Jesus Cries, mijo.
I finally went and caught Once Upon a Time in Mexico tonight and hot damn that was one ridiculous movie. I couldn't help feeling throughout it, though, that there was some kind of talent there. So, let's take it at that... Robert Rodriguez has some talent that shines through in his films despite all the stupid stuff he does to obscure it. I think he's going to be a really great director some day, when he can get over whatever is plaguing him. Some possibilities:
1) He's immature. Perhaps it will be the process of growing older that will calm him down and allow him to understand and focus the madness that he's putting up on the screen. Right now, his stuff has moments where it really comes through and touches you, but it's mostly a bunch of disparate threads, of which only a couple end up being well-handled and well-integrated with the work as a whole. It's like he's got a lot to say, but he doesn't take the time to say anything enough to make it worth saying. Is this a problem endemic to youth? Maybe so, because I damn sure feel like it sometimes.
2) He's self-conscious. He's got some really interesting things to say and he's got a penchant for symbolism. But it seems like every time he gets close to doing or saying something meaningful with his stuff, he goes and puts in something ridiculous from way out in left field. I've seen people do this before... it's a good proactive defense when you're worried that people will criticize what you have to say or won't take it seriously. You head them off at the pass by not taking it seriously yourself. I mean, the guy is making wild action movies that are supposed to be crazy and fun, but a lot of the craziness feels... out of place... like it's got some other function than what it's ostensibly there for. God dammit, Robbie, take your self-doubt by the balls, look it in the eye, say chingate, cabr;on, and pull the fucking trigger. My experience tells me that you can't do anything well that you don't put your heart into... and you can't put your heart into anything when you're self conscious.
Well, anyway, I hope some of you will go see the movie... you'll definitely see what I'm talking about. He's gotten better at making movies since El Mariachi and Desperado, but he seems to have progressively lost his ability to tell a focused story. Maybe this is like his "teen" stage... going crazy with all the options and responsibility that are open to him. I'm sure we'll see some good stuff out of him in the future as he comes into his own.
P.S. Holy shit. I just checked out the imdb entry for Robbie. Good Christ, is there anything that this guy doesn't do on his movies? I mean, he composed the freakin' score for Christ's sake. Wow. Maybe that should have been number three... art mimics reality: does too much himself to pay enough attention to any one thing. It sure as hell is remarkable, though.
Monday, September 29, 2003
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Don't be scared, it's ok.
God damnit. If you are a video game publisher, pay attention. ( I said pay attention, you weaselly hung-over white-baseball cap wearing bastard. ) If you have a friend who has a friend who is a game publisher, get them and make them read this. Ok, you with me? Here goes:
In the game industry, effective innovation is more profitable than effectively copying the styles of other successful games.
Recently, a couple of my good friends were working on games that were tied up with fairly famous licenses. From what I've heard and seen, they were pressured by their publishers into making their games more like Warcraft III. More like, as in almost exactly like. In terms of art styles, the games are strongly reminiscent of Blizzard's "hit" game, chunky-cartoony with saturated color palettes. From what I've played, the gameplay is roughly the same, too: build a base, build up as many units as possible and throw them at the objective.
This is not to say that the gameplay is not fun, nor is it to say that the artwork isn't beautiful. The point is that the games are offering little or nothing new to the genre or to the artform of games as a whole. Why?
- I know the developers, they are extremely creative and capable people who have the capacity to innovate, so it can't be that.
- There is plenty of room for innovation in the RTS market (see Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns/Ahriman's Gift), so it can't be that.
The fact of the matter is that they are being held back. The root of the problem is that publishers are businesspeople that are not familiar enough with their wares. Publishers are confronted every day with the problem of how to make more money from the games that they bring to market. So, like any businessperson, they approach the problem from a businesslike point of view: analyze the market, assign products to a target niche and move forward with trying to garner a market share.
It must be said, at this point, that publishers have a tremendous amount of creative influence over their game developers. When your publisher comes in and makes even a "suggestion" regarding your game, it carries much weight. Why? Because the have the money, silly rabbit.
So, what happens is: the publisher, analyzing the marketplace says, "Hey, this Warcraft III is selling like hotcakes." Then, they figure, rightly, it's because it has little or no competition. So they say, "Alright, let's go ahead and make a product that will take some of that market share." They say, "Warcraft III players are our target market ( 'cuz there's a lot of 'em ), so we should make a game that will appeal to Warcraft III players. Just like Warcraft III does." So the developer comes to them with a plan for a great RTS and they look at it. When they are looking at it, they are looking for similarities to Warcraft III, because God damnit they know Warcraft III sold a lot of units. At this point, every innovation, every element that would set that game apart from the norm, is considered undesirable because of the very fact that it is different from the norm, which is Warcraft III. So they say, "Couldn't you make this a little more like Warcraft III?
What about that part? Oh, and this. Thanks. Btw, did you receive your last milestone payment?" And these changes are implemented at the expense of what were most likely better ideas with little or no regard to their merit. This is laziness on the part of the publisher. They resort to copycat mentality because they don't play and understand games enough to be able to identify acceptable levels of innovation in competitive products.
The business minded out there right now are probably saying to themselves, "Hey, direct competition totally works in a lot of cases." And you're right. Given that the market is large enough, it can surely support a number of different competitors offering comparable products. For instance, I'd be hard-pressed to tell you the difference between the two most popular mid-size sedans from Honda and Toyota, but they both seem to be selling well. So yeah, that works... in theory.
The damn problem is that the publishers want these poor guys to make a product comparable to Warcraft III with a fraction of the development time and at a fraction of the cost. And we're talking teeny-weeny freaking fractions here. This, along with the aforementioned creative meddling, will guarantee that the product will be inferior to the competition. Then, they are going to turn around and sell it at the same price to Warcraft III and expect to see it move bunches o' units. ... ... ... Helooooooooooooooooooo Mork calling fucking Orson for Christ's sake.
Luckily, my friends have some pretty good licenses behind them, so they'll probably sell enough units to land another project.
What are the best-selling, most popular non-traditional-sports games? Let's The Sims, Grand Theft Auto, Tony Hawk, Spider-man. These games were all very innovative in their time. They spawned many sequels that were derivative and still successful, but hey, that's the power and right of well-handled brand recognition. I would even argue that Spider-man: the Movie would have sold better if the publisher had kept hands-off and stopped trying to make the game more like its predecessors. But that's a different story.
So, the lessons here today for our publisher friends:
1) Fucking play games. Lots of them. You can't properly influence their development if you don't understand them. You may think you're too busy to play, but you're not. If you can't force yourself to do it, hire some person who will and have them help you and inform you when it comes to making these types of decisions.
2) Develop an understanding of what types of innovation are desirable in your products. Encourage this innovation and you may have your next big hit. How do you develop this understanding? See lesson one.
3) Try to establish a tradition of hiring people in marketing and management positions that are into games. This will take time, but I'm certain that any publisher that makes efforts in this direction will be greatly rewarded. You aren't selling widgets.
4) Avoid being a bull in a china shop. Realize that your suggestions carry great weight and might have the effect of eliminating or negating beneficial elements of a game in development. AKA. Think about shit before you start suggesting or mandating changes. Communicate with your developer and try to understand the ramifications of what you're looking to see.
Well, there.
I'd feel better if I didn't think that this was a waste of time that will never get read by anyone who has any influence on publishing whatsoever.
Balls.
God damnit. If you are a video game publisher, pay attention. ( I said pay attention, you weaselly hung-over white-baseball cap wearing bastard. ) If you have a friend who has a friend who is a game publisher, get them and make them read this. Ok, you with me? Here goes:
In the game industry, effective innovation is more profitable than effectively copying the styles of other successful games.
Recently, a couple of my good friends were working on games that were tied up with fairly famous licenses. From what I've heard and seen, they were pressured by their publishers into making their games more like Warcraft III. More like, as in almost exactly like. In terms of art styles, the games are strongly reminiscent of Blizzard's "hit" game, chunky-cartoony with saturated color palettes. From what I've played, the gameplay is roughly the same, too: build a base, build up as many units as possible and throw them at the objective.
This is not to say that the gameplay is not fun, nor is it to say that the artwork isn't beautiful. The point is that the games are offering little or nothing new to the genre or to the artform of games as a whole. Why?
- I know the developers, they are extremely creative and capable people who have the capacity to innovate, so it can't be that.
- There is plenty of room for innovation in the RTS market (see Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns/Ahriman's Gift), so it can't be that.
The fact of the matter is that they are being held back. The root of the problem is that publishers are businesspeople that are not familiar enough with their wares. Publishers are confronted every day with the problem of how to make more money from the games that they bring to market. So, like any businessperson, they approach the problem from a businesslike point of view: analyze the market, assign products to a target niche and move forward with trying to garner a market share.
It must be said, at this point, that publishers have a tremendous amount of creative influence over their game developers. When your publisher comes in and makes even a "suggestion" regarding your game, it carries much weight. Why? Because the have the money, silly rabbit.
So, what happens is: the publisher, analyzing the marketplace says, "Hey, this Warcraft III is selling like hotcakes." Then, they figure, rightly, it's because it has little or no competition. So they say, "Alright, let's go ahead and make a product that will take some of that market share." They say, "Warcraft III players are our target market ( 'cuz there's a lot of 'em ), so we should make a game that will appeal to Warcraft III players. Just like Warcraft III does." So the developer comes to them with a plan for a great RTS and they look at it. When they are looking at it, they are looking for similarities to Warcraft III, because God damnit they know Warcraft III sold a lot of units. At this point, every innovation, every element that would set that game apart from the norm, is considered undesirable because of the very fact that it is different from the norm, which is Warcraft III. So they say, "Couldn't you make this a little more like Warcraft III?
What about that part? Oh, and this. Thanks. Btw, did you receive your last milestone payment?" And these changes are implemented at the expense of what were most likely better ideas with little or no regard to their merit. This is laziness on the part of the publisher. They resort to copycat mentality because they don't play and understand games enough to be able to identify acceptable levels of innovation in competitive products.
The business minded out there right now are probably saying to themselves, "Hey, direct competition totally works in a lot of cases." And you're right. Given that the market is large enough, it can surely support a number of different competitors offering comparable products. For instance, I'd be hard-pressed to tell you the difference between the two most popular mid-size sedans from Honda and Toyota, but they both seem to be selling well. So yeah, that works... in theory.
The damn problem is that the publishers want these poor guys to make a product comparable to Warcraft III with a fraction of the development time and at a fraction of the cost. And we're talking teeny-weeny freaking fractions here. This, along with the aforementioned creative meddling, will guarantee that the product will be inferior to the competition. Then, they are going to turn around and sell it at the same price to Warcraft III and expect to see it move bunches o' units. ... ... ... Helooooooooooooooooooo Mork calling fucking Orson for Christ's sake.
Luckily, my friends have some pretty good licenses behind them, so they'll probably sell enough units to land another project.
What are the best-selling, most popular non-traditional-sports games? Let's The Sims, Grand Theft Auto, Tony Hawk, Spider-man. These games were all very innovative in their time. They spawned many sequels that were derivative and still successful, but hey, that's the power and right of well-handled brand recognition. I would even argue that Spider-man: the Movie would have sold better if the publisher had kept hands-off and stopped trying to make the game more like its predecessors. But that's a different story.
So, the lessons here today for our publisher friends:
1) Fucking play games. Lots of them. You can't properly influence their development if you don't understand them. You may think you're too busy to play, but you're not. If you can't force yourself to do it, hire some person who will and have them help you and inform you when it comes to making these types of decisions.
2) Develop an understanding of what types of innovation are desirable in your products. Encourage this innovation and you may have your next big hit. How do you develop this understanding? See lesson one.
3) Try to establish a tradition of hiring people in marketing and management positions that are into games. This will take time, but I'm certain that any publisher that makes efforts in this direction will be greatly rewarded. You aren't selling widgets.
4) Avoid being a bull in a china shop. Realize that your suggestions carry great weight and might have the effect of eliminating or negating beneficial elements of a game in development. AKA. Think about shit before you start suggesting or mandating changes. Communicate with your developer and try to understand the ramifications of what you're looking to see.
Well, there.
I'd feel better if I didn't think that this was a waste of time that will never get read by anyone who has any influence on publishing whatsoever.
Balls.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Die, 70's, Die.
As you know, I just finished reading Unfinished Tales. I haven't picked up my next book yet, so I was looking through one of the major "trendy" clothing magazines and realized something: This damned retro/70's/early 80's kick has been going on an awfully long time. I'm trying right now to think of when I first recognized that it was a trend... hm... I remember seeing a Beck video and thinking, wow, that's kinda funky, he's wearing 70's clothes. Amazon tells me that Beck's Mellow Gold was released in March, 1994. So, do you know what that means?
The 70's trend will soon have lasted longer than the actual 70's.
That's ludicrous. Come on, people... this is just plain stupid. Not only that...
1) It is a cop out for lazy, untalented fashion designers.
2) It's robbing our teens of the opportunity to cultivate their own, original trendy culture, which they can later be mocked for and embarrassed of. I mean, at least now I can look back at old pictures of myself in Skids, Hammerpants and Hyper-color t-shirts and be proud of how dumb I looked. It was embarrassing, but damn it all, it was our embarrassing.
and, most importantly:
3) It looks as good now as it did then, which is to say: not at all. I remember being a little kid and thinking about how I didn't actually like the clothes people were wearing. And let me tell you bucky, I was one forgiving little kid.
So, please please please... let the 70's rest in peace. How many more "Poconos" t-shirts or mesh-back trucker hats must we produce before our society picks its own bones clean in an auto-cannibalistic frenzy? I, for one, hope we never have to find out.
As you know, I just finished reading Unfinished Tales. I haven't picked up my next book yet, so I was looking through one of the major "trendy" clothing magazines and realized something: This damned retro/70's/early 80's kick has been going on an awfully long time. I'm trying right now to think of when I first recognized that it was a trend... hm... I remember seeing a Beck video and thinking, wow, that's kinda funky, he's wearing 70's clothes. Amazon tells me that Beck's Mellow Gold was released in March, 1994. So, do you know what that means?
The 70's trend will soon have lasted longer than the actual 70's.
That's ludicrous. Come on, people... this is just plain stupid. Not only that...
1) It is a cop out for lazy, untalented fashion designers.
2) It's robbing our teens of the opportunity to cultivate their own, original trendy culture, which they can later be mocked for and embarrassed of. I mean, at least now I can look back at old pictures of myself in Skids, Hammerpants and Hyper-color t-shirts and be proud of how dumb I looked. It was embarrassing, but damn it all, it was our embarrassing.
and, most importantly:
3) It looks as good now as it did then, which is to say: not at all. I remember being a little kid and thinking about how I didn't actually like the clothes people were wearing. And let me tell you bucky, I was one forgiving little kid.
So, please please please... let the 70's rest in peace. How many more "Poconos" t-shirts or mesh-back trucker hats must we produce before our society picks its own bones clean in an auto-cannibalistic frenzy? I, for one, hope we never have to find out.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Nerdocity reaches critical mass.
Ok, let me confess. I am excited for this December's release of Peter Jackson's Return of the King. Totally excited. I think it's quite possible that I have never been this excited for a movie before in my whole entire life. And, to tell you the truth, it's kind of scaring me.
I now find that my mania is spilling over into other media. I'm going to buy Liquid Entertainment's War of the Ring, not because my friend Ed Del Castillo is making it, but because I'm totally wigging out. I'm going to buy EA's Return of the King, not because my friend Michael Kirkbride is designing it, but because of my freaking Tolkiemania.
I just finished Unfinished Tales and I only now find out that there is an expanded History of Middle Earth series, comprised mostly of previously unpublished writings which Christopher Tolkien has gathered, of which The Lord of the Rings is only three parts. Heee heee heee. And I'm just itching to reread The Silmarillion.
I only wish they sold Lord of the Rings underoos.
Maybe the mania is of such an intense nature because it is unfettered by fears of disappointment or failure. I am not a purist, so I won't cry if Pippin isn't standing on the right goddamned side of the palantir of Orthanc when he has his run-in with Sauron. Seriously, I couldn't give a flying shit less if that element is even in there. Fact of the matter is that I know that Jackson is going to put precisely what I expect to see into the movie and giving me the bit extra that makes me love it. Example: I expect to see Legolas espying several warg riders cresting the top of a hill and charging toward the citizens of Rohan as they're withdrawing to Helm's Deep. I expect him to take out two or three of them as his buddies approach him from behind on horseback. I DO NOT expect him to grab a horse's reins as it goes charging by and swing up into the saddle. This is what we call creamy creamy goodness. The challenge of making great entertainment is that you must give your audience everything they expect and then be able to hit them with the creamy creamy goodness.
Never before have I trusted a director so much to give me EXACTLY what I need with regard to a movie. Even after experiencing the dullsharp pain of seeing the first two Star Wars prequels, I find I am still able to believe that someone in charge knows how to do things right. God bless 'em.
Ok, let me confess. I am excited for this December's release of Peter Jackson's Return of the King. Totally excited. I think it's quite possible that I have never been this excited for a movie before in my whole entire life. And, to tell you the truth, it's kind of scaring me.
I now find that my mania is spilling over into other media. I'm going to buy Liquid Entertainment's War of the Ring, not because my friend Ed Del Castillo is making it, but because I'm totally wigging out. I'm going to buy EA's Return of the King, not because my friend Michael Kirkbride is designing it, but because of my freaking Tolkiemania.
I just finished Unfinished Tales and I only now find out that there is an expanded History of Middle Earth series, comprised mostly of previously unpublished writings which Christopher Tolkien has gathered, of which The Lord of the Rings is only three parts. Heee heee heee. And I'm just itching to reread The Silmarillion.
I only wish they sold Lord of the Rings underoos.
Maybe the mania is of such an intense nature because it is unfettered by fears of disappointment or failure. I am not a purist, so I won't cry if Pippin isn't standing on the right goddamned side of the palantir of Orthanc when he has his run-in with Sauron. Seriously, I couldn't give a flying shit less if that element is even in there. Fact of the matter is that I know that Jackson is going to put precisely what I expect to see into the movie and giving me the bit extra that makes me love it. Example: I expect to see Legolas espying several warg riders cresting the top of a hill and charging toward the citizens of Rohan as they're withdrawing to Helm's Deep. I expect him to take out two or three of them as his buddies approach him from behind on horseback. I DO NOT expect him to grab a horse's reins as it goes charging by and swing up into the saddle. This is what we call creamy creamy goodness. The challenge of making great entertainment is that you must give your audience everything they expect and then be able to hit them with the creamy creamy goodness.
Never before have I trusted a director so much to give me EXACTLY what I need with regard to a movie. Even after experiencing the dullsharp pain of seeing the first two Star Wars prequels, I find I am still able to believe that someone in charge knows how to do things right. God bless 'em.
Friday, September 12, 2003
Do the robot.
One of my co-workers wants to become a robot. After finishing our nightly at-work meal, I found him standing over the table, arms folded, looking over the pile of greasy wrappers, which were smeared with ketchup, mayonnaise, and partially raw onion ring husks. I cannot imagine the waves of revulsion that were passing over his mind. He said softly, in heavily-accented English:
"I wish I could become a robot."
Intrigued, I asked him why. He gestured at the table.
"Look. We would not have to live with this, this... shit."
Shit indeed. Shit, piss, puke, spit, cum, sweat, grease and the sleep from the corner of of your bloodshot eye.
All of us, from me to you, from Pope John Paul II to Osama bin Laden, we all spend each and every day wallowing around in our nauseating humanity. No matter how hard you scrub or how deep you clean, you will never, ever rid yourself of your filth.
But why filth? Why label it as such? Why do we fear so much that which is such a part of our everyday lives, something we are confronted with every waking moment?
Surely part of the answer lies in our instincts. It makes sense that we seek to avoid waste materials that are potentially hazardous to our well being, such as feces and vomit. However, this cannot fully explain man's continual drive to escape, and hatred for, his animal nature.
It is my closely held opinion that much of the strife within an individual's mind is the result of discord between instinct and civilization, and the suppression of the former by the latter. However, the question still remains: why do we abhor our nature? Why do we seek to suppress what makes us human?
Why do we wish we could become robots?
One of my co-workers wants to become a robot. After finishing our nightly at-work meal, I found him standing over the table, arms folded, looking over the pile of greasy wrappers, which were smeared with ketchup, mayonnaise, and partially raw onion ring husks. I cannot imagine the waves of revulsion that were passing over his mind. He said softly, in heavily-accented English:
"I wish I could become a robot."
Intrigued, I asked him why. He gestured at the table.
"Look. We would not have to live with this, this... shit."
Shit indeed. Shit, piss, puke, spit, cum, sweat, grease and the sleep from the corner of of your bloodshot eye.
All of us, from me to you, from Pope John Paul II to Osama bin Laden, we all spend each and every day wallowing around in our nauseating humanity. No matter how hard you scrub or how deep you clean, you will never, ever rid yourself of your filth.
But why filth? Why label it as such? Why do we fear so much that which is such a part of our everyday lives, something we are confronted with every waking moment?
Surely part of the answer lies in our instincts. It makes sense that we seek to avoid waste materials that are potentially hazardous to our well being, such as feces and vomit. However, this cannot fully explain man's continual drive to escape, and hatred for, his animal nature.
It is my closely held opinion that much of the strife within an individual's mind is the result of discord between instinct and civilization, and the suppression of the former by the latter. However, the question still remains: why do we abhor our nature? Why do we seek to suppress what makes us human?
Why do we wish we could become robots?
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Games Playing: Advance Wars 2
On Deck: Jedi Academy, Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
The divide.
It came to my attention the other day that there is a serious division of opinion in my company regarding the worthiness of Battlefield 1942 as a game. Once I started asking around, it struck me as curious how sharply opinions around the office differed regarding this game, even amongst those who tend to like first-person action games.
To myself and others, the game, while flawed, is an overall enjoyable experience. I find that I am quite satisfied by the breadth of modes offered ( ie. classes, vehicles, maps, weapons ) and the (surprising) depth of the strategic gameplay.
BF1942's detractors cite a number of factors, including poor gun action and questionable damage modeling. Most of gripes with the game dwell on specific aspects of gameplay.
It's possible that it's worth noting that the game's supporters admired the game's overall worth, even when admitting that they overlooked the specific drawbacks, while the critics focused on specific elements of gameplay that were overlooked by the supporters.
One possible explanation is that this phenomena is somehow related to the way the brain processes stimuli. Some research suggests that the brain deals with stimuli on two different levels, conceptually and specifically. This can be seen with the famous "matches" test, based on the scene from Rain Man in which a bunch of matches are dropped in a pile on the floor. People with conceptual-based cogitation processes would immediately, upon viewing the incident, might think "Oh look, pile of matches". That's conceptualization. People who are strongly biased toward specific-thinking may think "Oh look, 36 matches." Perhaps the supporters of BF1942 and other flawed-but-fun games tend toward being concept-thinkers while it's detractors tend towards being specific-thinkers? Maybe it's just dependent upon how deeply the gripe rubs you the wrong way. In the end, I think it's most likely dependent upon whether or not you find a lot of things you take to before you find something that puts you off.
On Deck: Jedi Academy, Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
The divide.
It came to my attention the other day that there is a serious division of opinion in my company regarding the worthiness of Battlefield 1942 as a game. Once I started asking around, it struck me as curious how sharply opinions around the office differed regarding this game, even amongst those who tend to like first-person action games.
To myself and others, the game, while flawed, is an overall enjoyable experience. I find that I am quite satisfied by the breadth of modes offered ( ie. classes, vehicles, maps, weapons ) and the (surprising) depth of the strategic gameplay.
BF1942's detractors cite a number of factors, including poor gun action and questionable damage modeling. Most of gripes with the game dwell on specific aspects of gameplay.
It's possible that it's worth noting that the game's supporters admired the game's overall worth, even when admitting that they overlooked the specific drawbacks, while the critics focused on specific elements of gameplay that were overlooked by the supporters.
One possible explanation is that this phenomena is somehow related to the way the brain processes stimuli. Some research suggests that the brain deals with stimuli on two different levels, conceptually and specifically. This can be seen with the famous "matches" test, based on the scene from Rain Man in which a bunch of matches are dropped in a pile on the floor. People with conceptual-based cogitation processes would immediately, upon viewing the incident, might think "Oh look, pile of matches". That's conceptualization. People who are strongly biased toward specific-thinking may think "Oh look, 36 matches." Perhaps the supporters of BF1942 and other flawed-but-fun games tend toward being concept-thinkers while it's detractors tend towards being specific-thinkers? Maybe it's just dependent upon how deeply the gripe rubs you the wrong way. In the end, I think it's most likely dependent upon whether or not you find a lot of things you take to before you find something that puts you off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)