I will never understand people without basic pattern recognition skills.

A lot of Obsidian's history is full of mercenary game dev contracts that, understandably, resulted in horrifically buggy games.

Virtually *ALL OF THEM*.

I'm really looking forward to playing this game in 6 months... when it's done. I have no desire to play another buggy-as-all-get-out-on-Day-1 Obsidian game.

None.

The endless evidence of Obsidian's incredibly lacking Quality Control Process is there for anyone to see. Peter Molyneaux's track record of pushing the line of what a "con man" is is there for anyone to see. Tim Shaffer's genius that *REQUIRES* a moneyman to say "Dude, no... friggin do the game, jerk." is out there for everyone to see. What happens to studios that are purchased and looted by EA is, well... SERIOUSLY PEOPLE.

The heck is wrong with people?

Again, Obsidian is by far the best of these examples, but WHAT.DID.YOU.EXPECT?

I *WILL* buy this in 6 months, assuming it's finished. If gamers NEVER properly hold developers (remember the difference between a dev and a publisher, for goodness' sake!) responsible AT ALL, they will never have any reason to learn.

Sorry no. One of the main horrible issues with Sarkeesian is that her ENTIRE MO revolves around taking what happens far too often and applying it to LITERALLY every situation. It undermines a very legitimate point and does a disservice to humanity. And you're doing the same.

Cutter is a dick. Don't get me wrong. But the ACTUAL WORDS HE USED were not sexist. And, honestly, your INSISTENCE On the right to add connotation to 100% of statements in 100% of situations is more offensive than Cutter's horrible, horrible existence.

Get some damned perspective and learn that your's isn't 100% flawless 100% of the time. If you actually expanded your horizons where "honey" isn't a torches-and-pitchfork word, you might enjoy life better.

I dunno, I don't pretend to know you beyond the horrible and close minded arrogance you show in this thread.

N n

sdgundamx wrote on Apr 1, 2015, 03:40:

InBlack wrote on Apr 1, 2015, 03:02:
Beamer, I realize that Cutter posted a disparaging and probably offensive comment directed at Sarkeesian. There is very little (if any) sexual context attached to the comment as I see it, so how is it sexist? He is basically telling someone off. Someone who is female, which is why he used a female pronoun. Is it because he called her honey? I honestly want to know, Im not trying to bait you or anything.
Where did he riff on her sexuality?

The fact that this even needs explaining shows how far a lot gamers (particularly certain frequent posters on Blues) need to go in getting in touch with the real world.

When a male refers to an adult female who he doesn't know and has no personal relationship with as "honey," "sweetie," "sugar," "cupcake," or any other term that implies females aren't human but instead a tasty treat awaiting consumption, it is called "casual sexism." They are throwaway labels designed to reinforce the dominant power relationship of men over women by implying that women should be "nice girls" while guys have the prerogative to be asshats.

In the real world, if I were to refer to a female co-worker by any of those terms, the least I could expect would be an icy stare. Worst case scenario, I'd be called up to the boss for a talking-to and likely be required to take one of those god-awful online sexual harassment seminars.

In short, calling a female you've never met "honey" is sexist and offensive. I have no doubt Cutter intended his comment that way.

Did that clarify things for you?

Eirikrautha wrote on Feb 28, 2015, 10:52:
You know, it's pretty simple. Sarkeesian is directing her argument to the wrong entity. She's attacking video game producers when her real complaint is with nature and reality.

See, Sarkessian is on record as saying that all differences between men and women are the product of societal conditioning. Not "some." Not "most." All. This is the kind of delusion that engenders the vociferous and angry invective that she and her supporters are known for. It's why you have bogus terms like "the patriarchy" and "misogynists" as a staple of her argument. Because, in the end, she's fighting reality... and it angers her.

Let me be perfectly clear in what I mean. Men and women are not the same. There are over 528 biological differences between them, differences that evolved over millennia, to better suit men and women for the primitive roles they played before civilization. Go back 5000 years and look at gender roles. You will find that they weren't "invented" to keep women down; they were based on the very real living conditions of the time. With a life-expectancy of 30 years and a 50% child-mortality rate, human life was tough. There were no social safety nets for the elderly, meaning that those people lucky enough to make it to old age would be dependent on their children for their support. That means most women would have had to stay pregnant constantly, simply to produce enough children that the half that survived could support them. Men evolved better spacial awareness and more muscular frames to assist in their roles as hunters. These are all well established biological facts.

Now, as societies have become more productive, as standards of living have risen, men and women no longer need to obey their biological roles in order to survive. This is a good thing. In fact, our societies in the West have advanced technologically to the point where we can easily say that men and women should have the same societal responsibilities and privileges (voting, legal standing, pay, etc.). But evolution does not work as fast as society changes. And men and women still carry the biological differences of their primitive ancestors.

These have real world consequences. Look at Sarkeesian's complaint about the animation for walking. Women's hips are constructed differently than men's (on average). Were you to motion capture an average woman walking and a man walking, you would instantly be able to spot the stick-figure that was female, just from her gait. So complaining about this in a video game (even when exaggerated) is ridiculous, especially when what qualifies as "exaggerated" is not an objective standard in the first place.

Likewise, when it comes to representations of female as, say, warriors, once again reality intervenes. Even modern militaries (whose inclusiveness has more to do with politics than capabilities) have a difficult time with female front-line troops (the ones that do use them tend to be the small nations facing existential threats, like Israel, or the nations that don't fight anyone, anyway... see Scandinavian militaries). The US Army has had to develop a training course to prepare women for the Ranger training, because they are so desperate to get a female through the course. Think about that! They have to train the women extensively just so they can have a chance to not wash out on the first day (which none have managed to avoid so far). This is totally a product of the biological differences between a peak-performing male and a peak-performing female. It's why we have an NBA and a WNBA.

Such biological differences aren't all in the males' favor, though. Most courts still give women preference in child custody cases, for real biological reasons. But to deny that women's bodies and minds are built differently (talk to any college or professional-level trainer about men's and women's knees, for example) is a direct contradiction of reality.

So what Sarkeesian wants is an unrealistic portrayal of men and women, based on her own personal biases. And she wants this enforced across video games, so that she doesn't have to see the reality of biology thrown in her face over and over again. That's why so many people have a visceral reaction against her. It'd be like having a person tell you that you had to agree the sky was green, or you'd lose your job (just as people have lost their jobs for "offending" the sensibilities of the SJWs). That's the level of stupid this woman represents.

... I think I'm in love...

Zanthar wrote on Feb 27, 2015, 00:26:

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Feb 26, 2015, 21:30:

Zanthar wrote on Feb 26, 2015, 21:13:

No, I've just been around long enough to see what a festering shithole the USA is turning into.

But evidently not long enough to know much about monetary policy, macroeconomics, or global finance.

A question: to whom does the US Federal government, and by extension the American people, owe that $17 Trillion? Hint: if you're answer is "The Chinese", you're only accounting for $1.24 Trillion. Another hint, this time by analogy: if you borrowed 11 trillion dollars from your wife, is your household 11 trillion dollars poorer?

If you spend that 17 trillion that your don't have, yes you owe that money to someone.

Do you honestly think the government can just inject that much imaginary cash into the economy with no consequences? They are propping up wall street right now, just wait until it catches up with them.

Congrats on utterly failing to understand a metaphor. Let me explain it to you in more concrete terms. A lot of what the government borrows, it borrows from ITSELF. A lot of what it borrows, it borrows from the American people. Those debts are very, very different than borrowing from other nations (which, btw, increases security in many ways. Who goes to war against a nation which owes them money? Much, much more often, they go to war against people who they owe money *TO*.) and banks.

/sigh

Please take a starter course in fiat currency and monetary policy.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 17:06:
This is going to be yet another 100 comment SC thread, isn't it.

YUP!!!!!!!

"Rigorous quality control is of paramount importance to us"


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

For those who want a nice book on the causes of the war, I recommend (using Blues referral code, of course!) this book:

Great Power Diplomacy: 1814-1914 by Norman Rich

It's a great read (for those of us who love to read about that kinda stuff).

Now... time to DL that demo.

Slick wrote on Nov 7, 2014, 20:33:

Quboid wrote on Nov 7, 2014, 10:00:
Develop for Xbox, pay Microsoft. Develop for Playstation, pay Sony. Develop for PC, pay Valve.

just kill yourself.

People like you make me question the specifics of the delete/ban policy on this site.

HorrorScope wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 19:17:

Dagnamit wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 15:35:

HorrorScope wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 15:10:
Looks good.
We need to gif the part where they show the crowd clapping.
Extremely busy HUD.
Dude playing with a controller on a pc only game.

controller sounds reasonable. If i had to choose one control method for a space sim/3rd person/fps combo, I would pick a controller too.

Right but I would choose two. He choose the best of no worlds.

... did you just basically say that you'd play with k&m and a controller at the same time?!

The amount of time the camera spent on the guy was minimal, there's no need to jump to the conclusion that he wasn't playing with both. Ugh... it's PC snobs like you who scream foul EVERY TIME that a controller is used even for a second that give proper PC Elitists like me a bad name.

Learn this lesson, please: A controller is the BEST interface device in games more than 0% of the time.

With that in mind I *LOVE* watching idiots who INSIST on not using a controller in ANY game, cuz they inevitably suck in certain types of games. It's gloriously entertaining!

Crap like this (meaning the comment section) is the reason I click on the Comment Link less and less often here at Blues. Even the awesome Blues crowd is getting stupider and stupider.

The vast majority of the people here are knee-jerkers who refuse to put any thought and effort into thinking why a prima donna creator might want FULL CONTROL of his SURVIVAL HORROR game. Ugh...

To the handful of intelligent people here with the capability of critical thinking... I love you even more. You might enjoy this impression of the idiots here.

OMFG STEVEN SPIELBERG IS USING BLACK AND WHITE FOR SCHINDLER'S LIST?! WHAT A CROCK! HE'S OBVIOUSLY ONLY DOING IT TO CUT CORNERS! *EVERYONE* KNOWS THAT COLOR IS BETTER THAN BLACK AND WHITE 100% OF THE TIME! WHAT A CHEAP JERKHOLE! I'LL NEVER SEE THIS MOVIE BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN JUSTIFY THIS BUDGET-DRIVEN CHOICE!

OMFG! STANLEY KUBRICK IS USING AN ANCIENT MITCHELL CAMERA FOR BS "ARTISTIC REASONS" FOR BARRY LYNDON?! WHAT A HACK! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT 35MM IS THE ONE AND ONLY TYPE OF CAMERA ANYONE SHOULD EVER USE FOR ANYTHING! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

Now... do I think Shinji Mikami is on the level of Spielberg or Kubrick? HELL no. Do I think HE thinks that? Hell yes.

If you want to swim in the morass of thinking that there's only one explanation for any choice, ever, and that it's always the one that you first come up with, then enjoy you bliss.

I (and a few other posters here) will enjoy living in a world viewed through research, experience, and critical thinking. I'd invite you over to this perspective but, well, let's just say it isn't suited to everyone.

Creston wrote on Sep 5, 2014, 15:23:

And yes, you're right, it isn't journalism. But, frankly, where is the room for "journalism" in games? It's covering a consumer product!

Then stop fucking calling it that. Let all these fucking sites stop with their horseshit "we're here to deliver you honest and unbiased news" or whatever other waffling crap that Kotaku dipshit was spewing on a daily basis, and just admit that you're all JUST FREELANCER ADVERTISERS.

I have a suggestion... it's one that I friggin wish cable news would get behind. Stop chasing the "WE HAVE IT FIRST" carrot and go back to the "WE HAVE IT RIGHT" aspect of reviewing games. Sure, there are some games where having a review first matters, but it really shouldn't. More and more games these days are bought during Steam Sales. Games are becoming less and less like movies in that the vast majority of the revenue comes at the very beginning.

Anyone who doesn't seem a preview as just a 6-page ad makes me sad. I actually still actively subscribe to PCGamer mostly out of nostalgia (tho it gets worse and worse and worse... I kid you not last year one of their editors picked Sim City as GOTY... *sigh*) but all it does is remind me of when they were actually really good.

Here's the thing tho, they're a printed magazine. They don't need to chase the FIRST because they're never, ever going to get it. It's stupid.

Television news should hop on the "You heard it somewhere else first, now hear the real, ACTUAL news from us, because we have journalistic integrity" bandwagon and I would absolutely LOVE it if game reviewers did the same.

Is this just a horribly naive pipe-dream (mind you, I didn't say it was likely)? Is it just wishful thinking?

If I read a review that said "We played the retail product 40 hours and this is what we think" then I'd give that a lot more credence than a review that is published the literal day that a game comes out.

PHJF wrote on Aug 19, 2014, 22:19:
You seriously comparing seating people at a restaurant to medical care? It takes five, ten minutes to cook a steak. Want to tell me how long to detect and then tell somebody they have cancer?

Who cares if doctors actually have legitimately important and complex jobs and that they may have been in an emergency at the hospital earlier that day which caused his 2PM appointment to be bumped up an annoying amount of time even though the doctor helped save a life. Dammit... 2 PM!!!!!!

Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:15:

jdreyer wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 14:57:

Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 13:47:
When you abandon your principles for money that's called selling out.

Except that Notch has more money than he can spend in seven lifetimes. OR won't substantially add to his sales, if at all. It will simply add more immersiveness to his 5 year old game. It sounds like he just changed his mind, and especially given that FB has been hands off with Oculus, that's not an illogical transformation of opinion.

He's a multi-millionaire, not billionaire so it's not that much. However, the fact that he is selling out when he doesn't need the money only makes it worse. Hell, I'd sell out for the right amount. Principles start to get pretty rubbery with the more money that's involved. I'd feel ashamed of course. But cruising around the Caribbean on my 50ft sailboat, drinking rum and banging hot island chicks has a way of assuaging that guilt PDQ.

Are any of your opinions based in fact? You confuse "changing ones mind about concepts" with "selling out" and you think that someone with a net value of 33 billion is a "multi-millionaire". And you wonder why you're the town jester.

Keep being hilarious. We'll keep laughing.

PropheT wrote on Jul 17, 2014, 20:00:

jdreyer wrote on Jul 17, 2014, 19:41:
With an MMO, you go in with your friends, and if it doesn't work out then you've all lost a lot of money and hundreds of hours.

I have a hard time calling any game I get hundreds of hours out of a bad deal. Hell, if I got hundreds of hours out of it that's already a better deal than 90% of the games I buy.

Depends on if you have fun. You could grind a crappy FF game for 50 hours and really only have four hours of fun.

But I'm assuming that you're referring to hours of fun, not just hours of gameplay.

Remind me how you earned your reputation around here...

PropheT wrote on Jul 15, 2014, 18:02:

yonder wrote on Jul 15, 2014, 17:40:
Here's my main rule on DLC. You should never feel OBLIGATED to buy it, and you should never feel as if you are screwed if you don't buy it.

EA's final nail in the BioWare coffin, Mass Effect 3, had a similar Day 1 DLC. Sure, it was "extra" in theory, but you felt screwed if you didn't buy it, because (spoilers) IT WAS A DAMNED PROTHEAN (/spoilers). It wasn't like the extra characters in ME2 where, honestly, if you didn't get them, you didn't really miss much. The ME2 character DLC, while awesome, was truly EXTRA.

The extra character was a deluxe edition option, not really DLC; it was only DLC for people who bought the regular edition that wanted to upgrade after the fact. I don't see it as much of a complaint that they included something with a deluxe edition that actually made it worth getting, when most of the time it's useless stuff. He still wasn't a necessary component of the game any more than the optional character in ME2 was, he was just a more interesting character.

I would think that providing something you can purchase separately for the game that's compelling enough to make you feel like you need to have it would be a good thing, rather than 41 DLC packs that you can take or leave but might as well throw some money at.

Regarding the 41 packs, really there's only 7 that are really even "content". MOST of the other ones are just window dressing. Again, just like paying for silly outfits in a F2P game. COMPLETELY unnecessary. And, of course, you can buy them in packages and on sale and blahblahblah.

As for the extra character... here's the thing... I'm assuming you're talking about ME3 and not the extra character in ME2. Well... we didn't KNOW whether or not the extra character was going to be basically meaningless or if it was going to be a legitimately important part of the ME3 story. But it was "leaked" who the character was going to be, and everyone gasped and OMFGIHAVETOHAVETHAT!!!

Yeah... you could buy it for more after the fact, but it seemed, before the game was released, to be a VITAL part of the game. It wasn't. But you could either spent 10 bucks to upgrade sight-unseen or spend 15 bucks later if you investigated it and decided you wanted it. Either way, I count something that's "Day 1 for x additional dollars or Post-Day1 for x+y additional dollars" to be DLC. It was in ADDITION to the game...

Yeah... EA knew exactly what they were doing. And it was slimy. And, in a completely related fact, ME3 is the last EA game I'm buying. It's almost as if I have "pattern recognition" abilities or something.



Beamer: Well I've already talked about Horse Armor (completely pointless tip jar), but yeah... Fallout 3 was a low point. The original ending was Michael Bay levels of stupidity.

Now that Bioware is fully owned and destroyed by EA, Paradox is likely my favorite gaming developer. Their view on DLC is so utterly amazing, as per this RPS article.

Here's my main rule on DLC. You should never feel OBLIGATED to buy it, and you should never feel as if you are screwed if you don't buy it.

That's what I don't understand about the Horse Armor.

Not to quote Cutter but... if you don't want it, don't buy it.

I don't buy Activision's crap because I *KNOW* exactly what they'll do, and so I factor in the price of their DLC into their annual releases and I ask "DO I want to pay 90 bucks a year to play this game? Hells no." It's an incredibly easy question.

EA's final nail in the BioWare coffin, Mass Effect 3, had a similar Day 1 DLC. Sure, it was "extra" in theory, but you felt screwed if you didn't buy it, because (spoilers) IT WAS A DAMNED PROTHEAN (/spoilers). It wasn't like the extra characters in ME2 where, honestly, if you didn't get them, you didn't really miss much. The ME2 character DLC, while awesome, was truly EXTRA.

Horse Armor is totally, completely, and utterly pointless. It was EXTRA. It had no impact on the game. Wanna know what it was in my eyes? A tip jar.

Bethesda makes amazing games for 50/60 dollars that provide me hundreds of hours of legitimate entertainment. They release "content DLC" (what we old folks call expansion packs) for 15-30 bucks (I say 15 because I'm old and that's what they used to be priced) that provide DOZENS (remember, 5 dozen is 60) of hours of additional entertainment.

If Bethesda had a tip jar, I'd HAPPILY put in a few more bucks.

That, my friends, is all I see Horse Armor as.

It's the EXACT same mentality as cosmetic DLC in F2P games like LoL and LotRO and other genres w/ F2P games. The difference of course is that Horse Armor was in addition to the cost of the base game. But... if I want to pay a few dollars to have a snazzy outfit that has no gameplay value in a F2P game, how is that any different than paying a few bucks for my HORSE to have armor in a great Bethesda game?

I'm not screwed if I don't buy it. I won't miss out on the full experience of the game (again, read the RPS article from Paradox please) if I don't buy it. Etcetera, etcetera.

Consequently, most of the DLC I buy is from Paradox and Bethesda.

Not at all a coincidence.

Just look at the latest expansion for Crusader Kings 2 - Rajas of India.

If you didn't buy the game, your map was still extended eastward into India, just like everyone else's game. You could still conquer the areas. You could still assimilate your religions. Blahblahblah. The only thing you couldn't do is PLAY as a character in the new areas. That's it.

There are FORTY ONE pieces of DLC for CK2. Seven of those are gameplay-involved expansions in the traditional sense. The rest are pretty much totally superfluous (just like Horse Armor). Oh, you released 12 hours of Norse music for two dollars to listen to while I play as my Norse character? I'll gobble that right up since I'll put a few hundred hours in as the Norse. And I happily own them all. And Paradox is making a lot more money from me than if they had tried to screw me over with the DLC.

And you know what? I can play a complete multiplayer game with anyone else no matter what combination of those 41 DLC options they own. 100% of DLC combinations are completely compatible with each other.

And that (and obviously superb gameplay) puts Paradox SOUNDLY in the "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" category. And I love them for it.

So, again, I don't see what's wrong with Horse Armor.

Do I PREFER traditional expansions to generic micro-DLC? Heck yes. But I'm okay with them OFFERING generic micro-DLC, because I realize that Horse Armor took them very little effort to put together.

Kinda like the effort to put a tip jar on the counter. Just in case someone wants to toss in some change.

Did someone say the Guild Wars games are 'too easy'? I'd be the first to admit that a lot of the content is very casual-oriented. But there are some very difficult and challenging things in the game. Especially in newer content releases.

On topic, I've no plan on subbing to another MMOG any time soon, Wildstar just isn't good enough to justify it IMHO.

I've never understood the line of logic. Unless I'm COMPLETELY misreading, you just said that you won't play it because the game isn't good enough to justify the sub.

Isn't that the exact same thing as people who say "I haven't watched television in 10 years because there's nothing good on television"?

Don't like the pay model? That's cool. Legit reason. But saying that you won't sub BECAUSE games that you don't play aren't good enough...... that's just circular logic. And bad, negative circular logic.

nin wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 17:55:

HugeJerk wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 17:43:
There isn't an option to play with bots instead of other players. Part of the problem people are having is waiting in match queues because there aren't enough players and there's no "fill open spots with bots" capability.

yonder wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 17:31:
WHY do you think you need a SP campaign? You can play against bots, correct? Then who cares?

What that guy said. There are bots for some functions, but not all. You still end up needing to be online and find other (human) players.

While I'm sure that it's clear by my response to jdreyer (sp?) I'll just repeat.

That has nothing to do with a SP campaign. I should have phrased it better I suppose. But... yeah... lack of bots have nothing (or little) to do w/ lack of SP campaign. SP campaign means a lot of resources devoted to creating it, no matter how throwaway it is. SP bots (i.e. 1 person and 4 bots vs 5 bots, for example) *SHOULD* mean just a few extra lines of code and a few selection choices. But seeing how obscenely restrictive publishers are these days.......

jdreyer wrote on Jun 21, 2014, 03:46:
but they do offer a fully configurable single player offline mode with bots. Titanfall does not.

And *THAT* is why I don't like inappropriate complaining. If what you actually want is a fully fledged SP campaign then fine, but Titanfall has never remotely pretended to be that, so if you got the game and are disappointed in the lack of a fully-fledged SP campaign... that's on you.

But no bots to train against or play when your internet goes down or... whatever...

Yeah, that's lame. Horrible as a matter of fact. But I've seen dozens and dozens of complaints about the lack of campaign but none of them mentioned lack of bots.

I always just assumed that, because of the actual CONTENT of the complaints, that common sense applied and that you COULD play against bots, like with UT and Quake and blahblahblah. I guess that's on me... tho I would have preferred proper complaining.

Ugh... this is in the same vein as disallowing LAN play for a PC RTS (/cough... Blizzard... /cough).

I friggin hate publishers. I am ASSUMING that if it were entirely up to the developers that they'd let people want what they obviously want and should have. Meaning bots for one-person MP.

jdreyer: Thank you VERY MUCH for clarifying. And thank you for doing so all maturely and whatnot instead of, well, you know.