If you can't slam with the best (aka RPG Thread XVIII), then jam with the rest!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you just not? You know?

There's this cool little part where you go on a date/tour of the town in Tales of Destiny and your other party members try to stealth follow you. The Tales games love doing the Japanese expressions thing (water drops or lines above forehead) and that plus the sprites made this section really enjoyable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOvV2k0WluU
 
Vivi is probably my favorite FF character. Eiko can eat a dick. Dagger had enough white magic, Vivi rocked the black, what do I need Eiko for? (don't recall which spells she got Dagger didn't, just a different array of summons)
 
[quote name='GhostShark']Trance and Eiko were the only things about the game I actually hated.

Gonna get one of the three Final Fantasy games I have not played (IV, V, VI) this week. Which one should I get? Or maybe I can just play FFX again.[/QUOTE]

IV hasn't aged too well, but it's simplistic enough to hold your interest. V is good and very boss oriented (tons of action), but I'd recommend using a guide to get past the lack of quest direction. And VI is probably most like the epics we're now used to, though I haven't played it in a very long time.
 
So much Final Fantasy talk! I'm planning on starting up FFIV Complete on PSP sometime soon here, but for now I started up Wild Arms on my Vita and I played this back on PS1 but it's been a while, I really enjoyed this series and I've only put like 30 minutes into it atm but I look forward to getting farther in it.
 
I started back playing FF7. I'm only 5 hours in so I haven't made it that far. So far Aeris gets kidnap and the pillar explodes on Sector 7.
 
FFIX is my fav of the series, Vivi is my favorite character, but man I hated Eiko she was a terrible character.
 
If I'm going to just be playing RPGs on a :3ds: (Smt IV, EO 4, Fire Emblem) do I really need the XL?
Is the 3d much of a hinderance? I'll probably turn it off.

(I might play the occasional Mario or Zelda)

(FF 9 was boring, and the characters looked like kewpie dolls)
 
[quote name='eldergamer']If I'm going to just be playing RPGs on a :3ds: (Smt IV, EO 4, Fire Emblem) do I really need the XL?[/QUOTE]
I'm loving my XL so far, but it is pretty heavy to hold for long stretches.

As for the 3D, it looks good in the town scenes in EO4, but it bugs me in the dungeon areas, especially when there's text involved. I have it off most of the time; the game still looks absolutely gorgeous.
 
I didn't like FF9 a bunch, but since everyone's talking about it...

I checked my old save just for fun. Anyone who isn't in my party is at a much lower level. So the four I liked are
... Zidane, Steiner, Freya, and Quina. And one of those characters I don't even remember. In fact, I barely remember 1/2 of the cast. Hmm...

Outside my party, the highest level is Vivi, who is 13 levels below the lowest in my party, Freya.

Edit: Added spoiler tag, just in case one of the names is a spoiler. I honestly can't remember.
 
[quote name='blueshinra']I'm loving my XL so far, but it is pretty heavy to hold for long stretches.

As for the 3D, it looks good in the town scenes in EO4, but it bugs me in the dungeon areas, especially when there's text involved. I have it off most of the time; the game still looks absolutely gorgeous.[/QUOTE]

It's not a must to get a 3DS XL. I also leave 3D off and turn it on occasionally. It doesn't add much for me.
 
Love the xl personally. Doesn't really add anything other than. Bigger screen but that alone makes it worth it for me. The size/weight isn't an issue at all. I've logged a crap ton of hours on it often in long stretches (4+ hours freaking addicting monster hunter). Just ordered fire emblem thanks to best buys sale and can't wait to dive in.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']IV hasn't aged too well[/QUOTE]

Drizzle me in your elucidations.

Do you not like the look of the sprites? Is the combat too archaic?

Be forewarned that anything you say I will probably flat out deny with little to no explanation.
 
[quote name='Zmonkay']Love the xl personally. Doesn't really add anything other than. Bigger screen but that alone makes it worth it for me. The size/weight isn't an issue at all. I've logged a crap ton of hours on it often in long stretches (4+ hours freaking addicting monster hunter). Just ordered fire emblem thanks to best buys sale and can't wait to dive in.[/QUOTE]

I'm can't wait to get a 3DS XL. So many good games that are out now and coming soon. Animal Crossing :drool:
 
[quote name='Indignate']Drizzle me in your elucidations.

Do you not like the look of the sprites? Is the combat too archaic?

Be forewarned that anything you say I will probably flat out deny with little to no explanation.[/QUOTE]

Anytime someone reviews a classic and say it hasn't held up well, this is my usual response:

217514937_BzdhQ-L-2.jpg
 
Huh, I wasn't aware FF4 was at untouchable gem status. Give me a list of classics and I'll try to avoid talking about them. Is there a wiki for that?
 
should we review games that do hold up well?

what about games nowadays that are terrible compared to old games?

wTFFFF
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Huh, I wasn't aware FF4 was at untouchable gem status. Give me a list of classics and I'll try to avoid talking about them. Is there a wiki for that?[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure anything from a few generations ago that is still highly revered qualifies as a classic. That's like saying Super Mario World or Chrono Trigger isn't a classic.
 
Maybe a better way to say it is that it's nearly impossible to look at a well-received game from that age today and judge it fairly. It's not an age thing or how long you've been playing games thing. Even if you don't realize it the way gaming has changed since then influences you and how you look at older games.
 
No, what's unfair is to write off a game as a 'classic' and consider it immune to criticism. Only the people who grew up with these games can hold opinions on them? Gee, that doesn't sound biased at all.

I'm 100% aware of the historical value of a lot of old, revolutionary titles, but reviews have nothing to do with historical value. If a game took big steps forward for the genre then put it in whatever hall of fame you think it belongs, but as a game it will always be open to criticism as long as people are still playing it. I don't enjoy games based on the varying eras of the gaming industry they came from, I enjoy them as they play in front of me.

[quote name='Zmonkay']I must say I'm really looking forward to your FFIX review Panzer. I've greatly enjoyed all your prior reviews![/QUOTE]

Thanks, I appreciate it!
 
[quote name='Erad30']Maybe a better way to say it is that it's nearly impossible to look at a well-received game from that age today and judge it fairly. It's not an age thing or how long you've been playing games thing. Even if you don't realize it the way gaming has changed since then influences you and how you look at older games.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this three million percent.
 
If FF V wasn't glitched on the :psp: I would have played it

But seriously, there were RPGs released this year and in 2012, did no one play them?

(More specifically hand held and PSP. I'm curious about some opinions)
 
I just finished Ni No Kuni, it was pretty solid, the last 4-5 hours felt like really unnecessary padding though. After going through that, Disgeae 4 and Fire Emblem Awakenings in the last couple months I actually kind of need an rpg break for a bit so I'm currently playing Luigi's Mansion & Lego City Undercover.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']No, what's unfair is to write off a game as a 'classic' and consider it immune to criticism. Only the people who grew up with these games can hold opinions on them? Gee, that doesn't sound biased at all.

I'm 100% aware of the historical value of a lot of old, revolutionary titles, but reviews have nothing to do with historical value. If a game took big steps forward for the genre then put it in whatever hall of fame you think it belongs, but as a game it will always be open to criticism as long as people are still playing it. I don't enjoy games based on the varying eras of the gaming industry they came from, I enjoy them as they play in front of me.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. For example, I didn't play any SNES RPGs for the first time until the PS2 generation. When I did, I found that there are those "classics" that I enjoyed and hold up very well to this day (Chrono Trigger, FFVI, Super Mario RPG), there are others that I didn't like as much and felt that they're more "of their time" (FFIV, Earthbound, Secret of Mana), and some in the grey areas inbetween (Harvest Moon).

I feel that there are a lot of gamers who are fueled by childhood nostalgia, and therefore, the games they played back then are, more often than not, Classics. Also remember that a lot of times, kids were restricted to what they got as presents, rentals, and what they could scrimp and save for. With those restrictions, you take what you can get, and stood by what you could get, which only strengthens said nostalgia.

One major problem with retro reviews, though, is that a lot of times, they're colored by this nostalgia. A truly good reviewer wouldn't let this happen, and would take the game at face value. Then again, one should be picky with which reviewers they trust overall.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']No, what's unfair is to write off a game as a 'classic' and consider it immune to criticism. Only the people who grew up with these games can hold opinions on them? Gee, that doesn't sound biased at all.

I'm 100% aware of the historical value of a lot of old, revolutionary titles, but reviews have nothing to do with historical value. If a game took big steps forward for the genre then put it in whatever hall of fame you think it belongs, but as a game it will always be open to criticism as long as people are still playing it. I don't enjoy games based on the varying eras of the gaming industry they came from, I enjoy them as they play in front of me.[/QUOTE]
definitely agree.

i like ff4. in terms of game mechanics it still holds up well. in story it falls flat. yes, it has historical value in that we actually got a story in a game in a time when games were only played for the game mechanic, but nowadays it does not hold up at all.

[quote name='blueshinra']Agreed. For example, I didn't play any SNES RPGs for the first time until the PS2 generation. When I did, I found that there are those "classics" that I enjoyed and hold up very well to this day (Chrono Trigger, FFVI, Super Mario RPG), there are others that I didn't like as much and felt that they're more "of their time" (FFIV, Earthbound, Secret of Mana), and some in the grey areas inbetween (Harvest Moon).[/quote]
i think earthbound's writing is really good and conversely i think that's why it holds up well today. perhaps it's even better today than it was back then. i do remember that back then, earthbound was criticized for its terrible graphics as people thought of it as a step back compared to other rpgs at the time like chrono trigger and ff6.

i think secret of mana has aged in a funny way. back then it was cool if you had a friend or a brother that was into rpgs and he'd come over and you'd play for a couple hours and have fun doing the co-op thing.

nowadays there's world of warcraft and you don't even need someone to visit.

i think the mechanics still hold up well, but the huge draw of the co-op has diminished in today's world. it's not as if the co-op mechanic was flawed, though. that's why i think it's aged in a weird way.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']No, what's unfair is to write off a game as a 'classic' and consider it immune to criticism. Only the people who grew up with these games can hold opinions on them? Gee, that doesn't sound biased at all.

I'm 100% aware of the historical value of a lot of old, revolutionary titles, but reviews have nothing to do with historical value. If a game took big steps forward for the genre then put it in whatever hall of fame you think it belongs, but as a game it will always be open to criticism as long as people are still playing it. I don't enjoy games based on the varying eras of the gaming industry they came from, I enjoy them as they play in front of me.
[/QUOTE]

I think it's really useful for people such as yourself to review classic games nowadays because it's helpful for people like me who want to know which games are still worth playing for the first time (or at least, which are worth playing for enjoyment as opposed to historical context). A lot of it still comes down to personal taste of course, but more perspectives can always be useful. Any "classic" already has an established legacy, and that won't change, but reviewing it in a modern context can at least be helpful for those looking to experience classics for the first time. It also helps set expectations for which aspects of a game still hold up, and which aspects aren't as entertaining as they may have been in the past.

[quote name='kainzero']
i think earthbound's writing is really good and conversely i think that's why it holds up well today. perhaps it's even better today than it was back then. i do remember that back then, earthbound was criticized for its terrible graphics as people thought of it as a step back compared to other rpgs at the time like chrono trigger and ff6.[/QUOTE]

Even for it's time, Earthbound is somewhat niche in it's appeal. I don't think the game is any worse for it's age, but it's definitely the kind of game that isn't for everyone. Some of the aspects that certain people love about it are things that others might see as flaws, or signs of age. For me personally, the game is nearly perfect aside from a weird difficulty curve, which is something that would have existed just as much when it first came out as it does now.
 
I think the SNES was an awesome era. The games were actually good, not all nostalgia goggles. Stuff like Bubsy, Eye of the Beholder, or Lester the Unlikely aren't magically considered the best of the best today, like some of the titles mentioned this page.

Try going back to Atari and reviewing that junk with no bias, those games were junk and we knew it. But I played Joust every chance I could. That was the era in which it was all we had. SNES era was the "start" of the console wars really, which led to some awesome games on all sides.

Say you don't like a game, that's fine. But to say it doesn't hold up is wrong. There is a reason why you see so many new sprite games being released recently and not N64 polygonal mess games, err besides DS.

Go play Dragon Fantasy Book I and see if that "holds up". It was released in what, April 2013?

Hope I didn't come off as mad, I'm just trying to warn you. If you knock FF6, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Harvest Moon, Super Mario RPG, Super Mario World/Yoshi Island, and Earthbound this thread will turn bad fast. :)
 
Say you don't like a game, that's fine. But to say it doesn't hold up is wrong.
Click to expand...
Wut.

This topic is making me nauseous. Anyway.

--

FFIX has really, really slow moving battles. I think they even have framerate issues?
 
[quote name='kainzero']i think earthbound's writing is really good and conversely i think that's why it holds up well today. perhaps it's even better today than it was back then. i do remember that back then, earthbound was criticized for its terrible graphics as people thought of it as a step back compared to other rpgs at the time like chrono trigger and ff6.[/QUOTE]
I kind of liked the graphical approach, though it bugged me somewhat in that it wasn't true isometry, and I especially the diagonal movement options for the characters.

Why I don't like Earthbound has mainly to do with game mechanics and core plotting. The "condiment" system was a tremendously flawed idea when coupled with the inventory limits, and to beat the final boss, you're forced to use the most useless ability in the whole game-- an ability which behaves completely different from how it normally does for that one battle, and pretty much ensures that you'll need a guide to even figure out that you need to use it (good thing Nintendo included one as a pack-in!). As for the plot, it lays it on pretty thick that Ness is the chosen one or whatever, which is hardly a motivation when there's nothing to strongly contradict it. I'm not a big fan of that sort of player flattery. There are some scenes of the game I thought were charming, though, like the lake monster bit and Dungeon Man sections.

[quote name='ihadFG']Even for it's time, Earthbound is somewhat niche in it's appeal. I don't think the game is any worse for it's age, but it's definitely the kind of game that isn't for everyone. Some of the aspects that certain people love about it are things that others might see as flaws, or signs of age. For me personally, the game is nearly perfect aside from a weird difficulty curve, which is something that would have existed just as much when it first came out as it does now.[/QUOTE]
I agree that it's not for everyone-- same with Secret of Mana, SMT Nocturne, and other JRPGS that I didn't like-- not to mention FFV, the entire Front Mission series, and many others that I do.

As for Earthbound's difficulty curve, that didn't really bug me *shrug*

[quote name='Kazaganthi']Hope I didn't come off as mad, I'm just trying to warn you. If you knock FF6, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Harvest Moon, Super Mario RPG, Super Mario World/Yoshi Island, and Earthbound this thread will turn bad fast. :)[/QUOTE]
Not knocking Earthbound, but it just wasn't for me *points up* Neither was Secret of Mana.

As for Harvest Moon, I love it to death and it's one of my personal favorite SNES games, but it's flawed and not for everyone.
 
[quote name='blueshinra']I kind of liked the graphical approach, though it bugged me somewhat in that it wasn't true isometry, and I especially the diagonal movement options for the characters.

Why I don't like Earthbound has mainly to do with game mechanics and core plotting. The "condiment" system was a tremendously flawed idea when coupled with the inventory limits, and to beat the final boss, you're forced to use the most useless ability in the whole game-- an ability which behaves completely different from how it normally does for that one battle, and pretty much ensures that you'll need a guide to even figure out that you need to use it (good thing Nintendo included one as a pack-in!). As for the plot, it lays it on pretty thick that Ness is the chosen one or whatever, which is hardly a motivation when there's nothing to strongly contradict it. I'm not a big fan of that sort of player flattery. There are some scenes of the game I thought were charming, though, like the lake monster bit and Dungeon Man sections. [/QUOTE]

I think some of those are legit complaints. I didn't go into the condiment system as it didn't feel worth it, especially working with the aggravating inventory limit.

But I felt that some of the game mechanics (specifically the battle mechanics) were fantastic. Having enemies run from you because you were overpowered, then defeating them instantly without needing to battle them, the rolling HP so you can suffer a mortal blow and still survive if healed or finish the battle in time...just things that most RPG's haven't done. What I wouldn't do to have an "automatic win" in battles that are pointless in RPG's where you see the enemy before engaging them.


As for Harvest Moon, I love it to death and it's one of my personal favorite SNES games, but it's flawed and not for everyone.
Click to expand...

Harvest Moon was the game that made me want a SNES more than any other game. When I saw it in Nintendo Power detailing the relationship, building a farm, having a dog and horse, etc...sold me instantly. Love that game.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']Having enemies run from you because you were overpowered, then defeating them instantly without needing to battle them[/QUOTE]
I'd forgotten about that; it's easily the most innovative thing about Earthbound. Dragon Quest IX's regular enemies also run from you if you're too powerful, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any other games where that happens.

It helps a bunch that both games don't have true random encounters, with invisible enemies and whatnot. The Pokemon series seems to be among the few JRPGs that really get how to make the most out of invisible enemy encounters.
 
the thing with EB and its plot is that it's not really the plot that drives the game. the writing itself seems to represent more of a parody of culture and that you play to find more of that.

that also kind of extends itself to the item/condiment system. there's really no need for so many recoverables, but they kind of present a uniqueness to the world. whereas in one RPG you think that you need the next level of potion for better healing, earthbound is more like you go to the store and pick up a hamburger. even today most RPGs have fairly typical recoverables like herbs, potions, and healthier potions and healthier herbs.

the praying thing does seem like a half-hearted shoutout to dragon ball z...
also if i'm not mistaken, the game does give you hints to pray after struggling against giygas.

i'm not saying it's a perfect game or that you should like it, but that the writing of the game is actually quite forward thinking and unique and not only does it hold up today but it will probably hold up for the far future. mechanically, it is nowhere near as frustrating as some of the earlier games that are bug riddled and generally unsatisfying... like say, final fantasy 1, ineffective, and lack of elemental properties on weapons.

(and i actually do think that final fantasy 1 is mechanically more fun and intuitive than its remakes except for the ineffective issue.)
 
[quote name='kainzero']that also kind of extends itself to the item/condiment system. there's really no need for so many recoverables, but they kind of present a uniqueness to the world. whereas in one RPG you think that you need the next level of potion for better healing, earthbound is more like you go to the store and pick up a hamburger. even today most RPGs have fairly typical recoverables like herbs, potions, and healthier potions and healthier herbs.[/QUOTE]
I'm fine with the real food items, but the condiments are a problem given the inventory limits. And yes, I'm taking Escargo Express, or whatever it was called, into account.

[quote name='kainzero']the praying thing does seem like a half-hearted shoutout to dragon ball z...
also if i'm not mistaken, the game does give you hints to pray after struggling against giygas.[/QUOTE]
Very vague hints, and you have to break with the game's own logic, which doesn't make sense.

[quote name='kainzero']i'm not saying it's a perfect game or that you should like it, but that the writing of the game is actually quite forward thinking and unique and not only does it hold up today but it will probably hold up for the far future.[/QUOTE]
Aside from the game's surrealism, I don't agree, for several reasons, but to each their own.
 
I don't remember much about Earthbound. I only rented it years ago and just got about less than halfway thru it. I do remember not being too impressed with it.

I rented a lot of the SNES rpgs during that era cause I was a just a poor kid growing up in a crummy trailer park. I played just about all of them back then; Lufia, Robo Trek, Wizardry,the Ultima ports, hell even that Tecmo RPG Secret of the Stars (one of these days I'm gonna finish that...) Aaaaah, the good old days......
 
[quote name='blueshinra']I'm fine with the real food items, but the condiments are a problem given the inventory limits. And yes, I'm taking Escargo Express, or whatever it was called, into account.[/QUOTE]
whenever i play i hardly ever buy recoverables/condiments anyway...

but the tradeoff was that condiments are much cheaper than buying two recoverables. so instead of buying 2 hamburgers you can get a hamburger and ketchup.

the system of using it kinda sucks though. (NO I DO NOT WANT TO PUT HOT SAUCE ON MY COOKIE, WHY DID YOU DO THAT?!)





oh god the snes ultima ports. they were so bad and weird. u7 especially did not resemble the pc version... it's almost like if you played gta3 for the pc and then the console version was gta1.
 
[quote name='kainzero']

oh god the snes ultima ports. they were so bad and weird. u7 especially did not resemble the pc version... it's almost like if you played gta3 for the pc and then the console version was gta1.[/QUOTE]

Figuring them out without an instruction book was impossible! Of course back then there were no in-game tutorials, so I was completely lost.... I had played the NES ports and thought myself an Ultima expert. Hahaha boy was I wrong.
 
Is there a love interest in the Suikoden games?

I love me some good titillating JRPG romances.

Bonus points if the hero is completely oblivious to the LI's advances.
 
Oh, man. Earthbound. I really liked that game, but
seriously, I spent at least 20 minutes wailing on that final boss before finally using Pray. Ugh. I had no idea. As I recall, I used quite a few items. Also, inventory management sucked.

Also, I hate RPGs that add a bunch of flourish before and after the fights. I just want to start fighting, not watch a 10 second cutscene of the camera fading in and out at different angles. Geez.

Nothing tops Chrono Trigger's *pull your weapon out right where you stand* battles.
 
[quote name='Indignate']Is there a love interest in the Suikoden games?

I love me some good titillating JRPG romances.

Bonus points if the hero is completely oblivious to the LI's advances.[/QUOTE]
i've only played 1, 2, and 5.

and in those games... nope.
there's a bigger emphasis on family ties, brotherhood, and sibling-type relations (typical japanese idealistic older/younger sister stuff) than romance.



also for all i'm defending EB, i'm actually not a big fan of EB. i wouldn't even include it on list of top RPGs for SNES. that's probably why i brought it up. it wasn't thought of as fantastic back then either, and it probably received a big boost in fanbase because of the inclusion of ness in smash brothers, but i got the feeling that it was never really perceived as a big AAA game. so i guess, in that niche role, it's aged well.
 
I think one of the things that makes Earthbound so different from other JRPGs at the time, and probably why it may be my favorite RPG, is that it's created by Shigesato Itoi, who is a writer predominately (of a variety of things). He has a very different approach to game design than any other RPG designer.
 
[quote name='Indignate']Is there a love interest in the Suikoden games?

I love me some good titillating JRPG romances.

Bonus points if the hero is completely oblivious to the LI's advances.[/QUOTE]

I've played every Suikoden game except tactics, I'm pretty sure there is no love interest in any of them.
 
[quote name='blueshinra']I'd forgotten about that; it's easily the most innovative thing about Earthbound. Dragon Quest IX's regular enemies also run from you if you're too powerful, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any other games where that happens.

It helps a bunch that both games don't have true random encounters, with invisible enemies and whatnot. The Pokemon series seems to be among the few JRPGs that really get how to make the most out of invisible enemy encounters.[/QUOTE]

Ni No Kuni. Though some enemies, like boars, will charge you no matter what.
 
I've gone back to Dungeons of Dredmor, starting up a new run with the same skill sets from last time. The plan this time is to take it slow and grind a bit before attempting the last floor.
 
[quote name='kainzero']
also for all i'm defending EB, i'm actually not a big fan of EB. i wouldn't even include it on list of top RPGs for SNES. that's probably why i brought it up. it wasn't thought of as fantastic back then either, and it probably received a big boost in fanbase because of the inclusion of ness in smash brothers, but i got the feeling that it was never really perceived as a big AAA game. so i guess, in that niche role, it's aged well.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it was considered niche it got a huge article in Nintendo Power which way back in the day was pretty much the biggest push you could get.
 
[quote name='ihadFG']Even for it's time, Earthbound is somewhat niche in it's appeal. I don't think the game is any worse for it's age, but it's definitely the kind of game that isn't for everyone. Some of the aspects that certain people love about it are things that others might see as flaws, or signs of age. For me personally, the game is nearly perfect aside from a weird difficulty curve, which is something that would have existed just as much when it first came out as it does now.[/QUOTE]

Honestly I think if anything Earthbound would pose more of a problem for someone playing it when their own age is above a certain threshold. The game is very much about being a modern day kid and going on an adventure with friends, and while as an adult I think you can remember back to your experiences during your childhood, I feel like the game had a lot more meaning to me because I played it when I was a kid and felt like the game was very relatable. With that said though I think some of the things that were used in the modern 90s setting aren't going to translate perfectly to a kids experience growing up today though.

Also, in case it wasn't clear I love Earthbound, it was a really magical game for me. And it's one of very few RPG games that has done a modern Western culture feeling setting (and by that I mean I'm having trouble coming up with even a single other game with that type of setting).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top