Totally Not Corrupt Professional Objective Gaming Journalism DRAMA

[Perkel]

That didn't help Gamecube and Wii U is in even worse situation than Gamecube. Gamecube at least had some third party support. Wii U is now completely abandoned by biggest publishers. One last of them is Activision and it seems they are also on their way out.

It will sell few more units sure but it won't be much.

Problem Wii U has is its power. No sane game developer will create two kinds of assets just to release version for Wii U and this is the reason why most of devs are skipping it. Because you can't create asset on xbone and ps4 and put it into Wii U version because it doesn't have power to run it.

In Wii era this was fine because they had new fad motion gaming that got them install base and they bankrolled on it still fad died in 3 years and Wii died after 3-4 years.

If they would release proper console with good hardware i have no doubt publishers would release their games on it.

 

[DalekFlay]

I was watching Giant Bomb's 4th of July stream and Jeff Gerstmann said something to the effect of "if you want to see how irrelevant games journalists are going to be in a few years look at how none of us like or play PC games like Minecraft, League of Legends and DOTA 2 and then realize those games are the most popular games on the planet." Very true.

90% of gaming "journalists" grew up on Super Nintendo or Playstation and don't really fit the modern market very well (neither do we but we're not trying to be "journalists"). Also they're largely irrelevant because of youtube and such. I don't see a bright future for any of them, honestly, outside of bloggers who know how to gain clicks through controversy.

 

[Perkel]

"if you want to see how irrelevant games journalists are going to be"
they are not "going to be" they ARE fucking irrelevant.


Problem with modern "game journalists" is that they don't have a fucking clue about games anymore and at the same time they are scared shitles to point anything wrong with games they review because they are scared for their money. Banking on good previews is whole other thing. Radicoulous 90% big games being at least 9/10 is also shit.

I remember how journalist decided Titanfall will be next big thing and how it fucking failed because anybody normal dude saw that this is mediacore shooter

 

[Infinitron]

90% of gaming "journalists" grew up on Super Nintendo or Playstation and don't really fit the modern market very well (neither do we but we're not trying to be "journalists"). Also they're largely irrelevant because of youtube and such. I don't see a bright future for any of them, honestly, outside of bloggers who know how to gain clicks through controversy.

Eh, I'm sure plenty of them are/were PC gamers too. The point is that they aren't really into that ill-defined modern genre of "online sandbox/competitive timesink" games. They play games with a beginning and an end. And that's understandable, because how exactly do you "review" Minecraft or LoL?

 

[TedNugent]

As have I. But is IGN the site to herald in a new age of journalistic integrity? Maybe, but I'm more inclined to think it'll be Forbes, the New York Times, etc. - someone who has money, an audience and doesn't rely solely on publishers' and marketing companies' advertising money to survive.

I'm a little surprised that you brought up Forbes. I read the NYT daily and they strike me as a far more objective source. I've literally never seen a single article on Forbes from a Forbes contributor that did not read like a paid advert. Examples:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/02/27/xbox-one-vs-ps4-why-resolution-doesnt-matter/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidth...ons-for-buying-the-xbox-one-instead-of-a-ps4/

Coming on both the Xbox 360 and Xbox One in September, the graphically stunning game will have 200 cars, day and night driving, dynamic weather conditions and an online mode with dedicated servers and driving clubs. It will also be joined by ‘Sunset Overdrive‘, a back-to-basics third person shooter that is part Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater and part Dead Rising 3.


Arguably even more excitement was shown towards the announcement of ‘Halo: The Master Chief Collection‘ which will bring all four Halo titles to the Xbox One and see major graphical updates with each running at 1080p and 60fps.
[...]

Kinect: The Kinect never quite found its footing on the Xbox 360, but Microsoft believes in this technology. It’s a fully-featured depth sensing camera that, in my limited time with it so far, appears to be a huge improvement over the previous generation. If you want to do P90x with your Xbox, you can do that. If you want to use dragon shouts by actually shouting or command your squad with your voice, you can do that too.

[...]
Whatever you call it, I’ve decided that the entire fiasco over the disparate resolutions in cross-platform games on Xbox One and PS4 is pretty much entirely unimportant.

While it makes sense to want 1080p games now that we’re in the “next-generation” of video game consoles, resolution alone isn’t that big of a deal.

Fanboy Wars: The Newest eBook From Forbes
The Fight For The Future Of Video Games is a warts-and-all look at the clashes between the video game business and its passionate fans.
I came to this conclusion not while playing games on Xbox One or PS4, but while playing some older titles on my PC.

Does that read like an advertisement?

I work for a game developer.

You're not posturing for review scores, are you?

 

[DalekFlay]

Eh, I'm sure plenty of them are/were PC gamers too. The point is that they aren't really into that ill-defined modern genre of "online sandbox/competitive timesink" games. They play games with a beginning and an end. And that's understandable, because how exactly do you "review" Minecraft or LoL?

I think you're right that's the most important part, but I certainly do think being raised on SNES has colored the majority of their coverage.

 

[Machocruz]

Eh, I'm sure plenty of them are/were PC gamers too. The point is that they aren't really into that ill-defined modern genre of "online sandbox/competitive timesink" games. They play games with a beginning and an end. And that's understandable, because how exactly do you "review" Minecraft or LoL?

I think you're right that's the most important part, but I certainly do think being raised on SNES has colored the majority of their coverage.

They don't seem to be into a lot of what PC gaming has to offer. How much attention did Crusader's King 2 get? I see tons of videos on that game on YT, so obviously it's a pretty significant release as far as PC games go. How about STALKER? Didn't see much about that in the press either, and I was following every bit of coverage there was before and during release. Yet some AAA console game that will under-deliver and fade from the public consciousness in a month will see a new article (read: hype piece) every two weeks.

In general, arcade(ish) games always enjoyed more mainstream popularity than more cerebral PC games. And thus, yes, console games have had the lion's share of the consideration. That colors the coverage. Pushing the "games are art" agenda is coloring the coverage big time. Super big time. I see consolefags rag on PC exclusives while bringing up shit like Uncharted 4, The Order, etc. None of the PC defenders seem to point out what is obvious to me: PC gamers traditionally don't care about cinemajestic bullshit, not if the mechanics are not rigorous. I believe they/we tend to like learning systems, mastery, intellectual content, strategic options, problem solving, etc.. Ironically, PC gamers have more in common with the Japanese console/arcade philosophy of the 90s (the games were "dumb" but mastery was difficult. (Think Shmups, run and gun, fighters) than the western quasi-PC game one we see on consoles today. But sluggads and dullards make up most of the video game audience today, in America, the largest market. Consuming trite Hollywood storytelling is more up their alley. It's easier to promote video games as Important Culture when you can express that in language the average person understands. And I'm not being elitist here; I'm a dullard when it comes to many mediums I'm not invested in. Everyone is. But more should be expected from those who cover this shit for a living.

But even console games have to possess a very narrow set of traits to get respect and attention too. Don't expect to see any GoTY winners that are too challenging/complex/deep and aren't cinemajestic, ever again. Sure, a Demon's Souls could sneak through, provided their is enough reader support, but 'grassroots' shit like that rarely happens. Let's just say I have yet to find anyone who can intelligently explain to me why The Last of Us, GTAV or Bioshock:Inifinite are measurably better games than Europa Universalis 4 or Metal Gear Rising. I guess ambassador traits like cultural impact, popularity, and technological and aesthetic showcasing are also factors, and legitimate ones depending on the definition of GAme of the Year (like how Man of the Year doesn't mean he is the peak of all positive male attributes, but did something that received a lot of attention) but I doubt the average person takes those nuances into account. They see GoTY and think it means 'best.'

 

[Cadmus]

They don't seem to be into a lot of what PC gaming has to offer. How much attention did Crusader's King 2 get? I see tons of videos on that game on YT, so obviously it's a pretty significant release as far as PC games go. How about STALKER? Didn't see much about that in the press either, and I was following every bit of coverage there was before and during release. Yet some AAA console game that will under-deliver and fade from the public consciousness in a month will see a new article (read: hype piece) every two weeks.

In general, arcade(ish) games always enjoyed more mainstream popularity than more cerebral PC games. And thus, yes, console games have had the lion's share of the consideration. That colors the coverage. Pushing the "games are art" agenda is coloring the coverage big time. Super big time. I see consolefags rag on PC exclusives while bringing up shit like Uncharted 4, The Order, etc. None of the PC defenders seem to point out what is obvious to me: PC gamers traditionally don't care about cinemajestic bullshit, not if the mechanics are not rigorous. I believe they/we tend to like learning systems, mastery, intellectual content, strategic options, problem solving, etc.. Ironically, PC gamers have more in common with the Japanese console/arcade philosophy of the 90s (the games were "dumb" but mastery was difficult. (Think Shmups, run and gun, fighters) than the western quasi-PC game one we see on consoles today. But sluggads and dullards make up most of the video game audience today, in America, the largest market. Consuming trite Hollywood storytelling is more up their alley. It's easier to promote video games as Important Culture when you can express that in language the average person understands. And I'm not being elitist here; I'm a dullard when it comes to many mediums I'm not invested in. Everyone is. But more should be expected from those who cover this shit for a living.

But even console games have to possess a very narrow set of traits to get respect and attention too. Don't expect to see any GoTY winners that are too challenging/complex/deep and aren't cinemajestic, ever again. Sure, a Demon's Souls could sneak through, provided their is enough reader support, but 'grassroots' shit like that rarely happens. Let's just say I have yet to find anyone who can intelligently explain to me why The Last of Us, GTAV or Bioshock:Inifinite are measurably better games than Europa Universalis 4 or Metal Gear Rising. I guess ambassador traits like cultural impact, popularity, and technological and aesthetic showcasing are also factors, and legitimate ones depending on the definition of GAme of the Year (like how Man of the Year doesn't mean he is the peak of all positive male attributes, but did something that received a lot of attention) but I doubt the average person takes those nuances into account. They see GoTY and think it means 'best.'

I don't know what do you mean by "we traditionally care about the game systems"
I have a feeling that "we" don't really form any majority and haven't in PC gaming for a long time now. The PC gamers now have become the kids who can A) put the most gfx mods on their latest Skyrim clone, B) slurp up majestic CoD, C) slurp up Mass Effect (those are the hardcore RPG gamers now).

However, I just wish Codex would stop whining about how graphics don't matter. They always have mattered for practically everyone. They sure do matter for me.
That's just a side note.

 

[Azrael the cat]

The main function of commercial criticism should be to provide a service by which people can judge whether to purchase/watch/read a product (I'm distinguishing this from 'artistic criticism', i.e. analysis that contributes to meaningful debate over the product's artistic value, though they can overlap). I'd say the best approach, when reviewing a new take on a venerable franchise, would be to have two separate reviews written in strict isolation from each other, one from a critic who has played the original games (both played them at the time, in their original context, AND replayed them recently to avoid issues arising from nostalgia or inexperience at the time), and one from a critic who is new to the series.

Sort of like what AV Club does in splitting the 'Game of Thrones' reviews into separate 'newbies' and 'experts' reviews. It recognises that there's a significant divergence in the fanbase, and allocates both groups a reviewer who can approach the series from their standpoint.

 

[Blaine]

Journalism of nearly all stripes is dead in this country (I can't speak of others). The cost of maintaining journalistic integrity and even dignity became too high to bear.

The root cause of it all, I believe, was actually the Internet itself. The strangling of newspapers, magazines, and even television broadcasting ultimately caused journalists (or "journalists," as they are now) to resort to pandering and sensationalism in order to stay "relevant" and financially solvent.

It's a bitter trade-off, but one that I've come to begrudgingly accept. Perhaps journalism will stabilize and set itself right in a decade or three. I should probably be glad my grandfather didn't live to see this.

 

[7/10]

Videogame journalism is the deadest kind of journalism, simply because there's no real need for it. In most cases, 5-minutes of commented gameplay footage is superior to any written review.

 

[Machocruz]

I don't know what do you mean by "we traditionally care about the game systems"
I have a feeling that "we" don't really form any majority and haven't in PC gaming for a long time now. The PC gamers now have become the kids who can A) put the most gfx mods on their latest Skyrim clone, B) slurp up majestic CoD, C) slurp up Mass Effect (those are the hardcore RPG gamers now).

However, I just wish Codex would stop whining about how graphics don't matter. They always have mattered for practically everyone. They sure do matter for me.
That's just a side note.

I meant we care more about rigorous mechanics, depth, interesting complexities than games with awshum cutscenes and Hollywood voice actors that are boringly simplistic play-wise, so throwing up games like Uncharted 4 or The Order as exclusives that demonstrate console superiority to PC users is laughable. I've never seen one adult PC gamer give two flying fucks about any of those kinds of console games, but rather stuff like Demon's Souls, Vanquish, Disgaea, Armored Core, etc. And traditionally, compared to consoles, the PC catalog has skewed towards the complex or cerebral; Strategies, builders, RPGs, sims, adventures. Even when we get an exclusive FPS, they still tend to be less "casual" than console and multi-platform ones. As far as what the kids are into today on PC: Minecraft. Mass Effect and Modern Warfare 2 never got into the PC big leagues. Yes, the internet makes a big deal out of them, but none of the ME or Modern Warfare games have gotten to 5 million copies on PC, as far as I'm aware. Mass Effect overall is no where near as popular as the media and fanboys would have us believe. Message board spin rarely aligns with reality. Minecraft crushes everything, and while it's kids stuff, it obviously comes out of PC game development.

And graphics do matter, I cannot lie. I believe if you took most people here and presented them with two versions of their favorite games, with either C64 graphics or what PCs are capable of now, they'd pick the latter without hesitation, unless the art direction was particularly unappealing. People are whining because they believe that chasing cutting edge productions value is pumping up development budgets to the point where play has to be dumb to sell in a wider market. I'm interested in Cyberpunk because it will probably be an amazing looking take on the property, even though I have little confidence that CDPR will deliver complexity and detail worthy of the PnP system.

 

[DalekFlay]

However, I just wish Codex would stop whining about how graphics don't matter. They always have mattered for practically everyone. They sure do matter for me.
That's just a side note.

Design matters, technical graphics barely matter. They matter in the sense of "it would be nice if this looked better but it doesn't really matter."

Except for really early 3D, which looks like utter shit.

 

[Cadmus]

Design matters, technical graphics barely matter. They matter in the sense of "it would be nice if this looked better but it doesn't really matter."

Except for really early 3D, which looks like utter shit.

Why does it not matter? For me it's important that the world inspires a sense of wonder and adventure, makes me want to try out new spells and weapons and armors and explore new lands. It does not need to be hyper realistic but it should be beautiful and awesome. Don't you think?

I still remember when playing Doom for the first time and having no idea about how games work, I would look at the shitty textured mountains in the background and think to myself "man I wonder what will it be like when I finally get to those mountains"

Graphic effects and visuals are one of the few reasons I stuck with Diablo 2 for so long - to see all the armors and spells and enemies. There's just something wonderful about exploring new worlds that are visually beautiful.

 

[Perkel]

Because graphic doesn't matter. Sure it is good to play game with nice graphic but if game doesn't have anything interesting about then even best graphic won't give you even 3/10.

Just look at Crysis 2 and 3. Probably best looking piece of shit games you have ever played.

 

[Ninjerk]

Because graphic doesn't matter. Sure it is good to play game with nice graphic but if game doesn't have anything interesting about then even best graphic won't give you even 3/10.

Just look at Crysis 2 and 3. Probably best looking piece of shit games you have ever played.

Didn't play them

 

[Cadmus]

Because graphic doesn't matter. Sure it is good to play game with nice graphic but if game doesn't have anything interesting about then even best graphic won't give you even 3/10.

Just look at Crysis 2 and 3. Probably best looking piece of shit games you have ever played.

Because good graphics don't make a game good doesn't equal graphics=not important. Now, if you could say that horrible shitty graphics don't make a game bad, you'd be more right. I agree you could consider it an extra but I sure as fuck won't bother playing a game with 3 colours in it unless everything else is perfect and the best and amazing.

Yeah, it's not as important as many other things but it's still important. And I'm not talking about high resolution textures and high fidelity in general. I'm talking about things in the game being pretty, pleasing to the eye and inspiring. Fallout 1 is a very pretty game, in my opinion. Minecraft is an ugly piece of shit. Crysis looks bland because it doesn't have anything wonderful about it. I have never played it because watching a video or seeing screenshots of the game never gave me a sense of wonder and adventure. Witcher 1 and 2 have fantastic elements portrayed fantastically, I want to see more of it every time I play.

 

[DalekFlay]

I don't think you're really that far off. The point is gameplay matters a million times more than graphics, and visual design matters a thousand times more than technical graphics. Are pretty graphics still nice to have though? Of course they are. Can pretty graphics be an added motivation to keep playing a decent but not great game? Sure, sometimes.

They matter, but everything else matters more.

 

[Cadmus]

I don't think you're really that far off. The point is gameplay matters a million times more than graphics, and visual design matters a thousand times more than technical graphics. Are pretty graphics still nice to have though? Of course they are. Can pretty graphics be an added motivation to keep playing a decent but not great game? Sure, sometimes.

They matter, but everything else matters more.

To be honest, I'm kind of including visual design (whatever that is) and art direction under "graphics". I thought we weren't only talking about polygon count and texture resolutions, you know?

 

[DalekFlay]

To be honest, I'm kind of including visual design (whatever that is) and art direction under "graphics". I thought we weren't only talking about polygon count and texture resolutions, you know?

Well then yes, by that definition "graphics" are extremely important.

 

[Dr Tomo]

I don't know what do you mean by "we traditionally care about the game systems"
I have a feeling that "we" don't really form any majority and haven't in PC gaming for a long time now. The PC gamers now have become the kids who can A) put the most gfx mods on their latest Skyrim clone, B) slurp up majestic CoD, C) slurp up Mass Effect (those are the hardcore RPG gamers now).

However, I just wish Codex would stop whining about how graphics don't matter. They always have mattered for practically everyone. They sure do matter for me.
That's just a side note.

Thing is, it is true that gfx doesn't matter and you sound like one of the kids that have gotten into pc gaming. Out of the last few years I have seen Terraria, Starbound, Rust, Day Z, Goat Simulator, Prison Architect, Realm of the Mad God, Risk of Rain, Garry's Mod, TF2, Crusader Kings II, and even Spitires to name a few end up on the top sellers list or discussed and praised and none of them gave much a shit on gfx department. People in the PC space reward studios that have either new mechanics or gimmicks and this was shown with games like The Forrest, Outlast, and Stomping Land to name a few more.

Now will this change in next decade? Possibly as there is a consistent influx of console fags gamers entering into the pc space. But if you are saying the there are a lot of PC gamers who are kids who doing B & C I disagree, as Larians latest game is still on the top sellers list and rarely see people play COD (Black Ops's II) which if you actually look at the online players it has never topped CS: Go and only on source if it was a free weekend.

So in a nut shell yes Codex is kind of right when it comes to gfx doesn't matter as Steam's top* sellers have been consistently dominated by mechanics that people find fun.

*word edit

 

[Dexter]

To be honest, I'm kind of including visual design (whatever that is) and art direction under "graphics". I thought we weren't only talking about polygon count and texture resolutions, you know?

You won't really get them to acknowledge that they are talking out of their ass and this is true, I already tried previously not too long ago and argued that indeed, computer graphics is the most important part of a video game, everything else comes second and I've been playing games since the age of the ZX Spectrum.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/graphics-gameplay-and-story.92264/#post-3325499
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/graphics-gameplay-and-story.92264/#post-3325547

But some people have an allergic reaction to this argument, it's kind of like having to scratch oneself and not being able not to and they have a very strange understanding of what "graphics" entails. Thus you will quickly get "graphics don't matter!" blurting out of them like a machine gun.

Yet I bet given a game with the very same gameplay features and game design I'm sure what most people would prefer (assumed the art design didn't get screwed up by a Remake).

 

[Cadmus]

Thing is, it is true that gfx doesn't matter and you sound like one of the kids that have gotten into pc gaming. Out of the last few years I have seen Terraria, Starbound, Rust, Day Z, Goat Simulator, Prison Architect, Realm of the Mad God, Risk of Rain, Garry's Mod, TF2, Crusader Kings II, and even Spitires to name a few end up on the top sellers list or discussed and praised and none of them gave much a shit on gfx department. People in the PC space reward studios that have either new mechanics or gimmicks and this was shown with games like The Forrest, Outlast, and Stomping Land to name a few more.

Now will this change in next decade? Possibly as there is a consistent influx of console fags gamers entering into the pc space. But if you are saying the there are a lot of PC gamers who are kids who doing B & C I disagree, as Larians latest game is still on the top sellers list and rarely see people play COD (Black Ops's II) which if you actually look at the online players it has never topped CS: Go and only on source if it was a free weekend.

So in a nut shell yes Codex is kind of right when it comes to gfx doesn't matter as Steam's top* sellers have been consistently dominated by mechanics that people find fun.

*word edit

I'll comment on the few games that I actually know what they look like:
Garry's Mod - it's on Source engine which I would argue is one of the better looking engines out there, it's practically the reason people bother with this mod, because you can make stupid shit in a realistically looking environment

TF2 - I fucking hate the style but it has a tight style
CS is the same thing.

I think you aren't arguing against my point at all by listing games that are simply not in the top graphical level fidelity-wise. As I've said, I really don't think that by "graphics" you should only include the polygon count and texture resolution but also the art style and direction, effects, originality and inspiration and these games I think you can't say suffer in these departments. If you agree about these and we're arguing semantics, ok then. I just think it's only natural that people want to play games they consider pretty for whatever reason more than games they consider ugly.

By the way, go fuck your mom you fart smelling piece of cunt discharge, I don't give a flying shit whether you state something as "true", it doesn't make it so and makes you sound like a whiny little fuckwad.

 

[Dr Tomo]

I'll comment on the few games that I actually know what they look like:
Garry's Mod - it's on Source engine which I would argue is one of the better looking engines out there, it's practically the reason people bother with this mod, because you can make stupid shit in a realistically looking environment

TF2 - I fucking hate the style but it has a tight style
CS is the same thing.

I think you aren't arguing against my point at all by listing games that are simply not in the top graphical level fidelity-wise. As I've said, I really don't think that by "graphics" you should only include the polygon count and texture resolution but also the art style and direction, effects, originality and inspiration and these games I think you can't say suffer in these departments. If you agree about these and we're arguing semantics, ok then. I just think it's only natural that people want to play games they consider pretty for whatever reason more than games they consider ugly.

Well if you actually elaborate on your posts then it won't get misconstrued with being a console tard. I honestly think most of the posters have misconstrued your posts just like I have when you preach about gfx when all you are talking about is visual aesthetics of games which differs for everyone. Also I did argue your main point which was I quote, "However, I just wish Codex would stop whining about how graphics don't matter. They always have mattered for practically everyone. They sure do matter for me." which is the same line I see a lot in /gaming.

So yes, it is semantics as you made it clear in your later posts (and I am not going to go back and edit everything) I too find anything 16-bit very aesthetically pleasing. Yes, I also agree that people tend to play games that are aesthetically pleasing just like a lot of the kids now days would avoid anything 8-16 bit gfx and not 3d.

By the way, go fuck your mom you fart smelling piece of cunt discharge, I don't give a flying shit whether you state something as "true", it doesn't make it so and makes you sound like a whiny little fuckwad.

However, I just wish Codex would stop whining about how graphics don't matter. They always have mattered for practically everyone. They sure do matter for me.
That's just a side note.

Also, if you are going to try and insult me at least go back and check like I have of previous posts as we can now add dumb fuck instead of console fag on you profile and just to be safe I highlighted and put it in bold for you. Please don't contradict yourself thinking this is true and it sure makes you edgy with that comment. As for not making a argument I only pointed these titles to show that not everyone cares only of triple AAA games (which you used ME as an example), but mainly to argue the final point, on what I thought was your original argument, which again "gfx does matter". I should have made that a bit more clear.

 

[Telengard]

If you take two items that are exactly the same except for a single aspect, and one of the items is clearly superior in that aspect, then everyone will buy the one that has the superior aspect. It doesn't matter what that aspect is, though. Graphics, gameplay, stability, price, whatever - people will naturally gravitate to the superior product. It would be stupid not to.

So, the actual thing to weigh is not two games with the same gameplay but one of them has better graphics. That is a meaningless point. The thing to weigh is two games that are equal in quality, but one game has good gameplay and terrible graphics, and the other game has terrible gameplay and good graphics. The same effort and ability went into each game, but each dev team spent its resources differently.

Then you weigh which of those efforts produced a better game. By definition, the one with better gameplay will be a better game. That's but the nature of good gameplay. The one with better graphics may produce better sales, and it may even be enjoyed by the masses more. But that won't be because it was a superior game. It will be because it was a "visually stunning experience".