Does Half Life 2 Hold up?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

A lot of people seem to be yammering about "it was good for it's time." Really though, plenty people thought that the opening level was weak and that water boat section was shit even when it was first released. It will get better though. I normally hate the "it'll get better" school of thought, so feel free to quit. However, there is a reason people praised it as much as they did when it came out.

Dense_Electric:

No. That is not what a strawman fallacy is. A strawman fallacy is when the person arguing deliberately misrepresents or omits key parts of their opponent's argument - NOT when the person arguing merely changes the premise for the sake of analogy. People in general need to learn the difference if they're going to use that term.

As for the rest of what you say, the same can be said of slavery. Though I'm sure everyone here would agree that slavery is wrong, "wrong" is still a subjective value, and therefor the idea that slavery is wrong is subjective. Saying that a lot of people like or approve of something is not, in any way, shape, or form, a sound argument for the quality or value of that thing. Not even as a supplementary argument. A lot of people like Jersey Shore, but I'm guessing most people here will tell you it's the most horrible thing every created.

Wasn't really addressing your Godwin -esque anology. Just saying Xanadu point is completely valid.

Also...

image

I got Half-Life 2 when it was first released and it's probably my most played through game; the pacing is just so perfect that one section flows so perfectly into the next without any slog that I'll boot up a single section with the intent of playing for 15 min and the next thing I know I'm half way through the game. It really does hold up quite well.

Played it a couple of times since 2008, didn't age well tbh. And alot of unnescecary glitches and unfinished models.

0takuMetalhead:
Played it a couple of times since 2008, didn't age well tbh. And alot of unnescecary glitches and unfinished models.

unneccesary glitches? Did you happen to find any that is neccessary?

BTW what unfinished models you speak of? If you mean the kind you can only see with noclipping then

double post

Ronack:
Half-Life 2 is the reason why the word overrated was invented.

you know when people make comments like that, they usually give reasons for it so they dont look like an asshat.

Wait until after you play through the Ravenholm chapter before passing judgement on the game.

Doom972:
Wait until after you play through the Ravenholm chapter before passing judgement on the game.

Pffffft, HA. Ravenholm.

bullet_sandw1ch:

Ronack:
Half-Life 2 is the reason why the word overrated was invented.

you know when people make comments like that, they usually give reasons for it so they dont look like an asshat.

Oh-ho-ho. You want reasons? Here's my review, copy and pasted for your viewing pleasures:

The original Half Life was a gem that went beyond good and went straight through the awesomesphere. Starting off slow, the game drops you in to a train on the way to work. Gordon, your character, then proceeds to fuck everything up. Well, not him per se. Mister M.I.T. here did absofuckinglutely nothing but push a cart in to a beam and voila, he's responsible for the end of the world. Same goes for this game where all he really did was flip a fucking switch and ran like a little bitch from point A to point B to point C. And they call him the great savior and shit. HAHAHAHA, Barney is more of a hero than Freeman.
At any rate, the game was amazing for its time and it gave us a rather unique experience that to this day is highly enjoyable. However, with the release of Half Life 2, I feel that the original game was done wrong.

What made the original game so great was that it kept going from one location to the next in a fairly rapid pace, giving you moments to breathe every now and them combined with a few jump scare moments. Slowly but surely the other dimension kept crawling in to the game until you finally changed the scenery completely. Not so in Half Life 2. Do you know those moments in games where there is a long level where things seem to quiet down for a long level or when the gameplay shifts for a level from one first person to driving stage? They normally only come once a game or maybe twice. But here, it's all there is to it.
The levels are way too long and uninteresting, and when something interesting does happen, it's over in ten minutes before we move on to a new set of boring levels. Vehicle levels are here as well and I have to say that ... well, they're really, really out of place. They are way too long, way too empty and unexciting.
Take for instance the infamous "We don't go to Ravenholm." Whilst it is a very good idea on its own, the level quickly begins to drag on as you go in to yet another street and then turn in to yet another building. Oh look, another puzzle, oh look another batch of enemies. I was so glad to have finally made it out of there, not because it was scary (like many people claim) but because it was going on way to long to be fun. Unfortunately, the game then went in to the level that is Highway 17, another vehicle mission that lasted way too long but was at least passable because of the parts where you needed to bypass an obstacle via the long way. The bridge for example. One moment in particular still bugs me. At one point I was supposed to help clear a bunch of troops coming via airship. The ships came in one at a time and the enemies left the vehicle one at a time. Easy pickings ... The enemy didn't even fire ONCE.
Luckily, this marked the halfway point as we then proceed on to Chapter 8: Sandtraps. The first chapter since the first one that is genuinely interesting. After this, things pick up for the better and the game truly becomes interesting and genuinely challenging! HUZZAH! It's Half Life again! I haz a happie!

During the boring levels, the shit can really hit the fan hard when you find yourself yet another investigative puzzle. In the original Half Life, it was more along the lines of Obstacle Puzzles. As in: Shit's in the way, how do I remove shit? Here it's: Look ma, physics engine puzzle! That is all you need to know about the puzzles, really. Find shit to weigh something down, weigh it down, aaaaaaaaaaaaand Go! Nothing fancy to it. Of course, there are some obstacle puzzles as well and they're as fun to solve like they were in the first game.
I'm going to save you all a lot of trouble here with one of the puzzles. During Highway 17 (I think some of you just figured out what puzzle I'm talking out) you come across an obvious trap. Sure enough, the trap is sprung, like you had another choice, and you fight off some bad guys. Next up, puzzle time to get you out of the trap area. There's 3 batteries that you need to collect. Two are easy to spot but the third one is a real son of a bitch to find. And it's a huge place with a lot of trash so I searched all over the place. Yeah, it was under the fucking tub. Who knew.

I've also heard a lot of people praise the story of Half Life 2. Yeah, no, what story? GO THERE! *went there* GO THERE! *Went there* Repeat this enough times and you have Half Life 2. They only slapped on a shell of a story to give a proper excuse for you to go to point B. It doesn't say much when the only interesting things in this story are the appearance of Barney, the existence or LaMarr and the preacher.
I'm also still a bit flabbergasted by the fact people praise the fuck out of Alyx when all she did so far was act like a normal human being whilst at the same time looking like one too. Big fucking whoop.

And now for one of the most overrated pieces of shit every created. Whilst the rest of the guns are great (especially the Pheropod), the Gravity Gun is mostly pointless unless you manage to find a gas canister or something sharp. The one and only thing that this gun is good for is clearing garbage and furniture out of your way. Which I am fairly certain was placed there just because of the god damned gun.

What makes this game great you ask? The graphics (great for its time), the music (very chilly, but gets cut off unfortunately during a loading screen, kind of ruining the moment) and the controls (smooth and perfect). What's also perfect in this game is the ammo placement. Sometimes ammo comes far between and you really need to start thinking in order to get passed the enemies. Again, just like in Half Life.

In the end, this game deserves a

7/10

Whilst certainly not great, it's definitely worth a purchase. Especially since it's currently in The Orange Box, which is like what? 20 bucks?

bafrali:

0takuMetalhead:
Played it a couple of times since 2008, didn't age well tbh. And alot of unnescecary glitches and unfinished models.

unneccesary glitches? Did you happen to find any that is neccessary?

BTW what unfinished models you speak of? If you mean the kind you can only see with noclipping then

Viewmodels (guns etc) have missing faces: Pistol doesn't expend it's ammo, Revolver is missing a big part on the right side, smg's clip is never trown out, Pulse rifle can be looked trhough when turning fast enough and Gordon holds it with 1 arm, Crossbow misses a disc and trigger, RL has a completely diffirent world model. Path finding for Alex can be borked sometimes, enemies don't shoot you when you hold something while watching in their direction. Few scripting error's, just to name the stuff that bothers me most.

Overall: Groundbreaking? Yes in 2004, outdated now.

edit: the irony is that the beta doesn't has most of these issues...

Just replayed it couple months ago.
I'd say it's still pretty fucking sweet.
Nevermind the fact that it's got an astounding number of mods, some of which are amazing in their own right.

I played the entire HL series for the first time in late 2011, and I think all of them stand up today, even HL1. I actually enjoyed HL1 far more than 2, but maybe that's just me.

Garyn Dakari:
I played the entire HL series for the first time in late 2011, and I think all of them stand up today, even HL1. I actually enjoyed HL1 far more than 2, but maybe that's just me.

First HL is alot better then 2. That one did age well unlike 2.

No, and it didn't when I first played in 2010 either.

Groundbreaking for it's time, sure; should be considered one of the best FPS' of all time, sure; does it hold up today? no.

0takuMetalhead:

Garyn Dakari:
I played the entire HL series for the first time in late 2011, and I think all of them stand up today, even HL1. I actually enjoyed HL1 far more than 2, but maybe that's just me.

First HL is alot better then 2. That one did age well unlike 2.

Oh my god this. HL1 is still an absolute blast.

I recently started playing Bioshock and was stunned by how bad the graphics and models in the game looked. They didn't just look bad compared to today's games however, they looked bad compared to Half Life 2's. That's despite the fact that Half Life 2 came out 3 years before Bioshock, before anyone had even heard of the Xbox360 console that Bioshock was going to run on.

The fact is Half Life 2 graphically was monumental for its time. When it first came out very few computers could even even run it. But guess what? That was nearly a decade ago. If a game that came out a decade ago still looked good relative to today's games it would speak pretty poorly of that decade's progress. You just had to be there to understand how innovative and rich that game felt when it first came out.

image

It had a realistic physics engine, it had amazing looking enemies and creatures. I know today the concept of a game set in a crumbling urban environment where you try to overthrow a dystopian government might seem pretty ordinary, but at the time it was an amazing story for a video game to have, and it's told beautifully in a manner that is both fluid and subtle with an amazing attention to detail. The lack of long cutscenes contributed to the game's realism as well by never breaking from Gordon Freeman's point of view.

And in the end Half Life 2 holds up, Half Life holds up, Super Mario World holds up, Space Invaders holds up. Those where fun games and still are fun because they were well designed.

OlasDAlmighty:
The fact is Half Life 2 graphically was monumental for its time. When it first came out very few computers could even even run it. But guess what? That was nearly a decade ago. If a game that came out a decade ago still looked good relative to today's games it would speak pretty poorly of that decade's progress. You just had to be there to understand how innovative and rich that game felt when it first came out.

No offence: I have never given two flying shits about the graphical aspect of a game. As a child I played atari games and didn't care what they looked like. As long as I can see and understand what is going on everything else is bells and whistles. That said, lighting sometimes awes me but more in a logical "How many hours did they spent on making it look like this" way rather than in an instinctive "this is gorgeous" way.

0takuMetalhead:

bafrali:

0takuMetalhead:
Played it a couple of times since 2008, didn't age well tbh. And alot of unnescecary glitches and unfinished models.

unneccesary glitches? Did you happen to find any that is neccessary?

BTW what unfinished models you speak of? If you mean the kind you can only see with noclipping then

Viewmodels (guns etc) have missing faces: Pistol doesn't expend it's ammo, Revolver is missing a big part on the right side, smg's clip is never trown out, Pulse rifle can be looked trhough when turning fast enough and Gordon holds it with 1 arm, Crossbow misses a disc and trigger, RL has a completely diffirent world model. Path finding for Alex can be borked sometimes, enemies don't shoot you when you hold something while watching in their direction. Few scripting error's, just to name the stuff that bothers me most.

Overall: Groundbreaking? Yes in 2004, outdated now.

edit: the irony is that the beta doesn't has most of these issues...

What you do is called nitpicking and I don't see how a few glitches can take away so much from the overall design and gameplay or how they make the game "outdated" from a technical standpoint.

Dense_Electric:
As for the rest of what you say, the same can be said of slavery. Though I'm sure everyone here would agree that slavery is wrong, "wrong" is still a subjective value, and therefor the idea that slavery is wrong is subjective. Saying that a lot of people like or approve of something is not, in any way, shape, or form, a sound argument for the quality or value of that thing.

Umm, you're confusing moral with value judgements there. And pray tell, how exactly does one objectively tell the value of a product? I would have thought that the amount of people liking/using it is an indicator of whether it is good or not. But apparently I'm wrong - there must be another Objective™®© way to do it in that case.

I played Half-Life 2 for the first time ever last year, and I absolutely loved it. Then again, I hadn't played all the way through an FPS ever before, so I may not be able to speak to it in context. With that said, though, I think HL2, while not my favorite game, is absolutely unparalleled in both its diversity and tightness. it takes you through all kinds of diverse environs, with different gameplay styles, each exhilaratingly fun but still structured around the same simple control scheme.

bafrali:

0takuMetalhead:

bafrali:

unneccesary glitches? Did you happen to find any that is neccessary?

BTW what unfinished models you speak of? If you mean the kind you can only see with noclipping then

Viewmodels (guns etc) have missing faces: Pistol doesn't expend it's ammo, Revolver is missing a big part on the right side, smg's clip is never trown out, Pulse rifle can be looked trhough when turning fast enough and Gordon holds it with 1 arm, Crossbow misses a disc and trigger, RL has a completely diffirent world model. Path finding for Alex can be borked sometimes, enemies don't shoot you when you hold something while watching in their direction. Few scripting error's, just to name the stuff that bothers me most.

Overall: Groundbreaking? Yes in 2004, outdated now.

edit: the irony is that the beta doesn't has most of these issues...

What you do is called nitpicking and I don't see how a few glitches can take away so much from the overall design and gameplay or how they make the game "outdated" from a technical standpoint.

Engine itself is fine, HL2 however is not, it's an unfinished mess. Gameplay is quiet dull. It's beta had way more features: more weapons, more enemies and actual squad tactics you could make use of. Hell lot's of beta maps are actually more interesting and better mapped then the retail game has. Way darker atmosphere, a better story I could go on for hours on the beta how much better it was/is.

Zeh Don:
There are a few ways to "look" at Half-life 2, however in my opinion it stands up in all of them - feel free to disagree.

In terms of First Person Story telling, Half-life 2 remains the champion. It's story is less told through lazy cut scenes and more through the world and incidental details present therein. The lack of children and pets, the deep philosophical ramblings that bombard the citizens, even the furnishings in the houses tell a story better than some pathetic shock-value opener. The trips to Ravenholm and Nova Prospect towards the middle of the game dip the world in a dark and terrifying vibe that supplants most full fledged Horror titles because it doesn't SAY anything. It just puts the details in the world and lets them speak for themselves.

In terms of Gun Play, Half-life 2 isn't as visceral as it's modern day counter parts, however the moment-to-moment gameplay is still well ahead of basically everyone in the industry save for perhaps Halo. The A.I. drives the scenario based combat, meaning it reacts to the player and allows them to employ wildcard strategies that the A.I. adapts to. Most modern shooters all but ignore A.I. in favour of scripted battles - Half-life 2 weaves it's scripting amongst the on-the-fly scenarios. The first real battle against the Combine drop ship on the freeway, the fierce firefights through the City during the game's final chapters, and even the moment-to-moment use of the gravity gun allow for a more varied and immersive experience.

Lastly, it's setting is incredible, though lacking the awe of something akin to Bioshock's Rapture. It's eschews the realism of the modern shooters, leaving behind your glocks and M14s for more inventive and "fun" firearms. Instead of simply killing "The Non-Americans" as is the norm for the industry today, you're fighting monsters and alien soldiers, not because they "Hate Freedom for [reasons]" but because they're simply trying to wipe out humanity, turning them into zombie soldiers for their army. It's escapism, pure and simple - and for the dreamer in me, it wins out over the endlessly boring Military Shooters of today.

All my opinions, of course.

No offense, but I have to disagree with pretty much everything except for the setting.

I think the first-person storytelling is absolutely terrible. Sure, the settings are interesting and show how run-down everything is, and you can see a bit of alien tech mixed in with human tech, but that's about it. That's setting, not story. The story itself is a fairly generic alien shoot-em-up, with other inspirations taken from zombie apocalypse scenarios. This wasn't new even when the game originally came out. Also, the story quite obviously tries to focus on Gordon Freeman. The problem is, Gordon Freeman is one of the worst characters ever created. All you know is that he was a scientist who managed to survive the beginning of the alien invasion. You could argue that Gordon is supposed to be an avatar for the player's own character traits. But there is no way to customize Gordon or change his actions or play style. I know that the way that I had to play and the decisions that Gordon makes are nothing like what I would do when faced with the current situation, even if I did know how to fight as well as he did.

The gun-play is pretty bad compared to modern shooters, and nothing remotely special when compared to the games of it's time. Guns felt wrong, and the only one that was truly creative was the gravity gun. The AI was terrible, doing nothing but running into my bullets. The only reason why they were a threat was because the amount of damage you take just from the weakest of weapons. The gun play and AI of the game, Republic Commando, which came out just a year later, shows how poorly the AI for Half Life 2 actually was.

The setting itself was pretty great, there's no argument there. I do feel that there could've been a little more detail added to the specific areas, but it was good.

But the truth is that the game isn't as great as a lot of gamers make it out to be, even if you take into account it's age.

It's still pretty good, definitely better than average, but if you look at it objectively, without nostalgia, it's not really much more than that.

It's boring as shit. I never really enjoyed it when it came out (played it on release). It was technically impressive, sure, but the gameplay was stodgy and lifeless and the cliffhanger was bullshit, though I suppose it wasn't worse than HL 1.

I do love the people here saying "Well you wouldn't do this to OTHER old games", pfft, Deus Ex is still brilliant, Goldeneye is still shameless superb action and games on the same engine like Vampire: Bloodlines and Counter-Strike: Source are still some of the best I've ever played, so it's obviously not an engine issue.

To me, it was never amazing. Functional, but no soul.

0takuMetalhead:
snip

Funny I actually think that they did the best thing when they reworked the Beta and shaped it into the retail form. It was way over the top with its visuals and the depiction of the combine. I find the minimalistic aproach much more intersting and subtle which is pretty rare as far as the games are concerned.

Evil empire military parades, really? Why didn't you give Breen a mustache to twirl while you were at it Valve.

first i'd like to say that the people who don't like the gravity gun have something wrong with them on some internal level that defines what's fun or not. that's the only thing i can't budge on when it comes to fun or not fun.

anything else that can be argued about the game, i can understand. unless you can play a old game like a time traveler would try to blend into whatever time period he's gotten himself into, you're setting yourself up for disaster. i literally can understand not trying to think like you're playing a game from 2004 or 1998 or whatever. but if you're going out of your way to give a game a chance with a open heart, you're gonna have too otherwise you'll end up nip picking your own nipples off.

also a thing worth noting is that while half life was one of the very first games with a passable physics engine, and gay ben really liked showing that off to the point where he basically reused puzzles into his later two episodic extensions to much annoyance of critics like yahtzee for example. so even though valve had something to show off in the main game, i'd say it's ok to get pissed off about it being EVERYWHERE in the games because it got old so fucking fast even for me, a guy who's been playing the games since 2008.

Listen, no one can tell you whether or not a game is good. That's up to yourself to decide. Posts like this are made by people that want to shout to the world that they have a different opinion. Games like Half Life 2 which has worldly been accepted as a good, maybe even great, game are the ones most subjected to criticism.

As for answering your original question, I still believe that Half Life 2 is a very good game too this very day. In a game industry struggles to combine story and gameplay, Half Life 2 still manages to do so with little to no cutscenes. The atmosphere is spectacular and makes the world feel like a real place. Sure, the steam engine is showing it's age, but the later episodes still manage to bring very memorable environments. The story, although boring at times, can suck you in if you just let it. Speaking for the gunplay, it's an old school shooter so those who grow up on the modern stuff might find it lacking--I do not.

i played it for the first time in like 2010 and it easily made it into my top 5 favorite games. it definitely holds up, especially in terms of graphics. its hard to believe it came out in 2004.

bafrali:

0takuMetalhead:
snip

Funny I actually think that they did the best thing when they reworked the Beta and shaped it into the retail form. It was way over the top with its visuals and the depiction of the combine. I find the minimalistic aproach much more intersting and subtle which is pretty rare as far as the games are concerned.

Evil empire military parades, really? Why didn't you give Breen a mustache to twirl while you were at it Valve.

Mehh, if they didn't make a rushjob out of it i would have agreed, but the beta's atmosphere is unmatched. If you haven't already search on the Combine wiki for the Air Exchange maps, if only these maps where kept I would be replaying it (mods are already their for beta enemies).

It's a shooter.

Shooters show their strength through graphical prowess, lighting, detail, atmosphere in general, hit detection, physics, etc.
In other words, the strengths of the genre lie in technical advancements.
The shooter genre in general does not age well because of this.
They are not made to last.

On the opposite of this spectrum, we have the RPG genre, puzzlers and the (point & click) adventure games.

So I went back and I got control of this motorboat. It drives like ass but the sense of speed and power that it gives it's actually really good, even if I have no idea of were to go.

Arqus_Zed:
It's a shooter.

Shooters show their strength through graphical prowess, lighting, detail, atmosphere in general, hit detection, physics, etc.
In other words, the strengths of the genre lie in technical advancements.
The shooter genre in general does not age well because of this.
They are not made to last.

Shooting can be satisfactory in a very visceral level through correct timing of animations, hit and sound effects and could be done right since years ago. Plus, technical advances do not override level design. Battlefield 3 may look incredible but it's campaign is a complete turd. Call of Duty has never looked great but the 4th game was actually good.

MichiganMuscle77:
Here we go again.. The game is 9 years old.

Why don't people bring up this argument about GoldenEye 007? Deus Ex? Metal Gear Solid? Classic games that were revolutions in their own right, but if they were released today (even with modern graphics and sound), they would be considered AWFUL based on their gameplay mechanics and design.

Half-Life 2 was, at the time of its release, top of the line. It was the first game to do what MOST modern games do. Even the things it did that had been done before, it did BETTER than any game before it.

Now you look at modern games and physics are just a given. Every game has good physics engine. It's not impressive anymore. Graphics have come a long way. Games have become far more cinematic, so Half-Life's "you ARE Gordon Freeman" approach is a stark contrast.

I don't see how something degrades over time. A 1970 Chevelle SS 454 gets terrible gas mileage, pollutes, you have to choke the carb and pump the gas to start it, it has uncomfy seats, terrible steering, terrible brakes, and even a run of the mill 6 cylinder family sedan of today could give it a run for its money... yet, it's still a beautiful example of that era of muscle car.

Why can't we just all agree that Half-Life 2 is a beautiful example of a video game of the year 2004 and stop trying to degrade it just because video game quality has *gasp* progressed in the last 9 years?

Are people going to make this argument about Portal 2 in another 7 years?

For fucks sake, it was a legitimate question. No need to jump down his throat about it. I don't understand why HL fans get so defensive over the game. Yes, we get the question often, if its bothers you that much stop responding to it.

OP:

The game's pacing is kind of all over the place, the story isn't amazing but it works and the gunplay was better in the first game. That said, it has some amazing setpieces and later on, even though I wasn't a fan of the early game (I much preferred half life 1's early game) it really does step it up a notch later on. I'd say keep going with it, its worth one play-through at least.

Yes. Yes it does. In fact, I'd say it holds up even better given what we've been expected to stomach recently.

Amazing to think how little we've advanced in the past 8 years, especially given that 8 years prior, everyone thought Quake was the best thing in the world (well, not everyone, but the 90s were a troubled time).

Of course if you're going to play something ten years later then it'll feel dated, so you can't REALLY use that as an argument.

I think it did pretty decent. I only picked up the Orange Box 2 years ago and blew through it. I thought the episodes were really well done but the original HL2 was just 'decent' for me.

For a group that decries that graphics don't make a game, there are a lot of people in this thread using Half-Life 2's graphics as a reason it doesn't hold up.

I played the game weeks ago for the first time and I didn't think for a second about the graphics. I'm playing Final Fantasy 6 right now. The idea of HL2 having dated graphics is hysterical.

Give me Half-Life 2's pacing, it's environments, and its ability to interweave the narrative with gameplay instead of lazy cutscenes any day over most games.

Ed130:
image

Uarg, this thread has been done ad nauseum.

Here, read through these.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.373160-That-Was-Half-Life-2?page=1

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.395676-I-really-dont-believe-that-Half-Life-2-is-overrated-I-think-modern-Gamers-just-missed-the-boat?page=1

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.259339-Can-someone-please-tell-me-why-Half-Life-2-has-such-appeal

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.281309-Half-Life-2-why?page=1

Captcha: mumbo jumbo (quite right Captcha)

Yeah its has been done ad nauseum.

But you know what else has been done ad nauseum? People pointing out than those threads have been done ad nauseum.

You arent really contributing to the thread either.

(I suppuse I arent either. lol)

But thats because I have already said in some of those threads my opinion about half life. In short: The fact than it is 9 years old can only justific its dullness SO FAR. At a certain point its just becomes a BS justification.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked