Re:I actually kind of miss the old combat system
on
Review: Mass Effect 2
·
· Score: 1
So how in this case are all the reviewers in agreement with just nothing but glowing praise and incredible reviews when the player based isn't, especially since what they changed surly should have pissed off the hardcore RPG players that surly must do a lot of the reviews?
I think the problem is simply that the games are left to the reviewers that actually like that type of game, thus receiving noticeably high scores then they would get when you would hand the game to an average gamer.
The whole problem with the gaming press in the end is that its more of a "buyers guide" then proper gaming critique. So games end up being praised for what they do right, instead of giving you a good overview over all the things that could have been improved or things that might not match every gamers taste.
That said, even so I don't like all the changes, ME2 is a 10/10 for me, the mix of shooter gameplay and dialog driven story telling is still pretty much unique and just way more interesting then most other stuff I played over the last years.
I found that to be an extremely poor gimmicky plot twist that did nothing for me but destroy the immersion. It was like "Oh, so they can't actually build a game where the player has proper choice, so instead they try to explain it away with that useless one-trick-pony of a plot twist". On top of that Bioshock didn't have any proper character interaction. Audio logs are nice and good to add backstory, but when they are basically the only story going on its just not fun any more, it feels like having missed all the interesting stuff and now being left to do the cleanup. Bioshock had what I would call an interesting and original setting, but the actual in-game story was rather meh.
Kind of same with Halo1, sure backstory is quite nice and I like reading about the universe in the Wiki, but in the actual game it was just awful. You just run around in circles doing one thing, just to try to cancel your doing in the the next mission down to the point of your whole running around being 100% pointless in the end, since you just blow up the very ship where you started from. When the backstory is a hell of a lot more interesting then the actual game story, something is seriously wrong.
PoP:Sands of Time on the other side was really good, the way the story and the way it was told worked hand in hand with the gameplay was just spot on and the character progression was great too. It is basically storytelling at its best. But thats quite a different beast then Mass Effect and not really comparable as its a 100% linear game.
Mass Effect, by the nature of its gameplay, has to have a less focused story and some more mundane stuff going on, as that is simply needed to make the world seem alive. Not every conversation with a random stranger can or should be an epic master piece of story telling. But when it comes to the main quest it was just great. An epic ending and a lot of slow discovery upfront that made you actually feel like being in control and doing the work. It felt like a bit like Elite meets XCom meets Full Spectrum Warrior in that sense, just with some great dialog, character interaction and story on top.
That said, not everything was perfect. Where Mass Effect failed a bit was with its pacing, as on one side you have to hurry to save the galaxy and on the other side you are slowly trotting around fixing some random colonists minor problems. Some better separation between doing one thing or the other might have helped. ME2 fixes that somewhat by allowing you to solve side quests after doing the main thing, but also feels much weaker in its main plot, as there is not much discovery going on and it lacks an antagonist.
But in the end what makes Mass Effect so great is the mix, having a really good story is one thing, but having serious amount of freedom to explore the game world on top of that with some very good tactic shooter mechanics just elevates the experience to a whole new level. Mass Effect feels like and epic adventure and not just like series of script-triggers, like so many other "cinematic" games these days. On top of that RPGs normally bore me to death, as I can't stand the passive fighting systems, so having a game that has solid action elements and still be able to perform precise squad commands at the same time was just awesome.
It should be possible in theory to simply give over your EA account to the person you sell the game to, assuming of course that you created a special account for Mass Effect 2, instead of one that you already used for other games.
Re:I actually kind of miss the old combat system
on
Review: Mass Effect 2
·
· Score: 1
I didn't miss the movement part, I was well aware of that, just didn't use it much as the squad ended up running all over the place anyway instead of staying exactly where I put it.
What I did miss was that targeting an enemy and then pressing the movement key actually causes the squad member to shoot at the enemy instead of moving to him.
As said, in ME1 all those commands where part of the pause screen, in ME2 that is no longer the case and the pause screen only allows to switch weapons or start special powers and so I assumed they removed the attack feature.
Isn't that more a matter of the graphics card then the CPU?
Anyway, speaking about system requirements, they are not higher then those for Mass Effect 1, I think the game actually runs a bit smoother while looking better on a Core Duo 6300 with Geforce 7600LE running at lowest graphic setting in 800x600.
Re:I actually kind of miss the old combat system
on
Review: Mass Effect 2
·
· Score: 1
Camera behind your character would be pretty useless, as then your character would always obscure what he is aiming at (Tomb Raider: Underworld does that and its completly useless). Over shoulder camera is used to avoid exactly that while still giving you a visible character instead of just a floating pair of arms as the average FPS.
Re:I actually kind of miss the old combat system
on
Review: Mass Effect 2
·
· Score: 1
The annoying part with ME1 was that it took ages to keep the equipment of all your teammates up to date, as you had to do a ton of clicking to equip every weapon and then also every weapon module. A way to just auto-equip the best stuff and auto-omni-gel the useless stuff would have been welcome. I think there also was no way to directly switch between teammates, so you had to click on the storage locker of each teammate individually.
Re:I actually kind of miss the old combat system
on
Review: Mass Effect 2
·
· Score: 1
Correct, even after 35h of play time on the PC version I somehow missed that, as on the PC move and attack or both bound to a single key (q for one team mate, e for the other), it didn't occur to me that the move key also works as attack key. They also removed move/attack from the pause screen, only the special powers remain there, which likely added to the confusion, as Mass Effect 1 had all that in the pause screen.
Funny part is, even the medipacks seem to still work, contrary to what I originally said. But they now restore your shield instead of your health, as you don't really have a separate healthbar. Kind of confusing and the little text explanation doesn't even mention that.
In terms of story it is mostly more of the same. The story this time feels however a little less connected, as you are mostly doing self contained side missions to collect your squad. The main quest itself felt rather short and uninteresting, as there are no big plot twists or discoveries going on and the ending is kind of meh this time around, ending in ME1 was far more interesting.
Speaking about buttons, does the game actually have a jump button or did they somehow miss that? There where numerous situations in the game where you had to climb on a small ledge and the only way to do that was to go into cover on the ledge and then do the jump-over-cover action, which felt quite weird with no enemy around and just a small ledge to climb.
When you play the side missions you can easily get 35h out of it, which is freakishly long for a shooter or even an interactive movie game and 10h longer then the first Mass Effect was.
I agree that the combat got a little to much simplified, but its not really a game breaker, its still a ton of fun to play.
Even so I prefered the original Mass Effect, in my book Mass Effect 2 is still a 10/10. It is not a perfect game in every aspect, but it comes a hell of a lot closer then everything else, there just isn't anything else around that mixes story with fun gameplay the way Mass Effect does.
Re:I actually kind of miss the old combat system
on
Review: Mass Effect 2
·
· Score: 1
When you where under direct attack with your shields gone in ME1, you used a health pack and run for cover. In ME2 you have to die and retry from the last checkout, as your health is so little that you don't have any time to run for cover.
They didn't fix it, they basically completly cut it out. There is no more Mako driving or planet exploration. There are also no longer recycled level architecture, every mission is unique.
This in turn makes ME2 a much more streamlined game, sometimes however it ends up being a little bit on the repetative side at times. As the Mako and open planet exploration did add some good amount of variety to the combat, even so it might not have been perfect. Now its basically all Gears of War. With the openness removed and tactic shooter elements cut down, all enemy encounters kind of feel the same.
I would strongly recommend you to play the first Mass Effect first. You might not be totally lost in ME2, as most missions are rather self contained and most characters in your squad are completly new, but you will miss out a lot when it comes to reoccurring characters and all those little references to the first game and the game really is full of those.
That aside, Mass Effect 2 is simply more Mass Effect universe to play in and if you enjoy that, there is absolutely no reason to not enjoy the first one too.
Re:I actually kind of miss the old combat system
on
Review: Mass Effect 2
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The simplification in the combat is quite annoying, I especially missed more direct control of the teammates. In ME1 you could tell them to seek a defensive position or attack a specific enemy giving it a tactic shooter feel, in ME2 that is no longer the case. You are limited to telling them what power to use. You can also tell them where to go, but that never worked for me in ME2 as they always ended up running all over the place. They also removed the ability to duck to increase your accuracy, you are limited to auto-duck behind cover, grenades and health packs are also gone.
Add the lack of Mako and the much simplified level design on top of it and the combat ends up feeling quite monotone.
All that said, its still Mass Effect and still among the best games out there, but some of the changes feel a little bit like somebody just took the scissor to everything that got criticized in the first, instead of just improving it (elevators are gone, but now you have simplified flat levels and loading screens, not exactly an improvement).
All bets are off. By then, one of the platter manufacturers could pull a density rabbit out of the hat.
But would that even matter? For daily use 200GB have been more then plenty enough for me and that for quite some years. Sure I might have an additional 1TB drive for a video collection, but the core drive in the PC where OS data is stored doesn't really need to be super huge, 256GB at a good price should be enough for almost everyone and if the software would improve to allow caching/swap of frequently used HDD data on the SDD it could even be much less.
At this point I think raw price of the device is more important then the actual storage you get. A fast SSD drive in the $50-$100 range that HDDs currently have should be enough for mass market adoption of SSD, even when the SSD has only a fraction of the storage.
Blender isn't CAD software. No matter how great the interface would be, its just not the right for the job of modeling parts that should end up as real hardware.
That doesn't really fix the underlying problems, as the problem really isn't so much a money issue, but an preservation of history one. I kind of like to be able to be able to play the games I grew up with. When you however have stuff DRM'ed and depending on servers staying online to be usable, you will quickly run into situations where history is just getting lost, as you are no longer able to play past games.
On PS3, Xbox360 and a PC games you might still work around that issue by hacking, cracking and that kind of stuff, but that is constantly getting harder. And when it comes to things like OnLive its flat out impossible, unless you break into their servers and manage to steal the game data.
The problem is that it really isn't good old arcade action coming back, it is really just a short nostalgia trip to make some easy money. As you can easily see when you compare NSMBWii with SMB3 or Yoshi Island, NSMBWii doesn't get close to the quality or innovation of previous titles, it doesn't even try.
The Halting problem only exist for theoretical computers with infinite memory, for real computers with finite memory its trivial to solve (wait till a memory state repeats, done).
"Better" is to blunt a qualifier to use. In a lot of aspects old games where quite awful. When it comes to issues like user-interfaces for example many old games are near unplayable by todays standards. And the amount or lack of frames-per-second wasn't pretty either.
However there are also many areas where older games are just superior to most stuff out today. Humor for example is nearly extinct from todays games, yet games like the LucasArts adventures had ton of that and are still played to this day. Another thing is the more hardcore aspect of gaming, flightsims or mech sims for example are simply gone, you get some watered down action game with planes or mechs every now and then, but those get nowhere near in terms of depth to the old classics.
One of the core issue that I think has changed today is simply the variety of games out there. Todays game developers have been growing up with games, so their inspiration mostly comes from games. 20 years ago that was vastly different. Games was a fresh medium and people haven't been growing up with them, so they basically had to start with a white canvas, instead of recycling last years game mechanics and putting some new graphics around it. The result was a lot of games that where inspired by board games, books and what not, instead of Doom and Quake. Which is why you don't see games like Rama or Gabriel Knight any more.
Another issue I have with todays games is simply that they haven't kept up with past expectations. Playing something like X-Com, EF2000 or Yoshi Island 15 years ago, I expect to see something vastly improved in those areas today. But nope, Yoshi Island is still the best jump'n run around, NewSuperMarioBros doesn't even get close. A dynamic campaign like in EF2000 is still missing from todays games. And destructible terrain that X-Com had is only very slowly making its way into mainstream games.
Page refresh isn't an issue when you linearly read a book, but if you just want to have a quick glance at what happened a dozens pages back, than refresh quickly becomes a major problem, as there isn't a way you can quickly quickly through pages.
A real book gets pretty damn close to instant page turn, as it gives you the freedom to flip through tens or hundred of pages at once, it doesn't limits you to linear flipping forward and backward through a book. And that style of browsing a book is incredible useful when you search for a page, where you don't have a bookmark to. The ability to quickly browse through books, with an intuitive interface on top, is one of the main reason why I prefer a real book to digital book one. Even a digital one on a LCD with a PDF reader can't really keep up with a real book, as you always get tiny delays between page flips or an incomplete redraw of the page that takes a moment to finish.
The other issue with refresh is simply the Internet. If I have a device that is used to read stuff, I want to be able to read with it the largest resource of reading material out there and for that I need fast refresh, as a lot of webpages assume that fast refresh and scrolling is available and can't properly function without it. And even with proper designed pages you want fast refresh, as clicking through links, flipping through tabs and all that stuff needs to be fast. Imagine for a moment that Firefox would take a second to respond to each of your actions. Doesn't sound all that great a user experience, does it?
Slashdot Mirror
So how in this case are all the reviewers in agreement with just nothing but glowing praise and incredible reviews when the player based isn't, especially since what they changed surly should have pissed off the hardcore RPG players that surly must do a lot of the reviews?
I think the problem is simply that the games are left to the reviewers that actually like that type of game, thus receiving noticeably high scores then they would get when you would hand the game to an average gamer.
The whole problem with the gaming press in the end is that its more of a "buyers guide" then proper gaming critique. So games end up being praised for what they do right, instead of giving you a good overview over all the things that could have been improved or things that might not match every gamers taste.
That said, even so I don't like all the changes, ME2 is a 10/10 for me, the mix of shooter gameplay and dialog driven story telling is still pretty much unique and just way more interesting then most other stuff I played over the last years.
I found that to be an extremely poor gimmicky plot twist that did nothing for me but destroy the immersion. It was like "Oh, so they can't actually build a game where the player has proper choice, so instead they try to explain it away with that useless one-trick-pony of a plot twist". On top of that Bioshock didn't have any proper character interaction. Audio logs are nice and good to add backstory, but when they are basically the only story going on its just not fun any more, it feels like having missed all the interesting stuff and now being left to do the cleanup. Bioshock had what I would call an interesting and original setting, but the actual in-game story was rather meh.
Kind of same with Halo1, sure backstory is quite nice and I like reading about the universe in the Wiki, but in the actual game it was just awful. You just run around in circles doing one thing, just to try to cancel your doing in the the next mission down to the point of your whole running around being 100% pointless in the end, since you just blow up the very ship where you started from. When the backstory is a hell of a lot more interesting then the actual game story, something is seriously wrong.
PoP:Sands of Time on the other side was really good, the way the story and the way it was told worked hand in hand with the gameplay was just spot on and the character progression was great too. It is basically storytelling at its best. But thats quite a different beast then Mass Effect and not really comparable as its a 100% linear game.
Mass Effect, by the nature of its gameplay, has to have a less focused story and some more mundane stuff going on, as that is simply needed to make the world seem alive. Not every conversation with a random stranger can or should be an epic master piece of story telling. But when it comes to the main quest it was just great. An epic ending and a lot of slow discovery upfront that made you actually feel like being in control and doing the work. It felt like a bit like Elite meets XCom meets Full Spectrum Warrior in that sense, just with some great dialog, character interaction and story on top.
That said, not everything was perfect. Where Mass Effect failed a bit was with its pacing, as on one side you have to hurry to save the galaxy and on the other side you are slowly trotting around fixing some random colonists minor problems. Some better separation between doing one thing or the other might have helped. ME2 fixes that somewhat by allowing you to solve side quests after doing the main thing, but also feels much weaker in its main plot, as there is not much discovery going on and it lacks an antagonist.
But in the end what makes Mass Effect so great is the mix, having a really good story is one thing, but having serious amount of freedom to explore the game world on top of that with some very good tactic shooter mechanics just elevates the experience to a whole new level. Mass Effect feels like and epic adventure and not just like series of script-triggers, like so many other "cinematic" games these days. On top of that RPGs normally bore me to death, as I can't stand the passive fighting systems, so having a game that has solid action elements and still be able to perform precise squad commands at the same time was just awesome.
It should be possible in theory to simply give over your EA account to the person you sell the game to, assuming of course that you created a special account for Mass Effect 2, instead of one that you already used for other games.
I didn't miss the movement part, I was well aware of that, just didn't use it much as the squad ended up running all over the place anyway instead of staying exactly where I put it.
What I did miss was that targeting an enemy and then pressing the movement key actually causes the squad member to shoot at the enemy instead of moving to him.
As said, in ME1 all those commands where part of the pause screen, in ME2 that is no longer the case and the pause screen only allows to switch weapons or start special powers and so I assumed they removed the attack feature.
Isn't that more a matter of the graphics card then the CPU?
Anyway, speaking about system requirements, they are not higher then those for Mass Effect 1, I think the game actually runs a bit smoother while looking better on a Core Duo 6300 with Geforce 7600LE running at lowest graphic setting in 800x600.
Camera behind your character would be pretty useless, as then your character would always obscure what he is aiming at (Tomb Raider: Underworld does that and its completly useless). Over shoulder camera is used to avoid exactly that while still giving you a visible character instead of just a floating pair of arms as the average FPS.
The annoying part with ME1 was that it took ages to keep the equipment of all your teammates up to date, as you had to do a ton of clicking to equip every weapon and then also every weapon module. A way to just auto-equip the best stuff and auto-omni-gel the useless stuff would have been welcome. I think there also was no way to directly switch between teammates, so you had to click on the storage locker of each teammate individually.
Correct, even after 35h of play time on the PC version I somehow missed that, as on the PC move and attack or both bound to a single key (q for one team mate, e for the other), it didn't occur to me that the move key also works as attack key. They also removed move/attack from the pause screen, only the special powers remain there, which likely added to the confusion, as Mass Effect 1 had all that in the pause screen.
Funny part is, even the medipacks seem to still work, contrary to what I originally said. But they now restore your shield instead of your health, as you don't really have a separate healthbar. Kind of confusing and the little text explanation doesn't even mention that.
In terms of story it is mostly more of the same. The story this time feels however a little less connected, as you are mostly doing self contained side missions to collect your squad. The main quest itself felt rather short and uninteresting, as there are no big plot twists or discoveries going on and the ending is kind of meh this time around, ending in ME1 was far more interesting.
Speaking about buttons, does the game actually have a jump button or did they somehow miss that? There where numerous situations in the game where you had to climb on a small ledge and the only way to do that was to go into cover on the ledge and then do the jump-over-cover action, which felt quite weird with no enemy around and just a small ledge to climb.
When you play the side missions you can easily get 35h out of it, which is freakishly long for a shooter or even an interactive movie game and 10h longer then the first Mass Effect was.
I agree that the combat got a little to much simplified, but its not really a game breaker, its still a ton of fun to play.
Even so I prefered the original Mass Effect, in my book Mass Effect 2 is still a 10/10. It is not a perfect game in every aspect, but it comes a hell of a lot closer then everything else, there just isn't anything else around that mixes story with fun gameplay the way Mass Effect does.
When you where under direct attack with your shields gone in ME1, you used a health pack and run for cover. In ME2 you have to die and retry from the last checkout, as your health is so little that you don't have any time to run for cover.
They didn't fix it, they basically completly cut it out. There is no more Mako driving or planet exploration. There are also no longer recycled level architecture, every mission is unique.
This in turn makes ME2 a much more streamlined game, sometimes however it ends up being a little bit on the repetative side at times. As the Mako and open planet exploration did add some good amount of variety to the combat, even so it might not have been perfect. Now its basically all Gears of War. With the openness removed and tactic shooter elements cut down, all enemy encounters kind of feel the same.
I would strongly recommend you to play the first Mass Effect first. You might not be totally lost in ME2, as most missions are rather self contained and most characters in your squad are completly new, but you will miss out a lot when it comes to reoccurring characters and all those little references to the first game and the game really is full of those.
That aside, Mass Effect 2 is simply more Mass Effect universe to play in and if you enjoy that, there is absolutely no reason to not enjoy the first one too.
The simplification in the combat is quite annoying, I especially missed more direct control of the teammates. In ME1 you could tell them to seek a defensive position or attack a specific enemy giving it a tactic shooter feel, in ME2 that is no longer the case. You are limited to telling them what power to use. You can also tell them where to go, but that never worked for me in ME2 as they always ended up running all over the place. They also removed the ability to duck to increase your accuracy, you are limited to auto-duck behind cover, grenades and health packs are also gone.
Add the lack of Mako and the much simplified level design on top of it and the combat ends up feeling quite monotone.
All that said, its still Mass Effect and still among the best games out there, but some of the changes feel a little bit like somebody just took the scissor to everything that got criticized in the first, instead of just improving it (elevators are gone, but now you have simplified flat levels and loading screens, not exactly an improvement).
All bets are off. By then, one of the platter manufacturers could pull a density rabbit out of the hat.
But would that even matter? For daily use 200GB have been more then plenty enough for me and that for quite some years. Sure I might have an additional 1TB drive for a video collection, but the core drive in the PC where OS data is stored doesn't really need to be super huge, 256GB at a good price should be enough for almost everyone and if the software would improve to allow caching/swap of frequently used HDD data on the SDD it could even be much less.
At this point I think raw price of the device is more important then the actual storage you get. A fast SSD drive in the $50-$100 range that HDDs currently have should be enough for mass market adoption of SSD, even when the SSD has only a fraction of the storage.
Blender isn't CAD software. No matter how great the interface would be, its just not the right for the job of modeling parts that should end up as real hardware.
That doesn't really fix the underlying problems, as the problem really isn't so much a money issue, but an preservation of history one. I kind of like to be able to be able to play the games I grew up with. When you however have stuff DRM'ed and depending on servers staying online to be usable, you will quickly run into situations where history is just getting lost, as you are no longer able to play past games.
On PS3, Xbox360 and a PC games you might still work around that issue by hacking, cracking and that kind of stuff, but that is constantly getting harder. And when it comes to things like OnLive its flat out impossible, unless you break into their servers and manage to steal the game data.
The problem is that it really isn't good old arcade action coming back, it is really just a short nostalgia trip to make some easy money. As you can easily see when you compare NSMBWii with SMB3 or Yoshi Island, NSMBWii doesn't get close to the quality or innovation of previous titles, it doesn't even try.
The Halting problem only exist for theoretical computers with infinite memory, for real computers with finite memory its trivial to solve (wait till a memory state repeats, done).
"Better" is to blunt a qualifier to use. In a lot of aspects old games where quite awful. When it comes to issues like user-interfaces for example many old games are near unplayable by todays standards. And the amount or lack of frames-per-second wasn't pretty either.
However there are also many areas where older games are just superior to most stuff out today. Humor for example is nearly extinct from todays games, yet games like the LucasArts adventures had ton of that and are still played to this day. Another thing is the more hardcore aspect of gaming, flightsims or mech sims for example are simply gone, you get some watered down action game with planes or mechs every now and then, but those get nowhere near in terms of depth to the old classics.
One of the core issue that I think has changed today is simply the variety of games out there. Todays game developers have been growing up with games, so their inspiration mostly comes from games. 20 years ago that was vastly different. Games was a fresh medium and people haven't been growing up with them, so they basically had to start with a white canvas, instead of recycling last years game mechanics and putting some new graphics around it. The result was a lot of games that where inspired by board games, books and what not, instead of Doom and Quake. Which is why you don't see games like Rama or Gabriel Knight any more.
Another issue I have with todays games is simply that they haven't kept up with past expectations. Playing something like X-Com, EF2000 or Yoshi Island 15 years ago, I expect to see something vastly improved in those areas today. But nope, Yoshi Island is still the best jump'n run around, NewSuperMarioBros doesn't even get close. A dynamic campaign like in EF2000 is still missing from todays games. And destructible terrain that X-Com had is only very slowly making its way into mainstream games.
The same way they rebooted them last time?
Page refresh isn't an issue when you linearly read a book, but if you just want to have a quick glance at what happened a dozens pages back, than refresh quickly becomes a major problem, as there isn't a way you can quickly quickly through pages.
A real book doesn't have instant page turn times
A real book gets pretty damn close to instant page turn, as it gives you the freedom to flip through tens or hundred of pages at once, it doesn't limits you to linear flipping forward and backward through a book. And that style of browsing a book is incredible useful when you search for a page, where you don't have a bookmark to. The ability to quickly browse through books, with an intuitive interface on top, is one of the main reason why I prefer a real book to digital book one. Even a digital one on a LCD with a PDF reader can't really keep up with a real book, as you always get tiny delays between page flips or an incomplete redraw of the page that takes a moment to finish.
The other issue with refresh is simply the Internet. If I have a device that is used to read stuff, I want to be able to read with it the largest resource of reading material out there and for that I need fast refresh, as a lot of webpages assume that fast refresh and scrolling is available and can't properly function without it. And even with proper designed pages you want fast refresh, as clicking through links, flipping through tabs and all that stuff needs to be fast. Imagine for a moment that Firefox would take a second to respond to each of your actions. Doesn't sound all that great a user experience, does it?
If it is a standard USB stick it does not compute at all
It is not a standard USB stick, but a computer with a USB plug (just like MP3 Players, mobile phones and plenty of other gadgets we already have).