Halo 2 and 3 MP Lead Starts New Company


Recommended Posts

^

a) What do you categorize as 'groundbreaking' then, since you obviously have your 'ground-breaking' bar set much higher than I can imagine.

b) Of course they relate. The original ideas are what collectively make Halo such a 'ground-breaking' title.

c) Yes, he did, re-read his post.

d) Tell me which console games had matchmaking on par with Halo's? You'll be hard stretched to find a title past or even present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Ayepecks: I think you are just defining "groundbreaking" as something no one else is defining as. What is an example of "groundbreaking" in your book?

I think the people in this forum have given plenty of new things that Halo and Halo 2 brought to the table, but you keep dismissing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

magik: No, they do not relate to what we're discussing. Please read the entire thread. We're talking about what made Halo original and unique in the online area. What separated it apart from the pack despite being a good game in your eyes and being polished. Next, if he said what was so original, please repeat it to me. And you really need to start reading the entire thread -- I never said Halo had a bad matchmaking system or didn't have the best. That doesn't make it original, however.

SomeAzn: I keep dismissing them if they've already been done before! LAN gaming hadn't been done before? Online gaming on a console hadn't been done before? Matchmaking hadn't been done before? The two weapon system hadn't been done before? Dual analog controls hadn't been done before? An epic science fiction story hadn't been done before?

You guys haven't stated anything Halo did that was new. If you did, please let me know. You Halo fanboys are jumping down my throat because you think I'm slamming Halo or because I'm desecrating your holy game. I'm not. I'm merely saying it didn't do anything new. It did many things very well by being a polished game, but you guys have yet to tell me what it did that was original or groundbreaking. And why should a "groundbreaking" bar not be set high? Is that not the very definition of the word (I'm being figurative, don't be stupid and go to dictionary.com)?

Games that I would define as groundbreaking would be games that made a major leap in gaming. Dune II would be ground-breaking for the RTS genre. The original Half-Life, even though I wasn't a fan of it, would be ground-breaking for changing the way FPS games played. Earth 2150 would even be ground-breaking for its upgrading system and tunnel system in an RTS game. Grand Theft Auto III would be ground-breaking for reasons I don't think anyone here would dispute (yet now that I said that I'm sure there will be numerous disputes over that). The Sims would be ground-breaking as well, even though I am not a fan of this series, too.

And there are tons of other ground-breaking games that had new and innovative features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo 2 Online is praised for only one reason I can think of:

It was the only game to perfectly apply Xbox Live features to a game.

Its ranking system also took its online experience to near addictive porportions*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ragn4rokk 2.0, that made no sense given Thompson's history. If you have no way to debate, then don't. Don't bother posting useless crap.

The fact of the matter is you have nothing to back up your claims, so this is your last resort.

Actually, the fact of the matter is you completely ignore and dismiss countless counter-arguments and points. There is no way to debate with you as, quite apparently, nothing seems to get through to you. It's one thing to stand by your opinion, but it's a completely different thing to ignore some very valid responses. Thus, there's really no point in debating with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halo 2 Online is praised for only one reason I can think of:

It was the only game to perfectly apply Xbox Live features to a game.

Its ranking system also took its online experience to near addictive porportions*.

There you go. Something I will not argue at all. It does things better than others, but it doesn't make it unique or original. Well said.

@magik: If you guys could please post something unique or original about Halo, then I will concede the point. But you haven't. I've dismissed your "points" because nothing mentioned so far has been original and they have been utterly biased comments about how amazing the game is. I don't give a crap how amazing the game is, that's not what we're talking about.

You can debate with me when you start giving valid things that Halo did was unique and original. Not something that was a rehash. Tell me what responses were valid, buddy. You keep saying how I'm unjustly ignoring points -- does disproving them (such as the statement that Halo was the first LAN-enabled console game, which is an utter lie) mean I'm being unfair and ignoring key points? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go. Something I will not argue at all. It does things better than others, but it doesn't make it unique or original. Well said.

Why wouldn't perfecting something not be original? It was the first to really take advantage of all of XBL(something that other games didn't do). Wouldn't that make the game unique in the fact that it did have that feature that others didn't?

What was the first console multiplayer lan game anyhow? Or matchmaking?

I'm not saying Halo was the first, I'm just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing things well makes something original? That's new to me.

I do not know the first one ever, as a number came out for the Dreamcast at one time, and a number came out for the PS2 at one time. That's how I know it's not the first. Being original doesn't make a game good, so I don't know why you guys are even whining about me calling Halo unoriginal. I never called it bad, I said it wasn't original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Games that I would define as groundbreaking would be games that made a major leap in gaming. Dune II would be ground-breaking for the RTS genre. The original Half-Life, even though I wasn't a fan of it, would be ground-breaking for changing the way FPS games played. Earth 2150 would even be ground-breaking for its upgrading system and tunnel system in an RTS game. Grand Theft Auto III would be ground-breaking for reasons I don't think anyone here would dispute (yet now that I said that I'm sure there will be numerous disputes over that). The Sims would be ground-breaking as well, even though I am not a fan of this series, too.

You can easily say that what Half-Life did for PC FPS, Halo did for Console FPS. If it wasn't so 'ground-breaking', then how could it possibly sell 2.4 million on launch day alone? How could it have been (up until very recently with GoW) be the most played Xbox Live title including Xbox 360 titles? I don't know about you, but with sales numbers like that and how many matches have been played to date (over 4 billion) I can see how the term 'ground-breaking' may be warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

magik: Yes, you can say what Half-Life did for computer FPS gaming is akin to what Halo did for console FPS gaming. You cannot, however, say Halo was original as Half-Life was.

If it wasn't so 'ground-breaking', then how could it possibly sell 2.4 million on launch day alone?

Yet another red herring fallacy. Congratulations: you posted some completely unrelated information to the conversation. Want a cookie?

How could it have been (up until very recently with GoW) be the most played Xbox Live title including Xbox 360 titles?

More red herring, yay!

Selling many games does not make a game "ground-breaking" or "original." I'm not sure where you got such a silly idea from, but remove it from your memory. There are Barbie games on the PC that have sold a lot of copies -- does that make them ground-breaking, too? Are the SpongeBob games that sell enough to be in the top 20 ground-breaking? :rolleyes:

And please tell me how Halo fits this definition: "Characterized by originality and innovation: a groundbreaking technology."

Edited by Ayepecks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

magik: Yes, you can say what Half-Life did for computer FPS gaming is akin to what Halo did for console FPS gaming. You cannot, however, say Halo was original as Half-Life was.

If it wasn't so 'ground-breaking', then how could it possibly sell 2.4 million on launch day alone?

Yet another red herring fallacy. Congratulations: you posted some completely unrelated information to the conversation. Want a cookie?

How could it have been (up until very recently with GoW) be the most played Xbox Live title including Xbox 360 titles?

More red herring, yay!

Selling many games does not make a game "ground-breaking" or "original." I'm not sure where you got such a silly idea from, but remove it from your memory. There are Barbie games on the PC that have sold a lot of copies -- does that make them ground-breaking, too? Are the SpongeBob games that sell enough to be in the top 20 ground-breaking? :rolleyes:

Congratulations, you learned a new phrase! Would you like a lollipop? :D Just because you fail to see the relevancy of a counter-argument does not make it irrelevant. Instead of blindingly dismissing my points, why not try opening your eyes and stop being so closed-minded about it?

I brought sales into the mix because the countless features and innovative gameplay aspects that many of us have outlined for you already don't seem to tickle your fancy.

Now, why can we use sales numbers as (at least) one of the factors for determining it's ground-break-ability ( my word :p ) ?

Well, consider this: Are you saying that, even if Half-Life and GTA and all your other self-proclaimed groundbreaking games didn't sell as many copies as they did, would they still be considered groundbreaking?

:rolleyes:

Also, I'd like to see this Barbie game that sold on par with Halo 2. :rofl:

And please tell me how Halo fits this definition: "Characterized by originality and innovation: a groundbreaking technology."
We already did, countless times! You continue to ignore them. Perhaps most of the things mentioned were more so on the side of innovation than originality, but how can you deny that Halo 2 has some of the most innovative features a console game has had to date?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

magik, just because I fail to see the significance? Selling a lot of games does not make a game original or ground-breaking. Instead of telling me that it is relevant, why don't you tell me why it's relevant. But here's the problem: you can't, because it isn't. Telling me Halo sold well and was played a lot online does not tell me the game was original, no matter how much you want me to think it does.

Stop telling me features are original when I disprove you on them. Take the blow and move on. Don't tell me it's original when I can and did disprove you. Something that doesn't do anything new isn't original. Don't give me this crap of "you're ignoring them" when I disprove them. Stop relying on information that isn't true, such as saying Halo was the first console game to support LAN. It wasn't. Don't tell me the two-weapon system was first used in Halo. It wasn't. Don't tell me online matchmaking was a first for consoles. It wasn't.

You bringing in sales is completely unrelated, and you essentially admitted just as much. And just because a game sells well does not make it original. Are you meaning to tell me bad-selling games are unoriginal, and all games that sell good are original? That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in my entire life.

So, tell me, magik: what was the originality? You keep saying it is, but you never say what's original about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing things well makes something original? That's new to me.

I do not know the first one ever, as a number came out for the Dreamcast at one time, and a number came out for the PS2 at one time. That's how I know it's not the first. Being original doesn't make a game good, so I don't know why you guys are even whining about me calling Halo unoriginal. I never called it bad, I said it wasn't original.

It's not all how well Bungie did it. No other game had the tight integration multiplayer and XBL as Halo 2 did. That would be original. No one else had Bungie's excellent matchmaking system. That's original. No other game implemented excellent interoperability of LAN matches as Halo and Halo 2 did. Also original.

You can't deny that Halo and Halo 2's multiplayer was groundbreaking. The fact that it's still on XBL leaderboards says something--not exactly that it was original, but that it wasn't just any multiplayer game. It combined all the excellent features of XBL into one perfect package(which no other game did) and had Bungie's own perfect touch of multiplayer gameplay and matchmaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can deny that I don't find it to be groundbreaking, because I don't see how it was groundbreaking at all, sorry. I see it as being a great online component that helped steer online console gaming in the right direction simply by working without any major bugs and having a large user base. I completely agree with you guys it wasn't "just another multiplayer game." It was a game that focused just as much on multiplayer as it did on singleplayer, and combined great features of previous games together. It just didn't add anything. Being good and popular doesn't make it original and groundbreaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee you kids need to calm down... its only a game (though one I love very much)

Ayepecks, after reading the entire thread I can see where you are coming from and I can see where the rest are coming from.... neither party are discussing the exact same thing.

As a game by itself, was Halo truly groundbreaking? Probably not. Subjectively though it was in a number of ways.

If it wasn't for Halo, Microsoft would have folded out of the console race years ago.

Halo as I see it was the Counter Strike for the average joe, much portable and easier to pick up.

The control scheme was quite fluid and natural.

Subjectively, these points and those by Magik et al are groundbreaking, however not objectively which Ayepacks is arguing.

As for Halo 2, nothing was truly added as far as campaign, nothing really added that the average joe once again would not know if s/he hadnt followed the development process to know the major changes under the hood occurred ( I for one did follow it). Halo 2 multiplayer as stated was a very groundbreaking phenomena for console gaming. The ability to create an xbox live account, then a profile in halo 2, choose a game type and jump right into a game is groundbreaking for the average person without having to sort through numerous rooms and gaming jargon in room names. What did it add though? LEGIONS of new gamers who may have other wise stayed away from gaming as a whole and reaffirmed MS commitment to console gaming. A very tall task indeed which no other company to date has been able to emulate.

Objectively the Halo franchise may have not been technically groundbreaking, however numbers dictate otherwise. Yes I am aware of your argument how popularity does not beget groundbreaking. However, in the context of console gaming, Halo intensified the console market and broke new ground.

To be fair though in accordance to your definition Ayepacks, there aren't a whole lot of games that can be called groundbreaking that have been created in the last decade or so, as most games borrow aspects from others and merely implement them better. Are there truly groundbreaking games? Maybe Mario 64 was the last one :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayepecks, I said you're pulling a Jack Thompson because you're bringing in arguments against other people that you aren't applying to yourself. Your opinion of what makes a game "groundbreaking" apparently isn't the same as the rest of the world's. It doesn't matter that you don't like Halo, but you're using that bias against the argument. You can't critically judge a game that you have an inherent dislike for in the first place.

The fact that you're labelling everyone defending it a "fanboy" isn't helping much, either.

You told me I was forcing you into an "indefensible argument" by bringing up "red herrings" and all that other hoopla. I wasn't forcing you into anything; all I asked was you give me an example of one other game which had done the things Halo 2 had before Halo 2's release. You still haven't given me that. Just like ol' Mr. Thompson, you're assuming things are true just because you said they were.

Drama-Captain_McAllister.jpg

edit:

Example!

You can debate with me when you start giving valid things that Halo did was unique and original. Not something that was a rehash.

The matchmaking system used in Halo was completely new. It was not used before, ever. EVER. As in, no one had developed a like system at that point. Ergo, Halo 2 was the first game to use it. Ergo (unless I'm totally mistaken, as I'm sure you'll find a way to make me), it was completely "unique and original."

How can you argue with that? I'm not understanding.

[again, though, we're talking consoles here- keep that in mind]

edit 2:

All these points have already been brought up. The argument's really a waste of breath. Ayepecks, you're not going to change your mind and that's obvious. Whether or not there's a right or wrong here won't matter, you'll continue to believe what you believe now. So what's the use?

And Giga, I'm agreeing with you here. I don't know why your points aren't persuading him, but hey, that's people, ain't it?

Edited by ragn4rokk 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ragn4rokk 2.0: My "opinion" of groundbreaking was the very definition of the word. Is there something about this that confuses you or that you do not comprehend so that I can rephrase it for you? I don't know how more blunt I can be about it: groundbreaking is possessing originality and having innovation.

Can you please tell me how me not liking Halo has biased me in this argument. I have not used that frame of mind once to prove any of my points, yet you all have used opinion statements about the game being "good" and "the best" to prove your points. Perhaps you need to stop looking at things with rose-tinted glasses and start looking at them from the opposite point of view. I'm trying to accommodate by saying I can understand how people enjoy the game in singleplayer and online, yet the same courtesy is not being extended back at me.

If you honestly mean to tell me that "you can't critically judge a game that you have an inherent dislike for in the first place", then what's the point of having opinions? Newslfash: everyone's going to have an inherent like or dislike for things. Me not liking Halo has not changed anything in the debate, other than trying to ignore the point and merely concede that it is a good game to please you guys. If it's making a difference in the discussion, tell me where it is, because I'd love to know. Furthermore, if the fans of Halo aren't obviously utterly biased in their discussion, please tell me how that's so.

I don't see what's wrong with me labeling people "Halo fanboys" in this situation. I'm a Gears of War fanboy and I have no shame in that. Why would fans of Halo be ashamed of being called "Halo fanboys"? It's the exact same thing as calling them Halo fans, just in a newer lingo. If they want to deny liking Halo, then I'll take it back.

And I have done exactly as you said, ragn4rokk 2.0. For example, I have proved Halo wasn't the first LAN-based console platform based solely on the Dreamcast and Playstation 2 having LAN long before the Xbox (and Halo, mind you) was even released.

What about the matchmaking system was new? You keep telling me it's new, but WHY IS IT NEW. What was unique or original about it. You keep telling me to prove these things, but how have you proved to me that it's true? To use your argument: " Just like ol' Mr. Thompson, you're assuming things are true just because you said they were."

Don't give me this "we're talking consoles" crap unless it's something that specifically applies to consoles. That's a nice excuse to change the entire conversation :rolleyes: For example: if the game were the first console game to have LAN as an option, that would be understandable. Saying it's the first FPS game to have a two weapon system is not understandable because it's been done on the PC before, and it's been done in countless games (as well as the consoles, such as in Rainbow Six) and has little bearing on "originality" when it's been done before. If no other console game had LAN, it wouldn't have been done before.

I don't know why my points aren't persuading you, but that's people, ain't it? :rolleyes:

GOJI_GKing2000 makes the only convincing argument here, if you want my opinion. The only way I can accept any of what you say is if you change the definition of groundbreaking to fit your criteria -- bringing something to the masses like nothing has done before on the consoles. In that way, it is groundbreaking. In the actual definition of the word groundbreaking -- which I posted above, yet apparently is completely different than the definition used by the entire world according to you, rag -- it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

magik, just because I fail to see the significance? Selling a lot of games does not make a game original or ground-breaking. Instead of telling me that it is relevant, why don't you tell me why it's relevant. But here's the problem: you can't, because it isn't. Telling me Halo sold well and was played a lot online does not tell me the game was original, no matter how much you want me to think it does.

Stop telling me features are original when I disprove you on them. Take the blow and move on. Don't tell me it's original when I can and did disprove you. Something that doesn't do anything new isn't original. Don't give me this crap of "you're ignoring them" when I disprove them. Stop relying on information that isn't true, such as saying Halo was the first console game to support LAN. It wasn't. Don't tell me the two-weapon system was first used in Halo. It wasn't. Don't tell me online matchmaking was a first for consoles. It wasn't.

You bringing in sales is completely unrelated, and you essentially admitted just as much. And just because a game sells well does not make it original. Are you meaning to tell me bad-selling games are unoriginal, and all games that sell good are original? That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in my entire life.

So, tell me, magik: what was the originality? You keep saying it is, but you never say what's original about it.

Seriously? By your own definition:
And please tell me how Halo fits this definition: "Characterized by originality and innovation: a groundbreaking technology."

Innovation was pointed out countless times. Why are you so stuck on originality? Obviously you fail to accept that it is original in and of itself. It wouldn't have an almost cult-like following if it was just a re-hash of something done before. Obviously there is some originality there (that has been pointed out to you countless times and you can re-read this thread if you so wish). But what I was concentrating on was the innovation and Halo 2 has more than it's fair share of that. The whole idea of the 'virtual couch' in and of itself is brilliant, so much so that when a game does not feature this type of system, people tend to say that the game 'lacks' some multiplayer aspects (GoW for example).

Also, I never said Halo was the first console game to support LAN nor the other things you listed. Get your facts straight and stop spewing such crap if you want to have an intelligent debate.

The point of the sales figures was to show that millions of people feel that Halo 2 is 'groundbreaking'. Now, you may be in your own little world, and that's cute and all, because I don't care if you don't think the game is groundbreaking but the fact remains that the majority thinks so.

Are you meaning to tell me bad-selling games are unoriginal, and all games that sell good are original?
Wrong yet again. I mean to tell you that a game that sells 2.4 million copies on the first day of launch is groundbreaking if not just for setting new sales records. But it doesn't stop there, the continued countless hours of games played are also in support of such a claim, proving that it wasn't just a one-hit-play-it-and-forget-it title. Do you get it now? ;)

BTW, I forgot to ask... What's your favorite lollipop flavor? My favorite cookie is chocolate chip! :p

Relax man. I think you're taking this a bit too seriously/personally. It's just a friendly debate. :yes:

EDIT: I just read GOJI_GKing2000's post and I pretty much agree with his take on all of this. I think we can conclude the debate there because I don't see this going anywhere, eh? Where's my cookie damnit!! :angry: :p

Edited by magik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're putting words into my mouth.

I'm not defending ALL the mechanics of the game- only the matchmaking and ranking system. The truly innovative online stuff that it did do. What you just argued against wasn't anything I said. You're dragging in some red herrings :whistle:

I am a fan of Halo. I take offense to being called a fanboy. I'm not blindly defending the game, and I won't; I've said that already. I loved the first Halo for what it was, and was extremely disappointed with the second game. Honestly, I don't have my hopes set too high for the third installment. It has its problems, it has its issues, but being labelled innovative and original is not one of them- at least not in the online category.

And what the heck kind of logic is refuting what I said about consoles only? Of course we can only talk consoles with Halo; it's a console game! It moved online console gaming into a mainstream that was primarily experienced by PCs only until that point. Why didn't it affect PC? Because computer gamers had been through years and years of internet-enabled play by then.

I'm sure you could bring in how the Dreamcast was online enabled and the Ps2 was and the Gamecube- hell, didn't the SNES even have a port for a modem? But that doesn't change the fact that no console game garnered the kinds of numbers Halo 2 did... until Halo 2. And there's a reason for that, but you seem to be totally ignoring it.

edit:

So you're a fan of GoW? Would you call that original?

Edited by ragn4rokk 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, apparently Ayepecks thinks hes the only person who knows anything about video games.

I know you may think its cool to be a non-conformist in all, but you are really going out of your way to discredit by far the most popular xbox game yet. You do know it is popular for a reason right? Let me guess you bought Halo, loved it, and then saw everyone else was starting to like it, and then it became popular, and you decided that you dont like it anymore.

Not to mention you list Halo 3 as one of our favorite games.

And you want to talk about games that are not original, do you think that all those army games that you love to play are orginal, i mean how many times can you fight WWll, dosnt that get old after awhile.

Edited by reidtheweed01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the matchmaking system was new? You keep telling me it's new, but WHY IS IT NEW. What was unique or original about it. You keep telling me to prove these things, but how have you proved to me that it's true? To use your argument: " Just like ol' Mr. Thompson, you're assuming things are true just because you said they were."

Read then: http://www.bungie.net/Stats/page.aspx?sect...king&page=1

They discuss in the first paragraph how matchmaking is orignally used. The next paragraph shows Bungie's new system and how it works. And the following paragraphs further detail on it and why it's a better system.

Halo 2's online system is even better than a 2006 AAA shooter by the name of GoW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's amazing about you Halo fanboys? You keep harping about how you've told me the innovative features about the game and telling me the matchmaking feature is groundbreaking, but you still can't tell me why. magik, for the last damn time (hopefully, at least... I'm hoping you realize you're being utterly stupid about this): SALES AND POPULARITY DOES NOT MAKE A GAME ORIGINAL. Get this point through your head. It's an easy enough concept to follow. It's not a syllogism -- you can't say all popular games are original. You can't say all original games are popular. There is no direct correlation between the two! How many times am I going to have to say this for you to comprehend this obvious fact?

ragn4rokk 2.0: Nice of you to try and use my argument against me, but yet again you are wrong. I didn't drag in red herrings. I was discussing things that others brought into the topic, not only you. And focusing on console games only is stupid because countless innovations have already been brought to FPS games for the PC. Why the heck should anything that a console game does, copying a PC game, be innovative? It's not! It's been done before! And, no, I would not call GOW original overall. The only original things I would cite would be the active reload, and possibly the enemies based on sound and light/dark (unless these aspects have been done before, I am unsure of that, hence why I say "possibly"). You need to start reading my entire posts, too. You and magik are basing "groundbreaking" on a completely different definition -- bringing something to the masses they may not have seen before, even if it's been done before.

reidtheweed01: Congratulations on trying to dig up information on me to try and invalidate my argument. I just threw up 10 games on my top 10 that I was looking forward to or had or was getting. I only own 4 games for my 360 right now. Just because I'm looking forward to Halo 3 (what 360 user isn't, regardless of whether they liked the previous Halo games?) doesn't mean I find the previous games innovative, nor does it mean I find Halo 3 innovative. Anyways, this is completely irreverent the topic at hand. Congratulations, though, maybe you'll have a future in politics -- trying to dig up dirt on people in a sort of smear campaign.

Furthermore, reid, do not pretend to know me. I hate WWII games. I am not a fan of the Call Of Duty franchise. I've played a few of them, thought they were alright, and never went back to them. I hate Brothers In Arms. I didn't buy Halo, like it, then dislike it because people started liking it. I tried the demo after playing the full game at a friend's and hating it. I liked the demo (Silent Cartographer was the only level I liked, coincidentally), so I got the full game and hated the decision immediately afterwards.

Next time you want to bring stupid and meaningless information into a debate, make sure it at least has some remote relations, buddy.

Giga: I never said the system wasn't good. Please re-read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giga: I never said the system wasn't good. Please re-read.

What about the matchmaking system was new? You keep telling me it's new, but WHY IS IT NEW.

I replied with the correct information. It tells you exactly what's new and original.

The part about the system being good was only extra info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.