Zero Punctuation: Tomb Raider: Underworld
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I don't personally believe that a review should give a score, should cover all possible areas of analysis and even should be in depth. I've written concept reviews in my time. I'm talking more about the underlying journalistic principles of the reviewer. Journalism has its own code of ethics and standards and videogames journalism is no different, with special categories of ethics and standards unique to the medium. Yahtzee takes a sledgehammer to them. In fact, he quite deliberately goes against certain standards (and even makes light of that in some reviews) for comic effect, which is possibly why he calls himself a "professional troll". I'm not simply talking about him being a bad journalist, I'm talking about him deliberately and conscious going against journalism to generate laughs.Baby Tea said:
I didn't really understand your last paragraph, so I'll have to guess what it's supposed to say. I don't think Yahtzee is the type to dumb down for the masses and make apparent what he's doing. This is the guy who referenced Proust's "À la Recherche du Temps Perdu" as a throwaway gag, a reference that would probably have a lot of gamers reaching for Wikipedia. Again, the "professional troll" line indicates he knows he's going to wind up a lot of people by turning what is ostensibly a review into a hilarious diatribe that abuses the format, and by having mailbag showdowns (incidentally, his review of SSB: Brawl was a classic example of How Not To Review A Game) he basks in the ire he creates, rather than clarifying "These aren't proper reviews you know, so don't get angry on account of me".
To be perfectly honest, I think this is a bit moot. While the quantity of jokes has increased of late, the quantity of review hasn't even gone down that much. I watched three or four older reviews and contrasted them with three or four from the last two months and the change is hardly pronounced. The main difference in the humour/comedy axis is that these days he'll vary the formula by throwing in something that is mostly comedy and little review. He did so this week because TR: Underworld gives him very little to say. Believe me, as a reviewer the scourge of your existence is the generic, mediocre product that is a nightmare to write a review about because there's nothing to say. Jeremy Clarkson actually quit the old, serious Top Gear for exactly this reason. Finding something to say each week about something utterly unexceptional and unoriginal is a nightmare.
I think this whole issue can be summarised by what someone said above: having watched the entire series for the first time, he found some mediocrity and some brilliance but no real drop in quality. After over a year of weekly episodes, the likelihood is that the critics have just got bored of ZP, plain and simple. Trying to dress that up as objective critique of craft with a strategically placed rant is cute but misguided. I think I've read at least one "not as good as it used to be" and one "return to form" post in every single ZP discussion thread for the last six months of videos. Sometimes the "return to form" was on an episode I thought was very mediocre, sometimes the "not as good" video was one that I had rewatched out of enjoyment. Sometimes the complete opposite. The only real difference with New Classic's post (apart from the cat picture) is that he bases it on what I consider a completely false assumption, and I think I've given plenty of justification for calling it false in the last few posts. If you don't agree after reading this post, I don't think you're going to agree at all.
First of all, where the criky fuck do you get off calling an obviously well-versed and well respected member of this community that you've never even met before that he's a "pathetic human being".Silveth said:
With the initial outrage out of the way, we can move on. You need to realize something, bub. This thread we're in is a "comments page", the novel concept of which is that you write comments in it. Most of those "comments" usually amount to worthless dribble and one sentence posts (I've counted at least five people who have only said "I'M MR. BRAIN HAT!"), but its a comment section nevertheless. Considering that NewClassic's points are valid, they're well explained, and he isn't trying to convert anyone over to his way of thinking, then this isn't even an issue. The only reason you give a damn is because he said something that is in disagreement with your beliefs.
Second, it is very much Yahtzee's job to make us laugh and write a good review. Key word there is "job". He gets paid for it, he has merchandise because of it, and he's received internet stardom as a result of it. We, as the target audience, have every right to comment on his work any way we damn well choose.
Oh, and one last thing: this is not Yahtzee's website. The Escapist is an online magazine that has existed for several years before ZP showed up and it's going to go on existing long after it's gone. There's far more to this place than just Yahtzee, and if you venture out of the dank cave that is this comment's page you might see a few things that may catch your eye. In the meantime, if you can't be bothered, maybe you should take your own advice and get out. If your only going to show the people here disrespect we don't want you here.
Well this has been up for a day already which makes my response a bit late.
In general I think Yahtzee is right. Lara Croft might want to retire from games and start making hard core XXX rated kink movies. I mean honestly, the selling point has so far been the sex appeal of the character. Sure in the beginning the series was revolutionary and lauded with praise for a potential it never was able to reach.
Honestly I think the bad camera in games like this is a design desician and shows part of the flaw of the genere. Without those "leaps of faith", horrendously badly designed "perfect timing" jumps and other things the game just wouldn't be very challenging. It's one of those situations where it seems bad design became a defining feature of the game series.
Honestly I've found that imitators like "Uncharted" have continued this way of doing the genere, as I spent as much time trying to guess where I was supposed to go (ie where to jump next in a sequence), than I did actually progressing through the game it seemed.
So basically they might as well just use Lara Croft's sex appeal in the most obvious forum for it: animated sex movies. I mean honestly those aspects of the character are aguably the ones that worked the way they were supposed to from the very beginning. >
In response to the other comments:
I think Yahtzee has achieved enough of a fan base right now where not everyone is going to be happy with everything he does. As the number of people watching him grows, so will the negative feedback. Just like in nearly anything game related I expect eventually his criticism will be overwhelmingly negative. To some extent the more stinking bile thrown at something online (ie the more people who care enough to say something) the more successful it is.
It should also be noted that Yahtzee has received criticism from the very beginning that he was a humourist and not an entirely serious reviewer. This includes me incidently. To some extent I think he shifted a bit in tone due to what he felt the fans wanted. However he is still a bile spewing comedic reviewer, and arguably one of the more entertaining prescences for game geeks on the Internet. ZP certainly livens up my week, and I've actually found myself looking forward to it.
My biggest concern is that Yahtzee will burn out and ZP will disappear. I mean it will happen eventually (he's only human) but I hope it occurs later rather than sooner.
>>>----Therumancer--->
In general I think Yahtzee is right. Lara Croft might want to retire from games and start making hard core XXX rated kink movies. I mean honestly, the selling point has so far been the sex appeal of the character. Sure in the beginning the series was revolutionary and lauded with praise for a potential it never was able to reach.
Honestly I think the bad camera in games like this is a design desician and shows part of the flaw of the genere. Without those "leaps of faith", horrendously badly designed "perfect timing" jumps and other things the game just wouldn't be very challenging. It's one of those situations where it seems bad design became a defining feature of the game series.
Honestly I've found that imitators like "Uncharted" have continued this way of doing the genere, as I spent as much time trying to guess where I was supposed to go (ie where to jump next in a sequence), than I did actually progressing through the game it seemed.
So basically they might as well just use Lara Croft's sex appeal in the most obvious forum for it: animated sex movies. I mean honestly those aspects of the character are aguably the ones that worked the way they were supposed to from the very beginning. >
In response to the other comments:
I think Yahtzee has achieved enough of a fan base right now where not everyone is going to be happy with everything he does. As the number of people watching him grows, so will the negative feedback. Just like in nearly anything game related I expect eventually his criticism will be overwhelmingly negative. To some extent the more stinking bile thrown at something online (ie the more people who care enough to say something) the more successful it is.
It should also be noted that Yahtzee has received criticism from the very beginning that he was a humourist and not an entirely serious reviewer. This includes me incidently. To some extent I think he shifted a bit in tone due to what he felt the fans wanted. However he is still a bile spewing comedic reviewer, and arguably one of the more entertaining prescences for game geeks on the Internet. ZP certainly livens up my week, and I've actually found myself looking forward to it.
My biggest concern is that Yahtzee will burn out and ZP will disappear. I mean it will happen eventually (he's only human) but I hope it occurs later rather than sooner.
>>>----Therumancer--->
Disclaimer: This is in fact my first post, despite the fact that I've been watching for a while. I know that means most of you will just ignore it, so I figured it would be a good idea to just put this up here to save you all the trouble.
It seems the topic of discussion is the purpose of Yahtzee, which I think he points out very clearly. I'm sure everyone here watched the Halo 3 video, so I think I will point out one thing. "All of the other reviews have put me in an awkward position...." which is him calling himself a reviewer. He then goes on, in the "Mailbag Showdown" to state that he sees a review as more than some numeric thing. -That- is why he doesn't do things like average. I think he used the word review a few times in there, too. He calls himself a reviewer, says he's reviewing things, which generally means he's a review.
Now the next question is really "What makes Yahtzee great?" I would say that it's his ability to A) make relevant jokes B) review while doing A and C) ... .... well, there really isn't a C, but you get my point. He reviews games, makes jokes, people laugh. He -just- makes jokes and some people laugh. Other people make huge posts like NC did. And I know you can't please everyone, but when you have a winning formula -stick with it-. Anyway, those are just my two cents.
Of course, my post will be generally ignored, distorted, or otherwise used to somehow say that I dislike ZP. People will tell me to "gtfo", or simply tell me I "don't get it", so I guess this was all a waste of time. I just felt like it needed to be said.
That aside, this wasn't actually funny. I mean, I laughed a couple of times, it had it's moments. Overall, though, this seemed to lack the sort of charm that drew me to this video series in the first place. It isn't -bad-, it just isn't what it used to be.
It seems the topic of discussion is the purpose of Yahtzee, which I think he points out very clearly. I'm sure everyone here watched the Halo 3 video, so I think I will point out one thing. "All of the other reviews have put me in an awkward position...." which is him calling himself a reviewer. He then goes on, in the "Mailbag Showdown" to state that he sees a review as more than some numeric thing. -That- is why he doesn't do things like average. I think he used the word review a few times in there, too. He calls himself a reviewer, says he's reviewing things, which generally means he's a review.
Now the next question is really "What makes Yahtzee great?" I would say that it's his ability to A) make relevant jokes B) review while doing A and C) ... .... well, there really isn't a C, but you get my point. He reviews games, makes jokes, people laugh. He -just- makes jokes and some people laugh. Other people make huge posts like NC did. And I know you can't please everyone, but when you have a winning formula -stick with it-. Anyway, those are just my two cents.
Of course, my post will be generally ignored, distorted, or otherwise used to somehow say that I dislike ZP. People will tell me to "gtfo", or simply tell me I "don't get it", so I guess this was all a waste of time. I just felt like it needed to be said.
That aside, this wasn't actually funny. I mean, I laughed a couple of times, it had it's moments. Overall, though, this seemed to lack the sort of charm that drew me to this video series in the first place. It isn't -bad-, it just isn't what it used to be.
I guess it's kind of predictable Yahtzee would devolve into one big cavalcade of breast & bottom jokes chasing each other like Benny Hill characters to the tune of Yakety-sax, but a lot of them fell flat because:
a. Lara underwent a full cup-size reduction for Legend (which was picked up as a news story in itself by many gaming and non-gaming media), in an offensively transparent attempt to play down accusations of sexism and feminine objectification. Unfortunately the fact that they keep her ludicrously long legs, waist and cupie-doll features undermines their effort since she's clearly meant to be a cartoonish figure and not a realistic representation of a female. They should have either kept her cartoonish proportions and extended it to other characters a la Team Fortress, or made her entirely realistic. Thus all the "big boob" jokes fall kind of flat when you realise the Lara of Legend & Underworld is a modest C-cup now.
b. The "boobs on the cover" jabs would've made a lot more sense if LARA'S TORSO WASN'T OBSCURED BY THE TITLE, which Yahtzee even illustrates, calling attention to his own nonsense. Look at the cover, you can barely see her tits! I'd say it's her midriff, hips and thighs that are more the cause of excitable teens' cold sweats in this case than her barely-seen chest.
c. ... They're just tits, Yahtzee. They're a normal part of the female anatomy. Why not criticise other games for showing impossibly muscular men on the cover with gigantic guns and rippling biceps or giant robots blowing stuff up on their covers? They're just as transparent as sticking a buxom babe on the cover. Besides, a preoccupation with Lara's figure is playing right into Crystal Dynamic's hands - a review that makes no mention whatsoever of Lara's appearance would've been refreshing, and it would've shown that their attempt to provoke discussion and attention had failed. It takes attention away from the stuff that matters - the gameplay.
d. "Anything more than a handful is a waste" is completely true - a girl with large breasts being with a guy who has such a myopic appreciation of them is a tragic waste. The spelunking joke: Jesus, if you think LARA's tits are big I dread to imagine what you'd think about Fuko, Merilyn Sakova or Milena Velba. Small reference pools in your porn, Yahtzee.
Yes I did make an entire humourless post about amble bosoms. I make no apologies for it, for the subject is very dear to me. Anyway, disregarding the boobs:
The criticism of Lara being an evil nutcase: when was this a point of contention? Lara was always a deeply troubled anti-hero motivated by greed with a death wish, she was never a heroic protagonist in the traditional cliche sense. That's what makes her interesting. It's as silly as criticizing God of War because Kratos is a freaking psychopath: that's point of the character. She steals stuff from ruins because she's a collector of fine artifacts, she kills rare animals because the Croft Family are English aristocrats who probably have a history of big game hunting, she kills her competitors because she's not quite right in the head. I'd take her callousness to endangered species and merciless approach to rival tomb raiders over her silly WOT AVE OI BECUM hand wringing in Legend any day. She isn't Indiana "It Belongs in a Museum" Jones, she's Lara "It Belongs In My House Displayed Between Excalibur And My Mounted Tyrannosaurus Head" Croft.
Finally, the fact that the games are just the same with a change of scenery: while progress and evolution is always a good thing, sometimes if something works well (or at least competently), it's better than ditching it for something that fails. Tomb Raider, for me, was always about exploring awesome ruins, soaking up the atmosphere and solving neat puzzles. The fact that the combat-heavy games away from ruins like Angel of Darkness failed indicates this is a major selling point for the series. It's more akin to those Flight Simulator games, except with a story, and set in fantastic ruins. Thus Tomb Raider always has a special place in my heart.
a. Lara underwent a full cup-size reduction for Legend (which was picked up as a news story in itself by many gaming and non-gaming media), in an offensively transparent attempt to play down accusations of sexism and feminine objectification. Unfortunately the fact that they keep her ludicrously long legs, waist and cupie-doll features undermines their effort since she's clearly meant to be a cartoonish figure and not a realistic representation of a female. They should have either kept her cartoonish proportions and extended it to other characters a la Team Fortress, or made her entirely realistic. Thus all the "big boob" jokes fall kind of flat when you realise the Lara of Legend & Underworld is a modest C-cup now.
b. The "boobs on the cover" jabs would've made a lot more sense if LARA'S TORSO WASN'T OBSCURED BY THE TITLE, which Yahtzee even illustrates, calling attention to his own nonsense. Look at the cover, you can barely see her tits! I'd say it's her midriff, hips and thighs that are more the cause of excitable teens' cold sweats in this case than her barely-seen chest.
c. ... They're just tits, Yahtzee. They're a normal part of the female anatomy. Why not criticise other games for showing impossibly muscular men on the cover with gigantic guns and rippling biceps or giant robots blowing stuff up on their covers? They're just as transparent as sticking a buxom babe on the cover. Besides, a preoccupation with Lara's figure is playing right into Crystal Dynamic's hands - a review that makes no mention whatsoever of Lara's appearance would've been refreshing, and it would've shown that their attempt to provoke discussion and attention had failed. It takes attention away from the stuff that matters - the gameplay.
d. "Anything more than a handful is a waste" is completely true - a girl with large breasts being with a guy who has such a myopic appreciation of them is a tragic waste. The spelunking joke: Jesus, if you think LARA's tits are big I dread to imagine what you'd think about Fuko, Merilyn Sakova or Milena Velba. Small reference pools in your porn, Yahtzee.
Yes I did make an entire humourless post about amble bosoms. I make no apologies for it, for the subject is very dear to me. Anyway, disregarding the boobs:
The criticism of Lara being an evil nutcase: when was this a point of contention? Lara was always a deeply troubled anti-hero motivated by greed with a death wish, she was never a heroic protagonist in the traditional cliche sense. That's what makes her interesting. It's as silly as criticizing God of War because Kratos is a freaking psychopath: that's point of the character. She steals stuff from ruins because she's a collector of fine artifacts, she kills rare animals because the Croft Family are English aristocrats who probably have a history of big game hunting, she kills her competitors because she's not quite right in the head. I'd take her callousness to endangered species and merciless approach to rival tomb raiders over her silly WOT AVE OI BECUM hand wringing in Legend any day. She isn't Indiana "It Belongs in a Museum" Jones, she's Lara "It Belongs In My House Displayed Between Excalibur And My Mounted Tyrannosaurus Head" Croft.
Finally, the fact that the games are just the same with a change of scenery: while progress and evolution is always a good thing, sometimes if something works well (or at least competently), it's better than ditching it for something that fails. Tomb Raider, for me, was always about exploring awesome ruins, soaking up the atmosphere and solving neat puzzles. The fact that the combat-heavy games away from ruins like Angel of Darkness failed indicates this is a major selling point for the series. It's more akin to those Flight Simulator games, except with a story, and set in fantastic ruins. Thus Tomb Raider always has a special place in my heart.
Just because he goes against certain practices and standards, doesn't mean it's any less of a review. It might be, when seen from a writer's perspective, a piss poor actual 'review', but a review it still is. So whether he's reviewing for laughs or for trolling purposes (Or both), he's still reviewing.SYSTEM-J said:
I'd say the fact that he didn't say that only solidifies my point that these videos are, indeed, reviews. He calls them reviews himself! And whether or not they are done 'properly' is irrelevant. Whether poor or stellar, they are still reviews.SYSTEM-J said:
Then don't review it! If it's SO beneath him, review something else! I agree that wading through the mundane can suck, but even in his year-end show he said there were plenty of popular games he glanced over. Review those, then! Review one that's interesting! If he is indeed a 'professional troll', you think he'd do the games that actually had a solid fanbase (Gears of War, perhaps), rather then one we all figured would suck (TR) just so he could waste 3 minutes on boob jokes.SYSTEM-J said:
Well I don't think you've given 'plenty of justification'. While your responses have been far better written and thought out then many of the other nay-sayers, I don't consider the 'assumption' that ZP is actually a review of sorts (However unorthodox) to be false.SYSTEM-J said:
It appears we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think you're speaking on behalf of New Classic a little too much here, and deviating from the point he was making. All of these replies are stating the same thing: ZP is, in some respect, a review show. Which I was never denying and was never the issue. As I've said, the issue is that of emphasis. New Classic says this:Baby Tea said:
The point he's making is that the emphasis of ZP has shifted away from the reviews and towards the humour. The point I'm making is that ZP always emphasised the comedy over the review. In short, New Classic's mistaken assumption is not that ZP is a review show of some form, but that ZP was (and should still be) about the review first and foremost.
It's not about it being beneath him, but rather about it being boring to talk about. And what makes you think a game being popular makes it any more interesting to talk about? One of his closing credits captions said that every time he began to review Far Cry 2, something more interesting came along. It's hardly as though Tomb Raider is an unsuccessful franchise- it wouldn't be up to eight sequels if people weren't buying them in large numbers.
Also, as I've already said, having a review with almost no review breaks up the routine a bit and gives us something different. Listening to Yahtzee go through the motions over a mediocre game like GOW2 that he obviously doesn't care about is less interesting than four minutes of well-observed humour about the exploits of one of gaming's ultimate icons.
Loved the lactose intolerant hindu and the autistic kid hooked up to an IV of sherbet. That's pure comedy gold right there.
Great start to 2009!
Great start to 2009!
lura croft sucks in general no matter what sure i was amazed and astonished the first game and i never really cared about the boob factor the ***** needs to die every possible death shes given to he enemys and get aped or something at least that would be a funny ass joke
I'm a big Zero Punctuation fan and this wasn't Yahtzees worst video but apparently everyone who disliked it wished to voice that opinion and i'm fine with that it's just the fact people who like it have to disagree with the people who don't.....It's your opinion and people shouldn't judge you because of it.
I didn't know there were any Tomb Raider fans devout enough to be annoyed at someone saying the series sucked. Most Tomb Raider fans are like the saner Sonic fans, they acknowledge that the series is basically dead and play the new games purely for the sake of brand loyalty and nostalgia.antipunt said:
Let's not forget that this is from a man who, as a young Internet gutter-snipe, told us Why It Would Kick Arse To Be Lara Croft [http://www.fullyramblomatic.com/essays/lara.htm].
I agree. Lara is evil. The sort who's first problem solving technique is blazing the guns. She does it with such glee and enthusiasm, it's touching really.
The thing which is bothering me the most, however, is the actual Underworld game. Or rather, what it continues to be. Crystal Dynamics has pretty much taken away what I held most dear in the TR series (the sense of exploration, vast non-linear locales) and is continuing to do so with a vehemence similar to the one which eventually got Eidos to hit an immovable, infinitely big brick wall.
Graphically, there are some very pretty things in there and to be honest, some of them blew me away with the creativity behind them. Music's also still there - a Crystal Dynamics staple I don't want them to shy away from. But, that's not enough to be what once was Tomb Raider. You were supposed to be this archaeologist Indiana Jones wannabe who fought and explored her way through enormous scenery, alone. Tons of stuff could get you killed: the creatures, the traps, miscalculated jumps, etc. Action and consequence.
Now, you're parkouring along a linear path, with the background elements you need to "use" brightly coloured so that there's no mistake as to where you have to go. You've become immortal, since checkpointing and continuing is overly generous - not to mention fully restores Lara's health. Why are there still "medkits", even? Oh yeah, as with the treasures and relics which are strewn along the road: to give some sort of "impression" that there are items in this game.
Also, you're no longer alone, apparently. Apparently, Lara needs someone "at home" to talk to from time to time. And boy, what deep, interesting characters and dialogues they are. Absolutely unforgettable and a serious boon to Lara's quest, helping her out in every possible way. For me however, they help kill the sense of solitude, they help kill the game.
So yeah, I agree with this opinion piece.
I wonder if Crystal Dynamics will ever rediscover what made the originals work so well. Come on - don't get all Bethesda Game Studios on us.
The thing which is bothering me the most, however, is the actual Underworld game. Or rather, what it continues to be. Crystal Dynamics has pretty much taken away what I held most dear in the TR series (the sense of exploration, vast non-linear locales) and is continuing to do so with a vehemence similar to the one which eventually got Eidos to hit an immovable, infinitely big brick wall.
Graphically, there are some very pretty things in there and to be honest, some of them blew me away with the creativity behind them. Music's also still there - a Crystal Dynamics staple I don't want them to shy away from. But, that's not enough to be what once was Tomb Raider. You were supposed to be this archaeologist Indiana Jones wannabe who fought and explored her way through enormous scenery, alone. Tons of stuff could get you killed: the creatures, the traps, miscalculated jumps, etc. Action and consequence.
Now, you're parkouring along a linear path, with the background elements you need to "use" brightly coloured so that there's no mistake as to where you have to go. You've become immortal, since checkpointing and continuing is overly generous - not to mention fully restores Lara's health. Why are there still "medkits", even? Oh yeah, as with the treasures and relics which are strewn along the road: to give some sort of "impression" that there are items in this game.
Also, you're no longer alone, apparently. Apparently, Lara needs someone "at home" to talk to from time to time. And boy, what deep, interesting characters and dialogues they are. Absolutely unforgettable and a serious boon to Lara's quest, helping her out in every possible way. For me however, they help kill the sense of solitude, they help kill the game.
So yeah, I agree with this opinion piece.
I wonder if Crystal Dynamics will ever rediscover what made the originals work so well. Come on - don't get all Bethesda Game Studios on us.
Ahem, excusé moi! I've just done an undergraduate degree in archaeology, with a dissertation on Archaeology in the Media, and I did in fact point out,
"The common view of the action hero archaeologist is actually a bad one. It may sell tickets and increase viewing figures, but the representations are usually distorted, and could encourage looting and general detrimental behavior. Indiana Jones is incredibly popular, but far from the perfect example of an archaeologist ... and Lara Croft ... These are the popular representations. Fortunately the representations on television are starting to balance this out. The documentaries and series are showing an ever increasingly more accurate view of archaeology ..." blah, blah, boring archaeology stuff.
So don't worry, the field has been notified
Also, I have more than a handful, I don't mean to be wasteful
"The common view of the action hero archaeologist is actually a bad one. It may sell tickets and increase viewing figures, but the representations are usually distorted, and could encourage looting and general detrimental behavior. Indiana Jones is incredibly popular, but far from the perfect example of an archaeologist ... and Lara Croft ... These are the popular representations. Fortunately the representations on television are starting to balance this out. The documentaries and series are showing an ever increasingly more accurate view of archaeology ..." blah, blah, boring archaeology stuff.
So don't worry, the field has been notified
Also, I have more than a handful, I don't mean to be wasteful
I completely agree, this review lacked the finesse of his usual reviews and a new take on it would have been refreshing and has a lot of potential to be funny. Still, you can't win 'em all eh? I decided not to quote the whole thing though so as not to clog up the page.Taranaich said: