1765 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Those aren't true "hard calls." In Virmire there was no choice but to leave one behind so the only call to be made was which to choose. Hard calls are where you have a realistic choice but make sacrifices because you know it's too risky and/or when the right choice isn't the easy one. I agree Aratoht was pretty renegade. The game didn't leave you any alternatives so we're conditioned to believe it was right. But in the ME universe the paragon can have their cake and eat it too in most cases. They can spare the rachni queen, divert vital reinforcements to save the council, rewrite the heretics, destroy the collector base, etc. An idealistic decision can't screw you over because it would mean "game over" and therefore wouldn't be a decision at all.

There are perfectly sound, logical reasons for all of those. The rachni queen hadn't actually done anything wrong, and the main battle against Sovereign had already been won, as it was locked out of the Citadel (with its only recourse being risking its very existence by reanimating Saren to kill Shepard and undo the override). Making hard calls properly also requires assessing all factors within a situation.

An example would be Balak obliterating a colony at some point in the two years Shepard was dead because Shepard wasn't willing to pay the price to capture him the last time he tried. Now, in ME3, he's passing his time by remotely shutting off life support machines and causing ships to crash if you let him walk in BDtS, but these acts of terrorism (like the assassinations committed by Rana Thanoptis) are conveniently not reflected in your war assets. Likewise, if you don't kill Vido in ME2, he is conveniently killed off-screen instead of, say, attacking you or someone on your squad in retaliation for trying and failing to kill him.

Balak's ability to operate, the ending of BDtS strongly implies, has been hindered to the point of nigh-uselessness in terms of terrorist attacks. And his acts of sabotage in ME3 are relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things, at least in comparison to his command ability that makes him a war asset. Rana Thanoptis' assassinations were similarly too minor to be reflected. And Vido's shtick was trying to stay hidden; sure, he could order the Blue Suns to attack you, but given the vast body count of them you rack up in ME2, I doubt it'd be too much of a concern (plus the fact that Shepard's safely on Earth and he knows nothing about the rest of the crew other than Zaeed, who's had plenty of experience dodging and fighting the Suns anyway).

I'd say the same of a non-metagaming Shepard who trusted Legion's Reaper code.

Then you would be wrong, ignoring plenty of evidence in the game itself.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

An example would be Balak obliterating a colony at some point in the two years Shepard was dead because Shepard wasn't willing to pay the price to capture him the last time he tried. Now, in ME3, he's passing his time by remotely shutting off life support machines and causing ships to crash if you let him walk in BDtS, but these acts of terrorism (like the assassinations committed by Rana Thanoptis) are conveniently not reflected in your war assets. Likewise, if you don't kill Vido in ME2, he is conveniently killed off-screen instead of, say, attacking you or someone on your squad in retaliation for trying and failing to kill him.

Balak's ability to operate, the ending of BDtS strongly implies, has been hindered to the point of nigh-uselessness in terms of terrorist attacks. And his acts of sabotage in ME3 are relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things, at least in comparison to his command ability that makes him a war asset. Rana Thanoptis' assassinations were similarly too minor to be reflected. And Vido's shtick was trying to stay hidden; sure, he could order the Blue Suns to attack you, but given the vast body count of them you rack up in ME2, I doubt it'd be too much of a concern (plus the fact that Shepard's safely on Earth and he knows nothing about the rest of the crew other than Zaeed, who's had plenty of experience dodging and fighting the Suns anyway).

In ME2 we see Batarian terrorists directly assaulting an Alliance military installation and launching a pair of missiles at a major colony, only one of which can be stopped. Seems to me they haven't slowed down much. There is no logical reason for Balak to drop off the map. There is no reason for Balak not to remote-detonate the bombs in X57's main facility the second he's stepped out of there, other than that it would be an auto-game over for the stupid decision to release him. The only reason nothing happens in the intervening two years is because it would cast the paragon decision in a more negative light. He already kills more people than you saved if you let him go by crashing those ships.

Regarding Vido, the relevant trope is Exit Pursued by a Bear. It's commonly used in children's stories as a means of punishing the villian without getting the protagonist's hands dirty. I can accept it being used maybe once or twice, but beyond that it comes across as a lazy way of ensuring the naive or morally easy choices are never punished. Given a choice, I'd have put Shiala in the Normandy's brig for further observation rather than leave her on Feros, and kept Legion boxed up for a few
more Q&A sessions before dropping the field.

I'd say the same of a non-metagaming Shepard who trusted Legion's Reaper code.

Then you would be wrong, ignoring plenty of evidence in the game itself.

By which you mean bland reassurances from the guy who spends the entire arc lying to Shepard over and over (Paragon Shepard, of course, trusts Legion to a degree which even Legion openly questions the wisdom of,
and eventually tampers down "The Geth are better than this!" "No, we are not."). I'd call the fact that we're never permitted to question the safety of the code (even when squadmates do via autodialogue) a shortcoming of the writing.

[Barquiel]

congokong wrote...

I agree completely. I've mentioned on these boards how the most obvious paragon punishment was an e-mail about Ranos Thanoptis killing some asari which does nothing to your assets (which mean very little anyway). Some paragon options are sooo stupid to me but they never screw you over.

Where are Renegades punished, specifically? Renegade Shepards kills (or punches^^) people left and right yet never suffers a comeuppance for her/his actions. And renegades don't have a monopoly on pragamatic decisions either.

As for the war assets, it evens out most of the time. Sometimes renegades get a few more points (genophage cure, Destiny Ascension, collector base), other decisions are rather pro-paragon (Shiala, the rachni queen)

Modifié par Barquiel, 24 février 2014 - 02:22 .

[Xilizhra]

In ME2 we see Batarian terrorists directly assaulting an Alliance military installation and launching a pair of missiles at a major colony, only one of which can be stopped. Seems to me they haven't slowed down much. There is no logical reason for Balak to drop off the map. There is no reason for Balak not to remote-detonate the bombs in X57's main facility the second he's stepped out of there, other than that it would be an auto-game over for the stupid decision to release him. The only reason nothing happens in the intervening two years is because it would cast the paragon decision in a more negative light. He already kills more people than you saved if you let him go by crashing those ships.

Different bunch of terrorists (and, to be frank, destroying the industrial center thus prompting the evacuation of the colony doesn't strike me as that bad a situation, as it seems that evacuating it is really the safest option to begin with). His reason for not auto-detonating the bombs can be easily explained as him having some semblance of honor, and as for why he dropped off the map... not only does the Alliance know what to look for now, but the entire action seemed to me to be a remarkably maverick one, as none of the other batarians even knew that Balak was going to show up, and the asteroid plan wasn't the main mission. I strongly suspect Balak received some form of punishment from the Hegemony that kept him out of action for a while.

Also, his boosting of your war assets very likely winds up saving more people in the space battle than he kills if he survives.

Regarding Vido, the relevant trope is Exit Pursued by a Bear. It's commonly used in children's stories as a means of punishing the villian without getting the protagonist's hands dirty. I can accept it being used maybe once or twice, but beyond that it comes across as a lazy way of ensuring the naive or morally easy choices are never punished. Given a choice, I'd have put Shiala in the Normandy's brig for further observation rather than leave her on Feros, and kept Legion boxed up for a few more Q&A sessions before dropping the field.

Vido's death in ME3 was actually cut, I think.

By which you mean bland reassurances from the guy who spends the entire arc lying to Shepard over and over (Paragon Shepard, of course, trusts Legion to a degree which even Legion openly questions the wisdom of, and eventually tampers down "The Geth are better than this!" "No, we are not."). I'd call the fact that we're never permitted to question the safety of the code (even when squadmates do via autodialogue) a shortcoming of the writing.

Given that Legion possesses the Reaper code and doesn't kill you when it has the chance, ever, which is several times, despite being in range of the destroyer's control signal, it seems rather blatantly obvious that the code itself isn't the vulnerability. Additionally, everyone gets to analyze its structure in one scene aboard the Normandy, not to mention Shepard and Legion exploring the consensus in another mission and seeing how the Reaper code interacts with the geth programs. There might not be enough dialogue about it, but there's plenty of analysis time, and never any evidence that Legion could be misleading you about the code being inherently dangerous. Why would Legion tell you about it aboard the Normandy, in earshot of the quarians, anyway?

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Regarding Vido, the relevant trope is Exit Pursued by a Bear. It's commonly used in children's stories as a means of punishing the villian without getting the protagonist's hands dirty. I can accept it being used maybe once or twice, but beyond that it comes across as a lazy way of ensuring the naive or morally easy choices are never punished. Given a choice, I'd have put Shiala in the Normandy's brig for further observation rather than leave her on Feros, and kept Legion boxed up for a few more Q&A sessions before dropping the field.

Vido's death in ME3 was actually cut, I think.

Not exactly, but it's well-hidden.

If you talk to Zaeed in the refugee camp after the coup without talking to Aria and getting her quest to unite the merc groups under her, Zaeed will describe how after ME2 he tracked Vido down again and this time "blew up the spaceport first"

[Bob from Accounting]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

[All of this comes together to condition players to thoughtlessly mash whatever happens to be at the top of the wheel, safe in the knowledge that it will not come back to bite them.

That's generally how 'choices that matter' need to work, yes. They can't really count for anything if the player can't make a reasonable guess of what happens and if the story doesn't generally follow up on it.

Otherwise, what point is there in having choices at all? A player looking for the 'best' outcome might as well just flip a coin since that's as good of a thinking stratagy as any.

Stories need not be random and chaotic because real life is often random and chaotic.

Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 24 février 2014 - 04:41 .

[congokong]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@AlanC9
They sent her to the Crucible IIRC. If you have the breeder in her place, then towards the end of the game you get an email announcing her betrayal and the Alliance Engineering Corps WA loses two hundred points. Interestingly, saving the real queen is at the top of the wheel; as is abandoning the fake one. They flipped the wheel to ensure the "best" outcome was always on top.

EDIT: Disregard. The war asset description refers to "workers dispatched to the project," no word on where the queen herself goes (beyond the EC slide showing a post-Krogan Tuchanka).

Ok... You deserve to lose those assets (I think it's 100 points actually) if you're stupid enough to send the breeder to the crucibe. Even before I read online that it turns on you I killed that abomination. And I was renegade.

Yes, it's orchestrated that the top of the wheel (paragon) is an instant-win so they nudge you to save the real queen and sway you from saving the breeder; thereby maximizing your war assets.

One renegade decision that actually can potentially help you is deleting the geth heretics if you want geth/quarian peace. You need 5 points (max 7) that are earned from certain conditions to get that option and deleting the heretics gives 2; rewriting gives 0. I didn't even know that but I deleted them because rewriting is soooo stupid to me.

About the rachni, since the children absorb the memories of their mothers or whatever it's hardly comforting. And if the rachni wars were due to some form of indoctrination then clearly the children behave like their parents. Without meta-gaming and based on what I know when role-playing I kill the queen in ME1.

[DeinonSlayer]

Bob from Accounting wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...
[All of this comes together to condition players to thoughtlessly mash whatever happens to be at the top of the wheel, safe in the knowledge that it will not come back to bite them.

That's generally how 'choices that matter' need to work, yes. They can't really count for anything if the player can't make a reasonable guess of what happens and if the story doesn't generally follow up on it.

Players can't think for themselves what the consequences of an action will be without "top of the wheel = good outcome?" Come on, David.

Otherwise, what point is there in having choices at all? A player looking for the 'best' outcome might as well just flip a coin since that's as good of a thinking stratagy as any.

Stories need not be random and chaotic because real life is often random and chaotic.

Or players could pay attention to what's happening and make decisions on their own accordingly. It's not an unforseeable event that letting a terrorist walk away scot-free will come back to bite you in the ass. I'd rather future BE titles not be reduced to "Action Mode" or "Pick The Top Of Every Wheel" mode.

I say, give me food for thought, but don't chew it for me. Don't treat us like morons who need blue happy points to tell us what to do. Given your arguments with your old profile, I anticipate you'll try to counter with a claim that this somehow strips themes from the story. Let me head that off by pointing you at DA:O, which balanced a number of themes and provoked a good deal of discussion without the paragon/renegade system telling people how to think.

[AlanC9]

Barquiel wrote...
Where are Renegades punished, specifically? Renegade Shepards kills (or punches^^) people left and right yet never suffers a comeuppance for her/his actions. And renegades don't have a monopoly on pragamatic decisions either.

Isn't pragmatism supposed to be the core difference between the two philosophies?

As for the war assets, it evens out most of the time. Sometimes renegades get a few more points (genophage cure, Destiny Ascension, collector base), other decisions are rather pro-paragon (Shiala, the rachni queen)

IIRC saving the DA gives more points if the salarian councilor survives in ME3, and sabotaging the genophage cure only provides more points if Wrex is dead.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 février 2014 - 05:12 .

[Bob from Accounting]

AlanC9 wrote...

Isn't pragmatism supposed to be the core difference between the two philosophies?

I would certainly hope not.

[AlanC9]

I think it's what the manual says. It was never supposed to be about good and evil methods.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 février 2014 - 05:14 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

IIRC saving the DA gives more points if the salarian councilor survives in ME3, and sabotaging the genophage cure only provides more points if Wrex is dead.

Specifically, if Wrex is dead and Eve is alive.

And you have to shoot Mordin in the back for that.

interestingly, sabotaging the cure only becomes "paragon" if Both Wrex and Eve are dead

[themikefest]

Bob from Accounting wrote...


Otherwise, what point is there in having choices at all? A player looking for the 'best' outcome might as well just flip a coin since that's as good of a thinking stratagy as any.

What's wrong with flipping a coin? In ME3 if I have enough ems for the best ending I just flip a coin when it comes to doing any side missions or not.

Why don't you try it? Or is that out of your comfort zone?

[Bob from Accounting]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Or players could pay attention to what's happening and make decisions on their own accordingly. It's not an unforseeable event that letting a terrorist walk away scot-free will come back to bite you in the ass. I'd rather future BE titles not be reduced to "Action Mode" or "Pick The Top Of Every Wheel" mode.

I say, give me food for thought, but don't chew it for me. Don't treat us like morons who need blue happy points to tell us what to do. Given your arguments with your old profile, I anticipate you'll try to counter with a claim that this somehow strips themes from the story. Let me head that off by pointing you at DA:O, which balanced a number of themes and provoked a good deal of discussion without the paragon/renegade system telling people how to think.

I'd appreciate you not wasting my time with these accusations. Are you so incredulous that two people in the world could share such viewpoints? 

This idea of 'making decisions on our own' is a plain and simple delusion. Because the choice has already been made. If I vehemently disagreed with the themes portrayed in Mass Effect, I wouldn't play Mass Effect. The exact same thing has happened with quite a few works of fiction. For example, I started playing Halo 4, found the themes portrayed in the opening cutscene to be silly, put it down and never picked it back up.

The mere fact that I'm playing the game in the first place demonstrates bias - bias that I already agree with the writers. I don't play games to 'fight' the writers like you seem to do. That's just silly.

Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 24 février 2014 - 05:19 .

[congokong]

Xilizhra wrote...
There are perfectly sound, logical reasons for all of those. The rachni queen hadn't actually done anything wrong, and the main battle against Sovereign had already been won, as it was locked out of the Citadel (with its only recourse being risking its very existence by reanimating Saren to kill Shepard and undo the override). Making hard calls properly also requires assessing all factors within a situation.

But if a gamer is role-playing then there's no reason to believe the rachni queen isn't like all the millions of others encountered in the galaxy. And the fact that its children on Noveria acted just like the ones in the history books didn't help her case. The rachni weren't stupid. They were a space-faring species. She's more than capable of saying whatever it took to get out when acid tanks are hanging over her head. And if that mercy meant another rachni war...? Oops? There's no logical reason to offer the rachni real sympathy (much like the krogan) so they turn to emotion to manipulate the gamer's decisions. And emotion is a very powerful manipulator. It can make someone make very stupid decisions.

I'm getting so tired of arguing about the Battle of the Citadel. Saren had already programmed the arms to open. Vigil's data file stalled it. That's all. Sovereign was glued to the Citadel to override it. That meant taking it down ASAP once they have a shot with everything they had and Shepard didn't know what was going on outside of the council chambers; nor did Shepard know Sovereign would make some Saren-husk to ensure the game has a boss fight. If saving the council jeopardized stopping Sovereign at all (which the game clearly states is the case) then saving the council is stupid.

Xilizhra wrote...
Balak's ability to operate, the ending of BDtS strongly implies, has been hindered to the point of nigh-uselessness in terms of terrorist attacks. And his acts of sabotage in ME3 are relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things, at least in comparison to his command ability that makes him a war asset. Rana Thanoptis' assassinations were similarly too minor to be reflected. And Vido's shtick was trying to stay hidden; sure, he could order the Blue Suns to attack you, but given the vast body count of them you rack up in ME2, I doubt it'd be too much of a concern (plus the fact that Shepard's safely on Earth and he knows nothing about the rest of the crew other than Zaeed, who's had plenty of experience dodging and fighting the Suns anyway).

These are all assumptions validated by meta-gaming. We know people like Balak and Vido are very dangerous and have a lot of influence. That's a very bad combination. The batarian who replaces Balak in ME3 referred to Balak as the batarians' "greatest agent." The game conveniently doesn't inform you that Balak has killed more people; maybe wiping out a colony or that Vido has enslaved/killed more workers if you let them go. Out of sight; out of mind. Paragon FTW.

[Bob from Accounting]

congokong wrote...

There's no logical reason to offer the rachni real sympathy (much like the krogan) so they turn to emotion to manipulate the gamer's decisions. And emotion is a very powerful manipulator. It can make someone make very stupid decisions.

There's immense 'logical reason.' You're just defining 'reason' to suit your purposes.

Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 24 février 2014 - 05:25 .

[Steelcan]

Let's see, David, Xil, and Barq,


all my 'Nope'

[congokong]

Barquiel wrote...

congokong wrote...

I agree completely. I've mentioned on these boards how the most obvious paragon punishment was an e-mail about Ranos Thanoptis killing some asari which does nothing to your assets (which mean very little anyway). Some paragon options are sooo stupid to me but they never screw you over.

Where are Renegades punished, specifically? Renegade Shepards kills (or punches^^) people left and right yet never suffers a comeuppance for her/his actions. And renegades don't have a monopoly on pragamatic decisions either.

As for the war assets, it evens out most of the time. Sometimes renegades get a few more points (genophage cure, Destiny Ascension, collector base), other decisions are rather pro-paragon (Shiala, the rachni queen)

How about the whole rachni situation?
Or the lost assets and hostility for not saving the council?
Or the lost spectre status in ME2 for picking Udina?
Or that Wrex's replacement is a tyrant? Why couldn't Wrex act more like Wreav and vice versa? The game is screaming "This is what you get for killing Wrex!" I actually prefer Wreav for the story but that's beside the point.
Or that you can't even get the geth/quarian peace because you gave Legion to Cerberus?
Or all the squadmates who die for being renegade (Wrex, the entire Cerberus crew, Legion, Samara, Miranda, VS)? Paragon saves them all.

Things are much rosier in the ME universe if you're a paragon. And why wouldn't they be? You can have your cake and eat it too and it always works out. You're the white knight who never makes what turns out to be a bad call. Renegades play it safe even if it means getting judged for it which is what happens more often than not in the real world because we cannot meta-game the real world. Hell, your reputation emphasizes this. War hero is a black/white amazing background that puts you on a pedestal. Ruthless on the other hand puts you in a gray light where people judge you.

[congokong]

Bob from Accounting wrote...

congokong wrote...

There's no logical reason to offer the rachni real sympathy (much like the krogan) so they turn to emotion to manipulate the gamer's decisions. And emotion is a very powerful manipulator. It can make someone make very stupid decisions.

There's immense 'logical reason.' You're just defining 'reason' to suit your purposes.

I'd love to hear this "immense logical reason" that isn't based on emotion.

[DeinonSlayer]

David-not-David from Accounting wrote...

I'd appreciate you not wasting my time with these accusations. Are you so incredulous that two people in the world could share such viewpoints?

This idea of 'making decisions on our own' is a plain and simple delusion. Because the choice has already been made. If I vehemently disagreed with the themes portrayed in Mass Effect, I wouldn't play Mass Effect. The exact same thing has happened with quite a few works of fiction. For example, I started playing Halo 4, found the themes portrayed in the opening cutscene to be silly, put it down and never picked it back up.

The mere fact that I'm playing the game in the first place demonstrates bias - bias that I already agree with the writers. I don't play games to 'fight' the writers like you seem to do. That's just silly.

You might have better luck pretending not to be David if you didn't agree with 100% of the stances expressed with your old profile, using the same condescending tone and all the old catchphrases.

Point: This is an RPG. We make our own decisions within the framework of the story universe. Yes, there are limitations to that - we are limited to those possibilities the writers included. Why, though, does this mean in any way that it has to be structured so players can sleepwalk through the story, thimbing whatever was put up top? Why dumb it down like that? Would it not invite further reflection on the themes if people had to pay attention to what was going on and choose the option they thought was most appropriate?

Limited choices or no, this is an interactive form of media. You're not reading a book, but as I told you before, you can look at any criticism of the story as though it were a book review. We are, none of us, compelled to agree with all the ideas put forward - hence so many people rejecting the Synthesis ending the writers were so desperate for us to choose pre-EC.

[Bob from Accounting]

It's not 'dumbed down' at all. I reflect on the themes when I choose to play the game and become invested in the story in the first place.

You say 'we're not compelled to agree.' I think the person you're trying to convince is yourself. You're trying to 'rebel' against the writers because you feel your opinions are being 'oppressed' by their story. If you feel that way, I suggest you not play Mass Effect.

I can assure you I feel no compulsion whatsoever from the writers to pick 'good' choices. I can also assure you that I recognize 'good' choices I don't like one bit, both in Mass Effect and in other games. That would obviously not happen if I was a mindless drone 'forced' by the writers to agree with what good is. In fact, I would propose that I disagree with most writers with what good is. Sometimes vehemently. The fact that I generally agree with the Mass Effect writers is why I'm invested in Mass Effect, and not other stories that have bored me such as the Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, or Halo 4. Am I 'oppressed' by those stories? Of course not.

I've already chosen which actions are most appropriate.

Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 24 février 2014 - 05:59 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Bob from Accounting wrote...

It's not 'dumbed down' at all. I reflect on the themes when I choose to play the game and become invested in the story in the first place.

You say 'we're not compelled to agree.' I think the person you're trying to convince is yourself. You're trying to 'rebel' against the writers because you feel your opinions are being 'oppressed' by their story. If you feel that way, I suggest you not play Mass Effect.

I can assure you I feel no compulsion whatsoever from the writers to pick 'good' choices. I can also assure you that I recognize 'good' choices I don't like one bit, both in Mass Effect and in other games. That would obviously not happen if I was a mindless drone 'forced' by the writers to agree with what good is. In fact, I would propose that I disagree with most writers with what good is. Sometimes vehemently. The fact that I generally agree with the Mass Effect writers is why I'm invested in Mass Effect, and not other stories that have bored me such as the Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, or Halo 4. Am I 'oppressed' by those stories? Of course not.

What are these "themses" then?

[Jorji Costava]

I dunno, it doesn't seem like a great idea to experience only works whose worldview you agree with or think you'll agree with. That's reminds me of conservatives who only watch Fox News, or liberals who only read The Nation, etc. I don't 100% agree with the politics of The Battle of Algiers, but I still think it is a great and important film. There are a lot of religious/spiritual themes in the films of Scorsese and Malick, but the fact that I'm not a religious person at all doesn't stop me from appreciating these films. That's not to say that a discussion of the politics or ideology of a game should never enter into the evaluation of the quality of a work, but I think there's such a thing as having a respectful disagreement with a writer/creator.

[CronoDragoon]

osbornep wrote...
 but I think there's such a thing as having a respectful disagreement with a writer/creator.

At the very least it can force you to confront your own beliefs and determine the basis for them. If you find a solid foundation there then all the better. For example, I used to hate when protagonists died in fiction. Then I played Final Fantasy Tactics where your entire party dies. I still think it's the best game story ever told.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 24 février 2014 - 06:10 .

[Bob from Accounting]

That's kind of a skewed example. I would look down on someone who only watched Fox News because Fox News is moronic. But I wouldn't have a problem at all with someone who only watched some hypothetical high-quality news network and didn't bother with any of the major news networks at all.