bit-gamer.net

Warren Spector: 100-hour games are on the way out

Warren Spector: 100-hour games are on the way out

Warren Spector thinks that games with 100-hour campaigns are on the decline. What do you think?

Speaking at the Games Education Summit in Dallas this week, Warren Spector told the crowds of designers and general on-lookers that he thinks that games with lengthy singleplayer campaigns are on the way out and that he now questioned whether 100-hour games still have any place in the market.

Spector, who is one of the most respected game designers in the industry for his work on Thief, System Shock, the Ultima series and the original Deus Ex, has made it clear in past interviews that his aim going forward is to make games that will make people smile and to move away from games like Deus Ex.

"One-hundred-hour games are on the way out. How many of you have finished GTA? Two percent, probably," said Spector, according to Kotaku.

Spector then admitted that the reasons for this had roots in the selfishness of game designers, saying that "If we're spending $100 million on a game, we want you to see the last level!"

Honestly, it's a little odd to hear the designer of the lengthy Deus Ex say that considering that members of the bit-tech team (i.e. Me) have replayed that game dozens of times. That said, the man does have a point - but the question should be whether that's the fact that the attention spans and priorities of gamers are shifting, or whether game designers are artificially inflating their games and losing the audience along the way.

What do you think? What's the longest time you have spent on a single game? Let us know in the forums.

42 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Orlix 18th June 2008, 10:58 Quote
err... I loved the Ultima series, I love Oblivion. I hate that CoD4 SP was so short.
I think developers want to do shorter games so they do not have to come up with clever stories and can cut it short to save budget. The best example of this was MM Dark Messiah. I liked the game although it was not great, but the SP was done so fast and the multiplayer was not that good. Good thing I did not pay full price for it.
Mentai 18th June 2008, 10:58 Quote
Well he's right. Even (western) RPG's don't fall into the 100+ hours category anymore. Mass Effect is half that length if you go and do everything, half again if you just do the main quest. In some ways that's bad, but as most gamers have lists of titles they want to one day finish, I think shorter experiances are ok.
I found the CoD4 single player to be the perfect length, if I wanted more there's always a higher difficulty/multiplayer.
[USRF]Obiwan 18th June 2008, 11:04 Quote
My wish that HL Episode 3 will take 62 hours playtime to complete, just vanished...
CardJoe 18th June 2008, 11:09 Quote
Personally, I don't care about the length so much as long as the game works well within that space. I like to compare Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and Warrior Within on this point.

Sands of Time was a short game - maybe 15 hours or so? - but it worked. There was no padding, no filler and the story felt like it was always moving forwards. The characters were always evolving and changing. There were sections where the Prince and Farah were separated and the game felt like it might just be padding things out a bit, but the developer was still using this time to most it could.

Warrior Within however responded to claims that the first one was too short. It was double the length, with multiple endings. Unfortunately, it also felt a bit fluffed up as the Prince had to spend time going back through previous levels and tackling objectives which were needlessly complex (the two towers, anyone?).

I like both games, but I prefer SOT purely because the game doesn't waste my time. A shorter game isn't always a worse game and as long as developers are using the time in the game to the maximum then I don't mind if the game is 100+ hours or 12 hours. If the game involves me then I'll play it to the endand then probably play it again and again. If a game feels loose and full of meaningless sections then it's lucky if I get halfway through.
Silver51 18th June 2008, 11:14 Quote
He has a point from a certain perspective. As I've grown older (26) I find myself playing games less for less time. When I do, it's usually a quick blast on something like Day of Defeat.

It may be because as an adult there are more important things that demand my time and just can't justify wasting large chunks of it playing games. I stopped playing RTS when I realised that I'd waste 6 hours destroying other people over the LAN.

There are exceptions though, games with a solid story I will set time aside for, games that make you feel like you've achieved something by playing them. Deus Ex was one of them.

"Laputan Machine"
Xtrafresh 18th June 2008, 11:19 Quote
I think he's wrong. The people who are gaming aren't changing. The difference is that other people are gaming now, so the average did indeed shift. If developers paid a little more attention to the actual group of gamers they are catering to with their game, instead of gamers in general, they would not make wrong assertions like this.

One problem i do see with games in general nowadays is that they spend less and less time trying to draw a player into the story. FFVII, Half-Life, Halo, Baldur's Gate... even Monkey Island. All games that would not have been half as good if they incorporated one of the excuses for a storyline that games use these days. GTA is a positive exception, but games as a platform for compelling storytelling is losing ground.
perplekks45 18th June 2008, 11:40 Quote
I like 'em big.

Maybe I'm too much of an olsdschool Civ player to be counted in with all those console kids but still: I like 'em big.
I do care a lot about stories which is one of the reasons why I think Crysis wasn't too great after all. Same with the new Indy movie... wtf with the aliens? :|
Anyways, I don't agree with Mr. Spector on this 100% though I have to say if a game does feel stretched or the story isn't up to the task it's less fun.
Tris 18th June 2008, 11:42 Quote
I agree with the statement about artificial inflation - i rarely finish games these days (though with ones like gta, its because i get to a certain point then just bomb around trying to cause as much mayhem as possible, then turn the game off when i am finally taken down). I find most to be bloated with uneccessary filler and repetetive content (hey assassins creed), and just lose interest.
As mentioned in a post above, my increasing age might be a factor in this - i have less time and am less tolerant of games that arent consistantly interesting, and now tend to drift towards pick up and play games that i can mess about with for 30mins then go do something else (especially since i went cold turkey from WoW).
The only games i put 100 hours + into are engaging multiplayers (like cod4) where theres a genuine interest in playing purely to improve your skill and understanding of the game.
So on that level i think he is right, but i would be interested to hear what he thinks should replace it - is he a proponent of arcade style games which you complete in an hour of intense play, or is he planning on going the multiplayer content/plot free route, or something else?
Veles 18th June 2008, 12:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
[snip]

QFT. I don't really care how long a game was, I found CoD4 too long because those damn respawning enemies were just so frustrating. Although I thought I should have enjoyed the campaign, most of the time was spent cursing at the screen because I got killed by some enemy I couldn't see.

I do quite enjoy short games, there are so many games I have on my list of games I want to complete, I just have to say no to many of them because they are just too long, JRPGs are generally guilty of this, although I usually enjoy the stories, I find the save point system and long winded dialogue to be really annoying. As Joe said, shorter games tend to have a better storyline as well, as there is much less filler there for the sake of making the game longer. If a long game can have a good story all the way through then that's great, but it's rare that people can pull that off.

I will usually only play a long game if it's truly exceptional too. The problem with a long game is you have to play it for a long time, if the game is very good, then that's great, but the longer you play a game, the more those annoyances with the gameplay start to bug you. I can only play a JRPG for about a week before the random encounter system gets on my nerves. The random encounter system is the JRPGs crutch to make the game last longer, I don't want to have to take 2 hours to get through an area because I get a random encounter every 5 steps, I just want to get through and progress the story.

TL;DR: If you want to make a long game, that's fine, just make sure the gameplay and story are up to scratch throughout, otherwise people will lose interest. Even then, people will probably still lose interest when a new game comes out, but if you make it good, people will want to come back to it over and over again.

EDIT: Also, your new avatar is awesome
bowman 18th June 2008, 12:47 Quote
It's already going this way. Mass Effect, the campaign was so short, it almost lost the epic feel of it. COD4, it was a taste bite of a game, not a full game. The MP was useless, so one ended up paying for a 4 hour game. No good.
Cupboard 18th June 2008, 12:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
It's already going this way. Mass Effect, the campaign was so short, it almost lost the epic feel of it. COD4, it was a taste bite of a game, not a full game. The MP was useless, so one ended up paying for a 4 hour game. No good.

The single player was too short, yes, but you cannot say that the multi player was useless (says he who has spent about 5 days playing it over LAN)

I like long games, so long as I get into them. I enjoyed CoD4, I enjoyed ES4: Oblivion, I enjoyed GTA:SA. I have completed them (Oblivion and GTA twice).
I also enjoyed STALKER but not enough to complete 90% of it again when I reinstalled windows and forgot to backup the saves.
So long as a game is good for the amount of time you are playing it, then I am happy. I am really happy if that goes on for 100+ hours
LeMaltor 18th June 2008, 13:07 Quote
COD4 sp too long shocker??????? :O lolz
rollo 18th June 2008, 13:15 Quote
final fantasy 7 is at least 100 hrs if you have no idea what your doing, You will spend hours alone working out how to get everything. And its perhaps the greatest rpg ever. I didnt like COD4 been so short i must admit that. GTA 4 isnt really a long game doable in less than 20 hrs without real issue.

As for mass effect, It might cover 360 rpg asparations but it falls way short of what i expected. Knights of the old republic was about twice its size. ( did they run into disk space issues i wonder)

If im paying £40-50 i want value for money not a 8hr expereance. £5 an hr isnt great value. ( cinimas is nearly better), Also played duex ex at least 3 times doing it 3 diffrent ways. I like games that are open about the way you play. Having to only go in guns blazzing gets rather old fast.. Thats what was maybe great about farcry and crysis. There was at least 4 diffrent routes into everything. You were encouraged to do it diffrently

And warren were is system shock 3 ( we want to play it )
Smegwarrior 18th June 2008, 13:25 Quote
This is just typical of big business, they want us to pay the same amount of money or more money for less content so they can increase their profits, that is what it all boils down to.

If the new generation of gamers don't have the attention span to complete a 100+ hour game then stick with going straight into online game play and keep away from the single player campaign.

I read about how short the COD4 single player campaign was and decided I would never buy it.

I agree that a long game with a poor story line or poor content designed to pad it out will fail dismally but that is no excuse for shortening games and it is just that, an excuse, it seems the game developers are getting short attention spans and increased greed, they just want to get it out the door and get on with the next one rather than create a truly compelling game, which is to the detriment of the game, how many games when released as supposedly 'gold' are just the latest beta, Frontlines: Fuel Of War is a good example, I played the open beta and when it went 'gold' I was going to buy it until I read that it was little if any better than the buggy beta I had played for free, when I read about people not being able to play the game they had just purchased until they had downloaded a patch and a hotfix (a patch by any other name is still a patch) I decided I would NEVER buy it.

When I buy a game I expect quality, quantity and I expect it to work straight out of the box, if they can't make a game that fulfils all of that then they can't expect me to pay the AU$60 - AU$100+ that they want for it, it makes me think of [cough]p2p[/cough] as the better option to get games.
Xir 18th June 2008, 13:26 Quote
I find I have to consent with you guys: I'm getting old ;-)

...I'm still not through GTA:SA

Depending on how long it's going to take for Part IV to get to the PC, I might just make it yet.

Finished COD4 though, so yeah, it was pretty short, but okay. (could have had +50% maybe.)
HL2 had the right length...
Far Cry was too long...
Timmy_the_tortoise 18th June 2008, 13:31 Quote
The problem isn't so much the length as the quantity of games.

I might buy a new game, play it for a few hours a day and get half way through.. Then, on my next rip into town buy another new game, and then I'll begin to play that and forget about the other one.
wolff000 18th June 2008, 14:05 Quote
If people don't like lengthy games then why did GTA IV and Oblivion sell like hotcakes? This guy is awesome he has worked on some really great games but I think he is offbase. If you have enough interesting content to last that long than go for it. If you are just adding fluff and filler let the game be short simple as that. There are enough consumers to support both.
Veles 18th June 2008, 14:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smegwarrior
This is just typical of big business, they want us to pay the same amount of money or more money for less content so they can increase their profits, that is what it all boils down to.

Content =/= playing time. Modern games are very expensive to produce, some games even having the budget of hollywood movies, it's very difficult for a handful of people to make a decent modern game now, especially difficult if you want it to be a big game with lots of areas.
DXR_13KE 18th June 2008, 14:42 Quote
CardJoe is your face being electrocuted in your avatar?

i want quality and length, one is nothing without the other.
Bluephoenix 18th June 2008, 15:04 Quote
TBH I like long games as long as they don't drag and there is always something interesting to do.

Oblivion was good in this respect as there are always about 14+ quests on your plate at any given time, and all of different style (except when you get to the last 14)

other good time consuming games were the LoZ series and the Metroid series.


FPS games don't benefit from a longer story line or open-endedness like an RPG does, simply because the scope of the gameplay is so limited. STALKER was an interesting twist trying to blend the two, but the reality is it doesn't work very well.

going forward I can see FPS's becoming more Multiplayer oriented, while I can still see longer and more interesting RPGs.


unrelated: anyone know the average complete time for Okami on the Wii? I'm at the dragon palace, with about 18hrs of game time.
Firehed 18th June 2008, 15:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
I think he's wrong. The people who are gaming aren't changing. The difference is that other people are gaming now, so the average did indeed shift. If developers paid a little more attention to the actual group of gamers they are catering to with their game, instead of gamers in general, they would not make wrong assertions like this.
No, but the time allocations of those same gamers IS changing. I've been playing since I was... six?, and as a member of some sort of workforce now, I simply don't have the time to dedicate to the super-long games. As it is, I still like them a lot so they'd stretch out over a much longer period of time, but being able to sit down for a few songs in Rock Band is easier to fit into my schedule than an epic battle against Sephiroth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
One problem i do see with games in general nowadays is that they spend less and less time trying to draw a player into the story. FFVII, Half-Life, Halo, Baldur's Gate... even Monkey Island. All games that would not have been half as good if they incorporated one of the excuses for a storyline that games use these days. GTA is a positive exception, but games as a platform for compelling storytelling is losing ground.
Absolutely true. Like I said above, long games CAN still work, they'd just be stretched out over a lot longer period of time for many players (which isn't really too good for game publishers, for obvious reasons). The real issue here is the storyline though... it's just not there recently. The sandbox and pick-up-and-play-for-a-bit games can be great, but by their nature the storyline can't be too deep, so it'll almost certainly turn into a grind if they try to get a few extra hours of gameplay out of it. Adding in random achievements is no substitute for a story, even if they add some replay value. Unfortunately it seems like the achievements in many games are very poorly selected so that getting them turns into a chore rather than an accomplishment - think "Equip all party members with a Master Summon materia - 10G" (bad!)
Bauul 18th June 2008, 15:51 Quote
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Portal as a perfect example of what he's getting at. Yes Portal was short, but it was also massively high quality all the way through and would have lost something had it been any longer. I would personally choose quality over quantity any time of the day. How many games out there are 100+ hours and maintain the quality all the way through? Very very few. And given the modern consumer's expectations for visual and audio quality all the way through that as well, it would become a near impossible task to attempt it.

Case in point? Doom 3. No-one can accuse it of being a short game, it wasn't at all, but were it shorter it probably would have been better as a result.
themax 18th June 2008, 16:25 Quote
I don't mind short games, like other people here I find in my limited time I simply can't just enjoy a 50+hour game anymore. When I play a game I do eventually want to beat it, but I don't want that to be six months later given my available time due to work and family. I would rather anjoy a short, high production value game than a long, low quality one. CoD4 was short, but I enjoyed every minute of it and could play it again and a again. Some games just seem to never end and I will lose interest the longer it's drawn out.
HourBeforeDawn 18th June 2008, 17:07 Quote
100hr games where? where? I havent seen any single player games that have like 100hrs of game play and I dont count MMOs as part of that...

But I will say this I would probably prefer a game that falls in the 15-25hr range but if it has a great story then I could play it for however long it last.
Lepermessiah 18th June 2008, 17:18 Quote
Spectre is wrong on one point, if you just follow the main strory GTA is not near 100 hours. There are many 100 hour games if you create an open world with lots of side things to do ala Oblivion, GTA. why do devs keep piping up and saying things and act like they know all? I think he is off base to a point.
CardJoe 18th June 2008, 18:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Spectre is wrong on one point, if you just follow the main strory GTA is not near 100 hours. There are many 100 hour games if you create an open world with lots of side things to do ala Oblivion, GTA. why do devs keep piping up and saying things and act like they know all? I think he is off base to a point.

But does anyone ever just stick to the main quest that religiously?
pistol_pete 18th June 2008, 19:05 Quote
I was dissapointed when I started HL2 Ep 1 one afternoon and was finished it by midnight - fortunately I didnt pay much for it as I got it as part of the Orange Box.

If you're payer £30 for a game it needs to give you plenty to do - and for the majority of games I don't think adding a multiplayer counts. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but playing through Starcraft took nearly two months of my evenings and weekends. By the end I was a wreck - and then came Brood War. Now, I loved World in Conflict, and played the demo to death just like I did with the Startcraft one 10 years ago, but WiC only had 15 missions, only a couple of which I had to play more than once beacuse they were hard. Sure, there's an infinite amount of online play to be done, but that can be pretty hit-or-miss, and I find the single player much more immersive.
Cthippo 18th June 2008, 19:33 Quote
I agree, it's all about quality. I don't mind a short game as long as I know going into it that it's going to be short and is priced appropriatly. I am willing to pay $50 for a longer game, but it needs to have a lot of variety to make it worthwhile. HL2 was I think the best example of this. Each chapter was just about the right length, and they all had a different feel and different mechanics, even when they were the same maps.

No question, making good, long games is hard and expensive, but if you're asking for $50 of my money, i expect at least 20-40 hours of gameplay. Otherwise it's a ripoff!
Lepermessiah 18th June 2008, 21:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Spectre is wrong on one point, if you just follow the main strory GTA is not near 100 hours. There are many 100 hour games if you create an open world with lots of side things to do ala Oblivion, GTA. why do devs keep piping up and saying things and act like they know all? I think he is off base to a point.

But does anyone ever just stick to the main quest that religiously?

No, which is why 100 hour games are always going to be around to some extent, i think Spectre is wrong, wouldn't be the first time.
flaunt 18th June 2008, 22:56 Quote
The only reason I haven't finished GTA4 is because the damn thing RROD'd my xbox... What I would like to see is some true innovation in storylines. For example, why do games with strong single player campaigns always play out more like interactive movies than real life? There's so much emphasis on "realistic graphics" when the whole concept of a "storyline" is unrealistic. For example, if I wanted to I should be able to start the GTA4 campaign and single-handedly take over all of Liberty City right out of the box. I should be able to get off the boat and kill Roman if I feel like it. The storyline should adapt to what I want to do not the other way around. If I want to follow the "suggested" storyline that should be my choice. Oblivion is the only game that comes to mind that sort of fits that mold.

But for my money if it's between a 100 hour campaign and a short campaign I'll take the long one every time. As long as it doesn't suck.
Veles 18th June 2008, 23:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
But does anyone ever just stick to the main quest that religiously?

Well there were all those people that followed the arrow in Bioshock and didn't bother to explore.
Redbeaver 18th June 2008, 23:49 Quote
ill spent 100hr on a game if its quality.

i hate CoD is so short, and hate that stupid GTA is so long and tedious.

i kno different people has different sweet spot on how long they wanna play a given title, but there should be some generalization if developers would listen to their community more........

just my 2c.
cyrilthefish 19th June 2008, 01:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Personally, I don't care about the length so much as long as the game works well within that space.
This is the main point i feel.

You can make any game 100hours by just including mindless repetitive filler content in it, but that won't improve the game at all, the opposite infact.

Some of my favourite games include portal (tiny) up to MMOs (pretty much infinite)
if the game length is sensible for the amount of content it works, i don't want more games like doom3 that felt like a game extended 4x by repetition just to make it longer...
Jokkocze 19th June 2008, 01:46 Quote
Long games for the win! I've played the fallout games for several hundreds of hours and I've completed all the forgotten realms games at least twice. And the "how many have completed gta?" awnser was just stupid. 2% of the people who's played it probably hasnt compelted it.
docodine 19th June 2008, 06:12 Quote
How can he say that we will move toward shorter games? There have always been short games, as with long games. I don't want a long storyline to go with Halo 3, I just want to beat Campaign so I can unlock more armor for multiplayer. Final Fantasy VIII? I spent over 200 hours, and yet I was still sad when it finally ended. They're completely separate genres, it's like saying RTSs will become more roguelike in the future.
Bladestorm 19th June 2008, 07:59 Quote
I don't want to think about how much time is involved in finishing from beginning to victory any of the decent X-Com games but they just wouldn't be the same if you tried to shorten them. I think length can be important depending on the rest of the game - much as has been said already it needs quality in mechanics to go along with it and some sort of a narrative thread wether that be highly linear plot-based or a more open over-arching backstory (ala X-Coms or oblivion or the like - assuming in the latter you just wander around doing things rather than heading for the main quest religiously anyway)
hawky84 19th June 2008, 13:19 Quote
i like to dive in for five mins after wirk to play games like counter strike source and i also like setting aside a day in my life to get submerged in games like Deus Ex. Why should every games developer kill off 100 hour game play games? make those games like GTA were only 2% of use complete it, GTA sells well so whats the problem?
The_Beast 19th June 2008, 21:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
I find I have to consent with you guys: I'm getting old ;-)

...I'm still not through GTA:SA


Wow I finished GTA:SA in 18 hours (with a few cheats just doing the missions nothing extra)
Zurechial 20th June 2008, 02:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrilthefish
This is the main point i feel.

You can make any game 100hours by just including mindless repetitive filler content in it, but that won't improve the game at all, the opposite infact.

You can.....but you needn't.
Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape Torment, cases in point..

There's too much money in gaming now, and like everything that 'turns mainstream', it gets poisoned by a shift in direction towards mass-appeal for maximum profit, rather than quality for the sake of artistry and achievement.
It saddens me to see one of the greatest visionaries of gaming so swayed by this shift in perception (which as others have said is due to more non-gamer-types buying games now than before, rather than an actual change in attitudes from those of us who are longtime, dedicated, 'hardcore' gamers) and honestly makes me feel a little bit betrayed, as irrational as that may be.
The people who actually appreciate the sheer artistry of games like Planescape Torment, Deus Ex and System Shock are now a minority in the market and therefore we no longer hold any sway. To be 'forgotten about' and marginalised by people like Spector simply because we're no longer financially viable is painful, to say the least.
That may just be "how it goes", but knowing that doesn't lessen the disappointment.

Joe, you disallowed me from saying anything bad about Spector before on the topic of Invisible War, but you know... I'm not going to accept that this time, and when I think about it, I recall a video interview Spector did, along with a printed-magazine preview, extolling the virtues of DX:IW's gameplay and 'accessiblity' (keyword) in the later stages of the game's production timeline.
So... in light of the above, this very article and Spector's public shift towards "games that make you happy", I'm inclined to suspect he wouldn't have done a great job on DX:IW had he been more heavily involved anyway.

And believe me, it kills me to think that about him. I grew up on his games and return to them regularly even now, as many do.

For the record, I think he's right that long games are on the way out, but I don't think it's anything to be happy about and I don't think it's a forward step for the games industry.
CardJoe 20th June 2008, 09:25 Quote
Man, Baldur's Gate II. 200+ hours on my first run through and not a moment of it was empty or wasted. What a great game.
Zurechial 20th June 2008, 19:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Man, Baldur's Gate II. 200+ hours on my first run through and not a moment of it was empty or wasted. What a great game.


QFT.

200+ hours on the first run through, and well over 100 on subsequent runs too, of which there are many..
And then stick another 30-40 on for the expansion. Every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Not a moment of it was empty or wasted.
That's the key point to that statement, I think. It's easy to pad out games to provide hundreds of hours of gameplay (MMOs, Final Fantasy, Oblivion cases in point) with repetitive or randomly-generated content but both the initial positive appraisal of the game and the game's replayability benefit hugely from varied, original, non-repetitive content that had as much time and effort poured into its creation as the player gets out of it in return, and more.
The games we can say that about are the ones that go down in history as groundbreaking or classic.
Oblivion won't be remembered on that count, for instance, but Fallout 2 and Baldur's Gate 2 will.

Now that's quality gaming, and value for money. Developers & Publishers please take note. Warren Spector, go back to making good games please.
Xir 23rd June 2008, 10:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
Wow I finished GTA:SA in 18 hours (with a few cheats just doing the missions nothing extra)

:?...I'll need more than that just to finish the cars list, as i have to drive to and fro between towns...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums