• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

RE2 fan remake has been closed down.

Not Spaceghost

Spaceghost
Jan 16, 2009
12,258
2
965
Space
"They have invited us to a meeting to discuss further ideas."

Hopefully one of the ideas InvaderGames had WASN'T "Make the game over-the-shoulder like our game..."
I dunno man, I think an unlockable bonus mode like this could be a lot of fun, since they're gonna be rebuilding the game from scratch I doubt it'll be done with prerendered backgrounds so it actually makes this possible.
 

News Bot

Banned
Jul 20, 2007
7,426
0
1,025
27
Belfast, Ireland
projectumbrella.net
Disagree all you want, a full RE2 remake on next gen hardware will cost millions.
A sizable amount of that will be toward promotion and marketing. BIO2 isn't a huge game by today's standards. They can get away with a lot now. It'll be a comparatively cheap game, which is likely why they're even going through with it at all after seeing how well the first remake sold recently, another game that they could create in this day and age at a mere fraction of the cost at the time of its development.
 

Cave Johnson

Member
May 21, 2012
5,096
1
0
Hong Kong
Disagree all you want, a full RE2 remake on next gen hardware will cost millions.
I think you're grossly underestimating the size of RE2. It is NOT a big game as people believe it is. You can fit the entire RE classics within a Call of Duty level. Look how easily the Unity/UE4 developers managed to do creating the first 10% of the game experience in HD with both control schemes (over-the-shoulder & fixed camera)!
 

Nerrel

Member
Oct 13, 2014
1,631
0
0
Disagree all you want, a full RE2 remake on next gen hardware will cost millions.
Compare the map of RE2 to the maps for RE4 or just one campaign of RE6. The game is ridiculously minuscule compared to later entries. Even if they add on some new content, it's not going to be nearly as large as a full new entry in the series.

That's because it was a survival horror game that relied on puzzle solving and backtracking. The object isn't to blow through the environment in a linear fashion, killing everything that moves along the way- the way every over the shoulder RE game, even Revelations 2, has made it.

You can argue for over the shoulder all you want, and a lot of what you're saying is true, but the game you're asking for isn't Resident Evil 2. You're asking for a new, modern Resident Evil, in which case I'd like to direct you to RE4, 5, 6, and Revelations 1 and 2. They've got you covered. Leave RE2 alone if you don't like the way it plays.
 

Synth

Member
Dec 4, 2005
14,082
3
1,300
37
London, UK
See, I read all these "it's archaic.. it's a shooter" comments, and the only thing I can think is "cool... so you don't actually want RE2 then". You've got pretty much every other game loosely in the same genre as modern RE (along with modern RE itself) that gives you what you apparently want?... Why exactly do you need a remake of a classic game for this too?
 

Outtrigger888

Member
Apr 23, 2008
6,137
0
0
Capcom is getting back on track, aren't they? This makes me so happy. Capcom is my favorite developer, by far, and the past few years were rough. To see things such as this is just awesome :)

Good work Capcom and InvaderGames!
Yep they havnt ported this many resident evils since the Xbox/ps2 era. Looks like they are back to their old ways.
 

Sanctuary

Member
Feb 10, 2012
10,817
3
460
Disagree all you want, a full RE2 remake on next gen hardware will cost millions.
Yeah, so? Many high profile Kickstarter games cost "millions", so I don't really see your point. A few million for a game today is not the same as it was a decade or two ago. If Capcom were to only spend $50k on a Remake, it would definitely show. That's not even counting advertising costs.
 

Bergerac

Member
May 31, 2014
1,538
1
0
Why do people confuse perspective and pacing?

Did that IG concept look like it played like RE4? At all? No, it didn't. It played like RE2 from a different angle.

RE4's gameplay is down to PACING. THAT's what you don't like. NOT free aim. Free aim allows you to... what... aim at zombie's head? You already did that in OG RE2. The IG concept wasn't paced like RE4 at all.

Right now, I'm ok with fixed camera RE2 remake just for the sake of at least getting a RE2 remake that's as good as REmake - that's the main thing - but I'm tired of people ragging on OTS when it's not even the problem with your undesired remake.

RE2 had bodypart targeting just the same - albeit limited. OTS does nothing but afford better bodypart targeting. That would not 'wreck' what made RE2 what it was. It would just make headshots and kneecapping more satisfying.

Ramping up enemies to horde wave-levels and having fucking rides on mine carts is what would wreck RE2.

I understand people not wanting RE 1-3 being like 4-6, I don't either, but at least understand your own argument.
 

Manu

Member
Jan 4, 2013
13,334
1
0
Argentina
See, I read all these "it's archaic.. it's a shooter" comments, and the only thing I can think is "cool... so you don't actually want RE2 then". You've got pretty much every other game loosely in the same genre as modern RE (along with modern RE itself) that gives you what you apparently want?... Why exactly do you need a remake of a classic game for this too?
Yep, that's my take on it too.

If they're going to remake RE2, they need to remake RE2.
 
Oct 26, 2009
3,647
37
810
Why do people confuse perspective and pacing?

Did that IG concept look like it played like RE4? At all? No, it didn't. It played like RE2 from a different angle.

RE4's gameplay is down to PACING. THAT's what you don't like. NOT free aim. Free aim allows you to... what... aim at zombie's head? You already did that in OG RE2. The IG concept wasn't paced like RE4 at all.

Right now, I'm ok with fixed camera RE2 remake just for the sake of at least getting a RE2 remake that's as good as REmake - that's the main thing - but I'm tired of people ragging on OTS when it's not even the problem with your undesired remake.

RE2 had bodypart targeting just the same - albeit limited. OTS does nothing but afford better bodypart targeting. That would not 'wreck' what made RE2 what it was. It would just make headshots and kneecapping more satisfying.

Ramping up enemies to horde wave-levels and having fucking rides on mine carts is what would wreck RE2.

I understand people not wanting RE 1-3 being like 4-6, I don't either, but at least understand your own argument.
I would love to see an experimental first person Resident Evil title that was similar to Zombi with it's slow pacing, limited ammo and a focus on melee and avoidance.
 

-MD-

Member
Jun 10, 2013
17,721
2,129
700
United States
Why do people confuse perspective and pacing?

Did that IG concept look like it played like RE4? At all? No, it didn't. It played like RE2 from a different angle.

RE4's gameplay is down to PACING. THAT's what you don't like. NOT free aim. Free aim allows you to... what... aim at zombie's head? You already did that in OG RE2. The IG concept wasn't paced like RE4 at all.

Right now, I'm ok with fixed camera RE2 remake just for the sake of at least getting a RE2 remake that's as good as REmake - that's the main thing - but I'm tired of people ragging on OTS when it's not even the problem with your undesired remake.

RE2 had bodypart targeting just the same - albeit limited. OTS does nothing but afford better bodypart targeting. That would not 'wreck' what made RE2 what it was. It would just make headshots and kneecapping more satisfying.

Ramping up enemies to horde wave-levels and having fucking rides on mine carts is what would wreck RE2.

I understand people not wanting RE 1-3 being like 4-6, I don't either, but at least understand your own argument.
Changing the perspective changes the entire game. I don't want free aim, I don't want over the shoulder, I want RE2.
 

djshauny

Banned
Aug 15, 2012
3,446
0
0
Earth
Why do people confuse perspective and pacing?

Did that IG concept look like it played like RE4? At all? No, it didn't. It played like RE2 from a different angle.

RE4's gameplay is down to PACING. THAT's what you don't like. NOT free aim. Free aim allows you to... what... aim at zombie's head? You already did that in OG RE2. The IG concept wasn't paced like RE4 at all.

Right now, I'm ok with fixed camera RE2 remake just for the sake of at least getting a RE2 remake that's as good as REmake - that's the main thing - but I'm tired of people ragging on OTS when it's not even the problem with your undesired remake.

RE2 had bodypart targeting just the same - albeit limited. OTS does nothing but afford better bodypart targeting. That would not 'wreck' what made RE2 what it was. It would just make headshots and kneecapping more satisfying.

Ramping up enemies to horde wave-levels and having fucking rides on mine carts is what would wreck RE2.

I understand people not wanting RE 1-3 being like 4-6, I don't either, but at least understand your own argument.
We want a true remake. Which means no OTS camera.
 

Neff

Member
Feb 6, 2012
12,254
818
960
UK
Because combat plays a big role in Resident Evil and with all the advancements to third person shooters in the previous console generation it would be waste to make such a big game without utilizing all of them.
Combat isn't a very big part of classic RE at all. It's an important part, for sure, but the amount of time you're actually fighting things is small compared to the amount of time you spend running back and forth, figuring out where to go, and solving puzzles.

I think you're grossly underestimating the size of RE2. It is NOT a big game as people believe it is.
It isn't, but it does have a lot of unique rooms requiring a lot of specific assets. I don't think the amount of work Capcom will have to put in should be underestimated. If Capcom doesn't want to give this the AAA treatment, then we should expect sacrifices.
 

News Bot

Banned
Jul 20, 2007
7,426
0
1,025
27
Belfast, Ireland
projectumbrella.net
Why do people confuse perspective and pacing?

Did that IG concept look like it played like RE4? At all? No, it didn't. It played like RE2 from a different angle.

RE4's gameplay is down to PACING. THAT's what you don't like. NOT free aim. Free aim allows you to... what... aim at zombie's head? You already did that in OG RE2. The IG concept wasn't paced like RE4 at all.

Right now, I'm ok with fixed camera RE2 remake just for the sake of at least getting a RE2 remake that's as good as REmake - that's the main thing - but I'm tired of people ragging on OTS when it's not even the problem with your undesired remake.

RE2 had bodypart targeting just the same - albeit limited. OTS does nothing but afford better bodypart targeting. That would not 'wreck' what made RE2 what it was. It would just make headshots and kneecapping more satisfying.

Ramping up enemies to horde wave-levels and having fucking rides on mine carts is what would wreck RE2.

I understand people not wanting RE 1-3 being like 4-6, I don't either, but at least understand your own argument.
The camera is a huge part of the game. BIO2 was designed for fixed cameras. You change that, you hurt the game. It has absolutely nothing to do with pacing.

It isn't, but it does have a lot of unique rooms requiring a lot of specific assets. I don't think the amount of work Capcom will have to put in should be underestimated. If Capcom doesn't want to give this the AAA treatment, then we should expect sacrifices.
Darkside Chronicles showed that there's no issue with assets. While they may not have the originals, most of which are just textures from public galleries anyone can purchase, they can get pretty close if they want to.
 

Bergerac

Member
May 31, 2014
1,538
1
0
RE2 was what it was because you were in a police station full of zombies. Meaning that if even the police station is overrun, then shit has truly hit the fan.

That has nothing to do with static camera angles, which were there mostly due to technical limitations, might I add.

The two most memorable enemy reveals are the Licker and Tyrant busting through the wall, and they could easily be redone with an OTS camera. You just place a low arch in front of the Licker on the ceiling so that it can't be seen behind. Though let's face it, with REmake 2, they'll have to alter that scene like the did the dogs coming through the window in REmake anyway. The IG demo had already made a consideration for this, with a vent hole in the Licker spot, and they'd changed it up, like REmake, so that you didn't get attacked the same way, instead you come across it later when you come back. T busting through the wall is in an obvious place and it would be an even more impressive jump scare if he bust through the wall you're looking at and grabs you by the throat - or if I did myself I'd actually have the scare postponed and he breaks through the door, and grabs you once you're finished breaking your expectations. Meaning you have to get past him as the door's the only exit. Have the Licker bust through the one way mirror when you examine it, even before the text even finishes loading. It's one thing for the Licker to bust through the mirror, now imagine it coming straight at you and pinning you down. It's all very easily reimagined and 'in your face' jump scares trump static angles of enemies not even grabbing you anyway.

Defining RE2 as being fixed camera only smothers what it could be.

Not being able to see what's off screen pan is, is not only unnecessary, it's so easily replaced by 'not being able to see what's around the corner' or 'in the shadows' or what's behind the object' - in the RPD building of all game maps. Zombies breaking through unexpectef windows. Coming out from behind stacked artwork on the upper floor. Following you into rooms, breaking through doors after you. Emerging from dark corners. Why's the power even on in most of the RPD anyway?

They could actually intensity the game a Hell of a lot more WITH an OTS camera.

One argument I've always made about Nemesis and which applies here just the same. Think about it. When Nemesis is chasing you on fixed camera - you can see him easily. If Nemesis or T is chasing you wth OTS - you can't see how close he is because he's behind you.

Besides, fixed camera works for the first playthrough then you know the game, it's a one trick deal. OTS is dynamic and you can't see what's behind you, everytime you play.

It is the pacing the defines the differences in gameplay between RE2 and say RE4. The fixed camera angles in RE2 gave it a particular sense of presentation.

That's not gameplay.

Gameplay in RE2 is 'aim your shotgun high'. OTS does that better. Take the streets section from the beginning, I would prefer a larger pack of zombies and I have few bullets and I have to clip a couple in the knees to squeeze through the gap of zombies on both sides. That's far more intense than having a camera angle that displays all zombies, fewer zombies in total, gives you auto aim and a wider berth and more time to get through.

If you take such rigid measures in remaking something, we'd never have had Crimson Heads or Lisa Trevor. You have to intensify the game with a REMake, because a straight copy which is simply prettier, adds nothing.

There are so many ways in which they can do unannounced / unseen enemies now, and they can make the RPD station look amazing in 3D, and free aim is better gameplay than quasi-isometric auto aim, to the extent that there is no reason for fixed cameras other than a particular presentation style, which is, dated. Regenerators in RE4 had no problem with OTS. Nor did Verdugo. Despite my avatar I rate RE4 lower than any of 1-3, but it doesn't change the fact that RE4 still presented enemies offscreen just fine with OTS. Enemies are also going to appear larger and more intimidating with OTS and something charging straight at you is a more intense perspective.

Like I said, I'm happy enough with a straight REmake 2, but using some imagination it could be so much more than fixed cameras allow for.I don't play RE2 for camera style. I play it for the creepy ass setting, the city overrun, to decapitate zombies.
 

grandwizard

Member
Sep 15, 2013
3,649
0
0
Can't believe we waited so fucking long for an RE2 remake and now that we are getting it a million people jump out of nowhere to say they want over the shoulder aiming and free camera, IE not RE2 at all. God damnit.

The REmake sold over a million units people. It proved there is still a market for traditional survival horror (not the 'survival action' of more modern games like RE4 or TEW), and is the reason this project got greenlit in the first place.
 
Apr 27, 2008
9,870
3
0
Can't believe we waited so fucking long for an RE2 remake and now that we are getting it a million people jump out of nowhere to say they want over the shoulder aiming and free camera, IE not RE2 at all. God damnit.

The REmake sold over a million units people. It proved there is still a market for traditional survival horror (not the 'survival action' of more modern games like RE4 or TEW), and is the reason this project got greenlit in the first place.
Revelations 3 and RE7 just isn't enough for them, they have to fuck this up too.

I kept my tongue in cheek when morons were withdrawing their Shenmue 3 pledges over 'financial concerns'. I sit quietly while they talk about removing turn based combat from FF7. But this shit about action'ing up one of my favorites above all.... No. Can't not speak. I'd rather we get a REmake 2 than Half Life 3 at this point. It's hard enough for current Capcom to not fuck this project up, but it'd be hellacious to receive Resident Dead Space instead and destroy any feeling the original had.

Waited a decade to play what was promised. If it returns to the ether again eh, can't miss what we never had. But I will try my best to drown out this nonsense in hopes that they actually listen and a miracle occurs.
 

K' Dash

Member
Sep 7, 2006
9,170
49
1,215
Revelations 3 and RE7 just isn't enough for them, they have to fuck this up too.

I kept my tongue in cheek when morons were withdrawing their Shenmue 3 pledges over 'financial concerns'. I sit quietly while they talk about removing turn based combat from FF7. But this shit about action'ing up one of my favorites above all.... No. Can't not speak. I'd rather we get a REmake 2 than Half Life 3 at this point. It's hard enough for current Capcom to not fuck this project up, but it'd be hellacious to receive Resident Dead Space instead and destroy any feeling the original had.

Waited a decade to play what was promised. If it returns to the ether again eh, can't miss what we never had. But I will try my best to drown out this nonsense in hopes that they actually listen and a miracle occurs.
Amen Brother, keep that bullshit out of my RE2.
 

Synth

Member
Dec 4, 2005
14,082
3
1,300
37
London, UK
This post is just silly. You're talking about how having a static camera limits what you can do with the game, and then go straight to describe how concessions can be made to maybe possibly accommodate certain scenes with an OTS camera. How is needing to alter the placement of enemies and the geometry surrounding them in other to maintain the surprise not a huge limitation? If anything OTS is more limiting because you have to essentially funnel a player in order to ensure they look were you need them to for your scene to correctly play out. If the player gets distracted by some detail on the wall and walks backwards past your trigger point, suddenly they only hear your event, and don't see it. The camera doesn't even need to be static. RE:CV wasn't for example.

This directly ties into the point you touched on with the Nemesis... the fact that you can see him chase you is important, otherwise his visual presence in any scene would be limited to the one second it takes the player to notice he's entered, before they turn and run. When you run from an enemy in a game with an OTS or first-person viewpoint, the enemy you are running from is rendered invisible the entire time, losing any of the characterizations that make them interesting.. this is why later Resident Evil's focus more on combat rather than enemies chasing you, because in order to actually see the enemies for any useful window of time, the only logical thing to have you do is fight them. The Nemesis wouldn't be anywhere near as memorable if you couldn't actually see him chasing you. Being chased by him would be pretty much equivalent to being chased by anything else in the game, as you'd simply turn your back, and hope you reach the door before it reaches you, you'd never actually see him unless you failed.

And even fighting them is drastically altered, as capping the enemy in the face and then closing in for a melee finish is super easy, so in order to restore balance, you either have to massively increase the enemy count, or make the enemies significantly faster/stronger. Both alter the game drastically, and not in a way that would benefit this game in particular.

Also, nobody's suggesting that the game should be a 1:1 copy of the original... we WANT the same sorts of creative changes such as Lisa Trevor, Crimson Heads, and the rearrangement of events that allows our familiarity to be used against us... none of that requires fucking with the game's core gameplay/design though.
 

Neff

Member
Feb 6, 2012
12,254
818
960
UK
If you take such rigid measures in remaking something, we'd never have had Crimson Heads or Lisa Trevor. You have to intensify the game with a REMake, because a straight copy which is simply prettier, adds nothing.
None of REmake's many improvements were at odds with the choice to again go with fixed camera angles, though.

And what's more, your claim that fixed cameras aren't a component of the gameplay is incorrect. They create a fear of the unknown which goes beyond atmosphere or presentation. Even when you've learned the game inside out and backwards, they still offer those moments of uncertainty when you're unable to precisely pinpoint an enemy's location, even if they're right next to you, and you must rely on sound and spontaneity to avoid getting bitten/clawed/decapitated. With OTS, that's gone. You can see as far in front of you as possible unless there's a wall in the way, and it removes a lot of that mystery. Sometimes it's a good trade, sometimes it isn't, but it's certainly the wrong trade for RE2make.

Darkside Chronicles showed that there's no issue with assets. While they may not have the originals, most of which are just textures from public galleries anyone can purchase, they can get pretty close if they want to.
I'll be very surprised if they use much, if anything, from DC.

The Nemesis wouldn't be anywhere near as memorable if you couldn't actually see him chasing you. Being chased by him would be pretty much equivalent to being chased by anything else in the game, as you'd simply turn your back, and hope you reach the door before it reaches you, you'd never actually see him unless you failed.
Absolutely. I'd also add that with the movement being limited and combat rendering you totally immobile, being able to see the distance between you and an enemy close dramatically as you try to kill it, rather than it simply getting bigger due to your POV, is what gives RE some of its best panic moments. Granted, RE4 made its POV exciting by dramatically upping the number of foes and making them more aggressive (an approach I don't think RE2make should take), but that moment in classic RE where a dog lunges at your ankle as you barely make it to a door with red health, or a Hunter misses decapitating you by a pixel, or a 40-foot shark jumps out of the water right behind you- you wouldn't see that stuff with OTS.
 

Nerrel

Member
Oct 13, 2014
1,631
0
0
Defining RE2 as being fixed camera only smothers what it could be.
What it could be? It's already a widely beloved masterpiece. Why does it have to become something else?


You have to think about why a remake needs to be done in the first place. Why do fans want this? Is it because they don't like how the original game played? They want RE2 to be just like the modern RE games? Were people clamoring to make RE2 to play just like RE5 and RE6 for years on end? Of fucking course not.


People want the game remade because the visual experience has aged very poorly. Immersion is critical in an atmosphere based exploration game like this, and if the environments and characters aren't convincing then the game isn't as impacting as it should be. The characters are rough polygons. So are the enemies. It's not very frightening to see the character get attacked (with pixelated blood to match), and the environments are so blotchy it's hard to even tell what they are half the time.

Resident Evil on the GC vs the PS original is a clear illustration of the power more convincing visuals can have. A lot of the gameplay is actually the same, yet the original feels like a farce by today's standards. The exact same room or enemy is chilling in REmake.

There's room for some gameplay tweaks like the Crimson head addition in REmake, but for the most part fans really just want a visual experience that will pull them in and make them feel frightened again. Modern hardware has the power to make RE2 look like a completely different game while retaining everything good about the original, just in the same way REmake did.

It's a presentation overhaul everyone wants, not a gameplay overhaul.


They could actually intensity the game a Hell of a lot more WITH an OTS camera.

One argument I've always made about Nemesis and which applies here just the same. Think about it. When Nemesis is chasing you on fixed camera - you can see him easily. If Nemesis or T is chasing you wth OTS - you can't see how close he is because he's behind you.
As others have said, that would be boring as hell. It may scare you to only be able to hear him chasing behind you on your heels the first time. After that, you'd pretty much be over it. Every encounter would be the same- run from the grunting sounds. You also wouldn't see his transformations into a more formidable monster throughout the game.


There's a reason RE4 stuck with 3rd person even though aiming would have been more precise in 1st person, and that is that seeing the character on screen intensifies the fear of the threats nearby. Seeing a dangerous enemy like the chainsaw man just feet away from your character can be terrifying, because you know that horrible violence is imminent if you don't do something.

If you can't see Nemesis approaching your character, it takes that all away. Not being able to ever see where he's at or how close he is would actually make it less frightening, because then you wouldn't have the intensity of knowing that he's right over you about to strike.



I say this with no disrespect intended, but all the people asking to turn RE2 into a new game should really just fuck off. Please... fuck off and play something else. If you're not interested in playing Resident Evil 2, then don't play it. Don't take the remake away from fans.
 

djshauny

Banned
Aug 15, 2012
3,446
0
0
Earth
What it could be? It's already a widely beloved masterpiece. Why does it have to become something else?


You have to think about why a remake needs to be done in the first place. Why do fans want this? Is it because they don't like how the original game played? They want RE2 to be just like the modern RE games? Were people clamoring to make RE2 to play just like RE5 and RE6 for years on end? Of fucking course not.


People want the game remade because the visual experience has aged very poorly. Immersion is critical in an atmosphere based exploration game like this, and if the environments and characters aren't convincing then the game isn't as impacting as it should be. The characters are rough polygons. So are the enemies. It's not very frightening to see the character get attacked (with pixelated blood to match), and the environments are so blotchy it's hard to even tell what they are half the time.

Resident Evil on the GC vs the PS original is a clear illustration of the power more convincing visuals can have. A lot of the gameplay is actually the same, yet the original feels like a farce by today's standards. The exact same room or enemy is chilling in REmake.

There's room for some gameplay tweaks like the Crimson head addition in REmake, but for the most part fans really just want a visual experience that will pull them in and make them feel frightened again. Modern hardware has the power to make RE2 look like a completely different game while retaining everything good about the original, just in the same way REmake did.

It's a presentation overhaul everyone wants, not a gameplay overhaul.




As others have said, that would be boring as hell. It may scare you to only be able to hear him chasing behind you on your heels the first time. After that, you'd pretty much be over it. Every encounter would be the same- run from the grunting sounds. You also wouldn't see his transformations into a more formidable monster throughout the game.


There's a reason RE4 stuck with 3rd person even though aiming would have been more precise in 1st person, and that is that seeing the character on screen intensifies the fear of the threats nearby. Seeing a dangerous enemy like the chainsaw man just feet away from your character can be terrifying, because you know that horrible violence is imminent if you don't do something.

If you can't see Nemesis approaching your character, it takes that all away. Not being able to ever see where he's at or how close he is would actually make it less frightening, because then you wouldn't have the intensity of knowing that he's right over you about to strike.



I say this with no disrespect intended, but all the people asking to turn RE2 into a new game should really just fuck off. Please... fuck off and play something else. If you're not interested in playing Resident Evil 2, then don't play it. Don't take the remake away from fans.
So much this. Well said.