| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
Well Dhruin, you seem to have picked a pretty good poll topic this week. Lots of good conversation, plus Roqua gets a little more time on his "what's a real rpg" soapbox... 
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:05 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by dteowner
Well Dhruin, you seem to have picked a pretty good poll topic this week. Lots of good conversation, plus Roqua gets a little more time on his "what's a real rpg" soapbox...
I don't like my soapbox too get cold, or pass up a chance to sway people to the light side. And there is less of a chance of me getting silly when this is the topic, which gets people angry at me. Also, as you pointed out before, I am right. I can't pass up a chance at being right.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:38 am |
|
|
ShadowMoses
Head Merchant
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 69
Location: UK |
All hail Roqua! 
_________________
Dak’kon: "Your reasons for your incessant clicking are not *known* to me."
-=:ASHES:=- || -=:Xenus-hq:=- |
|
Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:55 am |
|
|
KasperFauerby
Village Dweller
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 18
|
Thanks for the list. I asked mostly out of curiosity and because there could be recommendations for good rpgs on it (which I'm always on the lookout for). Turns out I played and won about half the games on your list - which still leaves a good handful I could try out if I find the time 
Also I'll admit that your intro statement "Clearly rpgs have declined to a horrible level of utter crappyness" had me thinking - oh no, not another one of those guys But you had good arguments for what defines a rpg, and I was happy to see that you are not quite so fanatical as could be feared from such a statement (although I still think it is *quite* a generalization of todays games). But at least you could list games that were not rpgs in your mind that you still liked.
Being a game developer by profession *and* an old-school gamer (completed tons of RPGs all the way back from the days of Akalabeth and up until now) I guess I have developed a slightly different view on the games that are release these days. I find it quite counter-productive to stubbornly "stick to the past" and refuse to embrace the newer trends of gaming. Personally I try to have an open mind and will give most games a chance. Same argument goes for console games, but lets not go there in this thread Some things from the old games were really cool and we probably all have fond memories of games we played 10 years ago - but other things have really improved a lot in my opinion. For example, I think the stories in games are generally much better presented in new RPGs than in the older ones (not saying that the stories themselves are always better). For example, I have very fond memories of the Ultima Underworld games - but Arx Fatalis still did a better job on the presentation! Also many old-school rpg gamers seems to often bash the "action rpg" genre - but hey, what was all the old rpgs about? Killing monsters, looting gear, gaining levels... sounds kinda like an action rpg to me Just without the streamlined interface and nice graphics Ok, before everyone starts yelling at me - I said that partly to provoke, but I think there's a hint of truth to it. Many of the rpgs with a decent story that I've played has been of a newer date.
And finally, do you truely, honestly prefer drawing your own maps, typing down your own notes and memorizing key combinations for spells (for example like the magic interface in Might&Magic 2 or the rune combinations of the earlier Ultimas)? Well, call me noob or whatever you want - I kinda like the "new" stuff with maps, journals and hotkeys/quickslots.
- Kasper |
|
Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:34 pm |
|
|
ShadowMoses
Head Merchant
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 69
Location: UK |
quote:
Originally posted by KasperFauerby
I find it quite counter-productive to stubbornly "stick to the past" and refuse to embrace the newer trends of gaming. Personally I try to have an open mind and will give most games a chance.
It's not about sticking to the past, it's just that the design of older games (or at least an accountable proportion of them) is focussed more on the things that make roleplaying games what they should be: choices, consequences, meaningfull character progression etc.
quote:
I think the stories in games are generally much better presented in new RPGs than in the older ones (not saying that the stories themselves are always better).
You're right, but isn't the story itself and how the player chooses to interact and effect it more important than the presentation?
quote:
And finally, do you truely, honestly prefer drawing your own maps, typing down your own notes and memorizing key combinations for spells (for example like the magic interface in Might&Magic 2 or the rune combinations of the earlier Ultimas)? Well, call me noob or whatever you want - I kinda like the "new" stuff with maps, journals and hotkeys/quickslots.
Can't a modern game built with the same design philosophy as older games still have all this stuff? The roleplaying mechanics should be number 1 on the priority list and everything else built around it. Modern RPG's seem to have been designed with market research and focus groups as the starting point and gameplay applied to it.
gfx sell, physics are cool, real time combat looks great... right so how do we apply a party based rpg to this? real time combat with pause.
_________________
Dak’kon: "Your reasons for your incessant clicking are not *known* to me."
-=:ASHES:=- || -=:Xenus-hq:=- |
|
Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:57 pm |
|
|
KasperFauerby
Village Dweller
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 18
|
"choices, consequences, meaningfull character progression"
But when you think about it - what old games did all this? I don't think I've ever seen the first two on that list taken to a really satisfying level? Not in the old days, and now now...
"isn't the story itself and how the player chooses to interact and effect it more important than the presentation?"
Absolutely - but I want both! And I think some of the modern rpgs does a pretty good job actually..
"Can't a modern game built with the same design philosophy as older games still have all this stuff?"
Well, yeah - I think so... to a certain degree. I mean, obviously the developers have no choice but to make sure their game will be able to sell. You might argue that this is exactly what kills the old-school rpgs - but there's really nothing to do about that is there? I mean, no company likes to loose all their money and then have to close. But you're right that especially turn-based combat has suffered from this lately. |
|
Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:21 pm |
|
|
palu
Guest
|
The technical aspects of games have improved (interface, graphics, etc), and that's good. However, I doubt there has been much progress in the way of the cRPG techniques. Hm, I can think of one: Diablo's (the first place I saw it, even though an ACTION RPG) innovation of awarding XP based on relative difficulty (something hard to do with Pen&Paper due to the extra calculations). It just doesn't make sense for the master thief to get any skill improvement for picking the simple lock of a barn.
In the overland mode I think the concept of side quests has actually gained some popularity, and I like the painful decisions of whether to go for this one or that one when they are mutually exclusive. Archetype and gameplay choice based quests are also interesting, giving variety.
One of the problems of cRPGs has been the creation of a good story that is sufficiently open to allow multiple solutions to problems, and that awards the player appropriately. It's frequently the case that you get say 1000 XP and 200 Gold for completing the objective of a quest, but killing everything in your way and selling the equipment yields an additional 10000 XP and 3000 Gold, which means that you should FIRST sneak in the hope of getting extra XP for being stealthy, and then slaughter everyone on your way out.
Awarding XP and Gold for killing is easy and doesn't require a lot of effort (just put up a bunch of stats and knock them down), while designing alternatives (preferrably suitable for a broad range of character archetypes) is a lot of work that many buyers won't even notice. Thief (not an RPG at all, as there is no character development) usually provided several routes to reach your objectives, although in that case they all involved stealth, but I think cRPGs could learn a bit there, rather than using the normal "enter the labyrinth/complex/cave here and twist and turn through a bizarre convoluted (but basically linear) path until you get out again".
I only partially agree with Roqua on the player freedom concept as beeing essential to a cRPG. It is nice to build your character/party from the ground up, but having the game cast you in a particular role and with a particular background allows for a much richer story. However, then the character has been let loose, I'd like the freedom to determine what to do and when, whether to be an utter bastard, a saint, or something more similar to a human (or dwarf, or whatever...). Said freedom ought, of course, result in various reactions, preferrably without a game imposed morality (in many games playing the saint gives you more and better loot than if you accept/require reasonable payment, while playing a bastard usually results in only bad deals, rather than a mixture of successful rip offs (preferrably of occasional unique goodies), hard knocks, and generally a bad reputation).
In the ideal world of plenty of cRPGs I'd like to see various types of games (open ended, story driven...). |
|
Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:19 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Personal preferences have nothing to do with the rpgness of a game. I love TB combat, but that doesn’t knock kotor, nwn, darklands, or any other RT game off the list of rpgs. I also love Betrayal at krondor, even though it had no character generation at all, had 100% scripted events and dialogue, basically no choices at all, etc, and I am fine that it isn’t an rpg.
This is how it goes in my mind. What is the purpose of rpgs, why were they invented, what are they supposed to do? Basically allow people to stop reading the LotR trilogy and their other favorite books over and over and actually be part of it. They weren’t created for people to play Frodo and Gandalf and recreate what happened in the books event for event. Rpgs were invented to provide a set of tools, rules, and settings for people to live their own adventures, with character’s they created and controlled, that were not limited to the rules of this world, or the player’s physical shortcomings. A crippled invalid could play a powerful and mighty warrior, etc. Stephen Hawking could play a ninja that speaks with a mighty, booming clear voice and doesn’t drool.
The players are handed an empty book and told to fill it up. Books, on the other hand, are already filled up. Books are great, but sometimes you want to play an rpg. I can be immersed in a book, as I can be immersed in a game. But being having the burden of choice and consequence is a totally different form of immersion. You don’t have to live vicariously through the characters like you do in the book or game when you play a c/rpg, you are the character. “Crpgs” started to move in this direction, then stopped and started moving in the other direction towards books.
Basically the goal is so convoluted as to make the term rpg, when applied to video games, meaningless. It means nothing. 95% of the time you will not even be getting a game that has even a modicum of role playing in it, even though it is labeled as an rpg, and role playing is what the r and p stand for in rpg.
Darklands dropped you into a sandbox and said “have fun.” The Realms of Arkania trilogy really tried to recreate the pen and paper experience on a different medium. Fall Out 2 had so many choices and so many ways to play your role it would be harder to describe than play through.
Now look at FPS’s. From Doom to the super complex games they come out with now. The genre has become so much more complex and strategic it is ridiculous. My friend’s had a Rainbow Six type game where you had to issue orders to team, every piece of equipment to bring was a huge choice, and there was no room for error in gameplay. I bought Silent Hunter 3 band had to quite after a while because it was too complex for me.
Every other genre is maturing while the genre we like, which used to be the most complex, is becoming more and more sophomoric. Complexity and hard choices was a staple. Strategic, thinking combat was the rule. Now where are we? We have a book that takes the imagination away. A slightly interactive movie. Consequence and choices were removed because it confused the new target market of our genre.
I love a good story, movie, game, and book, but I also love when my rpgs are rpgs.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:12 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
I think that's your best post ever, Roqua. Well said. Don't always 100% agree with your definitions but that's an excellent overview.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:05 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Thank you. My mommy helped me. I would also like too thank economies of scale; if you make enough posts about it, you are bound to say it more right once. And lastly, my genitals. Thanks guys for letting me focus on something other than boobs for 3 seconds.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:38 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Roqua, I bet you use nude mods in Oblivion you naughty boy!! 
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:40 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I will not play Oblivion until X Box 7587 comes out and I can buy a 360 for 50 bucks on ebay and can rent oblivion from hollywood video. I'm not a big mod guy though, unless it is a fan patch or something like urban chaos for JA. But I do like boobies and video games, so the two seem to go together well. Great idea.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:03 am |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
Hmm....the complexity of RPG games, that is a hard thing to evaluate really. A lot of the old games seemed more complex because they completely ignored any concept of game balance. They would add options, skills spells, and much of the time only a couple would be worth using. Thus you ended up with game mecanics that seemed complex but were actually simple. Realms of Arcania 3 was a perfect example of this. Most of the character classes were completely useless or suboptimal. There may as well have only been 2 or 3 classes and a handful of skills.
These days people pay attention to game balance alot more. So rather then having 30 options of which only 2 are useful, they aim for having 10 options which are all useful. They don't always succeed. And of course some don't try at all. But I'd say we have seen a strong evolution in gaming, and while some of it has been bad some of it has been good. People have a much better idea of hwo to create a really good game now. They just usually choose to create a dumbed down one instead.
Then there are console RPGS which often appear to be simple and turn out to be massively complex. Many start out more dumbed down then the worst PC game and end up massively complicated in the choices you have to develop your character. However they rarely give you much room to change the story and choose your own path. Of course neither did 95% of the old school PC games. We remember the ones that did because they were so rare. |
|
Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:39 am |
|
|
Priest4hire
Head Merchant
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 52
Location: Slocan, BC |
Darn it all. Just then I though I could easily respond to one Rogua post there are now two of them. That's what I get for being lazy. Still, Rogua brings up too many good points to let them pass wihout any comment. So forgive me in advacne the lenght of this.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
A real rpg is one that allows you to play a role, or makes more than a passing attempt at doing a lot to allow you to seem like you are playing a role. This excludes any game where my personal physical abilities have an impact on game play. In Oblivion and Gothic I might have maxed my character’s sword skill to master, but unless I, myself, personally, have good timing and physical dexterity, my charceter is not a master of anything. He mastered what he/she can until I master the controls and my physical shortcomings. So I cannot seriously be a master swordman and not be a master wsordsman at the same time now can I?” And I can’t play a role and be a role at the same time either. So you cannot play an action or twitch rpg, as role and playing are in the title of the genre.
I agree but you seem to make the issue out to be binary by nature. It is not a case of either/or since all games require personal physical abilities. A blind person, for example, would find any CRPG a difficult experience at best. It is really a balance of player skill against character skill; mental and physical. Knowledge of game mechanics, proper party composition, and effective strategy/tactics will allow an experienced CRPG player to do vastly better at a game like Wizardry VII than a newbie. Many of those are elements that the characters themselves could embody but are rather left up to the player's skills.
In fact the old days where in action games every command had a 1 to 1 correlation to the character's actions is almost over. Many games employ methods to allow the character's skill to far outstrip the player's ability to enter moves. Take Ninja Gaiden as an example. Thus it is really a question of just how much of a role the character's abilities play in the interaction with the game world. Those that favor the character are RPGs, those the player are action and the ones in the middle are action/RPGs. The hard one is figuring out the exact transition point across the 3 genres.
Besides, there is not a single swordsmanship skill required to play Oblivion. Not one. Skill with a sword play no role whatsoever.
quote:
On the opposite end of that are games like Betrayal at Krondor. Nothing non-rpgish about the controls, leveling, combat, or any of that stuff. But, my role is predefined, and how that role is played is also predefined. So since I can’t play a role in this case either, it can’t be an rpg (but is still one of my favorite games).
It took me a moment to realize you were talking about character creation. Character creation has nothing to do with role playing. AD&D is a RPG whether or not you are playing one of the Dragonlance modules. As for the role being predefined - that's the case in all CRPGs. But I'll get back to that later.
quote:
Only rpgs can be rpgs, and if you can’t play a role or be a role you aren’t playing an rpg. Some of my favorite games are not rpgs; like Bloodlines. I really loved Silent Storm (with sentinels), but its not an rpg. Same with JA 2 (has a lot of rpgish stuff but in the end it is firmly in the TBS category). Gothic would be in there if I didn’t have to play the whole game in marvin mode, which makes the stuff I like the most about rpgs not important (character building, combat, etc).
That last comment is very elucidating but once again I'll get back to that. You did a good job of disqualifying every CRPG ever made. Role playing can not be a requirement of the CRPG genre because CRGPs can not enable it in any way.
quote:
My list, not in order, probably not the same list I would have after thinking about it for a while, and not my top 10 games either: (top 12 I guess)
Blade of Destiny, StarTrail, Shadows over Riva, Darklands, Buck Rogers, Albion, ToEE, Arcanum, Fall Out, Fallout 2, Darksun 1, Wiz 7.
Buck Rogers isn’t that great of an rpg, but I love it as a game. I think it’s clearly the best of all the old SSI games, as the Buck Rogers system had the skills and the great space combat system (to destroy or cripple and board). And the different armor types for different weapons, and all the weapons types had different and distinct uses. All the SSI games were pretty weak rpgs, just because of technology and money (and size) limitations in my opinion.
Ultima 7 didn’t make my list mainly because I can’t stand the combat, same with PS:T.
I already got into what makes an rpg an rpg or not a million times already, so I didn’t put a lot into this argument. I can do better if you really want convincing (not about my top games, just about what is an rpg or not).
Looking at this list, the qualities that get games on it as well as what gets games excluded, I can't help but feel that as much as you talk about role playing you are really in it for the roll playing. That is the quality to seem to value most and seem to judge RPGs by. Games that force you to play not a character but a party of ciphers - not even worthy of the name character - who tromp through a world they can only passively observe as they trigger events, are spoken to - not with - whilst killing an endless number of things are labeled as true examples of the 'RPG' genre by you. Like I said: Roll playing.
_________________
Watch your back. Shoot straight. Conserve ammo. And never, ever, cut a deal with a dragon.
Grammaton Dragon
-==(UDIC)==- |
|
Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:46 am |
|
|
Priest4hire
Head Merchant
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 52
Location: Slocan, BC |
Once again I ask that you, the gentle reader, forgive my impudence in double posting. I hope that by responding to these 2 posts in 2 posts of my own I will make the reading of these responses easier.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Personal preferences have nothing to do with the rpgness of a game. I love TB combat, but that doesn’t knock kotor, nwn, darklands, or any other RT game off the list of rpgs. I also love Betrayal at krondor, even though it had no character generation at all, had 100% scripted events and dialogue, basically no choices at all, etc, and I am fine that it isn’t an rpg.
Again the confusion of character creation and role playing. All dialog in all CRPGs is 100% scripted - or do you really thing there's an AI advanced enough to create dialog? All games have choices it's just a question of how many and of what kind. However, role playing is not about choosing pre-written elements.
quote:
This is how it goes in my mind. What is the purpose of rpgs, why were they invented, what are they supposed to do? Basically allow people to stop reading the LotR trilogy and their other favorite books over and over and actually be part of it. They weren’t created for people to play Frodo and Gandalf and recreate what happened in the books event for event. Rpgs were invented to provide a set of tools, rules, and settings for people to live their own adventures, with character’s they created and controlled, that were not limited to the rules of this world, or the player’s physical shortcomings. A crippled invalid could play a powerful and mighty warrior, etc. Stephen Hawking could play a ninja that speaks with a mighty, booming clear voice and doesn’t drool.
The players are handed an empty book and told to fill it up. Books, on the other hand, are already filled up. Books are great, but sometimes you want to play an rpg. I can be immersed in a book, as I can be immersed in a game. But being having the burden of choice and consequence is a totally different form of immersion. You don’t have to live vicariously through the characters like you do in the book or game when you play a c/rpg, you are the character. “Crpgs” started to move in this direction, then stopped and started moving in the other direction towards books.
You seem to do a lot of speaking for Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. They intended this but not that. I'd like to see an interview where either disowns pre-written adventure modules or the Dragonlance modules with the pregenerated characters. Yes, RPGs were created as being very open allowing anything - but that then means you can play in already existing worlds with already existing characters even in an already existing story. And you're right that role playing is very different than reading a book or watching a movie. But it's far more than just having a 'burden of choice'. Just as writing a novel is more than a succession of word choices but is in fact an act of creation so too role playing is in fact not a series of limited choices but the act of creating the character of a character.
But character creation itself is unrelated. It is a akin to the connection between CGI modelling and animation. You can model a character and then animate it. Conversely you can animate a character someone else modeled. Modeling is not animation and the two should not be confused. Character creation is the act of creating the model, the framework if you will, that the role playing will be preformed on. A person might prefer to role play his own character rather than someone else's but there is no fundamental limitation at work here. One can role play a pregenerated character just as easily.
quote:
Basically the goal is so convoluted as to make the term rpg, when applied to video games, meaningless. It means nothing. 95% of the time you will not even be getting a game that has even a modicum of role playing in it, even though it is labeled as an rpg, and role playing is what the r and p stand for in rpg.
Darklands dropped you into a sandbox and said “have fun.” The Realms of Arkania trilogy really tried to recreate the pen and paper experience on a different medium. Fall Out 2 had so many choices and so many ways to play your role it would be harder to describe than play through.
Bump that 95% up to 100% and I'm with you, well, 100%. The Realms of Arkania series doesn't replicate the P&P experience in any fashion that matters. It replicates the CRPG experience using the Das Schwarze Auge rule set. Same goes for Fallout or Fallout 2 or even Darklands for that matter. You even partly said it - that the RPG isn't reproducible in the CRPG world. CRPGs are inspired by RPGs but they were built using their own separate approaches and solutions. The CRPGs you mention resemble the foundation games of the CRPG genre far more than the P&P RPG world.
quote:
Now look at FPS’s. From Doom to the super complex games they come out with now. The genre has become so much more complex and strategic it is ridiculous. My friend’s had a Rainbow Six type game where you had to issue orders to team, every piece of equipment to bring was a huge choice, and there was no room for error in gameplay. I bought Silent Hunter 3 band had to quite after a while because it was too complex for me.
Every other genre is maturing while the genre we like, which used to be the most complex, is becoming more and more sophomoric. Complexity and hard choices was a staple. Strategic, thinking combat was the rule. Now where are we? We have a book that takes the imagination away. A slightly interactive movie. Consequence and choices were removed because it confused the new target market of our genre.
I love a good story, movie, game, and book, but I also love when my rpgs are rpgs.
What hard choices? You mean choices of mechanics? What characters to create, what skills to advance and so on? That's roll playing - pure hack & slash in the classic sense. Choices within the story? Some RPGs still offer character choices a la Bioware's efforts. Though they tend to simply break them down into good/evil. Still, there are modern RPGs with choices to me made as to factions to align with, things to say to NPCs, and the like. Not role playing of course but it's still a choice.
Besides, don't you think dumbing down the combat might actually allow RPGs to become more 'pure'? After all, once even strategy and tactics in combat are the realm of the character rather than the player you really do have the pure RPG experience. Should I not be able to be smart like rock but still able to play a tactical genius? 
Myself I believe the genre has, in some ways, improved but it has also been frustratingly slow in evolving as of late. From the high points of Ultima VII and Fallout we just don't seem to be going anywhere very fast. And the old spirit of pushing the limits and trying new things has died way down. Yet in other ways the games are far more polished with better UIs and gameplay elements. Elements which overcomplicated the games have been toned down to the benefit of the genre. I think in some ways we are really just at a bad point in the evolution of the genre. We have enough power that the cheats of the old games are no longer acceptable but we still can't elevate the games to the next level. Radiant AI is a good example of how far we have come and yet how frustratingly limited our technology still is.
_________________
Watch your back. Shoot straight. Conserve ammo. And never, ever, cut a deal with a dragon.
Grammaton Dragon
-==(UDIC)==- |
|
Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:33 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:22 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
