Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

Bro you can't just say "yeah the primary antagonist of the game was lame" like that doesn't matter in the slightest. It's a huge detriment to the story when nobody knows nor gives a shit what the big bad is doing and why. You also can't defend a story in which none of the supporting characters do anything interesting and/or are interesting in and of themselves. Laskey might as well be a randomly generated NPC, Del Rio is an utter trope and is actively annoying, and how the Librarian is presented in the game is exceedingly convoluted and confusing. Halsey is a compelling personality but she has far too little screen time for the significance of her involvement in what is a more forlorn, meditative take on Halo.

People generally liked Halo 4's campaign because of exactly what you said, the reflective/introspective mood and the interactions between Cortana and Chief - characters we've known for years, have grown with, and understand their experiences and current state of mind. The vessel in which that subplot lives, the overarching story of Halo 4, is bereft of any emotional investment regardless of whether or not it connects its own dots well.

This is how easy it is to create problems with multimedia storytelling. In Halo's case, the main medium to be consumed is the video game. All other forms of media that impact the world and lore should be supplemental, not detrimental to understanding the story or motivations of its characters. The more forms of media that is incorporated, the more the core audience is going to be confused because they only consume the original medium (the video game).

 

The Matrix Reloaded pioneered this trend with the Animatrix, having the Human/Robot war history posted for free online before the movie released to give backstory. Although shit, the video game also tied in live-action cut scenes that were filmed during the Matrix Reloaded about Jada Smith's character and her ship. A minor character in the film, but when supplemental media is consumed, it fleshes out her character without stealing time away from the main story and its protagonists.

 

Halo has gotten this backwards since H4. The books are absolutely necessary to understand the story, rather than just expanding the lore or beefing up a side character that couldn't get enough screen time originally. Imagine everyone's surprise in H5 when other Spartan IIs just suddenly show up when the game has said Master Chief was the last of his kind. If you had read Nylund's books, you'd know they had existed, but the game doesn't even properly introduce them. They just suddenly appear like the audience is supposed to know who they are, and we are supposed to care.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

Dealing some upvotes btw because this is good conversation

Not all heroes wear capes

Share this post


Link to post

I almost forgot this was the 'Halo 4 story and debate' thread.

 :kappa:

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Griffolian said:

Imagine everyone's surprise in H5 when other Spartan IIs just suddenly show up when the game has said Master Chief was the last of his kind. If you had read Nylund's books, you'd know they had existed, but the game doesn't even properly introduce them. They just suddenly appear like the audience is supposed to know who they are, and we are supposed to care.

Yeah that was bullshit. I read the first four books and still didn't get how they were just there. It's like if when ME3 came out you just start with this Prothean guy in your ship and Sheperd and everyone else just acts like it's completely normal and he's always been there.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HeX Reapers said:

Are they lemon-scented?

Blessed and vaguely orange-esque  :kappa:

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Mow said:

I almost forgot this was the 'Halo 4 story and debate' thread.

 :kappa:

It's going to be like this for at least another two months because there is fuck all to talk about regarding Infinite. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, SpitFlame said:

Play Witcher 3, dude. The game, not that gay ass Netflix series. There's a reason it's the most awarded game in history. It'll prove you wrong, I guarantee it. Characters are far more important than plot, and it's why most of the best stories you remember (whether you're reading Tolstoy or playing Mass Effect) are remembered for their characters.

( ͡o ͜ʖ ͡o)    I actually like this. I like it when people express unpopular opinions, even if I might disagree with them.

LOTR is certainly famous for its world-building, but its characters are more memorable than most other fantasy works I've read. If we didn't care about them then we don't care about what happens at Helm's Deep or the Mines of Moria or whatnot, because what's the point otherwise? But people do care. Idk, at this point we're getting too subjective. If you didn't care about the characters then that's fine, but I'd argue that there's plenty of emotional substance between Frodo and Sam, or Aragorn being reluctant to take the crown, or Boromir like you said.

Because Lasky in H4 was a very competent, laid-back character who helped Chief. That's what made him likeable. I agree with you that his personality wasn't as strong as Cortana's and Halsey's, but not having a strong personality doesn't necessarily make you a bad character, at least not in my opinion. He worked fine for what he was. I'm just saying, if you have any complaints about H4 they shouldn't be directed at Lasky, they should be directed at Del Rio's refusal to acknowledge the Didact, or the Librarian out-of-place appearance.

Why not? If you replaced Cortana with another AI who nevertheless had her optimism and wit, everyone would complain, because people have an emotional attachment to Cortana. That's why everyone complained about playing as Arbiter in H2, even if his personality was more interesting than Chief's.

Just because a character exists in the world and is mentioned doesn't mean they have to make an appearance. Chief simply remembered that she could fix Cortana, and then the goal is to find her. That's it. Trying to fit her in H4 any other way would make no sense.

"LOTR is certainly famous for its world-building, but its characters are more memorable than most other fantasy works I've read. If we didn't care about them then we don't care about what happens at Helm's Deep or the Mines of Moria or whatnot, because what's the point otherwise? But people do care. Idk, at this point we're getting too subjective. If you didn't care about the characters then that's fine, but I'd argue that there's plenty of emotional substance between Frodo and Sam, or Aragorn being reluctant to take the crown, or Boromir like you said"

 

I think you're bringing up two different things here conflated as one. The characters in LOTR are very likeable and unique but they don't fit the bill of what most people peg as "well written" characters in the sense that they evolve and have changing emotions. Nor do they seem particularly human or relatable as tolkiens writing style is highly poetic and more often than not says things using very few words. They're just cool characters because of their traits, and who they are. In that sense I think the reasons that most people are using to peg Halo 4 as a good story, being that it's characters are human like, are not a good parallel for LOTR. 

Also Sauran can be a big bad 1 dimensional villain because he's not really the focus, the adventure was the focus. There's a hundred bad guys under Sauran that the focus can shift to (and the ring itself) and even they are not the focus. Halo 4 doesn't really do that.  It puts you smack dab in front of him half the game, lore dumps, and then you do a bunch of random tasks while has harasses you. There's not much of an adventure or room for other cool things to happen there.  Nor was there one big singular goal, ie, take the ring to the mountain, that gives the players a sense of progression. It was "get here, contact the ship, reach the gravity well, oh no this guy woke up, go shoot out gravity things with a definitely-not-elephant, go do other things I don't remember, now go confront the didact." I don't know, even the overarching story wasn't that clean or established tbh. And like Lemon mentioned, the plot really didn't feed into the story or vice versa. It's odd how disconnected those two were. 

Share this post


Link to post

As far as world-building in Halo games goes, Halo 2 easily beats out all of the rest. CE comes second. 

Being on High Charity when the schism began, and watching the holy city of the Covenant get torn apart in a 3 way battle while their fleet around Delta Halo was also pulled into said self-destructive civil war....

612.png

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, _Synapse said:

As far as world-building in Halo games goes, Halo 2 easily beats out all of the rest. CE comes second. 

Being on High Charity when the schism began, and watching the holy city of the Covenant get torn apart in a 3 way battle while their fleet around Delta Halo was also pulled into said self-destructive civil war....

612.png

I don't think I could name a game that does as much with as little as Halo 2 has. The writing and characters are really, really solid. 

Share this post


Link to post

I think some people here treat the act of hating on 343i as a principle rather than a reaction by this point.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, _Synapse said:

As far as world-building in Halo games goes, Halo 2 easily beats out all of the rest. CE comes second. 

Being on High Charity when the schism began, and watching the holy city of the Covenant get torn apart in a 3 way battle while their fleet around Delta Halo was also pulled into said self-destructive civil war....

612.png

The Arbiter is a great device to both further the story, giving an intimate view of your enemy, and to drive gameplay in a good direction.  A doomed man that is sent on suicide missions makes for epic gameplay experiences.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MultiLockOn said:

"LOTR is certainly famous for its world-building, but its characters are more memorable than most other fantasy works I've read. If we didn't care about them then we don't care about what happens at Helm's Deep or the Mines of Moria or whatnot, because what's the point otherwise? But people do care. Idk, at this point we're getting too subjective. If you didn't care about the characters then that's fine, but I'd argue that there's plenty of emotional substance between Frodo and Sam, or Aragorn being reluctant to take the crown, or Boromir like you said"

 

I think you're bringing up two different things here conflated as one. The characters in LOTR are very likeable and unique but they don't fit the bill of what most people peg as "well written" characters in the sense that they evolve and have changing emotions. Nor do thru seen particularly human or relatable as tolkiens writing style is highly poetic and more often than not says things using very few words. They're just cool characters because of their traits, and who they are. In that sense I think the reasons that most people are using to peg Halo 4 as a good story, being that it's characters are human like, are not a good parallel for LOTR. 

Also Sauran can be a big bad 1 dimensional villain because he's not really the focus, the adventure was the focus. There's a hundred bad guys under Sauran that the focus can shift to (and the ring itself) and even they are not the focus. Halo 4 doesn't really do that.  It puts you smack dab in front of him half the game, lore dumps, and then you do a bunch of random tasks while has harasses you. There's not much of an adventure or room for other cool things to happen there.  Nor was there one big singular goal, ie, take the ring to the mountain, that gives the players a sense of progression. It was "get here, contact the ship, reach the gravity well, oh no this guy woke up, go shoot out gravity things with a definitely-not-elephant, go do other things I don't remember, now go confront the didact." I don't know, even the overarching story wasn't that clean or established tbh. And like Lemon mentioned, the plot really didn't feed into the story or vice versa. It's odd how disconnected those two were. 

I was finally free from the discussion, and you dragged me back. Why?!?!?

JK anyway, I’ll just say that there’s really no one single set of rules for what makes good writing, not any narrow rule set anyway. As long as the plot surprises you (I.e. isn’t stale, repetitive, etc) and the characters act in believable and interesting  ways (doesn’t mean they have to have all that much character development, like Aragorn) then everything else can be changed. These were the things I was focusing on in my original post.

btw to clarify something: I do think Sauron is a shit villain. I don’t care what excuses people use to convince themselves otherwise. Wild Hunt in W3 were also bad. So was the Didactic if you didn’t read the books. I don’t know why writing villains is so hard.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, SpitFlame said:

I was finally free from the discussion, and you dragged me back. Why?!?!?

JK anyway, I’ll just say that there’s really no one single set of rules for what makes good writing, not any narrow rule set anyway. As long as the plot surprises you (I.e. isn’t stale, repetitive, etc) and the characters act in believable and interesting  ways (doesn’t mean they have to have all that much character development, like Aragorn) then everything else can be changed. These were the things I was focusing on in my original post.

btw to clarify something: I do think Sauron is a shit villain. I don’t care what excuses people use to convince themselves otherwise. Wild Hunt in W3 were also bad. So was the Didactic if you didn’t read the books. I don’t know why writing villains is so hard.

I like this discussion and your take on it even though I don't agree, for the record.

 

I don't think being a simple character makes a villain bad. This is a common thing that gets thrown around the longer any medium exists, which - in writing means the jazz is to make even your bad guys be relatable and understandable. You can see this sort of thing in the Game of Thrones universe which is straight up, polar opposite of the Middle Earth universe in every way imaginable. In the way he details, character motivations, plot structure, everything is so non uniform and untraditional for, what seems to ME at least, the sole reason of defying expectations. And my take on that is that it still ends up the weaker for it. 

 

I'd wager most modern writing classes or college professors would sit down and explain why the game of thrones universe is much better from a writing perspective BECAUSE the bad guy is so ambiguous and you can relate to everyone and they have these conflicting mojos to them, but to be honest I just don't buy it. I think there's a beautiful simplicity in the approach Tolkien took to the good vs evil nature to everything he wrote (and it's hard to criticize it considering he was the first to really lay out a universe like that so its without precedent). And honestly I think it's more representative of reality but that is delving down a deeper rabbit hole with morality and such. 

 

I take no issue with the Didact just being, "a bad guy" in the sense. Like I mentioned earlier I actually like some of the character stuff and dialogue in H4. It's just the overarching plot was very forgettable, without any charm or discernable structure. 

 

 

This is all to say I don't find Sauran to be a weak villain just because his 1 dimensionality. I don't find it unrealistic and should it be so I find no issue with the simplicity if the purpose isn't focusing on him, which it doesn't. He's an absolute evil. I am also the biggest Tolkien fan you'll ever meet so, take all that I say with that in mind. 

Share this post


Link to post

Absolutely nothing wrong with simple bad guys, but the more expressively sentient you make them, the greater the burden becomes to make them interesting from a character perspective. The Flood works as a collective simple antagonist because they're a nameless, faceless force and the threat they pose is both massive in scale and easy to understand (this is what Sauron is). The Gravemind specifically, meanwhile, was an antagonist that needed attention paid to its character and how it was woven into the plot, because it was spun as a philosophical entity.

Of course they fucked that all up and made the Gravemind lame, so there's that.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MultiLockOn said:

-snip-

I actually agree with a surprising amount of what you said. Subverting tropes for the sake of it doesn't automatically equal good writing. With that in mind I prefer LOTR a lot more over GoT. People praise GoT for being dark and violent, with constant death and incest and everything, but Children of Hurin did all of that first, and imo did it better. It's like the OG GoT.

There's a lot of value to traditions and conventions. Things like the hero's journey, good vs evil plots—these are great tools to use. I'm not for deconstructing these things, but I'm not against it either. Tolkien does things conventionally, but he does it well. So long as the story is interesting, I don't care what methods or literary techniques the writer is employing. But for real tho, I'm not a fan of creative writing classes at all. They all teach you to use a minimalist writing style where any sentence longer than 2 lines is bad and every colour of every curtain must be foreshadowing or symbolism. God forbid the characters stop to relax and talk about something that isn't relevant to saving the world. It's why I like Witcher 3 so much. When famous writers break the rules it's genius, when you do it it's a failing grade. I'm just saying, most "great writers" throughout history didn't have any formal education in storytelling.

Btw if you are a real LOTR fan, you should know that Morgoth was a way better villain than Sauron. Morgoth was technically two-dimensional, but he was entertaining as fuck, so it's okay. Most importantly, Morgoth got shit done. It took all of the Valar to defeat him in the weakened state iirc, and even then he was outsmarting everyone else. Sauron... well he just sat on a throne or something and got dunked on by two Hobbits. Which is a shame, because Sauron was a much better character in the Silmarillion.

@Cursed Lemon raises a good point. Villains like the Flood or the orcs work because they're a collective mass of destruction and not any individual characters. Once you start giving the characters individuality then you should start making them more interesting.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Mr Grim said:

When was the gavemind lame?

It was my distinct opinion that they were setting the Gravemind up to be a true antihero and use it and the Flood to assert a kind of rapt, metaphysical conclusion of the relationship between the three powers in the story, but instead the Gravemind just ended up being a myopic edgelord with a thesaurus.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Cursed Lemon said:

It was my distinct opinion that they were setting the Gravemind up to be a true antihero and use it and the Flood to assert a kind of rapt, metaphysical conclusion of the relationship between the three powers in the story, but instead the Gravemind just ended up being a myopic edgelord with a thesaurus.

That'd be hard to justify what with the whole being the greatest threat in the galaxy thing. Also the ruining of the forerunners. They were always the ultimate bad guy.

 

I thought you were going to bring up the fact that 343 completely explained away the floods origins and retconned their motivation. Like it couldn't just be halos attempt at lovecraftian cosmicism, oh noooo It needed to be mitichlorian'd. That's what makes them cool /s.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SpitFlame said:

I actually agree with a surprising amount of what you said. Subverting tropes for the sake of it doesn't automatically equal good writing. With that in mind I prefer LOTR a lot more over GoT. People praise GoT for being dark and violent, with constant death and incest and everything, but Children of Hurin did all of that first, and imo did it better. It's like the OG GoT.

There's a lot of value to traditions and conventions. Things like the hero's journey, good vs evil plots—these are great tools to use. I'm not for deconstructing these things, but I'm not against it either. Tolkien does things conventionally, but he does it well. So long as the story is interesting, I don't care what methods or literary techniques the writer is employing. But for real tho, I'm not a fan of creative writing classes at all. They all teach you to use a minimalist writing style where any sentence longer than 2 lines is bad and every colour of every curtain must be foreshadowing or symbolism. God forbid the characters stop to relax and talk about something that isn't relevant to saving the world. It's why I like Witcher 3 so much. When famous writers break the rules it's genius, when you do it it's a failing grade. I'm just saying, most "great writers" throughout history didn't have any formal education in storytelling.

Btw if you are a real LOTR fan, you should know that Morgoth was a way better villain than Sauron. Morgoth was technically two-dimensional, but he was entertaining as fuck, so it's okay. Most importantly, Morgoth got shit done. It took all of the Valar to defeat him in the weakened state iirc, and even then he was outsmarting everyone else. Sauron... well he just sat on a throne or something and got dunked on by two Hobbits. Which is a shame, because Sauron was a much better character in the Silmarillion.

@Cursed Lemon raises a good point. Villains like the Flood or the orcs work because they're a collective mass of destruction and not any individual characters. Once you start giving the characters individuality then you should start making them more interesting.

Oh man are we about to turn this thread into middle earth lore, I'm already geeking out. 

 

Yes while Sauron technically has more depth when looking at the Silmarillion, and he did write all of LOTR AFTER establishing the universe in depth privately, most of that isn't actually pertinent to LOTR, the story is very free standing to those who jump in and read it isolated, which is awesome. And yeah Morgoth being the head of the Valar is obviously putting him as a class above the Maiar so that inherently makes him the actual real bad guy in charge but that never gets mentioned in LOTR at all beyond Gandalfs line post-resurrection of "I was sent back. Until my task is completed." Beyond that there's no notion of outside influence on Middle Earth except rare lore bits about the history of elves or cave trolls. This is all off topic though..

 

Middle Earth is awesome. I basically watch the three movies every month, and reread the books twice a year. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mr Grim said:

That'd be hard to justify what with the whole being the greatest threat in the galaxy thing. Also the ruining of the forerunners. They were always the ultimate bad guy.

 

I thought you were going to bring up the fact that 343 completely explained away the floods origins and retconned their motivation. Like it couldn't just be halos attempt at lovecraftian cosmicism, oh noooo It needed to be mitichlorian'd. That's what makes them cool /s.

They just could've done something more interesting and morally curious in Halo 3 with both the Covenant AND the Flood simultaneously trying to destroy all life in the galaxy. All three forces in the story dealt with some kind of assimilation/absolution/identity theme, it could've played out so much more poetically, especially with the prose falling out of the Gravemind's fedora-tipping mouth all the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post

The Gravemind's actually one of the more mixed characters in my opinion. 

The reason that many consider Halo CE-Reach to be so strong is because characters aren't overly fleshed out, they're mostly either empty vessels for the player to give personality, thoughts, and motivations to (MC, Noble Six) or slightly-tropey archetypes that serve more as aesthetics in the backdrop of the story of the Halo rings (Johnson, J Keyes, Half Jaw, Noble Team). 

The first class of characters work for me because while they're minimalist, they're interesting enough that the player can give them their personality, thoughts, and motivations.  Their appearances in books mostly just flesh out what personality they have in the games, rather than diverging entirely. 

The second class of characters don't function merely as player vessels (though the player can still ascribe them some personality, convictions, etc), but serve as archetypal characters for rhe main focus: the Halo rings, stopping the Flood, and ending the Human Covenant war. These characters work because they're part of the overall symbolism in the games. For example, Reach was a sacrifice, loss, and mortality-themed story about how Reach fell. Noble Team were relatively flat (though Bungie's writing was brilliant enough for players to be able flesh out characters like Jorge and Carter on their own), but they served brilliantly for the overall purpose of the story: illustrating how humans, even if they were faced with certain extinction, would fight bitterly until every last planet was extinguished. Illustrating how their duty to save humanity would take place over any personal discomfort, pain, or death. They instantly became compelling characters as well as great aesthetic tools, due to the twofold effect of the story's own thematic focus and their own relative roles and importance to said story's themes. The reason that Bungie stories work so much better than older games with similarly minimalist stories is because of characters having just enough meat for the rest to be left to the player to decide, in combination with what little character they have being used spectacularly well to seamlessly give the stories' symbolism more weight. 

The third class of characters are those that are fleshed out (or at least an attempt is made to) directly ingame. The Gravemind (sort of), H3 Cortana, and a fair portion of H4's main cast. These characters can be good, but they're usually shit. People who liked Bungie's style of storytelling and characters, were used to the types of characters discussed above, not so much the third type. The Gravemind was relatively decently done in H2 because he felt like he was an incomprehensibly intelligent, ancient Lovecraftian monster whose machinations and driving motives could only barely be understood by the player. While he was certainly a villain, he was a distinct type of villain as opposed to the prophets. Both are shadowy and manipulative, but the Gravemind is far more visceral and effective. H3 somewhat ruined the Gravemind by making him a more generic "Grrrr I will kill you and eat you grr" type of villain. They should have doubled down on the "incomprehensible, ancient entity" style in H3 instead of whatever they did. 

H3 Cortana is a poorly done version of Cortana (not as bad as H4's) but serves well to illustrates the main problems that plague H4 Cortana. She is inserted into the story in the worst manner possible by making the player have an epileptic seizure whenever she appears. She makes the player more annoyed than worried. During said seizures however, her being mentally tortured by the gravemind was decently done. It does feel genuinely eerie and alienating to her previous character. 

Halo 4's is the worst. The "grounded, realistic behavior" of characters just feels like a shittier version of games that do it much better, like Mass Effect. It feels like a ripoff TV show. There is some overall subtlety in Cortana's characterization as mentally deteriorating, but that's only when you look at her progression over entirety of the plot. By the last few missions, all subtlety is out the window. It doesn't help that mentally unstable Cortana = pettier, whinier Cortana. Halo 3 did Cortana's mental instability a million times better than H4. The moldy cherry on the diarrhea shake is the extremely out of place fanfiction-tier romance. 

MC himself is stuck in limbo. If they wanted to give him character, they should have gone the path of the books, not whatever they did. His character is barely fleshed out, for over 90% of the game he's just as monotone as the previous games, except this time it's about shit the player couldn't care less about. When he does get his moment of "character development"^TM, subtlety goes out the window and edgy Death Note-tier reflections on "being a machine" come in. The only moment of his that was done well was the final cutscene, and they ruined that too with a partial face reveal. 

Del Rio, Lasky, and Palmer are all terrible too. They're not given anywhere near enough time to flesh out personality beyond how one-dimensionally they appear. Lasky appears as a generic good guy, Palmer is a generic sassy military lady done wrong, and Del Rio is just an unsympathizable and senile old man. Since the story shifts from an event-focused one to a character-focused one, there's no room for their characters to symbolically become more than they are, either. They feel like incredibly shitty, one-dimensional, underdeveloped TV show characters. 

Also +1 for admins changing this to the Halo 4 story thread

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cursed Lemon said:

They just could've done something more interesting and morally curious in Halo 3 with both the Covenant AND the Flood simultaneously trying to destroy all life in the galaxy. All three forces in the story dealt with some kind of assimilation/absolution/identity theme, it could've played out so much more poetically, especially with the prose falling out of the Gravemind's fedora-tipping mouth all the time.

 

You’re the guy who says thanos or dark seid aren’t interesting villains.

  • Thonking (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cursed Lemon said:

They just could've done something more interesting and morally curious in Halo 3 with both the Covenant AND the Flood simultaneously trying to destroy all life in the galaxy. All three forces in the story dealt with some kind of assimilation/absolution/identity theme, it could've played out so much more poetically, especially with the prose falling out of the Gravemind's fedora-tipping mouth all the time.

 

I mean, anything could be improved upon but I was totally fine with what we got. Halo to me was always a plot driven story that lacked some of the complexities that other games have, even halo 2. I don't think it's a bad thing but I try not to read too much into the narratives of halo games. At least, not in the same way I would for say, red dead redemption.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.