Sign in to follow this  

Recycling the engine

This topic is 3489 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

This is more or less a rant. Read at your own risk. Also, to moderators, feel free to move this thread if it would feel more comfortable somewhere else. I put it in game design because the concept moves most of the development to designers. Why do developers not reuse game engines, models, textures, etc, to create sequels and seperate games more often? Why do they not just bring in designers to construct new buildings, villages, cities, levels, characters, etc, while mostly using resources that are already made? I like seeing unique things in games, and I like having graphics hardware and physics being pushed forward, but it seems as though there is a lot of other aspects suffering because of the insane emphasis on it. It seems as though every new decent game that comes out needs to push hardware to new levels, usually to the point where the gameplay is laggy with the best hardware out there. And resources are rarely ever shared between games. I'm guessing that would be frowned upon since it never happens, but people would get used to it. Half Life 2 recycled to some degree with its multiple episodes, and I've seen a few other games do it. Zombie Shooter used many elements from Alien Shooter 2. Fallout 2 used a slightly modified Fallout 1 engine, and many of the graphic and sound resources were used again. If I had the chance, I would have bought several more similar sequels to all of these games. Seeing the same chair or wall pattern in a new game does nothing to bother me. I see the same objects in several places in real life the same way. I'm not wanting the exact opposite to what's happening now. I'm just wondering why developers aren't leaning a little more in that direction. Taking some of the pain (and money) off of that side to allow developers to put more effort into level design, scripting, interactive maps, character AI and dialog, etc, making the actual game more intense instead of the effects and visuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kest
This is more or less a rant. Read at your own risk. Also, to moderators, feel free to move this thread if it would feel more comfortable somewhere else. I put it in game design because the concept moves most of the development to designers.

Why do developers not reuse game engines, models, textures, etc, to create sequels and seperate games more often? Why do they not just bring in designers to construct new buildings, villages, cities, levels, characters, etc, while mostly using resources that are already made?

I like seeing unique things in games, and I like having graphics hardware and physics being pushed forward, but it seems as though there is a lot of other aspects suffering because of the insane emphasis on it. It seems as though every new decent game that comes out needs to push hardware to new levels, usually to the point where the gameplay is laggy with the best hardware out there. And resources are rarely ever shared between games. I'm guessing that would be frowned upon since it never happens, but people would get used to it.

Half Life 2 recycled to some degree with its multiple episodes, and I've seen a few other games do it. Zombie Shooter used many elements from Alien Shooter 2. Fallout 2 used a slightly modified Fallout 1 engine, and many of the graphic and sound resources were used again. If I had the chance, I would have bought several more similar sequels to all of these games. Seeing the same chair or wall pattern in a new game does nothing to bother me. I see the same objects in several places in real life the same way.

I'm not wanting the exact opposite to what's happening now. I'm just wondering why developers aren't leaning a little more in that direction. Taking some of the pain (and money) off of that side to allow developers to put more effort into level design, scripting, interactive maps, character AI and dialog, etc, making the actual game more intense instead of the effects and visuals.


Games don't sell if they don't look new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the first game would look new. It could also create a fanbase. The ability to reuse most of the resources would have the second out very quickly, so it would still look pretty new. The development cost and time would also be cut in half. Probably more than half. It seems reasonable from a business perspective, and more than reasonable for indie developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Game engines are reused a lot.

Game content is a lot harder - typically you'll need new environments at least, and that already involves a huge amount of effort.

Overall though, I think I agree with you. Episodic games especially are a great place to take advantage of existing content.

John B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by agi_shi
Quote:
Original post by Kest
This is more or less a rant. Read at your own risk. Also, to moderators, feel free to move this thread if it would feel more comfortable somewhere else. I put it in game design because the concept moves most of the development to designers.

Why do developers not reuse game engines, models, textures, etc, to create sequels and seperate games more often? Why do they not just bring in designers to construct new buildings, villages, cities, levels, characters, etc, while mostly using resources that are already made?

I like seeing unique things in games, and I like having graphics hardware and physics being pushed forward, but it seems as though there is a lot of other aspects suffering because of the insane emphasis on it. It seems as though every new decent game that comes out needs to push hardware to new levels, usually to the point where the gameplay is laggy with the best hardware out there. And resources are rarely ever shared between games. I'm guessing that would be frowned upon since it never happens, but people would get used to it.

Half Life 2 recycled to some degree with its multiple episodes, and I've seen a few other games do it. Zombie Shooter used many elements from Alien Shooter 2. Fallout 2 used a slightly modified Fallout 1 engine, and many of the graphic and sound resources were used again. If I had the chance, I would have bought several more similar sequels to all of these games. Seeing the same chair or wall pattern in a new game does nothing to bother me. I see the same objects in several places in real life the same way.

I'm not wanting the exact opposite to what's happening now. I'm just wondering why developers aren't leaning a little more in that direction. Taking some of the pain (and money) off of that side to allow developers to put more effort into level design, scripting, interactive maps, character AI and dialog, etc, making the actual game more intense instead of the effects and visuals.


Games don't sell if they don't look new.


Explain the Wii, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by JohnBSmall
Game content is a lot harder - typically you'll need new environments at least, and that already involves a huge amount of effort.

If the concept is in mind as the game is first developed, the map editor and other development tools could be emphasized a little more and made easier to use.

Some type of module setup would help a lot. Similar to what's used in Oblivion. Complex and specific objects and areas can be made up of many common models and textures, defined to be together through a parsed text file or editor file. They can then be plotted easily around the game world with the map editor. This would allow copying the modules, modifying them, changing the materials on them, etc, streamlining world creation. Using modules also makes dynamic, interactive, and destructible environments much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are companies that reuse their existing technology. Take the Dynasty Warriors series, for example, or how Firaxis seems to have reused a lot of material in making its Civilization games, down to favorite music and ambient sounds.

I think one of the big problems for mainstream developers is that publishers typically take the rights to everything-- models, code, textures, sounds, everything. So a team that doesn't sell a blockbuster game starts over.

I think independent game makers have more of an edge here. Although their audience is microscopic in comparison, they can at least leverage everything they've learned over time. The guys who made the impressive Evochron and related games is a great example of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC, Sonic Adventure 1 & 2, Sonic Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog, and maybe the "new" Sonic the Hedgehog all used the same SA engine (not sure on the last one).

It might have been fine if they bothered to fix the bugs the original engine had in abundance.

GTA III, Liberty City Stories, Vice City, San Andreas, and Vice City Stories not only shared the same engine, but a lot of the resources as well. The Stallion remained unchanged practically in all 5 games.

Still, they failed to address the bugs in the engine, and even added more issues as time went on.

I believe X Men Legends 1 & 2 and Marvel UA also used the same basic engine, but unliek the prior two, it was actually fairly solid. No bone headed, vexing, or stupid bugs that could make the game unplayable. Then of course there's Resident Evil, which shared a lot between it's games, and the unending slight revisions to mediocre sports titles by EA. They all share the same engine as well, though they get 'new' textures which look the same as the old ones every two weeks for the latest version.

Then there's an unknowable amount of games off Quake 3's engine. And Unreal.

I could probably find more, but I don't feel like digging past the first row in my collection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sports games, especially the Madden series, would be a bad example of how well it could work. Most sports are forcibly seated in a specific type of area, and areas would be one of the most vital things to change in a sequel or spin-off that shared resources. Fighting games would suffer the same way, where a sequel would need to include new models and animations to be worth buying.

There are a great many games that I would have quickly bought sequels to, even if the only thing to change was the environments and people. Deus Ex (new missions, new main plot), Fallout (new world area), Operation Flashpoint (new continent), Star Control II (new quadrant of space), etc. Some action-heavy games, like Half Life 2, don't even need new people or weapons. They just need new area layouts and new scripted enemy behavior, strung out into a decent plot to enjoy. That's essentially what the episodes are, and it worked as well as any normal game sequel. I'm not sure if they used the same textures or models anywhere, but the fact that I don't know shows how much I would care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Explain the Wii, then.


Games don't sell if they don't look new, but Wii does look new. It's just something other than graphics that makes it so.

Moreover, Wii is not software. Software for Wii is unimpressive (and that's an understatement) in itself. Wii Sports on a PC with keyboard controls? Good luck.

Quote:
Original post by Kest
There are a great many games that I would have quickly bought sequels to, even if the only thing to change was the environments and people. Deus Ex (new missions, new main plot), Fallout (new world area), Operation Flashpoint (new continent), Star Control II (new quadrant of space)


Things like that are best left to the modders. Neverwinter Nights, Elder Scrolls and Total War series thrive on the modding communities, with a million and one handy mods to add, and some rather successful total conversions. They basically reuse the game material to create new games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Talin
Things like that are best left to the modders.

Best for who? As a player, I would prefer official expansions to a game world or story. Beyound that, fully finished mods that rebuild a game are very few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kest
Why do developers not reuse game engines, models, textures, etc, to create sequels and seperate games more often? Why do they not just bring in designers to construct new buildings, villages, cities, levels, characters, etc, while mostly using resources that are already made?

...

I'm just wondering why developers aren't leaning a little more in that direction. Taking some of the pain (and money) off of that side to allow developers to put more effort into level design, scripting, interactive maps, character AI and dialog, etc, making the actual game more intense instead of the effects and visuals.

First of all, as noted previously, a lot of developers do this. Generally, an addition of content into the same engine is called an expansion. A new engine is a sequel. This is pretty much market-defined. If you re-use an engine without adding new features, and try to sell it as a new game to the public, both reviewers and players will notice, and in general the reaction is negative.

And adding new features is difficult - an engine is built for a purpose, and once it is optimized it can be quite a lot of work to make additions. It's often better to build a new engine which encompasses those new functions than it is to hack an old one to carry them.

And additionally, content isn't cheap. Decent artwork, dialogue, voice acting etc. is really expensive - the guy who did the voice acting for GTA IV made 100k, and he was a no-name. AND he was somewhat unhappy about his pay.. If you're going to add good dialog and art, you probably want it to go into the best engine that can show it off.

Engines aren't really that expensive. It's getting the content, organising it, and integrating it into the engine that makes up the bulk of the cost. All of which your suggestions do not help with. Believe me - any code that can be easily re-used between engines IS re-used, if there are any good programmers at the helm. You just don't usually see those bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would imagine the customer would be pretty upset to discover that every game was using the same assets. Now imagine you had a zombie, the zombie didnt quite fit what they wanted, its got to be edited, maybe those animations arent how quite they want them, got to edit them, maybe they spent abit too many/few polygons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Argus2
And adding new features is difficult - an engine is built for a purpose, and once it is optimized it can be quite a lot of work to make additions. It's often better to build a new engine which encompasses those new functions than it is to hack an old one to carry them.

Engines can be designed for easy modifications during development. I've put a lot of emphasis into this with my own engine. Not because I want to build a lot of games with it, but because I come up with unplanned ideas too often (I'm terrible at pre-planning).

Scripting and text parsing is the way to go for this. The programmed engine should handle what you know to be concrete, and scripting should be used to handle specific objects, actions, and events. That allows you to add new specific elements later on without having to expand the engine. Weapon types, projectile behaviors, AI, people, animation maps, particle effects, and many other elements can all be defined this way.

For example, I could add a new type of ranged weapon class to my game (in addition to the current pistol, subgun, rifle, cannon classes), such as a class for a slingshot or bow & arrow, which would require new animations, character behavior triggers, and sound effects. It would only take a day or so to get it fully integrated into the game, and the engine wouldn't need to be touched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Aiursrage
I would imagine the customer would be pretty upset to discover that every game was using the same assets.

They don't seem to be too upset about the Half-Life 2 episodes. I can't say whether they used the same wall and floor textures, but the weapons and enemies are definitely all the same. Seriously, who cares? It's fun, so it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kest
Quote:
Original post by Aiursrage
I would imagine the customer would be pretty upset to discover that every game was using the same assets.

They don't seem to be too upset about the Half-Life 2 episodes. I can't say whether they used the same wall and floor textures, but the weapons and enemies are definitely all the same. Seriously, who cares? It's fun, so it works.


Its Half-Life 2 Episodes though, people would react very differently if valve released Half-Life 3 using the HL2 engine and assets :D

The name really is that important since it affects the customers expectations, anyone buying "Half-Life 2: Whatever" is pretty much expecting some new levels, possibly an extra weapon or two, a continuation of the story, or similar , Those buying Half-Life 3 (assuming valve makes another sequel) in the future will expect a "new" game.

Meeting the customers expectations is important since disappointed customers will have a negative impact on sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by SimonForsman
Quote:
Original post by Kest
Quote:
Original post by Aiursrage
I would imagine the customer would be pretty upset to discover that every game was using the same assets.

They don't seem to be too upset about the Half-Life 2 episodes. I can't say whether they used the same wall and floor textures, but the weapons and enemies are definitely all the same. Seriously, who cares? It's fun, so it works.


Its Half-Life 2 Episodes though, people would react very differently if valve released Half-Life 3 using the HL2 engine and assets :D

The name really is that important since it affects the customers expectations, anyone buying "Half-Life 2: Whatever" is pretty much expecting some new levels, possibly an extra weapon or two, a continuation of the story, or similar , Those buying Half-Life 3 (assuming valve makes another sequel) in the future will expect a "new" game.

Meeting the customers expectations is important since disappointed customers will have a negative impact on sales.

Agreed. Pulling one over on customers was never any part of the strategy. A developer would want them to know exactly what they are buying. Any strategy (like working within title conventions) that furthers that is a good strategy.

I just don't think it makes any difference to them beyound that. Or at least it doesn't make any difference to me. A quality experience is just that. If a development team did me right before, I'll trust them to do so again until they fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kest
Engines can be designed for easy modifications during development.
...

Weapon types, projectile behaviors, AI, people, animation maps, particle effects, and many other elements can all be defined this way.

For example, I could add a new type of ranged weapon class to my game (in addition to the current pistol, subgun, rifle, cannon classes), such as a class for a slingshot or bow & arrow, which would require new animations, character behavior triggers, and sound effects. It would only take a day or so to get it fully integrated into the game, and the engine wouldn't need to be touched.

What I said was that engines were comparatively cheap to build. The first one might take a while, but an experienced programmer can construct new engines fairly rapidly.

Your engine may be able to do quite a bit, but you must admit that it can't do everything. It might not be able to handle arc-based projectiles like the slingshot or bow and arrow for instance. It might not even have a concept of a third dimension for projectile travel. And if those were added, then collision detection through that 3rd dimension and AI handling for those projectiles needs to be adapted.

And script-based AI is generally poor, only suited to simple FSMs, so if you wanted serious improvement in that area, you would probably have to make engine modifications again.

And if you end up making those kind of adjustments, you might as well buff the graphics/UI to show off the expensive art assets and dialogue, right? Since the engine modifications are comparatively cheap in those departments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Argus2
What I said was that engines were comparatively cheap to build. The first one might take a while, but an experienced programmer can construct new engines fairly rapidly.

An experienced programmer could have built the first engine neatly enough to allow additions and modifications, making the engine dissection and reconstruction completely unnecessary.

There are obviously some exceptions out there. Especially cheaper games, very linear games, and games that have a great deal of specific data hardcoded into the engine. These types of games would be a nightmare to modify into a newer version of a game. But handling this sort of thing is the purpose of scripting. It takes a little while longer to get the engine ready for the scripting itself, but in the long run, you'll save huge amounts of time.

Quote:
Your engine may be able to do quite a bit, but you must admit that it can't do everything. It might not be able to handle arc-based projectiles like the slingshot or bow and arrow for instance.

The projects are governed by normal physics. All projectiles have an arc. Arrows and rocks would just have a more apparent arc because they travel slower, allowing more gravity to be imposed.

If your point is that the engine can't handle every possible desired addition, then that's a given. And there's nothing stopping the development team from working new behavior into their existing engine if the result will outweigh the work. That's a far cry from creating the revamped engines that you see in most game sequels.

Quote:
It might not even have a concept of a third dimension for projectile travel. And if those were added, then collision detection through that 3rd dimension and AI handling for those projectiles needs to be adapted.

The concept of using the same engine implies that you expect the game to play the same way, and there may be features that the engine will be unable to reach for. However, your example is not one of them. Height can be simulated pretty easily for projectiles in a game that has no vertical dimension.

Quote:
And script-based AI is generally poor, only suited to simple FSMs, so if you wanted serious improvement in that area, you would probably have to make engine modifications again.

You're just mistaken here. Scripted AI has every bit of potential as hardcoded AI. Script is just like normal programming code. It just exists outside of the compiled game, and is more easily accessible through access and reference, making it much easier to swap and change.

Quote:
And if you end up making those kind of adjustments, you might as well buff the graphics/UI to show off the expensive art assets and dialogue, right? Since the engine modifications are comparatively cheap in those departments.

Doing so can also cause your user base to either buy new hardware or avoid buying your game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kest
An experienced programmer could have built the first engine neatly enough to allow additions and modifications, making the engine dissection and reconstruction completely unnecessary.

Guess all of those programmers who build new engines out there must just be stupid then.
Quote:
And there's nothing stopping the development team from working new behavior into their existing engine if the result will outweigh the work. That's a far cry from creating the revamped engines that you see in most game sequels.

I don't think it's much difference at all. If it wasn't worthwhile revamping an engine, developers wouldn't do it. In fact, I bet many game sequels share a lot of code/techniques/designs between engines - you just don't see this as an end user.
Quote:
Quote:
And script-based AI is generally poor, only suited to simple FSMs, so if you wanted serious improvement in that area, you would probably have to make engine modifications again.

You're just mistaken here. Scripted AI has every bit of potential as hardcoded AI. Script is just like normal programming code. It just exists outside of the compiled game, and is more easily accessible through access and reference, making it much easier to swap and change.

The actual AI work is almost always implemented in compiled code. Scripts just have a limited interface to the game engine, relying on coded implementations for AI functions. You can't make fundamental AI improvements through script - scripters are just tweaking states that are handled by the coded UI. Feel free to show me some scripts from your engine that disprove this.
Quote:
Quote:
And if you end up making those kind of adjustments, you might as well buff the graphics/UI to show off the expensive art assets and dialogue, right? Since the engine modifications are comparatively cheap in those departments.

Doing so can also cause your user base to either buy new hardware or avoid buying your game.

And not doing so can cause the people with the money to buy new hardware to go and buy the games that make use of that new hardware. Don't take my opinion on it though, just have a look at the market. I'm not saying it's a good situation, I'm just saying that people generally re-use what they can, but have to make best use of their art and dialogue assets, which often involves updating their engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Argus2
Quote:
Original post by Kest
Doing so can also cause your user base to either buy new hardware or avoid buying your game.

And not doing so can cause the people with the money to buy new hardware to go and buy the games that make use of that new hardware. Don't take my opinion on it though, just have a look at the market. I'm not saying it's a good situation, I'm just saying that people generally re-use what they can, but have to make best use of their art and dialogue assets, which often involves updating their engine.

And do you decide which games to buy this way? You skip out on games because they don't max out your hardware?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it takes around 2 or more years to make a comercial game. Then there is a period which is needed to seperate the two verisons. If they are released too soon after one another then players can feel cheated. Also the developer might not make as much money because players who might be buying the first game towards the end of it's life cycle will be instead looking at buying the sequal instead.

In this period, technology advances. Just think about the advancments in graphics over the last 3 to 5 years. If you re-used the same engin from 5 years ago in a game releasaed today, it would look distinctly dated (to around 5 years ago).

However, you could design an engine to be expanded upon. If you make any addition's backwards compatable with past games, the quality of their graphics could be updated as advancemnts are made (actually, this could be a way to help combat piracy, when a new game is released, if you don't have an registered copy, you end up only having the basic graphics engine).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Edtharan
Well it takes around 2 or more years to make a comercial game. Then there is a period which is needed to seperate the two verisons. If they are released too soon after one another then players can feel cheated. Also the developer might not make as much money because players who might be buying the first game towards the end of it's life cycle will be instead looking at buying the sequal instead.

Like has been mentioned, the title can help players realize which way to go. I doubt many players purchased Half-Life episode 2 before episode 1.

I don't follow the reasons why anyone would feel cheated when an extension to a game they recently bought is released. Any reasons to feel cheated (short length, lack of ending) would exist with or without such extensions. If you disappoint them, they won't want any more, regardless of whether it comes as a refurbished extension or a brand new version.

Quote:
In this period, technology advances. Just think about the advancments in graphics over the last 3 to 5 years. If you re-used the same engin from 5 years ago in a game releasaed today, it would look distinctly dated (to around 5 years ago).

Old games don't just look dated, they handle and feel dated. Many of them won't even run on typical PCs. But looking back at those games, the main reasons they look dated are polygon counts and texture resolution. The GTA series is a great example of how billions of players don't care about those things. No one bought GTA III and Vice City because they had high-def models or high-res textures and looked incredible. They bought them because of the insane number of crazy things you can do in the games to have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kest
But looking back at those games, the main reasons they look dated are polygon counts and texture resolution. The GTA series is a great example of how billions of players don't care about those things. No one bought GTA III and Vice City because they had high-def models or high-res textures and looked incredible. They bought them because of the insane number of crazy things you can do in the games to have fun.

Uh, did you play GTA II? I'm pretty sure there were serious enhancements to the visual engine for III. I bet if they looked just like II, it wouldn't have sold nearly as well. And I guarantee that if you dialled back the graphics on IV to those of II, it would barely register on the charts. Also, "billions of players"?? I don't think so.

The GTA series is all about providing a great UI to show people killing other people in a large variety of ways. The more realistic running someone over in a variety of vehicles looks, the bigger the appeal. You can do way more crazy things in Dwarf Fortress, but if you'd have to be nuts to stick it on the shelves at $50.

To answer your previous question, I don't buy games to max out my hardware, but then I'm hardly your average buyer of computer games. You're asking why commercial developers keep re-doing their engines, and I'm saying that if you're paying a lot for art etc, it's worth updating your engine (since the cost of that is comparatively small).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Argus2
Uh, did you play GTA II? I'm pretty sure there were serious enhancements to the visual engine for III.

You're tossing changes in dimensions into a generic bag called visuals? The game completely changed, and for the better. What I'm suggesting isn't meant to stop developers from moving forward. It's meant to give both players and developers some breathing room to slow down and enjoy the moment before doing so.

Quote:
The GTA series is all about providing a great UI to show people killing other people in a large variety of ways.

That's weird. I could have sworn it was about driving cars, doing crazy stunts, and seeing how long you can run from the police..

Quote:
To answer your previous question, I don't buy games to max out my hardware, but then I'm hardly your average buyer of computer games.

Then you're also hardly a player to suggest that other people avoid buying games for that reason. Stick to what you understand.

Quote:
You're asking why commercial developers keep re-doing their engines, and I'm saying that if you're paying a lot for art etc, it's worth updating your engine (since the cost of that is comparatively small).

I included art as a part of the assets to be reused. You use the same general assets to construct a new area, new buildings or villages, new towns, new people, and new plots. A new gaming scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 3489 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this