Anyone else tired of new games in long-running series shoving in the series' old protagonists into the new protagonists' games?

[toothflick]

I've recently finished RE8, and while I enjoyed the game, Chris' inclusion in the game left me feeling incredibly annoyed (spoilers for RE8, but he basically shows up and repeatedly gives Ethan a dressing-down, telling him how he's "not built for this" and how Ethan's daughter being kidnapped somehow "doesn't involve him" and is just a massive asshole in general and constantly gives the vibe that everything you've been through in the game up to that point is actually an incredibly minor deal and if you were playing as Chris then it would be so easy that it wouldn't even qualify as a real videogame,) and then I thought about it and realized that stuff like this is constantly pulled by long-running game series whenever they switch to new protagonists.

Take Yakuza. Kiryu is the protagonist of the series till Yakuza 6, but with Yakuza 7 they decided that Kiryu couldn't really be milked for more games by that point (which is true, since Kiryu stopped developing as a character after Yakuza 3, but that's neither here nor there) and had Ichiban be the series' new protagonist. In Yakuza 7, you go on a bunch of cool adventures that are almost completely disconnected to anything from the previous games and it feels really cool, they do a good job making you like Ichiban and it's pretty fun... and then, as if RGG lost faith in Ichiban as the protagonist partway through, they decide to randomly have Kiryu show up out of nowhere in the last third of the game and beat the shit out of Ichiban in one of those "win in the game, lose in the cutscene" kind of bossfights (despite the story up til that point having literally nothing to do with Kiryu) and give him this pep talk to prepare him for what comes next, and it just feels really frustrating. It left me with this bad taste in my mouth like RGG was saying that "if you were playing as Kiryu then this wouldn't even be a real videogame and everything Ichiban has gone through has only been tough because Ichiban is a pathetic loser who can't do anything." After spending the entire game building Ichiban up, it felt like they just randomly decided to tear him down just for a bit of cheap fanservice.

I can give more examples than this (like from DMC and Ace Attorney) but I'll stop here since I think you get the picture. I think whenever games do this it reeks of a lack of confidence in the new protagonist. That they're scared that the series' longtime fans won't like the "new guy" and because of this they feel compelled to have the series' old protagonists show up to beat the shit out of them and make them look pathetic to show "respect for the series' roots," even though it usually just feels incredibly out-of-character and contrived for the old protagonists to do. More than that though, you can't spend an entire games' runtime trying to build up characters like Ethan, Ichiban, Apollo, or Nero only to tear them down out of nowhere, it basically invalidates their journey up to that point since before then nothing in the game implies that they're any less competent than the series old protagonists (Chris, Kiryu, Phoenix, or Dante) were in their very first games.

With DMC, I'll at least give them a pass, since while they tore down Nero for no real reason in DMC4, they DID make it up to him in DMC5. Nero's arc in DMC5 is all about him proving himself as the series' new hero and dealing with his frustration and insecurity that he'll never be as good as Dante, building up to a fantastic moment where he's able to prove that he has what it takes to carry the series' mantle going forward. Basically, DMC5 does what SO MANY of these sorts of games don't, and actively builds up Nero and uses his conflict with the series' old iconic characters in order to actually fuel his growth and prove to both himself and the player that he isn't a pathetic loser who'll never have what it takes to replace Dante. Unfortunately, most games don't do this.

In order to show just how ridiculous it is when games do this, I want you to imagine the following scenario: Imagine if, in RE2, two-thirds of the way into the game, suddenly Chris and Jill just randomly show up out of nowhere in Leon and Claire's scenarios respectively. They then proceed to tell Leon and Claire to "stay out of this" and that nothing happening "involves them" and then you have a bossfight against them where they win in the cutscene and get to humiliate Leon and Claire before saying something like "Okay, now that you've paid your dues, I think you have what it takes to finish things from here while we take care of the more pressing threat that both of you are too weak and pathetic to ever actually handle by yourselves." If that happened, that would feel frustrating and stupid, since only two games into the series, there's nothing to imply that Leon and Claire are in any way inferior to Chris and Jill after everything they've been through in RE2, yet the game goes out of its way to randomly give them a dressing-down. You see what I mean?

Basically, I just wish that more games did what DMC5 does and actually had some faith in the "new guy."

 

[JellyjamLu]

Kinda like RE9 with Grace but had to shoehorn in Leon.

I still think the pacing and switching between these two characters is awful and the length of time you spend with each respective character is all over the place and simply takes me out of the moment to moment gameplay, especially when following sections are far far weaker than others, after a 'high octane' moment.

Played as Leon for like 10 minutes? cool... now go back to Grace again for another 20 mins + wandering around at the clinic again.

Still a 6/10 for me given the franchise history and what I personally look for under the banner of 'Resident Evil' and a survival horror experience at that.

 

[nobitakun]

That's the reason I am reluctant to play any Biohazard after 6. Biohazard 4 was enough for Leon to show off, now let's put some effort into new protagonists. They could have saved it if they gave you the option to choose the type of gameplay you want from start to the end. If you want an action non horror game, play with Leon, if you want a more horror classic experience, play with Grace.

 

[Tsukishima]

Yakuza 4 leading hard and heavy with how amazing Shun Akiyama is and then went straight back to Kiryu just kind of stung.

 

[JellyjamLu]

That's the reason I am reluctant to play any Biohazard after 6. Biohazard 4 was enough for Leon to show off, now let's put some effort into new protagonists. They could have saved it if they gave you the option to choose the type of gameplay you want from start to the end. If you want an action non horror game, play with Leon, if you want a more horror classic experience, play with Grace.

Yep, all they had to do was make each character have their own campaign, RE2 style.

 

[BrawlMan]

Depends on the game. RE9 is the much better version of 6 and 8 especially. RE8 in general I don't care all that much about even though it's better than RE7.

I stopped caring for most long running franchises in general. I just play whatever interests me. DMC6 won't be out until 2030, but I can already tell that, either Nero will be the lead again going forward, and they are more than likely going to have a new set of devil hunters and mercenaries. That said i'm always ready for something new.That's not part of our franchise, or new action games in this exact genre. Many are coming out this year and next year.

 

[Ikagura]

For me it's the contrary: I don't understand why introducing random characters when the older ones are iconic already.

 

[here4outbreak]

as if RGG lost faith in Ichiban as the protagonist partway through

i feel like this is kind of a bad faith interpretation of kiryus role in 7. his role as "the dragon of dojima" is something that didn't really have much focus outside of the 1 cutscene from dead souls and intro to yakuza 1. up to this point, we weren't allowed to feel the weight his title carries because his situations were always do or die and we were in direct control of the outcome.

ichiban's story is of rising up from nothing and so it makes sense that the top of the mountain is personified by the old protag. his loss in the fight is rgg telling us that ichiban has room to grow and is the "passing of the torch" in the way rgg/kiryu knows best.

of course, none of this really matters since ichiban hasn't gotten a new game or mention since 8. the whole point of his taking of the lead was that rgg would go in a new direction with the series moving forward and i guess it was to stagnate when they already got past the hard part of getting us to like ichiban and his friends.

feel compelled to have the series' old protagonists show up to beat the shit out of them and make them look pathetic

i think "losing to the previous player character" is handled pretty well in the cases i've seen. dmc does it in 4 as well as 5, arguably better with nero more at the forefront of 4.

the boss fight in 4 serves the purpose of getting nero to effectively grow up since while he is powerful, he's still immature and cannot see the bigger picture. he relies on his own strength, oblivious to the fact dante is on his side until he is forced to acknowledge it. in 5 he still isn't quite there at the beginning, frustrated by his weakness, but by the end, gets dante and vergil to come to a resolution they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. he's still weaker than the sons of sparda and very emotional, but can now point those feelings in a direction that helps others in ways different from his dad and uncle.

the fact the player character loses doesn't inherently make them dumb or weak. it's used to refine their strengths and shed the weaknesses through the medium of a boss battle, and push their character to their endpoint in a more interactive fashion than a cutscene. it's an example of blending gameplay and story that makes videogames a unique form of storytelling. if done poorly though of course, it's annoying and distracts from the intended feelings of the narrative which is how you feel about it i suppose.

 

[Tenshishi]

And then there's the inverse of this - Streets of Rage 2 having Adam incapacitated in a tough battle, so his little roller-skating brother has to fight his battles for him.

Or Great Mazinger just opening with "Wow, that old robot that kicked so much butt in Z is really not prepared at all for the battles this GREAT Mazinger can handle."

Gundam is all across the board with this - sometimes Amuro is a useless lump that really should stay retired (Zeta), other times he's the only hope for humanity (CCA/BC).

As you can see, the inverse is not any better, nor is flip-flopping between both stereotypes. I wish more of these series could show respect for both the old and the new by having each bring something to the table... Persona 2 comes to mind as a good example of that.

 

[Nebulon_Galaxy]

I think Yakuza should have ended in 3

 

[SamanthaSamantha's icon]

Not really, but there's a very fine line between "character cameo" and "this is my story now" — and VERY FEW studios know how to toe it.

 

[Tsukishima]

Or Great Mazinger just opening with "Wow, that old robot that kicked so much butt in Z is really not prepared at all for the battles this GREAT Mazinger can handle."

What was even more bizarre was that (from where I currently am with the anime at least) there's 15 whole episodes of Tetsuya and Great Mazinger getting their butts kicked harder then I think Koji's ever had to deal with in Mazinger.

Legit I don't think Koji ever failed on a pilder-cockpit connect like Tetsuya does on a regular occurence.
I just see Tetsuya pegged as 'the veteran pilot' so many times from many kinds of media and I just don't know where those baseless claims even emerged from.

 

[BrawlMan]

And then there's the inverse of this - Streets of Rage 2 having Adam incapacitated in a tough battle, so his little roller-skating brother has to fight his battles for him.

Skate is fun to play, and having another mighty glacier at the time would have felt redundant. At least Adam becomes playable again in 4 or Streets of Rage Remake if we want to go there. Then we lost Skate, and there is no mention of why he's completely absent. I love Cherry and she is the better version of Skate, but it still feels disrespectful and does not get a mention, other than his retro sprites from 2 and 3 respectively.

 

[toothflick]

ichiban's story is of rising up from nothing and so it makes sense that the top of the mountain is personified by the old protag. his loss in the fight is rgg telling us that ichiban has room to grow and is the "passing of the torch" in the way rgg/kiryu knows best.

With Yakuza 7, as opposed to DMC5, the game did not feel like it was in any way building up to a "passing of the torch" sort of moment. Ichiban isn't some young overconfident kid who needs to be knocked down a peg, the first 10 or so hours of Yakuza 7 are just about beating him down as much as possible and slowly seeing him climb out of this horrible situation he's in, so I don't see why Ichi needs to be beaten down by a "wizened mentor" character in his first game when RGG didn't feel the need to do the same to Kiryu in his first game. idk, maybe it's just that in the years since Yakuza 3 I've grown increasingly tired of Kiryu to the point where I honestly straight up hate him and any decision made to give him more screentime makes me upset even if there's a narrative purpose behind it.

Post automatically merged: Sunday at 7:02 PM

For me it's the contrary: I don't understand why introducing random characters when the older ones are iconic already.

Unless a game series is either completely uninterested in story or follows a storyline that was planned to follow the same characters throughout multiple games, I think it's a good to introduce new protagonists at a certain point, because otherwise you fall into Yakuza's trap of having your protagonist repeat the same character arc over and over again since the writers have run out of ways to develop his character any further.

 

[Ikagura]

Not really, but there's a very fine line between "character cameo" and "this is my story now" — and VERY FEW studios know how to toe it.

At that point the franchise could get a different name or a subtitle to tell it's not the same series.

I haven't played them all but Capcom seems to never do it as well with Axl in MMX (the series is named after the blue bomber, not another guy) and Apollo Justice when we all liked Phoenix Wright (at least it's not called AA4)...

Skate is fun to play, and having another mighty glacier at the time would have felt redundant. At least Adam becomes playable again in 4 or Streets of Rage Remake if we want to go there. Then we lost Skate, and there is no mention of why he's completely absent. I love Cherry and she is the better version of Skate, but it still feels disrespectful and does not get a mention, other than his retro sprites from 2 and 3 respectively.

I wish they showed him in an artwork like they did with Zan in the DLC.

Not even asking him to be relevant to the plot (as beat'em ups are never that complex) but I kinda like the idea of Cherry learning her fighting style from uncle Sammy/Eddie.

Unless a game series is either completely uninterested in story or follows a storyline that was planned to follow the same characters throughout multiple games, I think it's a good to introduce new protagonists at a certain point, because otherwise you fall into Yakuza's trap of having your protagonist repeat the same character arc over and over again since the writers have run out of ways to develop his character any further.

While I understand it's hard to develop a character I also think that it's almost like a betrayal to have a franchise with an iconic protagonist to change it from one game to another. We don't expect to see a new Zelda game without Link (Echoes of Wisdom still has him as an important character but is the rare exception of not having him as the playable character).

I'm glad the Ys series is keeping Adol Christin as the primary character even with more playable partners in the games since 2009.

 

[Graw]

I stopped caring for most long running franchises in general.

Most of the long running series I used to enjoy have long since stopped resembling anything I actually used to enjoy about them.

For me it's the contrary: I don't understand why introducing random characters when the older ones are iconic already.

I haven't played them all but Capcom seems to never do it as well with Axl in MMX (the series is named after the blue bomber, not another guy)

Yeah, that's part of what made X7 so terrible. It wouldn't have been as bad if he was just an extra character, but trying to force him as the main character really made the game not even feel like a real Megaman game. I felt kind of the same way about the Zero series when it came out. It felt weird to call it Megaman Zero and in a lot of ways the series feels fairly disconnected from the X games and the other Megaman games. The aesthetics, play style and overall story were just very different than what came before.

X might have been a new character when the first Megaman X game came out, but he was still Megaman. He was a blue robot that was built by Dr. Light that fights against evil robots. Sure they made the story a little more complex and dark, but it was still basically the same and X came with a bunch of gameplay improvements that made playing as X feel like a genuine improvement over Megaman. Going from Megaman to Megaman X is actually probably one of the best examples of a long running series introducing a new character properly. There's not a lot of other series, even in the Megaman franchise, where the new updated character is genuinely more fun and almost more iconic than the original.

 

[toothflick]

I haven't played them all but Capcom seems to never do it as well with Axl in MMX (the series is named after the blue bomber, not another guy) and Apollo Justice when we all liked Phoenix Wright (at least it's not called AA4)...

While I understand it's hard to develop a character I also think that it's almost like a betrayal to have a franchise with an iconic protagonist to change it from one game to another. We don't expect to see a new Zelda game without Link (Echoes of Wisdom still has him as an important character but is the rare exception of not having him as the playable character).

Zelda is different to me, while a couple of Zelda games are direct followups, the vast majority of the series can basically be considered reboots (even if they're technically connected thanks to timeline shenanigans.) Like the Link you play as in Link to the Past is not the same Link you play as in Windwaker. You're basically playing as a completely new character in 70% of the series, just a new character that's also named Link. Fatigue doesn't set in from having to design stories around the same character since one they finish one Link's character arc they move on to a different Link.

With Apollo, I think the biggest mistake was having Phoenix be present in AJ since it prevented us from getting fully invested in Apollo as a character when we knew that our beloved familiar Phoenix was right there just out of reach for us. Like Phoenix's character arc felt like it finished in Trials and Tribulations and there wasn't anything else to do with his character afterwards so focusing on someone completely different felt like the right move. It only didn't work for AJ because Phoenix is basically haunting the game and making it impossible to forget him, meanwhile the Edgeworth games and Great Ace Attorney benefit a ton from Phoenix being completely out of the picture and focusing entirely on their respective protagonists.

Post automatically merged: Sunday at 7:24 PM

idk, maybe it's just that I personally like seeing long running series do massive shakeups and find it fascinating. Like I'm far more forgiving of a series trying to do something interesting with introducing a new protagonist, or having a massive experimental gameplay shift and failing than I am of a series just staying in its comfort zone and slowly growing stale

 

[Vardalis]

For me it's the contrary: I don't understand why introducing random characters when the older ones are iconic already.

While I can kind of agree, you do run out of good storytelling track with them eventually. Like, there's only really so many missions Chris Redfield can plausibly be involved in and walk away without it feeling like there's zero stakes or development any more.

There's also times when letting a character go can just be more satisfying. Like with the Ace Attorney series for example, I felt everything wrapped up nicely for Phoenix and Maya at the end of the third game and there wasn't much of a need to bring either character back in a leading capacity in future entries.

 

[Ikagura]

Most of the long running series I used to enjoy have long since stopped resembling anything I actually used to enjoy about them.

The dilemma of keeping it the same or making it evolve for the better or worse...

Yeah, that's part of what made X7 so terrible. It wouldn't have been as bad if he was just an extra character, but trying to force him as the main character really made the game not even feel like a real Megaman game. I felt kind of the same way about the Zero series when it came out. It felt weird to call it Megaman Zero and in a lot of ways the series feels fairly disconnected from the X games and the other Megaman games. The aesthetics, play style and overall story were just very different than what came before.

X might have been a new character when the first Megaman X game came out, but he was still Megaman. He was a blue robot that was built by Dr. Light that fights against evil robots. Sure they made the story a little more complex and dark, but it was still basically the same and X came with a bunch of gameplay improvements that made playing as X feel like a genuine improvement over Megaman. Going from Megaman to Megaman X is actually probably one of the best examples of a long running series introducing a new character properly. There's not a lot of other series, even in the Megaman franchise, where the new updated character is genuinely more fun and almost more iconic than the original.

I will still accept Megaman Zero as it's clearly sold as a different sub-series from Classic and X (with ZX) and since Zero appeared since the first X game he's not like he came from nowhere. Maybe X7 should've been called something like "Megaman & Axl" and not being a numbered title...

This would be like having Mega Man 7 with Bass as a mandatory playable character (even MM&B let us play as the main character).

He also looks like a fan made OC and while I see the blue and red colour mix I think he should've been either green or yellow as a complementary color to X' blue and Zero's red.

 

[BrawlMan]

Most of the long running series I used to enjoy have long since stopped resembling anything I actually used to enjoy about them.

We have all our own drop off points eventually. I stopped caring about franchises like Far Cry, AC, MM and it's various spinoffs, or COD because after the eventual, third or fourth game and more afterward, they're just kinda there or just milked with out much reason to play them. The horrible practices from most of these companies was not helping either. Though in COD's case, it was more so genre fatigue and everybody trying to copy them during a seven generation. The only Far Cry I truly care about are 1, Insticts, Crysis 2, and Crysis 3. two of the games I mentioned are pretty much spiritual successors done by Cry Tekken. Say whatever you will about the trilogy, but they bothered to have the franchise get a definitive ending.

The aesthetics, play style and overall story were just very different than what came before.

Which is why a lot people enjoyed X's more serious storyline compared to the originals series. Zero was just taking it further with a revamped art style. It paid off since we got four games total. At least zero has a sense of finality with its fourth and final entry.

I just pretend only MMX 1-5 happened, and go straight to Zero 1-4. That actually helps clean up the timeline a bit. X8 is a decent game and better than X7, but you could tell even from the writing that Capcom what's just going through the motions, and it's even lampshaded with some of the characters subtly. Even they were getting fed up (mainly the devs, but even the execs finally wised up) and the ones who made it in the first place.

 

[Ikagura]

Zelda is different to me, while a couple of Zelda games are direct followups, the vast majority of the series can basically be considered reboots (even if they're technically connected thanks to timeline shenanigans.) Like the Link you play as in Link to the Past is not the same Link you play as in Windwaker. You're basically playing as a completely new character in 70% of the series, just a new character that's also named Link. Fatigue doesn't set in from having to design stories around the same character since one they finish one Link's character arc they move on to a different Link.

You're right that each brand new Zelda game is introducing a new Hero (who shares the same name as the others) yet I still think they kept Link as an iconic protagonist through the series for a good reason. The main villain can be someone else than Ganon, Zelda could barely appears in the games but Link should never be touched even if he's a different incarnation of the Triforce of Courage. Even BotW with a blue tunic was almost too far (at least his green tunic is still available in the game).

With Apollo, I think the biggest mistake was having Phoenix be present in AJ since it prevented us from getting fully invested in Apollo as a character when we knew that our beloved familiar Phoenix was right there just out of reach for us. Like Phoenix's character arc felt like it finished in Trials and Tribulations and there wasn't anything else to do with his character afterwards so focusing on someone completely different felt like the right move. It only didn't work for AJ because Phoenix is basically haunting the game and making it impossible to forget him, meanwhile the Edgeworth games and Great Ace Attorney benefit a ton from Phoenix being completely out of the picture and focusing entirely on their respective protagonists.

I think Phoenix should've appeared towards the end of the game.

While I can kind of agree, you do run out of good storytelling track with them eventually. Like, there's only really so many missions Chris Redfield can plausibly be involved in and walk away without it feeling like there's zero stakes or development any more.

Maybe it's also because Jill and Chris are getting old, even Leon the bishonen looks a bit washed out from all those fights.

Maybe RE's biggest struggle is to make our beloved characters from the PSX games relevant.

Wesker's son was probably meant to be a new face for the RE series but we all know how RE6 was received and how he looked like a generic action movie protagonist from the late 2000's.

There's also times when letting a character go can just be more satisfying. Like with the Ace Attorney series for example, I felt everything wrapped up nicely for Phoenix and Maya at the end of the third game and there wasn't much of a need to bring either character back in a leading capacity in future entries.

I've barely played the second trilogy so I cannot tell much but I think the third game was the end of the main arc.

 

[silada]

You are completely justified in what you have brought up. Resident Evil being the clearest example. They could used this formula to actually expand RE fanbase by doing what one of the guys above mentioned, you choose one and it is more survival and inventory management, you choose the other and you have Michael Bay pyrotecnics and plenty of ammo. I believe many games from this franchise would benefit from this choice instead of steering one game after the other towards one single way, or completely botching new characters by reintroducing old ones.

 

[Graw]

I will still accept Megaman Zero

I like the Zero games. It was just more at the time the first game came out.

Which is why a lot people enjoyed X's more serious storyline compared to the originals series. Zero was just taking it further with a revamped art style. It paid off since we got four games total. At least zero has a sense of finality with its fourth and final entry.

I don't really pay a ton of attention to Megaman game stories. They're nice for background stuff and I do generally like the whole reploid thing from the X series more than the cartoony robot villain of the classic series but the Zero series stuff got a little bit over the top for me with the cyber elves and copy X and started to get just as bad as the Sigma virus stuff that kind of ruined X6. It started off alright in the earlier Zero games but by the end of the series I just didn't care at all about the story any more.

X8 is a decent game and better than X7, but you could tell even from the writing that Capcom what's just going through the motions, and it's even lampshaded with some of the characters subtly. Even they were getting fed up (mainly the devs, but even the execs finally wised up) and the ones who made it in the first place.

I liked X8. It was a decent game. I don't remember the story at all but I seem to remember X7 and X8 both kind of ignoring the more apocalyptic stuff in X5 and X6 and just kind of continuing on as though none of that happened. Maybe I'm wrong about that though. Then there's Command Mission which, I'm guessing is treated maybe as not part of the actual X storyline? I don't really know though I don't really look too much into Megaman canon.

 

[BrawlMan]

I don't really pay a ton of attention to Megaman game stories. They're nice for background stuff and I do generally like the whole reploid thing from the X series more than the cartoony robot villain of the classic series but the Zero series stuff got a little bit over the top for me with the cyber elves and copy X and started to get just as bad as the Sigma virus stuff that kind of ruined X6. It started off alright in the earlier Zero games but by the end of the series I just didn't care at all about the story any more.

Eh, Zero 4 still handles it better than anything after X5. Quick irony with the first game: Copy X was supposed to be the original X fully corrupted, but Inafune backed out at the last minute, because he didn't want X to act out of character. Thus we have Copy X.

I liked X8. It was a decent game. I don't remember the story at all but I seem to remember X7 and X8 both kind of ignoring the more apocalyptic stuff in X5 and X6 and just kind of continuing on as though none of that happened. Maybe I'm wrong about that though.

X8 implies X6 and X7 still happened, but the game does not dwell on the details much.

Then there's Command Mission which, I'm guessing is treated maybe as not part of the actual X storyline?

Command Mission is pretty much in its own pocket dimension.

 

[Ikagura]

I don't really pay a ton of attention to Megaman game stories. They're nice for background stuff and I do generally like the whole reploid thing from the X series more than the cartoony robot villain of the classic series but the Zero series stuff got a little bit over the top for me with the cyber elves and copy X and started to get just as bad as the Sigma virus stuff that kind of ruined X6. It started off alright in the earlier Zero games but by the end of the series I just didn't care at all about the story any more.

This is my issue regarding many mascot platformers, they start with light, self contained stories then go all over with serious stories and deep lore which almost feels like a different IP.

MMX was still a good game but I think Capcom tried to go a bit too far with the series whereas Classic MM is mostly fine.