Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Eric Fenstermaker Narrative Interview at RPG Codex


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#41
anameforobsidian

anameforobsidian

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1176 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

we mentioned the failure o' the interviewer on multiple fronts.  we did not attribute such failures to a website-- that would be ridiculous.  lord knows we do not look at every failed vol or luckman post as a critique 'pon the obsidian message boards.


Haha, see, this is why I can't take you all that seriously. You're against the Codex for being a den of "racist *ssholes" when your entire schtick is based around being kind of an *sshole here. You just like hanging around in a place where you can dish it out but don't have to take it. Lazy.
 

oh, and attempting to divorce setting from narrative is idiotic.  the setting is integral to the poe narrative. duh.

 

Great, but but that doesn't really change my point, does it? Josh talks about one kind of narrative but not the kind I wanted to know more about, so I interviewed Eric. I fail to see the problem here.

 

 

I respect the hell out of you as an admin and poster and dev-botherer, genuinely.  But the massive continuing butthurt at the codex about PE alone makes it hard to respect.  ****, there are people who complain about build variety in PE still, when its vastly more flexible than most rpgs.  The way everyone is some kind of  "_____f*g" makes it harder.  The fact that Sensuki is a representative of a significant portion of vitriolic players there makes it even harder.  And the less than cute way you alter each others profiles for a vast number of personal insults.  I get that everyone there knows its a rough place but that doesn't make it more appealing.

 

I still read the news every two or three days.  No one else does rpg news as well.



#42
aluminiumtrioxid

aluminiumtrioxid

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1498 posts

The Codex really is to CRPGs what 4chan is to tabletop games, isn't it?

 

Well, except 4chan is slightly less obnoxious, I guess.


Edited by aluminiumtrioxid, 08 March 2016 - 04:45 PM.

  • illathid likes this

#43
Tigranes

Tigranes

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 10491 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Wait, you mean you guys read interviewer questions in any interview?

 

Nobody answers the question these days, anyway. 


  • Sonntam likes this

#44
gkathellar

gkathellar

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2007 posts
  • Location:Region of Erroneous Complaint
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Wait, you mean you guys read interviewer questions in any interview?
 
Nobody answers the question these days, anyway.


I actually felt the questions were generally relevant and not especially obnoxious, and that Fenstermaker was courteous enough to take them seriously and address them inasmuch as he could. There was a bit of "address our forum drama plx," but not too much, and because actual questions with critical insight were asked, actual answers with designer insight were provided. Honestly, I thought the whole thing was very candid and straightforward, if just a bit hung up on personnel stuff.
 

The Codex really is to CRPGs what 4chan is to tabletop games, isn't it?
 
Well, except 4chan is slightly less obnoxious, I guess.


Eh, /tg/ gets a bad rap. They really like WH40K, and they're still 4chan, but they actually produce some cool stuffs.
  • illathid likes this

#45
Trashos

Trashos

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Guys, Obsidian employees (current+recent) are directly responsible for more than half of the Codex Top 10 RPGs ever list. A couple of them have assumed the status of Deities, so to speak. If some of you are suggesting that the Codex had it coming for Obsidian, think again.



#46
archangel979

archangel979

    (11) Wizard

  • Members
  • 1617 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

There's a middle ground between drama et PR bull****.
You can ask interesting, in depth questions (which, again, most of the time, the interviewer managed to do, kudos to him for that) without the "drama"...

But, but... Codex is all about drama...

#47
Hiro Protagonist II

Hiro Protagonist II

    Ysbryd rhydd of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2582 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer

I love these threads (mostly with the butthurt posts about the Codex).

 

I don't mind short games if they're good but I always have reservations going into them. While not an rpg, there was an adventure game called Stasis I recently played  that took just over 8 hours for me to finish. I heard it takes around 8-12 hours to finish before playing so I was under the impression this was going to be too short. I'd have to say that 8-12 hours was a good length and this was one of the best games I've played over the last 18 months.



#48
Ineth

Ineth

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 643 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
I'd much rather play a 20 hour game with tons of reactivity and an extremely well-presented story than an 80 hour juggernaut like Icewind Dale 2.

 

I agree in theory, but for some reason I loved Icewind Dale 2 as well...

 

Sure, it took me probably half a year to finish it, but so what! :)

The linearity and lack of reactivity actually helped with that, because remembering for several months what your status is in relation to countless NPCs and factions and story branches, would have been hard.

 



#49
Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 550 posts

Wasn't Sensuki one of the beta testers for POE, filing endless lists of bugs plus youtube videos, and pushed for the IE Mod thing?

 

People like that tend to be outspoken. Combination of passion with perfectionism.

 

But even if that was a different person I'm recalling, the people who tend to focus hard on these rpgs tend to form their own sub cultures. Even though the RPG culture itself is a sub culture, it just sorts of goes down further once you get into card games vs board games vs war games vs the ones that use dice vs the ones that don't vs the fantasy x sci fi settings.

 

As for the interview, that's good hearing the design perspective. It allows me to make more informed and better criticisms of their work, if I know what their intent was.

 

"From Torment and BG II both came a sense that the degree to which a story is personal is a strong influence on the impact of the narrative. I don't think our story ended up being as strong in that regard, but it was a guiding principle, and it's the reason we elected to develop a past life backstory rather than having the player be a complete blank slate."

 

Knowing what I know now, my recommendation would probably be that a single narrative style should have been adopted for each of the different personalities, like stoic or passionate, which would then determine the 4 or 6 or whatever number of backstory combinations there was for the main crit path. Instead of giving 4 choices to the player. Why is the player choosing which of his memories are true? That doesn't even make sense and actually breaks the 4th wall, at times. Worst time to do that at.

 

That's why it isn't as strong. Because there's no beginning and end. It's just some random choices you pick up in the middle, due to whatever reasons, and nobody can figure out which is which by the end. There's no consistent vision from beginning to end, concerning player choices and reactions. The plot was consistent, of course, but the way it linked to the player was jumbled around too much. The dispositions were a good touch, but that was all, a touch not a slam dunk or knockout.

 

For example, if the player has 3-5 deceptive ranks in personality, then the soul personality that manifests in the visions would be that of a deceiver, one who wishes to deceive the world about x, y, or z. And that does come up in the central plot point once or twice. But it is consistent from beginning to end, narrative wise, and it is consistently poking the player with reliable gameplay details over time.

 

One of the problems of offering too many (randomish) choices to the player, is that the player will often times choose mutually exclusive things when testing role playing. And that produces cognitive dissonance, if people think about it for a few seconds. There's no way the plot can address the player's own internal doubts and questions either, it's not a reactive intelligence system. That happened with people clicking on Backer npcs too. A lot of freedom, but how do you handle edge cases where players use the freedom to make their experience less fun?

 

"You have to plan your project to make the best of the resources you have. That sounds obvious, but some people really struggle with that when they get excited about a particular idea or feature."

 

People do tend to get spoiled with the potential of technology these days. Which is why when I look at what people did with visual novels, just a basic script engine running text and some 2d backgrounds and sprites, I often recall that that was the kind of barrier Torment was breaking through as well. There was just no industry to support that kind of thing, because it wasn't even classified as a genre much less a sub genre of another genre. Not in the West at least, and not since the days of text adventure games and or MUDDs.

 

"Often you'll look to recent similar games to see how they solved your problems, but in our case, few of those games existed."

 

The Banner Saga was out for some time before, if I recall. The narration was strong there because the initial conditions were limited, but all the gameplay mechanics and stories linked together. In Pillars, I notice a lot of game systems that Stand Alone. Stronghold not connected to the main plot or side quests, main plot not connected to Dispositions, dispositions not connected to Main Crit path background visions, player background visions not connected to player powers, tactical combat, classes, stronghold, etc.

 

They all had their own unique flavors and gameplay bonuses for the user, but they weren't connected in a strong link. That isn't the responsibility of the content creators or the writers, that's more of a very high level design decision.

 

The writing and story craft/lore craft in Pillars is strong, but that alone isn't enough to connect the gameplay details together. And without that, the player's reaction and emotional feedback from the plot and events, is lessened as a result. That may be why some reviewers said this story was serviceable, but not extraordinary. The lore is quite well done, it is merely the way it is transmitted to a player that is playing a game. (Fenster mentioned Maerwald once before) They are not reading a book. There are ways to turn reading a book into an interactive game, of course, but that's not where Pillars went.

 

"We weren't going to build the vision environments (although we'd have loved to if we could have)"

 

Could have reused the stronghold and Endless Paths for some of that, then re used some of the art work, conceptual stuff, and modified it for an adventure text box. Of course, it's better if the player didn't get another load screen at that moment. But it's one way to tie the story around and link it to all of its parts, as it reduces the amount of work to make it visceral. The Engwithans at Caed Nua, was in the same era as when T started his own endless path. They might have had shrines there as well, with peculiar themes to them. Instead of looking at the Stronghold as a separate area, much could have been done if people used the Stronghold as an excuse to tie it in with the main crit plot as well. I mean, how many levels do you have in the Endless Paths to work with here?

 

"Ideally you want to develop that in your side quests, and we did that to a degree, but I don't think we covered enough of it, or made a big enough deal about religion and the pantheon in the first two acts."

 

That's where the PC starting off as a priest of X, would have helped out. Of course, you can't include that in the crit path because you can't assume the PC is class A. He may not be Class A. So the link is broken before it even begins. But there's always dispositions...

 

Link gameplay elements together. And try not to have so much reactivity like all those dispositions, which probably ends up being bigger word count than Durance uncensored. But that was probably Josh's part of systems design. Between disposition A through E, helping me understand the world, and better companions with more "stuff" to do with them, the latter part will always pull me into the plot and world harder than Disposition A through E as they are currently used in game.

 

"It was considered, too, that in BGII, the strongholds didn't have much of a connection to the narrative beyond the quest to acquire them, so I think that was chosen more as the model."

 

That's because in BG2, there were many many strongholds, and you couldn't have all of them without modding and editing files. How do you connect 5 strongholds to the main crit path when the player only uses 1 of them, some of the time? That's like having 5 dispositions that don't affect the critical path of the game's plot... because you can't just have a Game Over due to somebody's dispositions, there's too many (combinations) of them.

 

It is not necessarily the stronghold that needed connections, but the gameplay around it. Something more could have been done with the Steward, adding dialogue options to the UI instead of the stronghold mechanics being in the UI only. This would allow direct dialogue with the steward, which could be rolled into content like the 3.0 stronghold quests. Creating its own miniature narrative. Not using the NPCs that the player already knows about, or rather relegating the steward to a stronghold mechanic and nothing more, disconnects the gameplay from the rest of the world and story narrative. Adding more stuff isn't always better than just improving the quality of what's already there. Takes less time and resources for the latter.

 

"Later on in development, we got kind of a hyperlinked tooltip system that explained certain highlighted words when you'd mouse over them. This was used to explain systems primarily, but if I'd have known about the system early on, I think I could've made a lot of the early dialogue cleaner by offloading those explanations into some database the player has to opt into. Wouldn't have solved everything, but wouldn't have hurt."

 

Check out that visual novel Gahkthun of the Golden Lightning or Steins;Gate encyclopedias. Similar problems and solutions.

 

"I haven't seen what Torment: Numenera is doing, but hopefully they've learned from our mistakes, and I'm interested to see what they've come up with."

 

If I have it right, their quest designers have a pool of backer npcs with specific background, and they will sometimes pick one of the NPCs to tie it into one of their quests. So instead of that npc on the road you kill in Pillars area 2xb, that then ends up dying or getting sent to jail and they then escape, which was their entire content, now there's probably some kind of content onion, where an NPC is involved in more than 2-3 quests in total for that area. But that was often the case with Torment to begin with. There were a lot of NPCs in Pillars, who it would have been interesting to soul read their backgrounds as part of the dialogue, it would have made the Watcher thing more relevant to gameplay since dialogue and combat is like more than 75% of the game there. The backer npc text was very interesting, and I wanted to read more. But there wasn't more. There was just like dozens and dozens of them, all isolated, without context, beginning, middle or end. It was just there. Read a few paragraphs, like a trip to starbucks, go back to what you were really doing. Of course it distracted people and broke up their gameflow. What else could it do? Placing all of the backer NPCs at the STRONGHOLD or the second city would have made more sense.

 

On another note, looking at Carrie's writing and short stories, she is very good at writing short, succinct, pieces that capture strong or vivid images and concepts. Working on GM must have been very problematic, since Chris Avellone is... the opposite, for a similar end result. No wonder, thus, that Durance and GM felt like very different story companions, even though they should all have come from the same source material. The writing felt different to me, not just the content. Asking Durance about all the lore stuff, was great for me, but wasn't in it for GM, for example.

 

"They achieved their purpose at the time, which was to drum up enthusiasm among the backers, but some of the bigger goals probably cost quite a lot more to develop than they brought in - the second city, the megadungeon, and the expansion come to mind. Smaller scope would've afforded us more polish time."

 

Certainly, but there could have been ways to deal with it in a creative sense. Having the second city be Creitum in the past, for example. That would allow a direct development and link to gameplay, questing, combat, and the player's backstory. Caed Nua, also a timeslip back into the past. And all the old excuses that there's no VO or visual art resources for it, are easily shattered by that trace drawing for the adventure box narratives. Which weren't utilized as much as they could have. Ironically, the best parts of the game were the most experimental tech, that people didn't touch much of. There wasn't much of it to consume.

 

" I don't want to tip my hand, so pardon the vagueness. One would be having fewer, but far deeper and more interconnected companions"

 

I agree. Class changing them would also be neat if it could fit within the lore, as it allows people to fill in the party with whatever, without losing flexibility. Less important given Pillar's already good and hybrid like class system, however. More important for reading stories, though since it connects the companion npcs directly to the game fabric, the game lore, and the game mechanics. Which in turn, connects them to the player experience.

 

Even having extra companions sitting back at the stronghold can become a fun mechanic, if you could play from their perspective and do combat or quests, with an instant transition, leaving your main character elsewhere. 

 

"But better. More memorable. More like a real group of people. Less likely to be collecting dust in your stronghold."

 

Also less but more impactful dispositions. It's like Josh missed out on all the Fallout new vegas faction reputation points. But there's no factions. And dispositions aren't connected to the backstory, the soul, the plot, the combat (other than paladins), or the gods. Looking at the number of combinations and work put into it, the text lines themselves, that's a lot of work for little inter connectivity.

 

Going back to the subject of Backer NPCs, the reason Obsidian may have been caught off guard was because their backer beta testers saw the content there, but it wasn't clear that these were backer npcs. It was also not explicitly stated that this was ALL the content, always, same style, for the backer npcs, that they would have zero quests, zero connection with plot or companions. Zero.

 

At the time, the testers might have just been withholding judgment, because there were more interesting things to test and talk about. But if the designers had asked them straight out, "how do you think this would work if the npcs were everywhere, but they had no content and were just a paragraph of text, just like you saw in backer beta 333"? You all might have gotten some interesting responses, which would have lead to a more easy way to adapt to the gamefeedback from the public.

 

If you do not ask the right questions, you will not get the right answers, even if most of the answers are wrong to begin with.

 

This got long enough that I reread it and edited a few times. Editing, which is slightly less work than rewriting. (There is a VN called Rewrite, however)


  • Ineth, gogocactus, gkathellar and 2 others like this

#50
gkathellar

gkathellar

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2007 posts
  • Location:Region of Erroneous Complaint
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
That was fantastic, Ymarsakar, and completely on target.

God, having the second city be Creitum during your past life ... that would have been ridiculously cool. Probably kinda resource-intensive to get right, but cool.
  • Ymarsakar and illathid like this

#51
Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 550 posts

That was fantastic, Ymarsakar, and completely on target.

God, having the second city be Creitum during your past life ... that would have been ridiculously cool. Probably kinda resource-intensive to get right, but cool.

 

I was just thinking of all the resources they put into the second city in Pillars, and while the crit path quests were nice, some of the other stuff did feel like it was just more side quests. The crit path was ramping up and I was like... why didn't they just put that big city resource into a city specifically designed for Act 3? They had DF for Act 2, they didn't need another one for Act 2. When Fenster mentioned that Breg E had to be cut from Act 3, I thought that sounded funny, if the crit path had Josh's A priority. Why would an A priority be cut but then you would have the second big city right before then? It felt off to me at the time. That would only make sense if the end of the game wasn't done, but Big City 2 had already been half finished or was in production. So this was would be a mistake in pre production at a high design level. Once you decide on Big City 2, you can't change it when the crit path might need it later on in game.

 

That's a lot of resources, and if game creation is zero sum, then making the best use of resources can be a solid tactical benefit. Of course, using conceptual art and backgrounds (colored ones, not just white sketches) for the adventure box might have fleshed it out as well. For a vision, the paper ish white look of the conceptual art would fit. Then when you start getting sucked into the crit path, make the backgrounds full color if 3d map assets were too problematic at that point. Would make a big aesthetic difference and capture the shift in something other than words or plot quests.

 

The Kickstarter goals never required that the second city be in Act 2 or that it would have only a slight relation to the spoilerish crit path. They could fulfill their promises and also get more resources to flesh out some of the main plot arcs. My guess is that in pre production, they committed resources to things that could have been used for the crit path, but the crit path wasn't done yet. As Fenster, mentioned, they only had time to write it once, put it in, and release it. No iteration. The resources that could have iterated it, were already used up by then, from pre production on wards. It's like in Baldur's gate where people chose a strength 9 or 13 fighter, and thought it would be good.

 

Torment Tides, with a longer pre production schedule and sooner access to the Pillars engine and coding tools, benefits from having a little bit more pre production time. Now that I think on it, the old Torment was like that as well, from what I've heard. The Infinity Engine had already been tested by BG or IW.

 

Correction: Act 3 does have its own big city 2. The game feels like it split in two after DB. While big city 2 had the feeling of starting DB once again, exploring and questing, the crit path had moved far enough forward that it felt Act 3 was more about the crit path. Or should have been at least. I think some of the criticism concerning how Act 3 felt too distant from the plot were right on that. To me, big city 1 and 2 felt like they were in the same act, because the gameplay was more or less the same. The boss fights were pretty noticeable though. That part was done well.


Edited by Ymarsakar, 11 March 2016 - 09:27 AM.


#52
deveroth

deveroth

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • PSN Portable ID:krimsonking88

while there was some great info in here, i f****** hated the interviewer the entire way through. from his opening line to presuming to know things about the game's development, it absolutely reeks of typical, RPG Codex idiocy. seriously, those guys are so entitled they can't even ask a series of questions without making that incredibly obvious.



#53
eimatshya

eimatshya

    The Obsidian Order's Assigner of Ergativity

  • Members
  • 296 posts
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Good interview. Nice to get more info on the behind the scenes process that led to the final game.

 

Anyway, I'm in the "shorter games" camp. When I was a kid and had tons of free time and little money to spend on games, I could spend months on the same game, but that just isn't the case any more. More often than not, I start games and fail to finish them because my attention gets pulled away by other concerns before I get to the end. Then, when I finally get back to the game, I can't remember what was going on well enough to feel connected to it.

 

So yes, shorter, more polished games please.



#54
MidiOgre

MidiOgre

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 10 posts

While I definitely don't agree with Mr. Fenstermaker regarding "shorter" games (I'm getting older as well, but that doesn't automatically mean that I have less time on my hands for something as demanding or consuming like The Witcher 3 for instance) this was a very good read nonetheless.

I wish other developers would be this forward in acknowledging faults.


  • Zenbane likes this

#55
Flouride

Flouride

    Chew Toy of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2039 posts
  • Location:Hellsinki, Finland
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

I definately agree with Eric's remarks on shorter games. I don't have time to replay games that take 50-80 hours to finish. I work and I have other hobbies and games to play as well. Putting 160 hours into just one game just doesn't work for me. I've only fully replayed two of Obsidians's games and those are Alpha Protocol and Dungeon Siege 3, mainly because those games didn't take forever to finish. And in Alpha Protocol's case because the game had great reactivity to what I did in the game.

So, yes. I would rather get more polished games with great reactivity (c&c) than one big epic adventure that takes forever to beat. While I definately loved Baldur's Gate 2 for it's epicness, I never finished it again.


  • gkathellar likes this

#56
house2fly

house2fly

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1174 posts
Alpha Protocol hit kind of a sweet spot for me in length where it really enhanced the replayability. Witcher 2 might be even better at reactivity but it's like 25 hours long and it's not fun enough for me to want to play it through a load of times to see everything; I played it twice to see Roche and Iorveth's paths and I was rushing towards the end of that. Alpha Protocol is flawed too but it's fun enough to justify ~8 hours of investment every now and then to see something new, with the result that I've played it through close to a dozen times.

#57
Tigranes

Tigranes

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 10491 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

You guys realise the point had nothing to do with making games shorter because games take too long to finish, right?

 

He's saying maybe it's better to make a shorter and better game because the demand for longer games makes it hard to polish, add quest reactivity, etc.


  • Leferd, aluminiumtrioxid, lolaldanee and 3 others like this

#58
anameforobsidian

anameforobsidian

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1176 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I do think that he was a little two dismissive of the possibility of an alternative Act II ending.  They could have just had Leaden key attacks instead the current one either way.



#59
gkathellar

gkathellar

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2007 posts
  • Location:Region of Erroneous Complaint
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

You guys realise the point had nothing to do with making games shorter because games take too long to finish, right?

He's saying maybe it's better to make a shorter and better game because the demand for longer games makes it hard to polish, add quest reactivity, etc.


He actually does mention being older and having less time to spend. That said, all folks are saying is that they have reasons to prefer short, high quality games beyond any debate about game composition itself. Eric's remarks are appreciable in that regard.
  • Sonntam likes this

#60
headingwesty

headingwesty

    (0) Nub

  • Initiates
  • 1 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I agree. I really like your point about replay value going up with shorter more reactive games.

 

As well, mark me in the group that would rather play a polished shorter game rather than one that less polished filler just to increase game play time.

 

I definately agree with Eric's remarks on shorter games. I don't have time to replay games that take 50-80 hours to finish. I work and I have other hobbies and games to play as well. Putting 160 hours into just one game just doesn't work for me. I've only fully replayed two of Obsidians's games and those are Alpha Protocol and Dungeon Siege 3, mainly because those games didn't take forever to finish. And in Alpha Protocol's case because the game had great reactivity to what I did in the game.

So, yes. I would rather get more polished games with great reactivity (c&c) than one big epic adventure that takes forever to beat. While I definately loved Baldur's Gate 2 for it's epicness, I never finished it again.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users