i don't believe in opinions. i believe in theory, though, and in my current understanding of interactive narrative theory half life 2 did everything wrong
edit: note that there can be other theories
bsjezz on
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Yes, it's very clear how enamored you are with theory.
they stare at it, expecting a response. (which you do eventually, if only by being railroaded by the environment)
it was wholly uncanny and done out of some stubborn, misguided belief about 'immersion'. again, that silent protagonist could work well if the world was open enough to create your own scenarios, to role-play a bit, but everything else was so scripted that it makes no sense to use it at all. it was the wrong tool for the kind of experience they were going for and it ruined the game.
The protagonist being silent ruined the game? Huh?
And half-life has never been about creating your own story. There are sandbox games and then there are narrative driven games. Railroading is not always bad.
as i said, it's not his being silent and more his complete lack of characterization. he is nothing, he represents nothing, he has no values or ambition or perspective (other than the stricly literal one). he is floating eyes and it feels like that
and i know it's not about creating your own story - that's why the silent protagonist is the wrong choice (it's a set world, a narrative world, not a vastly open one). and yes, good storytelling is all about the railroading. there needs to be an author to set the context, to set the events, to set the conclusion and to try to pass on what it all means.
the author also needs to set the protagonist, who is the yardstick to which the external events are measured. he is the foil for the other characters, the centre-post for the story's great change, the first point of translation between the story's world and the audience.
but really half life 2 has no protagonist. and it suffers
edit: i've had this exact discussion at least twice before and i don't really care to have it again. all i wanted to talk about was the difference between story and plot, damnit
Not true, naturally all this is correct with movies or literature, you need that anchor, but being an interactive medium, not all this is required.
We have what we need from the protagonist. He is Gordon Freeman, a scientist, and person adapt at combat. He is connected to the various characters because of the previous game, and the exploits of the previous game frame him in this second one (messianic figure, savior, etc.) . You as the player are left to fill everything else out through the length of the game. It also helps that Gordon himself is a pawn both mechanically and narratively.
I have the partner book 'Raising the Bar' at home, and Gabe Newell actually goes into some length about this in there. May have to bring that into this when I get home, but this was the jist of his idea. They remove the layers of the protagonist so the player becomes it. They provide enough anchor so there can be narrative surrounding the protagonist, but leave the rest out for immersive value.
Not true, naturally all this is correct with movies or literature, you need that anchor, but being an interactive medium, not all this is required.
you're using the term 'interactive' pretty loosely there. in an experience so scripted as that of half life 2's, it is indeed just as correct as it is with movies and literature
again, if we were talking some giant open world where your actions as a player had consequence over the experience that played out, i might agree
Not true, naturally all this is correct with movies or literature, you need that anchor, but being an interactive medium, not all this is required.
you're using the term 'interactive' pretty loosely there. in an experience so scripted as that of half life 2's, it's just as correct as it is with movies and literature
again, if we were talking some giant open world where your actions as a player had consequence over the experience that played out, i might agree
There doesn't need to be an open game world, just the perception of one.
Not true, naturally all this is correct with movies or literature, you need that anchor, but being an interactive medium, not all this is required.
you're using the term 'interactive' pretty loosely there. in an experience so scripted as that of half life 2's, it's just as correct as it is with movies and literature
again, if we were talking some giant open world where your actions as a player had consequence over the experience that played out, i might agree
There doesn't need to be an open game world, just the perception of one.
you'd have to be half-blind and missing a 'W' key to ever get the idea half-life 2 has an open world
Not true, naturally all this is correct with movies or literature, you need that anchor, but being an interactive medium, not all this is required.
you're using the term 'interactive' pretty loosely there. in an experience so scripted as that of half life 2's, it's just as correct as it is with movies and literature
again, if we were talking some giant open world where your actions as a player had consequence over the experience that played out, i might agree
There doesn't need to be an open game world, just the perception of one.
you'd have to be half-blind and missing a 'W' key to ever get the idea half-life 2 has an open world
That's basic level stuff. The idea is that you and the story are all set within a wider world. When you first step out from the train, and then the train station at the beginning of the game, right up to the assault on the Citadel, everything there is to give the perception of being in a larger world. These individual areas are boxed and separated, but the idea is there. That's what all narrative FPS's attempt to do. Half-Life 2 is generally regarded as doing this successfully
In the end theory is just a posh way of saying opinion.
And in this case both theories have their merits.
However i've extensively read Raising The Bar, and whilst i remember the section you're talking about, I remember reading it and thinking that it didn't in any way help. No amount of explanation why i SHOULD feel attached could MAKE me feel that.
It's especially pronounced in Episode 2, there's a bit where that other scientist guy is shouting at you over the intercom that he needs to know if you're alive (it's near the end of the game) and of course, you don't respond. It feels very robotic and pointless.
In the end theory is just a posh way of saying opinion.
And in this case both theories have their merits.
However i've extensively read Raising The Bar, and whilst i remember the section you're talking about, I remember reading it and thinking that it didn't in any way help. No amount of explanation why i SHOULD feel attached could MAKE me feel that.
It's especially pronounced in Episode 2, there's a bit where that other scientist guy is shouting at you over the intercom that he needs to know if you're alive (it's near the end of the game) and of course, you don't respond. It feels very robotic and pointless.
Well yeah, I think there are many instances where the developer team actively poke fun at Gordon's muteness. Alyx comments on it a few times, people say things like 'a man of few words eh?', and the scene you mentioned. It's just some meta-humor.
That's basic level stuff. The idea is that you and the story are all set within a wider world. When you first step out from the train, and then the train station at the beginning of the game, right up to the assault on the Citadel, everything there is to give the perception of being in a larger world. These individual areas are boxed and separated, but the idea is there. That's what all narrative FPS's attempt to do. Half-Life 2 is generally regarded as doing this successfully
Basic game design 101 ITT
we've come too far as gamers to not instantly need to understand not the limits of the world as a place, but the limits of our ability as gamers. as soon as i set foot in a game i will seek to know whether it's one where i am either the creator of the experience, the storyteller (see the sims, fallout 3) or one in which i'm going to be told a story (uncharted 2, half-life 2). no matter what valve wants to do with 'immersion' they've still created a game where they have to accept ultimate authorial control, and any player immersion is only ever going to be in the shadow of their own scripting
this is why i think newell's arguments are flawed - and why the game was so flat and uninteresting to me and a lot of other players. they put immersion before their responsibility as storytellers
That's basic level stuff. The idea is that you and the story are all set within a wider world. When you first step out from the train, and then the train station at the beginning of the game, right up to the assault on the Citadel, everything there is to give the perception of being in a larger world. These individual areas are boxed and separated, but the idea is there. That's what all narrative FPS's attempt to do. Half-Life 2 is generally regarded as doing this successfully
Basic game design 101 ITT
we've come too far as gamers to not instantly need to understand not the limits of the world as a place, but the limits of our ability as gamers. as soon as i set foot in a game i will seek to know whether it's one where i am either the creator of the experience, the storyteller (see the sims, fallout 3) or one in which i'm going to be told a story (uncharted 2, half-life 2). no matter what valve wants to do with 'immersion' they've still created a game where they have to accept ultimate authorial control, and any player immersion is only ever going to be in the shadow of their own scripting
this is why i think newell's arguments are flawed - and why the game was so flat and uninteresting to me and a lot of other players
Ok, but you have to look at it in the scope of a narrative game. No, Half-Life is not a sandbox game, but that is not a bad thing. Gabe Newell is speaking within the confines of a linear, narrative experience, this is presumed.
I can understand why people don't like Half-Life and might prefer something like Grand Theft Auto, they're obviously providing two different experiences. But don't knock Half-Life for the experience it is delivering just because it is different and is made with a different intention in mind.
Ok, but you have to look at it in the scope of a narrative game. No, Half-Life is not a sandbox game, but that is not a bad thing. Gabe Newell is speaking within the confines of a linear, narrative experience, this is presumed.
I can understand why people don't like Half-Life and might prefer something like Grand Theft Auto, they're obviously providing two different experiences. But don't knock Half-Life for the experience it is delivering just because it is different and is made with a different intention in mind.
no no no, don't misunderstand me, i love narrative games. uncharted: drakes fortune was my game of the decade, and that was scripted beyond compare. but the key difference is that it had a central character with emotions, a distinct voice, flaws; a central character who developed as the plot did. it was also very much immersive, as much as a narrative game can be, because the excellently presented traditional cinematic context gave the gameplay sections real weight and importance
I have very little success attaching myself to protagonists in video games. Most of them are such horrid caricatures of real human beings that I'd much more prefer that they just shut the fuck up. Gordon on the other hand is an MIT grad (I'm a science geek, graduated from a similar school in Massachusetts), generally a regular, uninteresting person, but when he gets the HEV suit, and progresses through the stories of Half Life 1 and 2, he becomes something interesting. Just because you never hear him talk doesn't mean he's not there. Use your imagination. I did.
I guess my argument boils down to how I was able to become engrossed in the story, because of minor similarities between myself and the protagonist's back story. If your life was dissimilar to mine (pretty likely), you probably wouldn't get as much out of it as I did.
That's basic level stuff. The idea is that you and the story are all set within a wider world. When you first step out from the train, and then the train station at the beginning of the game, right up to the assault on the Citadel, everything there is to give the perception of being in a larger world. These individual areas are boxed and separated, but the idea is there. That's what all narrative FPS's attempt to do. Half-Life 2 is generally regarded as doing this successfully
Basic game design 101 ITT
we've come too far as gamers to not instantly need to understand not the limits of the world as a place, but the limits of our ability as gamers. as soon as i set foot in a game i will seek to know whether it's one where i am either the creator of the experience, the storyteller (see the sims, fallout 3) or one in which i'm going to be told a story (uncharted 2, half-life 2). no matter what valve wants to do with 'immersion' they've still created a game where they have to accept ultimate authorial control, and any player immersion is only ever going to be in the shadow of their own scripting
this is why i think newell's arguments are flawed - and why the game was so flat and uninteresting to me and a lot of other players
Ok, but you have to look at it in the scope of a narrative game. No, Half-Life is not a sandbox game, but that is not a bad thing. Gabe Newell is speaking within the confines of a linear, narrative experience, this is presumed.
I can understand why people don't like Half-Life and might prefer something like Grand Theft Auto, they're obviously providing two different experiences. But don't knock Half-Life for the experience it is delivering just because it is different and is made with a different intention in mind.
I think the problem people have is that they feel that the intention hasn't translated into an idea that works for them. If i think of my favourite linear first and third person shooters, I always felt i was playing as someone within the narrative who actively changed things. Half Life 2 always felt like things simply happened to me and all i was doing was not dying. Like it could be any person, that this person has no motivation to do this as he has no connection to the characters.
If that was their intention, then maybe they were making a game that I could never like. Even in Zelda you get Yes/No choices from time to time.
SlayerVin is right, he is an MIT scientist in the presence of a woman most of the game, he probably isn't going to speak a lot in fear of stuttering or something
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
I was pretty disappointed that Warcraft 3 made it on that list.
In my opinion, the only reason it should make it on there is the custom maps like DotA (fuck, DotA is so popular it has its own game now). The gameplay of Warcraft 3 was boring as fuck. Woohoo, four races, perfectly balanced? Oh right, thats because every race is 95% the same.
and was definitely inspired and built upon generations of PC games
If by that, you mean, Gears of War.
No, I don't, because that would be pretty fucking stupid.
by a developer with a strong and bountiful history of PC gaming.
And by this, that it was released by a developer that released a PC classic in 1998 and another in 2000.
Wow, you really suck at math:
They were also involved in IWD and PST.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I realise that this doesn't disprove your point, but you really can't use MDK 1 or 2 (Not made by Bioware), or Star Wars The Old Republic (Not out when Mass Effect came out), or Sonic (Not PC), or Dragon Age (Also not out).
EDIT: Okay, you can have MDK 2. Not really a PC classic tho, i'd argue. I mean it was good, but not Neverwinter Nights good.
I wonder how different the list would look if we had to exclude games with cliffhanger endings and/or non-endings.
That aside, Half-Life 2's story has been built up so much that any possible explanation of who or what the G-Man is will undoubtedly be disappointing. I say this as someone who was for the most part impressed by Valve's scene direction and dialogue. I do think there's a lot to like about the characters and the action, and facial animation had come a long way at the time. But I'd put money down that the big reveal about the G-Man will either be lame, confusing, or nonexistent.
Unless he's killed by Adrian Shephard all of a sudden. I would fucking cheer.
I love Portal and everything, but I think it's rated a little too highly.
After all, it's really just a short puzzle/adventure Half-Life addon. I wouldn't say it has much in the way of replayability. Though yes, it started the whole cake thing.
I wonder how different the list would look if we had to exclude games with cliffhanger endings and/or non-endings.
That aside, Half-Life 2's story has been built up so much that any possible explanation of who or what the G-Man is will undoubtedly be disappointing. I say this as someone who was for the most part impressed by Valve's scene direction and dialogue. I do think there's a lot to like about the characters and the action, and facial animation had come a long way at the time. But I'd put money down that the big reveal about the G-Man will either be lame, confusing, or nonexistent.
Unless he's killed by Adrian Shephard all of a sudden. I would fucking cheer.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Gordon was G-Man. After all
Vortigaunts can travel through time, why not Gordon?
I wonder how different the list would look if we had to exclude games with cliffhanger endings and/or non-endings.
That aside, Half-Life 2's story has been built up so much that any possible explanation of who or what the G-Man is will undoubtedly be disappointing. I say this as someone who was for the most part impressed by Valve's scene direction and dialogue. I do think there's a lot to like about the characters and the action, and facial animation had come a long way at the time. But I'd put money down that the big reveal about the G-Man will either be lame, confusing, or nonexistent.
Unless he's killed by Adrian Shephard all of a sudden. I would fucking cheer.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Gordon was G-Man. After all
Vortigaunts can travel through time, why not Gordon?
Exactly, and I'm sure most people treat it the same way. While a totally pleasant experience and quite a nice thing to get for 'free' in a collection. I wouldn't put it in the top ten games of the decade when standing on it's own.
The GTA series alone would push it down quite a bit in my opinion. Sadly I didn't vote so my opinion doesn't matter.
I wonder how different the list would look if we had to exclude games with cliffhanger endings and/or non-endings.
That aside, Half-Life 2's story has been built up so much that any possible explanation of who or what the G-Man is will undoubtedly be disappointing. I say this as someone who was for the most part impressed by Valve's scene direction and dialogue. I do think there's a lot to like about the characters and the action, and facial animation had come a long way at the time. But I'd put money down that the big reveal about the G-Man will either be lame, confusing, or nonexistent.
Unless he's killed by Adrian Shephard all of a sudden. I would fucking cheer.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Gordon was G-Man. After all
Vortigaunts can travel through time, why not Gordon?
Holy shit I think you're right!
I figure either it's that, or Gordon is G-Man's employer.
Well, there are a couple more than 2... And almost all of those games below were released at one time or another. [IMG][/img]
MDK and Sonic are PC classics, eh?
And you realise that Mass Effect is about as much a "PC game" as Halo, Gears, or FF7. Those are all perfectly fine games, but people would laugh if you called them PC classics.
They were also involved in IWD and PST.
They programmed the engine they ran on, yes.
What Bioware does have a long tradition of is porting consolized RPGs to the PC.
Since you took my comments literally, I"ll plainly state what my original point was: NWN sucked balls and Kotor is mediocre
DisruptorX2 on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Portal was a good chunk of fun and very innovative, but there's no way it belonged on a top 25 list let alone top 10.
Dhalphir on
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
Portal was a good chunk of fun and very innovative, but there's no way it belonged on a top 25 list let alone top 10.
Ah, geez. You may be torn apart for such a statement, maybe even banned.
It always struck me as more of an extra-long tech demo, rather than just a short game. If it had been a mod for Half Life 2 it would have been amazing, but from a company its just very good.
I'm not disputing the quality of it, nor the entertainment value. I had a great time playing it.
But does it REALLY belong above Team Fortress 2? Or above Deus Ex, Counterstrike, or Halo?
I wonder how different the list would look if we had to exclude games with cliffhanger endings and/or non-endings.
That aside, Half-Life 2's story has been built up so much that any possible explanation of who or what the G-Man is will undoubtedly be disappointing. I say this as someone who was for the most part impressed by Valve's scene direction and dialogue. I do think there's a lot to like about the characters and the action, and facial animation had come a long way at the time. But I'd put money down that the big reveal about the G-Man will either be lame, confusing, or nonexistent.
Unless he's killed by Adrian Shephard all of a sudden. I would fucking cheer.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Gordon was G-Man. After all
Vortigaunts can travel through time, why not Gordon?
Holy shit I think you're right!
I figure either it's that, or Gordon is G-Man's employer.
Personally, I think Barney is the G-Man. For one, they have the same voice actor. Two, that quote when he hands you the crowbar: "You left this back at Black Mesa!" No, you didn't. You left it in the Xen borderworld! So basically there's my conclusive argument :P
Posts
edit: note that there can be other theories
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Not true, naturally all this is correct with movies or literature, you need that anchor, but being an interactive medium, not all this is required.
We have what we need from the protagonist. He is Gordon Freeman, a scientist, and person adapt at combat. He is connected to the various characters because of the previous game, and the exploits of the previous game frame him in this second one (messianic figure, savior, etc.) . You as the player are left to fill everything else out through the length of the game. It also helps that Gordon himself is a pawn both mechanically and narratively.
I have the partner book 'Raising the Bar' at home, and Gabe Newell actually goes into some length about this in there. May have to bring that into this when I get home, but this was the jist of his idea. They remove the layers of the protagonist so the player becomes it. They provide enough anchor so there can be narrative surrounding the protagonist, but leave the rest out for immersive value.
you're using the term 'interactive' pretty loosely there. in an experience so scripted as that of half life 2's, it is indeed just as correct as it is with movies and literature
again, if we were talking some giant open world where your actions as a player had consequence over the experience that played out, i might agree
There doesn't need to be an open game world, just the perception of one.
you'd have to be half-blind and missing a 'W' key to ever get the idea half-life 2 has an open world
Hi5. Bsjezz, for the record I think the points you're dropping are correct.
That's basic level stuff. The idea is that you and the story are all set within a wider world. When you first step out from the train, and then the train station at the beginning of the game, right up to the assault on the Citadel, everything there is to give the perception of being in a larger world. These individual areas are boxed and separated, but the idea is there. That's what all narrative FPS's attempt to do. Half-Life 2 is generally regarded as doing this successfully
Basic game design 101 ITT
And in this case both theories have their merits.
However i've extensively read Raising The Bar, and whilst i remember the section you're talking about, I remember reading it and thinking that it didn't in any way help. No amount of explanation why i SHOULD feel attached could MAKE me feel that.
It's especially pronounced in Episode 2, there's a bit where that other scientist guy is shouting at you over the intercom that he needs to know if you're alive (it's near the end of the game) and of course, you don't respond. It feels very robotic and pointless.
Well yeah, I think there are many instances where the developer team actively poke fun at Gordon's muteness. Alyx comments on it a few times, people say things like 'a man of few words eh?', and the scene you mentioned. It's just some meta-humor.
we've come too far as gamers to not instantly need to understand not the limits of the world as a place, but the limits of our ability as gamers. as soon as i set foot in a game i will seek to know whether it's one where i am either the creator of the experience, the storyteller (see the sims, fallout 3) or one in which i'm going to be told a story (uncharted 2, half-life 2). no matter what valve wants to do with 'immersion' they've still created a game where they have to accept ultimate authorial control, and any player immersion is only ever going to be in the shadow of their own scripting
this is why i think newell's arguments are flawed - and why the game was so flat and uninteresting to me and a lot of other players. they put immersion before their responsibility as storytellers
Ok, but you have to look at it in the scope of a narrative game. No, Half-Life is not a sandbox game, but that is not a bad thing. Gabe Newell is speaking within the confines of a linear, narrative experience, this is presumed.
I can understand why people don't like Half-Life and might prefer something like Grand Theft Auto, they're obviously providing two different experiences. But don't knock Half-Life for the experience it is delivering just because it is different and is made with a different intention in mind.
no no no, don't misunderstand me, i love narrative games. uncharted: drakes fortune was my game of the decade, and that was scripted beyond compare. but the key difference is that it had a central character with emotions, a distinct voice, flaws; a central character who developed as the plot did. it was also very much immersive, as much as a narrative game can be, because the excellently presented traditional cinematic context gave the gameplay sections real weight and importance
I guess my argument boils down to how I was able to become engrossed in the story, because of minor similarities between myself and the protagonist's back story. If your life was dissimilar to mine (pretty likely), you probably wouldn't get as much out of it as I did.
I think the problem people have is that they feel that the intention hasn't translated into an idea that works for them. If i think of my favourite linear first and third person shooters, I always felt i was playing as someone within the narrative who actively changed things. Half Life 2 always felt like things simply happened to me and all i was doing was not dying. Like it could be any person, that this person has no motivation to do this as he has no connection to the characters.
If that was their intention, then maybe they were making a game that I could never like. Even in Zelda you get Yes/No choices from time to time.
No, I don't, because that would be pretty fucking stupid.
I mean, the only thing you took from ME was the cover system? Which wasn't even very important to begin with?
Well, there are a couple more than 2... And almost all of those games below were released at one time or another.
They were also involved in IWD and PST.
In my opinion, the only reason it should make it on there is the custom maps like DotA (fuck, DotA is so popular it has its own game now). The gameplay of Warcraft 3 was boring as fuck. Woohoo, four races, perfectly balanced? Oh right, thats because every race is 95% the same.
Wow, you really suck at math:
They were also involved in IWD and PST.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I realise that this doesn't disprove your point, but you really can't use MDK 1 or 2 (Not made by Bioware), or Star Wars The Old Republic (Not out when Mass Effect came out), or Sonic (Not PC), or Dragon Age (Also not out).
EDIT: Okay, you can have MDK 2. Not really a PC classic tho, i'd argue. I mean it was good, but not Neverwinter Nights good.
That aside, Half-Life 2's story has been built up so much that any possible explanation of who or what the G-Man is will undoubtedly be disappointing. I say this as someone who was for the most part impressed by Valve's scene direction and dialogue. I do think there's a lot to like about the characters and the action, and facial animation had come a long way at the time. But I'd put money down that the big reveal about the G-Man will either be lame, confusing, or nonexistent.
Unless he's killed by Adrian Shephard all of a sudden. I would fucking cheer.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
I didn't care for RE4, BTW.
After all, it's really just a short puzzle/adventure Half-Life addon. I wouldn't say it has much in the way of replayability. Though yes, it started the whole cake thing.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Gordon was G-Man. After all
Holy shit I think you're right!
That aside, it was a fun and very well designed puzzle game, but I beat it once and haven't been back since.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
The GTA series alone would push it down quite a bit in my opinion. Sadly I didn't vote so my opinion doesn't matter.
That's a lie.
What's a lie?
I'll tell you what's not a lie.
Robot Hell.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
I figure either it's that, or Gordon is G-Man's employer.
MDK and Sonic are PC classics, eh?
And you realise that Mass Effect is about as much a "PC game" as Halo, Gears, or FF7. Those are all perfectly fine games, but people would laugh if you called them PC classics.
They programmed the engine they ran on, yes.
What Bioware does have a long tradition of is porting consolized RPGs to the PC.
How original, Valve.
Ah, geez. You may be torn apart for such a statement, maybe even banned.
Twitter 3DS: 0860 - 3257 - 2516
Yet, it made it to the top three!
It always struck me as more of an extra-long tech demo, rather than just a short game. If it had been a mod for Half Life 2 it would have been amazing, but from a company its just very good.
I'm not disputing the quality of it, nor the entertainment value. I had a great time playing it.
But does it REALLY belong above Team Fortress 2? Or above Deus Ex, Counterstrike, or Halo?
Personally, I think Barney is the G-Man. For one, they have the same voice actor. Two, that quote when he hands you the crowbar: "You left this back at Black Mesa!" No, you didn't. You left it in the Xen borderworld! So basically there's my conclusive argument :P