Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

I really hate to say this, but no. You really don't get it. You're making shit up. Storytelling has do's and don't's. It isn't subjective, because there are right ways and wrong ways to tell a story. Halo 4 did it wrong. It failed to show us bare minimum necessary material to make the plot make any sense, people act nonsensically, and, because it's a videogame, the gameplay and story only ever come together when you touch a button occasionally to trigger a cutscene.

 

You're adding in things yourself. The game, the story, didn't bring any of that up. It didn't even recognize it. Stories don't have to hold your hand, but they must present the necessities. We must see the necessities, because this isn't a book where it can say "John felt like this dot dot dot." This is a medium by which we can see, and, even better, we can act. And, again, because this is the game, we, as the player, must feel compelled to feel the feelings of the protagonist. If the protagonist is the only one feeling them, then the story fails on, ironically, an immersion side. I don't know what's going on in his head, because he's not telling us. we can sort of guess, but that draws the line between us, the players, and him, the character. We're detached from him. This is bad because it's not only a game, but also a story, where people who view such are supposed to relate to the protagonist in some way. But he doesn't say much, and he doesn't have facial expressions to show how he feels. That can be apart of his character, but the story has to utilize that, especially in viewable media, and work with it.

 

Lore means nothing. Your precious lore is flavor text. I don't give a damn about how many flux capacitors it takes for a Monitor to fly. If I can see one flying, I have to accept that, but if I don't see one fly, that calls into question whether or not one really can. And I'm not talking about being told specifically through dialogue (although on the topic of feelings, dialogue would be best) because the medium is such that we can be shown. But we're not. We're told that people are suffering, but we don't see it. We see some people get vaporized in front of us, but it's no real danger to use because of a plot device (and how amazing it would have been to actually fear this super weapon ourselves because at one point, i twas leveled at us, and we were vulnerable. And we'd get to feel how dangerous it is, because it's a game that we're participating in. The fact that they didn't do this is mind boggling. It's just another super weapon in a franchise about super weapons.) And if we couldn't get a gameplay reason why to fear that thing, the least they could do is make us care about those who were vaporized. They're just random people to me. Chief seemed to know one of them, but I didn't. I shouldn't have to read a book in order feel something for a character if that character is done right. But I don't I met them for 15 minutes and I didn't care. She was just another casualty, which we see plenty of, by the way. Dr. McFuckherself is not special just because she has a name.

 

In storytelling, and especially gameplay (because they're not mutually exclusive when you put that much work into it), missed opportunities are bad. There are allowed to be "What if?" scenarios, but if someone doesn't do or say or show something that follows a logical course of events, then it's a failure in writing. If I have to refer to paragraph 134, sentence 4 of supporting paraphenilia Q just to understand something integral to the plot, then it's a failure in writing. If a character or plot mechanism is easily identifiable as only serving a singular purpose and not having any additional depth, then it's a failure in writing. If I have to guess at what people, who are overly familiar to me (because, I don't know, for all intents and purposes I am them?), are thinking or feeling because they didn't properly convey such to me, then it's a failure in writing.

 

Understand that to an extent, yes, a story can be whatever they want it to be. Which is why you can't make the excuse of the story being a solid state. They could have written it any way they wanted, and they could have written right. They simply chose not to, whether on purpose or accident.

 

I don't care if you like it. Power to you if you do. But that doesn't make it a good story, because people have come up with what works and what doesn't in a story, because we've been telling stories for a long time. And successful stories are clear, present all necessary data for their contentions, and function in a logical format. The sensationalism you feel towards it is the subjective part, but not the construction.

 

And that stupid tank with the handheld laser pointer is just plain ridiculous on how lazy they were with their story and gameplay that they just segregated it completely and made it so. It's just stupid.

A story is what you make of it, a plot is the ways it's presented. To me, it seems like you literally need every piece of story handed to you for you to like it. And you cannot say storytelling is objective. Because many many people very much enjoyed the halo 4 campaign (even non lore fans), it was a step above the original trilogy in terms of narrative. This isn't math class, any art form, is subjective. If it were "objective" and stuck to conventions, story would never evolve and nor would art; we wouldn't have ever had the renaissance or any other art period. We'd have cave drawings because they are the"conventions" and those can't change \s/. Same goes for stories and it's telling. If it was objective there would be one answer: that it was bad. But there isn't, people have opinions on it, Therefore it's subjective.

 

You pretty proved my point that you didn't get it and invalidated your argument when you told me lore doesn't matter and you don't care about it. The halo lore is one of the most rich and expansive lore experiences available, with compelling stories in all aspect of it. A story shouldn't have to explain every plot device, theme, and tech to you. That's hand holding and that's shitty story. Like I said before, people who didn't read the lore, still enjoyed the campaign, just because you didn't get it or what the plot was trying to tell you doesn't mean isnt good.

 

Were there areas they could improve in the campaign? Certainly. It could be betterand why that isn't better, you were right about Del Rio and that doctor to an extent. But the whole reason cortana existed in halo 1 was to guide chief and not be annoying. Halo 4 wasn't crap and was quite an enjoyable experience narratively. I am in no way saying it's perfect, but it wasn't crap and you could derive what I've said before from it. All of the added tech is perfectly logical. You say you don't care how many flux capacitors it takes for a monitor to fly, yet get pissed when you don't get how a target locator works.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like there should have been some sort of Forerunner prologue before Halo 4 taking some of the key points of the books and terminals just to explain to the normal player what they need to know and expect going into the game.

 

-Explain who the library is

-Explain who the didact is, why he hates humans, and why was he contained in the Cryptum for so long

 

They could have easily pulled a Halo Legends scene where cortana was explaining it

 

 

Right there I feel like I would already have a better understanding of what's going on,

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like there should have been some sort of Forerunner prologue before Halo 4 taking some of the key points of the books and terminals just to explain to the normal player what they need to know and expect going into the game.

 

-Explain who the library is

-Explain who the didact is, why he hates humans, and why was he contained in the Cryptum for so long

 

They could have easily pulled a Halo Legends scene where cortana was explaining it

 

 

Right there I feel like I would already have a better understanding of what's going on,

Would you like help with these points? I may be able to answer those questions, at least to the best of my ability. Not a lore expert, but I have a reasonable understanding I feel.

 

I understand your point was more for the general player, but it sounded like you still had some confusion yourself.

Share this post


Link to post

There were quite a few "primers" done by 343 leading up to the launch. All the information was put out there.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. (advodolt?)

 

Multiplayer in Halo has lots of things not mentioned in game. All the tricks we know, like nading weapons, button combos, crouch falling, etc. You're going to have to read up on it outside the game before you understand. Yet, this all adds "depth".

 

Well if you have to do the same for a bit of the story...why is that bad? Why is delving deeper into the lore to enjoy it more worse than delving deeper into multiplayer to get better?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

All the tricks we know, like nading weapons, button combos, crouch falling, etc. You're going to have to read up on it outside the game before you understand.

 

No, you don't have to do this. It's all in the game, you just have to find it. Most of it (except for buttom combos which aren't even intended to exist) becomes pretty obvious after playing for a certain amount of time.

 

 

Well if you have to do the same for a bit of the story...why is that bad? Why is delving deeper into the lore to enjoy it more worse than delving deeper into multiplayer to get better?

 

Because it doesn't make the story just deeper, some if it is essential to even understand what's going on which is just ********.

 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

No, you don't have to do this. It's all in the game, you just have to find it. Most of it (except for buttom combos which aren't even intended to exist) becomes pretty obvious after playing for a certain amount of time.

 

 

Because it doesn't make the story just deeper, some if it is essential to even understand what's going on which is just ********.

 

 

I never understood what the hell was going on in Halo 2 until I Yahoo'd, "how can you punch faster in halo 2", or "how to jump really high in halo 2", or even "why do i suddenly die in halo 2".

 

Until I understood these things, it was super unfun.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said, glitches weren't even supposed to exist. Do you expect them to be explained in the manual?

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said, glitches weren't even supposed to exist. Do you expect them to be explained in the manual?

 

Lol

 

What would be cool is if they did have small "tutorials" about certain things that would add depth to the game. Like crouching when you fall in CE, idk if that was meant to be, but something like that would be nice to have and make it "deeper" than when in H2 you just jump from a high building and land with no consequence.

 

I actually wouldn't have a problem with the Stabilizers they put in H5 is they were only used to save your ass from falling from high points. Maybe you couldn't shoot because you would be essentially saving your life with falling, but it would have the same effect as the crouch and no more of this stupid Hover Shoot crap. I hate that aspect of H5.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

What would be cool is if they did have small "tutorials" about certain things that would add depth to the game.

 

Yes, also for things like the spawn system which can be hard to figure out on one's own.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes.

 

I now post there as "I IZ CAB0OSE". Never bothered to change it anywhere else.

Ah yeah I recognise that one too. It's always funny when I see a new username that I recognise 'cause I have to kind of sit there trying to work out where I've seen it. If I don't it just eats at me lol.

Share this post


Link to post

Super Slayer was just an overall term for the TU changes.

 

Jetpack, Sprint, and Holo were The Arena settings.

 

I actually like the Smart Link (crucify me), I think the maps are better than Reach, I have only 1 or 2 issues with Clamber but don't mind it. 

 

Hologram is decent but Jetpack and Reach's Sprint are far more game breaking than H5's mechanics.

Jettpack, Sprint and Holo were also the team doubles settings but anyway.

 

Well now you're arguing which features you LIKE more, not which ones combined move the game further away from the original Halo. I expressed in my earlier post that I both don't like Halo 5's features and that they're more different as well.

Share this post


Link to post

A story is what you make of it, a plot is the ways it's presented. To me, it seems like you literally need every piece of story handed to you for you to like it. And you cannot say storytelling is objective. Because many many people very much enjoyed the halo 4 campaign (even non lore fans), it was a step above the original trilogy in terms of narrative. This isn't math class, any art form, is subjective. If it were "objective" and stuck to conventions, story would never evolve and nor would art; we wouldn't have ever had the renaissance or any other art period. We'd have cave drawings because they are the"conventions" and those can't change \s/. Same goes for stories and it's telling. If it was objective there would be one answer: that it was bad. But there isn't, people have opinions on it, Therefore it's subjective.

 

You pretty proved my point that you didn't get it and invalidated your argument when you told me lore doesn't matter and you don't care about it. The halo lore is one of the most rich and expansive lore experiences available, with compelling stories in all aspect of it. A story shouldn't have to explain every plot device, theme, and tech to you. That's hand holding and that's shitty story. Like I said before, people who didn't read the lore, still enjoyed the campaign, just because you didn't get it or what the plot was trying to tell you doesn't mean isnt good.

 

Were there areas they could improve in the campaign? Certainly. It could be betterand why that isn't better, you were right about Del Rio and that doctor to an extent. But the whole reason cortana existed in halo 1 was to guide chief and not be annoying. Halo 4 wasn't crap and was quite an enjoyable experience narratively. I am in no way saying it's perfect, but it wasn't crap and you could derive what I've said before from it. All of the added tech is perfectly logical. You say you don't care how many flux capacitors it takes for a monitor to fly, yet get pissed when you don't get how a target locator works.

Despite how much I want to just use an argument of authority and be done with you, I need to inform you of a few things.

 

A story is fundamentally an argument. It has a beginning, middle, and end filled with premises followed by contentions which ultimately culminate into a conclusion. What binds these altogether is called the plot. The plot is the why of the story, the why of what's happening. In a story like this one, there's a protagonist, side characters, an antagonist, and an overarching conflict that involves these persons in some way and is eventually resolved. There are allowed to be conflicts that do not meet resolution, but the overarching conflict of that particular story (or installment, in this case) must be resolved in some way.

 

An argument must be logically sound in order to hold water. Therefore, all details that support the ultimate conclusion must be presented. Additional details beyond that are welcome, but are unnecessary. As long as point A logically follows point B, then the argument may continue to its ultimate conclusion. "Leaps in logic," represented by plot holes in a narrative, are periods where point A goes straight to point C (or beyond) and does not follow a logical course.

 

Halo 4, as a standalone narrative, does not contain all of the basically necessary details in order to support its contentions and conclusion. The characters either act inexplicably or two-dimensionally, the lore is required to understand half of what's going on with the Mass Effect 3 synthesis ending bullshit the Composer and Chief being the Chosen One, and it does not properly or effectively display the necessary details nor answer the necessary questions for what's going on. This makes it a bad narrative, a bad argument, and a bad story. 

 

 

I have never once stated whether or not you should like it, because I don't care about your opinion. You said that Halo 4 was a well told story, and I have objective evidence for why it's not. You're the one who made an objective statement in the first place, so even if you try and try and try to call it subjective, you're still wrong. You can like the flashing colors, how the people and places sound, the diction used, the rhetoric, the settings, the whatever. I don't care. Because that's sensationalism, which is subjective. Bravo, you like a game that happens to have a broken narrative and boring gameplay. It doesn't change that the story is still bad.

 

Also, I only mentioned the flux capacitor thing because it's a really specific detail. It might be interesting to find out for someone but it's not a detail I need to know for the story to make sense. The thing is that Halo 4 didn't have enough detail for it to make sense. You don't write a report on something to a general audience (because that's what they're aiming for, a general audience. To do anything else is asinine as a business practice) and expect them to have read ahead just to fill in the lines between your words because you were too lazy to establish the necessities of your own fucking case. The same goes for story. You put in all the details you need to have a complete and coherent thought, and you can add flavor text if there's room. Good stories will often prompt the research of lore through properly explaining the necessary details, but not necessarily all of the supporting details (like who the two guys were that unfroze MC at the beginning of CE, or what the other Marines were doing on the "first" Halo). Referencing the lore, here, is irrelevant, because the details necessary for the narrative to function just weren't there. The lore is not a crutch by which the story being told can stand on when it gets tired (or lazy, in this case). It's something that cements the suspension of disbelief through extrapolation and additional premises and contentions.

 

And I know how a target locator works. What's hysterical is that they needed one to fire a giant ass cannon at a giant ass target that isn't moving and is waiting to explode. Yes, you needed one, because they stopped the entire train of thought just for you to go to a downed Pelican to retrieve the one they had (which is even more hilarious. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO AIM THE GUN, WHY DIDN'T YOU PACK MORE? DID THE SUPPLY CORPS IN THE SPACE NAVY GROW EVEN MORE INEPT FIVE HUNDRED YEARS LATER? DO WE HAVE A TARGET LOCATOR SHORTAGE SINCE REACH WAS GLASSED? IS THE INCREDIBLY INEPT CAPTAIN IN CHARGE OF MISSION PROCUREMENT, TOO? DOES HE NOT HAVE A SUPPLY OFFICER ON THE LARGEST SHIP IN THE FLEET THAT ISN'T A MORON?). Like, it's just stupid. They could have done it better in so many ways. What was stopping them? They ran out of script budget because they spent it all on the voice acting?

 

My biggest quip with it all, by far, is that the gameplay ties into the story about as well as attempting to string rope through glass. Halo 4's button pushing is infamous because each button push is what triggers the next part of the "plot" (or what counts for one, in this story). I would have loved to be afraid of the laser scan super weapon because it had been a danger to me at some point. Maybe even actually fight the Didact or something, but instead we have plot mechanisms which are triggered, literally, at the push of a button.

  • Upvote (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

As promised, here is my response to the responses. Hopefully it is both readable and not too long. It is likely I failed in both respects.

 

The sprint discussion Aphex Twin and I started is a debate about which of the following statements is more accurate:

  • Sprint objectively reduces the competitiveness (skill gap) of Halo.
  • I feel that sprint reduces the competitiveness (skill gap) of Halo.
If #1 is correct, then evidence to demonstrate the truth of the statement can be produced. Indeed, producing this evidence is the only way to demonstrate it. Since skill gaps are measured in practice by the spread in aggregate performance scores for a task, then #1 simply (and only) requires that such evidence be produced. Nothing less will suffice, and nothing more is required. Focusing on objective is not a semantics argument. A semantics argument would be to say that objective means something other than a theoretical proof or an acceptable level of proof for empirical data, when the context is quite clear that an acceptable level of proof is exactly what the word intended.

 

The reason I feel this is important is because statement #1 is only uttered when the person saying it allows no room for debating it. The word “objective” is only written to convey the impression that the statement is irrefutable. This causes the remainder of the discussion to take on a different tone than were it stated as a belief (however strong that belief might be). When the other party continues to defend their position, they can then be cast as devious, irrational, or downright delusional. After all – they must be one of those things to continue to argue in the face of said irrefutable evidence.

 

 

Note that I did not argue against any of the following statements about sprint:

  • Sprint allows people to escape more easily
  • Sprint slows the pace of the game (conditional on the maps having been upscaled for sprint)
  • Sprint results in more stop-and-go gameplay
  • Sprint affects map design (and subsequent gameplay dependent on that design) by forcing the designer to choose between optimizing the map for sprint, base speed, or a blend of both
  • Sprint results in Halo feeling different than the early no-sprint games
In fact, I explicitly agreed to all of the above.

 

Note that I did not say I wanted sprint. In fact, I explicitly stated I do not want sprint.

 

I agreed with every criticism concerning sprint. I agreed that I do not want sprint in future Halo games. I disagreed solely with the proposition that we have enough evidence to demonstrate objectively that sprint reduces the competitiveness of the game.

 

Now let’s examine what happened.

 

 

 

Primary Outcome: Did anyone provide empirical data demonstrating a decrease in the aggregate spread of player performance between no-sprint and sprint games? No. This data does not yet exist and is not likely to exist in the future. As gamers, we don’t have the resources to assemble it in a controlled enough fashion to answer the question, and 343i has neither the inclination nor a substantial enough business case to dedicate resources to obtain it. People certainly proposed many inferential arguments - many of which I agree with, by the way - but logical inference is not evidence.

 

Secondary Outcome: Accusations were made. I was accused several times of arguing for sprint. I was accused twice of being a 343i apologist. This despite arguing against sprint and never once defending 343i’s decision to include it.

 

 

 

Why do you care?

 

Maybe you don’t. If not, that’s fine. You are certainly free to campaign for no-sprint in the way you feel is best. I would ask that you perhaps go lighter on those of us who share the same goal but campaign for it differently . . . but again, that’s your choice. And if your way proves successful, then we both win.

 

For my part, I think a different approach has a better chance of success, although it is certainly possible that neither approach works. In my opinion, the categorical denial that anyone could logically have a different opinion on sprint serves only to raise tempers and make the discussions non-productive. If no one could possibly logically hold a different opinion, then those who claim to hold such opinions must be either stupid or lying (accusations that frequently fly). It is generally ineffective to accuse the people you are attempting to convince of being stupid or of lying even if you believe that to be true. That tactic only works when you are trying to convince the audience that your opponent is a moron. It won't convince your opponent of anything except that he was correct to harbor a soul-burning hatred of you.

 

If I am attempting to convince someone of something, the last thing I want to do is claim proof when all I have is logical inference or preference. While claiming proof when none exists certainly makes my stand clear, it has the downside of making me appear unreasonable to the very person I am trying to convince. And - importantly - it doesn't even matter if I am right. It is very difficult to convince someone that I am, indeed, correct after I first demonstrate that I wantonly make unsupported claims. That decreases the likelihood that he will actually listen to what I say . . . and that effect spreads beyond the topic at hand. For example, if I take what he feels is an unreasonably hard line on sprint, then he may be less willing to listen to my thoughts on thrusters. Unless sprint is the single suggestion for improvement that I have, I have just shot my future credibility in the foot.

 

If you made it this far, maybe this gives you food for thought. Maybe not. At any rate, it was an enjoyable exercise for me (I like debating).

 

Lastly – if Josh is still lurking around in this thread – I’ll put in another plug for no-sprint. I am a Halo 4 guy . . . and I still do not want sprint in Halo. There are so many other unexplored movement options that can accomplish your stated immersion, movement, and modernization goals other than sprint. The nice thing about the other options is that they also would serve to keep Halo apart from the run-of-the-mill shooter – something that has at least some importance for the identity and continued longevity of the franchise.

 

 

 

@ Sal1ent: In short, I prefer no-sprint and I feel that sprint reduces the competitiveness (skill gap) of Halo.

Quoting to emphasise. If you didn't read and comprehend this entire post you should. Too many people seem to be half-reading then rage-posting at the first sign of differing approach, which is leading to a lot of misunderstanding. I am particularily annoyed at how many people were angry that I was "supporting sprint". I mean I know my posts were long, but if you aren't going to read them properly don't both replying - it just makes a mess of this thread.

Like Maximus said in the above: we all have the same goal, just campaign differently. No need for hate

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus.

 

Chief's geas has only been alluded to since the novelization of CE. You don't cry about it now. Don't do it.

I've been over this before.

 

The allusion that Chief, and humans in general, have a larger connection to the Forerunners than meets the eye is not the same as somehow injecting luck into the genome of a person whose family lineage was somehow expected to live for millions of years through war and chaos.

And since this is now a "hard science" type universe that has gone out of its way to subvert the supernatural (utilizing the Covenant) and since luck isn't an actual thing, I'm having a hard time believing it.

Share this post


Link to post

That would probably lead to further confusion.

She was good with the Republic Commando books, but it was to my knowledge that she did very "limited" research about Halo at all before writing her first book.

Share this post


Link to post

Been gone since Sunday, any new news or anything interesting happen? 

We're talking about Halo 4's campaign. So...

 

 

 

Besides a few campaign reveal pics, nothing spectacular.

 

@@Sal1ent came back, though.

Share this post


Link to post

Just going to point out that nobody understands the relationship between casual and competitive. We need eachother, and the game should have universal settings. Only change should be radar and sprint. Casuals feel good right now not knowing they are about to kill the franchise for the third iteration in a row.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Just going to point out that nobody understands the relationship between casual and competitive. We need eachother, and the game should have universal settings. Only change should be radar and sprint. Casuals feel good right now not knowing they are about to kill the franchise for the third iteration in a row.

 

 

lol no. Sprint changes the game so fking much. You don't do that. Radar removed, that's it. No new weapon placements, no new spawns, no new objectives, nothing. The base game needs to be good. If you have to remove sprint for the competitive, you remove it for casual too. If it's good competitive then it's good casual. The reason Halo 3 was so successful casually was because of the tools and community.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

lol no. Sprint changes the game so fking much. You don't do that. Radar removed, that's it. No new weapon placements, no new spawns, no new objectives, nothing. The base game needs to be good. If you have to remove sprint for the competitive, you remove it for casual too. If it's good competitive then it's good casual. The reason Halo 3 was so successful casually was because of the tools and community.

 

Halo 3 and Reach changed so much of the base game. A visual change like Sprint is nothing compared to changing maps, weapons, damage, movement, etc.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Halo 3 and Reach changed so much of the base game. A visual change like Sprint is nothing compared to changing maps, weapons, damage, movement, etc.

 

Don't try to tell me sprint is only a visual change. Also visual matters when it comes to casual and competitive being the same game. Same for spectators. On top of that the rest of your statement doesn't matter at all. The base game should be able to be played casual and competitive was my statement. Doesn't matter if that was true in the best or not. Imo starts should be br with ar secondary. Smg and DMR pickups on the map. Every map and weapon placement should be the same. If it has to change for competitive then why shouldn't it change for casual? Doesn't make any sense and it's quite obvious this is a big reason as to why league is so big especially in the viewership dept.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Don't try to tell me sprint is only a visual change. Also visual matters when it comes to casual and competitive being the same game. Same for spectators. On top of that the rest of your statement doesn't matter at all. The base game should be able to be played casual and competitive was my statement. Doesn't matter if that was true in the best or not. Imo starts should be br with ar secondary. Smg and DMR pickups on the map. Every map and weapon placement should be the same. If it has to change for competitive then why shouldn't it change for casual? Doesn't make any sense and it's quite obvious this is a big reason as to why league is so big especially in the viewership dept.

 

Sprint is less of a change than radar, especially with a movement increase (and @@Sal1ent saying that the maps feel good with no Sprint)

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

×

Important Information

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