3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

I think you are missing the point. The thing with ultima is that your character is from Earth. He gets transported into a fantasy world via a moongate.

No, I'm not missing the point.

You're saying "Well, it was the only choice!"

I'm saying "And despite being the only choice, it's a fantastic RPG." In other words, whether or not a game is a good RPG is less dependent on whether or not racial choice is present, and more on what types of opportunities exist in the game for roleplaying.


Seriously, look at what you just did. You took the Avatar, whom is effectively as much of a pregen as any character in an RPG, in that the player has no input over where that character is from or his history (he MUST be an Earthling. He can't even be someone from the world of Britannia!), and you are perfectly okay with it.


Imagine DAO as a game where you're an Earthling transported into Thedas. Would you still be willing to let this pass?

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

in all fairness; games do cost alot more money to make these days, than they did when the BG games came out. Everything is fully voiced now. that alone pushes the price up quite abit, i would think.

I've never been a fan of the idea that we aren't making games that we want to make either. I can understand if a fan feels that we aren't making the game that they want us to make, but part of the reason why we got defensive in light of the backlash of DA2 is that it was a game that we really wanted to do well. I think part of what clouded my perspective, personally, is that it was easier for me to recognize the ideal of a particular feature since I was there during conception and I was excited for the types of prospects it could offer in terms of player agency and whatnot.

It's something that I recognize and I need to remain diligent to not let cloud my perspective, and to try to see things as a fan that has seen something for the first time.


For example, the dominant tone was something that, when I first saw how it worked (completely by accident when I was trying to reproduce a bug for the localization team and I couldn't get a line to display, so I investigated the conversation directly) and went "Oh hey! I didn't realize we were doing this! This is actually pretty cool. It's a system that responds to player choice and provides additional flavor to the character, helps add to replayability, and the things we can do with it seem like they could really add a lot!"

But for some, it's "uh, I feel restricted into having to pick a particular tone now" and "Well, I would have preferred to say that line differently... (or to have chosen it outright from a list)" and other stuff like that.


I know people are quick to blame EA and whatnot for DA2's shortcomings, but I don't believe in that. I think it's on BioWare and that had we had the foresight of the types of challenges we'd end up encountering, we probably would have ended up doing some stuff differently and probably provided a more interesting game for people. I'm not afraid to own up that DA2 had faults, and it's up to me to learn about what I can do better to make sure that DA3 is a better game. But I still enjoy DA2, and there are a lot of aspects about it I really enjoy, and it's still a game that I'm proud to have been a part of, even if it didn't hit the mark for a lot of people.

I think EA gets the blame almost by default, now adays. Old-schoolers still remember what they did to Origin. The bought the company while Ultima 7 was in production, and the game even had two badguys "based on EA" (Elizabeth and Abraham). Once EA took over we got Ultima 8 wich was an action game, that even had platform jumping (imagine that in DA), and then the travesty that was Ultima 9. Westwood suffered a simmilar fate too. And i know for a fact that alot of people are fearing that this might happen to Bioware as well. Origin was top dog when it came to crpgs for over a decade, same as Bioware was. And not some of the same "symptoms" are showing up in Bioware rpgs. Turning more and more towards action games.

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think you are missing the point. The thing with ultima is that your character is from Earth. He gets transported into a fantasy world via a moongate.

No, I'm not missing the point.

You're saying "Well, it was the only choice!"

I'm saying "And despite being the only choice, it's a fantastic RPG." In other words, whether or not a game is a good RPG is less dependent on whether or not racial choice is present, and more on what types of opportunities exist in the game for roleplaying.


Seriously, look at what you just did. You took the Avatar, whom is effectively as much of a pregen as any character in an RPG, in that the player has no input over where that character is from or his history (he MUST be an Earthling. He can't even be someone from the world of Britannia!), and you are perfectly okay with it.


Imagine DAO as a game where you're an Earthling transported into Thedas. Would you still be willing to let this pass?

Absolutely. But since DA:O let us play as other races too, going back on it and just forcing us to play Human, makes it different. That removes choices we already had. If the race choice had never been there in the first place, it wouldn`t feel like a step back. Just a continuing of the same path.

[Uzzy]

Rawgrim wrote...

I think EA gets the blame almost by default, now adays. Old-schoolers still remember what they did to Origin. The bought the company while Ultima 7 was in production, and the game even had two badguys "based on EA" (Elizabeth and Abraham). Once EA took over we got Ultima 8 wich was an action game, that even had platform jumping (imagine that in DA), and then the travesty that was Ultima 9. Westwood suffered a simmilar fate too. And i know for a fact that alot of people are fearing that this might happen to Bioware as well. Origin was top dog when it came to crpgs for over a decade, same as Bioware was. And not some of the same "symptoms" are showing up in Bioware rpgs. Turning more and more towards action games.

Well, when a common element keeps showing up, expect people to notice it.

[Ahglock]

Don't really care about forced human, race selection is not a big issue to me. But since a voiced protagonist is probably one of the big reasons if not the primary reason I am slightly disappointed in that I prefer silent protagonists. I think you get a better story from the written word than you do from short voiced conversations.

Overall I am more concerned about the game play.

[Shadow Fox]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And it would be mega-lame.

Disagree. Then again, I never identified Baldur's Gate's race customization as being particularly essential. The only way it was was that I was forced to play as a Human because Paladin was my preferred class. Race was a nice to have, but especially for myself as a game player at the time, it pretty much only served as a way to reallocate my attribute points and garner particular power gaming type advantages.

Pretty much this. Ultima only has the human race to begin with. No elves in that setting.

To be perfectly frank, I consider this an exceptionally weak argument.

Ultima didn't have elves, but they did have Gargoyles/Daemons, trolls, and a variety of other nonhuman, sentient species.

Planescape was a game set in a rules universe that had a strong history of racial selection, but forced the player to be a Human Male. Of course, then people make the excuse for it "Well BioWare isn't going to make a PST" which is just mental gymnastics to prevent cognitive dissonance. Jesus I could go on almost forever for the vast variety of races that exist in this game that can never even become a part of your party, let alone are not the main protagonist of the game.


Going "Well, it was the only race" only serves to reinforce that racial selection is not an essential part of roleplaying, because the only way for your predicate to be true, would mean that a game that does not even have different races cannot possibly offer the same level of roleplaying. It's a logical contradiction.

I'm not buying it.


As for "Baldur`s Gate with no racial options wouldn`t have been half the game it was." I think that's an immense disservice to the game and trivializes so much of what made it wonderful. The second one especially.

People like Minsc, Jaheira, Viconia, Edwin, and Imoen would all still be amazingly interesting characters even if they were all human. The only racial context that serves any meaning is Viconia, which essentially boils down to a woman in a matriarchal society that breaks free of it's oppressive rule and finds herself battling extreme fear and prejudices when walking among different societies.

At this point I guess we agree to disagree, because good story and good writing transcends those details. That the plot of each Baldur's Gate is indifferent to your race demonstrates this. I'd still love the game if it existed in a fantasy setting like Ultima's, and the NPCs fit their archetypes but were still human.

I'm pretty sure that if the next edition of D&D were to cut out the non-human races people would **** bricks same with the Elder Scrolls games because they have grown to expect to be able to and enjoy playing as these races.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 24 octobre 2012 - 04:33 .

[Rawgrim]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And it would be mega-lame.

Disagree. Then again, I never identified Baldur's Gate's race customization as being particularly essential. The only way it was was that I was forced to play as a Human because Paladin was my preferred class. Race was a nice to have, but especially for myself as a game player at the time, it pretty much only served as a way to reallocate my attribute points and garner particular power gaming type advantages.

Pretty much this. Ultima only has the human race to begin with. No elves in that setting.

To be perfectly frank, I consider this an exceptionally weak argument.

Ultima didn't have elves, but they did have Gargoyles/Daemons, trolls, and a variety of other nonhuman, sentient species.

Planescape was a game set in a rules universe that had a strong history of racial selection, but forced the player to be a Human Male. Of course, then people make the excuse for it "Well BioWare isn't going to make a PST" which is just mental gymnastics to prevent cognitive dissonance. Jesus I could go on almost forever for the vast variety of races that exist in this game that can never even become a part of your party, let alone are not the main protagonist of the game.


Going "Well, it was the only race" only serves to reinforce that racial selection is not an essential part of roleplaying, because the only way for your predicate to be true, would mean that a game that does not even have different races cannot possibly offer the same level of roleplaying. It's a logical contradiction.

I'm not buying it.


As for "Baldur`s Gate with no racial options wouldn`t have been half the game it was." I think that's an immense disservice to the game and trivializes so much of what made it wonderful. The second one especially.

People like Minsc, Jaheira, Viconia, Edwin, and Imoen would all still be amazingly interesting characters even if they were all human. The only racial context that serves any meaning is Viconia, which essentially boils down to a woman in a matriarchal society that breaks free of it's oppressive rule and finds herself battling extreme fear and prejudices when walking among different societies.

At this point I guess we agree to disagree, because good story and good writing transcends those details. That the plot of each Baldur's Gate is indifferent to your race demonstrates this. I'd still love the game if it existed in a fantasy setting like Ultima's, and the NPCs fit their archetypes but were still human.

I'm pretty sure that if the next edition of D&D were to cut out the non-human races people would **** bricks same with the Elder Scrolls games

Actually, the 4th edition removed skillpoints from the game, and that DID create more than a little uproar. 5th edition is already under way.

[Maria Caliban]

4th edition has skill points. My satyr wizard has +9 in Nature.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And it would be mega-lame.

Disagree. Then again, I never identified Baldur's Gate's race customization as being particularly essential. The only way it was was that I was forced to play as a Human because Paladin was my preferred class. Race was a nice to have, but especially for myself as a game player at the time, it pretty much only served as a way to reallocate my attribute points and garner particular power gaming type advantages.

Pretty much this. Ultima only has the human race to begin with. No elves in that setting.

To be perfectly frank, I consider this an exceptionally weak argument.

Ultima didn't have elves, but they did have Gargoyles/Daemons, trolls, and a variety of other nonhuman, sentient species.

Planescape was a game set in a rules universe that had a strong history of racial selection, but forced the player to be a Human Male. Of course, then people make the excuse for it "Well BioWare isn't going to make a PST" which is just mental gymnastics to prevent cognitive dissonance. Jesus I could go on almost forever for the vast variety of races that exist in this game that can never even become a part of your party, let alone are not the main protagonist of the game.


Going "Well, it was the only race" only serves to reinforce that racial selection is not an essential part of roleplaying, because the only way for your predicate to be true, would mean that a game that does not even have different races cannot possibly offer the same level of roleplaying. It's a logical contradiction.

I'm not buying it.


As for "Baldur`s Gate with no racial options wouldn`t have been half the game it was." I think that's an immense disservice to the game and trivializes so much of what made it wonderful. The second one especially.

People like Minsc, Jaheira, Viconia, Edwin, and Imoen would all still be amazingly interesting characters even if they were all human. The only racial context that serves any meaning is Viconia, which essentially boils down to a woman in a matriarchal society that breaks free of it's oppressive rule and finds herself battling extreme fear and prejudices when walking among different societies.

At this point I guess we agree to disagree, because good story and good writing transcends those details. That the plot of each Baldur's Gate is indifferent to your race demonstrates this. I'd still love the game if it existed in a fantasy setting like Ultima's, and the NPCs fit their archetypes but were still human.

I'm pretty sure that if the next edition of D&D were to cut out the non-human races people would **** bricks same with the Elder Scrolls games because they have grown to expect to be able to and enjoy playing as these races.

Absolutely.

[Ahglock]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

 I'm pretty sure that if the next edition of D&D were to cut out the non-human races people would **** bricks same with the Elder Scrolls games

While I am sure that is true both of those games have a crap ton more history and honestly if they made a D&D CRPG where you could only be human I don't think people would crap bricks.  If D&D next ie 5e said only human yeah people would be upset.  But a video game where the main character had to be human but the world was sitll the full D&D setting, I don;t think people would flip out too much.  Some people would be upset sure, but people are always upset about something.  

[Rawgrim]

Maria Caliban wrote...

4th edition has skill points. My satyr wizard has +9 in Nature.

The one i played all skills just increase automatically as you level up. You don`t distribute points. Making every mage almost identical. Same for the other classes.

[Allan Schumacher]

I did want to add something since I think I saw it mentioned in this thread.

Some people have commented that they are disappointed that this is the first feature cut. Just to be clear, that we mentioned it doesn't mean it's the first thing cut. Dozens of features have been cut because to start a project, it's pretty much "every idea is a good idea!" This one gets communicated out because people have various expectations for it. Sadly, having the big bad guy be a physical manifestation of Allan that shoots fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse are cut game ideas that people never hear about.

[Ahglock]

Maria Caliban wrote...

4th edition has skill points. My satyr wizard has +9 in Nature.

You have a bonus to a skill not skill points.  Skill points are a speciific rule on allocating points to your skills. You have something like a high int and the nature skill so +4 from int and +5 from taking the skill, you don't put any points into it.  You just happen to have a +9 to your skill.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm pretty sure that if the next edition of D&D were to cut out the non-human races people would **** bricks same with the Elder Scrolls games

I absolutely agree with you that if D&D cut non-human races people would be upset. But I've never been one that feels that CRPGs are much of an analogue to PnP gaming.

In my opinion, there are orders of magnitude less restrictions on PnP gaming, especially with a good group of people and an excellent DM.

[Vandicus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

4th edition has skill points. My satyr wizard has +9 in Nature.

Think what he means is skill ranks. And as much as I adore 3e, the fanbase split happens every time WoTC releases a new edition. My personal evaluation of 4e when it came out was that it was a hell of a lot more balanced, but had some customization issues(namely the multiclassing effectively did not exist in the sense it had before). I've heard these were fixed or added later in the edition, but my unfortunate experience with the early books has made me reluctant to blow a few hundred dollars while being unsure of what to expect.

The 5e playtests I've found fairly satisfactory so far.

[Brohammed]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And it would be mega-lame.

Disagree. Then again, I never identified Baldur's Gate's race customization as being particularly essential. The only way it was was that I was forced to play as a Human because Paladin was my preferred class. Race was a nice to have, but especially for myself as a game player at the time, it pretty much only served as a way to reallocate my attribute points and garner particular power gaming type advantages.

Pretty much this. Ultima only has the human race to begin with. No elves in that setting.

To be perfectly frank, I consider this an exceptionally weak argument.

Ultima didn't have elves, but they did have Gargoyles/Daemons, trolls, and a variety of other nonhuman, sentient species.

Planescape was a game set in a rules universe that had a strong history of racial selection, but forced the player to be a Human Male. Of course, then people make the excuse for it "Well BioWare isn't going to make a PST" which is just mental gymnastics to prevent cognitive dissonance. Jesus I could go on almost forever for the vast variety of races that exist in this game that can never even become a part of your party, let alone are not the main protagonist of the game.


Going "Well, it was the only race" only serves to reinforce that racial selection is not an essential part of roleplaying, because the only way for your predicate to be true, would mean that a game that does not even have different races cannot possibly offer the same level of roleplaying. It's a logical contradiction.

I'm not buying it.


As for "Baldur`s Gate with no racial options wouldn`t have been half the game it was." I think that's an immense disservice to the game and trivializes so much of what made it wonderful. The second one especially.

People like Minsc, Jaheira, Viconia, Edwin, and Imoen would all still be amazingly interesting characters even if they were all human. The only racial context that serves any meaning is Viconia, which essentially boils down to a woman in a matriarchal society that breaks free of it's oppressive rule and finds herself battling extreme fear and prejudices when walking among different societies.

At this point I guess we agree to disagree, because good story and good writing transcends those details. That the plot of each Baldur's Gate is indifferent to your race demonstrates this. I'd still love the game if it existed in a fantasy setting like Ultima's, and the NPCs fit their archetypes but were still human.

And yet Dragon Age: Origins had race selection. The point that you are missing is that the series already had this feature. If a new Baulders Gate was released without race selection, it would be panned. If the next edition of D&D forbid non humans, it would be panned. Warhammer human only? The list is more or less infinite and transcends medium.

Can you seriously argue that Morrigan would be the same if she was a Quanari? Or Sten would not be differnt if he were an elf? Race is a huge part of character identiy in fantasy rpgs. The arguement from interesting characters is meaningless. People do not play RPGs to see pre-set characters interacting with each other. They are played so that a character of a player's OWN creation can interact with interesting pre-set characters, be they space-hamster rangers or apostate bad-girls.

It is sounding like you guys have chosen the Hawke/Shepard route: A protagonist will exist independant of player choice, and the player may watch a limited amount of ways this pre determed character will interact with the world and party. I was hoping for the freedom and diversity of character of a Warden / Child of Bhaal approach, and I know many others were also.

Why would you guys even introduce such a loved and interesting feature just to remove it?

Such a shame.

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I did want to add something since I think I saw it mentioned in this thread.

Some people have commented that they are disappointed that this is the first feature cut. Just to be clear, that we mentioned it doesn't mean it's the first thing cut. Dozens of features have been cut because to start a project, it's pretty much "every idea is a good idea!" This one gets communicated out because people have various expectations for it. Sadly, having the big bad guy be a physical manifestation of Allan that shoots fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse are cut game ideas that people never hear about.

Would be cool if you guys made a book about that. Ideas being left out, or changed alot. And loads of trivia about games you made. I would certainly buy it.

Allan Firearse...If thats not a good name for a dwarven badguy, I don`t know what is.

[Palipride47]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sadly, having the big bad guy be a physical manifestation of Allan that shoots fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse are cut game ideas that people never hear about.

I demand a fired-eyed, lightning farting Allan!

BIOWARE, LISTEN TO YOUR FANS!!!!!

[Ahglock]

With all this D&D talk, I had this out of the blue weird wish that bioware would get the D&D CRPG license and make a Al Qadim game.

Now my next play test I run for 5e might be set there.

[Rawgrim]

Ahglock wrote...

With all this D&D talk, I had this out of the blue weird wish that bioware would get the D&D CRPG license and make a Al Qadim game.

Now my next play test I run for 5e might be set there.

Al Quadim is part of the Forgotten Realms, actually. Takes place in the south of the world. Zakhara or something like that. Some trivia for people there. I`ve been playing rpgs for 20 years, and I just recently found out about that bit.

[Shadow Fox]

Ahglock wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

 I'm pretty sure that if the next edition of D&D were to cut out the non-human races people would **** bricks same with the Elder Scrolls games

While I am sure that is true both of those games have a crap ton more history and honestly if they made a D&D CRPG where you could only be human I don't think people would crap bricks.  If D&D next ie 5e said only human yeah people would be upset.  But a video game where the main character had to be human but the world was sitll the full D&D setting, I don;t think people would flip out too much.  Some people would be upset sure, but people are always upset about something.  

A D&D game featuring a set pre defined human character from the get go yeah I don't thinkpeople would mind too much as D&D has several novels focusing on one character a game that lets you create your own character though you'd probably have more than a few people asking why they can't be another race.

[Hexley UK]

The first "feature" officially announced and already I have lost all interest in this game, honestly at this point I don't think you guys even understand what audience you are aiming for.

[Rawgrim]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

 I'm pretty sure that if the next edition of D&D were to cut out the non-human races people would **** bricks same with the Elder Scrolls games

While I am sure that is true both of those games have a crap ton more history and honestly if they made a D&D CRPG where you could only be human I don't think people would crap bricks.  If D&D next ie 5e said only human yeah people would be upset.  But a video game where the main character had to be human but the world was sitll the full D&D setting, I don;t think people would flip out too much.  Some people would be upset sure, but people are always upset about something.  

A D&D game featuring a set pre defined human character from the get go yeah I don't thinkpeople would mind too much as D&D has several novels focusing on one character a game that lets you create your own character though you'd probably have more than a few people asking why they can't be another race.

Playing devil`s advocate here, but Planescape Torment is a D&D game (2ed), and that game had a set human protagonist.

[Shadow Fox]

Brohammed wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And it would be mega-lame.

Disagree. Then again, I never identified Baldur's Gate's race customization as being particularly essential. The only way it was was that I was forced to play as a Human because Paladin was my preferred class. Race was a nice to have, but especially for myself as a game player at the time, it pretty much only served as a way to reallocate my attribute points and garner particular power gaming type advantages.

Pretty much this. Ultima only has the human race to begin with. No elves in that setting.

To be perfectly frank, I consider this an exceptionally weak argument.

Ultima didn't have elves, but they did have Gargoyles/Daemons, trolls, and a variety of other nonhuman, sentient species.

Planescape was a game set in a rules universe that had a strong history of racial selection, but forced the player to be a Human Male. Of course, then people make the excuse for it "Well BioWare isn't going to make a PST" which is just mental gymnastics to prevent cognitive dissonance. Jesus I could go on almost forever for the vast variety of races that exist in this game that can never even become a part of your party, let alone are not the main protagonist of the game.


Going "Well, it was the only race" only serves to reinforce that racial selection is not an essential part of roleplaying, because the only way for your predicate to be true, would mean that a game that does not even have different races cannot possibly offer the same level of roleplaying. It's a logical contradiction.

I'm not buying it.


As for "Baldur`s Gate with no racial options wouldn`t have been half the game it was." I think that's an immense disservice to the game and trivializes so much of what made it wonderful. The second one especially.

People like Minsc, Jaheira, Viconia, Edwin, and Imoen would all still be amazingly interesting characters even if they were all human. The only racial context that serves any meaning is Viconia, which essentially boils down to a woman in a matriarchal society that breaks free of it's oppressive rule and finds herself battling extreme fear and prejudices when walking among different societies.

At this point I guess we agree to disagree, because good story and good writing transcends those details. That the plot of each Baldur's Gate is indifferent to your race demonstrates this. I'd still love the game if it existed in a fantasy setting like Ultima's, and the NPCs fit their archetypes but were still human.

And yet Dragon Age: Origins had race selection. The point that you are missing is that the series already had this feature. If a new Baulders Gate was released without race selection, it would be panned. If the next edition of D&D forbid non humans, it would be panned. Warhammer human only? The list is more or less infinite and transcends medium.

Can you seriously argue that Morrigan would be the same if she was a Quanari? Or Sten would not be differnt if he were an elf? Race is a huge part of character identiy in fantasy rpgs. The arguement from interesting characters is meaningless. People do not play RPGs to see pre-set characters interacting with each other. They are played so that a character of a player's OWN creation can interact with interesting pre-set characters, be they space-hamster rangers or apostate bad-girls.

It is sounding like you guys have chosen the Hawke/Shepard route: A protagonist will exist independant of player choice, and the player may watch a limited amount of ways this pre determed character will interact with the world and party. I was hoping for the freedom and diversity of character of a Warden / Child of Bhaal approach, and I know many others were also.

Why would you guys even introduce such a loved and interesting feature just to remove it?

Such a shame.

Well to be fair they're data showed that most people played humans with only a small amount using elves and a tiny bit using dwarves.It's not like WOw where a sizable number of the fanbase used Night Elves.

[Vandicus]

Rawgrim wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

 I'm pretty sure that if the next edition of D&D were to cut out the non-human races people would **** bricks same with the Elder Scrolls games

While I am sure that is true both of those games have a crap ton more history and honestly if they made a D&D CRPG where you could only be human I don't think people would crap bricks.  If D&D next ie 5e said only human yeah people would be upset.  But a video game where the main character had to be human but the world was sitll the full D&D setting, I don;t think people would flip out too much.  Some people would be upset sure, but people are always upset about something.  

A D&D game featuring a set pre defined human character from the get go yeah I don't thinkpeople would mind too much as D&D has several novels focusing on one character a game that lets you create your own character though you'd probably have more than a few people asking why they can't be another race.

Playing devil`s advocate here, but Planescape Torment is a D&D game (2ed), and that game had a set human protagonist.

I... think you guys all just said the same thing?(There wouldn't be too much outrage over a D&D video game with a set human protagonist) Mildly confused over here.