617 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathan Redgrave]

tonnactus wrote...

Yes,i refer to shooters like crysis.If bioware really want to compete with the best shooters,they should do it right at least.

We don't know at this point how "right" or "wrong" they're doing this for ME3, so let's not go there just yet.

[JKoopman]

Uomoz1987 wrote...

Also, Dictionary:

role-play   
[rohl-pley] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.

2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

No loot around here, move along.

I love how in virtually every debate about RPG mechanics someone will chime in with "an RPG is any game where you assume the role of a character!" Allow me to explain why that is ludicrous.

By that definition, Super Mario Bros is an RPG. You assume the role of a fat, Italian plumber after all! Heck, Doom is an RPG too. You assume the role of a space marine! In fact, while we're at it, Excite Bike is an RPG as well since you clearly assume the role of a professional motocross racer!

Simply put, every game ever made with few exceptions could be classified as an RPG by that definition. But the fact is, there's a big difference between role-playing and a role-playing game. A game in which you assume a role isn't by definition a role-playing game any more than Streets of Rage is considered a fighting game because it features fighting. There are certain commonly accepted mechanics that must be present in order for a game to be classified as either. For fighting games, its button combinations, chain attacks and separated rounds. For RPGs, its loot, stats, leveling, etc. Otherwise it's just any other action-adventure game.

Modifié par JKoopman, 07 mai 2011 - 01:04 .

[Bostur]

Limiting development too closely to a definition probably won't do much good. That doesn't make a definition useless however, it's a convenient way to talk about a subject without having to spend a lot of time explaining every concept.

Computer RPGs have a very long history with relatively little change, so it makes sense to use that history as part of a definition. Early computer RPGs were loosely based on the pen and paper variants, but they were vastly different. They were mostly different because they weren't actually role playing games, but mainly used mechanics from roleplaying games to create new types of games.

ME2 is so far from the roots of the computer RPG that it doesn't make much sense to actually use that term anymore. That does not mean that roleplaying can not happen in ME2, but it does mean that it doesn't have much in common with computer RPGs.

ME2 is a cover shooter with cinematic sequences, and a minor amount of management gameplay. There really are no computer RPG features in it, nothing wrong with that though. But it might be nice to know if the few RPG features that ME1 introduced is something that the series will keep using, or maybe even improve upon.

When we get told that ME3 will include more RPG features it tells me nothing, because Bioware seems to get very far away from any meaningful definition of RPG sometimes. Adding weapon mods do not make an RPG. Making a deep and large world with meaningful stats for combat and out of combat gameplay, can however get it closer to something RPG'ish.


Looking at the games that came before ME1, the shooter/RPG hybrids, there are really only 2 distinct candidates that I can think of. Those were System Shock and Deus Ex. Those games really dwarves ME1's RPG elements and even then they were considered on the fringe of RPG games, barely being within the definition.

The ME series being its own kind of genre is fine and all, but it does help communication to be clearer about what we are talking about.
If ME3 is simply a shooter with some minor customization options and a kick arse narrative, it can turn out to be an excellent game, no doubt about it. But calling it an RPG would be stretching the definition beyond anything meaningful.

[The Spamming Troll]

didymos1120 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i see that as ME3 is going to be ME2 with weapon mods and enemies with rocket boots. boo.

why are they removing the mass effect, from mass effect?

Wait, so adding weapon mods to ME3, which was a feature lost from ME1, is removing ME from ME?  What?

As to rocket boots: whatever.  That's a classic SF element, so I don't see how adding it to a series which revels in classic SF elements is an issue.

(im ripping on the direction bioware is going with ME.)

ME2 revels in gears of war, not blade runner like its predesesor.

[Someone With Mass]

I don't give a crap at this point. ME3 seems to be improving in the few areas I had a problem with in ME2 and that's good enough for me.

[JKoopman]

didymos1120 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
Oh, wait. You said not to mention any other game but Mass Effect. If I'm expected to follow your arbitrary rules, I guess I would say that if I want to make myself the squad medic, never fire my gun and just let my teammates take care of all the enemies while I manage their health, I don't consider that to be engaging in combat. Hence, I do not consider First Aid to be a combat skill. It is a support skill.

What relevance do other games have to how Mass Effect works?  What is so difficult to comprehend about this?  I mean, we're discussing the ME games, are we not? And your contived example of First Aid is meaningless.  I never said it was a combat skill (by which you actually mean "offensive skill").  I said it has no application outside of combat.  Hardly anything in ME1 skill-wise does. I don't see how you can even argue the point.  There are a bare handful of instances (like the Tower of Hanoi puzzle on Noveria using Omni-gel if you want) where your skills/gear see use outside of combat and that also aren't somehow directly related to combat (e.g. Mako repair, unless you're one of those OCD people who can't stand having a damaged tire after falling off some mountain), other than Charm/Intimidate.

When does health restoration in any game have any application outside of combat according to your definition?

You're being evasive because you clearly can't think of a response. Hence why you arbitrarily dictate that no examples exterior to Mass Effect can be presented. Yet, even when I present an internal example, you claim its irrelevant.

The point is, there were several skills in ME1 that weren't combat-focused. Charm, Intimidate, Electronics, Decryption, First Aid and Medicine. Yes, Electronics, Decryption and Medicine had applications in combat, but the fact that you were awarded the Overload, Sabotage and Neural Shock abilities at Lvls 1, 5 and 9 of those respective skills does not make Electronics, Decryption and Medicine combat skills in and of themselves. The former were the Mass Effect equivalent of Lockpicking and the later decreased Medi-gel cooldown time; they just happened to have ancilary bonus abilities included.

What skills are present in ME2 that don't directly pertain to combat? Are there even any? BioWare "streamlined" everything that wasn't directly relevant to combat clean out of the game. Granted, the "support" roles weren't exactly fleshed out well in ME1, but you could at least make an attempt at creating a non-combat-focused medic and/or hacker character. In ME2, Charm/Intimidate were merged with Paragon/Renegade and First Aid, Medicine, Hacking and Decryption were stripped completely in favor of automated health regeneration and class-irrelevant mini-games. In effect, they merged the "Holy Trinity" so that every character is now the Healer and the Hacker and the Diplomat and the Soldier. That kind of simplification is seen as a good thing by shooter fans, but for RPG fans its tantamount to heresy.

Modifié par JKoopman, 07 mai 2011 - 01:49 .

[Alamar2078]

At this point I'm not too worried about the aricle in question. As far as taking out RPG elements [stats/skills] they can't go much further than they did in ME2. At least BW is adding back some weapons mods & such so that's a step in the right direction.

If I could get back just a few non-combat skills like "Diplomacy" ; Electronics ; etc. that would be good esp. if points in these let me bypass "stupid minigames". If I want more of a puzzle or shooter you could of course leave those elements in but at least the player has choices they can make as to how to develope their character.

[Epic777]

JKoopman wrote...

Uomoz1987 wrote...

Also, Dictionary:

role-play   
[rohl-pley] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.

2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

No loot around here, move along.

I love how in virtually every debate about RPG mechanics someone will chime in with "an RPG is any game where you assume the role of a character!" Allow me to explain why that is ludicrous.

By that definition, Super Mario Bros is an RPG. You assume the role of a fat, Italian plumber after all! Heck, Doom is an RPG too. You assume the role of a space marine! In fact, while we're at it, Excite Bike is an RPG as well since you clearly assume the role of a professional motocross racer!

Simply put, every game ever made with few exceptions could be classified as an RPG by that definition. But the fact is, there's a big difference between role-playing and a role-playing game. A game in which you assume a role isn't by definition a role-playing game any more than Streets of Rage is considered a fighting game because it features fighting. There are certain commonly accepted mechanics that must be present in order for a game to be classified as either. For fighting games, its button combinations, chain attacks and separated rounds. For RPGs, its loot, stats, leveling, etc. Otherwise it's just any other action-adventure game.

At some point the role you choose has to define you. Example is the D&D world. Baldurs' gate, a player couldn't have a mage with low intelligence. D&D defines mages as highly intelligent peoples, (you could have a forgetful mage wih low wisedom but the ability to cast requires great intelligence). It is impossible to get the most powerful spells without high intelligence. Morrowind is another. If my strength and combat skills were too low a player would never advance in combat oriented guilds. Shepard is an elite soldier, that is the role the player assumes. An elite soldier must be competent at their craft including weapons and combat skills.

Modifié par Epic777, 07 mai 2011 - 02:00 .

[Someone With Mass]

If anyone is expecting Mass Effect to be like Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age, they're really barking up the wrong tree, because BioWare have never even tried to go for that route.

And I'm glad those very insignificant skills are gone, because they were annoying at best. Just a waste of time until you get enough of them to do something like breaking a safe or a container, only to find out they have the same worthless loot you get from killing enemies. Where's the fun in that?

[JKoopman]

Epic777 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Uomoz1987 wrote...

Also, Dictionary:

role-play   
[rohl-pley] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.

2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

No loot around here, move along.

I love how in virtually every debate about RPG mechanics someone will chime in with "an RPG is any game where you assume the role of a character!" Allow me to explain why that is ludicrous.

By that definition, Super Mario Bros is an RPG. You assume the role of a fat, Italian plumber after all! Heck, Doom is an RPG too. You assume the role of a space marine! In fact, while we're at it, Excite Bike is an RPG as well since you clearly assume the role of a professional motocross racer!

Simply put, every game ever made with few exceptions could be classified as an RPG by that definition. But the fact is, there's a big difference between role-playing and a role-playing game. A game in which you assume a role isn't by definition a role-playing game any more than Streets of Rage is considered a fighting game because it features fighting. There are certain commonly accepted mechanics that must be present in order for a game to be classified as either. For fighting games, its button combinations, chain attacks and separated rounds. For RPGs, its loot, stats, leveling, etc. Otherwise it's just any other action-adventure game.

At some point the role you choose has to define you. Example is the D&D world. Baldurs' gate, a player couldn't have a mage with low intelligence. D&D defines mages as highly intelligent peoples, (you could have a forgetful mage wiht low wisedom but the th ability to cast requires great intelligence). It is impossible to get the most powerful spells without high intelligence. Morrowind is another. If my strength and combat skills were too low a player would never advance in combat oriented guilds. Shepard is an elite soldier, that is the role the player assumes. An elite soldier must be competent at their craft including weapons and combat skills.

OK. Define "competent". Because you were plenty competent with your chosen weapon (with the possible exception of the Sniper Rifle) from Lvl 1. You just became more proficient as you leveled them up, basically going from "competent shooter" at lvl 1 to "expert marksman" at lvl 12.

That some people were unable to demonstrate trigger discipline and/or apparently didn't know how to burst fire early on didn't mean that Shepard was incompetent at shooting. I'm frankly amazed that some people actually had problems with it. I guess they just assumed that it should work the same way as CoD, and BioWare unfortunately capitulated in the sequel.

Not that I think that particular change was necesarily a bad thing.

Modifié par JKoopman, 07 mai 2011 - 02:26 .

[Quole]

Thats not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps people should wait for more information before assuming everything is going to be a certain way.

[Walker White]

Someone With Mass wrote...

If anyone is expecting Mass Effect to be like Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age, they're really barking up the wrong tree, because BioWare have never even tried to go for that route.

And I'm glad those very insignificant skills are gone, because they were annoying at best. Just a waste of time until you get enough of them to do something like breaking a safe or a container, only to find out they have the same worthless loot you get from killing enemies. Where's the fun in that?

QFT.  These types of skills have never been any good in a cRPG since they were introduced in the 90s.  All they are is shallow lock-and-key mechanics, and they will never have the richness of the PnP implementations.  Which means that, if we are to capture the PnP feel in computer RPGs, we need new mechanics.

[Minister of Sound]

I'll decide whether to hang myself when I actually play the game. Otherwise, I don't care, because inductive reasoning is a ****.

[didymos1120]

JKoopman wrote...

You're being evasive because you clearly can't think of a response. Hence why you arbitrarily dictate that no examples exterior to Mass Effect can be presented.

I've responded several times now: we're talking about the ME games.  What does it matter how other games work? They're not Mass Effect.

Yet, even when I present an internal example, you claim its irrelevant.

And I explained why it is too: the skills have no real application that are not combat related.  You keep saying that I claim they're "combat skills" and I've already corrected you on that. My claim is as it has ever been: what do we do in ME1 with any of those skills, except Charm and Intimidate, that somehow doesn't ultimately serve combat?  Hardly anything.

As far as ME2 goes, where did you get the idea that I think it has non-combat related skills?  That's the whole point: you have this notion that ME1 was somehow drastically different.  Well, fundamentally, it wasn't.

Modifié par didymos1120, 07 mai 2011 - 02:29 .

[Epic777]

JKoopman wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Uomoz1987 wrote...

Also, Dictionary:

role-play   
[rohl-pley] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.

2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

No loot around here, move along.

I love how in virtually every debate about RPG mechanics someone will chime in with "an RPG is any game where you assume the role of a character!" Allow me to explain why that is ludicrous.

By that definition, Super Mario Bros is an RPG. You assume the role of a fat, Italian plumber after all! Heck, Doom is an RPG too. You assume the role of a space marine! In fact, while we're at it, Excite Bike is an RPG as well since you clearly assume the role of a professional motocross racer!

Simply put, every game ever made with few exceptions could be classified as an RPG by that definition. But the fact is, there's a big difference between role-playing and a role-playing game. A game in which you assume a role isn't by definition a role-playing game any more than Streets of Rage is considered a fighting game because it features fighting. There are certain commonly accepted mechanics that must be present in order for a game to be classified as either. For fighting games, its button combinations, chain attacks and separated rounds. For RPGs, its loot, stats, leveling, etc. Otherwise it's just any other action-adventure game.

At some point the role you choose has to define you. Example is the D&D world. Baldurs' gate, a player couldn't have a mage with low intelligence. D&D defines mages as highly intelligent peoples, (you could have a forgetful mage wiht low wisedom but the th ability to cast requires great intelligence). It is impossible to get the most powerful spells without high intelligence. Morrowind is another. If my strength and combat skills were too low a player would never advance in combat oriented guilds. Shepard is an elite soldier, that is the role the player assumes. An elite soldier must be competent at their craft including weapons and combat skills.

OK. Define "competent". Because you were plenty competent with your chosen weapon (with the possible exception of the Sniper Rifle) from Lvl 1. You just became more proficient as you leveled them up, basically going from "competent shooter" at lvl 1 to "expert marksman" at lvl 12.

That some people were unable to demonstrate trigger discipline and/or apparently didn't know how to burst fire early on didn't mean that Shepard was incompetent at shooting. I'm frankly amazed that some people actually had problems with it. I guess they just assumed that it should work the same way as CoD, and BioWare unfortunately capitulated in the sequel.

Not that I think that particular change was necesarily a bad thing.

Define competent? In this case Shepard must demonstrate the skills to be a spectre/n7 (the very best soldier), so being able to shoot accurately, use these weapons proficiently etc. from the get go. I would not care if Sheaprd had highly developed cooking skills however I would mind if Shepard was to become a great cook but poor soldier. This undermines the role you have been thrust into. Shepard could have excellent hacking, social skill etc. but his/her combat abilites must be first.

As for ME1's comabt I will give a longer response later. The main problems stemmed from the fact it never truly defined what it wanted to be. It was an X/RPG, but the X being indefined.  Was the X an Action-RPG? If so it failed, the player would need more combat info and hard data. How much damage are the krogan actually hitting me for? In numbers how strong are my shields? How much more damagae does this upgrade let me do? Was it a Shooter, it failed that too, nothing has a weak point, no headshot damage, nothing. There was no gunplay, just hit the target. The cover was kinda flaky. Weapon balance and difference? 

Modifié par Epic777, 07 mai 2011 - 03:34 .

[jamskinner]

Terror_K wrote...

ianmcdonald wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

So what's the lesson learned?

Bioware is moving on and creating different games.

Different games does not equate bad games just because the game is not to your tastes. Different games does not mean it' "HOORRIBLETH AND APPLETH TO RETURD CONSOLETH GAMERS!"


Don't define Bioware by a single genre --> RPG just as you don't define Valve by a single genre ---> FPS even though they have tend to focus around that genre.

Bioware wants to go appeal beyond the frat boy sitting in the basement to the more common gamer.

Exactly. Who says Bioware games have to adhere to a strict formula? Could you imagine how boring their games would get?

Fine. Then they should do so with a new IP instead of starting off their series as an RPG (ME1 and DAO) and then twisting them into shallow action games (ME2 and DA2).

Why do you think I enjoy and have no issues with Jade Empire, despite the fact it's a more action-oriented and less statistically RPG game than either ME2 or DA2? The answer: because it started off that way from the beginning, and wasn't preceded by a much deeper, more hardcore RPG in the series.

ME1 and DAO set the tones for their respective games, and then the sequels come along and just "herp derp!" everything. If BioWare really feel they need to tap the modern, mainstream audience then they should do it with something new.

Before the original Mass Effect was even announced  Bioware was asked what kind of games they were going to make in the future.  They mentioned they were interested in doing a shooter RPG.  I assume this turned into Mass Effect.  So I am pretty sure  they planned for this IP to be a shooter from the beginning.  Not the other way around.
Sometimes I don't get why people think every game has to have the exact same system.  Look at JRPG's.  All that leads to is boring and predictable.

[AlanC9]

JKoopman wrote...
OK. Define "competent". Because you were plenty competent with your chosen weapon (with the possible exception of the Sniper Rifle) from Lvl 1. You just became more proficient as you leveled them up, basically going from "competent shooter" at lvl 1 to "expert marksman" at lvl 12.

That some people were unable to demonstrate trigger discipline and/or apparently didn't know how to burst fire early on didn't mean that Shepard was incompetent at shooting. I'm frankly amazed that some people actually had problems with it. I guess they just assumed that it should work the same way as CoD, and BioWare unfortunately capitulated in the sequel.

Not that I think that particular change was necesarily a bad thing.

Umm... then what is your position on ME1 weapon skills?

[BattleRaptor]

Jamskinner

Shooter isnt the problem... the extra lite RPG elements in me2 was.

Considering me1-me2 loss of RPG elements.
DA-DA2 loss of everything that made da1 awesome.

Bioware said they were making race unchooseable because they were making hawke voiced so the story could be more focused.

What focused turned out to be was a game with 1/10th the dialogue of the orginal game.. and that includes Your own players lines.

Reasonble grounds exist for concern over what exactly me3 will be.

[Savber100]

Terror_K wrote...

Fine. Then they should do so with a new IP instead of starting off their series as an RPG (ME1 and DAO) and then twisting them into shallow action games (ME2 and DA2).

Why do you think I enjoy and have no issues with Jade Empire, despite the fact it's a more action-oriented and less statistically RPG game than either ME2 or DA2? The answer: because it started off that way from the beginning, and wasn't preceded by a much deeper, more hardcore RPG in the series.

ME1 and DAO set the tones for their respective games, and then the sequels come along and just "herp derp!" everything. If BioWare really feel they need to tap the modern, mainstream audience then they should do it with something new.

You're not Bioware and they can choose to attempt new changes on established series. You don't like it? Good for you! But don't act like an arrogant ****** in believing that because the game has LESS RPG (which I disagree) equals "HERP DERP" games. You don't like shooter games but that doesn't mean that people who plays them and enjoys them are retards or console dummies.

Let me offer a better definition for a RPG:

A game is a computer RPG if it
features player-driven development of a persistent character or
characters via the making of consequential choices.

That's from the freaking RPG Codex, renowned for hating anything Bioware or Bethsada.

**** all you want about how it's not a RPG but in the end, Mass Effect 2 is still a RPG even if it's not the kind you're used to.



 

[Nohvarr]

Jamskinner

Shooter isnt the problem... the extra lite RPG elements in me2 was.

Considering me1-me2 loss of RPG elements.
DA-DA2 loss of everything that made da1 awesome.

Bioware said they were making race unchooseable because they were making hawke voiced so the story could be more focused.

What focused turned out to be was a game with 1/10th the dialogue of the orginal game.. and that includes Your own players lines.

Reasonble grounds exist for concern over what exactly me3 will be.

Until you recall that the ME team is different from the DA team, and that ME 3 has a longer dev time, and we have three to four articles talking about what they've added to the rpg mechaic. At that point this argument seems more like fear mongering, than anything.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 07 mai 2011 - 03:46 .

[Savber100]

Ixalmaris wrote...

"We want to enrich the role-playing aspects of the game, while making sure that they're always meaningful in combat,"

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

Bye bye ME3. You are becomming a mindless shooter with maybe some weapon profiencies and no RPG.

I'm seriously having difficulties in OP's so-called logical conclusion.

Read the quotes aloud and his conclusion .How does his conclusion make any sense whatsosever? They want to 'enrich the role-playing aspects of the game" and make sure there's np "meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat" 

How the hell does that mean it's a "mindless shooter... with NO RPG"?? Seriously OP... READ THE QUOTE ALOUD.

[FataliTensei]

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

Well after Mass Effect 2 what do you expect?

[AlanC9]

Walker White wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

If anyone is expecting Mass Effect to be like Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age, they're really barking up the wrong tree, because BioWare have never even tried to go for that route.

And I'm glad those very insignificant skills are gone, because they were annoying at best. Just a waste of time until you get enough of them to do something like breaking a safe or a container, only to find out they have the same worthless loot you get from killing enemies. Where's the fun in that?

QFT.  These types of skills have never been any good in a cRPG since they were introduced in the 90s.  All they are is shallow lock-and-key mechanics, and they will never have the richness of the PnP implementations.  Which means that, if we are to capture the PnP feel in computer RPGs, we need new mechanics.

I'm not really certain you can make this workable in a CRPG. In a PnP game the challenges are, in a sense, built for the characters -- as a GM, if one of my players has a character with a lot of points in lockpicking, I've got an obligation to provide some locks at some point in the campaign.

In a CRPG it works differently. You can't rewrite the campaign for all possible parties, and you can't require something that the player doesn't know will be required. Either you force players to always have the required abilities, or you make having the abilities trivial. ME2 chose the former -- you always have the ability to bypass stuff, so this means sometimes you need to use the skill to win a mission. ME1 chose the latter - you don't have to have a lockpicker, so nothing you really need will ever be behind a lock.

[BattleRaptor]

Nohvarr
So like want me to PM you which threads I intend to post in

EA forced bioware to release DA2 Quickly... ME3 MAY have been suffering from the same things.. and the fact they delayed could be taken as a SIGN that EA relented and told them to take more time.
However we dont know how screwed ME3 may have been from a forced release date.


You claim they said why they delayed.. but IGNORE the fact that BIOWARE are the ones as a whole who made the claims about DA2 that ended up being pretty much lies.

Dont try to claim one hand didnt know what the other was doing.

[lazuli]

FataliTensei wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

So directly saying that were enriching the role-playing mechanics and making stats meaningful in combat somehow also means we're making them worse?

I do not understand people sometimes.

Well after Mass Effect 2 what do you expect?

Dragon Age 2 might be a more accurate harbinger of doom.  Mass Effect 2 has given me nothing but high expectations for its successor.