Jump to content
IGNORED

One thing I loved about classic consoles vs. current ones


Recommended Posts

What I mean is actually two things. One, the classic consoles lasted a very long time and as that console's lifetime progressed, the creators of the games learned how to really get everything possible out of the console. The best examples are the Atari 2600 (1977-92) and the NES (1985-94). For both consoles there are lots of games where you really get the impression that they are REALLY pushing the console (in terms of graphics/sound/speed) with everything it's got, and perhaps uses some programming tricks to make the console do things that previously was not thought possible (especially the Atari 2600). And as an avid classic gamer/collector, I think those kind of games are quite fascinating.

 

Furthermore, I like how even when the next generation of consoles came out, back then the old console still hung on for a few more years. For example, the NES continued as an active console for three more years after the SNES, and the original Playstation kept going for what, six years after the PS2? You just don't see that in today's consoles; the old console has it's support dropped pretty much immediately (how many N64 games came out after the GameCube's release, and how many GameCube games came out after the Wii?), though the PS2 is still chugging along about five years after the PS3 (but clearly on it's final days). For those who do current consoles, do you ever play any games where you really feel like the console is being pushed to its limits, or do even the best looking games don't really look like it's making the console break a sweat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is actually two things. One, the classic consoles lasted a very long time and as that console's lifetime progressed, the creators of the games learned how to really get everything possible out of the console. The best examples are the Atari 2600 (1977-92) and the NES (1985-94). For both consoles there are lots of games where you really get the impression that they are REALLY pushing the console (in terms of graphics/sound/speed) with everything it's got, and perhaps uses some programming tricks to make the console do things that previously was not thought possible (especially the Atari 2600). And as an avid classic gamer/collector, I think those kind of games are quite fascinating.

 

Furthermore, I like how even when the next generation of consoles came out, back then the old console still hung on for a few more years. For example, the NES continued as an active console for three more years after the SNES, and the original Playstation kept going for what, six years after the PS2? You just don't see that in today's consoles; the old console has it's support dropped pretty much immediately (how many N64 games came out after the GameCube's release, and how many GameCube games came out after the Wii?), though the PS2 is still chugging along about five years after the PS3 (but clearly on it's final days). For those who do current consoles, do you ever play any games where you really feel like the console is being pushed to its limits, or do even the best looking games don't really look like it's making the console break a sweat?

 

It's funny how the Snes was the only classic console that didn't have any games that felt like the system was really being pushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

 

That statement is nonsense! It had loads that pushed it to its limits, the very fact they started to put chips in the carts to do what they wanted it to do proves the point.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about games with chips like StarFox and Yoshi's Island. Looking at a lot of later Genesis games, developers seemed to "play" with the system more, where programmers found creative uses for sprites instead of just using them as sprites. A lot of later Super Nintendo games were just your standard/traditional sprites-on-a-background games with pretty colors. Donkey Kong Country series had some creative uses for background layers though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to be sarcastic, but name some titles that pushed the NES to its limits. I want to try them and see what the machine can do.

 

IMHO, here are a few games that I felt like pushed my consoles to their limits:

2600: Escape from the Mindmaster, Dragonstomper, Tunnel Runner, Space Shuttle, Pitfall II, Bump 'n' Jump.

5200: Bounty Bob Strikes Back

7800: F-18 Hornet

NES: Not sure here, I'll get back to you on this.

Game Gear: Shining Force Gaiden II

Game Boy: The Empire Strikes Back, any Sa Ga game, Mysterium (has first person view)

Game Boy Color: Perfect Dark, maybe?

SuperVision: Pacific Battle

PlayStation 1: C&C Red Alert, any Colony Wars

Saturn: Burning Rangers, Command & Conquer

N64: Perfect Dark, Majora's Mask, and I daresay wipEout 64 since it didn't use extra hardware, also many of the Star Wars titles

PlayStation 2: Not sure, but it looks like FFXII makes the thing work a bit. So does GT4.

PSP: Smart Bomb. It takes up a grand total of 117MB out of 1.6 GB available on the UMD. I was floored when I found that out. Also, Crisis Core uses a few tricks to clean up the graphics some, too.

 

I kinda wonder if there are very many games that pushed more obscure systems to the limit, like the Arcaida 2001 or any of the laser disc games for the LaserActive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's funny how the Snes was the only classic console that didn't have any games that felt like the system was really being pushed.

 

Really? To borrow a quote from Toy Santa from The Santa Clause 2, I can give ya a few big fat for instances:

 

Donkey Kong Country Trilogy (need I say more?)

MegaMan X2-X3 (C4 chip's vector graphics)

StarFox (first ever polygonal 3D game on a home console, unless Genesis' Virtua Racing came first...)

Super Mario RPG

Super Mario World 2

Ken Griffey Jr's Winning Run

 

Though most all the blue chip SNES games have beautiful graphics, these are the games that really pushed it to its absolute limits, and it didn't need no silly 32X to do it either! ;)

 

As for NES games that have the best possible graphics, these come to mind:

Kirby's Adventure

Super Mario Bros 3

MegaMan 3-6

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3 (when I first rented this back in the early 90s, I was blown away by the graphics)

 

As for N64, how about the two mandatory Expansion Pak games, Majora's Mask and Donkey Kong 64 (though it's quite a beautiful game, the graphics don't quite blow me away like the DKC trilogy did for the SNES, or am I wrong?)?

Edited by Dittohead Servbot #24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with the SNES was that the games pushed its hardware to the limit right from the start. Not to say that was a bad thing--it had some of the most beautiful, magnificant first-year games any system has *ever* had. The problem is, they were so good (and impressive) that raising the bar was nearly impossible, to an extent.

 

To the OP, I understand what you are getting at though. It stinks to see older consoles dropped almost immediately after a new one is released.

Edited by Austin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is actually two things. One, the classic consoles lasted a very long time and as that console's lifetime progressed, the creators of the games learned how to really get everything possible out of the console. The best examples are the Atari 2600 (1977-92) and the NES (1985-94). For both consoles there are lots of games where you really get the impression that they are REALLY pushing the console (in terms of graphics/sound/speed) with everything it's got, and perhaps uses some programming tricks to make the console do things that previously was not thought possible (especially the Atari 2600). And as an avid classic gamer/collector, I think those kind of games are quite fascinating.

 

Furthermore, I like how even when the next generation of consoles came out, back then the old console still hung on for a few more years. For example, the NES continued as an active console for three more years after the SNES, and the original Playstation kept going for what, six years after the PS2? You just don't see that in today's consoles; the old console has it's support dropped pretty much immediately (how many N64 games came out after the GameCube's release, and how many GameCube games came out after the Wii?), though the PS2 is still chugging along about five years after the PS3 (but clearly on it's final days). For those who do current consoles, do you ever play any games where you really feel like the console is being pushed to its limits, or do even the best looking games don't really look like it's making the console break a sweat?

 

Well, you have a very distinct way of looking at things :| Or you put your threshold pretty far out there. PS wasn't "active" 6 years after the PS2 came out. PS was on it's last legs in 2000. Just because a couple of games a year come out for a few years, doesn't mean anything in the context of "chugging along". The NES was pretty dead before the SNES came out. A handful of titles doesn't mean squat. If you look at the system realistically, 1-2 years is the lead out time of the previous generation. This really hasn't change since the NES days. 16bit started in very late '89 in the US. By the start of 1991, the NES was pretty much dead and definitely forgotten by end of 1991. Same with SNES/Genesis and the Playstation/Saturn 32bit generation (yes, 3DO and Jag were out before, but come on - putting them in the same 32bit generation as the PS/Saturn just makes them look even that more pathetic). 360 came out in the end of 2005, PS3 end of 2006. By the end of 2007, PS2 was hurting bad. Admittedly it lasted a little big longer than expected, but I'd contribute that fact to the problems of the PS3 it had early on (priced pretty expensive, looked at best on par with 360 but mostly looking slightly worst in graphics and frame rate).

 

I was a gamer in all of those generations. Including this one. And I wasn't an early adapter of systems either (for the most part early for 8bit and 16bit, but not for the rest).

Edited by malducci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it appalling how these games have not been mentioned yet:

 

NES: Return of the Joker, Metal Storm

N64: Conker's Bad Fur Day

 

Seriously, all of you go and play these games. Absolutely mind blowing what technical achievements they accomplished I tell you, especially BFD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"StarFox (first ever polygonal 3D game on a home console, unless Genesis' Virtua Racing came first...)"

 

There were crude polygonal graphics in earlier games...

 

I am pretty sure Hard Drivin' & Steel Talons (both Genesis/Megadrive and Lynx) came out before Starfox :ponder:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't starfox or at least the expansion chip it came with, designed by a British company (Argonaut software unless i am mistaken) and 2 of the chips designers went on to design the Atari jaguar hardware

 

You also left off Solaris for the 2600 (which was better then SR for the 2600 according to it's designer) and also Pitfall II for the 2600

Edited by carmel_andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is actually two things. One, the classic consoles lasted a very long time and as that console's lifetime progressed, the creators of the games learned how to really get everything possible out of the console. The best examples are the Atari 2600 (1977-92) and the NES (1985-94). For both consoles there are lots of games where you really get the impression that they are REALLY pushing the console (in terms of graphics/sound/speed) with everything it's got, and perhaps uses some programming tricks to make the console do things that previously was not thought possible (especially the Atari 2600). And as an avid classic gamer/collector, I think those kind of games are quite fascinating.

 

They could have sold some Channel F's with something like this

Edited by mbd30
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I KNOW hard drivin predates Starfox. Now you could say that Starfox was the first smooth scrolling polygonal game (for it's time, it was absolutely beautiful)

 

On a related note, how many official game releases would you say have to come out for a system each year in one market for it to be really actively supported? I'd say about 10 myself, and the NES defenily had that during the 1992-1994 years.

 

You know, by you're reasoning though, the 2600 is still "actively supported" :P of course, there's still htat large chunk in the 90's...

 

I'd say, it's more of a case of, is the system still bringing income to the company. By that, I don't mean do they still sell parts, I mean, is it a good source of income. (the PS2 for the past few years definately fits that bill, consoles alone carried sonys ass for a while)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is actually two things. One, the classic consoles lasted a very long time and as that console's lifetime progressed, the creators of the games learned how to really get everything possible out of the console. The best examples are the Atari 2600 (1977-92) and the NES (1985-94). For both consoles there are lots of games where you really get the impression that they are REALLY pushing the console (in terms of graphics/sound/speed) with everything it's got, and perhaps uses some programming tricks to make the console do things that previously was not thought possible (especially the Atari 2600). And as an avid classic gamer/collector, I think those kind of games are quite fascinating.

 

Furthermore, I like how even when the next generation of consoles came out, back then the old console still hung on for a few more years. For example, the NES continued as an active console for three more years after the SNES, and the original Playstation kept going for what, six years after the PS2? You just don't see that in today's consoles; the old console has it's support dropped pretty much immediately (how many N64 games came out after the GameCube's release, and how many GameCube games came out after the Wii?), though the PS2 is still chugging along about five years after the PS3 (but clearly on it's final days). For those who do current consoles, do you ever play any games where you really feel like the console is being pushed to its limits, or do even the best looking games don't really look like it's making the console break a sweat?

 

Don't forget that that's just hardware and old games for the most part in the last ~3 years of the console (moreso for the VCS).

That happens with any really popular system, the PS2 is the current example. (none of the current gen consoles have aged enough to show it)

The N64, Xbox, and GC weren't big enough to really merit that quite as much, especially the former 2. (the N64's expensive carts didn't help late generation releases either)

 

As to pushing to the limits, I think part of that still happens with the newer consoles, the PS3 is probably the most likely to see this from given the more complex architecture an tougher to unlock power.

In general the shift from direct hardware utilization to APIs on modern consoles is a big reason that tends not to happen anymore, except in cases of the API becoming more efficient or devlopers bypassing the API to achieve high performance. (that's been true since the PSX -some impressive games bypassed the standard programming library and went for really optimized use of the hardware)

 

The Wii is basically a GC with mosest enhancement, so its potential was already pushed on the GC, so it's not likely to see the same kind of progression.

 

 

 

What?

 

That statement is nonsense! It had loads that pushed it to its limits, the very fact they started to put chips in the carts to do what they wanted it to do proves the point.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about games with chips like StarFox and Yoshi's Island. Looking at a lot of later Genesis games, developers seemed to "play" with the system more, where programmers found creative uses for sprites instead of just using them as sprites. A lot of later Super Nintendo games were just your standard/traditional sprites-on-a-background games with pretty colors. Donkey Kong Country series had some creative uses for background layers though.

 

Loads more games used chips for various reasons: (including a launch title) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_NES_enhancement_chips

 

Note that Pitfall II also used an on-cart coprocessor with added sound and graphics capabilities. (the Display Processor Chip)

 

Then there's the various mapper chips used in the NES. (SMB 3 comes to mind, but there are many other examples)

 

Not sure what you mean on the BG layers of DKC, other than using the somewhat uncommon mode 1 with 3 scroll layers (the 3rd layer limited to 4 color tiles -Earthworm Jim 2 used it in the first stage too) it's not anything special. The prerendered graphics specially optimized to 15-color tile/sprite graphics on the SNES is fairly impressive (and costly), and it took a rather large cart to manage that too. (4 MB)

Sprites are often used for things other than players/enemies, it's common practice, especially on platforms supporting numerous sprites. (used for portions of the BG and such, namely moving/animated portions)

 

 

Wasn't starfox or at least the expansion chip it came with, designed by a British company (Argonaut software unless i am mistaken) and 2 of the chips designers went on to design the Atari jaguar hardware

You're close, that came up here recently: http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/119048-its-1993-youre-in-charge-of-the-jag-what-do-you-do/page__st__900__p__1984596#entry1984596

 

It goes back to Flare Technologies of 1986 formed by 3 ex-Sinclair engineers working on the Loki project. They completed flare 1 which was bought by Knoix and implemented in their failed multisystem. Flare went on to do other consulting work including helping Atari with the Panther Design before Martin Brennan and John Mathieson formed Flare II with the Jaguar project (convincing Atari to abandon Panther).

Now, the 3rd member of Flare 1, Ben Cheese had left by that point and had been doing other consulting work when Argonaut Software contracted him to design the MARIO chip (later Super FX GSU), so they're all related but split.

Consequently Argonaut software spun off a separate hardware division which eventually became ARC International which still exists with their line of embedded RISC microprocessors. (While Argonaut Software, Konix, and Atari Corp, of course, have all ceased to exist)

 

 

"StarFox (first ever polygonal 3D game on a home console, unless Genesis' Virtua Racing came first...)"

Quite right, Hard Drivin', Race Drivin', and LHX are other examples. (Race Drivin' is even on the SNES, albeit even slower than the MD version)

Before that you've got Elite on the NES. (this is ignoring home computers)

 

Though most all the blue chip SNES games have beautiful graphics, these are the games that really pushed it to its absolute limits, and it didn't need no silly 32X to do it either! ;)

Blue Chip???

 

As for NES games that have the best possible graphics

Metal Storm also comes to mind. (multi-layer scrolling -or good fake of it- and some really nice animation)

 

As for N64, how about the two mandatory Expansion Pak games, Majora's Mask and Donkey Kong 64 (though it's quite a beautiful game, the graphics don't quite blow me away like the DKC trilogy did for the SNES, or am I wrong?)?

Perfect Dark is also pretty mch a mandatory Expansion Pak game. (otherwise you oly get multiplayer/death match)

But, I think it's the Lucas Arts/Factor 5 games on the N64 which usually get noted for pushing it. (Rogue Squadron, Battle For Naboo, Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine -the latter did 640x480 without the expansion pak, the former 2 required it)

 

PlayStation 1: C&C Red Alert, any Colony Wars

Omega Boost is usually listed there too, i think that's one of the examples of bypassing the standard programming libraries and going for direct hardware and assembly language programming. (not positive on that, but iirc it's come up several times in that context)

 

 

 

On the SNES though, I think Wolf3D is pretty impressive for what it is. Ignoring the butchering censorship, it's pretty damn impressive that they managed that with software rendering and 128 kB of RAM (and probably with a ton of hacking and optimizations to fit --Genny's 64 kB was too limited, not sure why it wasn't on Sega CD though). They use a neat trick by rendering onto a 112x96 mode 7 tile scaled to 2x (224x192) for a much larger window, neat idea and makes me curious why it wasn't used again.

 

Doom runs pretty poorly and uses the Super FX 2, but that's still pretty impressive given the amount of RAM and ROM they had to deal with (128 kB for the Super FX which also is used for a framebuffer, plus the 128 kB the SNES CPU uses, and only 2 MB of ROM).

Of course, it also had a lot more time and care given to optimize it compared to the Jaguar (which was still quite good, though programmed by Carmak himself), 32x, and 3DO versions.

 

The crane machine stage in Toy Story is also often cited for this. (both on SNES and Genesis) They also use a trick there where the floor ad ceiling is mirrored. (Battle Frenzy on Genesis is more impressive though IMO)

Edited by kool kitty89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omega Boost is usually listed there too, i think that's one of the examples of bypassing the standard programming libraries and going for direct hardware and assembly language programming. (not positive on that, but iirc it's come up several times in that context

 

Omega Boost compromises by having very poor draw distance.

 

 

If Spyro had come out in 1996, Mario 64 wouldn't have seemed as big of a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What?

 

That statement is nonsense! It had loads that pushed it to its limits, the very fact they started to put chips in the carts to do what they wanted it to do proves the point.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about games with chips like StarFox and Yoshi's Island. Looking at a lot of later Genesis games, developers seemed to "play" with the system more, where programmers found creative uses for sprites instead of just using them as sprites. A lot of later Super Nintendo games were just your standard/traditional sprites-on-a-background games with pretty colors. Donkey Kong Country series had some creative uses for background layers though.

 

Loads more games used chips for various reasons: (including a launch title) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_NES_enhancement_chips

 

Note that Pitfall II also used an on-cart coprocessor with added sound and graphics capabilities. (the Display Processor Chip)

 

Then there's the various mapper chips used in the NES. (SMB 3 comes to mind, but there are many other examples)

 

Not sure what you mean on the BG layers of DKC, other than using the somewhat uncommon mode 1 with 3 scroll layers (the 3rd layer limited to 4 color tiles -Earthworm Jim 2 used it in the first stage too) it's not anything special. The prerendered graphics specially optimized to 15-color tile/sprite graphics on the SNES is fairly impressive (and costly), and it took a rather large cart to manage that too. (4 MB)

Sprites are often used for things other than players/enemies, it's common practice, especially on platforms supporting numerous sprites. (used for portions of the BG and such, namely moving/animated portions)

 

 

In DKC2, they use the third background layer as a fake 3D ocean that floods through levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about Summer Carnival '92 (Recca) for NES/famicom? That game is fast paced, has a lot of crazy action on screen at any time, and there is pretty much no sprite flicker. I know it is a rare game, and that it was for the Famicom... but you can get a reproduction made on a 72 pin board... and you can find pirated versions for the famicom. It's pretty intense, and I think it does a pretty good job of pushing the hardware from a layman's perspective (I couldn't tell you anything about how much ram is used, how the code is written, or how it uses the different chips in the system itself).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably more to do with perception than anything. I mean, on the 2600, you could have a max of something like 5 colors, 2 sprites, 2 missiles, and one ball per scanline, that's very limiting, but then you have games that (while never going beyond that) blow that out of the water. But it's so easy to see when you know what the limits are.

 

More modern, the consoles look so pretty, it's hard to pick out what is actually pushing the system (like maybe polys, on the Genesis, or super Nintendo) And what's really doing nothing new (using computer generated images, rather than hand created ones in DK country, and claymation games)

 

Then you get to modern systems. The poly wars are pretty well over, afer you pass that xmillion mark, it's simply not possible for a person to pickout te individual polies anymore, so the fact say, the 360 can do more than the original xbox is pretty meaningless. ANd what do you have to do to make something more impressive? Is it really the system isn't being pushed as hard? Or is it simply that the end user sees no real difference? IMO, something with a lot of modifiable in game stuff is impressive, say, Redfaction gurella, and it's fairly realisticly destroyable environments.

Edited by Video
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Spyro had come out in 1996, Mario 64 wouldn't have seemed as big of a deal.

Perhaps not on the same level as Spyro, but I think Croc might be another good one to point out. (and it was on PC, Saturn, and PSX -one of the few *real* 3D platformers on the Saturn too) I think it compares more favorably with SM64 than Crash Bandicoot. (at least the first couple games -though I'll have to admit my memory is a bit foggier for those games than Croc or Spyro even)

 

In DKC2, they use the third background layer as a fake 3D ocean that floods through levels.

 

Hmm, it's been a while but I used to play DKC2 a LOT (more than DKC iirc), so I'm sure I'd remember the level if you described it. It sounds like a simple transparency effect though, using the 3rd (4-color tile) layer for transparency/translucent effects (one of the SNES's key hardware features). So unless I'm mistaken that shouldn't be a trick but a documented and prominent feature. (one the contemporaries faked with flicker and/or dithering -the Saturn had buggy translucency too)

The earliest example would be the ghosts in SMW, I think in that case the "window" layer is used for transparency, but I could be mistaken. (iirc the transparent layer of scrolling ghosts is monochrome, which would imply the window layer)

 

 

It's probably more to do with perception than anything. I mean, on the 2600, you could have a max of something like 5 colors, 2 sprites, 2 missiles, and one ball per scanline, that's very limiting, but then you have games that (while never going beyond that) blow that out of the water. But it's so easy to see when you know what the limits are.

Hmm, can't you also "clone" sprites? (ie have multiple sprites of the same color and shape per scanline without flicker)

 

More modern, the consoles look so pretty, it's hard to pick out what is actually pushing the system (like maybe polys, on the Genesis, or super Nintendo) And what's really doing nothing new (using computer generated images, rather than hand created ones in DK country, and claymation games)

A large portion of contemporary game art was also computer generated, but more often pixel art (so to speak) than digitized 3D models. (I'm sure there was also cases of digitizing hand-drawn art -and other cases of hand converting drawings into pixel art)

 

Then you get to modern systems. The poly wars are pretty well over, afer you pass that xmillion mark, it's simply not possible for a person to pickout te individual polies anymore, so the fact say, the 360 can do more than the original xbox is pretty meaningless. ANd what do you have to do to make something more impressive? Is it really the system isn't being pushed as hard? Or is it simply that the end user sees no real difference? IMO, something with a lot of modifiable in game stuff is impressive, say, Redfaction gurella, and it's fairly realisticly destroyable environments.

 

Well, if you removed all the smooth shading, filtering, antialising, etc, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too tough to make out the polygons. ;)

But I agree, the next step is phusing for more interactive environments (realistic or otherwise), there's the physics side of things too, of course. (the 2 generally tie together)

There are older, quite progressive examples of such too though. (the IL-2 Sturmovik combat flight sim series from ~2001-2006 building ont he same basic engine has some pretty detailed damage modeling -though there are some odd omissions I've noticed that really don't seem to be bugs/flaws int he game, but rather just oversights -but that's a separate topic ;))

Edited by kool kitty89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@koolkitty: no it's not the transparency part that I find impressive, its the hdma scrolling and scaling that I find kind've impressive. I said "kind've" meaning that because I do Snes programming in my own time, its clear to me how that trick was done.

 

If you ask me what I would find impressive in an Snes game is seeing software rotated sprites, because of all the complicated math and asm optimizations it takes, including converting between packed and planar. Over this last weekend I've been trying to get the Snes to rotate sprites through software. I've managed getting an 8x8 sprite to rotate in real-time while running my game at the same, but I have a hardtime getting a 16x16 sprite to rotate in real-time without adding a lot of extra slowdown to my game. I need to figure out a way of breaking sprites down into smaller chunks to rotate in several consecutive frames, so it doesn't add extra lag to the gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...