Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: How is Reach like CoD?
  • Subject: How is Reach like CoD?
Subject: How is Reach like CoD?

I often read things from posters along the lines of "Reach tried to cater to the CoD crowd". Can someone please explain what this means with specific examples?

  • 01.09.2012 7:55 PM PDT

Posted by: Darkside Eric
So basically... Waypoint is pro-vanilla?

Posted by: Sentox6
Waypoint isn't pro-anything so much as they're just anti-intelligence.

Reach is the most casual Halo.

  • 01.09.2012 7:56 PM PDT

"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me

"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright


Posted by: nicksta14
Reach is the most casual Halo.

I object!

The game is not casual. It's the majority of players.

That's how it was with Halo 3, that's how it was with Halo 2, and even CE, and that's how it will be with Halo 4.

  • 01.09.2012 7:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Lol.

It didn't.

  • 01.09.2012 7:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My Level. Get on it.


Posted by: RC Clone
Nope. SouthPole isn't a person. He's the avatar of the force of tryhards everywhere. He stalks the web looking for retards to set straight. He can not be stopped by mere bans or thread locks for he shall rise anew.

Reach was designed for the casuals.

  • 01.09.2012 8:02 PM PDT


Posted by: SouthPoIe
Reach was designed for the casuals.

  • 01.09.2012 8:07 PM PDT

What does casual mean?

  • 01.09.2012 8:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

X360 GT: Stro6es
PSN ID: iRBTR
NickIsBest Master Race.
Music Enthusiast. I adore all genres of music, even the ones you don't like, Subway is -blam!- amazing, and this is the greatest song ever created by one man IMO.
If I like you enough, I'll mail you a Subway Sandwich. If I hate you, expect a -blam!- nuke.


Posted by: MajorGroove
What does casual mean?


Dumbed-down.

Non-competitive.

Caters to the masses.

  • 01.09.2012 8:11 PM PDT

"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me

"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright


Posted by: MajorGroove
What does casual mean?

Basically, not trying hard, because one doesn't care.

  • 01.09.2012 8:11 PM PDT

"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me

"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright


Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: MajorGroove
What does casual mean?


Dumbed-down.

Non-competitive.

Caters to the masses.

I object!

That's not what casual means!

  • 01.09.2012 8:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: J0man1
  • user homepage:

This (and THIS) was for Reach...and/or Harvest

Simple, they are both crap.

  • 01.09.2012 8:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

X360 GT: Stro6es
PSN ID: iRBTR
NickIsBest Master Race.
Music Enthusiast. I adore all genres of music, even the ones you don't like, Subway is -blam!- amazing, and this is the greatest song ever created by one man IMO.
If I like you enough, I'll mail you a Subway Sandwich. If I hate you, expect a -blam!- nuke.


Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: MajorGroove
What does casual mean?


Dumbed-down.

Non-competitive.

Caters to the masses.

I object!

That's not what casual means!


In terms of the flow of the game yes.

In terms of the players, casual obviously has a different definition.

But this thread is about the game, not the players. It is inevitable that there will be casual players.

[Edited on 01.09.2012 8:16 PM PST]

  • 01.09.2012 8:15 PM PDT

"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me

"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright


Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: MajorGroove
What does casual mean?


Dumbed-down.

Non-competitive.

Caters to the masses.

I object!

That's not what casual means!


In terms of the flow of the game yes.

In terms of the players, casual obviously has a different definition.

But this thread is about the game, not the players. It is inevitable that there will be casual players.

And I am telling you that it is illogical to say that a game is casual. Flow or otherwise.

It's like calling a murder weapon the murderer itself.

  • 01.09.2012 8:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

X360 GT: Stro6es
PSN ID: iRBTR
NickIsBest Master Race.
Music Enthusiast. I adore all genres of music, even the ones you don't like, Subway is -blam!- amazing, and this is the greatest song ever created by one man IMO.
If I like you enough, I'll mail you a Subway Sandwich. If I hate you, expect a -blam!- nuke.


Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: MajorGroove
What does casual mean?


Dumbed-down.

Non-competitive.

Caters to the masses.

I object!

That's not what casual means!


In terms of the flow of the game yes.

In terms of the players, casual obviously has a different definition.

But this thread is about the game, not the players. It is inevitable that there will be casual players.

And I am telling you that it is illogical to say that a game is casual. Flow or otherwise.

It's like calling a murder weapon the murderer itself.


The game is a casual game because the game doesn't commend you for improving your skills.

You lose what happens? You rank up. You win, same thing. And you don't get a bonus or a penalty for winning or losing.

The game is built so that no matter how good you do or how bad you do there is always a reward.

The only competitive aspect that the game contains is The Arena for you actually have to try harder to get the highest rank.

But that is one playlist. There will always be competitive players and casual players but more then 75% of the game is non-competitive in terms of how previous Halo games have been.

You say Reach and Halo 3 were equally as competitive? Halo 3 had a whole ranked section of more then one gametype that used a trueskill system. It wasn't the greatest system of all time but there were multiple playlist and all of them were more competitive then their social counterparts.

Halo 3 penalized you for losing and you were only rewarded for winning. This led to a more tactical and team-based type of gameplay that was highly competitive and Reach lacks this factor greatly.

[Edited on 01.09.2012 8:27 PM PST]

  • 01.09.2012 8:26 PM PDT

"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me

"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright


Posted by: NickIsBest

The game is a casual game because the game doesn't commend you for improving your skills.

You lose what happens? You rank up. You win, same thing. And you don't get a bonus or a penalty for winning or losing.

The game is built so that no matter how good you do or how bad you do there is always a reward.

The only competitive aspect that the game contains is The Arena for you actually have to try harder to get the highest rank.

But that is one playlist. There will always be competitive players and casual players but more then 75% of the game is non-competitive in terms of how previous Halo games have been.

You say Reach and Halo 3 were equally as competitive? Halo 3 had a whole ranked section of more then one gametype that used a trueskill system. It wasn't the greatest system of all time but there were multiple playlist and all of them were more competitive then their social counterparts.

Halo 3 penalized you for losing and you were only rewarded for winning. This led to a more tactical and team-based type of gameplay that was highly competitive and Reach lacks this factor greatly.

And? That doesn't change anything. The game. Is not. Casual. It is impossible.

So what if it doesn't have much to commend your skills? So what if there's always some sort of reward? It's not the playlists, or any amount of content (or any kind, for that matter) that makes something competitive. It is the players, and the players alone.

The game is irrelevant in it's entirety, as to how competitive something is. It's the players. There is no such thing as a competitive or casual video game.

Look at Sonic the Hedgehog. The newest game, Sonic Generations. It saves your best times on each Act, and I think it saves your highest score, too. It's entirely up to you as to how fast you want to go through the Acts. Gameplay options can assist or impede this goal, but it's entirely up to you. The game is neither casual or competitive. It's all up to the player. And it works, too; You can compare best times/scores with other players if you wish, possibly creating competition between you and your friends on this matter.

And Halo Reach still has statistics. K/D, W/L, how many games played, the works. That's fine and all. But it's entirely up to the player to improve or otherwise.

It's all player driven. All of it. All of it. That is why a game cannot be casual or competitive, because it's up to the players. And as you said, it's inevitable that there will be both kinds of players.

  • 01.09.2012 8:40 PM PDT

Reality is broken.

Also, you're not your stats.

It has guns.

  • 01.09.2012 8:41 PM PDT

Reality is broken.

Also, you're not your stats.


Posted by: nicksta14
Reach is the most casual Halo.


CE and ODST didn't even have online multiplayer...

  • 01.09.2012 8:42 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

X360 GT: Stro6es
PSN ID: iRBTR
NickIsBest Master Race.
Music Enthusiast. I adore all genres of music, even the ones you don't like, Subway is -blam!- amazing, and this is the greatest song ever created by one man IMO.
If I like you enough, I'll mail you a Subway Sandwich. If I hate you, expect a -blam!- nuke.


Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

The game is a casual game because the game doesn't commend you for improving your skills.

You lose what happens? You rank up. You win, same thing. And you don't get a bonus or a penalty for winning or losing.

The game is built so that no matter how good you do or how bad you do there is always a reward.

The only competitive aspect that the game contains is The Arena for you actually have to try harder to get the highest rank.

But that is one playlist. There will always be competitive players and casual players but more then 75% of the game is non-competitive in terms of how previous Halo games have been.

You say Reach and Halo 3 were equally as competitive? Halo 3 had a whole ranked section of more then one gametype that used a trueskill system. It wasn't the greatest system of all time but there were multiple playlist and all of them were more competitive then their social counterparts.

Halo 3 penalized you for losing and you were only rewarded for winning. This led to a more tactical and team-based type of gameplay that was highly competitive and Reach lacks this factor greatly.

And? That doesn't change anything. The game. Is not. Casual. It is impossible.

So what if it doesn't have much to commend your skills? So what if there's always some sort of reward? It's not the playlists, or any amount of content (or any kind, for that matter) that makes something competitive. It is the players, and the players alone.

The game is irrelevant in it's entirety, as to how competitive something is. It's the players. There is no such thing as a competitive or casual video game.

Look at Sonic the Hedgehog. The newest game, Sonic Generations. It saves your best times on each Act, and I think it saves your highest score, too. It's entirely up to you as to how fast you want to go through the Acts. Gameplay options can assist or impede this goal, but it's entirely up to you. The game is neither casual or competitive. It's all up to the player. And it works, too; You can compare best times/scores with other players if you wish, possibly creating competition between you and your friends on this matter.

And Halo Reach still has statistics. K/D, W/L, how many games played, the works. That's fine and all. But it's entirely up to the player to improve or otherwise.

It's all player driven. All of it. All of it. That is why a game cannot be casual or competitive, because it's up to the players. And as you said, it's inevitable that there will be both kinds of players.


What if there is no real incentive to improve your skills?

In Reach there is one playlist out of what like 15? One playlist that ranks you properly against other players. In Halo 3 there was a whole section of ranked playlists.

You don't understand. There is no incentive for the masses to improve their game. It was not like this in previous Halo games. Therefore people just play and couldn't care less about winning, losing, helping there team, etc. It's all about that K/D boosting and credit grinding.

In Halo 3 it was either win and rank up or lose and rank down. That instant difference changed the way people played the game. This led to a more competitive population of players and therefore a more competitive game.

[Edited on 01.09.2012 8:55 PM PST]

  • 01.09.2012 8:52 PM PDT

"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me

"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright


Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

The game is a casual game because the game doesn't commend you for improving your skills.

You lose what happens? You rank up. You win, same thing. And you don't get a bonus or a penalty for winning or losing.

The game is built so that no matter how good you do or how bad you do there is always a reward.

The only competitive aspect that the game contains is The Arena for you actually have to try harder to get the highest rank.

But that is one playlist. There will always be competitive players and casual players but more then 75% of the game is non-competitive in terms of how previous Halo games have been.

You say Reach and Halo 3 were equally as competitive? Halo 3 had a whole ranked section of more then one gametype that used a trueskill system. It wasn't the greatest system of all time but there were multiple playlist and all of them were more competitive then their social counterparts.

Halo 3 penalized you for losing and you were only rewarded for winning. This led to a more tactical and team-based type of gameplay that was highly competitive and Reach lacks this factor greatly.

And? That doesn't change anything. The game. Is not. Casual. It is impossible.

So what if it doesn't have much to commend your skills? So what if there's always some sort of reward? It's not the playlists, or any amount of content (or any kind, for that matter) that makes something competitive. It is the players, and the players alone.

The game is irrelevant in it's entirety, as to how competitive something is. It's the players. There is no such thing as a competitive or casual video game.

Look at Sonic the Hedgehog. The newest game, Sonic Generations. It saves your best times on each Act, and I think it saves your highest score, too. It's entirely up to you as to how fast you want to go through the Acts. Gameplay options can assist or impede this goal, but it's entirely up to you. The game is neither casual or competitive. It's all up to the player. And it works, too; You can compare best times/scores with other players if you wish, possibly creating competition between you and your friends on this matter.

And Halo Reach still has statistics. K/D, W/L, how many games played, the works. That's fine and all. But it's entirely up to the player to improve or otherwise.

It's all player driven. All of it. All of it. That is why a game cannot be casual or competitive, because it's up to the players. And as you said, it's inevitable that there will be both kinds of players.


What if there is no real incentive to improve your skills?

In Reach there is one playlist out of what like 15? One playlist that ranks you properly against other players. In Halo 3 there was a whole section of ranked playlist.

You don't understand. There is no incentive for the masses to improve their game. It was not like this in previous Halo games. Therefore people just play and couldn't care less about winning, losing, helping there team, etc. It's all about that K/D boosting and credit grinding.

In Halo 3 it was either win and rank up or lose and rank down. That instant difference changed the way people played the game. This led to a more competitive population of players and therefore a more competitive game.

Indeed, but therein lies my point. The players were more competitive in Halo 3. It wasn't more competitive, it just appealed to them more. I can understand why Halo Reach appeals to them less, but like Halo 3, it is neither competitive nor casual.

You're arguing for incentives, while I'm arguing for objectivity. Incentives are subjective. What's an incentive to one player is not an incentive to someone else. There's the problem with your argument. Objectively, no Halo ever was competitive or casual. They were all just video games. It's the players who were casual and competitive.

  • 01.09.2012 8:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

X360 GT: Stro6es
PSN ID: iRBTR
NickIsBest Master Race.
Music Enthusiast. I adore all genres of music, even the ones you don't like, Subway is -blam!- amazing, and this is the greatest song ever created by one man IMO.
If I like you enough, I'll mail you a Subway Sandwich. If I hate you, expect a -blam!- nuke.


Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

The game is a casual game because the game doesn't commend you for improving your skills.

You lose what happens? You rank up. You win, same thing. And you don't get a bonus or a penalty for winning or losing.

The game is built so that no matter how good you do or how bad you do there is always a reward.

The only competitive aspect that the game contains is The Arena for you actually have to try harder to get the highest rank.

But that is one playlist. There will always be competitive players and casual players but more then 75% of the game is non-competitive in terms of how previous Halo games have been.

You say Reach and Halo 3 were equally as competitive? Halo 3 had a whole ranked section of more then one gametype that used a trueskill system. It wasn't the greatest system of all time but there were multiple playlist and all of them were more competitive then their social counterparts.

Halo 3 penalized you for losing and you were only rewarded for winning. This led to a more tactical and team-based type of gameplay that was highly competitive and Reach lacks this factor greatly.

And? That doesn't change anything. The game. Is not. Casual. It is impossible.

So what if it doesn't have much to commend your skills? So what if there's always some sort of reward? It's not the playlists, or any amount of content (or any kind, for that matter) that makes something competitive. It is the players, and the players alone.

The game is irrelevant in it's entirety, as to how competitive something is. It's the players. There is no such thing as a competitive or casual video game.

Look at Sonic the Hedgehog. The newest game, Sonic Generations. It saves your best times on each Act, and I think it saves your highest score, too. It's entirely up to you as to how fast you want to go through the Acts. Gameplay options can assist or impede this goal, but it's entirely up to you. The game is neither casual or competitive. It's all up to the player. And it works, too; You can compare best times/scores with other players if you wish, possibly creating competition between you and your friends on this matter.

And Halo Reach still has statistics. K/D, W/L, how many games played, the works. That's fine and all. But it's entirely up to the player to improve or otherwise.

It's all player driven. All of it. All of it. That is why a game cannot be casual or competitive, because it's up to the players. And as you said, it's inevitable that there will be both kinds of players.


What if there is no real incentive to improve your skills?

In Reach there is one playlist out of what like 15? One playlist that ranks you properly against other players. In Halo 3 there was a whole section of ranked playlist.

You don't understand. There is no incentive for the masses to improve their game. It was not like this in previous Halo games. Therefore people just play and couldn't care less about winning, losing, helping there team, etc. It's all about that K/D boosting and credit grinding.

In Halo 3 it was either win and rank up or lose and rank down. That instant difference changed the way people played the game. This led to a more competitive population of players and therefore a more competitive game.

Indeed, but therein lies my point. The players were more competitive in Halo 3. It wasn't more competitive, it just appealed to them more. I can understand why Halo Reach appeals to them less, but like Halo 3, it is neither competitive nor casual.

You're arguing for incentives, while I'm arguing for objectivity. Incentives are subjective. What's an incentive to one player is not an incentive to someone else. There's the problem with your argument. Objectively, no Halo ever was competitive or casual. They were all just video games. It's the players who were casual and competitive.


But the ultimatum was that since there was a higher population of competitive players, and that the game was geared to a more competitive playstyle, the game was ultimately more competitive. Bottom line.

  • 01.09.2012 9:01 PM PDT

"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me

"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright


Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

Posted by: Akamia179

Posted by: NickIsBest

The game is a casual game because the game doesn't commend you for improving your skills.

You lose what happens? You rank up. You win, same thing. And you don't get a bonus or a penalty for winning or losing.

The game is built so that no matter how good you do or how bad you do there is always a reward.

The only competitive aspect that the game contains is The Arena for you actually have to try harder to get the highest rank.

But that is one playlist. There will always be competitive players and casual players but more then 75% of the game is non-competitive in terms of how previous Halo games have been.

You say Reach and Halo 3 were equally as competitive? Halo 3 had a whole ranked section of more then one gametype that used a trueskill system. It wasn't the greatest system of all time but there were multiple playlist and all of them were more competitive then their social counterparts.

Halo 3 penalized you for losing and you were only rewarded for winning. This led to a more tactical and team-based type of gameplay that was highly competitive and Reach lacks this factor greatly.

And? That doesn't change anything. The game. Is not. Casual. It is impossible.

So what if it doesn't have much to commend your skills? So what if there's always some sort of reward? It's not the playlists, or any amount of content (or any kind, for that matter) that makes something competitive. It is the players, and the players alone.

The game is irrelevant in it's entirety, as to how competitive something is. It's the players. There is no such thing as a competitive or casual video game.

Look at Sonic the Hedgehog. The newest game, Sonic Generations. It saves your best times on each Act, and I think it saves your highest score, too. It's entirely up to you as to how fast you want to go through the Acts. Gameplay options can assist or impede this goal, but it's entirely up to you. The game is neither casual or competitive. It's all up to the player. And it works, too; You can compare best times/scores with other players if you wish, possibly creating competition between you and your friends on this matter.

And Halo Reach still has statistics. K/D, W/L, how many games played, the works. That's fine and all. But it's entirely up to the player to improve or otherwise.

It's all player driven. All of it. All of it. That is why a game cannot be casual or competitive, because it's up to the players. And as you said, it's inevitable that there will be both kinds of players.


What if there is no real incentive to improve your skills?

In Reach there is one playlist out of what like 15? One playlist that ranks you properly against other players. In Halo 3 there was a whole section of ranked playlist.

You don't understand. There is no incentive for the masses to improve their game. It was not like this in previous Halo games. Therefore people just play and couldn't care less about winning, losing, helping there team, etc. It's all about that K/D boosting and credit grinding.

In Halo 3 it was either win and rank up or lose and rank down. That instant difference changed the way people played the game. This led to a more competitive population of players and therefore a more competitive game.

Indeed, but therein lies my point. The players were more competitive in Halo 3. It wasn't more competitive, it just appealed to them more. I can understand why Halo Reach appeals to them less, but like Halo 3, it is neither competitive nor casual.

You're arguing for incentives, while I'm arguing for objectivity. Incentives are subjective. What's an incentive to one player is not an incentive to someone else. There's the problem with your argument. Objectively, no Halo ever was competitive or casual. They were all just video games. It's the players who were casual and competitive.


But the ultimatum was that since there was a higher population of competitive players, and that the game was geared to a more competitive playstyle, the game was ultimately more competitive. Bottom line.

No. The game was not competitive or casual. None of them are. That is the bottom line. It is an objective fact.

The players are the ones who are competitive who are competitive and/or casual. That is the bottom line. It is an objective fact.

The weight between the two populations is irrelevant in deciding if a game is competitive or casual, as the game in question cannot be competitive or casual in the first place. That is the bottom line. Because incentives are subjective. And, ironically enough, the fact about incentives being subjective is an objective fact.

  • 01.09.2012 9:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

X360 GT: Stro6es
PSN ID: iRBTR
NickIsBest Master Race.
Music Enthusiast. I adore all genres of music, even the ones you don't like, Subway is -blam!- amazing, and this is the greatest song ever created by one man IMO.
If I like you enough, I'll mail you a Subway Sandwich. If I hate you, expect a -blam!- nuke.


Posted by: Akamia179


I'm sorry to say this but I laughed a bit. LOL.

I don't think you understand the game enough to be throwing out your objective facts. Your stats are pretty bad but that doesn't disregard your arguement.

What you are saying is that the players make the game. I understand that. However, the game shapes the player. If a game is played competitively the players will be more competitive.

Competitive players make other competitive players and the game becomes more competitive.

There was more competitive players in Halo 3 therefore the game was more competitive.

There is less competitive players in Reach and therefore the game is more casual. You know? Casual? Play and have a good time and not care about being a H4RDC0R3 gamer. This is the mindset of majority of Reach's players. Because of the players, Halo 3 was more of a competitive game then Reach. That is a fact.

Halo 3 and Reach and 2 and CE obviously all have the qualities to equally be just as competitive as eachother. But there are more casual gamers in Reach and that makes the overall experience of Reach a more casual game. I am using your logic so I don't see how you can disagree any further. Reach isn't casual by default. The players have made it this way.

[Edited on 01.09.2012 9:23 PM PST]

  • 01.09.2012 9:22 PM PDT

"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me

"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright


Posted by: NickIsBest
I'm sorry to say this but I laughed a bit. LOL.

Wh--?! How dare you?!

I don't think you understand the game enough to be throwing out your objective facts. Your stats are pretty bad but that doesn't disregard your arguement.
People like you are hard to come by, if my experience around here is evidence of this...

What you are saying is that the players make the game. I understand that. However, the game shapes the player. If a game is played competitively the players will be more competitive.
Well... Yeah...

Competitive players make other competitive players and the game becomes more competitive.
Earlier, I would disagree, but what you say in your post later puts this sentence in a slightly different context...

There was more competitive players in Halo 3 therefore the game was more competitive.
See above...

There is less competitive players in Reach and therefore the game is more casual. You know? Casual? Play and have a good time and not care about being a H4RDC0R3 gamer. This is the mindset of majority of Reach's players. Because of the players, Halo 3 was more of a competitive game then Reach. That is a fact.
See above...

Halo 3 and Reach and 2 and CE obviously all have the qualities to equally be just as competitive as eachother. But there are more casual gamers in Reach and that makes the overall experience of Reach a more casual game. I am using your logic so I don't see how you can disagree any further. Reach isn't casual by default. The players have made it this way.
I can finally agree with you on this matter.

  • 01.09.2012 9:31 PM PDT