4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...


"Perfect ending" is another semantic creature used by those who prefer for there to be mandatory squad deaths use when misrepresenting the arguments of their oppositiong. For instance, I never say "perfect ending" I say "preferred ending" or "the ending we want". No ending with billions of dead sentients and planets left in ruins and fleets of ships destroyed could ever be described as "perfect". Anyone who does has an agenda they are pushing.

Fine, but your terminology still doesn't work. I can describe my desired ending as "preferred ending" and we wouldn't be able to tell the two apart, despite having different endings which we prefer.

The reason why "perfect" is used is because it can still be distinguished from "happy ending". A happy ending can still involve sacrifice, suffering, etc, where the character cannot die. I'd consider LotR's ending "happy" but not "perfect", given its implementation. If you'd like me to stop using perfect, I will. But you're going to have to offer a distinction which allows people to understand to what you are referring. Preferred/ending we want doesn't do that.

And I'm arguing that character death, regardless of how well implemented, is not necessary to tell a great story, its not even a truism to say that two stories where the only difference is that a character who dies in one gets to live in the other can't be equally worthy.

But as I've stated this reduces dramatic tension because you know your character's life is under your "protection". Particularly when others tell me that they don't want Virmire-esque decisions, where something always comes at the cost of something else.

I would love to see a Jade Empire sequel.

That would be my one exception. I played through Jade Empire 6 times in a row when I first bought it. After KotOR, it's quite possibly my favorite Bioware game.

[Lotion Soronarr]

kylecouch wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And I'm tired people sucking out all the drama out because tehy can't let go sh*t.

And I grow tierd of VERY damn story in exsistence being sad and depressing on some level. And telling me to go watch "My Little Pony" then is nothing but childish. Not everyone likes basking in sorrow and misery, and not everyone thinks that makes a good story.

Any good story neeeds moments of joy and sorrow. I don't "bask" in sorrow or misery. I just don't run from it liek a sissy.
I want to experience a mature, intense story. Becasue that's the impression ME universe gives me.

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...


Except that by forceing a death you are also limiting possibilites. You cannot do another possible plot with that character down the road, you cannot take the alternate path during that critical moment, and find out where that path takes you. By forceing a character to die you are imposeing just as much limitation to story possibility.

Incorrect. The possibility of mandatory death is what matters. The position I'm arguing against says "Bioware will not mandatory kill my party members". My position says "Bioware may mandatory kill party members". Indicative statement vs. subjunctive statement. Their position indicates certainty, mine indicates possibility. By necessity, mine creates more possibilities while theirs creates less.

Every path in a story simultaneously creates and removes possibilities. From a writing stand point, you should not know what those possibilities are until they happen, outside of the absurd. Ex: Harbinger suddenly transforming into a giant rabbit and tap-dancing across Earth, which would simply not make sense.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 02:07 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm not. I provide reasons... you basicly seem to be repeating "because"

But your reasons do not make your argument true.

"Pie is better than cake."
"Not it's not."
"But it has a flaky crust!"
"So?"
"And fruity filling!"
"Not all pies are filled with fruit."
"But cake is stupid!"
"I think a good cake is awesome.  Especially if it's moist and the frosting isn't too sweet."
"BAAAWWW YOU'RE IGNORING MY ARGUMENTS!"

Like pie and cake, taste in fiction is just that: taste.

There's luck and then there's luck. Where do you draw a line?
When is it too much?

With proper presentation, you can get away with anything.  Fiction relies not on the actual story but how it is told.  A three paragraph short about a man going to the market can be ridiculously good if written well, even if nothing dramatic happens.

Would it bother you if Shep stood still in place, fireing a heavy-machinegun Rambo-style with a hunderd enemeis shooting at him..and all missing? After all, it's luck right? You shouldn't be bothered by it.

Happens all the time.  Especially on Casual.  Never bothered me.

Also, Luke used the Froce (and was established before as being very accurate)
Frodo had help from Sam and both had elven cloacks and supplies. (and they still got captured)

And Shepard has her command ability, experience fighting the Reapers, and a squad of kickass soldiers.

So yes. Main protagonsit are always lucky and skilled. But after a certain treshold it turns into a parody, instead of a serious story.

Sometimes parodies are the best stories around.  And honestly, don't take Mass Effect too seriously.  I mean, come on, blue space babes.  It even makes fun of itself.

Nope. But it's hihgly likely at least one would.

Well, if they die before even joining the party, they're not squadmates, are they?

Even so, Shep runs around in 3-man teams. He's not in the position to protect hte others then.
And even in small teams, you can be in position to not be able to save your friend ,even tough ysour' just a few meters apart.

Nothing says that sort of situation has to happen, though.  It's not a required element, no more than any other single dramatic trope.

And..that is suposed to counter my argument how exactly?

If someone wants you dead, and you're a badass, you shrug it off, shoot all of them before they shoot you, and don't give a rat's ass.  Movies, books, and videogames do it all the time.  Tension is created when the hero's in danger, sure, but the hero usually finds a way out of it.

So the counter is, basically, fiction does not care how unlikely an event is.  It's motherf*cking fiction.  Real life only has to apply enough for the audience to understand the characters and events at hand, and to relate to them to maintain interest.

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Any good story neeeds moments of joy and sorrow. I don't "bask" in sorrow or misery. I just don't run from it liek a sissy.
I want to experience a mature, intense story. Becasue that's the impression ME universe gives me.

I'm really curious how people derive basking in sorrow and misery from wanting to feel a moment of emotion. Plenty of stories with happy endings have moments of misery.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well, then maybe you lot coudl start misinterpreting us too. You know..al lthe doom and gloom, everyone dies things you assert we want?

And you'll notice I very rarely claim that you advocate anything apart from forced squadmate deaths for drama makes a better story. I assert you would prefer ME3 to be a darker, grittier story which is something you have claimed several times. I have no interest in or desire to misinterpret or misrepresent your arguments. It does neither of us any good and just wastes time.

Depends on the story. In ME univrse, in this situation?
Defniantely better to have.

I disagree with that. Hence why such things are subjective and I advocate for making both endings possible in ME3.

[Notlikeyoucare]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

As I said - google a bit.
There isn't a single front line squad that's been on extended duty that didn't suffer a casualty.

Bad form.  Provide the link to the info yourself.  Haughtily declaring "google it" makes you look like an ass.

You want else is also improbable?
The universe destroying itself 5 seconds from now. Me shooting 20 people with one bullet. Etc.. Insert any event that you can't directly prove 100000% impossi ble, but it's so improbable it's nto even worth discussing.

However, sh*t like that happens in videogames all the time.  Hell, fiction pretty much relies in improbability.

Wrong. Fiction is simply a product of the mind that does not exist within the real world. There can be fiction that is rooted one hundred percent in reality with real world stakes, consequences and parametres; fiction does not always necessarily imply fantastical settings. Some stories out there that are set in fantastical universes are poorly executed (a problem I find with alot of anime). You have worlds which are unclear, vauge, arbitrary, and undefined. Even the fantastical of universes needs to be governed by the rules that exist in and of itself, otherwise, without consequences, setting, and context you transform something meaningful into something that only serves as filler, this isn't just about the parametres of gameplay and story segregation.

In short, when you establish the consequence of a full scale war with machine Gods = extremely likely organic extermination, you better have a damn good reason as to why the 17 main people the protagonist likes should live when the likely outcome is galactic extinction.

This is where the element of choice becomes a problem. What seems to be being asked in this thread is a beyond-the-fourth-wall desire to save our crewmates, which does nothing to add or subtract the element of role playing. Because we desire to save everyone we should be able to make Shepard feel the same. But wether or not they will actually be saved is completely seperate from the issue of role-playing. That's when it becomes a matter of " I don't like that I was not not able to save my squad."

Modifié par Notlikeyoucare, 17 octobre 2011 - 02:18 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Don't dellude yourself. You got very little say in anything. everything is decided up front, no one is consulting you.
What's with the sense of entiltement?

I could ask you the same thing.

And you.

Nah, it's mostly you.  Teehee, fingerpointing.

And I'm tired people sucking out all the drama out because tehy can't let go sh*t.

Yeah, but I'm not the one advocating for the complete removal of a feature because it infringes on my specific style of roleplay, which is ultimately just metagaming anyway.  It's very much like the fussing about how m/m shouldn't be an option because one's Shep happens to be straight.  The solution there is don't flirt with guys, and the solution here is don't metagame and try to justify it as roleplaying.

Also, you lose points for not even attempting to see the other side or offer compromises.  Which I've done.  Just not with you.  Because it's more fun this way. :3

[Soul Cool]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
So the counter is, basically, fiction does not care how unlikely an event is.  It's motherf*cking fiction.  Real life only has to apply enough for the audience to understand the characters and events at hand, and to relate to them to maintain interest.

The only problem I have with this sort of argument is that, if the fiction has no tangebile relation to our current reality and its rules, the amount invested in adhering to the rules of the fiction in question should be applied equally in all cases. Magic A should always be Magic A. Having said that, Mass Effect does seem to suffer from some minor internal inconsistencies (Magic A sometimes mysteriously becomes Magic F), but that probably has to do with the amount of authors involved and is no real failing of the games themselves.

My point, though, is that Mass Effect is at least attempting to make sense to us based on the overwhelming amount of material in-game and extra-game made available to the player. It should try to stick with things that are explainable based on Magic A being Magic A.

[crimzontearz]

that is a dumb argument. story crafting is part of the very gameplay in games like Mass Effect but not in games like gears of war. That's like arguing about lack of dialogue choices in FIFA 2012

[AdmiralCheez]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Wrong. Fiction is simply a product of the mind that does not exist within the real world. There can be fiction that is rooted one hundred percent in reality with real world stakes, consequences and parametres; fiction does not always necessarily imply fantastical settings. Some stories out there that are set in fantastical universes are poorly executed (a problem I find with alot of anime). You have worlds which are unclear, vauge, arbitrary, and undefined. Even the fantastical of universes needs to be governed by the rules that exist in and of itself, otherwise, without consequences, setting, and context you transform something meaningful into something that only serves as filler, this isn't just about the parametres of gameplay and story segregation.

True, but I never meant to imply otherwise.

In short, when you establish the consequence of a full scale war with machine Gods = extremely likely organic extermination, you better have a damn good reason as to why the 17 main people the protagonist should live when the likely outcome is galactic extinction.

We have 17 squadmembers?  I thought ME3's squad was going to be smaller.  And six people surviving is way more likely than over a dozen.

This is where the element of choice becomes a problem. What seems to be being asked in this thread is a beyond-the-fourth-wall desire to save our crewmates, which does nothing to add or subtract the element of role playing. Because we desire to save everyone we should be able to make Shepard feel the same. But wether or not they will actually be saved is completely seperate from the issue of role-playing. That's when it becomes a matter of " I don't like that I was not not able to save my squad."

You could say the same about the Garrus and Tali romances.  Well, look how that turned out.

[AdmiralCheez]

Soul Cool wrote...

The only problem I have with this sort of argument is that, if the fiction has no tangebile relation to our current reality and its rules, the amount invested in adhering to the rules of the fiction in question should be applied equally in all cases. Magic A should always be Magic A. Having said that, Mass Effect does seem to suffer from some minor internal inconsistencies (Magic A sometimes mysteriously becomes Magic F), but that probably has to do with the amount of authors involved and is no real failing of the games themselves.

My point, though, is that Mass Effect is at least attempting to make sense to us based on the overwhelming amount of material in-game and extra-game made available to the player. It should try to stick with things that are explainable based on Magic A being Magic A.

Never said it shouldn't.

[Soul Cool]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Never said it shouldn't.

Never said you did.

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Any good story neeeds moments of joy and sorrow. I don't "bask" in sorrow or misery. I just don't run from it liek a sissy.
I want to experience a mature, intense story. Becasue that's the impression ME universe gives me.

I'm really curious how people derive basking in sorrow and misery from wanting to feel a moment of emotion. Plenty of stories with happy endings have moments of misery.

Dark and grittyness does not automaticly symbolize a "mature" story. I don't care if someone wrote a book that basiclly says "This is how a good story is written, anything that deviates from this is not good story." If I disagree with them, then thats not a good story for everyone, that don't make me wrong, and that don't make him wrong...it simpley comes down to taste and opinion like everything in life. Conversley...I have read an entire book without feeling a single thread of emotion throughout the entire experience. And when I set the book down I said to myself "that was a really well done story." And I had no emotional investment in it, and thats the point I'm making here, something don't have to be emotional to be a good story.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

Fine, but your terminology still doesn't work. I can describe my desired ending as "preferred ending" and we wouldn't be able to tell the two apart, despite having different endings which we prefer.

The reason why "perfect" is used is because it can still be distinguished from "happy ending". A happy ending can still involve sacrifice, suffering, etc, where the character cannot die. I'd consider LotR's ending "happy" but not "perfect", given its implementation. If you'd like me to stop using perfect, I will. But you're going to have to offer a distinction which allows people to understand to what you are referring. Preferred/ending we want doesn't do that.

"Happy" has a specific connotation while still being entirely too subjective a term to be used, which is why I avoid it entirely.

My point is I don't care what your preferred ending actually entails. The content of it or distinctions between it and my preferred ending are of no interest to me whatsoever. I just want you to get it and be happy with it in the same way I wish to get my preferred ending and to be happy with it.

But as I've stated this reduces dramatic tension because you know your character's life is under your "protection". Particularly when others tell me that they don't want Virmire-esque decisions, where something always comes at the cost of something else.

I disagree. The tension exists while playing the game. I do not distinguish the tension inherent in the gameplay from the story the gameplay is being used to tell. Also, gameplay tension tends to be achievable in multiple playthroughs whereas as the storytelling tension you are describing will not last past the first.

I would love to see a Jade Empire sequel.

That would be my one exception. I played through Jade Empire 6 times in a row when I first bought it. After KotOR, it's quite possibly my favorite Bioware game.

I try not to rank BW games too much because I have love for them all.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...


I disagree. The tension exists while playing the game. I do not distinguish the tension inherent in the gameplay from the story the gameplay is being used to tell. Also, gameplay tension tends to be achievable in multiple playthroughs whereas as the storytelling tension you are describing will not last past the first.

And I do. Story tension for me always has more value than gameplay tension, because that's where all the plot points are contained. Gameplay is always the same; you're killing something, even if the reasoning might differ. 

I care more about that dramatic tension, which if done well enough, never goes away, while for you it disappears. As long as that's the case, your scenario of "we both get our desires" still remains impossible. The first time I experience anything is always the most significant, and that goes for Bioware games as well. Even viewing films subsequently, I don't have the "not knowing", but the memory of that impression remains, my reaction when character X miraculously was saved.

Not knowing that anyone under my command can die against my wishes makes that experience more emotional, when actually they live or die. Your "preferred ending" means Bioware cannot do this, because the squad-mate can only die if the player decides that they die. The scenarios remain mutually exclusive.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 02:48 .

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Except in the case of interactive fiction, the variability becomes part of the quality of the story. I can look at the various endings available in ME1 and ME2 and although I can see them as collections of separate stories I can also see the entire structure as a beautifully crafted whole. I don't reduce Mass Effect to a single canonical story. I accept its myriad possibilities as the artistic expression that it is.

Then you uinderstand nothing.

Because the ME story and writing is the whole story. Everything.

You're not making sense. Are you saying there's only one single story being told in Mass Effect? Because that is patently untrue.

And speaking of it...woudl you consider action games bad? After all you interact. There is a story. You you basicly get no to little choices. Does that make the writing/story bad?

Certainly not. I enjoy a good action game. I even like the stories some of them tell. But I don't begrudge them their genre and the conventions that come with that. Action games are not the same as RPGs. Their focus lies elsewhere. If Call of Duty allowed the player to make characterisation and storytelling choices it would become a defacto RPG at which point I would begin to apply different expectations to it.

As crimzontearz helpfully points out. I don't expect dialogue options in FIFA 2012.

*edit* ugh... cut-and-paste formatting issues

Modifié par Athayniel, 17 octobre 2011 - 03:06 .

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

Athayniel wrote...


I disagree. The tension exists while playing the game. I do not distinguish the tension inherent in the gameplay from the story the gameplay is being used to tell. Also, gameplay tension tends to be achievable in multiple playthroughs whereas as the storytelling tension you are describing will not last past the first.

And I do. Story tension for me always has more value than gameplay tension, because that's where all the plot points are contained. Gameplay is always the same; you're killing something, even if the reasoning might differ. 

I care more about that dramatic tension, which if done well enough, never goes away, while for you it disappears. As long as that's the case, your scenario of "we both get our desires" still remains impossible. The first time I experience anything is always the most significant, and that goes for Bioware games as well. Even viewing films subsequently, I don't have the "not knowing", but the memory of that impression remains, my reaction when character X miraculously was saved.

Not knowing that anyone under my command can die against my wishes makes that experience more emotional, when actually they live or die. Your "preferred ending" means Bioware cannot do this, because the squad-mate can only die if the player decides that they die. The scenarios remain mutually exclusive.

It is not taken away if the choice is disguised as an event outside your control, while in reality you decide their fate by making choices unrelated to the event.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

And I do. Story tension for me always has more value than gameplay tension, because that's where all the plot points are contained. Gameplay is always the same; you're killing something, even if the reasoning might differ. 

I care more about that dramatic tension, which if done well enough, never goes away, while for you it disappears. As long as that's the case, your scenario of "we both get our desires" still remains impossible. The first time I experience anything is always the most significant, and that goes for Bioware games as well. Even viewing films subsequently, I don't have the "not knowing", but the memory of that impression remains, my reaction when character X miraculously was saved.

Not knowing that anyone under my command can die against my wishes makes that experience more emotional, when actually they live or die. Your "preferred ending" means Bioware cannot do this, because the squad-mate can only die if the player decides that they die. The scenarios remain mutually exclusive.

And I'm saying that if the gameplay is implemented well and the story is crafted properly, then the gameplay tension is the same as the dramtic tension of the story. Everyone always claims story and gameplay segregation as if that's a virtue when I think it is actually bad game design and poor storycrafting.

Gameplay tension never goes away except on the occasion where the game becomes simply too easy for your skill level. Story tension can and does go away once the plot moment has passed. There is no tension in the battle of Helm's Deep after you've read it once or at least it is much diminished. You know what will happen and how it happens and it will never change. Whereas gameplay can be tuned to be immersive and dynamic and different every time it is replayed. If you can retain that dramatic tension in subsequent viewings of a movie then that's good for you but you shouldn't rely on that being the case for everyone.

You say the possibility of mandatory death creates a dramatic tension for you. I say I can get that dramatic tension just attempting to keep them alive and not knowing if I can do it. The difference being that I get replayability from my tension. The squaddie could live in one playthrough and die in the next because I couldn't save them. In yours they will always live or they will always die. I think my story has more possibilities than yours.

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...


It is not taken away if the choice is disguised as an event outside your control, while in reality you decide their fate by making choices unrelated to the event.

No, that gets us into bad choices. Wrex's suit of armor being an example. The choice doesn't need to be laid out in full, but there must be some clear indication of its implications. Until Virmire, I had no idea that his suit of armor was going to be a plot point any more than Garrus' or Tali's. A good decision should not subject me to randomness. Ex: I choose to rescue a group of civilians and Garrus gets shot in the back of the head. Or even Mordin's death during the "hold the line" sequence, which doesn't really hint what squad-mates are better to leave behind.

Or we get into that issue Lotion posed where I have to play my Shepard badly, as the suicide mission demonstrates. There is a right and wrong way to complete the SM, but it's all contingent on how smart/dumb I decide to make Shepard. It's tied into my competency as a player.
 
If the two events are unrelated, the game is essentially kicking me in the balls (it's not a good choice). If the two events are related, we go back to that issue where I know that its contingent upon me/Shepard choosing to kill a squad-mate.  

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

And I'm saying that if the gameplay is implemented well and the story is crafted properly, then the gameplay tension is the same as the dramtic tension of the story. Everyone always claims story and gameplay segregation as if that's a virtue when I think it is actually bad game design and poor storycrafting.

And I'm saying I have never had this happen to me. The only gameplay tension I've ever had has been a result of narrative tension Ex: Major villain kills a character I like, I get boss fight to kill Major villain.

 If you can retain that dramatic tension in subsequent viewings of a movie then that's good for you but you shouldn't rely on that being the case for everyone.

If you are going to pose the "we can both have what we want", then it doesn't matter. We can't both have what we want. I am purposely posing what will make the experience more enjoyable for me, the possibility that anyone can die. I am not arguing that you're supposed to have my feelings; I'm arguing that we can't both have our scenarios. I am not arguing that logically you should want mine.

You say the possibility of mandatory death creates a dramatic tension for you. I say I can get that dramatic tension just attempting to keep them alive and not knowing if I can do it. The difference being that I get replayability from my tension. The squaddie could live in one playthrough and die in the next because I couldn't save them. In yours they will always live or they will always die. I think my story has more possibilities than yours.

No, gramatically your statement has no backing.

Claim A: Bioware will not mandatory kill squad-mates. <--Your claim.
Claim B: Bioware may mandatory kill squad-mates. <--My claim.

Your statement is indicative, which indicates that it's a statement of fact. Mine is subjunctive which, by definition, indicates possibility. Your statement leads to one conclusion, mine leads to two. My story allows every possibility you just listed, meaning Bioware can potentially give those choices, in addition to potential mandatory character death. Your story does not allow mine, which means your story has less possibilities.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 03:27 .

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

No, gramatically your statement has no backing.

Claim A: Bioware will not mandatory kill squad-mates. <--Your claim.
Claim B: Bioware may mandatory kill squad-mates. <--My claim.

Your statement is indicative, which indicates that it's a statement of fact. Mine is subjunctive which, by definition, indicates possibility. Your statement leads to one conclusion, mine leads to two. My story allows every possibility you just listed, meaning Bioware can potentially give those choices, in addition to potential mandatory character death. Your story does not allow mine, which means your story has less possibilities.

Perhaps so but the grammatical nature of the statement is not at issue here, but the results of applying it are. That freedom available in your method is only ever of benefit in creating tension through one playthrough. Whereas my method allows for tension in any given playthrough.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Athayniel wrote...


Perhaps so but the grammatical nature of the statement is not at issue here, but the results of applying it are. That freedom available in your method is only ever of benefit in creating tension through one playthrough. Whereas my method allows for tension in any given playthrough.

To play the devil's advocate, your method allows for tension until the mechanics are discovered. We have a flowchart that explains how to kill off specific squadmates during the suicide mission if someone wishes for it to happen. I don't want to see that happen in the third game, so I'd accept a tough decision instead.

/Opinion. 

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

Perhaps so but the grammatical nature of the statement is not at issue here, but the results of applying it are. That freedom available in your method is only ever of benefit in creating tension through one playthrough. Whereas my method allows for tension in any given playthrough.

For yourself, which is the critical distinction. I have never argued that you should desire what I want. I have argued that we can't have it both ways because the only way a character dies in your scenario is through player agency. My scenario requires that Bioware killing the characters is a possibility.

Given that you are arguing for your "preferred playthrough" where circumstances are ideal, that removes the possibility of tension, since it's all dependent on my abilities as a player and I can keep trying until success. I chose to settle for a less than perfect scenario. Your scenario would give me less tension, hence it has less value to me since I know the character can't die against my wishes.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 03:59 .

[Athayniel]

Mi-Chan wrote...

To play the devil's advocate, your method allows for tension until the mechanics are discovered. We have a flowchart that explains how to kill off specific squadmates during the suicide mission if someone wishes for it to happen. I don't want to see that happen in the third game, so I'd accept a tough decision instead.

/Opinion. 

That is true of something like the SM, which isn't what I was advocating, but not the case when something is just tied to raw gameplay. It's all implementation dependent though.