|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Fallout 3 - Interview @ Play.tm

Default Fallout 3 - Interview @ Play.tm

August 7th, 2007, 20:59
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
And anyway, that's your opinion. Maybe it's my opinion too, for that matter. But that's just a matter of opinion, the original devs thought differently. And who knows Fallout best? I don't know it better than Leonard, 's for sure. Apparently Todd does, since he claims their game is completely true to the originals despite this contradicting several design statements made by the original devs.
Yup, in the end personal opinion is all that it's about. And my personal opinion is that whatever Fallout is about, it's not TB, it's not isometric, and hell, perhaps it's not even the original design statements. In the end, I guess we'll know it if/when we see it.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#21

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 21:12
My point kinda was that you and I have "just opinions," but the opinions of the original core devs of Fallout (Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, J.D. Anderson, Scott Campbell, Chris Taylor and Chris Jones) are more than "just opinions."

But hey, that works too.
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar
SasqWatch

#22

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,552

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 21:34
Prime Junta,

So you are saying that if Gothic 4 were to be Isometric and TB there wouldnít be a significant change? You would have no problem with that and think it is every much Gothicee as the other Gothics with no real or substantial discrepancies?

That is silly and your whole argument is based off of personal preference. Iím betting you will agree with and defend any change to a franchise that would make the game more enjoyable to you, regardless of what the fan base that made the franchise poplar believes. That is very greedy and selfish thinking.

I would love for Diablo 3, Halo 3, Doom 4, etc, to be TB isometric games, because Iíd actually play those superficial drivel franchises if they were, but Iíll never be greedy or self-centered enough to be able to justify those changes that would essentially screw the fans of those franchises right in the pooper. Right smack dab up the pooper, Prime Junta. Last time I checked that was called rape. You are justifying rape. The rape of innocent, decent, law-abiding, God-fairing people. Thatís just evil and wrong. I pray for your soul, my errant brother. Rape is never okay. I hope you can mend your evil, black ways.

AwesomeGuy

Guest

#23

Posts: n/a

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 21:52
No matter how obvious it may seem, I refuse to believe it's Roqua writing these anonymous posts. Roqua had the balls to put his name beside his work. He'd tell you about those balls at length.

Statues wouldn't be better if they could move. Model airplanes would not be better if they were the same size as airplanes.
abbaon is offline

abbaon

abbaon's Avatar
Daft as a daisy

#24

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 321

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 22:27
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
My point kinda was that you and I have "just opinions," but the opinions of the original core devs of Fallout (Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, J.D. Anderson, Scott Campbell, Chris Taylor and Chris Jones) are more than "just opinions."
I take it you feel the Lord of the Rings trilogy should never have been made, since both J.R.R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien felt very strongly that the books cannot be effectively translated into movie form?
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#25

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 22:36
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
I take it you feel the Lord of the Rings trilogy should never have been made, since both J.R.R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien felt very strongly that the books cannot be effectively translated into movie form?
Originally Posted by Brother None
Cross-medium translations are a different matter
Obligatory text.
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar
SasqWatch

#26

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,552

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 22:37
Originally Posted by AwesomeGuy View Post
Prime Junta,

So you are saying that if Gothic 4 were to be Isometric and TB there wouldnít be a significant change? You would have no problem with that and think it is every much Gothicee as the other Gothics with no real or substantial discrepancies?
First off, I never said that a shift of gameplay mode wouldn't be "significant." Of course it's significant.

As to Gothic… that's not an easy question to answer. First off, going from first-person real-time to turn-based isometric would be rather like making a Star Wars sequel as a black-and-white silent movie. Both formats are pretty dated.

Second, the strength of Gothic was never as much in the dialog, story, or world; it was more about being dropped into a world, pitting yourself against it, and eventually becoming strong enough to meet all of its challenges. IMO a first/third-person real-time mechanic works better for that type of challenge than TB isometric.

However, I'm still not sure that it wouldn't be possible to make an isometric TB game that would capture some of the essential "Gothicness" that Gothic 3 failed to manage — despite staying within a very similar gameplay mode.

That is silly and your whole argument is based off of personal preference. Iím betting you will agree with and defend any change to a franchise that would make the game more enjoyable to you, regardless of what the fan base that made the franchise poplar believes. That is very greedy and selfish thinking.
What a shocking idea, that — defending changes to a franchise that would make a game more enjoyable to me. Yes, I do rather thing I'm greedy and selfish enough to do that.

I would love for Diablo 3, Halo 3, Doom 4, etc, to be TB isometric games, because Iíd actually play those superficial drivel franchises if they were, but Iíll never be greedy or self-centered enough to be able to justify those changes that would essentially screw the fans of those franchises right in the pooper. Right smack dab up the pooper, Prime Junta. Last time I checked that was called rape. You are justifying rape. The rape of innocent, decent, law-abiding, God-fairing people. Thatís just evil and wrong. I pray for your soul, my errant brother. Rape is never okay. I hope you can mend your evil, black ways.
I take it you've never actually been anally raped, or have anyone close to you who has? Just asking…

By the way, a turn-based DOOM has already been done. It ain't bad, or so I hear:
http://www.doomrpg.com/n.x/Doom%20RPG/Home.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#27

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 22:38
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
Cross-medium translations are a different matter
Why is that?
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#28

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 22:40
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
Why is that?
Because it no longer inherently ties in to franchise expectations that are determined only by the original medium. For instance, a pen and paper version of Diablo doesn't have to be realtime, because it can't be, and a movie adaptation of Fallout doesn't have to be turnbased, because it can't be.

And that's just a very narrow look at it. Suffice to say the standards that apply to linear sequels within one medium do not apply to adaptations in another medium. You're trying to compare my statement that the original franchise within the gaming medium of Fallout was determined by its creators to a statement that LotR should not have gone cross-medium because its original creators said it shouldn't, this is exactly why this is false.

Both formats are pretty dated.
OH no! Warn Spielberg he should do Schindler's List in colour, black and white is "dated"!
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar
SasqWatch

#29

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,552

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 22:42
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
Sure, things were different, but like Tim Cain said, everyone was starting to do real-time and pause-based. Fallout wanted to do something different, as project GURPS. That is the primary motivation. If the secondary motivation is technology, fine, but considering you're talking about the days of Diablo, Ultima Online and TES II: Daggerfall, I'm not going to be convinced by "real-time combat wasn't hip then!" Yes it was.
Well, first of all Tim Cain is only a human being as well and contrary to popular belief at certain websites not a God . His perception/memory is a very subjective matter as well and it's certainly not flawless since he is human just like the rest of us.
With that said, I also remember that 1995-1998 was the time of the Might & Magics (VI-VII) and the Realms of Arkanias or Jagged Alliance etc.

I think you could say that there was a very parallel development going on here in the strategy and in the RPG genres. Command & Conquer in 1995 in the strategy genre and Diablo in 1996 in the (action) RPG genre are the games that brought on the change.
But the change didn't happen over night. There were still the M&Ms and the RoAs and eventually also Fallout in the RPG genre and there were games like the Panzer General series, HoMM, and a lot of other turn-based strategy games in the strategy genre.
Also, I would agree that the change was brought on by advancements in technology. You simply couldn't have a lot of units or characters executing all sorts of different moves and animations in real time back then. Mission impossible due to a lack of processing and rendering power.

I personally never perceived Fallout as trying something special or "different" back then. I'm 100% with Prime Junta when he says that Fallout was the mold. Sure, it was a mold that was slowly going out of fashion but it wasn't anywhere near gone yet. That's why Tim Cain can say it a milliion times that they were trying to do something "different" and it still won't become true. They basically did "same ol', same ol'" with Fallout as far as the isometric perspective and turn-based combat is concerned. The differences were in other areas like the multiple paths and choices to resolve situations etc. but the actual game mechanics were neither different nor special nor particularly good IMHO (I'm also 100% with PJ on tic-tac-toe combat being tactically infinitely deeper than FO's boring and tedious combat).
Moriendor is offline

Moriendor

Moriendor's Avatar
Spielkind

#30

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Schland
Posts: 1,881

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 22:53
Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
Well, first of all Tim Cain is only a human being as well and contrary to popular belief at certain websites not a God . His perception/memory is a very subjective matter as well and it's certainly not flawless since he is human just like the rest of us.
Ok, now cite reasons why your opinion on Fallout's design is more important than his.

Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
With that said, I also remember that 1995-1998 was the time of the Might & Magics (VI-VII) and the Realms of Arkanias or Jagged Alliance etc.
RoA was 1993-1996, JA is a marginal strategy series. Better examples, please.

Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
Also, I would agree that the change was brought on by advancements in technology.
So would I. But what kind of meaning are you trying to attribute to that?

Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
I personally never perceived Fallout as trying something special or "different" back then.
It's nice that you didn't perceive it like that, because it's not like it was a gritty violent open-ended turn-based post-apocalyptic RPG in a decade of girly-happy railroaded real-time fantasy RPGs. Your perspective needs some proving.

In fact, it's odd that you're willing to acknowledge them trying to do something different in the setting/storyline area, but refuse to even acknowledge that they were trying to do something different in gameplay simply because you don't see it.

Also, please don't confuse the question of doing something different with doing something new. Isometric turn-based was de facto dead in 1997, Fallout was one of its last gasps as everyone ran for real-time and pause-based, much like, indeed, Tim Cain said.

Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
That's why Tim Cain can say it a milliion times that they were trying to do something "different" and it still won't become true.
Yes, in the face of the overwhelming evidence you're offering.

What was it Tim Cain, Scott Campbell, Chris Taylor, Leonard Boyarsky and J.D. Anderson were working on before Fallout, again? Stonekeep, the 1st-person real-time adventure game, you say? Why, it's almost like they were doing something different than that with Fallout, but obviously it's not, because you say so.
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar
SasqWatch

#31

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,552

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 23:03
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
Because it no longer inherently ties in to franchise expectations that are determined only by the original medium. For instance, a pen and paper version of Diablo doesn't have to be realtime, because it can't be, and a movie adaptation of Fallout doesn't have to be turnbased, because it can't be.
Funny, that. I much prefer franchises that re-invent themselves with each iteration. Unfortunately, very few franchises are courageous enough to do this: most simply repeat the same, successful formula without daring to add anything new. Fallout 2 was a weaker game than Fallout. Gothic 2 was weaker than Gothic, Gothic 3 was weaker still. Thief 3 was weaker than Thief 2. (Haven't played Thief so I can't speak for that.) KOTOR II was weaker than KOTOR. (OK, NWN2 OC wasn't weaker than NWN OC, but that's because it's plumb near impossible to be weaker than NWN OC.) All because none of them had anything much to say that wasn't already said in Part 1, but merely settled for repeating the same formula, only more so.

There are exceptions, of course — but these are almost exclusively among games that are heavily technology-dependent to start with, such as simulations and heavily AI-based games — e.g. the Total War franchise has gotten better with every iteration, because the engine has gotten better and more realistic, and the game is all about the engine, not storytelling or similar.

No, Brother — if you set out to make a new game, even (or perhaps especially) within a franchise, it's much better to courageously set out to break new ground than to merely re-do what has already been done.

And that's just a very narrow look at it. Suffice to say the standards that apply to linear sequels within one medium do not apply to adaptations in another medium.
Why not? Sounds to me like this is yet another opinion of yours, not a universally accepted truth.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#32

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 23:05
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
OH no! Warn Spielberg he should do Schindler's List in colour, black and white is "dated"!
You tell him he should redo it as a silent movie, since apparently that *isn't* dated.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#33

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

August 7th, 2007, 23:22
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
My point kinda was that you and I have "just opinions," but the opinions of the original core devs of Fallout (Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, J.D. Anderson, Scott Campbell, Chris Taylor and Chris Jones) are more than "just opinions."
Funny thing about these guys, though: most of 'em are still making games, but to my knowledge they haven't made a TB title since FO2. Why is that, I wonder?
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#34

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

August 8th, 2007, 00:10
Originally Posted by abbaon View Post
No matter how obvious it may seem, I refuse to believe it's Roqua writing these anonymous posts. Roqua had the balls to put his name beside his work. He'd tell you about those balls at length.
Roqua has taken a vow of never posting again, I believe. I am not roqua, but his spirit of always being right about everything lives on in me.


"I take it you've never actually been anally raped, or have anyone close to you who has? Just asking…"

Why? What does that have to do with defending and promoting the anal rape of innocent, freedom-loving fans of the real Fall Outs and good game mechanics? Shame on you, Sir!!!! I see what you are doing, the old switcherooney. AwesomeGuy can't be fooled with such petty attempts at diversions and sidetracking, sir. I'm much to awesome; hence the name. I shall defend those who have been taken, without consent or permission, up the anal cavity, to my dying breath. Someone must provide a voice for those poor bastards from the tyranny of the greedy majority. This bigotry and prejudice must be stopped. This is just another example of the many kicking the little guy when he's down (and then sticking it in his rear to add a lot of injury to the insults). I have a dream, that one day games will be made with a little consideration for people with good taste, and gaming racism will be stomped out, and these rapes will end, because no means no.

You can continue to defend the majority raping and beating the minorities, feeding them with their scraps, and strangling them with the yolk of oppression. Or you can rise above your baser needs and see that we are people to, join us in equality and r4espect for one another, and help make the world a better place. Its your call, sir.

AwesomeGuy

Guest

#35

Posts: n/a

Default 

August 8th, 2007, 00:11
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
Funny thing about these guys, though: most of 'em are still making games, but to my knowledge they haven't made a TB title since FO2. Why is that, I wonder?
Arcanum was partially turn-based, ToEE was fully turn-based. Please check your facts.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
You tell him he should redo it as a silent movie, since apparently that *isn't* dated.
Sorry, was I supposed to clock the point you'd revert to strawmen?

Funny, that. I much prefer franchises that re-invent themselves with each iteration.
Franchises that reinvent themselves set that as their franchise expectations.

It's nice that you do indeed seem to think your personal needs are more important than anyone else's, since you just went from "I much prefer" to "it's much better" in under a paragraph. Nevermind all those other pesky people, Junta, as long as you're happy!

Why not? Sounds to me like this is yet another opinion of yours, not a universally accepted truth.
That's great, except for the point where "maybe that's just, like, your opinion, man" isn't a useful statement on its own. Unless you have a better alternative, scoot over.
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar
SasqWatch

#36

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,552

Default 

August 8th, 2007, 00:18
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
Ok, now cite reasons why your opinion on Fallout's design is more important than his.
Why should I if this is not the point I was trying to make and if I do in fact not believe that my opinion is more important than his. It seems/seemed to be you who thinks/thought that everything that Cain says needs to be read and understood as if it was some kind of universal truth that may not be questioned. You said that anything Tim Cain says is "not just an opinion".
I was just trying to point out that even Cain is human and that not everything that he says needs to be the one truth. That guy is still just a guy like us with his faults, his own opinions, his own world views etc. - He's not an all knowing God who may not be refuted.

RoA was 1993-1996, JA is a marginal strategy series. Better examples, please.
You guys were talking about 1995 all along. Better arguments, please.
Seriously, you should have corrected PJ if you meant a different time frame. You both were in 1995 mode though (because this is when development on FO began? I don't know…) and so I assumed you were talking about the time the design for FO was scribbled down. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

So would I. But what kind of meaning are you trying to attribute to that?
You said that technology was only a "secondary" thing. I do not agree with that. I think that advances in tech was the driving factor behind the progression from turn-based to real-time gameplay.

It's nice that you didn't perceive it like that, because it's not like it was a gritty violent open-ended turn-based post-apocalyptic RPG in a decade of girly-happy railroaded real-time fantasy RPGs. Your perspective needs some proving.
First of all, I was strictly talking about gameplay and the gameplay mechanics so the setting has nothing to do with it and secondly, yeah, it's my perspective or actually retrospective that certainly does not require any proving because it's a subjective and personal thing. It's like me saying that the Six Million Dollar Man series from the 80s sucked and you asking for proof. Umm… what?

What was it Tim Cain, Scott Campbell, Chris Taylor, Leonard Boyarsky and J.D. Anderson were working on before Fallout, again? Stonekeep, the 1st-person real-time adventure game, you say? Why, it's almost like they were doing something different than that with Fallout, but obviously it's not, because you say so.
OK. If the context was "something different" compared to their previous work, OK, acknowledged but if the context is "something different" from what games were generally like back in the day, then no (in my opinion once again ).
Moriendor is offline

Moriendor

Moriendor's Avatar
Spielkind

#37

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Schland
Posts: 1,881

Default 

August 8th, 2007, 00:30
Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
You said that anything Tim Cain says is "not just an opinion".
And it's not. I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. Tim Cain's opinion is "not just an opinion" like my opinion just an opinion or your opinion is just an opinion. That doesn't mean he's God incarnate, it means his opinion on the topic of "what is Fallout?" is more relevant than our opinions, because he made it.

Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
You guys were talking about 1995 all along. Better arguments, please.
Seriously, you should have corrected PJ if you meant a different time frame.
No I shouldn't have. I know when Fallout was released, I never said 1995, it's not my job to correct other people's flaws.

Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
You both were in 1995 mode though (because this is when development on FO began? I don't know…) and so I assumed you were talking about the time the design for FO was scribbled down. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
Project GURPS started in 1994. Fallout somewhere in 1995-1996, I believe.

Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
You said that technology was only a "secondary" thing. I do not agree with that. I think that advances in tech was the driving factor behind the progression from turn-based to real-time gameplay.
I agree. But I said technological constraints were the secondary motive for Tim Cain to go with isometric/turn-based, not that technological developments were secondary in the industry moving to realtime.

Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
that certainly does not require any proving because it's a subjective and personal thing
Then it means nothing to me. Note that I'm not the one claiming peoples' statements on what they did were false, though, I'd think such statements would require proving.

Originally Posted by Moriendor View Post
OK. If the context was "something different" compared to their previous work, OK, acknowledged but if the context is "something different" from what games were generally like back in the day, then no (in my opinion once again ).
"Well, maybe that's just your opinion."
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar
SasqWatch

#38

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,552

Default 

August 8th, 2007, 00:47
"Why should I if this is not the point I was trying to make and if I do in fact not believe that my opinion is more important than his. It seems/seemed to be you who thinks/thought that everything that Cain says needs to be read and understood as if it was some kind of universal truth that may not be questioned. You said that anything Tim Cain says is "not just an opinion".
I was just trying to point out that even Cain is human and that not everything that he says needs to be the one truth. That guy is still just a guy like us with his faults, his own opinions, his own world views etc. - He's not an all knowing God who may not be refuted."

Are you saying the creators of an IP's opinions mean less than supposed fans of the IP? So, what I think Tolkien was getting at with Middle Earth weighs more than what Tolkien says he was getting at? So, my opinions about the core of PS:T mean more and override what was said during the two recent articles on that rpgwatch posted?

This is a very weak argument, and quite silly. If someone created, or took a hand in creating something, what they say means far more than what anyone else has to say about it.

Take, for instance, Conan. Lots of writers have tried their hand at writing Conan, and they all try to emulate Howard. None of them try and say, "Well, I wrote Conan as being a Homosexual Dandy that would never kill or steal because I belive what was important about Conan was his muscles. My Conan is true to Howard's because he still has muscles." That is what Bethesda is doing to Fall Out.

Fall Out 3 will be a huge success, far more popular than the real Fall Outs. You guys win by default of tyranny of the masses/tyranny of the center. But Fall Out 3 will never be an actual Fall out 3, anymore tha FO:BOS could be a Fall Out 3. Fall out 3 is really FO:BOS 2, Black Isle just had the respect, tact, and sensibility to not call it FO:BOS, and respect, tact, and sensibility is something Bethesda is sorely lacking, even if they do have a unccanny grasp on what sells and makes games popular to today's sophmoric gamers. I give Bethesda, and will always give them, credit when it comes to being a good business. But you guys are defending the indefensible. Trying to make Bethesda's raping of the franchise a good thing. Bethesda making Fall Out 3 is like Barney the Purple Dinosaur making Frank Miller's 300 the movie. I'm sure hippies, sissies, and wierd-o's would applaud. But fans of 300 would be rightfully angry.

That gaul it would take to kick people when they are down does make you guys look very good. Maybe you guys should apply for a job at the next Enron so you can further laugh and at more peoples anguish as they get raped by the man, and defend the reasons to do it. I'm sure you guys like money, so you'll be defending what is done for greedy personal reasons then as well.

Greed is good, right?

AwesomeGuy

Guest

#39

Posts: n/a

Default 

August 8th, 2007, 07:41
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
Arcanum was partially turn-based, ToEE was fully turn-based. Please check your facts.
I stand corrected. I should have added "in the last five years."

Sorry, was I supposed to clock the point you'd revert to strawmen?
Logic 101: a strawman is when you misrepresent your opponents argument and then proceed to knock it down with an argument of your own. I was simply mistaken about the facts. If you like, clock a point for that.

However, I still stand by the substance of my observation — that the designers of FO are not currently working on TB titles, and have not been working on TB titles for what amounts to about two generations of games.

Franchises that reinvent themselves set that as their franchise expectations.
And what's the Fallout franchise? Two cRPG's using the same gameplay mode and engine, one squad-based tactical title, one FPS console title, with the latter two tanking badly due to violating the canon or just being plain bad games.

If your argument is that two games are enough to set in stone "franchise expectations," IMO that's not a very solid basis for it.

It's nice that you do indeed seem to think your personal needs are more important than anyone else's, since you just went from "I much prefer" to "it's much better" in under a paragraph. Nevermind all those other pesky people, Junta, as long as you're happy!

That's great, except for the point where "maybe that's just, like, your opinion, man" isn't a useful statement on its own. Unless you have a better alternative, scoot over.
You appear to have run out of arguments, since you're reverting to empty rhetoric.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#40

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Fallout 3 - Interview @ Play.tm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 13:27.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch