FelipeVinhao Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 ^ In relation to this... I'm not sure if they would say something like THIS on a announcement, and then would go back. It's the first time they mention the real life location on the announcement instead of calling for its game name. They usually say like "Liberty City" and you match it with New York because of the locations after you see a trailer or pictures. Most probably because if they said "San Andreas", everyone would associate it to the 3 existing cities... It actually didn't work, as it looks... What they probably said they should be careful about was most likely about telling about features, story, characters, which - OH LOOK! - we don't know ANYTHING yet. THIS worked, for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Moffat Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Why do some people persist that the other 2 cities will be in the game even thought R* has stated los santos and surroundings?? I mean jesus do they need to slowly spell it out to people?? there is no big conspiracy, if it was going back to the state of san andreas they would have said so like they did when first info was released for SA back in the day. R* more than likley would have said it as it would be a huge marketing boost!! Now I do believe we will see another small city like how in IV we got alderny (new jersey) it was small but it was a sep city , so we prob will get something like that, its either black or white it seems some peopel can only have JUST LS or LS, SF and LV then again I suppose some people just don't like reality, I read the asked and answered on gta3 regarding some of the long standing myths etc and even When R* the guys who made the f***king game said they were false and never exsisted people still would'nt accept and accused R* of lying!! rage over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Vacuum Seal Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Asked and Answered didn't confirm anything as it simply restated what was said before. How does the repetition of a statement add to the truth of it? R* certainly isn't "lying" but if LS wasn't the only city in the game, anyone with a brain knows that they wouldn't come right out and list the cities in the game. I HIGHLY doubt LV and SF are in the game, but I am confident that a San Diego based town will be in the game. LS looked pretty small in the trailer too for a game that would be R*'s "largest and most ambitious". "shut up, sit down, relax" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Not all of LS was shown in the trailer. Also I'm assuming "largest and ambitious" refers to the ENTIRE map. Not just LS. Then again it could have several meanings too. Though Mr.Moffat is right. Does R* really need to spell it out slowly for people to comprehend? I'm not doubting for a second we may see another smaller city and towns/settlements, but I'm 99.9% confident SF and LV will NOT be in GTA V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Vacuum Seal Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Not all of LS was shown in the trailer. Also I'm assuming "largest and ambitious" refers to the ENTIRE map. Not just LS. Then again it could have several meanings too. Though Mr.Moffat is right. Does R* really need to spell it out slowly for people to comprehend? I'm not doubting for a second we may see another smaller city and towns/settlements, but I'm 99.9% confident SF and LV will NOT be in GTA V. "Comprehend" isn't really a good word to describe the situation. I think it's more perception than comprehension given R*'s historically unpredictable nature when it comes to GTA. "shut up, sit down, relax" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfroCrew2022 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Not all of LS was shown in the trailer. Also I'm assuming "largest and ambitious" refers to the ENTIRE map. Not just LS. Then again it could have several meanings too. Though Mr.Moffat is right. Does R* really need to spell it out slowly for people to comprehend? I'm not doubting for a second we may see another smaller city and towns/settlements, but I'm 99.9% confident SF and LV will NOT be in GTA V. "Comprehend" isn't really a good word to describe the situation. I think it's more perception than comprehension given R*'s historically unpredictable nature when it comes to GTA. Smart Ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Not all of LS was shown in the trailer. Also I'm assuming "largest and ambitious" refers to the ENTIRE map. Not just LS. Then again it could have several meanings too. Though Mr.Moffat is right. Does R* really need to spell it out slowly for people to comprehend? I'm not doubting for a second we may see another smaller city and towns/settlements, but I'm 99.9% confident SF and LV will NOT be in GTA V. "Comprehend" isn't really a good word to describe the situation. I think it's more perception than comprehension given R*'s historically unpredictable nature when it comes to GTA. Not so unpredictable. As it seems pretty clear that if they mention both "Southern California" (real name) and "Los Santos and surrounding areas" (fiction name) as they did it mean the Los Santos we know with its surrounding beaches, countryside, forests and desert. They may be unpredictable in relation to features, not location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT. Johnson Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Not all of LS was shown in the trailer. Also I'm assuming "largest and ambitious" refers to the ENTIRE map. Not just LS. Then again it could have several meanings too. Though Mr.Moffat is right. Does R* really need to spell it out slowly for people to comprehend? I'm not doubting for a second we may see another smaller city and towns/settlements, but I'm 99.9% confident SF and LV will NOT be in GTA V. "Comprehend" isn't really a good word to describe the situation. I think it's more perception than comprehension given R*'s historically unpredictable nature when it comes to GTA. Not so unpredictable. As it seems pretty clear that if they mention both "Southern California" (real name) and "Los Santos and surrounding areas" (fiction name) as they did it mean the Los Santos we know with its surrounding beaches, countryside, forests and desert. They may be unpredictable in relation to features, not location. What bugs me is that they keep sticking to the original press release statement, which gives us NOTHING NEW! IMO, SF and LV are in the past. I predict a San Diego based city or some other city that is in the SoCal region. I'm not convinced that Rockstar will abandon their "island unlocking" method any time soon. It is a staple of the GTA series; however, so was the WASTED/BUSTED lettering on the screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What bugs me is that they keep sticking to the original press release statement, which gives us NOTHING NEW! IMO, SF and LV are in the past. I predict a San Diego based city or some other city that is in the SoCal region. I'm not convinced that Rockstar will abandon their "island unlocking" method any time soon. It is a staple of the GTA series; however, so was the WASTED/BUSTED lettering on the screen I know. The problem is that there are people that, besides the fact they don't accept only LS as location, still believe Vice City will be added together. And about the island unlocking thing, I'm also curious on how they'll make if they have only one city, which the only "river" it has is only a dry canal nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reform Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What bugs me is that they keep sticking to the original press release statement, which gives us NOTHING NEW! IMO, SF and LV are in the past. I predict a San Diego based city or some other city that is in the SoCal region. I'm not convinced that Rockstar will abandon their "island unlocking" method any time soon. It is a staple of the GTA series; however, so was the WASTED/BUSTED lettering on the screen I know. The problem is that there are people that, besides the fact they don't accept only LS as location, still believe Vice City will be added together. And about the island unlocking thing, I'm also curious on how they'll make if they have only one city, which the only "river" it has is only a dry canal nowadays. Well in reality Southern California is not an island, but chances are it will be if past GTA's are anything to go by. Basically, real-world counterparts don't have to dirrectly translate into R*'s world. They could have rivers, unclimbable mountain ranges, closed bridges/tunnels, walls, fences, unavoidable wanted levels, etc. all to keep us out of later areas before they are "unlocked". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Vacuum Seal Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Not so unpredictable. As it seems pretty clear that if they mention both "Southern California" (real name) and "Los Santos and surrounding areas" (fiction name) as they did it mean the Los Santos we know with its surrounding beaches, countryside, forests and desert. They may be unpredictable in relation to features, not location. However, LS and SoCal don't mean the same thing as LA and SoCal are far from interchangeable terms. LA doesn't even make up half the population of Southern California. So even though LV and SF won't be in the game; it's pretty arrogant for people on the forums to be condescending to those of us who speculate a possibility of more than just LS and suspect a San Diego-based city. Then attempting to put us in the same boat as the LV/SF theorists to undermine our credibility. Southern California Stats Edited February 17, 2012 by canttakemyid "shut up, sit down, relax" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reform Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 However, LS and SoCal don't mean the same thing as LA and SoCal are far from interchangeable terms. LA doesn't even make up half the population of Southern California. So even though LV and SF won't be in the game; it's pretty arrogant for people on the forums to be condescending to those of us who speculate a possibility of more than just LS and suspect a San Diego-based city. Then attempting to put us in the same boat as the LV/SF theorists to undermine our credibility. Southern California Stats You're 100% right with this, however the idea of a large state without SF/LV is something most rational members already expect. I don't think that anyone of note is attempting to round you up with the crazies. As far as a version of San Diego goes, That's something we can't rule out as it is indeed in SoCal. However I won't be surprised if it's not, as their version of New York missed plenty of NY locales. If they do throw it in, I won't be shocked but I wILL be pretty happy about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrizio Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Not so unpredictable. As it seems pretty clear that if they mention both "Southern California" (real name) and "Los Santos and surrounding areas" (fiction name) as they did it mean the Los Santos we know with its surrounding beaches, countryside, forests and desert. They may be unpredictable in relation to features, not location. However, LS and SoCal don't mean the same thing as LA and SoCal are far from interchangeable terms. LA doesn't even make up half the population of Southern California. So even though LV and SF won't be in the game; it's pretty arrogant for people on the forums to be condescending to those of us who speculate a possibility of more than just LS and suspect a San Diego-based city. Then attempting to put us in the same boat as the LV/SF theorists to undermine our credibility. Southern California Stats Well said mate well said. For the sake of storyline progression, traditionally there's to be three separate areas. We have LS itself; the surrounding countryside (hopefully with a small town or so); and logically a small border city, such as a mock up of San Diego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zendorphin Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think the three areas will be - Los Santos and a small part of the countryside More countryside/San Diego equivalent Tijuana equivalent The last game's Internet included a website for Mexican meds. I think border-hopping will be included and we'll see storylines related to drugs/cheap meds/illegal immigrants. But if it's the biggest map ever, who's to say we won't see more than 3 unlockable stages? Rockstar could pull a massive twist where we're in the 3rd region, everything appears to be unlocked and then BOOM! A mountain range that has been blocked off or a highway that has been closed due to wildfires suddenly opens...we hop onto it and suddenly we're on the edge of a second map! This is why they might be very cagey. GTA V just might play with our expectations of how the games work to hit us with some surprises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 However, LS and SoCal don't mean the same thing as LA and SoCal are far from interchangeable terms. LA doesn't even make up half the population of Southern California. So even though LV and SF won't be in the game; it's pretty arrogant for people on the forums to be condescending to those of us who speculate a possibility of more than just LS and suspect a San Diego-based city. Then attempting to put us in the same boat as the LV/SF theorists to undermine our credibility. Southern California Stats Got your point. And the same as you, I believe that, if there'll really be more than one main city, there are more chances of it being San Diego than Las Vegas or San Francisco. The great problem on this forum (I'm pretty sure it isn't exclusivity though) is that all sides have so many closed-minded people trying to support their respective opinions. The "classic San Andreas" group support their opinion with reason like "the original GTASA had 3 cities, so GTA5 will be smaller and worse with only LS", "there are highways and planes, so there are multiple cities", "the license plates have 'San Andreas' written on them", "the cowgirl prostitute and the desert on trailer means we'll have LV in game", and so on... The "multiple cities freaks" group is a mix of "classic San Andreas" plus a bunch of people disappointed by the fact GTA5 doesn't take in Vice City. Thing is so absurd here, that for them it's easier to believe VC will be included instead of a closer city, like San Diego. The "GTA5 purists" group are the ones who take the first trailer too literally, and ignore the announcement. Only LS is showed, only LS will be there. WYSIWYG. Period. The "SoCal purist" is the counterpart of "GTA5 purists": they take the announcement too literally, and ignore the trailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClareXoBearrx3R9 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Repeating the press release confirms nothing. Finally, someone with at least half a f*cking brain. This is no confirmation of a "yes" or "no" to the original question. Sorry, but this topic is redundant and therefore useless. Q.E.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic_Al Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Repeating the press release confirms nothing. Finally, someone with at least half a f*cking brain. This is no confirmation of a "yes" or "no" to the original question. Sorry, but this topic is redundant and therefore useless. Q.E.D. Again, they didn't just repeat the press release. They repeated the press release as the answer to a question about whether SF and LV are in GTA V. The answer does not contain SF and LV therefore the question is answered: READ IT AGAIN, DOES IT SAY SF OR LV? NO IT DOESN'T, DOES IT? They could have picked any of the thousands of questions they must be getting. As to what is on the map,everyone know's it's traditional for GTA (and other R* open world games) to have three major areas to progress through. It's not obvious how that will work with "Los Santos and surrounding countryside" so people are assuming there must be two major locations besides Los Santos. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClareXoBearrx3R9 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Repeating the press release confirms nothing. Finally, someone with at least half a f*cking brain. This is no confirmation of a "yes" or "no" to the original question. Sorry, but this topic is redundant and therefore useless. Q.E.D. Again, they didn't just repeat the press release. They repeated the press release as the answer to a question about whether SF and LV are in GTA V. The answer does not contain SF and LV therefore the question is answered: READ IT AGAIN, DOES IT SAY SF OR LV? NO IT DOESN'T, DOES IT? They could have picked any of the thousands of questions they must be getting. As to what is on the map,everyone know's it's traditional for GTA (and other R* open world games) to have three major areas to progress through. It's not obvious how that will work with "Los Santos and surrounding countryside" so people are assuming there must be two major locations besides Los Santos. We'll see. FIRST OF ALL It's an exact repetition of the ORIGINAL f*cking press release. And it does not say, anywhere in the quote, only Los Santos and the surrounding hills and countryside... Since the word "ONLY" is not present, it does NOT rule out any possibilities. I don't understand why the f*ck the English language is so goddamn difficult to understand . If the word "ONLY" was in any of the statements, then I understand that it's ONLY Los Santos and the surrounding hills and countryside, with NO OTHER CITIES. HOWEVER I will personally not get my hopes up for SF and/or LV, or even another city. Of course, I'd like for them to be in, but then again, I'm not going to waste my time hoping. REMARK Just for the record, I hate being an asshole, so please pardon my "pissiness" in this post; I'm simply sick and tired of people not noting the obvious. In the end, only time will tell. Edited February 20, 2012 by capei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherrycola Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 ^ But why would they choose to answer that question if they were just gonna repeat the press release and that's that? They didn't have to answer it. Either it's confirmed that SF and LV is not in the game, or Rockstar is intentionally misleading us. Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meson1 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) It's an exact repetition of the ORIGINAL f*cking press release. And it does not say, anywhere in the quote, only Los Santos and the surrounding hills and countryside... Since the word "ONLY" is not present, it does NOT rule out any possibilities. I don't understand why the f*ck the English language is so goddamn difficult to understand . If the word "ONLY" was in any of the statements, then I understand that it's ONLY Los Santos and the surrounding hills and countryside, with NO OTHER CITIES. Yes, it is an exact repetition of the original press release. But, my dear fellow, it's all about the context. You see, the questions to which it replies frame the statement in a new context. It more than strongly implies that SF and LV will not be included. I am quite used to reading things and understanding the difference between what is said, what isn't said and how to interpret exact logical meanings. Now I don't know quite why they are being so precise in their language that they stick to repeating exactly the same statement in whole or in part. It is not clear if there is something that they are not telling us. But the meaning is quite clear from the way they replied to those questions. However I will personally not get my hopes up for SF and/or LV, or even another city. Of course, I'd like for them to be in, but then again, I'm not going to waste my time hoping. Most wise, sir. Edited February 20, 2012 by meson1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DynamicInABox Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 JESUS CHRIST! I CAN'T GO 1 PAGE WITHOUT THIS f*ckING STUPID THREAD POPING UP! ITS LOS SANTOS AND THE SURROUNDING HILLS, COUNTRYSIDE AND BEACHES. GET THIS INTO YOUR HEADS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothGetaway Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 ^ But why would they choose to answer that question if they were just gonna repeat the press release and that's that? They didn't have to answer it. Either it's confirmed that SF and LV is not in the game, or Rockstar is intentionally misleading us. Take your pick. This right here is the type of logic fail that is causing all these stupid arguments. Why does it have to be one or the other, friend? This is exactly how inexperienced Poker players get caught off guard when they misread the odds on the flop, 4th street or the river. It's R*. They are vague about a lot of things, in and out of their games. I'd love it for LV and SF to be in the game but I've seen no evidence to support this yet. Therefore I'm sticking to the camp that understands the subtleties of English and is leaving the possibilities open for whatever. Anyone who is dogmatic about what is in the game (at this point) is most likely wrong about whatever they assert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherrycola Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 ^ But why would they choose to answer that question if they were just gonna repeat the press release and that's that? They didn't have to answer it. Either it's confirmed that SF and LV is not in the game, or Rockstar is intentionally misleading us. Take your pick. This right here is the type of logic fail that is causing all these stupid arguments. Why does it have to be one or the other, friend? This is exactly how inexperienced Poker players get caught off guard when they misread the odds on the flop, 4th street or the river. It's R*. They are vague about a lot of things, in and out of their games. I'd love it for LV and SF to be in the game but I've seen no evidence to support this yet. Therefore I'm sticking to the camp that understands the subtleties of English and is leaving the possibilities open for whatever. Anyone who is dogmatic about what is in the game (at this point) is most likely wrong about whatever they assert. No, the arguments are started by those who claim that SF and LV will be in the game, or I would have no reason to counter the claim. They didn't have to bring it up, they could've ignored the question, but they chose to answer it. And in their reply they added nothing more than what was already stated in the announcement. I believe the people who work at Rockstar are professional enough that this was not a mistake, thus it was either an attempt at misleading us, or it was a way of saying that the cities requested will not feature in GTA V. I'm not dogmatic about what is in the game, but I am dogmatic about them misleading us if it turns out that the cities will be in the game after all. That's not opinion, that's fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 This thing about interpretation around here is getting me sick. I'm not part of any of the purists here, so the only thing I'm sure based on our only current sources (trailer, announcement, Q&A) is that Los Santos and countryside will be there. You're all starting to interpret this only piece of information as some Brazilians interpret the laws (Brazilian here, so please don't get offended). Killing someone is against the law, but there's nothing specified about about killing someone sticking a table leg on one's liver at midnight, so killing someone with a table leg at midnight isn't against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothGetaway Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 ^ But why would they choose to answer that question if they were just gonna repeat the press release and that's that? They didn't have to answer it. Either it's confirmed that SF and LV is not in the game, or Rockstar is intentionally misleading us. Take your pick. This right here is the type of logic fail that is causing all these stupid arguments. Why does it have to be one or the other, friend? This is exactly how inexperienced Poker players get caught off guard when they misread the odds on the flop, 4th street or the river. It's R*. They are vague about a lot of things, in and out of their games. I'd love it for LV and SF to be in the game but I've seen no evidence to support this yet. Therefore I'm sticking to the camp that understands the subtleties of English and is leaving the possibilities open for whatever. Anyone who is dogmatic about what is in the game (at this point) is most likely wrong about whatever they assert. No, the arguments are started by those who claim that SF and LV will be in the game, or I would have no reason to counter the claim. They didn't have to bring it up, they could've ignored the question, but they chose to answer it. And in their reply they added nothing more than what was already stated in the announcement. I believe the people who work at Rockstar are professional enough that this was not a mistake, thus it was either an attempt at misleading us, or it was a way of saying that the cities requested will not feature in GTA V. I'm not dogmatic about what is in the game, but I am dogmatic about them misleading us if it turns out that the cities will be in the game after all. That's not opinion, that's fact. I understand, I just don't like "either-or" logic as it usually only focuses on two of the most OBVIOUS outcomes to the detriment of others. You seem to have failed to consider the possibility that they answered the question to reignite the discussion. Yes ignoring the question would have been clearer, yes they restated the press release and YES we are still talking about it. That doesn't mean no other options are on the table. I'm also not entirely sure that it's up to anyone to "counter" anything that people speculate on because we only have the official announcement and its VAGUE. There isn't enough info in the trailer to counter anything except the most obvious. For example I haven't heard anyone claim that Los Santos IS NOT in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothGetaway Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 This thing about interpretation around here is getting me sick. I'm not part of any of the purists here, so the only thing I'm sure based on our only current sources (trailer, announcement, Q&A) is that Los Santos and countryside will be there. You're all starting to interpret this only piece of information as some Brazilians interpret the laws (Brazilian here, so please don't get offended). Killing someone is against the law, but there's nothing specified about about killing someone sticking a table leg on one's liver at midnight, so killing someone with a table leg at midnight isn't against the law. I understand what you are saying but I think the comparison you are using is faulty. I don't think this is a case of childlike logic where because something WASN'T explicitly stated, there is no harm done. I think it has more to do with a lot of people's reading comprehension levels, whether or not English is their native language, and understanding the subtleties of how adults talk in the real world. Too many people are so willing to take it at face value when, as R* fans, they should know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FelipeVinhao Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think it has more to do with a lot of people's reading comprehension levels, whether or not English is their native language, and understanding the subtleties of how adults talk in the real world. Actually my comparision was more about "it isn't written anywhere it won't be". I know, my comparision may be a little ambiguous, so I got your point. One example of this is the one I mentioned some posts ago - people were so blind about this that even Vice City was a possibility. Really, we can have any excuse ("it's a fictional place", "it's not written anywhere it won't be"...), but Vice City is a bit too far to be only compreension issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vercetti27 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 JESUS CHRIST! I CAN'T GO 1 PAGE WITHOUT THIS f*ckING STUPID THREAD POPING UP!ITS LOS SANTOS AND THE SURROUNDING HILLS, COUNTRYSIDE AND BEACHES. GET THIS INTO YOUR HEADS! no thur wil B vIce city andliberty 2 plus you get arkham city atually my bro workds 4 rOckstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherrycola Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I understand, I just don't like "either-or" logic as it usually only focuses on two of the most OBVIOUS outcomes to the detriment of others. You seem to have failed to consider the possibility that they answered the question to reignite the discussion. Yes ignoring the question would have been clearer, yes they restated the press release and YES we are still talking about it. That doesn't mean no other options are on the table. I'm also not entirely sure that it's up to anyone to "counter" anything that people speculate on because we only have the official announcement and its VAGUE. There isn't enough info in the trailer to counter anything except the most obvious. For example I haven't heard anyone claim that Los Santos IS NOT in the game. It was specific enough to downright exclude northern California's San Fierro, and strongly hint to no LV. If they wanted us to discuss this matter they would have made it vague enough to include MORE of the west coast, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZZCOOL Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 i guess we'll get all this answered in the next questions which will be in maybe 2 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now