KittyKittyBangBang
Member
I want a Mario DOTA clone :lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Super Mario *Open World*? or: Where should Mario go NEXT?
- Thread starter BowieZ
- Start date
badcrumble
Member
Mario has never been about innovation (though that's not to say it hasn't innovated - it's just not about that) - it's about ridiculous polish and incredibly tight level design. The basic Galaxy formula works just fine for that. Infamous is a good example of a terrifically fun open-world platformer, and it's a genre that does work, but I can't see it playing well to Mario's strengths.
That said, I did enjoy the Switch Palace stuff from SMW and would love seeing a Mario game with a greater emphasis on optional ways to alter the actual makeup of the levels, which I presume is how you'd create a sense of progress in an open-world Mario.
That said, I did enjoy the Switch Palace stuff from SMW and would love seeing a Mario game with a greater emphasis on optional ways to alter the actual makeup of the levels, which I presume is how you'd create a sense of progress in an open-world Mario.
thefro said:
Did you read the majority of the OP? The world would be designed in such a way that it is ENTIRELY platforming. It's not an open world idea, again. It's classic Mario platforming transplanted onto a spherical surface resembling Mario's home planet.gamergirly said:
Imagine the very original SMB but imagine playing it truly from Mario's perspective, inside a REAL 3D world that doesn't have arbitrary pauses in game play.
Another famous piece of artwork with the concept alluded to in the background:
Basically, Super Mario Galaxy but on ONE planet (well, with a Raphael the Raven moon, too
)Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Actually, I feel what Nintendo needs to do is only started with the New Super Mario Bros. series: keep it simple stupid and listen to what people really want.
It's been over 15 years since the last 2d gameplay Mario game on a console. 15 years wait is hardly "milking" anything to death. People who just don't like something - such as those who think Nintendo's trademark cutesy characters are boring or childish, will naturally just sneer at anything which appears and has a Nintendo character in it, such as Mario Tennis, etc.
But Nintendo stopped making 2D Mario games because they felt they had to be more "clever". Mario 64, as great and groundbreaking as it was, represented a parallel evolution of Nintendo's trademark action games, not a replacement. Nintendo didn't get that. Tons of people who still pick up and play a classic 2D Mario game to this day, lost interest and stopped playing.
The suggestions in the OP are largely off the mark; ideas such as lives are not outdated; just poorly implemented. People complain about many lives you get in NSMB DS not because it's a superfluous design feature, but because NSMB DS was incredibly cautious about re-introducing 2D Mario and was made insanely easy. Lives used to be valuable in Mario and finding 1-up loops was a coveted secret that people enjoyed hunting for.
The problem with the perception that Mario needs a rest is that the real problem is a combination of 2 things: Nintendo stopped making core Mario games that the majority of people cared about, and so Mario began to seem tired and irrelevant, and Nintendo failed to understand that they needed new idea content as well as a variety of game genres, and so didn't create new IPs to stand beside Mario and Zelda. If Nintendo's portfolio had 2 or 3 other major character IPs created over the last 15 years in addition to every Mario or Zelda game that came out, it'd look healthier and less inbred. In terms of just gameplay, Nintendo has not milked any single series to death save possibly Mario Party which is, objectively, pretty tired and spent. Other series such as Mario Kart simply had poor entries; a return to quality in the DS and Wii editions showed that series was far from over, for example.
Virtually everyone I've talked to is so excited about NSMB Wii that their teeth ache. Hearing that it fixes the few flaws of the DS version (stage length, difficulty, more new ideas, etc) was just the icing on the cake. The cynical, jaded, or simply uninterested may be baffled by this, but it just shows how much people have missed what made Nintendo a household name 20 years ago.
Ok, TL : DR lololol, and off-topic - like that matters on GAF - but as for where Mario should go next, I would venture that a non-"New" branded 2D platform game, that artistically represents a new expansion on the Mario universe but is built around a few new concepts which set it apart in a major way. My favorite suggestion so far that I've read online, is something like this: a "persistent" Mario World, where beaten levels are slowly retaken by Bowser's (or whoever's) forces as time passes, with a random generator script that also levels up the complexity and difficulty of old levels as the player progresses. You then return to old stages and can beat them again, to unlock still more hidden stages, get higher score ranks than was possible before, etc. The game is also randomized in certain details to a degree, so that no two playthroughs are the same. The multiplayer from NSMB Wii is retained, and fits into this new structure to give it a bit of a party-based co-op campaign mechanic. Yes... yes, it's Loot Mario.
It's been over 15 years since the last 2d gameplay Mario game on a console. 15 years wait is hardly "milking" anything to death. People who just don't like something - such as those who think Nintendo's trademark cutesy characters are boring or childish, will naturally just sneer at anything which appears and has a Nintendo character in it, such as Mario Tennis, etc.
But Nintendo stopped making 2D Mario games because they felt they had to be more "clever". Mario 64, as great and groundbreaking as it was, represented a parallel evolution of Nintendo's trademark action games, not a replacement. Nintendo didn't get that. Tons of people who still pick up and play a classic 2D Mario game to this day, lost interest and stopped playing.
The suggestions in the OP are largely off the mark; ideas such as lives are not outdated; just poorly implemented. People complain about many lives you get in NSMB DS not because it's a superfluous design feature, but because NSMB DS was incredibly cautious about re-introducing 2D Mario and was made insanely easy. Lives used to be valuable in Mario and finding 1-up loops was a coveted secret that people enjoyed hunting for.
The problem with the perception that Mario needs a rest is that the real problem is a combination of 2 things: Nintendo stopped making core Mario games that the majority of people cared about, and so Mario began to seem tired and irrelevant, and Nintendo failed to understand that they needed new idea content as well as a variety of game genres, and so didn't create new IPs to stand beside Mario and Zelda. If Nintendo's portfolio had 2 or 3 other major character IPs created over the last 15 years in addition to every Mario or Zelda game that came out, it'd look healthier and less inbred. In terms of just gameplay, Nintendo has not milked any single series to death save possibly Mario Party which is, objectively, pretty tired and spent. Other series such as Mario Kart simply had poor entries; a return to quality in the DS and Wii editions showed that series was far from over, for example.
Virtually everyone I've talked to is so excited about NSMB Wii that their teeth ache. Hearing that it fixes the few flaws of the DS version (stage length, difficulty, more new ideas, etc) was just the icing on the cake. The cynical, jaded, or simply uninterested may be baffled by this, but it just shows how much people have missed what made Nintendo a household name 20 years ago.
Ok, TL : DR lololol, and off-topic - like that matters on GAF - but as for where Mario should go next, I would venture that a non-"New" branded 2D platform game, that artistically represents a new expansion on the Mario universe but is built around a few new concepts which set it apart in a major way. My favorite suggestion so far that I've read online, is something like this: a "persistent" Mario World, where beaten levels are slowly retaken by Bowser's (or whoever's) forces as time passes, with a random generator script that also levels up the complexity and difficulty of old levels as the player progresses. You then return to old stages and can beat them again, to unlock still more hidden stages, get higher score ranks than was possible before, etc. The game is also randomized in certain details to a degree, so that no two playthroughs are the same. The multiplayer from NSMB Wii is retained, and fits into this new structure to give it a bit of a party-based co-op campaign mechanic. Yes... yes, it's Loot Mario.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
It's going to be harder - yes - but I'm assuming that's the later worlds. A 2D Mario game that looks exactly like NSMB but with added co-op is always going to make it hugely popular amongst the casual gamers.Lord Phol said:
Anyway, I'm tiring of this. At the end of the day the sales or appeal to the mass market really doesn't mean anything to me - both of the franchises are absolute top quality, and that's why I don't think Nintendo need to worry about anything.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Resting at the creative peak seems a bit silly to me, personally.
.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Did you really think about this? I assume you realize it would be incredibly dumb to have to run to the next one, so you're still talking about some sort of map/warp system, in which case there is no change to the Mario games aside from the visual construction and connection of the levels. I just don't think it is as big of a change as you think. Yes, it would streamline things, but it also wouldn't be possible on the Wii, you'd definitely need a more powerful system to pull of the zoom out/in with instant loading.BowieZ said:
That said, you would really have to go all the way with the concept to make it something special. What do I mean? The interconnectedness cannot entail big blank spaces, as it most often does in something like a sandbox game or MMORPG (our only current models of consistent worlds) so you'd need a task within no longer reach than there is between tasks of a current Mario level. And the no-dying thing is good. I agree it is clunky and stupid outside of the sidescroller model. You're trying to reach a certain point, and if you fail you die, so you try again. Fail too many times and... you have to go through the easy part again! Lame. Pointless. Has nothing to do with the challenge at hand.
But if you took out dying, you'd have to have a thoroughly complex world, and create an environment wherein the player would never feel like they're doing a chore. What do I mean? Well the thing about falling down into nothing is that you're somewhat instantly sent back to the something. Without bottomless pits, you'd have things floating over a solid ground. I'm okay with this, and it has been done in Mario plenty of times, like in Wet/Dry world. However, you'd either need shortcuts to get back up to certain spots above the ground (Cannons) or optional things to do on the ground if you get tired of attempting that particular challenge.
In the same way, falling into a hole you'd have to platform yourself out of would be annoying (and reminiscent of E.T.), especially if that hole were under some difficult platforming challenge. However, if you fell into the underground cave levels, and in fact the only time you could fall into a hole it sent you to the cave levels where there are different things to do, then it would be cool. Fail at one thing, and you get something else. You could even have lava down in the caves, but if you hit it Mario burns his butt and it shoots him to the surface level.
You get the concept here? With no dying, you're guaranteed to have boredom come up unless there was also no ultimate failing. What I mean by ultimate is that you end up somehow trying to get back to where you're even playing a game again (the situation you're trying to avoid by taking out dying). The world would have to be a complex matrix of underground/ground/air challenges, so when you lose at one you end up within another. Facing failure, you always have the option of tracking back to the one you were working on (with occasional lava/cannon/falling shortcuts), or taking on one right before you.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Yes, I completely agree. Don't let the limitations of old series keep you from doing new things. Take those ideas for new things that don't work in these series and make new games where they will work. This is where I believe Sony's 1st party ventures have been kicking Nintendo's ass the last 10 years (although they aren't as good at keeping a good idea good through several titles).Kaijima said:
Actually you misunderstood me. There'd be no "running to the next one": There is no space between individual sections of platforming that comprise a level. Once you reach a "podium" (let's call it) that signifies the end of that previous "level" you move forward one inch and you've started the next "level" and must work your way to the next "podium". The surface of the megaplanet would be THOROUGHLY covered by platforming-rich levels with no spaces in between.Dice said:
And yes, you're right... this would present certain design issues that need to be solved, such as ensuring that you can't fall off a mountain or something and end up 6 Lands back and have to repeat half the game. As I've said, there'd be a simple effortless checkpointing system allowing you to drop yourself back to wherever you've made the furthest progress (or choose to go back to earlier checkpoints if you wish to replay them).
The "boredom" associated with not being able to die sounds strange to me -- are you suggesting that "dying" in Mario Galaxy, for example, makes the game less boring? Anyway, the point is, this is where they could further the NSMBW "Super Guide" feature, by allowing you to skip to the next checkpoint if you keep failing to progress through a series of platforms. But that would be optional of course (in fact, ideally, hardcore platformer players/Mario fans should be able to turn that system off and have to turn it on again if they do get stuck).
PS I imagine this being on the next-gen Nintendo system, not the Wii. Surely that's when the next Mario game will appear, post-SMG2, right?
I like these ideas. That's exactly what I have in mind. Cleverly structured gameplay, making use of the underground to inform how progress is patterned.Dice said:
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
The boredom would be entirely related to having to track back to where you started. I think we are in agreement on this. However, I believe the combination of both our ideas would be even better. Have the 3-tier design concept but add in your checkpoint zooming concept and you have the ultimate in free flowing exploration or single challenge determination.
Now we just have to kidnap Miyamoto and make him do this.
Now we just have to kidnap Miyamoto and make him do this.
The Blue Jihad
Member
Seems to me the interest in an open-world feel for a Mario game is more a response to the stop-start-stop-start nature of SMG rather than a real desire for open-world Mario gameplay.
SMG had a lot of great levels when you were actually playing. But there was so much downtime in-between that I just lost interest in continuing. Get a Star, go back to the Hub, click pull-star, select galaxy, select star, LOADING. Sure, it may only be a few clicks that take a few seconds, but that downtime adds up and the game is worse for it.
SMG's biggest problem is that it takes two different, incompatible gameplay elements and mashes them together: Star-gathering and bite-sized platforming levels.
The Star-gathering worked well in SM64 because of the freedom you had. You didn't have to go for the star you selected. And for as large as those levels were, there was very little downtime for each star. You got it, Mario hopped back out of the painting, and then you hopped right back in.
The bite-sized platforming levels are obviously throwbacks to SMB3. The problem there is that SMB3 never had any star-gathering to do. So you merely selected the level from the map screen and played. Get to the end, hit the block and you're done. Back to the map screen. You didn't have to contend with cut-scenes, with collectathon quests, with anything. It was just you, Mario, the level, and the exit. Progression and pacing in SMB3 were almost completely seamless. Not the case with SMG.
So I want to see future Mario games do away with stars completely. Just outright remove them. Ignore them. They're pointless from a gameplay perspective. The joy of Mario platformers is not the star-carrot at the end; it's the level itself. The levels are the stars of the games, so we don't need an actual star at the end of the level.
SMG had a lot of great levels when you were actually playing. But there was so much downtime in-between that I just lost interest in continuing. Get a Star, go back to the Hub, click pull-star, select galaxy, select star, LOADING. Sure, it may only be a few clicks that take a few seconds, but that downtime adds up and the game is worse for it.
SMG's biggest problem is that it takes two different, incompatible gameplay elements and mashes them together: Star-gathering and bite-sized platforming levels.
The Star-gathering worked well in SM64 because of the freedom you had. You didn't have to go for the star you selected. And for as large as those levels were, there was very little downtime for each star. You got it, Mario hopped back out of the painting, and then you hopped right back in.
The bite-sized platforming levels are obviously throwbacks to SMB3. The problem there is that SMB3 never had any star-gathering to do. So you merely selected the level from the map screen and played. Get to the end, hit the block and you're done. Back to the map screen. You didn't have to contend with cut-scenes, with collectathon quests, with anything. It was just you, Mario, the level, and the exit. Progression and pacing in SMB3 were almost completely seamless. Not the case with SMG.
So I want to see future Mario games do away with stars completely. Just outright remove them. Ignore them. They're pointless from a gameplay perspective. The joy of Mario platformers is not the star-carrot at the end; it's the level itself. The levels are the stars of the games, so we don't need an actual star at the end of the level.
gamergirly
Member
BowieZ said:Did you read the majority of the OP? The world would be designed in such a way that it is ENTIRELY platforming. It's not an open world idea, again. It's classic Mario platforming transplanted onto a spherical surface resembling Mario's home planet.
Imagine the very original SMB but imagine playing it truly from Mario's perspective, inside a REAL 3D world that doesn't have arbitrary pauses in game play.
Another famous piece of artwork with the concept alluded to in the background:
Basically, Super Mario Galaxy but on ONE planet (well, with a Raphael the Raven moon, too
So a continuous Super Mario Galaxy where you don't enter/exit stages but continue to get powerups, interact with characters, and jump into and out of pipes? But that would be like having a gigantic Super 3D Paper Mario in many regards. I don't know how you could do something like that. It still has a MMORPG feel to it. The only difference would be the platforming and Mario Universe
Dice said:
Yeah, except Super Paper Mario has a hub. I'm sick of hubs. Oh, and minimal interacting with characters. No, it's not meant to be anything like an MMORPG:gamergirly said:
That's where creativity, and Miyamoto's head, comes into play.gamergirly said:
I compleeetely agree. I want a 3D game that has seamless transitions between its short bursts of creative platforming frenzy. And that's where people are being misled by this Open World idea. The idea isn't to highlight the separation between levels, it's to do away with them COMPLETELY. In other words, you could platform yourself from the very beginning of the game to beating Bowser at the center of the planet without being interrupted AT ALL. No level loading and map screens and hubs and overworlds and underground loading and RPG chitchat and blah blah blah.The Blue Jihad said:
Just "you, Mario, the level" as you said. But no "exits". The exit would simply be the next level, right in front of you.
Always-honest
Banned
no.
and open world is stupid mindless gaming anyway. fuck thet elitist nonsense.
give me good lineair gaming please with a tad of freedom.
and open world is stupid mindless gaming anyway. fuck thet elitist nonsense.
give me good lineair gaming please with a tad of freedom.
SEGAvangelist
Member
BowieZ said:Observe this Japanese cover for Super Mario World:
What if the next major Mario game (after Super Mario Galaxy 2) actually combined the gravity/spherical physics system of SMG/2 with the more basic idea of 8 interconnected lands (i.e. SMW) and made the above concept image a reality? . . .
Literally, a Super Mario WORLD. Y'know? One that's sphere-shaped? Not flat. We're not 4th Century scientists, here, are we?
Imagine a massive Mushroom Kingdom planet -- with the Koopa Kingdom on the dark opposite side of the planet of course -- one that does Mario's home land justice. In Land 1, you'd be able to see the extra bright deserty Land 2 just ahead into the horizon (it's summer there), but also Land 3 to the east and Land 4 to the west, and perhaps the doom and gloom of snowy, mountainous Land 6 to the south, where the sun shines the least.
I introduced this concept in the SMG thread, but it was met with uncertainty, or criticized for being pointless, or that an "open world" concept doesn't belong in a Mario game. However, this is not strictly an "open world" concept. It's quite literally the opposite: a "closed world," in that the structure of the game would be basically as linear as any other Mario game (SMW for instance), traveling through 8 or more distinct lands, but that it is an actual WORLD, nonetheless.
Is this pointless? My argument is that this is the next logical leap for a video game (or, at least, one of the next logical leaps).
Isn't having flat lands surrounded by an invisible wall -- cliffs into oblivion, or into black holes, in the case of Galaxy -- outdated? Why not combine Galaxy's sphere-based gravity technology with larger expanses of land to create a "realistic" (for want of a better word) setting for platforming?
The benefits:
1. So long random off-screen infinity and bottomless pits! Because there'd be no bottomless pits to fall into, one could conceivably do away with a clunky "lives" system altogether. I've read many complaints about how lives and 1-ups and such seem pointless, so if you could make it so that Mario couldn't really die -- merely have his progress hindered -- then the game would become more streamlined. Imagine a platforming section where you're avoiding this giant chasm below, but falling into the chasm would simply mean you have to climb back up a series of platforms. If you were to lose health upon hitting the ground (a gameplay rule only established in Mario canon since 64), I imagine punishment would be that your speed or jumping height are temporarily reduced (admittedly more of an RPG-style gameplay mechanic).
2. Clunky level-selection hubs and overworld maps. I've read many complaints about Super Mario Galaxy basically burdening the player with 10 minutes of mission selection, and 10 minutes of saving and quitting, cutting down time one devotes to platforming fun. The good thing about SMB was that it just plonked you inside the game and you could begin platforming immediately. Gradually that has been lost. With a spherical Mushroom Kingdom planet, you can simply be plonked down in the middle of Land 1 (Grass Land of course
3. Underground is now "through ground". Mario Galaxy 2 is already introducing the concept of the drillbit, and travelling THROUGH planetoids, but imagine the crazy fun network of catacombs and pipes that could be designed within the giant megaplanet. This also removes the concern of the planet's surface area being so big that you wouldn't notice the planet was spherical. If by having our favorite plumber have to venture through pipes into the underground as he's wont to do, that economizes space and makes the planet's surface less likely to be full of sprawling, poorly designed and poorly connected lands and empty corners. Of course this idea isn't just restricted to Mario, but I can imagine a pretty awesome boss fight against Bowser at the center of the planet, where he's up to his usual mischief, plotting some scheme. "Realistically," it would be full of molten lava and bizarre mind-bending gravity; a perfect and thematically appropriate locale for a tussle with our beloved arch nemesis.
Here's a really crappy concept image I whipped up:
Except imagine it smaller in scale and with more Mario art style.
An artpad concept art I did (it's terrible, though) -- skip to the end:
http://artpad.art.com/gallery/?kl44n4skw78
---------------
But of course, this is just my idea. Do you agree? Hate it? What ideas do you have for the next iteration/upgrade of the Mario franchise? What will/should the Mushroom Kingdom look like to you?
I think it's a great idea, though Jak and Daxter kind of did it a long time ago. Still, it would be a good direction for Mario I think.
Firstly, Banjo Tooie basically has a hub world. Secondly, the layout is not SPHERICAL.upandaway said:
Oh, yeah, which game? I never necessarily said the idea of a spherical world had never been done before, but I certainly have never come across this type of physics before Super Mario Galaxy and I was under the impression it hasn't been used since, either.Team Vernia said:
digita1alchemy
Member
Kaijima said:
I normally hate it when people do this, but seriously...</thread>
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
datamage said:
Do you mean like both New Super Mario Bros.?
If the world is made that large, it would essentially be played like a flat world anyway. It won't have the same appeal as the planetoids in Galaxy. And from a technical standpoint that would probably be hell to create.
Secondly, I don't know if I would want what is essentially a one-map SM64. The changing maps of Galaxy was one of the things that made doing multiple stars on one map more interesting.
Secondly, I don't know if I would want what is essentially a one-map SM64. The changing maps of Galaxy was one of the things that made doing multiple stars on one map more interesting.
boiled goose
good with gravy
No.
Galaxy is a better platformer than Sunshine or 64 because it was more linear. It was the first true 3d platformer.
Mario does not need to become an adventure game. There are still lots of ways to improve 3d platforming and Galaxy was a great start.
Galaxy is a better platformer than Sunshine or 64 because it was more linear. It was the first true 3d platformer.
Mario does not need to become an adventure game. There are still lots of ways to improve 3d platforming and Galaxy was a great start.
What the fuck? There have only been two main series Mario games released since 1997. The series absolutely does not need to take a god damned break.BattleMonkey said:
And no, New Super Mario Bros doesn't count, and neither will NSMB Wii, because they're merely retro trips (I consider the "New" series a standalone thing).
As long as the levels get larger and the new space ideas are worked in, I'm actually 100% okay with Super Mario Galaxy being a trilogy this generation. The most depressing thing in gaming, to me, is how since the SNES we've only had one traditional Mario title per platform. Nintendo's attempt to refine a brilliant idea with Galaxy 2 will not only give us another excellent Mario title, but the turnaround time is much quicker.
That said, if they don't make a Super Mario Galaxy 3, I hope they do something new and try to have it ready for the next console's launch. These last two Nintendo generations without a Mario game on day one have just felt wrong.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Chemo said:
This is the stupidest shit I've heard on this forum.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Chemo said:
New Super Mario Bros. is not a mainline game despite having more in common with the original titles and less superfluous shit like waterpacks and vacation resorts than the 3D games ever had.
Gotcha.
gamergirly
Member
amtentori said:
You dont think that Super Mario 64 was the first true 3D Mario platformer? :lol
scoobs
Member
I bought SMG and was bored with the game design.. I guess its because I'm getting older but the same old storyline and collecting stars just didn't do it for me this time. I'll probably go back and beat it but I'd really like it if the next mario game was DRASTICALLY different than anything we've seen before.
flintstryker
Banned
I think the next mario should go where ever the devs want it to go.
CreatureX3
Member
A Mario platformer without 1-ups? Blasphemous!
This sounds like a really cool idea - classic Mario progression in with 3D Mario gameplay. The way I'm imagining it is just SMB3 layed out in 3D on a planet, which would be awesome - when you climb up vines to the bonus cloud coin segment, you're actually up in the clouds and can see the zone spreading out beneath you! The underground, water, and platform-in-the-sky levels are actually separating continents! The little islands with mushroom houses would be actual little islands with mushroom houses! I would love to play something like this.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
After reading your post I find that I am somewhat more agreeable to your concept that I thought I would be.
Have to think this over.
Have to think this over.
boiled goose
good with gravy
gamergirly said:
It was in a way when it was released of course.
But in retrospect, Mario Galaxy makes 64 (and all the clones that followed) look like adventure games .
Count Dookkake
Member
Some interesting ideas in OP, but what I am waiting for is...
SUPER MARIO MINUS WORLD
I have no idea what that would entail other than some backwards headbutts on overhanging brick.
SUPER MARIO MINUS WORLD
I have no idea what that would entail other than some backwards headbutts on overhanging brick.