Support NeoGAF

[SolidSnakex]

It could be done.

Just because you're closed-minded doesn't mean it's impossible.

It can be done and it has been done, it just doesn't happen a lot because those games don't sell. Look at Mirror's Edge. It's an action game and it even rewards you for completing the game without shooting anyone. But it didn't really sell well.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

The point I would make is that these non killing choices also exist in an idealized universe where enemies become unrealistically incapacitated from means that wouldn't make sense at all in real life. One could say there is moral significance attached to what one is pretending to do but I would argue the distance makes it relatively insignificant in any case.

I agree and it certainly something of a sore spot in an industry that aims for ever greater 'real world consistency' but wants to keep games 'non serious activities'. The two don't mix and at some point developers (and other industry people) will have to make a choice between the pursuit of realism of representation or play as activity.

 

[Twig]

It can be done and it has been done, it just doesn't happen a lot because those games don't sell. Look at Mirror's Edge. It's an action game and it even rewards you for completing the game without shooting anyone. But it didn't really sell well.

Well, of course, there's no accounting for bad taste! But I would say Mirror's Edge has far more in common with a platformer than an action game. I'm talking about a full-on action game where you only kill a few dudes. I'm sure that's been done, too, somewhere, but even if it hasn't, I can already see the beginnings of it in my own mind. It's not that difficult a concept.

 

[Llyranor]

I can understand the 'it's a video game' arguments, given that shooting things is a pretty important element in many games in which you shoot things. As such, for pacing issues or otherwise, you spent a lot of time shooting things; it's the bulk of the gameplay, sure.

I just got Uncharted 2 today, and I won't single it out as a game in which you might shoot hundreds upon thousands of people; again, 'it's a video game', which is fine. One issue I might already have with it is inconsistency with the narrative. Early game spoilers:

Spoiler

One minute you're sneaking into a heavily guarded museum without guns, and then resort to tranq guns, to maintain an 'unscathed' conscience because they're just museum guards; I mean, the game puts in some effort into showing that Drake isn't someone who just shoots things without winking. The next, you're scaling the side of a building, from which a guard is patrolling the roof. Drake then nonchalantly (and the game encourages this action through in-game hints) grabs the guy and throws him off the building. 'Sleep tight!' Maybe he's not actually dead and just went to sleep by falling off the building

In this case, the whole 'it's a video game' defense just seems to make the whole narrative a bit of a waste. It's not even about body count, just the context behind such a kill.

 

[BlueScrote]

I have killed tens of thousands of nazis, zombies, aliens and evil robots combined.

But that number is nothing compared to how much triangles and circles I have killed in Geometry Wars.

You monster, Think of the shapes!

 

[arne]

I don't mind killing 1000 dudes in a game that warrants it. Treasure hunting does not warrant it.

...then you missed the point to the story or stories of either/both games.

 

[NullPointer]

The body count can work if the context is there. Die Hard the movie had a decent body count considering the hero was just one barefoot dude scavenging weapons and ammo. Its all a matter of context.

I agree with the OP. As games get more realistic, or at least more cinematic, the one solitary dude being dropped alone to take out whole armies schtick gets old. Running through Favela in Modern Warfare 2 being the latest example for me. Its one thing to be put in this fucked up situation filled with dozens of enemies from every nook and cranny, it makes it even worse when your commanding officer keeps yelling at you to hurry the fuck up like its no big thing. Where the fuck is my AC-130 support? Where the fuck is my backup? If anything, MW2 missed out on a tremendous opportunity to mix the gameplay up by having civilians running through most of the urban areas, and having more enemies that could be taken down non-lethally.

If Bioshock didn't have respawning splicers I'd say it makes a nice middle ground. Taking out one Big Daddy is a far richer experience than fighting wave after wave of splicers.

Now I'm as big a fan as any when it comes to games that have tons of explosions and destruction, and waves of enemies. I love that shit. But it'd alsos be nice to see more exploration of non-lethal takedowns and less one-man-army shit in shooters and games with heavy shooting elements.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

It can be done and it has been done, it just doesn't happen a lot because those games don't sell. Look at Mirror's Edge. It's an action game and it even rewards you for completing the game without shooting anyone. But it didn't really sell well.

Mirror's Edge is the last game I would argue to give the player any kind of choice. While there is a specific achievement for challenge, it is obvious that DICE designed the game as a shooter first and a free runner second (as one would expect from their experience). The game does not question the motives for or results of killing enemies and fully expects players to do exactly that.

You are mistaking socially 'forced' competition for genuine free choice, imo. Designing a game that really allows the player to utilise the full range of possible choices and rewarding them for various approaches is extremely hard and Deus Ex is the only game so far that has been able to succesfully write different approaches into the same design without forcing the players hand too much to a single moral baseline. But even Deus Ex makes some effort to push the player towards non-lethal violence and as such is not morally neutral towards players.

This is actually why the "moral choice" effects in modern games do not work: the games reward morally "good" behavious and punish morally "bad" behavious, making games harder and less interesting to play if you decide to go "bad". For instance: shooting someone or stealing from someone by accident in Fallout 3 will give you their undying hatred, until you reload your save or kill them. In this case, playing the game "good" is much harder (just one incident will taint your status, but being the bugfest the game is, these WILL happen) than playing the game "bad", so it cannot be called a genuine choice.

 

[Versipellis]

How comes nobody posted this?

I'm with OP about the awkward feeling you get when you stop and think about what you're doing in such games. Does it make me feel guilty? No, but that's not the point.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Mirror's Edge is the last game I would argue to give the player any kind of choice. While there is a specific achievement for challenge, it is obvious that DICE designed the game as a shooter first and a free runner second (as one would expect from their experience). The game does not question the motives for or results of killing enemies and fully expects players to do exactly that.

I didn't argue that you're given any kind of choice in ME. I'm saying that it's an action game where there isn't a heavy emphasis on the player doing violence as you're controlling a character that's fast enough to get out of situations without really fighting. Of course there are some situations in the game where you have to fight, but those are fairly spaced out.

 

[Twig]

Mirror's Edge is the last game I would argue to give the player any kind of choice.

I don't think anyone's talking about choice.

EDIT:

Of course there are some situations in the game where you have to fight, but those are fairly spaced out.

Yeah, there are actually very, very few parts of the game where you're forced to fight, once you find the proper escape route.

Also this

While there is a specific achievement for challenge, it is obvious that DICE designed the game as a shooter first and a free runner second (as one would expect from their experience).

is very wrong.

It only ever felt like a "shooter" to me once, and that's when I was forced to pick up a sniper rifle and shoot an armored vehicle. Every other time, I was either running away from people, or weaving through obstacles to take them out one by one.

 

[NullPointer]

This is actually why the "moral choice" effects in modern games do not work: the games reward morally "good" behavious and punish morally "bad" behavious, making games harder and less interesting to play if you decide to go "bad". For instance: shooting someone or stealing from someone by accident in Fallout 3 will give you their undying hatred, until you reload your save or kill them. In this case, playing the game "good" is much harder (just one incident will taint your status, but being the bugfest the game is, these WILL happen) than playing the game "bad", so it cannot be called a genuine choice.

Yeah, that and most "morality" systems just give you the stark choice between being a douchebag, just because, or of being a saint. The choice often has nothing to do with any sense of morality, and more about which skills or abilities you want to unlock or power up.

But I don't think we need morality to solve the one-man-army fatigue. Just give us more choice in games overall, and put the conflict into context better, and provide more scenarios for conflict rather than just upping the numbers in any given battle. At the end of the game the bodycount might work out to be the same, but in context it'll seem more fitting.

 

[msdstc]

Came here to post what's already been said. If a movie like Rambo or Shoot em up was 10-15 hours it would be a different story.

 

[Inanna]

!

Stupidity? Is that what you people think Lazarvic/writers were getting at? God, you people need to go watch that scene again. You TOTALLY missed the point...

Early game spoilers:

Spoiler

One minute you're sneaking into a heavily guarded museum without guns, and then resort to tranq guns, to maintain an 'unscathed' conscience because they're just museum guards; I mean, the game puts in some effort into showing that Drake isn't someone who just shoots things without winking. The next, you're scaling the side of a building, from which a guard is patrolling the roof. Drake then nonchalantly (and the game encourages this action through in-game hints) grabs the guy and throws him off the building. 'Sleep tight!' Maybe he's not actually dead and just went to sleep by falling off the building

In this case, the whole 'it's a video game' defense just seems to make the whole narrative a bit of a waste. It's not even about body count, just the context behind such a kill.

You can see the guard swimming away..

 

[Inanna]

DP.. soowwy. :\

 

[SonOfABeep]

Yeah, it's a bit rediculous in most games, but when your center mechanic is shooting, you better have plenty of people to shoot.

I think a game like Assassin's Creed has potential to make the kill more satisfying and a lot more buildup, but you're still slaughtering guards like nothing else if you want to in that game. I suppose it'd be fun to play through without killing too many guards.

I think Far Cry 2 had a good chance to be the game that showed a more realistic bodycount but they kinda screwed that up with the checkpoints and stuff. They should have had a way to sneak around those, pay them off, or something else rather than blowing them up all the time.

 

[flabberghastly]

I'm reminded of the review of Uncharted on Action Button which concluded that games like Uncharted are “why video games are referred to as ‘murder simulators’.” I particularly liked this passage:

The developers at Naughty Dog knew what they were doing. Uncharted is a well-researched exercise in the pulp action tradition. It’s not an accident that the protagonist kills hundreds though the protagonists of the sources of his inspiration kill perhaps ten. This was a conscious design decision, which had conscious antecedents. Why the contrast? There are only two reasons possible: (1) the developers themselves felt the game would be dull without the addition of copious bloodshed, or (2) the developers believed that the target audience of game enthusiasts wouldn’t support an adventure game that lacked copious bloodshed. Either way, the rationale remains the same: an appreciable group of gamers wouldn’t enjoy this game if it didn’t have enough bloodshed.

Which is exactly what the mainstream media says about us.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

It sounds like the OP wants a game where he can kill a single person, very slowly over the course of 15 hours. Like all good, well-adjusted humans.

 

[obaidr]

i am probably all alone with this opinion but for me thinking back about uncharted always feels like looking back at à vocation i had à Paradise like Place. the Beauty of the graphics and the Environment makes the killing much much less brutal in My eyes. it doesnt stay i mind, but the journy does.

 

[Grayman]

I would like to see some games try to get around this but it would not work in a straight up action adventure. To make something like Die Hard with 20-30 enemies in two hours fun would probably cost more than a 15 hour wave after wave shooter that spans the globe.

There is a better chance of Bethseda making a competent action adventure(controls/mechanics) within their design philosphy than there is of naughty dog matching their gameplay to their narrative.

 

[Lostconfused]

Mirror's Edge is the last game I would argue to give the player any kind of choice. While there is a specific achievement for challenge, it is obvious that DICE designed the game as a shooter first and a free runner second (as one would expect from their experience). The game does not question the motives for or results of killing enemies and fully expects players to do exactly that.

For most of the game you don't even have to hit anyone to get through a level. The combat is there only if you don't know where you are going or don't know what to do.

It sounds like the OP wants a game where he can kill a single person, very slowly over the course of 15 hours. Like all good, well-adjusted humans.

Or just play sims for 15 hours and at in the last minute kill a burglar in self defense.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

I'm reminded of the review of Uncharted on Action Button which concluded that games like Uncharted are “why video games are referred to as ‘murder simulators’.” I particularly liked this passage:

It isn't the audience's fault that ND lacks imagination. I think their unblemished track record of wildly uninteresting, though competent and technically impressive, games is evidence of that. Games like Arkham Asylum, MGS4, and Mirror's Edge are all recent examples of non-war action/adventure games that made conscious efforts to address the "murder simulator" criticism in a substantive manner.

 

[Grayman]

It isn't the audience's fault that ND lacks imagination. I think their unblemished track record of wildly uninteresting, though competent and technically impressive, games is evidence of that. Games like Arkham Asylum, MGS4, and Mirror's Edge are all recent examples of non-war action/adventure games that made conscious efforts to address the "murder simulator" criticism in a substantive manner.

arkam asylum is a "beatdown simulator" and it does nothing for the "problem"

 

[Shai-Tan]

I agree and it certainly something of a sore spot in an industry that aims for ever greater 'real world consistency' but wants to keep games 'non serious activities'. The two don't mix and at some point developers (and other industry people) will have to make a choice between the pursuit of realism of representation or play as activity.

These games aren't aiming for real world consistency any more than The Mummy is. The killing in these games has about as much significance as running down pedestrian in GTA. Not much. Most of the complaints about it hangs on some kind of moral equivalence as if it were some kind of simulacra of the real thing when it's clearly not and follows different rules.

When I play Counter-Strike I'm not playing a murder simulator I'm playing a virtual laser tag game with teams. When I play Uncharted I'm not "killing" anything. I'm taking them out of the game or plot. They wouldn't be off living virtual lives were it not for me. The only possible harm is an indirect one to the player if it were true that consuming violent media is a cause of antisocial behavior (not likely an effect of much significance). The same applies to action movies where killing has little significance. You could change shooting to non lethal kung fu and it wouldn't make a lick of difference in an action movie plot.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

It is wholly unrealistic I agree with you Wrika.

Comparisons to Mario, Halo, PS2 era GTA are completely missing the point. None of those titles ever try to be realistic. They give you cartoony caricatures of humans, cartoon monsters, and cartoon aliens. They never try to be realistic.

Uncharted is one of the most realistic looking games I've ever seen. With some of the most unrealistic action I've ever seen. Was that the point?

I don't know. But I can understand why it is so awkward to you.

 

[WanderingWind]

Mirror's Edge is the last game I would argue to give the player any kind of choice. While there is a specific achievement for challenge, it is obvious that DICE designed the game as a shooter first and a free runner second (as one would expect from their experience). The game does not question the motives for or results of killing enemies and fully expects players to do exactly that.

This is so very, very wrong. You can, and are encouraged to, play through the game without ever picking up a weapon. (Save for one scripted sequence.)

In fact, stopping to shoot is usually a very bad idea.

 

[Jme]

...then you missed the point to the story or stories of either/both games.

Haven't gotten 2 yet. Please tell me what I missed from 1 from the story line that makes sense as to why I would murder hundreds of people.

 

[Chuck Norris]

I'd like to see how Heavy Rain does. That's why the game is so appealing to me

I personally have no problem with an action game where I kill a lot. But I think the genre could branch more. I think my problem with these games is that you feel too powerful, you have snipers that take 10 seconds to line up shots and mercs that run around like monkeys shooting but never hitting. In real life, any one of these guys should be as skilled as you

I don't mind these games, but 98% of games are like this. I'd like to see some branching out.

 

[DrPirate]

Nearly every reply in this thread save for a few is actually retarded. Most of you are unable to comprehend the things you read, or you feel the need to act and reply like children.

Anyways:

I agree Wrickawrek. I loved Uncharted, I'm getting ready to head back in for that double xp christmas games, but the games quality is ultimately marred by it's vast body count which was essentially unnecessary.

I found it actually broke the immersion because (On crushing difficulty as well) the AI just takes the hits and I'm basically fighting enemies who's difficulty is not governed by their wits, resourcefulness and ability to outthink, but by their aim and damage...

I'd much rather the encounters where, instead of having 10 guys rush at me, whom I'll kill while they're making their introductory animations (of jumping down some hill to come fight me),prefer just 5 guys who will at least make me "believe" that these people are fighting for their lives just as much as I am. it would make the entire thing seem much more intense and after the battle is done, I'll have felt like I actually fought to stay alive, and surviving the encounter itself was a reward.

He never says you have to remove violence from video games, but mowing down 1000 guys is not only not a challenge, but it's entirely not rewarding and it really takes away from the entire experience.

I personally have no problem with an action game where I kill a lot. But I think the genre could branch more. I think my problem with these games is that you feel too powerful, you have snipers that take 10 seconds to line up shots and mercs that run around like monkeys shooting but never hitting. In real life, any one of these guys should be as skilled as you
.

thank you. This was beautifully said and I agree.

 

[jett]

:lol This thread again?

 

[Angelus Errare]

It isn't the audience's fault that ND lacks imagination. I think their unblemished track record of wildly uninteresting, though competent and technically impressive, games is evidence of that. Games like Arkham Asylum, MGS4, and Mirror's Edge are all recent examples of non-war action/adventure games that made conscious efforts to address the "murder simulator" criticism in a substantive manner.

Well it's not like it's was Rocksteady's creativity that led to AA's no kill policy. They kinda HAD to make sure Batman doesn't kill. It's the goddam Batman.

 

[Neuromancer]

I agree with OP completely. It is insane that at the end of Uncharted 2, you have killed like 900 dudes. In my opinion the game would have been twice as good with half the combat and twice the 'tomb raider' style platforming.

My solution? Less enemies but they're smarter and able to kill you quicker. Leave the hordes to Serious Sam.

 

[Chromax]

:lol This thread again?

Yeah, think this is the 3rd one since Uncharted 2 came out. :lol

 

[DrPirate]

Yeah, think this is the 3rd one since Uncharted 2 came out. :lol

gamers started to develop a conscience? :O

 

[arne]

Haven't gotten 2 yet. Please tell me what I missed from 1 from the story line that makes sense as to why I would murder hundreds of people.

gonna spoiler this for whatever reason

Spoiler

ultimately, Drake is actually saving the world. the treasure hunting is meant to set the stage, although it's not as clear to the underlying motivations in UDF, Drake ends up the (somewhat reluctant) savior of the world and there is a realization that this is bigger than him and his quest about sir francis drake. remember, also at one point he's killing a lot of people to save elena, etc. as well. he's not without deeper, more justifiable motivation to continue battling adversaries rather than give up and go home.

also, abstractions of this (goombas, zombies, etc.) are exactly the same thing pertaining to this thread and debate, regardless of how realistic or unrealistic the game is, because the core gameplay is what is in play here -- that you have to defeat X number of enemies throughout the game. We're not debating whether it's wrong or not, but rather, why has this game design choice been made.

I agree with OP completely. It is insane that at the end of Uncharted 2, you have killed like 900 dudes. In my opinion the game would have been twice as good with half the combat and twice the 'tomb raider' style platforming.

My solution? Less enemies but they're smarter and able to kill you quicker. Leave the hordes to Serious Sam.

I'd kill for a 192 avg. review score

i can't speak for all game programmers out there, but it seems like AI just hasn't gotten to that point where you can do that and still provide a satisfying gameplay experience. it becomes a major roadblock to progression, which is a big no-no, or it can be too easy for some (to defeat enemies there has to be a critical flaw for the player to recognize and overcome, be it because they are "easy" or because there is some pattern to solve).

 

[Lord Error]

What's the body count in 1942?

 

[Chromax]

gamers started to develop a conscience? :O

or those companies that makes those "Virtual Tour around the World" stuff on PC needs to start porting to console. :lol

 

[arne]

Well it's not like it's was Rocksteady's creativity that led to AA's no kill policy. They kinda HAD to make sure Batman doesn't kill. It's the goddam Batman.

well, batman not killing is part of the canon. him not being killed as part of the storylines, is also part of the canon too. without each other (hero and villian), they are without purpose and then the whole universe starts to crumble.

 

[whitehawk]

Killzone 2 got trophies for 500, 1000 and 1500 Helgasts killed:

Gears 2 has an achievement for killing 100,000 people. You also get at least 1000+ kills by playing the campaign.

 

[Ten-Song]

Please, NO ONE bring up Arkham Asylum in defense of lack of death. MOST of the shit Batman does in that game would kill any regular human being, the game just tries to ignore this to keep a T rating by saying they're all just asleep instead. Your interaction with them is no different than your interaction with nameless goons in any other game, though.

Video games, as a medium, need constant conflict. Players must feel challenged. If you're going to make a shooter, there needs to be guys to shoot. This can, of course, be worked around - you don't kill anyone in Portal, because Portal is a puzzle game. A different genre. It challenges the player in a different way.

You kill two people in Portal, actually.

Spoiler

Yes, I am serious.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Spoiler

ultimately, Drake is actually saving the world.

I haven't played either of the Uncharted games but I'll just say that's a pretty lousy lesson. The UN has the same goal and they aim to achieve it without mass-murder.

 

[arne]

I haven't played either of the Uncharted games but I'll just say that's a pretty lousy lesson. The UN has the same goal and they aim to achieve it without mass-murder.

first, the United Nations purpose isn't to save the world from crazy, fictional forces of evil.
second, that's a ridiculous premise to bring up in this argument -- the same could be said about any massive, world-saving conflict in the collected works of global fiction. we're not discussing alternatives to how conflict can be solved, but rather, the viability of the premise and vehicle to these conflicts in our games.

 

[Chromax]

The UN has the same goal and they aim to achieve it without mass-murder.

Yes, that would've worked well in Uncharted's case. :lol Let's not care about the situation, setting, etc. at all!

 

[Alphahawk]

The most hillariously inept example of this is that Die Hard game for the PC, which uses actual lines from the movie detailing how many terrorist John Mclain killed, and has left to kill,despite the fact that there are many more enemies in the game than in the movie.

 

[Pelydr]

You created such an innovated subject. :lol

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

Well it's not like it's was Rocksteady's creativity that led to AA's no kill policy. They kinda HAD to make sure Batman doesn't kill. It's the goddam Batman.

That's the point: Rocksteady designed their gameplay to work in harmony with the story they were telling far more effectively than ND has done in either Uncharted.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Jesus Christ, it's really hard for you isn't it? It's not about violence. It's about how immature the medium is, that it still can't figure out action and violence, tension and adrenaline, without having to throw you into the middle of what is basically a 1 vs Army war.

It's not about violence or killing, it's about figuring out how to mature it to the point where you don't need to artificially bump it up by just throwing more numbers.

And are any of those games even close to having the same kind of context as Uncharted has?

Look at what you are saying. Go play Flower? Bangai-O spirits? How the hell do these games even relate to action games like Uncharted, Max Payne, GTA, etc.

Christ sakes, "You don't like Rambo? Go watch pokemon".

1. Answer the questions, please.
2. Bangai-O Spirits is, you know, a high-adrenaline shoot-'em-up in which your targets are generally inanimate or humans in robot suits with a very specific purpose. So, yes, it's contextually the same. Take Company Of Heroes or The Last Blade or whatever, then.
3. Ugh. Actually, I suspect our medium's backwardness is because people like you make games. Does every game have to be a Robert Bresson movie? No. But that's how mediums advance. The ambitious [literature/visual art/games] that you dislike break ground with tastemakers, the smart people explain why the work is amazing for a little while, people grow up with the new artistic norms, and then they push the boundaries further (for better or for worse) or make high art palatable to the general public (i.e., you). Actual maturity doesn't occur from the top down.
4. You still haven't made any argument whatsoever for "low body counts = maturity." STILL! I say it's nonsense and (worse) your standard is still immature.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

first, the United Nations purpose isn't to save the world from crazy, fictional forces of evil.

I'm glad you edited that :lol

second, that's a ridiculous premise to bring up in this argument -- the same could be said about any massive, world-saving conflict in the collected works of fiction. we're not discussing alternatives to how conflict can be solved, but rather, the viable of the premise and vehicle to these conflicts in our games.

I don't dispute that at all, that comment was a bit leftfield I guess. It's just troubling to me that our culture is so fixated on violence as the solution to our problems. Our entertainment simply reinforces that bigger sticks solve bigger problems. Now if you guys really wanted to make GOTY you'd turn Uncharted 3 into a diplomacy simulator.

Also, Keef the Thief was awesome.

 

[Shai-Tan]

Yeah, think this is the 3rd one since Uncharted 2 came out. :lol

Looking at the OP post history he made another thread about how amazing Berserk the anime is, that it should be made into a game. An anime full of blood and bodies chopped in half. So I'm guessing this thread was either tongue and cheek or trolling

 

[arne]

I'm glad you edited that :lol

not that it matters much, but wanted to point out the irrationality of applying a real world NGO to an extremely fictional situation. the united nations was created to prevent war and protect human rights. that's still not saving the world from a megalomaniacal villains on immortality juice.

I don't dispute that at all, that comment was a bit leftfield I guess. It's just troubling to me that our culture is so fixated on violence as the solution to our problems. Our entertainment simply reinforces that bigger sticks solve bigger problems. Now if you guys really wanted to make GOTY you'd turn Uncharted 3 into a diplomacy simulator.

Also, Keef the Thief was awesome.

well, i believe the violence is the conflict of choice in many mediums of fiction precisely because it is a messy, imperfect and unideal solution to our problems and one with very defined repercussions (i.e. violence is wrong). it's far more immediate, understandable, dynamic, with deeper psychology and complexities than a debate. and that it causes more problems than it solves.