Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411279 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 04:52:09 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignGame Saving and You
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Print
Author Topic: Game Saving and You  (Read 6786 times)
Fallsburg
Level 10
*****


Fear the CircleCat


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2012, 06:59:32 AM »

Quicksaving ruins the pace of the game. Checkpoints set the pace of the game.

If you want noobs to play your game, make a noob mode.

Exactly. 
It comes down to what you want your game to be. 

Going back to my earlier example X-COM:
There are two games here, one with quicksaving, one without

WITH:
The game isn't hard.  The player doesn't have to worry about losing any squad members.  Their is little tension in the game.

WITHOUT:
The game is hard and cruel.  The player is constantly worried about losing squad members either due to their incompetence or the capricious hand of fate.

Personally, I think the game was intended to be played without.  The music, the atmosphere, everything in the game seems to be there with the goal of ratcheting up tension and scaring the player. But the game undermines itself by allowing the save anywhere.  If the game was intended to be an easy, low-tension game then it should be designed as such from the ground up.

Quote
Also, grinding is different to quicksaving because grinding has a major disadvantage which is tedium, whereas quicksaving easily becomes dominant strategy.

I don't follow.  You don't think quicksave abuse introduces tedium, and you don't think that grinding is easily the dominant strategy?  Because, I'm pretty sure I strongly disagree with that.
Logged
mirosurabu
Level 4
****


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2012, 07:21:08 AM »

Quote
You don't think quicksave abuse introduces tedium

Nah. I do agree that quicksaving takes more time than playing properly, but then, I think that, unlike grind, quicksaving cannot be or is too hard to be paced.

But then, most don't adjust the pace of the grind, so my point is moot.

Quote
you don't think that grinding is easily the dominant strategy

Provided that it takes a lot more time than normal play does, it is not.
Logged
Fallsburg
Level 10
*****


Fear the CircleCat


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2012, 07:45:11 AM »

Quote
You don't think quicksave abuse introduces tedium

Nah. I do agree that quicksaving takes more time than playing properly, but then, I think that, unlike grind, quicksaving cannot be or is too hard to be paced.

But then, most don't adjust the pace of the grind, so my point is moot.

Quote
you don't think that grinding is easily the dominant strategy

Provided that it takes a lot more time than normal play does, it is not.

Well, I guess we disagree with about the definition of dominant then, because I don't see how length of time (unless we're talking about a game that has a timed component, e.g. speed chess) enters into the equation. 

Thought experiment time.
I make a game.  In that game you can grind and level up to level 100 and guarantee success, or you can play through regularly and have a 50% chance of success.  The optimal strategy is to level up to level 100 and guarantee success, no matter how long it takes to do that. 

Or
If there existed a way to play a flawless game of chess, the fact that it takes a long time to compute (assuming the game isn't time) doesn't make it not the optimal strategy.  It might be infeasible, or impossible for a human, or take more time to compute than the universe has existed, but it is still the dominant strategy.
Logged
mirosurabu
Level 4
****


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2012, 08:22:20 AM »

I see. I'm confusing dominance with unfairness. Actually, I cannot yet make a clear difference between the two.

Would you then agree that following options are fair?

1. takes less time, requires thought (skillful play)
2. takes a lot of time, doesn't require thought (grind)
Logged
DavidCaruso
YEEEAAAHHHHHH
Level 10
*



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2012, 08:45:39 AM »

In most grinding-heavy games it doesn't take that much time or effort to become overleveled for an obstacle, especially when compared to the time or effort it would require to stay at said obstacle and find a strategy to get past it. Likewise it doesn't take much avoiding enemies to become underleveled either. In addition to the mechanic being anti-meritocratic (i.e. unfair) it also leads to a situation where most of the time the player's avatar is either a war machine who can steamroll through everything without worrying about getting damaged or a weakling who turns fighting regular enemy fights into tedium, unless you specifically limit yourself and try to find the sweet spot inbetween (which isn't a fun thing to do.) There are exceptions, though, like the Souls series where despite the possibility for grinding being kind of disappointing anyway, it would still take a shitload of it to completely get rid of the need for proper thought and just steamroll through the game.

I think Fallsburg is getting it pretty well here. Giving the player a powerful weapon with infinite ammo that can be used at any point for the entire game and then expecting him to never use it is a pretty dumb design decision. Ideally you'd just get rid of the weapon, and then the player would have more fun and you'd have a better game. This is completely different in degree from making one simple decision at the start of the game on a menu, or opting out of a prompt when you lose three lives in a game that lasts half an hour.
Logged

Steel Assault devlog - NES-style 2D action platformer: successfully Kickstarted!
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2012, 09:17:58 AM »

Quote
There are exceptions, though, like the Souls series where despite the possibility for grinding being kind of disappointing anyway, it would still take a shitload of it to completely get rid of the need for proper thought and just steamroll through the game.
In the Souls games, the main purpose of leveling is adding an additional layer of strategy via different character builds. Grinding lowers the difficulty a bit but it never breaks the game (though to be fair I havent tried real Korean MMO style grinding in Souls yet) because the combat works in such a way that skill ultimately trumps numbers and of course stats won't help you prevent falling deaths, which are pretty damn common. In Demon's Souls you can play the levels in a lot of different orders and the game's difficulty remains remarkably constant. Monster Hunter works a similar way but Ashfordpride can probably tell you more about that. Wink

On a side note, I think it's a real shame that upgradeable stats seem to have such a negative rep among "game designer types" because they're often coupled with forced grinding. I had a grindless system in my abandoned game 444 where EXP were a finite resource that could be used for a number of different things including upgrading stats and unlocking "secret" areas containing optional weapons. Though of course I took that from System Shock 2 lol.
Logged
Fallsburg
Level 10
*****


Fear the CircleCat


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2012, 10:21:23 AM »

I see. I'm confusing dominance with unfairness. Actually, I cannot yet make a clear difference between the two.

Would you then agree that following options are fair?

1. takes less time, requires thought (skillful play)
2. takes a lot of time, doesn't require thought (grind)

Well, we're getting very off topic, but I don't think that unfairness exists in games.  Games can be poorly designed such that there is a clear dominant strategy (which people often claim is unfair), but if it is a part of the game then it is a part of the game.

I guess I should direct you to David Sirlin's Playing to Win, which contains my thoughts on unfairness/dominant strategies.  Obviously, this is a slippery slope sort of argument as occasionally there will be game-breaking strategies that are part of the game (his Akuma in Super Turbo Street Fighter 2 example), but that's more the exception than the rule (for good games at least).

Back on topic, I guess I come at it from almost a movie director/auteur perspective.  The game is the product of your mind, and the experience you present to the player should always be the one that you design.  If and only if you feel that quick saving is an integral part of the game and you take the opportunity of quicksave abuse into account for your design, then by all means include it.  But to ignore the opportunity for quicksave abuse and say "Players want it," is a cop out and we should be better than it.  It's akin to DavidCaruso's infinite ammo weapon, players may want it, but that doesn't make it the correct decision for your game.
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2012, 10:37:39 AM »

My philosophy is that unless you're making a competitive multiplayer game or w/e, you should let people play your game however the fuck they want.
Logged
Dragonmaw
Guest
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2012, 10:43:22 AM »

Well, my argument is that it isn't fun.  Do you think it's fun? Do you know anyone who thinks its fun?
My argument is that people are going to play to win, which doesn't necessarily mean playing for fun.  As a game developer, I feel it is my duty to make winning fun.

Quicksaving in particular? No, I don't think it's fun, as it's a tool for retaining progress. That's like saying if a drill is fun. No, it's a fucking drill.

Well, before we start some definitional arguments, I'll lay out my definition for grinding and see if you disagree.
Grinding -- A repetitive act that allows the player to reduce risk in other parts of the game.
It's a broad definition, but I feel it fits.  

That's a bit too broad. By that definition, the very act of playing a game is grinding, as you play and get better, thus reducing the risk in other parts of the game.

And as to why I think that quicksave abuse, savescumming, is grinding is that it fits my definition.  
e.g. In X-COM, I can take the time to save after every single step.  This will reduce the risk that my party gets wiped due to some fluke, but at the cost of wasting a lot of time and fun for me the player.  It isn't fun for me to do this, but it also isn't fun for my team to get blown up on the first turn.

Then maybe you should grow some balls. Are you seriously saying that quicksaving is bad because you, as a player, are too afraid of a defeat to play any other way? This isn't a problem with quicksaving, this is a problem with you having no backbone. Seriously, savescumming a fight in XCOM? Fuck, that's like savescumming Dwarf Fortress. Losing is part of the game. It's the best part of the game in XCOM, honestly. Stomping all over aliens is boring as fuck. Tense battles where I lose half my troops in the first two turns and struggle to survive and win with the remainder is what makes XCOM a tense, engaging experience. If you don't want that, go ahead and savescum. But don't call the designers lazy or bad because you are too much of a pussy to accept failure.

I know that savescumming isn't grinding in the traditional "I'll kill 1 million boars to level up,"  but I feel that it is just a different in the mechanic being abused.  One abuses a bad leveling system and the other abuses a bad save system, but both have the same causes (poorly balanced game) and the same symptoms (player taking a repetitive action to make the game easier).  

Once again: quicksaving or manual saves are not a bad saving system. Wanting a little more control of the placement of saves as a user is not in any way bad. And if a player wants to grind to make your game easier, let them. That's their problem. Grinding is only an issue if the game requires it by design to complete the game.

For example, you can grind in FF6 and FF7. You can also just play it straight through from beginning to end without being forced to grind. It depends on what the player decides they want to do.

I strongly disagree.  By creating the game, you are dictating the everything about the user's experience.  If I want to dictate their pace, that's my prerogative.  Now, whether I do that well or not falls on me, but throwing up my hands in the air and saying "Wow, it's hard to pace this properly.  Well, I'll just let the user do it." smacks of defeatism/laziness.  If the developer does their job correctly, the dictation of pace/session time shouldn't be a problem.

By that definition, no developer does their job correctly. I have yet to play any game where a checkpoint system has not forced me to replay a portion of the game multiple times. Where you are arguing that there is a perceived ability for abuse (in a single-player game, big fucking deal), I can point to pretty much every game with a checkpoint system and denote where it fails. In other words, manual saving is being argued against in theory, with the theory being that the perfect autosave will make manual saves defunct. Except that's out and out bullshit, and almost never true.

This is probably the closest I would come to agreeing with a manual save solution, but the game knows when a big decision is about to made.  Wouldn't it be better for the game to seamlessly create a save (or have some sort of chaptering system) such that when you hit a point like this you wouldn't have to do it yourself?  What advantage is to be gained from forcing the user to do it?  I only see downside.

Because players can label saves, save when they like (which doesn't necessarily mean right before a big conversation), and pick up in the open world they left off from. I save manually for a lot of varying reasons, including my mood at the time. No developer can predict all the instances in which I am going to save. And, in fact, most developers autosave AFTER a big decision instead of before because they want to force the player to replay the game in order to continue. Manual saving alleviates this annoying developer intrusion.

Thought experiment time.
I make a game.  In that game you can grind and level up to level 100 and guarantee success, or you can play through regularly and have a 50% chance of success.  The optimal strategy is to level up to level 100 and guarantee success, no matter how long it takes to do that.

That is the shittiest, most incorrect application of game theory I have ever seen.

What this boils down to, from my perspective, is that people are arguing that designers must dictate everything about a player's experience, right down to things that the designer can't actually control, like session time or player choices. In a 100% linear game, with no replayability, I can fully understand using only a checkpoint system, as your game is a shitty linear mess (if it's a shooter, anyway; if it's an arcade-style game or a platformer I am fine with your decision). But if you are making a classical (read: maze-like) shooter, strategy game, or open-world game, trying to predict and control the player's progress is not only fruitless, it's actually offensive to the player.

Quicksaving and manual saves are not universally shit. They fit certain genres much better than others. Playing Quake 1 with only autosaves would be frustrating and shitty. Quicksaves and manual saves allow the player to determine their path. I don't really see how player determinance is being considered bad. Isn't that kind of the point of games? Giving players meaningful choices and letting them determine their own way through a scenario? I think attempting to control the experience of the players to such a fine degree that you are proposing to not only be hubris, but also futile.

My philosophy is that unless you're making a competitive multiplayer game or w/e, you should let people play your game however the fuck they want.

This is my philosophy as well. Also, quicksaving is not even remotely the same as an infinite ammo, instakill weapon.

You should dictate pacing through smart usage of mechanics and level design, not forcing a player to play until they reach your predetermined autosave.
Logged
Fallsburg
Level 10
*****


Fear the CircleCat


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2012, 11:02:50 AM »

Wow.  Thems some nice ad hominems.

Quote
That's a bit too broad. By that definition, the very act of playing a game is grinding, as you play and get better, thus reducing the risk in other parts of the game.

Did you see this part "A repetitive act"?  If your game is repetitive then you are doing it wrong.

Quote

Then maybe you should grow some balls. Are you seriously saying that quicksaving is bad because you, as a player, are too afraid of a defeat to play any other way? This isn't a problem with quicksaving, this is a problem with you having no backbone. Seriously, savescumming a fight in XCOM? Fuck, that's like savescumming Dwarf Fortress. Losing is part of the game. It's the best part of the game in XCOM, honestly. Stomping all over aliens is boring as fuck. Tense battles where I lose half my troops in the first two turns and struggle to survive and win with the remainder is what makes XCOM a tense, engaging experience. If you don't want that, go ahead and savescum. But don't call the designers lazy or bad because you are too much of a pussy to accept failure.

First off, I'm not saying I personally do it, but that's beside the point.  But I think we agree here, but you are missing my point.
Losing is a part of the game.  The tension of not knowing when/if your troops could die IS the best part of the battles in X-COM.  BUT the developers left a mechanic in the game (the ability to savescum) that undermines this.  You argue that players should regulate themselves, I argue that players shouldn't have to regulate themselves (because I don't think that players will regulate themselves).  If we can't get past this point, then there is no point in discussing this further. 

P.S. If you've never reloaded an X-COM game where your squad dies on the first turn, then you are bolder man than I, but I'm guessing that you are a hypocrite.

Quote
That is the shittiest, most incorrect application of game theory I have ever seen.
Elaborate please.  I mean, sure it's a slight example, but that doesn't make it incorrect.  The optimal solution is the optimal solution (assuming that optimality means the quickest way to win the game), no matter how long or tedious it is. 
Logged
Dragonmaw
Guest
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2012, 11:11:52 AM »

I have never reloaded a save during any battle in XCOM. I only save on the map screen. I've also never finished a game of XCOM, despite it being my second-most played game (behind Civ 4). Farthest I've gotten is to the moon. My refusal to save at any point during a battle is probably why.

Players should have the ability to regulate or not regulate themselves. if it's a single-player game, why do you care if they find some way to exploit? It's not harming anything except your pride.

PS: The only real ad hominem attack in my counterpoints is that you have no spine, and it is directly related to the particular point I was making (if your players have no spine and are big blubbering babies, then let them be). You cherry-picked the only two points where I said something remotely against you instead of actually addressing the real points. Great job.
Logged
Fallsburg
Level 10
*****


Fear the CircleCat


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2012, 11:52:24 AM »

Off topic -- And you never reloaded to the save from the map screen after your squad got wiped on the first turn?  You do have balls in that case.

What do you want me to respond against?  You didn't respond to me substantively, so it seems disingenuous to claim that I didn't respond to you substantively.  But oh well.

How do you define grinding?  You never said.  You said mine was broad, while ignoring a key part of my definition (unless your games are repetitive).  I think grinding is broader than just the standard "I kill enough low level enemies to level up enough so that my risk is reduced"  Maybe you disagree, and think grinding is that narrow.  I'm not really interested in a definitional argument here.  I stand by my definition that grinding is a repetitive, tedious (adding a word here) action that makes the game easier for the player, but lets move on.

I can understand the desire to give the player control, but I don't agree with it, at least not fully.  Going back to X-COM, if the developers want the game to have high tension, then they should choose a save system designed around that.  If the game is meant to be played like you play it (saving only from the world map) then make that the only way to save.  I don't see why this is so hard to accept.  Maybe you think I'm being an obstinate ass (and I probably am), but I thought the point of this thread was to address the design considerations of saving in games.  I think that's a wonderful idea and agree whole-heartedly.  I think that the X-Com designers made a bad choice on the save system that doesn't feed into the rest of the design.  You can blame me or other players all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I think that save system seems like an afterthought. 

 
Quote
That's their problem. Grinding is only an issue if the game requires it by design to complete the game.

For example, you can grind in FF6 and FF7. You can also just play it straight through from beginning to end without being forced to grind. It depends on what the player decides they want to do.

Well, I disagree, but there's really no point discussing this further as we aren't going to change each others minds.  I think grinding is always a problem, regardless of whether it is required or not. Obviously, I think it is exacerbated by games that require grinding, but that doesn't make it not a problem for games where it isn't required.  It might be less of a problem, or so minute of a problem that it isn't a real design concern, but it's there.

Quote
By that definition, no developer does their job correctly. I have yet to play any game where a checkpoint system has not forced me to replay a portion of the game multiple times. Where you are arguing that there is a perceived ability for abuse (in a single-player game, big fucking deal), I can point to pretty much every game with a checkpoint system and denote where it fails. In other words, manual saving is being argued against in theory, with the theory being that the perfect autosave will make manual saves defunct. Except that's out and out bullshit, and almost never true.

I don't really know how to respond to this.  It seems wrong to argue that checkpoint systems (an obviously complex, hard to pin down system that is trying to balance player frustration vs. easiness) have been flawed in the past (no argument here), and therefore should never be considered in the future.  Yes, there probably isn't a perfect check-point system out there (I think the Uncharted games do a good job at it, and would be interested to read your take down of it), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards the probably impossible goal. 
I also don't know what to say about only arguing against manual saves in theory.  I thought that I had made it clear with an explicit example, but you don't like my example. 

Quote
Because players can label saves, save when they like (which doesn't necessarily mean right before a big conversation), and pick up in the open world they left off from. I save manually for a lot of varying reasons, including my mood at the time. No developer can predict all the instances in which I am going to save. And, in fact, most developers autosave AFTER a big decision instead of before because they want to force the player to replay the game in order to continue. Manual saving alleviates this annoying developer intrusion.

This is a fair point.  The developer won't be able to predict all instance in which you are going to save.  The labeling is probably the biggest thing going for the manual saving (at least for non-linear games).

Quote
That is the shittiest, most incorrect application of game theory I have ever seen.
Again, don't really have much to say to this, beyond "elaborate, please."

Quote
What this boils down to, from my perspective, is that people are arguing that designers must dictate everything about a player's experience, right down to things that the designer can't actually control, like session time or player choices. In a 100% linear game, with no replayability, I can fully understand using only a checkpoint system, as your game is a shitty linear mess (if it's a shooter, anyway; if it's an arcade-style game or a platformer I am fine with your decision). But if you are making a classical (read: maze-like) shooter, strategy game, or open-world game, trying to predict and control the player's progress is not only fruitless, it's actually offensive to the player.

Quicksaving and manual saves are not universally shit. They fit certain genres much better than others. Playing Quake 1 with only autosaves would be frustrating and shitty. Quicksaves and manual saves allow the player to determine their path. I don't really see how player determinance is being considered bad. Isn't that kind of the point of games? Giving players meaningful choices and letting them determine their own way through a scenario? I think attempting to control the experience of the players to such a fine degree that you are proposing to not only be hubris, but also futile.

session time -- I already said that I think that the restart/pause save is a great idea, and it solves this problem
I guess I was thinking more from a linear game play frame of mind and/or a roguelike frame of mind, so I'll grant you that a perfect autosave system for an open world style game would probably require some sort of Skynet style AI that can perfectly predict a players actions. 
I guess the answer should be, choose a save system that suits your game.  The games that I am interested in would probably best be served by my favored save systems, and the same for you too.

Sorry for cherry picking, but seriously, there's no reason to get so vitriolic. We're just trying to have a discussion here.
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2012, 12:36:14 PM »

@Maw: I largely agree with most of your points BUT I think DavidCaruso is right on the "forcing players to find the sweet spot" thing with optional grinding. I think if you're going to make grinding optional, make sure to not make it too easy to unintentionally over- or underlevel. Overleveling is the bigger problem obv.

Maybe that's why it works so well in Demon's/Dark Souls. Overleveling on accident is nearly impossible.
Logged
Fallsburg
Level 10
*****


Fear the CircleCat


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2012, 12:43:36 PM »

Maybe that's why it works so well in Demon's/Dark Souls. Overleveling on accident is nearly impossible.
Very good point. 
Logged
Dragonmaw
Guest
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2012, 12:44:26 PM »

Yeah. Design your game as though the player is not going to grind, and give a few levels/items of leeway in either direction before it starts to be noticeable.
Logged
Painting
Level 2
**


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2012, 01:48:57 PM »

Even in Tetris, or Pac-Man?

Yes. I still haven't gotten an actual reason why savestating cannot be allowed.

Quote
Also, I think most fans of Demon's Souls would disagree. The whole tension and atmosphere of the game would be spoilt by being able to reload when things went poorly.

Then I don't think much of "most fans of Demon's Souls". Who ruins the tension of a game for themselves when given the option not to? What sort of wuss would do that?
Logged
JMickle
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2012, 02:20:34 PM »

If you go into the technical details of Diablo 2, you'll find it is very difficult to overlevel in that game. Diablo 2 is a great example for balancing in every single respect, because it was patched and patched to fix every slight detail (blizzard is good at this, look at starcraft 2 as well)

http://diablo2.diablowiki.net/Experience_Chart

every area has a optimum range of levels, and the more you stray out of that range, the less experience you get (exponentially) meaning its near impossible to grind in old areas, even on high-exp enemies. Never feels like forced progression though, because the progression of the game is always apparent. It actually feels odd and out of place to go back and grind.
Logged

Ichigo Jam
Level 1
*



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2012, 03:11:20 PM »

Even in Tetris, or Pac-Man?

Yes. I still haven't gotten an actual reason why savestating cannot be allowed.
But being able to save at any point in games like that completely devalues the scoring, which is the whole point of the game. I don't see what the point of those games is if the only impediment to getting a good score is patience with save-scumming.

Maybe the thing that sets us apart is that I think of the save system as a game mechanic. I.e. how to use the save system is an in-game decision where I might weigh up the pros and cons of retreating to the last save point. Some games are obviously designed with this idea of saving as a game mechanic (e.g. Resident Evil's typewriter ribbons, Cadaver's increasing cost to save.)

So to me quicksave is similar to having a hopelessly overpowered weapon in an FPS - I think it's poor design if I have to manually restrict my use of game features in order to have fun. And then there's always the nagging doubt when the going gets tough that the game's designer expected me to make more use of quicksave/the super-weapon.

If, however, I think of the save system as something external to the game (like being able to jump to a random point in a book or movie) then I can see that being OK as a different way to experience what the game has to offer. (Although I feel that having to manually place bookmarks at every page I might want to look back at is pretty clunky :-)
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2012, 03:41:41 PM »

Then I don't think much of "most fans of Demon's Souls". Who ruins the tension of a game for themselves when given the option not to? What sort of wuss would do that?
The forced autosaving in Souls is kind of a necessity due to the online portion of the game though.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 04:09:16 PM by C.A. Sinclair » Logged
Dragonmaw
Guest
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2012, 03:41:48 PM »

Never put save systems in a gave revolving around score.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic