably more experienced and skilled over the course of my missions. Instead of zero to deity, it felt more like trained professional soldier to emerging war hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I partially agree with *i's statement of what Jeff has done in the games, but I don't agree with the attached value judgement. Jeff has done something different in A5 and A6, but it isn't necessarily better -- to my taste, it's worse. I enjoyed A5 and A6, and the story and atmosphere was good enough not to be any kind of impediment. But I didn't really enjoy the stories. They didn't draw me in. E1 and E2 did.

 

I challenge, however, the assertion that the later games have more character development than the earlier games do. Character development takes place in a different fashion in A5 and A6. Yes, people actually do things. On the other hand, there is less backstory. Most of the characters who span the second trilogy are throwaways. Characters like Lark and Correlea have no character development whatsoever.

 

The two biggest characters who appear in both A5 and A6, Gladwell and Melanchion, get some development, but less I think than the first trilogy offered. Gladwell's a great example. Yes, we see him do a few things, but his inner motivation and his life story are total mysteries. We don't really know what kind of person he is... active plot, actions, can be a window to somebody's soul, but in A6 they really aren't. I certainly feel like Erika got more develpment in E1 and E2 alone (we'll exclude E3, where she does something).

 

Certainly the first trilogy has its share of important characters with little development. Like Micah, about whose person we know almost as little as Starrus. But the first trilogy has characters with no plot action, characters who are essentially throwaways, who seem to me much more like real people. Characters like Aydin and Josie, the self-exiled mages who lived in the Northern Waters, or Silverio, or heck, even Anastasia. Or let's compare the Vahnatai. For all the flak their depiction received, E2's one-off Vahnatai plot points of Prossis, Glantris, and Elohi were far more humanly sketched out than the recurring tasteless entity of the second trilogy, Ghall-Ihrno.

 

Perhaps I'm just old and bitter and full of nostalgia for the games I played when I was 13 and 14. But I think the difference is not so one-sided as *i suggests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as magic has come, I have found it has become less and less useful. However in Avernum 6, all the spells wind up becoming more balanced out, granted I am spending about 5,000-10,000 coins in a sitting on spells. The Fire spells in Avernum 6 winded up being useless in major points of the game because Sliths are resistant to fire.

 

I liked the magic in the Exile series more. The narrative always talks about these men of great magical power, thrashing about their enemies with the flick of a wrist. Yet you never can learn past Arcane Blow, even though one of my PC's is a mage. While the magic engine is finer tuned now, there's nothing like hasting your WHOLE party or quickfireing and enemy town, or even stopping quickfire with a magic barrier. The priest spells were much more useful too, but I ain't no crazy Anama.

 

In the earlier Avernum series, you could target multiple targets, not just put down a fiery hell in one circle. If one thing should be brought back, it should be the spells from Exile.

 

Other things include old items like maces, flails, bardiches, and other charms etc.

 

Ni.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*i, your criticism of the mages who do nothing just don't work for me. I'm still missing a reason for the mages to do something. That's not shoddy writing, that's writing well with the somewhat questionable starting premise of mages who are not the type to do great deeds

 

That said, the premise does bother me. Yes, the PCs are the only major characters in A1-3 and this remains largely true in A4-6. Given that the PCs aren't actually characters, just bundles of stats and some dialogue the player provides, that's a problem. Erika is almost a character and Rentar is almost a character, but both eventually fall flat beyond backstory. The games have great background, decent plots, and no characters.

 

—Alorael, who does see this as a flaw. It's not an insurmountable one, and it doesn't ruin the fun of the games, but he does think they would be better and that seeing the arc of Avernite history over two trilogies would be more meaningful if there were more meaningful character to whom important things happen and due to whom important events occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Svelte Prince Penoir
Are there two users named Thuryl here?


No, there is just one who is schizophrenic. You can tell which one you are dealing with by checking if he uses capital letters. If you encounter a Thuryl post containing only lowercase letters, back away slowly and do not make eye contact
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
*i, your criticism of the mages who do nothing just don't work for me. I'm still missing a reason for the mages to do something. That's not shoddy writing, that's writing well with the somewhat questionable starting premise of mages who are not the type to do great deeds


I think I got off track. The mages were the ones who Jeff invested the most into character development. Of anyone, he gives them the greatest backstory. Indeed, we learn of much of Avernum's history through them and word of their deeds.

I don't think the mages specifically need to do anything, but I point to them since they are the most obvious candidates for someone doing something. Their stories are so rich that it baffles me that none of them do hardly anything in the games themselves other than tell us history.

This is my critique of not doing anything with the mages. The reason that the mages should do something is the author invests so much in developing them. Further, they are the ones with the power to make a difference, as evidenced by their past feats. Hence, my referencing Chekov's Gun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is so inexplicable. The magi barely had the power to contain Grah-Hoth 30 years earlier (or was it 40? I forget). Since then they have aged while Grah-Hoth has been gathering his power and his forces from within his prison. If they could barely contain him before, how can they do it now?

 

As for helping, summoning allies, etc. -- remember that teleportation, and far-reaching magic, was much, much more limited in the early games. Exile had no ability whatsoever to create portals to distant places. The strongest mage in all of Exile needed four powerful magical artifacts just to do a simple long-range teleportation spell. Long-range scrying was immensely difficult, to the point that it was practiced only by said most powerful incantatrix, the dragon Athron, and two specialist mages (Aimee and Aydin). I think you get the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument is pretty repetitive.

 

—Alorael, who will now deliver his summary. *i sees the characters given backstory and wishes they were given story. He himself sees the characters as backstory more than as characters, so they work fine. Slarty doesn't seem to think Exile/Avernum requires characters; others tend to disagree. Okay, time to start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that the mages are doing stuff behind the scenes. It would certainly be nice to get some quests related to it but it'll just come at the expense of other quests. For example, there could have been a scripted event in Solberg's tower where we see Solberg blow up a couple of demons that breached his defenses followed by a few fetch quests where he asks you to get him some supplies to repair and reinforce his magical wards. However, that's just going to end up forcing Jeff to take another quest out of the game. It'll just be a trade off between developing a story that we sort of already know is going on vs. creating a new story branch or something to add to the atmosphere of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. This argument has gone on long enough. One final point to tie up a loose end...

 

Quote:
It'll just be a trade off between developing a story that we sort of already know is going on vs. creating a new story branch or something to add to the atmosphere of the game.

 

I think we're in a agreement here, at least somewhat. I don't need additional side quests, I would just like to see a little more involvement in the parts we already have. For instance, make it feel like the characters really care when Grah-Hoth gets released by having them be active in this part. I do think this would add a lot to the dimension of the characters in an already rich world and be an improvement on a good game.

 

All right; I'm done here. smile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: *i
Agreed. This argument has gone on long enough. One final point to tie up a loose end...

Quote:
It'll just be a trade off between developing a story that we sort of already know is going on vs. creating a new story branch or something to add to the atmosphere of the game.


I think we're in a agreement here, at least somewhat. I don't need additional side quests, I would just like to see a little more involvement in the parts we already have. For instance, make it feel like the characters really care when Grah-Hoth gets released by having them be active in this part. I do think this would add a lot to the dimension of the characters in an already rich world and be an improvement on a good game.

All right; I'm done here. smile


Jeff definitely didn't have the time for that in Exile/Avernum 1 and 2. However, in Exile/Avernum 3, the cities get worn down by the plagues as time passes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep getting pulled back in...

 

Quote:
Jeff definitely didn't have the time for that in Exile/Avernum 1 and 2. However, in Exile/Avernum 3, the cities get worn down by the plagues as time passes.

 

If you happen to have known Jeff's schedule ten years ago with such certainty, you know him better than I do. smile

 

But seriously, did you even understand what I wrote and what I'm suggesting? I can tell you that seeing the effect from monster plagues in A3 has nothing to do with fleshing out the characters more.

 

All right, I'm done here. I promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: *i
Keep getting pulled back in...

Quote:
Jeff definitely didn't have the time for that in Exile/Avernum 1 and 2. However, in Exile/Avernum 3, the cities get worn down by the plagues as time passes.


If you happen to have known Jeff's schedule ten years ago with such certainty, you know him better than I do. smile

But seriously, did you even understand what I wrote and what I'm suggesting? I can tell you that seeing the effect from monster plagues in A3 has nothing to do with fleshing out the characters more.

All right, I'm done here. I promise.


And do you understand that it's all related? As mentioned before, Spiderweb Software is a small independent game developer. There has to be a trade off between different things. Jeff has limited time and resources. He chose to put all the effects from the monster plagues in instead of adding in more quests/special encounters/dialogue to develop the characters. If Jeff had chosen to develop the characters more then he would had to put in less stuff about the effects of the monster plagues. Then people would be complaining about how the monster plagues didn't seem that bad and that the game lacked urgency.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
I think Vicheron's point was just that somebody will complain no matter what Jeff does, a point that Jeff himself has raised numerous times.


It's a point that I too have raised many times. So yes, I am in total agreement with Vicheron's point that Jeff has limited resources. As Thuryl said, I'm well aware of this as I've been invested in seeing this company succeed for over a decade now. Incidentally, I happen to be one of those few beta-testers that Jeff actually got quite angry at. smile

Nonetheless, constructive criticism is still important. While I trust Jeff to make good games in the end, there is nothing wrong with people saying what they like and dislike and how they feel he should have done things differently.

Take A4. We've been over this numerous times now on the strengths and weaknesses of that game. In the end, it saved Spiderweb Software. That's a good thing, of course; however, rather than saying the results vindicated his position completely, Jeff did take the criticism he got to heart. When we saw GF4, we got a different type of game; it was more successful and, perhaps more importantly, Jeff himself said he had a lot of fun writing it.

So yeah, resource limitations are there, that any reasonable person should agree upon. Nonetheless, Jeff cannot keep designing good games without some feedback from his core fans. In the end, I expect him to balance this and others out and achieve a happy medium.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Thuryl
yes, Vicheron, keep telling the forum admin who has betatested half of Jeff's games how Jeff needs to run his business


When did I ever say what Jeff should do? At which point did I even make suggestions about future games? Unless I've somehow time traveled back to 1995, before the release of the Exile series, all I have done is explain why Jeff did what he has already done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the early, early beta testing of A4, I made some offhanded comment about how the plot is dull, the world felt like it had little life, and the plot (as I had quite correctly predicted it) was set up to be too predictable. The standard stuff we've been over again and again. smile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I felt bad about how I made the comments. I should have been a little more diplomatic. In the end, it did make him aware of what criticism he was going to receive post release, so that's probably a good thing. In the end, all of us here want Jeff to be successful and for us to have good games to play.

 

Most of these concerns I and others raised back then have been addressed in subsequent games. Granted, there are things that I think would make the status quo even better and we should let him know. In the end, Jeff has made mostly good decisions in the past, so I trust his final judgments on these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the bottom line judgement I like to use is: have you actually made a game? It's not that our criticism isn't relevant or useful, it's that we don't have the context of the 10,000 other concerns you have when putting together a commercially viable computer game. I wouldn't say that Jeff has made mostly good decisions, I would say that he has made mostly good decisions as far as being able to keep releasing games goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far he has a perfect track record in making decisions that enable more games.

 

—Alorael, who also thinks it's worth keeping in mind that the Spiderweb forum's criticisms seem to have no bearing on Jeff's target demographic. Whoever those septuagenarian Eskimos are, they're not going to boycott over A4's flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Oldbin.bin
Yeah, the bottom line judgement I like to use is: have you actually made a game? It's not that our criticism isn't relevant or useful, it's that we don't have the context of the 10,000 other concerns you have when putting together a commercially viable computer game. I wouldn't say that Jeff has made mostly good decisions, I would say that he has made mostly good decisions as far as being able to keep releasing games goes.
This is exactly why I rarely have anything negative to say about these games. I'll make suggestions about how he can make things more awesome in his upcoming game, but when it comes to games that have already been released, I'm usually just grateful. I couldn't make anything half as nice, after all, and I'm no hypocrite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Slarty
Yeah, the bottom line judgement I like to use is: have you actually made a game?


That is a absolutely ridiculous position. Since I have never made a movie, I can't blast Avatar? Since I have never cooked a cordon bleu meal, I can't say I was gypped out of $200 dollars? If anything, the people who actually consume the gods, since it's not James Cameron or a chef or Jeff Vogel who actually consumes the product that they make. They rely on the public to do so, and thus the criticism of the public is more important, since they essentially decide the success of whatever it is we are dealing with, a movie or a meal or a game. This is why Jeff has essentially released Geneforge games for the second half of the Avernum series- 4,5, and 6. The public doesn't want to play rehashes of A2 or A3 anymore- there is no longer a market for a game that has twice as many towns as dungeons, or that requires you to perform the same quest over and over again in different towns to increase your reputation to actually advance the plot. So, Jeff has made the decision to stop making those games anymore, and move onto games that are merely obscenly immense, instead of criminally immense. He has tailored his games not to cater to the forumgoers, who represent a disproportionate segment of Jeff's actual customers, but the customers themselves, which leaves quite a few of you feeling shorted, to say the least. Ah well, Jeff does what he has to do to keep producing games, and if I had to chose between an infinite supply of new and mediocre Jeff games or his current repertoire and that's it, then I would pick the former, and so has Jeff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
if I had to chose between an infinite supply of new and mediocre Jeff games or his current repertoire and that's it, then I would pick the former, and so has Jeff.


Wow, that's... strong.

Have you read Jeff's blog? Have you heard his media interviews? Yes, Jeff's running a business, and he most certainly pays attention to whether or not his games make money. But he also most certainly has put a lot of thought into game design, has good ideas about what makes playing games fun, and has designed his new games to match his evolving theories.

That's not mediocre.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: jlsgaladriel
That's not mediocre


It was a hypothetical choice. Of course Jeff's games are not mediocre. They are very good, some of the best games I have ever played- otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Originally Posted By: jlsgaladriel
Wow, that's... strong.


Remaking Exile over and over is not a viable business plan. I'd rather see new Jeff stuff than the same things again (even Geneforge!)

Originally Posted By: jlsgaladriel
Have you read Jeff's blog? Have you heard his media interviews? Yes, Jeff's running a business, and he most certainly pays attention to whether or not his games make money. But he also most certainly has put a lot of thought into game design, has good ideas about what makes playing games fun, and has designed his new games to match his evolving theories.


Yes and yes to your first questions. However, while Jeff most certainly enjoys making games (it shows), he also does it to, well, make money. His games not only reflect his design theories, but also what will sell. Keep in mind, that is a good thing.

I felt like shuffling the order of quoteboxes, just because.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
Originally Posted By: Slarty
Yeah, the bottom line judgement I like to use is: have you actually made a game?


That is a absolutely ridiculous position. Since I have never made a movie, I can't blast Avatar? Since I have never cooked a cordon bleu meal, I can't say I was gypped out of $200 dollars? If anything, the people who actually consume the gods, since it's not James Cameron or a chef or Jeff Vogel who actually consumes the product that they make. They rely on the public to do so, and thus the criticism of the public is more important, since they essentially decide the success of whatever it is we are dealing with, a movie or a meal or a game. This is why Jeff has essentially released Geneforge games for the second half of the Avernum series- 4,5, and 6. The public doesn't want to play rehashes of A2 or A3 anymore- there is no longer a market for a game that has twice as many towns as dungeons, or that requires you to perform the same quest over and over again in different towns to increase your reputation to actually advance the plot. So, Jeff has made the decision to stop making those games anymore, and move onto games that are merely obscenly immense, instead of criminally immense. He has tailored his games not to cater to the forumgoers, who represent a disproportionate segment of Jeff's actual customers, but the customers themselves, which leaves quite a few of you feeling shorted, to say the least. Ah well, Jeff does what he has to do to keep producing games, and if I had to chose between an infinite supply of new and mediocre Jeff games or his current repertoire and that's it, then I would pick the former, and so has Jeff.


But the quality of a product is not correlated with its financial success. Just look at Twilight, Transformers, and just about any reality TV "star." If Jeff can make significantly more money off of games that his fans hate than games that his fans like, then he's going to make games that his fans don't like since he can't exactly live off of critical acclaim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Remaking Exile over and over is not a viable business plan. I'd rather see new Jeff stuff than the same things again (even Geneforge!)


Parker Bros. seems to do it just fine with Monopoly. tongue

That said, Jeff will probably remake the early Avernums eventually. This works because by the time these things would get remade (every decade or so), you have a whole new audience to sell your game to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
or that requires you to perform the same quest over and over again in different towns to increase your reputation to actually advance the plot.


Have you played the recent games? Of course you have from other comments, but Jeff still has plenty of kill a certain number of creature quests, item collection quests, and others that are just the same quest with a slightly different name. There are fewer quest that ask you to go across half the game map to a location and return that used to be in the games, but Jeff reuses lots from the previous games.

A5 test sentinels, A6 test constructs for Sorengard.
A5 kill rats, A6 kill bats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Randomizer
Originally Posted By: Dantius
or that requires you to perform the same quest over and over again in different towns to increase your reputation to actually advance the plot.


Have you played the recent games?


Yes. That particular comment was in reference to A1-A3. I have completed at least one playthrough for every spiderweb game except A2 and A3, and I have nearly finished A2 and am halfway through A3.

And the thing about sidequests in the later games is that they are not actually necessary- in A5, for example, if you decide that you don't want to expel Muck, you can just wade through rivers of Vahnovi blood and escape through the secret tunnel under Kherebass (sp). In A2, if you just complete the main quests, sooner or later, you will find that you need to go back and gather an old lady's flowers to increase your reputation and get higher clearance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
Originally Posted By: Slarty
Yeah, the bottom line judgement I like to use is: have you actually made a game?


That is a absolutely ridiculous position. Since I have never made a movie, I can't blast Avatar?... So, Jeff has made the decision to stop making those games anymore, and move onto games that are merely obscenly immense, instead of criminally immense. He has tailored his games not to cater to the forumgoers, who represent a disproportionate segment of Jeff's actual customers, but the customers themselves, which leaves quite a few of you feeling shorted, to say the least.

It isn't a ridiculous position, and I'll explain why I hold it, but I also agree with you in part.

Criticism is important and necessary. The problem is that there is no such thing as truly objective criticism... every critic has his own vantage point. And that's fine, it's a legitimate one, but the artist always has a vantage point too. GOOD criticism -- like good art -- is one hundred percent about bridging the gap between the artist's vantage point, and the audience's. This requires understanding and accepting (1) what will work for the audience, and (2) where the artist is coming from. A lot of literary and music criticism in particular fails on the second count (pitchfork, I have a special set of curse words reserved for you), and this is very dangerous because it tries to squish the creative piece of art (yes, I am counting individually crafted video games as art in their way) and turn it into something min-maxed in a very ugly way. Lit crit is my definition of evil. Poor criticism is like Vogon poetry.

On the other hand, decay can occur in the other direction as I think it has with SW, or with Dickens' writing when he did all those serials -- when the focus is on word count and profit, the artist can lose track of (2) himself. Exile, Exile 2, Nethergate, and Geneforge were all full of Jeff. None of his other games have lived up to this in quite the same way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umberto Eco is not the author, so he didn't have to die. The author is a convenient fiction standing for a hypothetically related set of events whose later stages blend vaguely into the set of events which you may have caricatured and labelled as your reading of a book with the words 'Umberto Eco' somewhere on the front page.

 

If you were careful enough with your vague blending there, the author was tidily dead by the time you finished your reading. A few strangled gasps and twitches from the author over the course of the first couple of chapters are acceptable, even chic; but only if you do it right.

 

Of course I am ostentatiously declining to define 'event'. This is irony, and it is chic, because I have done it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Euconfusion
Exile, Exile 2, Nethergate, and Geneforge were all full of Jeff. None of his other games have lived up to this in quite the same way.


I normally try not to step into these less concrete conversations, but I have to say that I find this statement to be pretty bizarre.

- Jeff Vogel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...