Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jackyll

what if?

Recommended Posts

did it ever occur to you that you never felt a videogame system was old until you heard an announcement that there is a new system under development and coming soon?.. that''s what happened to the snes when saturn and psx showed up, and that''s what happened to the n64 and psx when dreamcast and ps2 were coming.. did you ever feel discontent with your super nintendo until the new systems came out, and it was out of focus because all the companies concentrated on the next generation systems.. i mean what if the evolution of videogame consoles stoped with the snes? what if no new dazzling system was announced? wouldn''t we still be playing snes and happy with the polished graphics and the quality of gameplay... snes still had mines of potential before it was ditched for the newer systems, proof is that the snes hardware is still being used for educational purposes in digipen as a medium for projects.. ((work for the world like you will never die, and work fopr the hereafter like you will die tomorrow)) - Prophet Mohammed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe games like Starfox, Stunt Race FX, Faceball, Doom show why. Developers were itching to create 3D games and the SNES wasn''t a platform to do it with.

I agree that SNES had mines of potential before it was ditched. The GBA seems to be picking up where the SNES left off.

But I shudder to think of what would have happened if the Playstation never came out, and developers continued to create 3D games on the SNES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just quickly say that, yes, the SNES was not a viable 3D platform, but I thought StarFox was a monumental achievement in regards to artistic expression, imagination, and doing as much as they could with what little they had to work with.

At the same time, all of this all 3D stuff is getting kind of old. As long as they make it feel gamey, like Mario Sunshine and Tony Hawke accomplish, then perhaps there's still something in it for me to enjoy for time to come.

Still you don't necessarily need the power of an XBox, Gamecube or PS2 to play games like Mario Sunshine or Tony Hawke, but, if people will buy it, then the companies will make them (otherwise they just lose their business to the competitors with the better system)

Makes you wonder what the XBox or GameCube would have been like if there had been no other competition...

[edited by - Waverider on November 4, 2002 7:08:32 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think everyone has missed the point of the thread; What Jackyll is refering to i think is the realativity of systems.
I have often thought about this myself. I think the fun I have had with games is not realative to the state of the art, but the game play, and my state of mind. Yes, just remember the old rant: "when we were kids we didnt have , and we did just fine". This actually has a term: modernity. Things are ever new, and we are ever dazled by new things developing. But if you were to remove the pgression of time and bring back from the distant future the latest game tech, say from 3002, then all the technology of today and many 100''s of years hence would seem plain bland, and unless the techies of today could understand the future game tech, then we would be stuck with this awsome, spectacular games platform for 1000 years to play games on, and would not know any better technology to compare it with. However, and here''s where the nature of humanity and modernity come into it: if we observe a state, we instinctually imagine improvemtents, thechnologies yet to be made concrete. So my guess is that in my "back to the future" scenario, scientists wuold just break their frontal lobes, trying to comprehend the technology from the future and then they would better it, simply because they desire it so much, to realise that which they concieve of. That means that since the human imagineation is apparently limitless, so to is progression limitless. Modernity is simply the ever new state of things. Now here is the question: is the ever new technology (technology as in objects, political systems, science etc) what we want? Do we need to create continually somthing more this more that? Sure it is exciting, but ultimately hollow. The only thing that makes today cutting edge and "exciting", is the day before it, and the invisibility of the day to follow. Perhaps we sould stop accelerating of into the comparative sunset and consider what the hell we are doing with all this "new" stuff we keep churing out.

I believe this analogy caries over to game development well: instaid of pushing the envelope in the visual, audial apearance of games, should we not focus on the gameplay. Think of your favourite book. Now think of the technology that brought you that experience - words: a medium that has been stable as a technology (not dramatically altering) for quite a while. I look forward to the day when the technology of digital synthesis becomes stable, and someone "writes" a Lord Of The Rings of gameplay.

But we can start this today! Write your gamelgic well enough that it may plug into any gameengine, and develop your world mechanics as one would a peice of art, slowly and carefully with great atention to detail. then when you are finished, hook it into the latest game engine world synthesiser, and reveal to the world your masterpiece!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. Well, here are my thoughts on the matter:

I definitely DO want to see continual improvements in the technology. There is still a debate on the whole "technology stifles creativity" thing, but what is true is that increasing technology enables new forms of gameplay. The shift to 3d, for example, or even the mouse. Though we haven't nearly exhausted what can be done with current technology, that is no reason to hold back. Its sort of like not making talking pictures because there was still so much that could be done with silent films.

Do you think that this 'relativity' of game systems is a healthy thing for gaming? On the one hand, it forces developers to create new designs and take advantage of greater system capabilities and just plain makes more ideas possible. On the other hand, we often find that the technology and graphics can become the focus, which hampers innovation. My own thoughts are that in the end, it is better that the old things eventually become obsolete, to make room for the new.

[edited by - Kugels on November 4, 2002 8:48:27 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are constantly getting tired of older technology and developers are constantly trying to push the envelope, even on the same console. This is why people label games as first or second generation games. After the first generation of games, developers learn to exploit hardware and create better second-generation games on the same system. In the case of SNES, you''ll notice that over its lifetime, cartridge memory got bigger, games used more Mode7, and hell, Rare plops the Super FX chip down so they can create 3D games. So even without next-generation consoles, people are still looking for bigger and better, even on the same console.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technology is good if used properly. That''s the bottom line.

I just "stopped" playing GTA Vice City (I am so addicted, I will start playing in about 10 seconds). As much as I loved GTA 1 and 2..... they are NOTHING compared to 3 and Vice City. And that is all thanks to the limitless possibilities of larger, 3d environments and the raw power to process the complex gameplay.

2D games can be created with 3D hardware, and if the design allows is good for a 2d game it should be 2d. Some people abuse the technology and ignore the gameplay but the gems who unilize both shine through.

-SniperBoB-


What if The Matrix was recursive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that has evolved over the years that I am glad happened is the evolution of input devices. Pong just had a wheel that you could roll one way or the other. Later arcade games had a joystick and a few buttons. The NES had a D-Pad and 4 buttons (2 were hardly ever used, though). The SNES had a whopping 8 (6 usable) buttons plus a D-Pad. The N64 had 8 usable buttons (L and Z are mutually exclusive), a start button, a D-Pad, and an analog joystick. Other systems have more buttons.

Anyway, we might not need a controller like the N64 or other high-end systems, but what could we do if we had never innovated after pong. How many ideas for games can you think of that could suffice with a wheel that only goes 2 directions? Maybe a car racing game, where you always go a constant speed, and the wheel turns you? That''s all I can think of.

Okay, maybe pong is a little too far back. What if you were a game developer in the days of the NES, and you wanted to make a fighting game. Left and right must be used for moving around, up would make you jump, down is crouch. You also want the character to be able to perform high punches, low punches, high kicks, and low kicks. There simply isn''t enough real estate on the controller to do all that (without causing problems, like having to use select in the middle of a fight, or having to press A and B together.) You could either just implement "punch" and "kick", but wouldn''t it get boring fast? So, what do you do? You press for another system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are going way back man, pong and the nes are bad examples, that''s why i talked specifically about the snes, the system was great wether it was graphics , controller design, gameplay, audio etc.. lets imagine that the snes had 3 more years to live than it actually did before saturn or psx came out, do you thing anybody would complain? i personally don''t think so, snes was an ideal system at it''s time, and i believe that even if it''s still alive till now, the possiblity for new innovations in gameplay would be limitless, i think that snes has more room for innovation than modern day technology.. think about how many games utilize the technology for gameplay purposes? was there any real improvement in gameplay from psx to ps2 or xbox? was there anything revolutionary in gameplay? the only thing that helped improve gameplay was faster and steady frame-rates..

the problem with the systems today is that they are technology-driven, games are designed to fit the new technology, which makes for alot of uninspired gameplay, in a perfect world the advance of technology should be regulated by a vision of the future games (a good example was miyamoto''s influence on the design of the n64), that way we can make sure that the technology is utilized to the optimum, instead of making games to cope up with new technology.




((work for the world like you will never die, and work fopr the hereafter like you will die tomorrow)) - Prophet Mohammed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno...I''ve seen some pretty innovative stuff come out of trying to think of ways to use something. I think that, creatively, it can actually help to have some limit to begin with. If someone just said "design a game" there''s no way to tell how to begin. If someone says "We have a system that can display a gajillion sprites at once! How should we make use of it?" it will likely get better results.

But fun, successful games can be made whether or not they are original and whether or not they take advantage of amazing new technology. I''m not too knowledgeable about the console world, but on my PC I see evidence for this all the time. Doom III is going to sell great based on graphics, but it is likely to be a ton of fun as well. Black & White was very original, but it arose from trying to utilize technology that Lionhead had already developed(or so I hear). And one of my favorite ganes is Insaniquarium, a little 2d fishtank game that runs in a browser. So I think it just depends on what you want to make.

hmm...maybe the PC examples aren''t relevant to the console-related discussion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by SnprBoB86
Technology is good if used properly. That''s the bottom line.

I just "stopped" playing GTA Vice City (I am so addicted, I will start playing in about 10 seconds). As much as I loved GTA 1 and 2..... they are NOTHING compared to 3 and Vice City. And that is all thanks to the limitless possibilities of larger, 3d environments and the raw power to process the complex gameplay.





Actually although sure GTA 3 was 3D, i still prefer GTA 2 to 3. I feel that the GTA series was a lot more fun from a top down perspective (yes I know you can change the view in GTA 3). I think it was the cartoony graphics, it removed the game from reality in a way and this is the way I prefer my games. GTA 3 is just getting to realistic, which I believe removes from the fun aspect of the game. Just my opinion.


hobo-jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

At the same time, all of this all 3D stuff is getting kind of old. As long as they make it feel gamey, like Mario Sunshine and Tony Hawke accomplish, then perhaps there''s still something in it for me to enjoy for time to come.



I agree 100% :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Jackyll
was there any real improvement in gameplay from psx to ps2 or xbox? was there anything revolutionary in gameplay? the only thing that helped improve gameplay was faster and steady frame-rates..

People so underestimate the Xbox. Hopefully Fable (Project Ego) by Molyneux will bust it wide open with its use of the hard drive to create a huge persistent world. Xbox Live will foster this huge online community, allowing multiplayer gameplay for many games. Hopefully downloadable content will mean games will have extra levels available.

And do you remember what FPS games were like on the PSX? The system was originally considered not a viable platform for FPS games due to hardware limitations. Medal of Honor proved that wrong but damn it was very limited. Don't think for a moment that the gameplay in sequel (Medal of Honor Frontline) was possible on the PSX (wide open terrain, tons of enemies). And GTA3 on the PSX probably would have been impossible. There was no way that Liberty City would have fit on the PSX's memory. There is so much work that goes into cramming these games into these systems' small memory. Even the almighty PS2 has a relatively small amount of memory which makes it hard to program for. Many games that fit on a PS2 would _never_ fit on a PSX. Just having more memory can open up new types of gameplay.

[edited by - beantas on November 5, 2002 11:00:08 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

People so underestimate the Xbox. Hopefully Fable (Project Ego) by Molyneux will bust it wide open with its use of the hard drive to create a huge persistent world. Xbox Live will foster this huge online community, allowing multiplayer gameplay for many games. Hopefully downloadable content will mean games will have extra levels available.



The Sega Dreamcast has a built in modem, and plenty of really good online multiplayer games...from Quake3 to Phantasy Star Online...but that didn''t save the system.

quote:

Don''t think for a moment that the gameplay in sequel (Medal of Honor Frontline) was possible on the PSX (wide open terrain, tons of enemies). And GTA3 on the PSX probably would have been impossible.



not possable with the exact same graphics...but still very possable...Doom was on the PSX, and it had huge wide open areas with hundreds of enemies onscreen at once...heck, the gameplay of Metal Gear Solid was just about identical to the original NES version...it is completely possable to have a 3D game world with 2D graphics...even the gameplay of GTA3 could have been done on the NES minus 3D graphics...the new technology has only helped to make the graphics possable...but the basic gameplay hasn''t evolved with it.

Take a look at some of the Doom open source projects that are out there...many of them now have mouselook, jumping and most of the other FPS traits that are now commonplace...yet many of these modified versions still work on the same 486 PCs that the original Doom ran on....Heck, the Duke 3D build engine could do room-over-room stuff, and it was 2D basied....The original Quake ran on the first generation Pentium chips with a software renderer and implamented the gameplay in a runtime interpreted scripting language known as Quake-C...The later Quake games run in 3D hardware acceleration with game code implamented with run time .DLL exectueable libraries...all on machines with over 10 times the CPU power as the original Quake had to work with...yet modders in Quake can (and have) made weapons, jumpads, and all the other stuff Quake3 is known for work within the Quake game, with those same Pentium CPUs.

But if your focus is on game graphics, you are going to be unable to see that gameplay has largely been dropped in an effort to promote "better" graphics on newer and "better" hardware.

"Just because you can, doesn''t meen you should"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by MSW
The Sega Dreamcast has a built in modem, and plenty of really good online multiplayer games...from Quake3 to Phantasy Star Online...but that didn't save the system.


1) I didn't say it would save or make a system.
2) XBox live is integrating lots of features that weren't on the Dreamcast: buddy systems, player challenging, ranking, persistent stats, and a purchasing system for buying new content. There's an entire community and front-end built around the entire online experience, rather than the Dreamcast's idea of separate multiplayer games.
3) Sega didn't market its multiplayer aspect well. You can be sure Microsoft will. This can mean more people will be playing than Dreamcast online games which means a better experience for everyone.
4) For XBox Live, Microsoft provides dedicated servers themselves so that developers and publishers don't have to. This means way more games will jump on the bandwagon.

quote:

not possable with the exact same graphics...but still very possable...Doom was on the PSX, and it had huge wide open areas with hundreds of enemies onscreen at once...heck, the gameplay of Metal Gear Solid was just about identical to the original NES version...it is completely possable to have a 3D game world with 2D graphics...even the gameplay of GTA3 could have been done on the NES minus 3D graphics...the new technology has only helped to make the graphics possable...but the basic gameplay hasn't evolved with it.


That's a good point but it's not the same. Some of GTA3's essential gameplay mechanics were in GTA1 and GTA2 but the jump from 2D to 3D changes things drastically in terms of feel, interface, and interaction. You could steal cars and drive around in both. But the 3D aspect in GTA3 made it feel like a different game. Doom and Quake may seem similar in gameplay mechanics but the way things feel, the way things interact totally changes when you move from sprite-based characters to fully animated polygon characters. There's more to gameplay than just abstract gameplay mechanics. It often boils down to how things feel and how they interact. 2D and 2.5D games feel utterly different from how a 3D game feels. And that's usually a big factor in gameplay.

Also, since 3D games offer different viewpoints than 2D games, they differ in the information that is relayed to the player. A big example is GTA3 and GTA1. Since GTA3 is 3D, you only see what's in front of you. It's difficult to see behind you and it can be risky to do so. In GTA1, you can always see both in front and behind. Also, in GTA3, you can see quite far in front of you, and it's easier to plan things ahead of time. In GTA1, the topdown view means you can't see that far ahead and planning has to be a bit more short-term. That right there is a big change in gameplay.

[edited by - beantas on November 5, 2002 2:22:17 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by bishop_pass
The best of the best looks pretty old to me. I still see simplistic video games with crude graphics.

I ain''t seeing stuff like I see at Cornell or Pixar yet.

Pixel shaders will soon lead the way. Thank god for companies like Bungie and id.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

Some of GTA3''s essential gameplay mechanics were in GTA1 and GTA2 but the jump from 2D to 3D changes things drastically in terms of feel, interface, and interaction. You could steal cars and drive around in both. But the 3D aspect in GTA3 made it feel like a different game.



GTA1 was designed to give the player a arcade game like experience...GTA3 was designed more as a RPG....the difference had little to do with technology issues as the games were designed with different focuses in mind..but good points none the less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by MSW
GTA1 was designed to give the player a arcade game like experience...GTA3 was designed more as a RPG....the difference had little to do with technology issues as the games were designed with different focuses in mind..but good points none the less

Much of it had to do with technology issues, namely the jump to 3D. Notice in GTA1, your bullets are relatively slow projectiles which simply shoot in the direction you are facing. That would have been hard to do in third-person 3D so the bullets in GTA3 changed to hitscan weapons which have automatic autoaim. The fact that there is less weapon aiming in GTA3 was influenced by the jump to 3D. A huge gameplay mechanic changed by the technology. Maybe the games were designed with different focuses in mind essentially because of technology issues.

I would like you to elaborate on how GTA3 was more of an RPG than GTA1 and how that affected the game''s look and feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

Much of it had to do with technology issues, namely the jump to 3D. Notice in GTA1, your bullets are relatively slow projectiles which simply shoot in the direction you are facing.



just as they are in arcade games like Asteroids...and even fully 3D games like Quake have slower moveing projectiles (rockets, plasma shots, BFG, etc...) this has ZERO to do with technology and has everything to do with game design...slower moveing projectiles allows players and enemies to dodge oncomeing fire...which produces a different gameplay dynamic, requireing different player skills then a direct "point and shoot" approch.

quote:

That would have been hard to do in third-person 3D so the bullets in GTA3 changed to hitscan weapons which have automatic autoaim. The fact that there is less weapon aiming in GTA3 was influenced by the jump to 3D.



Quake, Unreal...heck, just about every 3D game has had slow moveing projectiles.

quote:

A huge gameplay mechanic changed by the technology. Maybe the games were designed with different focuses in mind essentially because of technology issues.



How often was the player allowed to fist fight in GTA1?...GTA3 was a 180 degree turn in the design of the series...the focus in the earlyer GTA games was on arcade like experiences...GTA3 focused much more on the game world...it traded the "shoot and dodge" action arcade like approch for one with a higher focus on story and characters...it made gun battles much more deadly, but introduced fighting to balance combat...it traded the nameless autos of GTA1 for a more detailed realworld approch of autos with names and specific characteristics...GTA1 had a more icon driven approch as the emphesis was on the run-n-gun action...GTA3 was basied much more in the details then the icon like representation of things...it approched the gameworld as a DM/GM would in a roleplaying game, and the game was designed along those lines...GTA1, on the other hand, took some fairly common arcade game mechanics and fit the game world around them...in GTA3 the gameworld is the centerpiece...in GTA1 the give and take of the arcade basied gameplay is the centerpiece.

Technology has NOTHING to do with it...there were lots of fully 3D games on the PSX before GTA1 was released...there have been lots sense then....as PSX developers they had complete axcess to the Sony development kits that others used...But they designed GTA1 with a different focus in mind...they chose the "top-down" viewing angle because it best supported the game they wanted to make...they chose to make the bullits slow moveing because it supported the game design focus they had in mind...the PSX didn''t force them to do this because it couldn''t handle it anyother way...it was and is entirely capable of rendering fully 3D worlds with hitscan bullets, and whatever other gameplay features you want...It can''t duplicate the quantity or quality of graphical features that the PSX2 has...but that has never been the focus of this thread.

quote:

I would like you to elaborate on how GTA3 was more of an RPG than GTA1 and how that affected the game''s look and feel.



GTA3 focused on the gameworld...the little side details...the different ways players could interact with this gameworld outside of the established GTA1 game mechanics were fleshed out...the "give and take" gun battles of GTA1 were replaced by the "give and take" fistcuffs of GTA3...
The game mechanics of character skills, leveling up, magic systems, monsters are RPG cliches...the world of Pen & Paper RPGs is filled with games like GTA3 in which the player takes on the role of a character in a specific detailed gameworld...the developers approched the GTA3 gameworld in much the same way...in the previous GTA game...the gameworld was more of a collection of general ideas in support of the game mechanics...this general collection was solidified and focused upon for GTA3...the game mechanics were developed in support of this gameworld, rather then haveing the gameworld in support of the game mechanics.
The gameworld in GTA3 is baised on mostly pulp entertainment revolveing around crime syndicates and "gansta life"...it isn''t real world "realistic" and doesn''t try to be outside of the gameworld limits it sets for itself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, sorry for hijacking this thread. We should probably move this discussion to a new thread, or off this forum.

quote:
Original post by MSW
just as they are in arcade games like Asteroids...and even fully 3D games like Quake have slower moveing projectiles (rockets, plasma shots, BFG, etc...) this has ZERO to do with technology and has everything to do with game design...slower moveing projectiles allows players and enemies to dodge oncomeing fire...which produces a different gameplay dynamic, requireing different player skills then a direct "point and shoot" approch.

Quake, Unreal...heck, just about every 3D game has had slow moveing projectiles.


I was not saying that technology _forced_ games to remove projectile-based weapons. My point was that the jump from 2D to 3D, a change in technology, influenced the design so that the pistol, uzi, shotgun were changed to hitscan weapons rather than projectile-based. That's been the main point I've been trying to make all along. That technology influences design. Many 2D games use projectile-based bullets instead of hitscan weapons because that's what makes the most sense for 2D technology. You don't have crosshairs and it's not entirely apparent where your bullet will hit. So, to be a bit more intuitive, the bullets move slowly so that you can plan things and aim better. But when you move to 3D, you have crosshairs and aiming a hitscan weapon makes a bit more sense.

I do agree that there is a gameplay mechanic which allows dodging when you have projectile-based systems. And that gameplay mechanic is itself, also influenced by the 2D game technology. You'll notice that 3D games don't tend to have this feature as much as 2D games did, probably because this particular gameplay mechanic doesn't make as much sense in a 3D viewpoint. Since gauging depth can be tough in 3D games, dodging 3D projectiles is a bit tough and non-intuitive. So there you go. 3D technology influencing design.

quote:

How often was the player allowed to fist fight in GTA1?...GTA3 was a 180 degree turn in the design of the series...the focus in the earlyer GTA games was on arcade like experiences...GTA3 focused much more on the game world...it traded the "shoot and dodge" action arcade like approch for one with a higher focus on story and characters...it made gun battles much more deadly, but introduced fighting to balance combat...it traded the nameless autos of GTA1 for a more detailed realworld approch of autos with names and specific characteristics...GTA1 had a more icon driven approch as the emphesis was on the run-n-gun action...GTA3 was basied much more in the details then the icon like representation of things...it approched the gameworld as a DM/GM would in a roleplaying game, and the game was designed along those lines...GTA1, on the other hand, took some fairly common arcade game mechanics and fit the game world around them...in GTA3 the gameworld is the centerpiece...in GTA1 the give and take of the arcade basied gameplay is the centerpiece.
Technology has NOTHING to do with it...there were lots of fully 3D games on the PSX before GTA1 was released...there have been lots sense then....as PSX developers they had complete axcess to the Sony development kits that others used...But they designed GTA1 with a different focus in mind...they chose the "top-down" viewing angle because it best supported the game they wanted to make.

My point is that maybe all the changes you mention above were influenced by the technology i.e. the jump from 2D to 3D.
Neither of us know for sure what the GTA designers were thinking. Maybe they wanted to make GTA1 with a 3D engine but they knew it wasn't feasible on the PSX as a 3D game. Or maybe if it was feasible, it wouldn't look or play good enough to meet their standards. Or maybe you're right. Neither of us know for sure. But I believe that both your scenario and my scenario are possible. You haven't argued why my scenario couldn't have happened. Technology _could_ have had something to do with it in that example.

Maybe I should state an example that is more clear-cut. Take Doom 3. The game is designed around the technology. Carmack says "I'm making this engine based on stencil shadows, pixel lighting, etc." And so the technology can only handle two enemies onscreen at once. So in Doom, you fight only a few enemies at once. They didn't say "Let's create a game where you only fight a few enemies at once. They said "Let's create this game with these technological features", and from that their game's design is influenced. Please don't argue about how this creates bad games or that Doom3's design is flawed. That's not the point.

And don't say that is the exception, not the norm. Think of every game that is going to license the Doom3 engine. Even better, think of the past games that licensed the Doom1 engine. I bet many of them had instances where technology influenced design. It happens.


[edited by - beantas on November 6, 2002 11:41:08 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites