Is Nintendo making the games they want to make a bad idea these days?

[Lightspeaker]

I guess there are too many "mature" people out there who think the age/maturity ratings on games are reversed.
If you play a M rated game it doesn't mean you are mature, and if you play a age3+ game it doesn't mean you're a child.

If someone bases their gaming on "how a game looks" (not graphically good, but on the art style) then I very much feel sory for that person and all the great games that person is missing out on.

Just because Splat00n looks cartoony doesn't mean it can't be a good game. Same goes for Wonderful101, ViewtifulJoe games (same maker isn't it?) or TeamFortress, they don't look mature or gritty, but they're damn good, fun and challenging games!

This is an absurd argument. And is straw manning a point that has nothing to do with Nintendo's relatively lack of range for their main console line.

I'm currently in the middle of playing Hyperdimension Neptunia Rebirth 1 and think it looks adorable and great. But I think Codename Steam looks ugly. They're both cartoon-styled. Disliking a particular game's art style does not mean you dislike ALL of that kind of art style. Not all cartoon-style games look the same, nor do all realistic games look the same.

Its almost comical that someone else immediately jumps onto the same train as well. Nobody said anything about "gritty realism". You're entirely making that up on your own in assuming that's the only "other" way to make good games. Nintendo's problem is NOT its lack of varying visual designs, its the complete lack of successful variation in key IPs. Somehow they manage to do this on their handhelds, but fail to do so on their main console.

I'm sory but I'm failing to grasp what you are (counter)arguing.
First of a disclaimer: English is my third language, so if I have written something that can be interpreted wrongly, to how I meant it, or if I have failed to expres myself in a good way, that's my bad.
Now, I want to understand this whole thing we're on about, let' get started

Your second paragraph: I understand that, not all cartoonstyles are the same. There's a huge difference in both games and animated TV when it comes to animationstyles etc. (FinalFantasy/Xenoblade, more anime type or WindWaker/Splat00n more "childish" cartoon for example)

I just said that I hope no one bases their choice of game solely on the fact that a game is "arty/cartoony" or "gritty". I know I am using two extremes but there are too many styles to start counting them all up. OP is talking about this in his second paragraph as people apparently think Nintendo should've made a more "realistic" shooter in stead of a cartoony one like Splat00n (I have not come across this, but apparently OP has).

Next up I'm quoting you on this one (your third paragraph, mid section): Nintendo's problem is NOT its lack of varying visual designs, its the complete lack of successful variation in key IPs.

Especially the second part, "lack of successful variation", what do you mean with this?
Because as I think the MarioU and MarioSuperU and whatnots (2D sidescroll Marioplatformers) are getting old and samey (that's what you mean?), I can't say the same for the 3 dimensional Mariogames (Sunshine, Galaxy and 3DWorld).

Am I even close on the right track in trying to understand you or have I completely missed the point again?

End disclaimer: sory if it will take time to answer next time. Going away and I'm very uncertain when I will be at a computer next time (Escapist isn't working too well on the phone so I'm avoiding that). Might be later tonight or maybe as late as Monday.

Let's get this one sorted out, at least so that I understand what you're going at, then if our opinions differ, that's something that we'll just have to live with

Your argument boiled down to "lots of people buy games based on them looking gritty and realistic and classify all cartoony games as beneath them". In the context of this thread this implies that people aren't buying the WiiU because most games for it look cartoony. I'm calling rubbish on that.

A game can look cartoony in style but look good or bad. The style of the game has nothing to do with the quality of that style. Nintendo's problem is NOT their graphical style. Its a complete red herring and is simply making excuses for a thin lineup of IPs.

My comment on variation is simply that. Nintendo has not got a particular diverse lineup. Go back to my earlier post. Each console has something like eight games in those "most popular" lists I posted. For the XBOne and PS4 they were pretty much all completely separate games with their own universes, plot, characters, etc. I don't think there was a single game in there that related in any way to any of the others in each lineup. Meanwhile the Wii U is almost entirely reliant on Zelda and Mario. Sure, they may be in many different styles of game but there's a level of exhaustion with characters and setting to take into account here.

I love Metal Gear Solid. But if every single game I ever played contained Snake I'd probably get a bit fed up of him. Similarly I love the setting of Bioshock Infinite but if every game I ever played was set in Columbia I'd get extremely bored.

*le snip*

Sorry it took a while, been busy with Codename steam (and waiting for a group project meeting that never happened) all day. If you still have doubt about it, download the demo. It's pretty extensive. You have the first 4 maps of the game, and when you'd done, you can replay them with a full party of 4 agents to get the full feel of how missions play out.

Anyway, that post pretty decently illustrated the problem that nintendo is facing. :s

People ask for more IPs, and when Nintendo finally takes a risk and makes them, few people buy them for various reasons. I mean, seriously, how many people (outside of my circle of close friends) even remembers Geist?

Most of the time, I hear "it's not the kind of new IP I'm looking for, I don't like those new IPs", or "Why is this gritty looking game on a nintendo console?". Hell, I even see people saying that about third party "mature" games like "devil's third" or whatever that game's name is.

And this leads to only the classics selling well (your zeldas, your marios, your metroids). Like, Pikmin was the last (pre-xenoblade) new IP that I remember actually doing decently. This in turn leads to fear on Nintendo's side, leading to the kind of situation that almost caused Xenoblade to not make it to the US (only getting through due to a HUGE petition and the game already being localized in Europe, meaning there wasn't much extra work needed. And it STILL took it being a gamestop exclusive for a while in order to make it happen!).

Couple this with the fact that most developers want to make games for the "cutting edge" systems, where all the 18-35 "hardcore" demographic is supposed to be, leading to next to no 3rd party support, and you've got our current situation. :s

Nintendo is afraid to make new IPs because they often don't sell super well, and their third party support is nil as hell because everyone else is afraid to miss out on the big money the other consoles are promising (as well as them being afraid of being tied to a "dead" console). There's no easy scapegoat here. ...Well, ok, maybe still Nintendo's awful marketing (outside of their facebook page).

In the end, though, I think they'll keep trucking on. The WiiU will likely never be a huge success, but it'll still sell enough to keep nintendo afloat long enough for them to make their next console. Remember how the 3DS was a total joke about 2 years ago?

Anyway, the WiiU is the only system this gen that I give even the remotest damn about. It's got enough interesting looking stuff that I'm at least curious about buying it, while all the PS4 has that interests me is Kindgom hearts 3. Essentially everything else I care about, I can get on PC and not NEED a whole new console.

I don't think there's any doubt that Nintendo itself is going to be fine. They're almost certainly sitting on a pile of money roughly the size of Ben Nevis as a result of the Wii and their handhelds keep putting a little extra on that pile.

I think what is frustrating about the Wii U is that Nintendo has shown they CAN at least publish games that are brand new and significantly successful. Bravely Default being a particularly notable success of late. I bought my 3DS largely off the back of that game existing (well...coupled with the fact I'd heard very nice things about FEA). But they just seem scared to go for it with their main console.

Ultimately I don't think Nintendo has a clue how to market itself, and no idea what consumers outside of their direct fanbase want. The Wii took off far beyond their expectations as a "family gadget" in a way that was entirely out of their hands and now frankly they just seem to be relying on people's nostalgia and existing ties to a handful of well established franchises. Churning out games for them because...hey they'll sell.

Frankly I really, really hope the new Xenoblade game is successful because it might break them out of this rut they've been in.

 

[PsiChaos]

While I have issues with how Nintendo handles other aspects of their business in a rather draconian manner, like continuing with the region-locking and their handling of Youtube reviewers and Let's Players, but Nintendo's methods and thoughts when developing games is something they've nailed right. Nintendo still remembers that they make Video Games, not interactive movies. I'll admit they could use some new IPs to freshen things up, so hopefully games like Splatoon and Xenoblade X do well enough to join the ranks of Nintendo's IPs. Or they could just give me an HD F-Zero game and I'd be more than happy to call the Wii U best console ever, but I might decompose before they ever announce that.

 

[themistermanguy]

While I have issues with how Nintendo handles other aspects of their business in a rather draconian manner, like continuing with the region-locking and their handling of Youtube reviewers and Let's Players, but Nintendo's methods and thoughts when developing games is something they've nailed right. Nintendo still remembers that they make Video Games, not interactive movies. I'll admit they could use some new IPs to freshen things up, so hopefully games like Splatoon and Xenoblade X do well enough to join the ranks of Nintendo's IPs. Or they could just give me an HD F-Zero game and I'd be more than happy to call the Wii U best console ever, but I might decompose before they ever announce that.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, Nintendo has had a lot of New IPs, people just don't pay attention to them, or discount them for some arbitrary reason. If Nintendo own the copyright, then it's a Nintendo IP, no ifs, ands, or butts about it.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

As I mentioned in a previous thread, Nintendo has had a lot of New IPs, people just don't pay attention to them, or discount them for some arbitrary reason. If Nintendo own the copyright, then it's a Nintendo IP, no ifs, ands, or butts about it.

Yeah.

Again, does ANYONE in this thread remember Geist (for the gamecube)?

...Damn I loved that game.

 

[Guffe]

I guess there are too many "mature" people out there who think the age/maturity ratings on games are reversed.
If you play a M rated game it doesn't mean you are mature, and if you play a age3+ game it doesn't mean you're a child.

If someone bases their gaming on "how a game looks" (not graphically good, but on the art style) then I very much feel sory for that person and all the great games that person is missing out on.

Just because Splat00n looks cartoony doesn't mean it can't be a good game. Same goes for Wonderful101, ViewtifulJoe games (same maker isn't it?) or TeamFortress, they don't look mature or gritty, but they're damn good, fun and challenging games!

This is an absurd argument. And is straw manning a point that has nothing to do with Nintendo's relatively lack of range for their main console line.

I'm currently in the middle of playing Hyperdimension Neptunia Rebirth 1 and think it looks adorable and great. But I think Codename Steam looks ugly. They're both cartoon-styled. Disliking a particular game's art style does not mean you dislike ALL of that kind of art style. Not all cartoon-style games look the same, nor do all realistic games look the same.

Its almost comical that someone else immediately jumps onto the same train as well. Nobody said anything about "gritty realism". You're entirely making that up on your own in assuming that's the only "other" way to make good games. Nintendo's problem is NOT its lack of varying visual designs, its the complete lack of successful variation in key IPs. Somehow they manage to do this on their handhelds, but fail to do so on their main console.

I'm sory but I'm failing to grasp what you are (counter)arguing.
First of a disclaimer: English is my third language, so if I have written something that can be interpreted wrongly, to how I meant it, or if I have failed to expres myself in a good way, that's my bad.
Now, I want to understand this whole thing we're on about, let' get started

Your second paragraph: I understand that, not all cartoonstyles are the same. There's a huge difference in both games and animated TV when it comes to animationstyles etc. (FinalFantasy/Xenoblade, more anime type or WindWaker/Splat00n more "childish" cartoon for example)

I just said that I hope no one bases their choice of game solely on the fact that a game is "arty/cartoony" or "gritty". I know I am using two extremes but there are too many styles to start counting them all up. OP is talking about this in his second paragraph as people apparently think Nintendo should've made a more "realistic" shooter in stead of a cartoony one like Splat00n (I have not come across this, but apparently OP has).

Next up I'm quoting you on this one (your third paragraph, mid section): Nintendo's problem is NOT its lack of varying visual designs, its the complete lack of successful variation in key IPs.

Especially the second part, "lack of successful variation", what do you mean with this?
Because as I think the MarioU and MarioSuperU and whatnots (2D sidescroll Marioplatformers) are getting old and samey (that's what you mean?), I can't say the same for the 3 dimensional Mariogames (Sunshine, Galaxy and 3DWorld).

Am I even close on the right track in trying to understand you or have I completely missed the point again?

End disclaimer: sory if it will take time to answer next time. Going away and I'm very uncertain when I will be at a computer next time (Escapist isn't working too well on the phone so I'm avoiding that). Might be later tonight or maybe as late as Monday.

Let's get this one sorted out, at least so that I understand what you're going at, then if our opinions differ, that's something that we'll just have to live with

Your argument boiled down to "lots of people buy games based on them looking gritty and realistic and classify all cartoony games as beneath them". In the context of this thread this implies that people aren't buying the WiiU because most games for it look cartoony. I'm calling rubbish on that.

A game can look cartoony in style but look good or bad. The style of the game has nothing to do with the quality of that style. Nintendo's problem is NOT their graphical style. Its a complete red herring and is simply making excuses for a thin lineup of IPs.

My comment on variation is simply that. Nintendo has not got a particular diverse lineup. Go back to my earlier post. Each console has something like eight games in those "most popular" lists I posted. For the XBOne and PS4 they were pretty much all completely separate games with their own universes, plot, characters, etc. I don't think there was a single game in there that related in any way to any of the others in each lineup. Meanwhile the Wii U is almost entirely reliant on Zelda and Mario. Sure, they may be in many different styles of game but there's a level of exhaustion with characters and setting to take into account here.

I love Metal Gear Solid. But if every single game I ever played contained Snake I'd probably get a bit fed up of him. Similarly I love the setting of Bioshock Infinite but if every game I ever played was set in Columbia I'd get extremely bored.

Your first/second paragraph: sorry about that, that's not how/what I meant :/
I just meant that if a single person only looks at a game with a cartoony style and doesn't even try those kinds of games, then that person should widen his approach a bit, as there are loads of good "cartoony" games.

Third paragraph: Yeah I saw that post when I first looked into this thread and I was honestly surprised by that WiiU most bought list. Smash and MarioKart wweren't surprises but the amount of accessories was, and then all the Mariogames as you said. It's also a shame as the console has good games that aren't Mario, just WiiU titles, and not counting the backwards thing of course.
But that list also shows what Nintendo are known for and what I'd expect many parents have bought to their children...

And I got to agree with the Mario titles, well some of them, as MarioKart and Smash are reccuring titles and are good fun, but have just one release per generation. But the 2D sidescrollerplatformers (Mario/Luigi) in every shape and form are getting on my nerves -.-

 

[PsiChaos]

While I have issues with how Nintendo handles other aspects of their business in a rather draconian manner, like continuing with the region-locking and their handling of Youtube reviewers and Let's Players, but Nintendo's methods and thoughts when developing games is something they've nailed right. Nintendo still remembers that they make Video Games, not interactive movies. I'll admit they could use some new IPs to freshen things up, so hopefully games like Splatoon and Xenoblade X do well enough to join the ranks of Nintendo's IPs. Or they could just give me an HD F-Zero game and I'd be more than happy to call the Wii U best console ever, but I might decompose before they ever announce that.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, Nintendo has had a lot of New IPs, people just don't pay attention to them, or discount them for some arbitrary reason. If Nintendo own the copyright, then it's a Nintendo IP, no ifs, ands, or butts about it.

I don't think its it's lack of consumers paying attention to those new IPs, but rather that those new IPs are barely covered by the gaming press if at all, so they fade into obscurity and release with little fanfare. But with more people paying attention to the Nintendo Directs as opposed to other sources, I feel that these new IPs may have a chance, but it's yet to be seen. Even with the Directs, Nintendo does need help in hyping their products up, and unfortunately the way they handle Youtube in such a ham-fisted manner deters people from actively promoting their games, which is especially bad when gaming media sites pretty much ignores them out of spite.

 

[themistermanguy]

While I have issues with how Nintendo handles other aspects of their business in a rather draconian manner, like continuing with the region-locking and their handling of Youtube reviewers and Let's Players, but Nintendo's methods and thoughts when developing games is something they've nailed right. Nintendo still remembers that they make Video Games, not interactive movies. I'll admit they could use some new IPs to freshen things up, so hopefully games like Splatoon and Xenoblade X do well enough to join the ranks of Nintendo's IPs. Or they could just give me an HD F-Zero game and I'd be more than happy to call the Wii U best console ever, but I might decompose before they ever announce that.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, Nintendo has had a lot of New IPs, people just don't pay attention to them, or discount them for some arbitrary reason. If Nintendo own the copyright, then it's a Nintendo IP, no ifs, ands, or butts about it.

I don't think its it's lack of consumers paying attention to those new IPs, but rather that those new IPs are barely covered by the gaming press if at all, so they fade into obscurity and release with little fanfare. But with more people paying attention to the Nintendo Directs as opposed to other sources, I feel that these new IPs may have a chance, but it's yet to be seen. Even with the Directs, Nintendo does need help in hyping their products up, and unfortunately the way they handle Youtube in such a ham-fisted manner deters people from actively promoting their games, which is especially bad when gaming media sites pretty much ignores them out of spite.

Honestly, I don't think the whole YouTube thing is as bad as what people make it out to be. Yes, it's annoying that Nintendo still wants to make money off other peoples videos, but the creators still get a majority profit so I don't see why people are acting like they're not getting paid.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

Honestly, I don't think the whole YouTube thing is as bad as what people make it out to be. Yes, it's annoying that Nintendo still wants to make money off other peoples videos, but the creators still get a majority profit so I don't see why people are acting like they're not getting paid.

The money part isn't as bad as it could be. (Though, people say most multi-channel networks do pay better than Nintendo's MCN, 80-90% compared to 60-70%.) The real issue is the ridiculous amount of restrictions for both single video and full channel memberships. Nintendo has even blacklisted games from franchises like Bayonetta, Super Smash Bros., and Pokemon. Yes, Smash and Pokemon videos are not allowed in their program.

That asinine approach is hurting Nintendo's YouTube reputation even more. It's making more content creators wish to avoid Nintendo titles all together. That means there are less opportunities to expose the few new IPs and ideas that Nintendo does have. Someone watching their favorite YouTube personality promote a new game might become interested in that game, if they originally didn't care or know about it.

As far as YouTube goes, Nintendo still thinks it's the powerful company in control of almost everything, the company they were in the mid 80s to early 90s that had unfair publishing and cartridge production requirements for the NES.[footnote]Part of those policies were to protect the industry from another '83 style crash. Maybe a partial reason for the Creators' Program restrictions is someone at Nintendo subconsciously thinks they are protecting their fans on YouTube.[/footnote] Now that is a bad idea, because it will either hurt itself, or hurt the entire YouTube community by setting a precedent that even less consumer friendly publishers will follow.

 

[FPLOON]

As I mentioned in a previous thread, Nintendo has had a lot of New IPs, people just don't pay attention to them, or discount them for some arbitrary reason. If Nintendo own the copyright, then it's a Nintendo IP, no ifs, ands, or butts about it.

Yeah.

Again, does ANYONE in this thread remember Geist (for the gamecube)?

...Damn I loved that game.

Uh... I do? Granted, I kept on getting stuck in a "you didn't need a guide for that" kind of way, but I did love finding those Easter eggs, nonetheless... (Probably should replay that game since I still have a copy...)

OT: To answer the thread title, it's both a blessing and a curse... A blessing that Nintendo can live the dream that most creative people would want to strive for, but a curse in a sense that not everyone would totally be on board with "some" of their game(s) because of the art direction or the characters that are showcased in the game(s) in question... With that said, they still make fun games even if not everyone feels like they're geared towards them in particular, so unless the youth of the world all go "You know what? I don't like Nintendo and would rather go to *insert other video game company not relative to Nintendo* instead, Mother/Father/Guardian", they're not going anywhere...

 

[DarklordKyo]

Honestly, I don't think the whole YouTube thing is as bad as what people make it out to be. Yes, it's annoying that Nintendo still wants to make money off other peoples videos, but the creators still get a majority profit so I don't see why people are acting like they're not getting paid.

People have done the math, and Nintendo's cut is on top of various other cuts that said Youtubers have to give as business expenses (along with actual business expenses like editing software, replacing busted computer parts, etc.). After all that, they're left with the cash they need to spend on basic living expenses, which becomes less after Nintendo gets their cut.

 

[ecoho]

honestly id settle for them re-releasing half their old Gameboy advanced titles on the dam 3ds or new 3ds and id say shut up and take my money. I mean seriously the Wii-U is a nice time distraction but its the DS line that's making them profit now since they own the handheld market and have for like 15 years.

though this may just be me wanting them to bring the original two golden sun games to the DS so I can have fun with one of my favorite JRPGS again.(and yes I know its on the Wii-U but that's not the same.)

 

[Maxtro]

The fact that there isn't a main series Pokemon game on the Nintendo consoles tells me that Nintendo doesn't have a clue what it's doing.

Kind of the same thing is that Monster Hunter 4 is 3DS only. WTF? Nintendo obviously paid off Capcom for the exclusivity deal, so they least they can do is to have the games on it's struggling system.

If either of those games were on the Wii U, I'd have the system now. But they aren't...

 

[themistermanguy]

The fact that there isn't a main series Pokemon game on the Nintendo consoles tells me that Nintendo doesn't have a clue what it's doing.

Really? When will people learn that Gamefreak isn't going to put a main Pokémon generation on a home console because Pokémon was designed with handheld in mind. It was made to take with you wherever you go. If you were to just put it on a console, then you'd have to restructure the game quite a bit.

 

[Lightspeaker]

The fact that there isn't a main series Pokemon game on the Nintendo consoles tells me that Nintendo doesn't have a clue what it's doing.

Really? When will people learn that Gamefreak isn't going to put a main Pokémon generation on a home console because Pokémon was designed with handheld in mind. It was made to take with you wherever you go. If you were to just put it on a console, then you'd have to restructure the game quite a bit.

Nah, I'm pretty sure its a hell of a lot simpler than that. There's NOTHING stopping Nintendo from simply putting it on a console, there's nothing really to restructure, its a simple game design that can easily be modified from existing console RPG designs. Hell there have been several console games very similar to Pokemon already going back decades.


That being said they still won't do it for two possible reasons:
1. There is basically zero chance of it ever living up to people's expectations. The idea of a proper console Pokemon game is so sky-high in anticipation that its impossible to live up to.
And/Or:
2. They simply don't need it yet. Put it this way...if there is one game that is absolutely 100% guaranteed to sell masses of a Nintendo home console it would be a console version of Pokemon. But right now they're not in a position where they need to do that. If they ever reach a point where they're absolutely desperate to ship a console and make money then a console version of Pokemon makes a perfect "emergency button" for them to press. Just jam a fist down on that panic button and immediately increase sales by several hundred percent. But as bad as the Wii U has been selling its not as terrible as it could be, so they don't need to use that gambit. Because they'll only ever have one chance to use the trick of "first ever console Pokemon game!" and its a hell of a thing to keep in reserve as a last-ditch emergency measure.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The fact that there isn't a main series Pokemon game on the Nintendo consoles tells me that Nintendo doesn't have a clue what it's doing.

Really? When will people learn that Gamefreak isn't going to put a main Pokémon generation on a home console because Pokémon was designed with handheld in mind.

And phones were designed with landlines in mind. What's your point? You'd ignore a good idea for the sake of tradition?

It was made to take with you wherever you go. If you were to just put it on a console, then you'd have to restructure the game quite a bit.

Be not afeard. Let them do it! Let them restructure something, for once. Enough with the phobia against new ideas. I've wanted a proper console Pokemon game ever since I bought my first GameBoy.

 

[Womplord]

Sorry if I missed something, but can you explain how violence and gritty art styles makes the game more mature?

 

[Maxtro]

The fact that there isn't a main series Pokemon game on the Nintendo consoles tells me that Nintendo doesn't have a clue what it's doing.

Really? When will people learn that Gamefreak isn't going to put a main Pokémon generation on a home console because Pokémon was designed with handheld in mind. It was made to take with you wherever you go. If you were to just put it on a console, then you'd have to restructure the game quite a bit.

Pokemon X/Y and the Ruby/Sapphire remakes could have been released on the Wii exactly as they are now without changing anything and they would have sold millions.

If Nintendo wanted a Pokemon game on the Wii U it would have to look more modern.

The fact is that there is so much potential in the Pokemon franchise and Nintendo is just content with having them only be on the handhelds.

BTW, with Wi-Fi trading and battling, the only benefits of it the games being on a handheld became irrelevant.

Simply put, I really doubt that I was the only person who played Pokemon only when I was sitting on my couch at home.

 

[CaitSeith]

In fact every single actual game on that first page is either Mario based or has Mario in it. Because that's basically all they're selling.

Sorry, but your second statement is false. The Wii U have dozens of other games available (in fact there are more non-Mario games than Mario ones). Choosing to ignore that fact because Mario and Zelda games are the most sold on the console is moronic (you can argue that they aren't good, but not ignore them completely).

 

[CaitSeith]

.

should they continue to just release they kinds of games they feel like releasing, or should they becomes slaves to market research and focus groups and try and make what they think the average gamer wants?

If Valve can get away with using cartoonish graphics in Team Fortress 2, I don't see why Nintendo should abandon their own style (and we still don't know if Devil's Third will sell well, or even be good). Good games have gone bad or corrupted when their developers and publishers became "slaves to market" (Resident Evil, I'm looking at you).