Constant melancholia

[Serious_Business]

I'm considering that the main pathos behind crpg play always more or less comes down to melancholia, a kind of pessimistic impression that these games always are a failure on some level. It seems as if it's accompanied by the idea that the genre is always being betrayed in some way, either by marketing considerations or a lack of fidelity to a vague tradition of the craft ; there's also the aesthetic consideration that these things should be art on some level... even if of course we never have a simple idea of what art is, unless we desire it to be a representation of truth.

Whatever it may be, I find this melancholia to be rather tedious, even if it gives itself a veneer of sophistication (a subculture of knowing individuals, those who "appreciate depth") ; I can only explain the constant elitist complaining about what is essentially a hobby by the fact that crpgs are by definition a failed experience. They're a failed experience because they try to stimulate pnp play, but obviously can't. Pnp play is all about spontaneity, acting, imagination and social interaction ; crpgs are about interacting with a system (even the narrative is a kind of system). So you get these artificial worlds that leave you essentially cold when considering "what could be" : and "what could be" is a wonderful game that never was but one day will be, a game full of c&c and freedom... a constant imagining of the perfect game ; every crpg is flawed in some way as it never gives enough freedom to the player. The truth of the matter is that "what could be" isn't fucking freedom, it's a pnp session. But then it has to be more, it has to be art, something meaningful to you. But meaning can be found in all kinds of experiences. Meaning isn't a measure of anything but of something that is always lacking ; thus the melancholia, because you can never have enough meaning when you desire it. When you don't desire meaning, you actually appreciate art.

I suppose that in general crpgs point to the idea of simulated reality, which can probably be considered to be cultural nihilism (to use a funny word that reactionaries like to use) : to desire another reality is to be pessimistic by definition. The melancholia could be explained that way. But I prefer the more simple explanation : crpgs just can't create a pnp environnment. If you think about it, all crpg make for exceedingly bad pnp sessions ; it's like that one game were the game master always forces you to explore the content that he carefully created and gets moody when you're going in the wrong direction. Sure the content might be nice but it's not why people play these things, unless they accept to be railroaded into a series of encounters and obstacles, which is really boring as hell once you've played a few ones. Being told a "story" through all that is the worst experience ; you're supposed to make the story in a rpg, not endure it.

But I suppose that in enduring you grow strong... no, actually, in enduring you don't grow strong, you just endure. Keep on enduring asshole. Yes, I do accept that Planescape is an interesting experience, at least from what I remember of it. I think crpgs can be interesting narrative tools, but as games I do think they fail ; crpg players just have a very limited interest in gaming systems, they tend to hold on to narrative at all costs. But I'll tell you about one fucking inane thing that I can't stand about crpgs : the equipment trope. Equiping your weapon, your little pants, your rings, your gay hat, whatever the fuck. This is not interesting. I don't want my little characters to wear the little pieces of clothing. I just don't give a shit. Perhaps this is what was truly good about Torment : your character didn't wear anything.

 

[octavius]

If you're a C&C-fag or storyfag a real, good DM would provide a better experience. And I think most of the "haters" are the C&C-people, who automatically rate F1, F2, PST, Arcanum and VTM:B as their favourite games and everything since then is a decline (and it's all the jews' fault).

But if you're a combatfag or like to equip things a CRPG offers a good experience.

 

[gurugeorge]

Anywhere Out of the World

Life is a hospital where every patient is obsessed by the desire of changing beds. One would like to suffer opposite the stove, another is sure he would get well beside the window.

It always seems to me that I should be happy anywhere but where I am, and this question of moving is one that I am eternally discussing with my soul.

"Tell me, my soul, poor chilly soul, how would you like to live in Lisbon? It must be warm there, and you would be as blissful as a lizard in the sun. It is a city by the sea; they say that it is built of marble, and that its inhabitants have such a horror of the vegetable kingdom that they tear up all the trees. You see it is a country after my own heart; a country entirely made of mineral and light, and with liquid to reflect them."

My soul does not reply.

"Since you are so fond of being motionless and watching the pageantry of movement, would you like to live in the beatific land of Holland? Perhaps you could enjoy yourself in that country which you have so long admired in paintings on museum walls. What do you say to Rotterdam, you who love forests of masts, and ships that are moored on the doorsteps of houses?"

My soul remains silent.

"Perhaps you would like Batavia better? There, moreover, we should find the wit of Europe wedded to the beauty of the tropics."

Not a word. Can my soul be dead?

"Have you sunk into so deep a stupor that you are happy only in your unhappiness? If that is the case, let us fly to countries that are the counterfeits of Death. I know just the place for us, poor soul. We will pack up our trunks for Torneo. We will go still farther, to the farthest end of the Baltic Sea; still farther from life if possible; we will settle at the Pole. There the sun only obliquely grazes the earth, and the slow alternations of daylight and night abolish variety and increase that other half of nothingness, monotony. There we can take deep baths of darkness, while sometimes for our entertainment, the Aurora Borealis will shoot up its rose-red sheafs like the reflections of the fireworks of hell!"

At last my soul explodes! "Anywhere! Just so it is out of the world!"

- Charles Baudelaire

 

[agentorange]

wat

 

[The Jester]

Is there truly a "after life"?
Atheists tell you that the reason people believe in God and "after life" is their selfishness and pride.
That people believe they are the highest beings on this planet so it is logical that eating, sleeping and reproducing is not the main reason for their existence.
There must be a higher purpose! right?
But isn't that really the truth?
Aren't we really the highest beings?
Aren't we really the superior race on this planet?
Did we not conquer the earth, the sky and the sea?
Did we not build the greatest empires in history?
You really can't say to my face that the life of a human being is equal to the life of a pig.
But if there really is a God and our superiority and intellect is from him.
What kind of god is he?
Is he like a kind father who has given us a part of his being so that we can control our destiny, unlike other animals?
So that we can reach our true place after death?
Or he is a dark god with a cruel sense of humor?
He gave us a part of his divinity knowing that our mortal body could not maintain it forever.
Because he is eternal and his "gift" is a part of him that is placed in us, so we also desire eternity.
He knew all this, and yet he did so, and then leaned on his throne and watched mankind build gods and religions to fill this void within themselves.
Is all of it a amusement to him?
A very big joke?

 

[Grunker]

I'm considering that the main pathos behind crpg play always more or less comes down to melancholia, a kind of pessimistic impression that these games always are a failure on some level. It seems as if it's accompanied by the idea that the genre is always being betrayed in some way, either by marketing considerations or a lack of fidelity to a vague tradition of the craft ; there's also the aesthetic consideration that these things should be art on some level... even if of course we never have a simple idea of what art is, unless we desire it to be a representation of truth.

Whatever it may be, I find this melancholia to be rather tedious, even if it gives itself a veneer of sophistication (a subculture of knowing individuals, those who "appreciate depth") ; I can only explain the constant elitist complaining about what is essentially a hobby by the fact that crpgs are by definition a failed experience. They're a failed experience because they try to stimulate pnp play, but obviously can't. Pnp play is all about spontaneity, acting, imagination and social interaction ; crpgs are about interacting with a system (even the narrative is a kind of system). So you get these artificial worlds that leave you essentially cold when considering "what could be" : and "what could be" is a wonderful game that never was but one day will be, a game full of c&c and freedom... a constant imagining of the perfect game ; every crpg is flawed in some way as it never gives enough freedom to the player. The truth of the matter is that "what could be" isn't fucking freedom, it's a pnp session. But then it has to be more, it has to be art, something meaningful to you. But meaning can be found in all kinds of experiences. Meaning isn't a measure of anything but of something that is always lacking ; thus the melancholia, because you can never have enough meaning when you desire it. When you don't desire meaning, you actually appreciate art.

I suppose that in general crpgs point to the idea of simulated reality, which can probably be considered to be cultural nihilism (to use a funny word that reactionaries like to use) : to desire another reality is to be pessimistic by definition. The melancholia could be explained that way. But I prefer the more simple explanation : crpgs just can't create a pnp environnment. If you think about it, all crpg make for exceedingly bad pnp sessions ; it's like that one game were the game master always forces you to explore the content that he carefully created and gets moody when you're going in the wrong direction. Sure the content might be nice but it's not why people play these things, unless they accept to be railroaded into a series of encounters and obstacles, which is really boring as hell once you've played a few ones. Being told a "story" through all that is the worst experience ; you're supposed to make the story in a rpg, not endure it.

But I suppose that in enduring you grow strong... no, actually, in enduring you don't grow strong, you just endure. Keep on enduring asshole. Yes, I do accept that Planescape is an interesting experience, at least from what I remember of it. I think crpgs can be interesting narrative tools, but as games I do think they fail ; crpg players just have a very limited interest in gaming systems, they tend to hold on to narrative at all costs. But I'll tell you about one fucking inane thing that I can't stand about crpgs : the equipment trope. Equiping your weapon, your little pants, your rings, your gay hat, whatever the fuck. This is not interesting. I don't want my little characters to wear the little pieces of clothing. I just don't give a shit. Perhaps this is what was truly good about Torment : your character didn't wear anything.

while I more often than not appreciate your posts, speaking about a veneer of sophistication isn't one banal answer to your courtly expressed point that rpgs are vast and complex and extremely hard to balance (not in the sense of power but in the sense of making sure all the elements work on their own and together) and thus prone to fail both in design and project management thus leading to more/most of these games being flawed even if you ultimately enjoy them thus leading to a fanbase naturally inclined to have split and divise opinions

edit: just to be clear I agree there's a truth to your point about rpgs trying to fix an unsolvable problem - the fact that they're supposed to simulate social interaction yet what they're actually about is system design

edit2: how does one goldfist something, your post deserves it

 

[Zibniyat]

to desire another reality is to be pessimistic by definition

What? How?

 

[Tihskael]

Don't define the game by the list of the features. Define it by the experience you want to have.

-Todd Howard

 

[Pentium]

Don't define the game by the list of the features. Define it by the experience you want to have.

-Todd Howard

That would be a quote to agree with.

If it weren't one of Todd Howard.

 

[Tihskael]

Don't define the game by the list of the features. Define it by the experience you want to have.

-Todd Howard

That would be a quote to agree with.

If it weren't one of Todd Howard.

Deny the gospel of the Godd and await hell.

 

[Pentium]

Don't define the game by the list of the features. Define it by the experience you want to have.

-Todd Howard

That would be a quote to agree with.

If it weren't one of Todd Howard.

Deny the gospel of the Godd and await hell.

 

[Johnny Biggums]

In a social context where gamers, like all consumers, are simply expected to consume product and get excited for next product, melancholy and nostalgia often turn out to be very human responses to the neverending churn of poor quality offerings. The love of authenticity, creativity, quality, of almost anything aside from novelty - and especially any love of 'the good old days' - impedes, to one degree or another, the emotional flexibility that lifestyle and product churn demand of us. And so they get increasingly cast as a personality defect: stubbornness, pessimism, hypercriticality, and so on. These defects exist, and they definitely exist on the codex, but fundamentally the more exacting attitude here is a good thing.

 

[copebot]

If you're a C&C-fag or storyfag a real, good DM would provide a better experience. And I think most of the "haters" are the C&C-people, who automatically rate F1, F2, PST, Arcanum and VTM:B as their favourite games and everything since then is a decline (and it's all the jews' fault).

But if you're a combatfag or like to equip things a CRPG offers a good experience.

Computer games can do lots of amazing things. Creating dynamic, branching, and engaging narratives is not one of them. Tabletop is excellent at making C&C viable, but the DM-imposed narratives generally aren't that interesting because narratives must have plot structure to be compelling. Interactivity is antithetical to the creation and maintenance of a plot structure. You can have satisfying C&C in tabletop, but satisfying narratives must remain the domain of noninteractive mediums.

Games are at their best when they do not try to impose a narrative, and this includes things like sports. The entire genre of sports reporting exists to impose emergent narratives on nonnarrative games: sports simps search for games that have resonant narrative arcs and laud those, even if the majority of games played are not narratively compelling. Out of a dozen basketball games played in a week during the regular season, for example, a large portion of those games are just blowouts with a foregone conclusion. If you are a sports reporter trying to make some of those games narratively compelling, you might clip out certain plays of the game that were dramatic or that had a good narrative arc to them. This is what people tend to mean when they say things like 'emergent narrative,' and it's what is best suited to computer games like CRPGs.

With branching dialogue CRPGs that feature narrative C&C, the designers are tasked with writing a long novel series with many minor variations in the plot, some of which may be more or less harmonious as plots. The player is in effect the editor that chooses which minor variation of the novel that they want to read. This is then kludged together with an interactive game that generally has little or nothing to do with the novel riding on top of it. This ill fated hybrid of a video game with an overly long novel that has notes written on the margins riding on top of it is just not very satisfying. People had higher hopes for it when it looked like computers were getting exponentially more powerful every year and the potential of software seemed to be limitless. Now people are rightly more cynical and recognize that the possibilities of computers are narrower: they are constrained by the nature of the computer, which means that they cannot just be whatever you can imagine that they can be.

 

[Harthwain]

Computer games can do lots of amazing things. Creating dynamic, branching, and engaging narratives is not one of them.

Veto!

Just because a lot of people focus on hand-crafted narratives it doesn't mean it is not possible for computer games to create dynamic, branching, emergent narratives. This was the main reason why I was so drawn into Paradox games (mainly Crusader Kings series). I also enjoyed Majesty a lot, because it gave "heroes" the agency, leaving the player with the task of trying to shepherd them in the desired direction. It's a shame more games (and especially RPGs) don't try the approach where the player is merely one of many agents in the dynamic world. Instead we are flooded with games where the game is but a stage and the player is the main actor, and the world has to wait for him before to play starts, because the player can't arrive too early, nor can he be too late - he must arrive precisely as the script says.

Now people are rightly more cynical and recognize that the possibilities of computers are narrower: they are constrained by the nature of the computer, which means that they cannot just be whatever you can imagine that they can be.

It's not the possibilities of the computers that are narrower - it's the inherent limit of human ability to create content by hand.

 

[copebot]

Computer games can do lots of amazing things. Creating dynamic, branching, and engaging narratives is not one of them.

Veto!

Just because a lot of people focus on hand-crafted narratives it doesn't mean it is not possible for computer games to create dynamic, branching, emergent narratives. This was the main reason why I was so drawn into Paradox games (mainly Crusader Kings series). I also enjoyed Majesty a lot, because it gave "heroes" the agency, leaving the player with the task of trying to shepherd them in the desired direction. It's a shame more games (and especially RPGs) don't try the approach where the player is merely one of many agents in the dynamic world. Instead we are flooded with games where the game is but a stage and the player is the main actor, and the world has to wait for him before to play starts, because the player can't arrive too early, nor can he be too late - he must arrive precisely as the script says.

Now people are rightly more cynical and recognize that the possibilities of computers are narrower: they are constrained by the nature of the computer, which means that they cannot just be whatever you can imagine that they can be.

It's not the possibilities of the computers that are narrower - it's the inherent limit of human ability to create content by hand.

CK is an example of an emergent narrative generator, which it excels at. It's probably more fun to talk about the emergent narratives of that series than it is to actually play it. It's not an example of scripted branching narrative, like Planescape:T, Dragon Age, or Mass Effect. In CK and games like it, the narrative is not imposed by the designer-author. You are imposing the narrative on the events -- it emerges from the game itself and you are the author of the story around those events. The computer is not creating the narrative in your example. It is generating the events, and you are creating the narrative yourself.

I agree with you in most points here, I just think there's a misunderstanding on the definitions. I fully agree that CPRGs would be better off if they focused on providing that raw material of events that the player can then assemble a narrative from, rather than trying to impose narrative as an author.

 

[Tyranicon]

If you're a C&C-fag or storyfag a real, good DM would provide a better experience.

I've been clearly playing with the wrong people, because our campaigns always gets de-railed by orgies, anime characters, or orgies with anime characters.

Having a serious campaign with an actual, literary-level story is next to impossible. I'll stick to games.

 

[gurugeorge]

Computer games can do lots of amazing things. Creating dynamic, branching, and engaging narratives is not one of them.

Veto!

Just because a lot of people focus on hand-crafted narratives it doesn't mean it is not possible for computer games to create dynamic, branching, emergent narratives. This was the main reason why I was so drawn into Paradox games (mainly Crusader Kings series). I also enjoyed Majesty a lot, because it gave "heroes" the agency, leaving the player with the task of trying to shepherd them in the desired direction. It's a shame more games (and especially RPGs) don't try the approach where the player is merely one of many agents in the dynamic world. Instead we are flooded with games where the game is but a stage and the player is the main actor, and the world has to wait for him before to play starts, because the player can't arrive too early, nor can he be too late - he must arrive precisely as the script says.

Now people are rightly more cynical and recognize that the possibilities of computers are narrower: they are constrained by the nature of the computer, which means that they cannot just be whatever you can imagine that they can be.

It's not the possibilities of the computers that are narrower - it's the inherent limit of human ability to create content by hand.

CK is an example of an emergent narrative generator, which it excels at. It's probably more fun to talk about the emergent narratives of that series than it is to actually play it. It's not an example of scripted branching narrative, like Planescape:T, Dragon Age, or Mass Effect. In CK and games like it, the narrative is not imposed by the designer-author. You are imposing the narrative on the events -- it emerges from the game itself and you are the author of the story around those events. The computer is not creating the narrative in your example. It is generating the events, and you are creating the narrative yourself.

I agree with you in most points here, I just think there's a misunderstanding on the definitions. I fully agree that CPRGs would be better off if they focused on providing that raw material of events that the player can then assemble a narrative from, rather than trying to impose narrative as an author.

Solo CRPGs won't be able to do that without much more advanced AI (if the AI should be so obliging ).

I don't know about e-sports, but certainly I've had some wonderful experiences of emergent narrative in online multiplayer games like LOTR, Age of Conan (when it was an MMO) and EVE Online, and especially in NWN1/NWN2 Persistent Worlds where I've been in DM-led stories. If people are roleplaying at least semi-seriously, it can be an amazing experience that really does "transport" you (or alternatively, give a great sense of immersion and presence). But you definitely need human-on-human interaction for it to work, because so far only humans (the players, or players + DM) are smart enough to weave a story as they go.

But short of that, or the requisite level of AI development, I think you can still get decent stories in solo CRPGs with scripted branching narratives, where your choices definitely open up some big avenues and close off others, and you end up with several possible endings. I guess it's just such a monumental workload for the developers that it's more rare.

 

[Harthwain]

CK is an example of an emergent narrative generator, which it excels at. It's probably more fun to talk about the emergent narratives of that series than it is to actually play it.

I always had fun playing it, but the quality of the emergent narratives can vary, because some scenarios are more insane than others. I usually use the "quiet time" to consolidate my power and start planting seeds for the future. Other people might be just speeding up, waiting for stuff to happen. In general the smaller you are, the less will happen, but once you become a bigger fish you tend to have your hands full and breaks between events are not as common.

 

[Tyranicon]

But short of that, or the requisite level of AI development, I think you can still get decent stories in solo CRPGs with scripted branching narratives, where your choices definitely open up some big avenues and close off others, and you end up with several possible endings. I guess it's just such a monumental workload for the developers that it's more rare.

Imagine being a dev. Imagine creating assets, writing, NPCs, all the requisite parts of a good RPG. Now imagine doing all of that so that only 20% of all players will ever experience.

Now imagine doing this when instead you could've been devoting your efforts to actually making money.

 

[Harthwain]

Solo CRPGs won't be able to do that without much more advanced AI (if the AI should be so obliging ).

But do we know it for a fact? Or is this just assumed so, because nobody really tried? There are some games in which the AI acts in a way that surprises people, because nobody would expect from it to act so smart. In Desperados 1, for example, each type of an enemy has his own behaviour. So some are going to ignore strange noises. Some will send other people to check out what is happening. And so on and so for. It is not that complicated and gives a really good illusion of intelligence.

By the way - we don't need AI that is too smart. Just one that is fairly realistic in its actions/behaviour. Because it is no fun playing against a perfect opponent. I think it is more interesting when both sides make mistakes so they can be spotted and capitalized upon.

 

[Netch]

Yes, video games are inherently less complex and reactive than ttrpgs (in fact I made a post that mentioned this the other day), but so what? You say

They're a failed experience because they try to stimulate pnp play, but obviously can't.

Which is just a false conclusion. CRPGs are not inherently a failed experience because they cannot fully simulate a tapletop environment. If we're looking at games through the lens of an artistic medium (which you seem to be opposed to doing) video games (including CRPGs) can be a massive success. You also said

we never have a simple idea of what art is, unless we desire it to be a representation of truth.

I completely disagree.

What elevates a video game to a level where it could be considered art in the same way that one might consider a great film a work of art? Well, some might use metrics such as craftsmanship to define art, but I think that such a definition is unsound given the variance of art and thus widely inapplicable on a base level (which is what we concern ourselves with here). Ultimately there is a great deal of subjectivity when it comes to art, but in my view the best way to define art is to consider it as an act of human striving to portray and encapsulate ineffable feelings and ideas. I have found, for example, that I get the same striking feeling of ineffability from watching a Tarkovsky film or standing in front of a masterful painting as I do playing brilliant games such as System Shock 2 or Pathologic. Not all art can reach these heights to be certain, but it is the effort to approximate, and thus communicate, ideas and feelings too grand for the physical world that defines art.

With all that said, what, ultimately, does it matter if a game can reach the same level of reactivity that a pnp RPG can? So long as the medium provides the opportunity to strive for (and occasionally reach) superlative artistry, then that inherent weakness is meaningless. Video games lack the reactivity of tapletop games, correct, but they have other dimensions that tapletop games cannot have, such as visuals and sound. Therefore video games can excel in ways that pnp RPGs cannot, and vice versa. Don't judge the medium as inferior based on its shortcomings when it has incredibly distinctive and unique artistic opportunities.

Also,

But I'll tell you about one fucking inane thing that I can't stand about crpgs : the equipment trope. Equiping your weapon, your little pants, your rings, your gay hat, whatever the fuck. This is not interesting. I don't want my little characters to wear the little pieces of clothing. I just don't give a shit. Perhaps this is what was truly good about Torment : your character didn't wear anything.

 

[anvi]

I agree but I think it is maybe a good thing. People are grumpy about things because they want it to be better and that constant drive is why we went from living in caves to having this magic technology and healthy teeth etc.

 

[copebot]

What elevates a video game to a level where it could be considered art in the same way that one might consider a great film a work of art? Well, some might use metrics such as craftsmanship to define art, but I think that such a definition is unsound given the variance of art and thus widely inapplicable on a base level (which is what we concern ourselves with here). Ultimately there is a great deal of subjectivity when it comes to art, but in my view the best way to define art is to consider it as an act of human striving to portray and encapsulate ineffable feelings and ideas. I have found, for example, that I get the same striking feeling of ineffability from watching a Tarkovsky film or standing in front of a masterful painting as I do playing brilliant games such as System Shock 2 or Pathologic. Not all art can reach these heights to be certain, but it is the effort to approximate, and thus communicate, ideas and feelings too grand for the physical world that defines art.

You are overthinking it to some degree. Art can be considered a special and prestigious status, but in our contemporary context in which there aren't established state-directed art standards (as there were in the past throughout most civilized societies), art can be any aesthetic product of any quality level. It's not a special status, but there is good art and bad art. That ineffable feeling you have from playing SS2 is the effect of the work on your emotions, just like a piece of music. SS2 is quite effective at creating a sense of tension, suspense, and fear. Depending on your skill at the game, this can be moderated by your sense of being a speck of resistance against powerful, malevolent, and mysterious forces. It succeeds at this.

What it would not succeed at is in providing an open space for the player to reauthor the entire game, such as to side with the Many to rebel against SHODAN, or to somehow wake up earlier to prevent the Rickenbacker from being overwhelmed. It does not simulate the proper functioning of the Von Braun, and you cannot convince the science team to never visit Tau Ceti IV. You cannot go shopping in the Von Braun mall: the game only supports a depiction of that subdeck after it has been overwhelmed by aliens and malevolent robots. In fact, you can make no meaningful choices whatsoever about the plot, although you can make lots of choices about how to build your character and how to go about exploring the game space. It would be very challenging even for a P&P dungeon master to create good content with that level of choice, even if it could in theory be supported.

 

[Tyranicon]

If there's one thing I love about the codex, it's that there are occasionally prestigious discussions on how to improve RPGs.

Too bad the wider industry doesn't give a fuck.

 

[gurugeorge]

But short of that, or the requisite level of AI development, I think you can still get decent stories in solo CRPGs with scripted branching narratives, where your choices definitely open up some big avenues and close off others, and you end up with several possible endings. I guess it's just such a monumental workload for the developers that it's more rare.

Imagine being a dev. Imagine creating assets, writing, NPCs, all the requisite parts of a good RPG. Now imagine doing all of that so that only 20% of all players will ever experience.

Now imagine doing this when instead you could've been devoting your efforts to actually making money.

Ah, but on the other hand, if you get it right, it could make your game a famous, long-lasting classic, so you would make money out of all that work. It's always a toss-up with professional work - whether to go for the low-hanging fruit or take the big risk and go the extra mile, but possibly get the big prize.