Dear Esther - Page 3 - Adventure Forums
You are viewing an archived version of the site which is no longer maintained.
Go to the current live site or the Adventure Gamers forums
Adventure Gamers



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-24-2012, 02:51 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Monolith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimovieMan View Post
So.....friggin much!!!
Okay okay. It can be opinion, but i'm not taking it literal. Its basic game theory, learned from experience and through education. Interaction is what it is in the world of gaming. Like I said, you say a game doesn't have interaction because it doesn't fit your idea of interaction, thats opinion and not fact. Interaction is doing stuff.

Again, you didn't even answer what is Dear Esther without character input? Nothing. Interaction is what makes it what it is and you are denying that.

Like plugging your ears and saying 'I can't hear you, blah blah blah, mommy don't hurt me'. Seriously stubborn baby more than opinion.

I'm done.
__________________
"Oggi abbiamo erediteranno la terra! Domani, ci distruggiamo!" -S. B. Newsom

http://www.sbnewsom.com/
Monolith is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 03:12 AM   #42
Filmfreak
 
TimovieMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monolith View Post
Its basic game theory, learned from experience and through education.
Theory is still not fact, and is still open to interpretation.

Quote:
Interaction is doing stuff.
Not really. Simply "doing stuff" is one-way action. Interaction is two-way action.

Quote:
Again, you didn't even answer what is Dear Esther without character input? Nothing. Interaction is what makes it what it is and you are denying that.
I did answer that. I said it was a story. Sorry if that got lost somewhere in an overly long post.

Quote:
Like plugging your ears and saying 'I can't hear you, blah blah blah, mommy don't hurt me'. Seriously stubborn baby more than opinion.
And agan with the personal attacks. Seriously, stop that. That's not constructive in any way.

Quote:
I'm done.
So was I after my last post...

Then why on earth did I make this one?

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, I guess.

Yikes, did I just quote the Bible?
__________________
Currently playing: Again, Escape from Monkey Island (replay), King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow
Next in line: King's Quest VII: The Princeless Bride, Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers, The Last Express, Time Hollow
Recently finished: King's Quest V: Absence Makes the Heart Go Yonder, The Curse of Monkey Island (replay), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (abandoned), Mass Effect 3
TimovieMan is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 03:25 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
Monolith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 974
Default

Well if thats your last post then...blah blah blah blah blah blah....oh hell with it. Just kidding.

Back on topic. My hope to make people judge the game properly turned out to create a bad argument. I'm still going to buy this game.
__________________
"Oggi abbiamo erediteranno la terra! Domani, ci distruggiamo!" -S. B. Newsom

http://www.sbnewsom.com/
Monolith is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 04:44 AM   #44
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254 View Post
It is the essence that separates gaming from film and literature. The player's choices and actions, however forced, is the medium by which the game progresses; this is interaction.
The essence that separates gaming from other mediums, is interactivity by way of gameplay.
The interaction in Dear Esther is no diffrerent than the interaction i have with a movie via my DVD player or with a book. Extrapolating on the above, the conclusion is that every movie/book i'm playing/reading is a videogame!?! It certainly fits your description: the story in a book progresses linearily when i turn the page(user input). Be right back, i'm going to play Stanislaw Lem's The Cyberiad

I get what you're saying. The simple press of a button by the user, qualifies as an interaction. But interactivity in the context of games should be active (via gameplay as i said), not passive (press a button to continue story is in no way different than turn page to continue story).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254 View Post
As for Dear Esther, I haven't played the original mod, but I will say that the trailer has piqued my interest. From what I can tell, it seems to have generated quite a lot of coverage--enough to make me think that the majority of those who have handled it have had a positive reaction. I can't know that for sure, but it does look like it'll make a dent in the community. The YouTube trailer already has 100,000+ views. Quite a lot for a non-mainstream, artsy-fartsy mod.
If you don't mind the lack of interactivity/gameplay and you don't mind paying for it, try it. In the mod, IIRC there was a random aspect of when the voiceovers appeared so there was less coherency to the story. Don't know if it'll be the same or not in the game, but if it is there won't be much of a story either. Just a heads up
Shuyin is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 10:30 AM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: California
Posts: 19
Default

I think there is a line of abstraction one would have to cross in order to lump linear point-and-click gameplay into the same category as the page-turning of a book. Our difference of opinion forks right here: I do not believe they are one and the same. User input, a guided interface, and a sense of perspective is also what goes into the execution, among many other factors that contribute to the feel and immersion of game design. For example, just because the user input in a game like Canabalt is limited to a single button on a linear map, I do not believe it is identical to reading my Kindle.

I'm not here to discuss the quality of Dear Esther. It probably is made up of very passive gameplay, and I'd likely not enjoy the original mod. I don't know if the remake is fun or not, but that hasn't been the focal point of my argument. My interest towards the remake extends beyond the vocabulary of "fun." It looks like a fascinating experiment that I believe should be applauded more often than not, especially within the traditionalist, stifled realms of the adventure genre.

And, anyway, all this theory aside, I am of the opinion that it does indeed look like simple, moody fun to be able to explore that gloomy, gorgeous island.

Last edited by Peter254; 01-24-2012 at 11:24 AM.
Peter254 is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 11:05 AM   #46
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 90
Default

Oh cool, a Dear Esther thread. I've been thinking about downloading the mod or maybe waiting for the paid release. It looks interesting. Maybe I'll find some good insight about it here.

*reads thread and has soul crushed*
louiedog is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 11:23 AM   #47
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 28
Default

@Peter254: To argument on your example, pressing a button in Canabalt is actually a gameplay mechanic: you have to time your jumps - that's the gameplay element. User input (interactivity) in Canabalt is intrinsicly tied to gameplay. Without it, you could not play and experience the game.

However, since user input in Dear Esther isn't tied to any gameplay system, someone playing to game will have the exact same experience as someone watching a video of the playthrough on youtube. Canabalt can unfold in different ways depending on player input; Dear Esther will always be the same thing: move with the arrow to an area that triggers an audio file.

@louiedog: I would encourage you to download the mod since it is free. If you like it, you can then buy the game and if you don't like it at least you don't lose money.

As you see we have a debate on its interactivity, but don't let that discourage you of trying it. It can be a great experience depending on your expectations/tastes. I personally wouldn't pay money for it, but there are people who would
Shuyin is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 12:13 PM   #48
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: California
Posts: 19
Default

Not to further the argument, but to clarify on my own belief: the mechanics in Dear Esther are still gameplay, and thus it qualifies as interactive. It may not be as dynamic as Canabalt, or maybe even as fun, but enough basic variables are present to differentiate it from the page-turning of a book.

What the devs are trying to do is provide an "open-ended" mood piece on how to interpret the story and the surrounding gameworld. The order in which the player visits locations or tiggers events, as well as what they interpret from the story, is up to the player. "Art" in recent game design usually employs player interpretation as an untapped variable on the gameworld, for better or worse. I can't say if this is funner than Canabalt, or if it's a step back in game design...but it is my belief that design choices like these still qualify as gameplay. True, the variables which determine the game are obtuse and maybe too abstract to be "fun" to some people (because of a perceived lack of reward), but the variables are indeed there. Rules, goals, and rewards are still present in this environment. There is a clear difference between Dear Esther in this game form, and Dear Esther in, say, short story form.

This is just to clarify on my own understanding of what a game is. If you disagree, then this is simply where our paths diverge into different modes of thought.

Edit: I'd also like to mention the upcoming indie game Home, by Benjamin Rivers. Not just for promotion (I think it looks interesting ), but also because it is nearly identical in execution to Dear Esther. Or at least similar enough to merit a philosophical double take.

Last edited by Peter254; 01-24-2012 at 12:41 PM.
Peter254 is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 03:27 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Monolith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuyin View Post
If you don't mind the lack of interactivity/gameplay and you don't mind paying for it, try it. In the mod, IIRC there was a random aspect of when the voiceovers appeared so there was less coherency to the story. Don't know if it'll be the same or not in the game, but if it is there won't be much of a story either. Just a heads up
He can't see my post and he still hasn't read the interview from the developer. hahaha


@louiedog: As quoted by the developer in reply to a 'should i play original or remake'.

chineseroom Feb 14 2011, 11:32pm replied:
I'd wait if you can - although the game has evolved, the central spine of the story is the same (of course), and the overall asset quality will be much higher.... Dan

Since this is a story centric game, wait for the remake as graphics matter the most when it comes to immersion and experience of a story. The original was beautiful but the graphics held the experience back.

@Peter: Over on moddb someone asked why the hell is the game not a movie then. Someone said, well wouldn't that defeat the purpose of immersion? Having the control over a character is more immersive than staring at a screen. The experiences are two completely different things and people just don't realize that the INTERACTION is what makes it a game and different from a non-interactive movie.

EDIT: Aw damn, I thought Home was released and that I can play it.
__________________
"Oggi abbiamo erediteranno la terra! Domani, ci distruggiamo!" -S. B. Newsom

http://www.sbnewsom.com/

Last edited by Monolith; 01-24-2012 at 03:40 PM.
Monolith is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 03:57 PM   #50
Spoonbeaks say Ahoy!
 
Ascovel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,053
Default

I loved Snow by Benjamin Rivers, so I'll definitely be looking forward to Home.

Also, here's a brand new interview with the makers of Dear Esther that provides answers to a few questions:

http://indiegames.com/2012/01/interv...ck_rob_br.html

Like I said I wasn't particularly fond of the Dear Esther mod and it disappointed me after all the hype around it (and NOT just because of the lack of meaningful player agency). But I'm far from discouraging people from trying things like that. I'm actually really curious how a larger audience will react to the new version of DE.
__________________
A Hardy Developer's Journal - The Scientific Society's online magazine devoted to charting indie adventure games and neighboring territories

Last edited by Ascovel; 01-25-2012 at 05:59 AM.
Ascovel is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 04:26 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
ozzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 726
Default

Personally, I don't care how interactive something is. I care how good something is.
If Dear Esther works well with barely any interactivity, then why complain?

For some time I loathed cutscenes. I thought that great games might contain cutscenes, but that they would be better off without them. Then I played Shadow of Memories. Then Chrono Trigger. And I had to realize that multiple, to me somewhat mysterious factors, determine when a cutscene works just well or when it doesn't.
It's not a simple answer.
ozzie is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 09:03 AM   #52
Adventurer
 
Guyra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 88
Default

I'm just going to have one small say in the matter of whether this is a game or not...

This is the game "Snake", of which there are endless variations:


Most people will agree that this is a game. You tell the snake which of the four ways to go, but it's always moving in one direction, and you try to pick up small dots that make the snake longer.

Now let's compare that to Dear Esther...

You play as a man on an island. You tell the man which way to go, and you can make him stop and take in the scenery on the way if you so wish, while you try to trigger voiceovers that adds to your understanding of the story.

Take the Snake game, switch dots(or apples, eggs, whatever) with voiceovers, switch the increasing snake body with increasing understanding of the story and game world, add more control, and better graphics and audio, and you've got yourself Dear Esther.

Break it down, and you've essentially got the same game in both. Move, trigger, repeat until end. In other words, Dear Esther is as much of a game as Snake is. It doesn't have a great amount of interaction, it's fairly simple in its gameplay, but even so, it is a game.

Cheers!
__________________
Favorite Adventure Games: Grim Fandango, Still Life, The Longest Journey, Barrow Hill, Syberia 1 & 2, Gray Matter, The Moment of Silence

Just Finished: Mystery Stories: Mountains of Madness

Currently Playing: The Secrets of Atlantis
Guyra is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 09:16 AM   #53
Spoonbeaks say Ahoy!
 
Ascovel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guyra View Post
Break it down, and you've essentially got the same game in both. Move, trigger, repeat until end.
Nope.

Shuyin already explained the difference between Dear Esther and games like Snake using the example of Canabalt a few posts above:

http://adventuregamers.com/forums/sh...2&postcount=47
__________________
A Hardy Developer's Journal - The Scientific Society's online magazine devoted to charting indie adventure games and neighboring territories
Ascovel is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 09:23 AM   #54
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254 View Post
Not to further the argument, but to clarify on my own belief: the mechanics in Dear Esther are still gameplay, and thus it qualifies as interactive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254 View Post
...but it is my belief that design choices like these still qualify as gameplay.
But, that's the thing: there are no mechanics in Dear Esther.
There is literally nothing to do, you just walk from point A to point B to hear narration. That is forced interactivity,... it's like saying that clicking the mouse button during a cutscene conversation (to advance to the next line of dialog) is a gameplay mechanic :/

So it's not that it's not as dynamic as Canablt. It's that there is no gameplay mechanic. Canabalt had a timed-jumps mechanic. Dear Esther is just a story that requires you to press the arrow key to hear the next chapter in the story...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254 View Post
If you disagree, then this is simply where our paths diverge into different modes of thought.
I guess we agree to disagree, because to me Dear Esther is a non-game while to you it is a game that has gameplay mechanics.

@Guyra: read my Canabalt argumentation above, because it's the same with snake. Here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuyin View Post
pressing a button in Canabalt is actually a gameplay mechanic: you have to time your jumps - that's the gameplay element. User input (interactivity) in Canabalt is intrinsicly tied to gameplay.
Snake has a set of rules that make a gameplay mechanic: to actively change direction in order to avoid dying and in order to pickup dots that help you grow. That's a gameplay mechanic.
Dear Esther's set of rules (or gameplay mechanic) is to walk from point a to point b to hear the next part of narration. If you say that's a gameplay mechanic, i could argue that page-turning while reading a book is actually a gameplay mechanic (it involves the same level of interaction as Dear Esther) and you'd be unable to contradict me without contradicting yourself.

Last edited by Shuyin; 01-25-2012 at 10:19 AM.
Shuyin is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 10:05 AM   #55
Failed Birthday Elf
 
Intense Degree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London
Posts: 1,032
Default

I'm with Shuyin and Ascovel.

To elaborate:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guyra View Post
Take the Snake game, switch dots(or apples, eggs, whatever) with voiceovers
Dots/apples/eggs are clearly visible goals to move towards and each one leads directly to the discovery of the next. The voiceovers are randomly triggered as you wander and each one cannot necessarily be "acheived" at all in any one playthrough. Skill in snake and random chance in Dear Esther.

Quote:
switch the increasing snake body with increasing understanding of the story and game world
I don't see that at all. As the snake gets longer it is harder to control requiring more skill and planning. This is not the same as the random revelation of a piece of narrative that may increase your exposure to the story before you wander on.

Quote:
add more control
I presume you mean that there is more control as it is a 360 degree 3d environment rather than just a 2d up, down, left right one? Personally I think that you are simply guiding the player/snake in both and therefore they are equal in that you can move both, but if anything snake gives you more control as you are able to eat(?) the dots, i.e. move specifically towards another type of interaction rather than randomly triggering some narration which could occur at any time place (or so it would appear to the player as you are unlikely to trigger the same thing at the same place twice).

Quote:
and better graphics and audio
Fair point!

Quote:
Break it down, and you've essentially got the same game in both. Move, trigger, repeat until end. In other words, Dear Esther is as much of a game as Snake is. It doesn't have a great amount of interaction, it's fairly simple in its gameplay, but even so, it is a game.
I think the difference here is that in snake you can interact with everything you can see. You can move the snake with the keys to the dots to eat them. The background is blank and does not look like it even should be interactive. It is like the table whilst playing cards or a board game, simply not of interest.

However, Dear Esther is beautiful with incredible environments. Experience with other games tells us that we should be able to interact with it, be it collecting inventory items, shooting things, platforming, mining and building etc. However you can do none of this.

I know that this game is experimental (and I'm looking forward to getting the full version) but I can fully understand why people are disappointed with the lack of interactivity. It is beautiful to look at and listen to but it feels like it should give so much more than this. It's beauty means that (for many people) expectations will be raised to do much more than just move around and therefore (even if unjustly) they will be disappointed.
__________________
"Please don't spam. If you have nothing relevant to contribute to the topic, don't post, or I'll have to close this thread." - FantasySci5 in The Thread Must Die.
"That said, I bought a lot of biscuits in 2011 that I didn't really need" - Hammerite
Intense Degree is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 10:24 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chennai, India
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuyin View Post
Dear Esther's set of rules (or gameplay mechanic) is to walk from point a to point b to hear the next part of narration. If you say that's a gameplay mechanic, i could argue that page-turning while reading a book is actually a gameplay mechanic (it involves the same level of interaction as Dear Esther) and you'd be unable to contradict me without contradicting yourtself.
It is a question of immersion.. when you move from point A to point B, you are consciously doing the moving, and while doing so you take in the environment. So you feel like you are actually in the story. You get immersed in it, and you get a different experience compared to reading a book or watching a movie.

Sure, it may not be a "game", but its not the same as watching a movie either.
Siddhi is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 11:07 AM   #57
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: California
Posts: 19
Default

You see, it is my belief that the simple act of being able to navigate a simulated environment in an implied perspective, with the goal (however random) of triggering hotspots, is what qualifies Dear Esther as being a game; and if you don't navigate/explore, nothing will be triggered and there will be no reward. This is what all games are in embryo. The crux of your argument depends on, I think, the oversimplification of exploring the island: to you it is no different than the page-turning of a book. But you are dismissing the simulated environment, the implied perspective, and the implied goal. The gameplay mechanic is that these three fundamental variables in game design allow the player to interact with the gameworld, in which there are clear rules and goals.

Perhaps our differences lie in this belief: to me, gameplay mechanics can exist in an intellectual context (player interpretation), while to others it must be reducible to skill and reflex. This, my friends, is the very essence of the question 'can games be art?' 'Player interpretation' is, to me, an untapped variable in recent game design, and randomness is still indeed a mechanic because of how it rewards player interpretation. The analogy with Snake is accurate because to me the similarities exist in an emotional context. Naysayers feel it must exist in a more literal goal-reward context to be valid, which is exactly what the devs are trying to challenge.

Again, I think it's that level of abstraction that we disagree on.

Last edited by Peter254; 01-25-2012 at 11:31 AM.
Peter254 is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 11:55 AM   #58
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siddhi View Post
It is a question of immersion.. when you move from point A to point B, you are consciously doing the moving, and while doing so you take in the environment. So you feel like you are actually in the story. You get immersed in it, and you get a different experience compared to reading a book or watching a movie.
Immersive or not, moving from narration to narration is not a gameplay mechanic, no matter how you look at it.

And i can liken to it watching a movie, because even though i get to choose where i go next in the virtual world of Dear Esther, ultimately it will be the same experience as if watching a movie. Which is different than playing a game (even a simple one like snake or canabalt) that has actual gameplay mechanics and its interactivity is more invloving than walking to the next place that triggers an audio file.

If there was anything for me to do in this world (a quest, an interaction with the scenery that would result in a change in the game's world and rules) except walking to hear the next narration, i'd consider it a game. As it is, it's not a game.

I wouldn't even call it interactive fiction, because you don't make any decisions and you don't interact with the story in any way. You just hear it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254 View Post
You see, it is my belief that the simple act of being able to navigate a simulated environment in an implied perspective, with the goal (however random) of triggering hotspots, is what qualifies Dear Esther as being a game.
You're navigating through a simulated environment in an implied perspective with a goal while working in 3D Studio MAX, so by your logic these 3 variables are enough to qualify it as being a game. 3D Studio MAX (and other modelling software) is a game by your logic. You really have to see there is a flaw in your logic. Either that, or your definition of games allows mostly anything to fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter254 View Post
to you it is no different than the page-turning of a book. But you are dismissing the simulated environment, the implied perspective, and the implied goal. The gameplay mechanic is that these three fundamental variables in game design allow the player to interact with the gameworld, in which there are clear rules and goals.
To me Dear Esther is not a game. It is a virtual exploration software in which i can't interact in any other way with the area i'm exploring other than walking through it, while hearing a story.

How can i explain that those 3 variables (walking through a simulated env, in an implied persepctive, with a basic goal) can be found in other software that you wouldn't call 'game'. Those 3 variables alone do not make a gameplay mechanic... But i guess you think otherwise so, we should just leave it at that...we disagree on what makes a game being a game.
Shuyin is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 12:12 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
ozzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 726
Default

I guess I really should play Dear Esther before taking part in this discussion, but my understanding is that the player controls the pace of his experience?
I mean, a movie is pretty much an unstoppable force that rushes by. You can't take it at your own pace, the movie dictates the pace. With books, on the contrary, you can take them in as slow or fast as you want. The same with comics, of course.
I guess that might set Dear Esther apart from a movie, that you can decide when to take the next step, when you heard and saw enough from a certain place in the environment, and when you want to progress. It basically uses an audio-visual medium to create the pace of a book, something which movies aren't able to offer.

But really, I should play it...

Quote:
You're navigating through a simulated environment in an implied perspective with a goal while working in 3D Studio MAX, so by your logic these 3 variables are enough to qualify it as being a game. 3D Studio MAX (and other modelling software) is a game by your logic. You really have to see there is a flaw in your logic.
I remember once playing around with software for architectural purposes when I was young, like it was a game...and afaik, Will Wright did the same, hence the inspiration for The Sims.

Quote:
Either that, or your definition of games allows mostly anything to fit.
Same goes for John Cage's 4′33″ and music.

Last edited by ozzie; 01-25-2012 at 12:18 PM.
ozzie is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 12:27 PM   #60
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 28
Default

In the mod, you walk in the environment and sometimes you trigger audio narration (some kind of poems, with not much of a coherence overall).

You're not really in control of anything except the walking part. I guess deciding what environment you want to stare at and for how long, would indeed distance it from a movie, yeah. Other than that it's pretty much a very linear experience that 'plays' without you doing much.

I'd recommend playing the mod before you pay money for it, but hey... it's your money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie View Post
I remember once playing around with software for architectural purposes when I was young, like it was a game...and afaik, Will Wright did the same, hence the inspiration for The Sims.
Playing around with architectural/modelling software like it was a game, does not make it a game. No matter how much you play with it
And i'm quite sure that's not what inspired Will Wright to make The Sims; he has quite a background of making simulations and after his Sim series he wanted to make a more complex simulation hence The Sims and Spore.
Shuyin is offline  
 



Thread Tools

 


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.